Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCORRESPONDENCE - 75A SEXLINGER FARMHOUSECity Council Meeting, March 4, 2014 Attached is additional correspondence for item 75A. Tab Date Received Correspondence Received From: 1 03/04/2014 Tim Rush, Berkshire Hathaway Home Services California Properties 2 03/04/2014 Jeannie Gillett, The Old Orchard Conservancy 3 03/04/2014 Patrick Mitchell 4 03/01/2014 Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA 5 03/01/2014 Jeannie Gillett, The Old Orchard Conservancy 6 03/03/2014 Jeffrey T. Melching, Rutan & Tucker, LLP 7 03/03/2014 Cathy Richardson, SheppardMullin 8 03/03/2014 Joshua Z. McIntosh 9 3- 9 -2o1y Diane, G. Kane, Qh.D. 0 Mitre - Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:07 PM To: Cavazos, David; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Haluza, Karen Cc: Fregoso, Vince; Mitre - Ramirez, Norma; Orozco, Norma; Trujillo, Rose Ann Subject: FW: Sexlinger Orchard Matter 3/4114 Categories: DONE, Important Letter from Mr. Rush for your review and consideration. From: Tim Rush [ mailto :timrush(d)bhhscaproos.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:05 PM To: Huizar, Maria Subject: Sexlinger Orchard Matter 3/4/14 3/4/14 The Honorable Miguel Pulido, Mayor City of Santa Ana RE; Sexlinger Orchard Hearing for 3/4/14 Dear Mayor & Council Members; While I had long ago hoped that the City would have purchased this parcel for parkland which we are sorely in need of, and I advocated for that to then City Manager Dave Ream years ago. At this point I think the resolution you have before you this evening is a reasonable compromise and should be approved by the City. A great deal of work and effort has gone into getting the agreement to this stage. We cannot reasonably withhold further approval to the purchaser of the property as they have made a good faith effort to honor the Sexlinger family legacy. This would be a good time for the Council to focus some energy on identifying the few remaining parcels in the City that would make good parkland and begin a dialogue with property owners for some long term acquisition. Too many times we find out at the last minute and have no time or resources to take any action. The citizenry is ultimate loser in having so little park space. The quality of life suffers for us all. As an Associate Board Member for the Santa Ana Historical Preservation Society it is my understanding that they support this settlement as well. Thank you all for your consideration. 3/5/2014 12:21 PM 12:21 PM Sincerely, Tim Rush BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY HomeServices California Properties - Attitude means nothing without Aptitude - Confidence means nothing without Competence - Credentials mean nothing without Credibility - Ability means nothing without Ambition - Personality means nothing if you can't be Personable - Direction means nothing without Drive Berkshire Hathaway Home Services California Properties Timothy D. Rush Senior Vice President i8000 Studebaker Road. Suite 600 Cerritos, CA 90703 -2680 timrush (&-bhhscaprops. com Direct Line (562)207.273o Fax(562)86O -2895 3/5/2014 12 :21 PM 12:21 PM U Mitre - Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 1:30 PM To: Cavazos, David; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Haluza, Karen Cc: Fregoso, Vince; Mitre - Ramirez, Norma; Trujillo, Rose Ann; Orozco, Norma Subject: FW: Additional Documents related to 3/4/14 Council meeting, item 75A Attachments: 2014 _02_UrbanAgCtr_Proposal.pdf; Overhead Orchard Vision-1 150dpi.jpg; 3 -View orchard vision.jpg Additional correspondence for your consideration. From: ieannie Caloldorchardconservancy.org fmailto: Jeannie (o)oldorchardconservancy.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 11:42 AM To: Huizar, Maria Subject: Additional Documents related to 3/4/14 Council meeting, item 75A Maria, Please ensure that these doucments are available to Council for tonight's meeting. I appreciate your acknowledgement of this email and its attachments. Thank you, Jeannie Gillett, President The Old Orchard Conservancy 714-296-4642 ieannie taOldOrchardConservancy.org "To preserve, acquire, restore and manage the Old Orange Orchard located in Santa Ana, California, as an historic, cultural, agricultural, and educational resource for all." 3/4/2014 3:02 PM 3:02 PM mss` The Old Orchard Conservancy o `{t` 0 Proposal to Establish .�.� The Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture February 2014 Old Orchard The Historic Sexlinger Orange Orchard and Farmhouse Property: Surrounded by an orchard of 250 Valencia orange trees, the farmhouse on Santa Clara was built in 1914 and was the home of the Sexlinger Family for nearly a full century. George (1870- 1929), and Anna Sophia (1871 -1952) Sexlinger came to Santa Ana from Michigan in 1913 with their two daughters Esther (1904 -1995) and Martha (1908 - 2006), keeping the five - acre site within the family and continuously fully planted as a Valencia orange orchard. Today the Sexlinger property remains as one of Santa Ana's largest "undeveloped" parcels. While we suspect that the Sexlinger family would have bristled at the "undeveloped" label - -- indeed, we suspect they would have more appropriately identified their home and orchard as a small family farm, as it has been in continuous agricultural use for a single sustained agricultural product - -- The Old Orchard Conservancy (Conservancy) recognizes this property is a rare existing example of a Santa Ana multi - generational family farm (and very nearly what is designated as the increasingly rare "Century Farm" in agricultural communities across the nation.) The City of Santa Ana designated the Sexlinger Orange Orchard and Farmhouse as a historic property in June 2012. With this important designation, we believe the best use for this Historic Site would be its preservation and utilization for civic agricultural use. Current Conditions: The Sexlinger home and garage are in need of some restoration. The buildings are structurally sound, but are in need of upgrades to the electrical and plumbing, as well as foundation and cosmetic improvements. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Treatment of Historic Buildings will be our guide for all restoration projects related to the home and garage. The orchard, at first glance, appears decadent and dying. Upon closer inspection, however, most of the trees are in reasonably good condition and of commercial quality. The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes will be our guide for all restoration projects related to the orchard. Goal: The Conservancy proposes the establishment of the Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture at the historic Sexlinger Orange Orchard and Farmhouse property at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in Santa Ana. The Conservancy will preserve and restore the home, garage and orchard to reflect life on a small -scale family farm, while providing educational opportunities for the community and local students. We will create a thriving and sustainable landscape and habitat that respects Santa Ana's and southern California's agricultural heritage. In addition, the preservation and restoration of the historic orchard and home meets components of the City's General Plan by expanding designated open space and increasing recreational opportunities for the residents of Santa Ana. The rehabilitation of the orchard also supports the goals of improving local access to healthy food, improved nutrition and takes steps towards ending childhood obesity in Santa Anna. The project supports the "Building Healthy Communities" initiative sponsored by the California Endowment. The Proposal: The Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture (Urban Ag Center) The UrbanAg Center will be developed in three phases. Each phase is described below. The extent of activities in, and duration of, each phase will be determined by available funding. The Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture, Proposal Page 2 PHASE 1 - Restoration The following tasks are of the highest priority for operation for the Urban Ag Center and will serve as the foundation for its development. • Restoration of buildings • rewire, plumb, foundation and exterior repair, paint and finish • Orchard Restoration Trim and prune, feed, repair and /or establish irrigation Replace trees when and where appropriate Establish commercial and demonstration gardens PHASE II - Educational Program Development The Urban Ag Centerwill host both formal and informal education programs for students and the community at large. • School Field Trips • Organic and sustainable agriculture and gardens • Natural resources and current ecology practices • Community Workshops • Composting, low flow /drip irrigation, citrus care, etc. • Events and Presentations PHASE III - Community Gardens • Develop individual plots available to the community for personal and family gardening activities Funding- The Urban Ag Centerwould qualify for grants and similar funding opportunities under several different categories. For example, obvious categories relate to urban agriculture and access to healthy food, but others include, carbon sequestration, historic preservation and promotion, improving air and water quality, etc. While there are several funding sources and opportunities outlined below, make no mistake, funders need to know that they are supporting an organization that has enough land to actually carry out the proposed activity requiring funds. For example, many of the educational programs and special events would simply not be possible on a large urban lot of 10,000 square feet. In addition, selling fruit from 10 -30 orange trees would not produce enough return -on- investment to be economically feasible, as the most money that could be realized is approximately $5,000 per year. 1. Sales: The sale of produce, and value added agricultural products and other merchandise will provide a minimum operations budget. A farm stand or farm store could be established in one of the existing structures or built on -site for minimum cost. The Conservancy staff and interns will operate the "store." The Conservancy has also connected with produce growers and packers who have offered to buy, at wholesale rates, the fruit grown at the Sexlinger Orchard. Currently, this quality of produce is selling for anywhere from $0.49 per pound wholesale, to $1.10 per pound at retail locations. An individual tree can produce as much as 400 pounds of fruit annually. Averaging the wholesale and retail prices listed above, the revenue equivalent would be $32,000 per acre per year. 2. Grants: Funding programs for urban agriculture, local food and health and nutrition have increased in recent years. The recent establishment of the Urban Agriculture Initiative by Gov. Brown is just one such program available to small urban farms. The passage of the 2014 Farm Bill will also bolster these funding sources. The Conservancy estimates that as much as $100,000 could be raised annually through grant funding. The Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture, Proposal Page 3 3. Special Events Programs Tours• The Conservancy envisions The Urban Ag Center as a working education, demonstration and research facility. After analyzing other similar facilities, including the Center For Land Based Learning near Sacramento and The Ecology Center in San Juan Capistrano, The Conservancy believes that the following Events and Programs will generate sufficient operational funding. The Urban Ag Center will host weekend workshops that could raise as much as $10,000 annually. School field trips are estimated to bring in an additional $10,000 annually and special events such as dinners and galas could raise more than $30,000 annually. The Urban Ag Center is also a potential site for a Santa Ana Farmer's Market. 4. Miscellaneous Opportunities: California Gov. Jerry Brown recently signed into law the Urban Agriculture Initiative, which encourages urban communities to preserve and utilize, for agricultural operations, sites just like the Sexlinger Century Farm. This new initiative gives tax breaks and incentives to communities for just these types of activities. In addition, Cap and Trade funds for carbon sequestration capability are available. Conclusion: Preserving the Historic Sexlinger Orange Orchard and Farmhouse site, located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue in northeast Santa Ana, for the establishment of the Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture, is an opportunity for the City of Santa Ana to simultaneously address three major issues of community life: 1) Resident access to healthy, affordable food; 2) Availability of open space for outdoor recreation and activity; and, 3) Promotion of neighborhood safety; all of these will also positively influence property values. An added advantage for the City of Santa Ana, both regionally and nationally, will be the recognition received as a leader among urban communities. Attachment: The Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture, Overhead & Ground Level Views by Stivers & Associates, Tustin, California E4- x ,z -0 X- r 41 22 Do I Xm t -Nv 0 0 110k, 21 al X� 0000 000, T-� (D (Z) 0 0(!F) (D 0 (Do 00 0 0 (D 0 000 o o (s) OQ (D C (DO 0 0 0 (D�D D 0 o Sl 7-1 -7E- 0(3 0-0 Baal 00-C ,J == (D Of . .......... 0 (9) F 00,00 u 5s S ♦ V S � - W = "Ef r: J � I a� / L LL. 1 i V j- ✓ice 1 1 'l %r T t { V, 1 ` S ♦ V S � - W .{{{E f i = "Ef r: J � I a� / L LL. 1 i V j- ✓ice 1 z T t { V, 1 ` -A .{{{E f i = "Ef r: J / L LL. .{{{E f i r: J / L LL. Mitre- Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 8:51 AM To: Cavazos, David; Haluza, Karen; Carvalho, Sonia R. Cc: Fregoso, Vince; Mitre - Ramirez, Norma; Orozco, Norma; Trujillo, Rose Ann Subject: FW: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Attachments: Sexlinger Letter.docx Another letter received for the record. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Patrick Mitchell fmailto :o.mitche1167(@Vahoo.comJ Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 6:58 AM To: Council; Pulido, Miguel; Reyna, Roman; aamezcua(dsanta- ana.com; Martinez, Michele; Sarmiento, Vince; stinaiaro(@santa- ana.org Cc: Huizar, Maria Subject: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Please see the attached letter and add it to the official record. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Patrick Mitchell 1 3/4/2014 3:01 PM 3:01 PM Patrick Mitchell 4117`h Street, Norco CA 92860 (951, )707 -7127 p.mitche1167 @yahoo.com Santa Ana City Council 20 Civic Center, POB 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 March 03, 2014 Re: Historic Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Honorable Mayor and City Council, As many of you know I have a long history with the City of Santa Ana and care deeply for its people and landscapes. As the city's Naturalist for almost 10 years I built strong relationships with many neighborhoods, community groups and individuals including some of you. I was successful at securing funding to build the Santiago Park Nature Reserve and the Santiago Creek Wildlife and Watershed Center as well as habitat restoration and landscape improvements throughout the city. I personally conducted hundreds of educational programs for thousands of Santa Ana residents. Currently I manage one of the few remaining commercial agricultural operations within the City of Santa Ana's boundaries —the Gospel Swamp Farm at the Heritage Museum of Orange County located at 3101 West Harvard Street. As the manager of this educational farm, I work with dozens of High School Students from Godinez Fundamental, Valley and Santa Ana High Schools, providing free hands - on programs in everything from composting and soils to planting, fertilizing and harvesting. Some students even learn marketing and sales as we seek buyers for the produce grown at the farm. Programs like these show a marked improvement in students' core academic studies as well as build character, self- confidence and self - reliance. I have also personally witnessed cross - generational connections as students find that they have something important to share with their parents and grandparents many of whom worked in agriculture themselves. Each of you has an important decision to make on Tuesday evening. Before you is the opportunity to expand the quality, quantity and content of education programs like those described above and make them available for thousands of students and residents of Santa Ana. Or you can approve a development that will provide significant funding for hundreds of students in Orange and Irvine only a few of whom may live within the city of Santa Ana. I am writing to ask you to preserve the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse by directing staff to include a true preservation alternative in the EIR. I believe that a mixture of development and preservation can be accomplished to best serve the residents of Santa Ana, the property owners and this one -of -a -kind property. It can provide a financial reward in the millions of dollars to Orange Lutheran High School and Concordia University while preserving a historic resource like no other in the city of Santa Ana. You will hear lots of things at the public hearing. Some will say the orchard is not financially viable. Others will say there is no plan for utilizing the orchard if it were protected. Still others will say that more homes is what Santa Ana needs. I can tell you that the model used by the property owner to develop a cost /profit analysis on the orchard is an outdated industrial model that is not based on sustainable agriculture principals. I currently harvest from 62 citrus trees for sales at local farmers markets where I can sell them for as much as $2.00 a pound. A single tree can produce hundreds of pounds of produce every year. I can also tell you that the Old Orchard Conservancy has a plan to develop the Sexlinger Center for Urban Agriculture that is designed in phases based on available funding. It is also designed to become financially sustainable almost immediately. The Center would provide numerous services to the City and its residents including becoming a clearing house for sustainable agriculture information and education programs. It would provide the community with a source of local, healthy and organic food. The Center would also be a source of community inspiration and civic leadership. The Property could also be partially developed to provide "move up" housing for the residents of Santa Ana while protecting the historic resource of orchard and farm house to an extent that maintains financial viability and historic integrity. Finally, the concepts of private property rights and fairness have been raised. If Martha Sexlinger had chosen to write Orange Lutheran High School and Concordia University a $2000000 check would they have sent it back with a note saying it isn't enough? Well in all fairness I know the owners have received offers of well over the $2 million mark. I ask that you, the City Council also consider the private property rights of the thousands of other property owners in Santa Ana who deserve the highest quality community resources possible. Twenty -four new houses costing the loss of irreplaceable open space, historic resources and sustainable healthy living options hardly achieve the quality community standards you and I believe in. I hope these comments help you make a difficult decision that is not typical of elected officials. One that goes against the grain but that is equally the right decision. I urge you to direct staff to include a true preservation alternative in the EIR. In closing, you will hear the comments that this project should be approved because it has taken too long already. When considering this comment, I also ask that you consider the consequences of approving the project today. The time it takes to properly plan for the future of this site, is far less than the eternity it could take to ever regain what is lost if it is poorly planned and developed. Please feel free to call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Patrick Mitchell Mitre - Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:51 AM To: Mitre - Ramirez, Norma Cc: Orozco, Norma; Trujillo, Rose Ann Subject: FW: Orchard Letter to City Council Attachments: SA City Council Final_MWD 01MAR2014.pdf Categories: RFCA, Important Please add to Agenda packet. - - - -- Original Message---- - From: mwdonaldson130vahoo.com rmailto :mwdonaldsonl3(@vahoo.com1 Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 6:04 PM To: Huizar, Maria Subject: Orchard Letter to City Council Thank you for your feedback. Please confirm receiving attached letter. Thank you! Milford Wayne Donaldson FAIR 7754 Greenridge Way Fair Oaks, CA 95628 916 532 8004 mwdonaldsonl3Cavahoo.com 1 3/4/2014 2:49 PM 2:49 PM 0 ARCHITECT MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON FAIA March 1, 2014 Mayor Miguel Pulido and City Council City of Santa Ana P.O. Box 1988, M -31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Preservation Honorable Mayor Pulido and Council Members: The Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse is a rare, intact example of an historic citrus farm in an area that is struggling to protect the last vestiges of its rich, nationally important agricultural history. In my capacity as the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) I encouraged the Council to preserve the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse because of its eligibility to both the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. I commend the Council for recognizing the importance of the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse complex as a "Key" historic resource under the Santa Ana Municipal Code in 2012. First, let me explain my interest in the Sexlinger property as an historic resource. I served as the California SHPO from 2004 until 2012, during which time I was responsible for the full range of state -wide historic resources. I also served as the executive secretary of the State Historical Resources Commission, which is responsible for identifying, registering and preserving California's cultural heritage. I have served as the Chair of the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (ACHP) since 2010, with responsibilities for implementing the National Historic Preservation Act with federal, state, local and tribal governments. I am a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). I have more than 35 years of experience in historic preservation, renovation and adaptive reuse, with extensive experience in interpretation and application of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. I have also taught and lectured widely on historic preservation and preservation architecture for many years. As explained in my previous letter, the Sexlinger property is important because it retains all elements of its historic agricultural use, including the farmstead, outbuildings and the original orchard in its entirety. I understand the City is currently evaluating a proposal to retain the Farmhouse in place, but to allow demolition of more than 95 percent of the 4100 FOLSOM BLVD Unit 5D, SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 mwdonaldsont3 @yahoo.com 916 532 8004 ARCHITECT MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON FAIA Orchard, preserving only 10 trees with space for planting up to 6 new orange trees. The environmental impact report (EIR) for the demolition concludes that preservation of 10 to 16 trees in a single row on a one - quarter acre corner of the Orchard will not have a significant adverse impact on the historic significance of the Sexlinger property. The proposal to demolish 95 percent of the Orchard does not comply with the Secretary's Standards, even when combined with retention and rehabilitation of the Farmhouse. The Orchard and Farmhouse currently have a high degree of integrity that reflects their historic use. Loss of 95 percent of the Orchard would cause a significant loss of integrity, and would affect those features and characteristics that qualified the combined Orchard and Farmhouse for listing on the National and California Registers. It is my understanding that the Council recognized the historic significance of the entire property, including both the Orchard and Farmhouse, when it designated them together in the "Key" resource designation. Demolition of the majority of the Orchard would cause the Sexlinger property to lose its historic significance. Loss of significance, as well as the loss of contributing elements, is a significant impact under CEQA, requiring mitigation. Without the Orchard, the Farmhouse alone would in all likelihood lose its eligibility for the National or California Registers because it would lack the ability to demonstrate a vital connection with the area's agricultural heritage. The Orchard demolition fails to comply with the Secretary 's Standards for multiple reasons. Under the National Register Bulletin entitled "Defining the Boundaries for National Register Properties," the entire Orchard parcel is included within the eligible site. The Orchard and Farmhouse were a single functional unit, in common ownership, on a single parcel and visually separate from surrounding uses. Under the Secretary 's Standard's, a building site consists of historic "buildings, structures, and associated landscape features within a designed or legally defined parcel of land." In this case, as recognized by the Council in its designation, the Orchard is significant in its own right, as well as in combination with the Farmhouse. The Secretary 's Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes requires consideration of continuity of form, use, features and materials. The geographic context of the landscape, including the component elements and features, are factors that affect the appropriate treatment. Natural systems are an integral part of the cultural landscape and must be considered in selecting an appropriate treatment. Although it is often impossible to preserve the entirety of a cultural landscape in an urban setting, enough of the landscape must be retained to maintain integrity and the ability to convey 4100 FOLSOM BLVD Units% SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 mwdonatdsonl3 @yahoo.com 916 532 8004 ARCHITECT MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON FAIA significance. A single row of 10 trees is not adequate to maintain integrity or convey significance in this case. The Guidelines also recognize that cultural landscapes are composed through a collection of features which are organized in space. This includes the patterns of fields or orchards which define the spatial character of the landscape. These include the spatial organization and land patterns that define and create spaces in the landscape. In the case of the Sexlinger Orchard, the relationship between the Farmhouse and the much larger Orchard, are the rows and spacing of the individual trees, and their relationship to the street. The spatial organization and land patterns would be lost through demolition of the majority of the Orchard, leaving only a single line of trees around the Farmhouse. The Guidelines also identify the character - defining features of a cultural landscape that collectively contribute to historic character. These include topography, vegetation, circulation, water features, and structures. In the case of the Sexlinger Orchard, the flat topography, standardized color, height and size of vegetation, lack of ornamental landscaping, pedestrian circulation routes through the trees and the relationship to the Farmhouse along the street frontage are all character - defining features. All of these important character - defining features would be lost through demolition of the majority of the Orchard, leaving only a vestigial remnant of a functioning Orchard. The Santa Ana City Council has a unique opportunity to preserve an important example of its agricultural heritage through the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse. I encourage the Council to continue working with the owners of the property to preserve enough of the Orchard, together with the Farmhouse, to convey the significance of a working agricultural property. Once the Orchard is demolished, there will be no intact examples of this crucial part of the region's history for the benefit of future generations. Thank you for your stewardship of the significance and irreplaceable historic resource that has been entrusted to your care. Sincerely, 4` Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA 4100 FOLSOM BLVD Unit 5D, SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 mwdonaldsonl3 @yahoo.com 916 532 8004 Mitre - Ramirez, Norma 0 From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 10:51 AM To: Mitre - Ramirez, Norma Cc: Orozco, Norma; Trujillo, Rose Ann Subject: FW: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Additional Preservation Support Letter Attachments: SA City Council Final_MWD 01MAR2014.pdf; MWD FAIA CV 2013.pdf Categories: RFCA, Important Please add to Agenda packet. From: Magallon, Becky Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 8:47 AM To: Huizar, Maria Subject: FW: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Additional Preservation Support Letter Will From: iannieCaloldorchardconservancv.org fmailto:ieannie @ oldorchardconservancv oral Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 6:26 PM To: Amezcua, Angelica; David Benavides; Martinez, Michele; Pulido, Miguel; Reyna, Roman; Tinajero, Sal; Sarmiento, Vince Subject: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Additional Preservation Support Letter Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers, If you must read just one document before Tuesday, please make it this one. Sincerely, Jeannie Gillett, President The Old Orchard Conservancy 714 -296 -4642 jeannie(@OldOrchardConservancy.org "To preserve, acquire, restore and manage the Old Orange Orchard located in Santa Ana, California, as an historic, cultural, agricultural, and educational resource for all." 1 3/4/2014 2:47 PM 2:47 PM ARCHITECT MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON FAIA March 1, 2014 Mayor Miguel Pulido and City Council City of Santa Ana P.O. Box 1988, M -31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse Preservation Honorable Mayor Pulido and Council Members: The Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse is a rare, intact example of an historic citrus farm in an area that is struggling to protect the last vestiges of its rich, nationally important agricultural history. In my capacity as the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) I encouraged the Council to preserve the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse because of its eligibility to both the National Register of Historic Places and the California Register of Historic Resources. I commend the Council for recognizing the importance of the Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse complex as a "Key" historic resource under the Santa Ana Municipal Code in 2012. First, let me explain my interest in the Sexlinger property as an historic resource. I served as the California SHPO from 2004 until 2012, during which time I was responsible for the full range of state -wide historic resources. I also served as the executive secretary of the State Historical Resources Commission, which is responsible for identifying, registering and preserving California's cultural heritage. I have served as the Chair of the Advisory Council of Historic Preservation (ACHP) since 2010, with responsibilities for implementing the National Historic Preservation Act with federal, state, local and tribal governments. I am a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects (AIA). I have more than 35 years of experience in historic preservation, renovation and adaptive reuse, with extensive experience in interpretation and application of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. I have also taught and lectured widely on historic preservation and preservation architecture for many years. As explained in my previous letter, the Sexlinger property is important because it retains all elements of its historic agricultural use, including the farmstead, outbuildings and the original orchard in its entirety. I understand the City is currently evaluating a proposal to retain the Farmhouse in place, but to allow demolition of more than 95 percent of the 4100FOLSOMBLVD Unit5D, SACRAMENTO, CA95819 mwdonaldsonl3Cyahoo.com 9165328004 ARCHITECT MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON FAIA Orchard, preserving only 10 trees with space for planting up to 6 new orange trees. The environmental impact report (EIR) for the demolition concludes that preservation of 10 to 16 trees in a single row on a one - quarter acre corner of the Orchard will not have a significant adverse impact on the historic significance of the Sexlinger property. The proposal to demolish 95 percent of the Orchard does not comply with the Secretary 's Standards, even when combined with retention and rehabilitation of the Farmhouse. The Orchard and Farmhouse currently have a high degree of integrity that reflects their historic use. Loss of 95 percent of the Orchard would cause a significant loss of integrity, and would affect those features and characteristics that qualified the combined Orchard and Farmhouse for listing on the National and California Registers. It is my understanding that the Council recognized the historic significance of the entire property, including both the Orchard and Farmhouse, when it designated them together in the "Key" resource designation. Demolition of the majority of the Orchard would cause the Sexlinger property to lose its historic significance. Loss of significance, as well as the loss of contributing elements, is a significant impact under CEQA, requiring mitigation. Without the Orchard, the Farmhouse alone would in all likelihood lose its eligibility for the National or California Registers because it would lack the ability to demonstrate a vital connection with the area's agricultural heritage. The Orchard demolition fails to comply with the Secretary 's Standards for multiple reasons. Under the National Register Bulletin entitled "Defining the Boundaries for National Register Properties," the entire Orchard parcel is included within the eligible site. The Orchard and Farmhouse were a single functional unit, in common ownership, on a single parcel and visually separate from surrounding uses. Under the Secretary 's Standard's, a building site consists of historic "buildings, structures, and associated landscape features within a designed or legally defined parcel of land." In this case, as recognized by the Council in its designation, the Orchard is significant in its own right, as well as in combination with the Farmhouse. The Secretary 's Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes requires consideration of continuity of form, use, features and materials. The geographic context of the landscape, including the component elements and features, are factors that affect the appropriate treatment. Natural systems are an integral part of the cultural landscape and must be considered in selecting an appropriate treatment. Although it is often impossible to preserve the entirety of a cultural landscape in an urban setting, enough of the landscape must be retained to maintain integrity and the ability to convey 4100 FOLSOM BLVD Unit 5D, SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 mwdonaldsonl3@yahoo.com 916 532 8004 ARCHITECT MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON FAIA significance. A single row of 10 trees is not adequate to maintain integrity or convey significance in this case. The Guidelines also recognize that cultural landscapes are composed through a collection of features which are organized in space. This includes the patterns of fields or orchards which define the spatial character of the landscape. These include the spatial organization and land patterns that define and create spaces in the landscape. In the case of the Sexlinger Orchard, the relationship between the Farmhouse and the much larger Orchard, are the rows and spacing of the individual trees, and their relationship to the street. The spatial organization and land patterns would be lost through demolition of the majority of the Orchard, leaving only a single line of trees around the Farmhouse. The Guidelines also identify the character - defining features of a cultural landscape that collectively contribute to historic character. These include topography, vegetation, circulation, water features, and structures. In the case of the Sexlinger Orchard, the flat topography, standardized color, height and size of vegetation, lack of ornamental landscaping, pedestrian circulation routes through the trees and the relationship to the Farmhouse along the street frontage are all character - defining features. All of these important character - defining features would be lost through demolition of the majority of the Orchard, leaving only a vestigial remnant of a functioning Orchard. The Santa Ana City Council has a unique opportunity to preserve an important example of its agricultural heritage through the Sexhuger Orchard and Farmhouse. I encourage the Council to continue working with the owners of the property to preserve enough of the Orchard, together with the Farmhouse, to convey the significance of a working agricultural property. Once the Orchard is demolished, there will be no intact examples of this crucial part of the region's history for the benefit of future generations. Thank you for your stewardship of the significance and irreplaceable historic resource that has been entrusted to your care. Sincerely, ti 4` Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA 4100 FOLSOM BLVD Unit 5D, SACRAMENTO, CA 95819 mwdonaldsonl3(ayahooxom 916 532 8004 MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON, FAIA SUMMARY OF Mr. Donaldson is President of award winning Architect Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, Inc. since 1978, specializing in historic preservation services. He is licensed to practice architecture in California, Nevada and Arizona and holds a certified license from the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards. Mr. Donaldson is affiliated with several historical and preservation organizations and is a past president of the California Preservation Foundation (CPF) and past chairs of the State Historical Building Safety Board, the State Historical Resources Commission, and the Historic State Capitol Commission. Milford Wayne Donaldson served as the California State Historic Preservation Officer from 2004 -2012. At this time he renamed his firm Heritage Architecture & Planning and sold his firm that continues today under that name: www.heritagearchitecture.com During Mr. Donaldson's tenure as SHPO he has streamlined Section 106 process of the National Historic Preservation Act, has led the national initiative towards the sustainability and greening of historic resources. On June 1, 2010 Mr. Donaldson was appointed Chair of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation by President Barack Obama and currently holds that position. Previously an instructor at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, he continues to lecture at California community colleges and universities. Mr. Donaldson holds a Bachelor of Architecture and a Bachelor of Science in Engineering from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. He engaged in postgraduate studies at Uppsala University, Sweden, and received a Master of Science degree in Architecture from University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland, and a Master of Arts degree in Public History and Teaching from the University of San Diego. Over the last thirty-five years, Mr. Donaldson has established himself as a leader in Historic Preservation and adaptive reuse of existing structures. His depth of knowledge unites nineteenth century building methods with state -of- the -art twenty-first century construction technologies. In 1991, The California Council of the American Institute of Architects acknowledged Mr. Donaldson for his statewide leadership in the interpretation of the California Historical Building Code that allowed the rehabilitation of historic buildings. In 1992, the American Institute of Architects inducted Mr. Donaldson into the College of Fellows. The National Trust for Historic Preservation engaged Mr. Donaldson to assist California cities in disaster damage assessment of historic buildings following the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. A commendation was awarded by Governor Deukmejian to Mr. Donaldson for his efforts. Later, in the 1992 Eureka and 1994 Northridge Earthquakes, Mr. Donaldson lent his expertise to save historic buildings from unwarranted demolition. His efforts continue today as a Trainer in Emergency Response for the California Office of Emergency Services' Disaster Service Worker volunteer program. Over 3000 projects have been completed by Mr. Donaldson's firm, mainly throughout the western portion of the United States, including working with the California State Office of Historic Preservation, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, the National Park Service, the California Department of Transportation, the Bureau of Land Management, the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the Department of Water Resources, the California Conservation Corps, the United States Marine Corps, the United States Navy, Environmental Protection Agency and many cities and counties. Mr. Donaldson is a Registered Democrat EDUCATION NewSchool of Architecture & Design San Diego, California California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California University of San Diego San Diego, California University of Stuttgart Stuttgart, Germany University of Strathclyde Glasgow, Scotland California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California CSIP* University of Uppsala California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo, California Honorary Master of Architecture 2001 Architect Alumnus of the Year M.A. History and Public Teaching Post- Graduate Studies Master Science in Architecture Bachelor of Architecture Uppsala, Sweden Bachelor Science Engineering - CSIP stands for the California State International Program. This study abroad program was undertaken during Mr. Donaldson's undergraduate studies. PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE National Council of Architectural Registration Boards Certification License 52122 Licensed to practice architecture in the State of California since 1975. License C20193 Licensed to practice architecture in the State of Nevada since 1999. License 029193 2 Licensed to practice architecture in the State of Arizona since 1998. License 36433 National Council of Architectural Registration Boards certified since 1999. Engaged in the profession of architecture as a Firm Owner since 1978. PROFESSIONAL/ COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS California State Historic Preservation Officer Appointed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger 2004-2010 ICOMOS Member, 1982 -1994, Executive Board Member 2009 — 2011 National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers Executive Board Member 2005 - 2010 Historic State Capitol Commission, Sacramento, CA Appointed by Senator John Burton, President Pro Tempore and Chairman of the Rules Committee. Commissioner 2000 -2003 Office of Emergency Services - Safety Assessment Program Trainer/Volunteer / Disaster Service Worker / Essential Emergency Duties SAP #100017/31/2007 to Present Building Standards Commission Sacramento, California Committee for the Development of an Ordinance for the Seismic Strengthening of Post Earthquake Buildings Member, 1990 -2004 State Historic Resources Commission, Office of Historic Preservation, Department of Parks and Recreation, State of California Appointed by Governor Deukmejian and Governor Wilson Commissioner, 1985 -1994 Getty Conservation Institute Getty Adobe Seismic Project GSAP Santa Monica, California Committee Member, 1990 -1998 Project Proposal Reviewer, 1989 -2000 National Trust for Historic Preservation Washington, D.C. Forum Member, 1978 - Present Preservation Action Washington, D.C. California Trustee, 1984 -1988 Association for Preservation Technology Washington, D.C. Member, 1986- Present California Preservation Foundation, Oakland, California President, 1993 -1994 / President, 1986 -1988 / Trustee, 1984 -1994 Preservationist of the Year Award 1995 State Historical Building Safety Board, Office of the State Architect, State of California Board Member, 1985- Present Vice - Chair, 1993 -1996 Chair, 1988 -1993 San Diego Chapter of the American Institute of Architects American Institute of Architects Corporate Member, 1979 - Present Elected to College of Fellows (FAIA) 1992 San Diego Historical Society, San Diego, California Member, 1978 - Present Save Our Heritage Organization, San Diego, California Board of Directors, 1984 -1986 Member, 1980 - Present City of San Diego Historical Site Board, San Diego, California Vice Chair, 1986 Board Member, 1982 -1987 SCARAB (Honorary Professional Architectural Fraternity) California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, California Member, 1965- Present Historian Honor Society PHI ALPHA THETA Member, 1999 - Present San Diego State University, San Diego, California Curriculum Advisory Committee for Environmental Design, Advisor, 1986 - Present California State Polytechnic College /San Luis Obispo Architecture Advisory Committee/ Presidential Council 1999 -2005 PRESENTATIONS Sustainability: Perspectives for the Future, Biannual NPS Federal Tax Incentives for Reviewers 2009 Workshop, Raleigh, North Carolina, September 22- 24,2009 NRHP Listing of the G. T. Marsh Building Alliance of Monterey Area Preservationists, California, January 25, 2008 The Use and Application of the California Historical Building Code El Presidio De Santa Barbara, California Preservation Foundation, , San Diego, California, January 15, 2008 Testimony regarding the Consistency Certification for the Foothill South Toll Road, California Coastal Commission Hearing, Del Mar Fairgrounds- Wyland Hall, February 6, 2008 NCSHPO Annual Meeting LEED Squaretable, Holiday Inn on the Hill, Washington, DC, Sunday, March 2, 2008 Identifying, Evaluating, and Preserving Modern Resources, California Preservation Foundation, 2008 Workshop Series, Pomona, California, March 7, 2008 Citywide Historic Resources Survey Historic Site Preservation Board, Palm Springs, California, March 7, 2008 Identifying, Evaluating and Preserving Modern Resources, John T. Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies, Cal Poly Pomona, March 7, 2008 The SHPO Is In! California Preservation Foundation, Napa, California, April 25, 2008 California Historical Building Code and the Preservation of Historic Resources, Vernacular Architecture Forum Conference, Fresno, California, May 10, 2008 Historic Building and Sustainability, California Historic State Capitol Commission, Friday, July 11, 2008 How Easy Is It To Be Green? National Historic Tax Credit Conference, Chicago, Illinois, September 24 -26, 2008 The Significance of the Royal Presidio Chapel, Royal Presidio Chapel as a National Historic Landmark, Conservation Project History Fest, Monterey 2008, October 10, 2008 Green Design for Preservation and Revitalization, California Downtown Association, 2008 Annual Conference, Santa Rosa, California, October 1 -3, 2008 Countering the Dead Architects' Society, The Wednesday Club, San Diego, April 11, 2007 PUBLICATIONS/ BOOKS Saving the Future Recent Past A California Experience, Rancho to Ranch House Conference, Save Our Heritage Organisation, May 18, 2007 Tools that Protect Historic Resources After a Disaster, Indiana MainStreet Conference, Richmond, Indiana, October 18 -20, 2007 The Nomination of World Heritage Trans - boundary Oceanic Sites, Eight Maritimes Heritage Conference, San Diego, California, October 9 -12, 2007 The Gaslamp Quarter, Then and Now, Kathleen Flanigan, Forward by Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 2004 Site of Rancho El Tecolote, California Registered Historical Landmark, Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 2002 Ferryboat `Berkeley," California Registered Historical Landmark, Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 2000 Hotel de Anza, Calexico, Imperial County Historical Site. Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 2000 "Star of India," California Registered Historical Landmark, Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1999 Charles Mallory Hatfield "The Rainmaker," San Diego County Historical Site. Author: Architect Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA 1999 Santa Margarita Ranch, United States Marine Corpse Base, Camp Joseph H. Pendleton, California Registered Historical Landmark. Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1998 National City Depot, California Southern Transcontinental Railroad, California Registered Historical Landmark. Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1997 National City Depot, California Registered Historical Landmark. Author: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1997. Strategies for Historic Preservation in Seismic Areas, Idaho Bureau of Disaster Services, Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1997. Leo Carrillo Ranch (Rancho de Los Motes), California Registered Historical Landmark. Author: Architect Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1996 Preservation Briefs 32: Making Historic Properties Accessible, Thomas C. Jester and Sharon C. Park, AIA, National Park Service, Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, 1993. A Preservationist's Guide to the Development Process, California Preservation Foundation. Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, AIA, 1992 Protecting the Past from Natural Disasters, Carl L. Nelson, The National Trust for Historic Preservation, Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, AIA, 1991 PUBLICATIONS/ BOOKS (cost.) MAGAZINE ARTICLES Seismic Retrofit of Hazardous Unreinforced Masonry Buildings: A Draft Model Ordinance, California Seismic Safety Commission, Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, AIA, 1990 History at Risk, Loma Prieta: Seismic Safety and Historic Buildings, California Preservation Foundation, Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, AIA, 1990 Earthquake Risks and the Architectural Landmark, Salt Lake City Corporation, Contributor: Milford Wayne Donaldson, AIA, 1988 Respecting the Past, Embracing the Future, San Diego Museum of Contemporary Air, San Diego, California, Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIR Welcoming Preservation Matters quarterly newsletter of the Office of Historic Preservation, January 2008 Wipeout of San O, Preservation Matters Newsletter, Spring 2008 Your're Nominating Air? Torrey Pines Column, Preservation Matters, 2008 Save Hanger I, Preservation Matters Newsletter, Fall 2008 A Culture of Reuse, Preservation Matter, Spring 2009 Common Ground, THPOISHPO Summit, Preservation Matters, Summer 2009 Mayday! Mayday! Mayday! Helldiver 19866, Preservation Matters, Fall 2009 Countering the Dead Architects'Society, Preservation Matters, Winter 2009 The Children of Haudenosaunee Confederacy, Preservation Matters 2010 One Small Step for Man, One Giant Leap for Preservation, Preser. Mat. 2010 Preserve Preserve America, Summer 2011 To Whom Does Cultural Heritage Belong? Preservation Matters, Summer 2012 Section 106: One of the Best Preservation Tools, Preservation Matters, 2012 SAN DIEGO HOME /GARDEN, June 1998, Let's Make a Deal by Carol Golden SAN DIEGO MAGAZINE, December 1997, Born Again Balboa Park by Virginia Butterfield SAN DIEGO MAGAZINE, December 1997, Balboa Park Remembered by Virginia Butterfield SAN DIEGO HOME & GARDEN MAGAZINE, September 1997, Restoring the Faith, by Damon Hedgpith SUNSET MAGAZINE, June 1997, San Diego's Park of Dreams by Matthew Jaffe NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, March 1990, The Case for Retrofit of Historic Buildings by Milford Wayne Donaldson, AIA SUN /COAST, June 1988 San Diego Warehouse Rehabed with Historic Intent and Modern Interiors CENTRE CITY MAGAZINE, January 1988, Horton Park Plaza Hotel Opens in Gaslamp SAN DIEGO MAGAZINE, October 1986, The Horton Grand NEWSPAPER ARTICLES (Since 1990 only, extended list available upon request) New Ballpark Makes It's Home Amid Historic Buildings, Advertising Supplement to the SAN DIEGO BUSINESS JOURNAL, Petco Park, 2003 Giving the Past A Presence by Ann Jamiusch SAN DIEGO UNION- TRIBUNE, March 24, 2002 Preservation I tctories by Ann Jarmusch SAN DIEGO UNION- TRIBUNE, February 22, 1998 Preservation Watch by Ann Jarmusch SAN DIEGO UNION- TRIBUNE, November 23, 1997 Renovation to include Museum by Michelle Carlin SAN DIEGO UNION - TRIBUNE, November 16, 1997 History in the Making by Ann Jarmusch SAN DIEGO UNION - TRIBUNE, September, 1997 Pride of the Prado by Roger M. Showley SAN DIEGO UNION- TRIBUNE, June 15, 1997 My Side of the Line by Martin Weinberger CLAREMONT COURIER, July 17, 1991 Carlsbad Theater May Have New Life by Drew Silvern SAN DIEGO UNION, July24,1990 Significant Awards and Honors NATIONAL 1998 NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, PRESERVATION HONOR AWARD House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1992 FAIA - NATIONAL AIA MILFORD WAYNE DONALDSON ELECTED TO THE COLLEGE OF FELLOWS FOR DESIGN AND THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES. STATE & REGIONAL 2003 LONG BEACH HERITAGE AWARD Rancho Los Cerritos Master Plan, Long Beach, California 2003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD Redlands AK Smiley Public Library 2003 SANTA BARBARA CHAPTER AIA Santa Barbara Depot, Restoration 2003 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS Riverside County Courthouse, Restoration, Seismic Retrofit 2002 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS San Diego County Administration Center, Master Plan Santa Barbara Railroad Station, Restoration San Bernardino Santa Fe Depot, Feasibility Study Villa Montezuma, Exterior Restoration 2001 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS Naval Training Center, Design Guidelines Rancho Los Cerritos, Master Plan San Diego Aerospace Museum, Courtyard Cover 2000 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS Chollas Heights Transmitter Building, Adaptive Reuse San Diego County Administration Building, Restoration Rancho Los Penasquitos Spring House, Restoration 2000 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, INLAND CALIFORNIA CHAPTER, SPECIAL CITATION AK Smiley Public Library, Tower Reconstruction 1999 CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD Vallecito Stage Station, Restoration 1999 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS AK Smiley Public Library, Tower Reconstruction 1998 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction Leo Carrillo Ranch, Master Plan Vallecito Stage Station, Restoration 1998 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1998 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, CALIFORNIA COUNCIL (AIACC), HONOR AWARD House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1997 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS Guajome Ranch House, Restoration Historical Greater Mid -City San Diego Preservation Strategy Ivy Substation & Media Park, Adaptive Reuse 1997 CONSTRUCTION LINK MAGAZINE, BEST OF CALIFORNIA, OUTSTANDING RESTORATION PROJECT House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1997 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD Americanization School, Adaptive Reuse 1996 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS -Americanization School, Adaptive Reuse 1996 STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR'S HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARDS Santa Barbara Presidio, Reconstruction San Diego Presidio, Archaeology Project Santa Margarita Rancho Chapel, Reconstruction St. Francis Chapel at Warner Springs Ranch 1995 CALIFORNIA PRESERVATION FOUNDATION DESIGN AWARDS Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIR, Preservationist of the Year 1995 DESIGN SERVICE AWARD - CITY OF ESCONDIDO DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION Escondido Facades for Outstanding Contribution to Downtown Improvement 1994 HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD - LOS ANGELES CONSERVANCY Ivy Substation and Media Park 1994 MAYOR'S CULTURAL AFFAIRS AWARD - CITY OF LOS ANGELES Ivy Substation and Media Park 1994 DESIGN AWARD - CITY OF ESCONDIDO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, RECOGNITION OF NOTABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CITY GOALS Printcraft 1994 HONORABLE MENTION FOR DESIGN - CITY OF ESCONDIDO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, RECOGNITION OF NOTABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS THE ACHIEVEMENT OF CITY GOALS Escondido Coin and Loan Christian Science Reading Room 1993 HONOR AWARD - FORO DE CONSERVACION DEL PATRIMONIO CULTURAL DE BAJA CALIFORNIA, IN RECOGNITION OF OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION TO HISTORIC PRESERVATION Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA 10 1991 ACHIEVEMENT AWARD - DOWNTOWN ENCINITAS MAINSTREET ASSOCIATION, IN RECOGNITION OF EFFORTS TOWARDS DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION Downtown Encinitas SAN DIEGO / LOCAL 2002 AWARD OF EXCELLENCE FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION - CITY OF SAN DIEGO HISTORICAL RESOURCES BOARD Balboa Park Botanical Building Restoration, and his assistance in the discovery of the Mohnike Adobe foundation system and National Register Nomination Proposal. 2002 THE EXTERIOR RESTORATION AWARD - SAVE OUR HERITAGE ORGANISATION PEOPLE IN PRESERVATION Villa Montezuma 2002 SPECIAL COMMENDATION AWARD - CITY OF SAN DIEGO Villa Montezuma "In recognition and appreciation of your contribution to the City of San Diego." 2001 AIA ORCHID AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA, FOR ARCHITECTURE Harbour Lights Resort Jury Comments: "Urbane, sophisticated and confident. The building twinkles at night. The front facade is a refreshing perspective of the traditional Gaslamp Quarter style. " 2000 AIA ORCHID AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA San Diego County Administration Center for Historic Preservation Jury Comments: 'A terrific restoration of a jewel of a building right on the font porch to San Diego Bay. This restoration was wellconceived and executed." 1999 OUTSTANDING PROJECT OF THE YEAR, AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION, SAN DIEGO AND IMPERIAL COUNTIES CHAPTER House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1998 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, SAN DIEGO CHAPTER (AIA), MERIT AWARD House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1998 SAN DIEGO HISTORICAL SITE BOARD HISTORIC PRESERVATION GRAND AWARD House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1998 SAN DIEGO HISTORICAL SITE BOARD HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD Historic Greater Mid -City San Diego Preservation Strategy 1998 AIA ORCHID AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA, FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION AND LIGHTING DESIGN House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1998 SAVE OUR HERITAGE ORGANISATION (SOHO) RECONSTRUCTION AWARD House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 11 1998 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF INTERIOR DESIGNERS (ASID) INTERIOR DESIGN EXCELLENCE AWARD, SECOND PLACE (TIE), COMMERCIAL PROJECT LARGER THAN 1,500 SQ. FT. House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1998 ILLUMINATION DESIGN AWARDS (IIDA), IES ILLUMINATION DESIGN AWARD House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1998 ILLUMINATION DESIGN AWARDS, SPECIAL WATERBURY CITATION, HISTORICAL REPLICATION OF ORIGINAL EXTERIOR ILLUMINATION, INTERNATIONAL House of Hospitality, Historic Reconstruction 1997 AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS, SAN DIEGO CHAPTER, HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD, FOR DISTINGUISHED CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PRESERVATION OF THE CULTURAL HERITAGE. Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIR 1997 AIA CITATION AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA, FOR OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTION IN DESIGN Guajome Ranch 1996 MERIT AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA Greater Mid -City Historic Preservation Strategy Jury Comments: "This project has multiple ways of being useful and hoped it is the beginning of more documentation of the city's urban history. This project gives a valuable gift to San Diego." 1996 CITATION AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA, FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE Americanization School Jury Comments: The jury praised Architect Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA, Inc. and the City of Oceanside for not overdoing the renovation, and leaving its character intact. "The client didn't do too much, just enough to keep the wonderful things." "The use of neighborhood teenage volunteers to help with the renovation gave the whole community a pride of ownership." 1996 AIA ORCHID AWARDS - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA Guajome Ranch, for Exceptional Historic Preservation Jury Comments: "Great! Looks like the new neighbors will be arriving and moving in any day. " Vallecito Stage Station for Exceptional Historic Preservation Jury Comments: "An orchid blooming in the desert, watered by a lot of volunteer sweat. Open for business." Santa Margarita Rancho Chapel for Exceptional Historic Preservation Jury Comments: 'A phoenix rising from the ashes. It's a wonderful job of rebuilding. What a difference a few good marines make." Greater Mid -City Historic Preservation Strategy, Award for Planning Jury Comments: " The 'Stitch in time saves nine' award. Like extinction of a species, once a historic site is gone, its gone forever. The community needs to know about the historical sites in not only the mid -city, but the whole county" 12 1993 AIA GRAND ORCHID AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA, FOR EXCEPTIONAL DESIGN IN FIVE CATEGORIES: ARCHITECTURE, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, LANDSCAPE DESIGN, INTERIOR DESIGN, AND LIGHTING City Front Terrace Condominiums Jury Comments: "The condominium project made the jury swoon admiringly in five design categories: architecture, historic preservation, landscape design, interior deign and lighting. " 1993 AIA ORCHID AWARD - SAN DIEGO CHAPTER AIA, FOR EXCEPTIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION Americanization Building Jury Comments: "For blossoming in true Orchid fashion, the jury held up for admiration the delightful designed as classrooms for immigrants to learn English and become "Americanized" reincarnation of the... immaculate restoration oflrving Gill's Americanization School in Oceanside. That successful story belongs mostly to neighborhood volunteers who helped save the 1931 building, originally. 1990 HISTORIC PRESERVATION AWARD - GASLAMP QUARTER FOUNDATION, IN RECOGNITION OF OUTSTANDING EFFORTS FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA END 13 9 RUTAN RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP March 3, 2014 VIA E -MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY Mayor Miguel Pulido Members of the Santa Ana City Council City of Santa Ana PO Box 1988 M31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Jeffrey T. Melching Direct Dial: (714) 641 -3422 E -mail: jmelching @ratan.com Re: Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Residential Development Project Proposed At 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue Dear Mayor Pulido and Members of the Santa Ana City Council: This office has been engaged to assist Lutheran High School of Orange County and Concordia University (collectively, the "Schools "), in connection with their applications for residential development of the property located at 1584 East Santa Clara Avenue ( "Project "). On February 27, 2014, the City received letters from The Old Orchard Conservancy ( "TOOC "), and from its counsel, in opposition to the City's approval of the Project and its associated Final Environmental Impact Report. Those letters primarily reiterate TOOC's disagreement with the conclusions of the City's Planning Commission, staff, and expert consultants with regard to the Historic Preservation Alternative. The City's staff and independent expert consultants have done a thorough job in responding to those arguments — most recently in the staff report prepared for the March 4, 2014 City Council meeting. In addition to those matters, however, TOOC and its counsel mention two additional arguments: (1) that the project will impact important agricultural lands, and (2) that the criteria for granting a variance for "Lot 12" are not satisfied here. Neither argument has merit, but in the abundance of caution the Schools respectfully submit the following discussion and materials relating to those two issues. With regard to agricultural lands, TOOC's counsel claims that "the loss of prime agricultural soil is a significant impact" because the land has "a Storie Rating of 90 and Class I capability." The City reviewed potential impacts on agricultural lands in the Initial Study for the Project, and found that under both the Santa Ana General Plan and the State's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Project ( "FMMP "), the City does not contain any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. (Initial Study, Final EIR Appx. A, p. 25, 1 A; see also Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq., Appx. G, § II(a).) A review of the Statewide Rutan & Tucker, LLP 1 611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92628 -1950 1 714 - 641 -5100 1 Fax 714- 546 -9035 680/030670 -0001 Orange County I Palo Alto I www.rutan.com 6747449.1.03/03 /t4 RUTAN Mayor Miguel Pulido March 3, 2014 Page 2 Maps confirms the Initial Study's conclusions — the Sexlinger Property is within a large swath of land that covers all of Santa Ana, and is designated "Urban and Built Up Land." (Exhibits A -1, A -2; see also Exhibit B [showing survey area boundary]; see generally http: / /www.conservation. ca. gov /dlrp /fmmp/Pages/Index.aspx) Indeed, under published FMMP criteria, the Sexlinger Property simply cannot qualify as Prime Farmland, Important Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. To fall within any of those categories, the property must have been "used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the Important Farmland Map date. (Exhibit C.) Since the most recent FMMP map was updated through 2010, and since the land has not been irrigated for agricultural production since before 2000, the Sexlinger Property simply cannot satisfy the criteria for Prime Farmland, Important Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. Leaving no doubt over the legitimacy of the City's conclusions regarding agricultural lands, the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") allows local agencies to also use the Land Evaluation Site Assessment (LESA) model to evaluate whether a project could potentially have an impact on agricultural resources. (Initial Study, p. 24; Pub. Res. Code § 21061.2; CEQA Guidelines Appx. G; http: / /www.consrv.ca .gov /dlrp/Pages /qh— lesa.aspx.) Under that model, a site is given a score (up to a total of 50 points) for both (1) Land Evaluation, and (2) Site Assessment. Both scores must be greater than 20 points to find a potential impact to agricultural resources. (LESA Manual [attached as Exhibit D], p. 28.) The Site Assessment score accounts for (1) project size (30% weighting), (2) water resource availability (30% weighting), (3) surrounding agricultural lands (30% weighting), and (4) surrounding protected resource lands (10% weighting). (LESA Manual, pp. 14 -31.) Here, the Project is 5 acres in size, so it receives a Project Size score of 0. (LESA Manual, p. 14.) The Project site has no existing irrigation system, and is not amenable to dryland production, and so it receives a Water Resource Availability score of 0. (LESA Manual, pp. 18, 20.) Since less than 40% of the parcels within 1/4 mile of the Project site are used for agricultural production, it receives a Surrounding Agricultural Lands score of 0. (LESA Manual, p. 25.) Finally, since less than 40% of the parcels within i/4 mile of the Project site are protected resources that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses, it receives a Surrounding Protected Resource Lands score of 0. (LESA Manual, p. 28.) Based on these scores, the total LESA Site Assessment score for the Sexlinger Property cannot reach the 20 points required to find a significant impact to agricultural resources. (LESA Manual, pp. 30 -31.) The flaws in TOOC's argument concerning the variance for Lot 12 are two -fold. First, TOOC mistakenly focuses on the shape of the overall Sexlinger parcel in performing its variance analysis. The variance, however, is sought for Lot 12 — not for the overall project. Lot 12 has an abnormal shape and configuration as a result of City staffs correct determination that creating a curved street through the project area would have a beneficial traffic calming effect. That curve, 680/030670 -0001 6747449.1 a03103/14 RUTAN Mayor Miguel Pulido March 3, 2014 Page 3 and the associated imposition of County standards that would allow for the turn- around of emergency and waste disposal vehicles, created the need for the variance for Lot 12. Second, TOOC artificially limits the criteria for granting a variance to "size, shape, and topography." The City's code indicates that those factors may be considered in granting a variance, but they are not the exclusive factors. Indeed, any "special circumstance" can serve as a basis for granting relief. (Santa Ana Municipal Code § 41- 638(a)(2)(i).) As described above, the imposition of a curve in Lyon Street is such a circumstance in this case. The materials referenced in this letter have been included as attachments for your reference. The School's representatives and consultants will be present at the March 4, 2014 City Council meeting, should you have any questions regarding these matters. R AN & TUCKER, LLP i� . Je ey T. Melchi JTM cc: David Cavazos, City Manager Maria D. Huizar, City Clerk Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney Karen Haluza, Interim Executive Director, Planning and Building Agency Vince Fregoso, Principal Planner 680/030670-0001 6747449.1 .03/03/14 EXHIBIT A -1 680/030670-0001 6946310/ x03/02/14 C®® CaVIahnp J /map.<onswnan.o.gw /c.hml P CX'IaCgnpaMartofCa w_.xl®Googie I I w1�fa° File Edit View Favormes Tools Help X ®OperiopolDays Dekbp EOpenlniedl0 aicanpartDacs ® - spN arcataank Info: Accessibility Disclaimer Abom Help .GOV Department of Conservation CalHOrnia Important Farmland Finder ve: ra. ?gum,: -0„r: - us.asssoa Er � BB- Q d O Chang efarnlandlayerngnsp ... rr,h- -- - -_ -__ - "I I r waeew CIFF Farmland Type Legend J9 P Slnm Prime Feemend Maere Oak R 1 Fermlantl or 5[tleWde report ce _ Mmrevla &mb� a 9ele5�E1 llnwe FamlaM Gevg LeN rQJ ole Arms. GI lora t1 tep mi G t io _ -' San Marro _ Rivers) PmmbW al LOeal hnpodence ere nay Temple some - el «aa -- ;jtr Anaheim c FsmkIM OI LOCeI PNelrtiel Pea�kna ran ci% «uw Other LarN netle lnlmmu Gabitl Bpl n9 Ford, Sallta Ana ! Cori Mind AgcWUe Rosemead Pie ye-St cevina Nme d. or Net.] Vegetation ��F, —® -,EI Monte �(Ly... 'Ma vac,m or oixhadad Lard M onerey roulM1 El e Reel Rezidentlel L" Perk i - C.r ogriwamid Rwtl Commercleli .�� so Wb,n end eohLp Land m lnla% Walnm La POenle - ' - Weta Prea Manlabello "i9eled FVmbM o I Nanbri9ated Femek n d ems. Bar W Or yAr, - Bell Gardena yrr. ieni La Habn y prings Hs hli J _ owney Norwalk t� Le hiree ns A.. eehA...r ara I eme ,wood °, La PIRI = Haw Is �{ land HIII n �t 1 h s . acSeri:a. � ■ 0 2 F1Y cePY^91A &2012 rG[e o(CaL(omia 6801030670.0001 6746310.1 .03/02/14 VA,X. ,07 EXHIBIT A -2 680/030690 -0001 6746310.1 03/02/14 �ooWw ©I )Ahttpr' p. naPOn. .gowonod.nbnl p -C% ICA Department of Consarv..- :®Gaogle iv hi 6) Re Edit Yew Favoritco Tads Help % ®Opminpd sOeskmp ®Opminpdmoczcomparrlo ® - ympf� oa,U In W: 4;.ocssibilfly Oisdalmer Abpol Help Department of Conservation California Important Farmland Finder tae. 3aasacaz P; - an.eszaza - hnv! /www.coez . wat 680/030670 -0001 6746310.1 a03/02/14 CIFF Farmland Type Legend ■ Pmnefambnd FaMantl of Stmewitle l�mace umwe Femdentl G.h, Lam Fambntlof LacPonpWarce Fambntlof LacsIorml gM1V Lentl ■ Confinetl M,.d Ag fiur. NaneglcuAnel or Hdura ,elmim Vacem or Doo reetl Lam nurarmstlmtim Lam mm Co oinlal Lora! Idnd IHwn amlam.Lgtam wma Arm "red Faminm Nonmgam FenJaM W of 9r', Area EXHIBIT B 680/030670 -0001 6946310) A3/01114 - Amma seL...rme�er, G..e..P. THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY A Mace Chn—. See.e ? DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Hridben Luthv, Dveeor CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION DMSION OF SAND RESOURCE PROTECTION FARM MAPHNG AND MONRORTNG PROGRAM IMPORTANT FARMLAND IN CALIFORNIA, 2006 CLASSIFICATION *ACREAGE `, �''sie1 f PRIA6 FARlILAND 5,J22,96J FARYIA.4D OF STATEWIDE 1tlF "MCE 2,160.609 VNIPUE FAFY D 1•]0].059 t A.. ? I � PARYLii]U OF LOC411lWiRA4CE 2.OW.<91 ' s ry 9x " � ♦.r.. Q GRA2DiG 1AND 16,621919 9 ANO EULLT -UP UNO 3,082.1]] _ ® OS}IEA IANO 19,060,899 WATER 709,591 Other Features \ • _ v.'y). Q NOT YAPPm 2006 FT91P SURVEY BOUNDARY - O comTY u!¢ MAJOR ROAD A' w COUNTY SEAT b P.ra£: r�iSUN] ,..® � IFN�g�ueNLPUMZblsewa •• b' t ' tl Y ¢0 NO�r LL I .xw 1 wWmmw vxco xmlxwaR mq. .. u� ^evC mmv bm. mss rommN cmu4 � . A mwaT� L. V l ,�y J ��'�nN Ptaxmm6 ecWeuc tC�tlYe�uxcv�x. m�i.x uw 6r Perteagidxpuw9�m c _ ) .i�� t1 m+PF^s�m r....n.P•,o..r�...r.=.... - rS G A 1z" 680/030670 -0001 6746310.1 a03/02/14 EXHIBIT C 680/030690 -0001 6746310.1 a03/02/14 o ®� M ,nr;: ca go ::::p - 20 % a FMMP - Prime Farmland D.., x ® Google f {•7 Q File Edrt View Favorilm Took Hdu DLRP > FMMP > Overview Prime Farmland as Mapped by FMMP Li 21 In order to be shown on FMMP's Important Farmland Maps as Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance, land must meet both the following criteria: FMMP - Overview o Overview r O Background O Funding 8 Legislation Has been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the four years prior to the Important Farmland Map date. Irrigated land use is determined by FMMP staff by analyzing 0 FMMP Survey Area current aerial photos, local comment letters, and related GIS data, supplemented with held verthcation. 0 Prime Farmland & FMMP —AND — 0 Ordering Products 0 Staff 0 She Index o FMMPHOME The soll must meet the physical and chemical cmena for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance as determined by the USDA Nature[ Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). NRCS compiles lists of which soils in each survey area meet the quality criteria. Factors considered in qualification of a soil by NRCS include_ • Water moisture regimes, available water capacity, and developed lrigatlon water supply • Soli temperature range • Acid - alkali balance • Watertable • Soil sodium content • Flooding (uncontrolled runoff from natural precipitation) • Erodlbility • Permeability rate • Rock fragment content • Soil rooting depth For more detail about the soil criteria and mapping caleggnes, please read this excerpt from the FMMP Guidelines. The Pnme/Stalewide lists for each county are available on the FMMP web site in PDF format Any questions specific to soil qualifications for Prime Fernand or Farmland of Statewide Importance lists should be directetl to your local NRCS office. For questions on compilation of Me Important Farmland Maps, contact FMMP_ The NRGS Soil Data Mart hosts original sail data In GIS formal- -see links below. 680/030670 -0001 6746310.1 a03/01114 EXHIBIT D 680/030670 -0001 6746310.1 a03103141 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL Instruction Manual -t y Y �+ I f i,l fi t . + .A J � f 1 - _ I f i,l fi t . + .A For further information, please contact: California Department of Conservation Office of Land Conservation 801 K Street, MS 13 -71 Sacramento, CA 95814 -3528 (916) 324 -0850 FAX (916) 327 -3430 © California Department of Conservation, 1997 The Department of Conservation makes no warranties as to the suitability of this product for any particular purpose. CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL LAND EVALUATION AND SITE ASSESSMENT MODEL Instruction Manual 1997 Department of Conservation Office of Land Conservation TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ExecutiveSummary ............................................................... ............................... 1 Introduction 2 Defining the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment System ........................... 2 Background on Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Nationwide.. ................................................................ __ .............. 2 Development of the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model .............................................. ............................... 3 The California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model ........................................................ ............................... 6 Section I. Required Resources and Information .................. ............................... 6 Section II. Defining and Scoring the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Factors .. ............................... 7 A. Scoring of Land Evaluation Factors ........ ............................... 7 1. The Land Capability Classification Rating ....................... 10 2. The Storie Index Rating ....................... ............................... 12 B. Scoring of Site Assessment Factors ...... ............................... 13 1. The Project Size Rating ....................... ............................... 13 2. The Water Resources Availability Rating ......................... 16 3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating ........................ 23 4. The Surrounding Protected Resource LandRating .......................................... ............................... 28 Section III. Weighting of Factors and Final Scoring ............ ............................... 29 Section IV. Scoring Thresholds for Making Determinations of Significance under CEQA .................................... ............................... 31 Bibliography............................................................................ ............................... 32 Appendix A. Abridged set of California LESA step -by -step scoring instructions ............................................ ............................... A -1 Appendix B. Application of the California LESA Model to a hypothetical proposed project ....................... ............................... B -1 i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) is a term used to define an approach for rating the relative quality of land resources based upon specific measurable features. The formulation of a California Agricultural LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812 /1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, with developing an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines concerning agricultural lands. Such an amendment is intended "to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process" (Public Resources Code Section 21095). The California Agricultural LESA Model is composed of six different factors. Two Land Evaluation factors are based upon measures of soil resource quality. Four Site Assessment factors provide measures of a given project's size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, each of these factors is separately rated on a 100 point scale. The factors are then weighted relative to one another and combined, resulting in a single numeric score for a given project, with a maximum attainable score of 100 points. It is this project score that becomes the basis for making a determination of a project's potential significance, based upon a range of established scoring thresholds. This Manual provides detailed instructions on how to utilize the California LESA Model, and includes worksheets for applying the Model to specific projects. INTRODUCTION Defining the LESA System The Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system is a point -based approach that is generally used for rating the relative value of agricultural land resources. In basic terms, a given LESA model is created by defining and measuring two separate sets of factors. The first set, Land Evaluation, includes factors that measure the inherent soil - based qualities of land as they relate to agricultural suitability. The second set, Site Assessment, includes factors that are intended to measure social, economic, and geographic attributes that also contribute to the overall value of agricultural land. While this dual rating approach is common to all LESA models, the individual land evaluation and site assessment factors that are ultimately utilized and measured can vary considerably, and can be selected to meet the local or regional needs and conditions for which a LESA model is being designed to address. In short, the LESA methodology lends itself well to adaptation and customization in individual states and localities. Considerable additional information on LESA may be found in A Decade with LESA - the Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (8). Background on LESA Nationwide In 1981, the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), known then as the Soil Conservation Service, released a new system that was designed to provide objective ratings of the agricultural suitability of land compared to demands for nonagricultural uses of lands. The system became known as Land Evaluation and Site Assessment, or LESA. Soon after it was designed, LESA was adopted as a procedural tool at the federal level for identifying and addressing the potential adverse effects of federal programs (e.g., funding of highway construction) on farmland protection. The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 (5) spells out requirements to ensure that federal programs, to the extent practical, are compatible with state, local, and private programs and policies to protect farmland, and calls for the use of LESA to aid in this analysis. Typically, staff of the NRCS is involved in performing LESA scoring analyses of individual projects that involve other agencies of the federal government. Since its inception, the LESA approach has received substantial attention from state and local governments as well. Nationwide, over two hundred jurisdictions have developed local LESA methodologies (7). One of the attractive features of the LESA approach is that it is well suited to being modified to reflect regional and local conditions. Typical local applications of LESA include assisting in decision making concerning the sitting of projects, changes in zoning, and spheres of influence determinations. LESA is also increasingly being utilized for farmland protection programs, such as the identification of priority areas to concentrate conservation easement acquisition efforts. Because of the inherent flexibility in LESA model design, there is a broad array of factors that a given LESA model can utilize. Some LESA models require the measurement of as many as twenty different factors. Over the past 15 years, the body of knowledge concerning LESA model development and application has begun to indicate that LESA models utilizing only several basic factors can capture much of the variability associated with the determination of the relative value of agricultural lands. In fact, LESA models with many factors are increasingly viewed as having redundancies, with different factors essentially measuring the same features, or being highly correlated with one another. Additional information on the evolution and development of the LESA approach is provided in, A Decade with LESA -The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (8). Development of the California Agricultural LESA Model In 1990 the Department of Conservation commissioned a study to investigate land use decisions that affect the conversion of agricultural lands in California. The study, conducted by Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc., was prepared in response to concerns about agricultural land conversion identified in the California Soil Conservation Plan (1) (developed by the ad hoc Soil Conservation Advisory Committee serving the Department of Conservation in 1987). Among these concerns was the belief that there was inadequate information available concerning the socioeconomic and environmental implications of farmland conversions, and that the adequacy of current farmland conversion impact analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was not fully known. The findings of this study are included in the publication, The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California (2). Currently, neither CEQA nor the State CEQA Guidelines contains procedures or specific guidance concerning how agencies should address farmland conversion impacts of projects. The only specific mention of agricultural issues is contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, which states that a project will normally have a significant effect on the environment if it will "convert prime agricultural land to non - agricultural use or impair the agricultural productivity of prime agricultural land'. Among the conclusions contained in The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California study was that the lack of guidance in how lead agencies should address the significance of farmland conversion impacts resulted in many instances of no impact analysis at all. A survey of environmental documents sent to the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) between 1986 and 1988 was performed. The survey showed that among projects that affected at least 100 acres of land and for which agriculture was a project issue, nearly 30 percent received Negative Declarations, and therefore did not did not receive the environmental impact analysis that would be provided by an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Of those projects involving the conversion of agricultural lands and being the subject of an EIR, the study found a broad range of approaches and levels of detail in describing the environmental setting, performing an impact analysis, and providing alternative mitigation measures. The only agricultural impacts found to be significant in the EIRs were those involving the direct removal of prime agricultural lands from production by the project itself. The focus on prime farmland conversion in the projects surveyed was deemed to be related to the narrow direction provided in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The formulation of a California LESA Model is the result of Senate Bill 850 (Chapter 812 /1993), which charges the Resources Agency, in consultation with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, to develop an amendment to Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Such an amendment is intended "to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process" (Public Resources Code Section 21095). This legislation authorizes the Department of Conservation to develop a California LESA Model, which can in turn be adopted as the required amendment to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Presentation of the California LESA Model The California LESA Model is presented in this Manual in the following sections: Section I. provides a listing of the information and tools that will typically be needed to develop LESA scores for individual projects. Section II. provides step -by -step instructions for scoring each of the six Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the Model, with an explanation of the rationale for the use of each factor. Section III. defines the assignment of weights to each of the factors relative to one another, and the creation of a final LESA score for a given project. Section IV. assigns scoring thresholds to final LESA scores for the purpose of determining the significance of a given project under CEQA where the conversion of agricultural lands is a project issue. Additionally: Appendix A. provides an abridged set of step -by -step LESA scoring instructions that can be used and reproduced for scoring individual projects. Appendix B. demonstrates the application of the California LESA Model to the scoring of a hypothetical project. The California Agricultural LESA Model Section I. Required Resources and Information The California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) Model requires the use and interpretation of basic land resource information concerning a given project. A series of measurements and calculations is also necessary to obtain a LESA score. Listed below are the materials and tools that will generally be needed to make these determinations. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment calculations will require: 1. A calculator or other means of tabulating numbers 2. An accurately scaled map of the project area, such as a parcel map 3. A means for making acreage determinations of irregularly shaped map units. Options include, from least to most technical: A transparent grid- square or dot - planimeter method of aerial measurement • A hand operated electronic planimeter The automatic planimetry capabilities of a Geographic Information System (GIS) 4. A modern soil survey, generally produced by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, which delineates the soil- mapping units for a given project. [Note: If modern soil survey information is not available for a given area of study, it may be necessary to draw upon the services of a professional soil scientist to perform a specific project survey]. 5. Maps that depict land uses for parcels including and surrounding the project site, such as the Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Map series, the Department of Water Resources Land Use map series, or other appropriate information. 6. Maps or information that indicate the location of parcels including and surrounding the project site that are within agricultural preserves, are under public ownership, have conservation easements, or have other forms of long term commitments that are considered compatible with the agricultural use of a given project site. Section II. Defining and Scoring the California Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model Factors This section provides detailed step -by -step instructions for the measurement and scoring of each of the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors that are utilized in the California Agricultural LESA Model, and is intended to serve as an introduction to the process of utilizing the Model. Once users are familiar with the Model, a more streamlined set of instructions and scoring sheets is available in Appendix A. In addition, the scoring of a hypothetical project is presented using these scoring sheets in Appendix B. Scorinq of Land Evaluation Factors The California LESA Model includes two Land Evaluation factors that are separately rated: 1. The Land Capability Classification Rating 2. The Storie Index Rating The information needed to make these ratings is typically available from soil surveys that have been conducted by the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service). Consultation should be made with NRCS staff (Feld offices exist in most counties) to assure that valid and current soil resource information is available for the project site. Copies of soil surveys are available at local Feld offices of the NRCS, and may also be available through libraries, city and county planning departments, the Cooperative Extension, and other sources. In addition, a Certified Professional Soil Scientist (CPSS) may also be consulted to obtain appropriate soil resource information for the project site. A directory of CPSS registered soil consultants is available through the Professional Soil Scientists Association of California, P.O. Box 3213, Yuba City, CA 95992 -3213; phone: (916) 671 -4276. 1) The USDA Land Capability Classification (LCC) - The LCC indicates the suitability of soils for most kinds of crops. Groupings are made according to the limitations of the soils when used to grow crops, and the risk of damage to soils when they are used in agriculture. Soils are rated from Class I to Class VIII, with soils having the fewest limitations receive the highest rating (Class 1). Specific subclasses are also utilized to further characterize soils. An expanded explanation of the LCC is included in most soil surveys. 2) The Storie Index- The Storie Index provides a numeric rating (based upon a 100 point scale) of the relative degree of suitability or value of a given soil for intensive agriculture. The rating is based upon soil characteristics only. Four factors that represent the inherent characteristics and qualities of the soil are considered in the index rating. The factors are: profile characteristics, texture of the surface layer, slope, and other factors (e.g., drainage, salinity). In some situations, only the USDA Land Capability Classification information may be currently available from a given published soil survey. However, Storie Index ratings can readily be calculated from information contained in soil surveys by qualified soil scientists. Users are encouraged to seek assistance from NRCS staff or Certified Professional Soil Scientists to derive Storie Index information for the soils as well. If, however, limitations of time or resources restrict the derivation of Storie Index ratings for the soils within a region, it may be possible to adapt the Land Evaluation by relying solely upon the LCC rating. Under this scenario the LCC rating would account for 50 percent of the overall LESA factor weighting. Identifyina a Project's Soils In order to rate the Land Capability Classification and Storie Index factors, the evaluator must identify the soils that exist on a given project site and determine their relative proportions. A Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.) is used to tabulate these figures, based upon the following: Step 1. Locate the project on the appropriate map sheet in the Soil Survey. Step 2. Photocopy the map sheet and clearly delineate the project boundaries on the map, paying close attention to the map scale. Step 3. Identify all of the soil mapping units existing in the project site (each mapping unit will have a different map unit symbol) and enter the each mapping unit symbol in Column A of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A). Step 4. Calculate the acreage of each soil mapping unit present within the project site using any of the means identified in Section 1, Required Resources and Information, and enter this information in Column B. Step 5. Divide the acres of each soil mapping unit by the total project acreage to determine the proportion of each unit that comprises the project, and enter this information in Column C. 1. Land Evaluation -The Land Capability Classification Rating Step 1. In the Guide to Mapping Units typically found within soil surveys, identify the Land Capability Classification (LCC) designation (e.g., IV -e) for each mapping unit that has been identified in the project and enter these designations in Column D of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.). Step 2. From Table 2., The Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units, obtain a numeric score for each mapping unit, and enter these scores in Column E. Step 3. Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit (Column C) by the LCC points for each mapping unit (Column E) and enter the resulting scores in Column F. Step 4. Sum the LCC scores in Column F to obtain a single LCC Score for the project. Enter this LCC Score in Line 1 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8) Table 2. Numeric Conversion of Land Capability Classification Units Land LCC Capability Point Classification Rating 1 100 Ile 90 IIs,W 80 Ille 70 IIIs,W 60 IVe 50 IVs,W 40 V 30 VI 20 VII 10 VIII 0 10 y d L N Y LO C O d > w m � m m H J V U U c LL O ca R O w V) W N L N O R V U U) wx d 4 C R Q L R U Z U C 'O � m o a N — Y d L N O O O y U d V% Q L N � N N i Cl) O U i y U w d Y C �O — m x L L N N y m N d O m N r y d Q U 4 d U U y U y d L N Y LO C O d > w m � m m H J V U U c LL O ca R O w V) W N L N O R V U U) wx d 4 C R Q L R U Z U C 'O � m o a N — L N O O % 2. Land Evaluation - The Storie Index Rating Score Step 1. From the appropriate soil survey or other sources of information identified in Appendix C, determine the Storie Index Rating (the Storie Index Rating is already based upon a 100 point scale) for each mapping unit and enter these values in Column G of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A.). Step 2. Multiply the proportion of each soil mapping unit found within the project (Column C) by the Storie Index Rating (Column G), and enter these scores in Column H. Step 3. Sum the Storie Index Rating scores in Column H to obtain a single Storie Index Rating score for the project. Enter this Storie Index Rating Score in Line 2 of the Final LESA Worksheet (Table 8) 12 Scoring of Site Assessment Factors The California LESA Model includes four Site Assessment factors that are separately rated: 1. The Project Size Rating 2. The Water Resources Availability Rating 3. The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating 4. The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Site Assessment - The Project Size Rating The Project Size Rating relies upon acreage figures that were tabulated under the Land Capability Classification Rating in Table 1 A. The Project Size rating is based upon identifying acreage figures for three separate groupings of soil classes within the project site, and then determining which grouping generates the highest Project Size Score. Step 1. Using information tabulated in Columns B and D of the Land Evaluation Worksheet (Table 1A), enter acreage figures in Site Assessment Worksheet 1. - Project Size (Table 1 B) using either Column I, J, or K for each of the soil mapping units in a given project. Step 2. Sum the entries in Column I to determine the total acreage of Class I and II soils on the project site. Sum the entries in Column J to determine the total acreage of Class III soils on the project site. Sum the entries in Column K to determine the total acreage of Class IV and lower rated soils on the project site. Step 3. For each of the three columns, apply the appropriate scoring plan provided in Table 3, Project Size Scoring, and enter the Project Size Score for each grouping in the Site Assessment Worksheet 1. - Project Size (Table 1 B). Determine which column generates the highest score. The highest score becomes the overall Project Size Score. Enter this number in Line 3 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8 ). 13 Table 3. Project Size Scoring LCC Class I or II soils LCC Class III soils LCC Class IV or lower Acres Score Acres Score Acres Score 80 or above 100 160 or above 100 320 or above 100 60 -79 90 120 -159 90 240 -319 80 40 -59 80 80 -119 80 160 -239 60 20 -39 50 60 -79 70 100 -159 40 10 -19 30 40 -59 60 40 -99 20 fewer than 10 0 20 -39 30 fewer than 40 0 10 -19 10 fewer than 10 0 Explanation of the Project Size Factor The Project Size factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was developed in cooperation with Nichols- Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is presented by Nichols- Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3). The inclusion of the measure of a project's size in the California Agricultural LESA Models is a recognition of the role that farm size plays in the viability of commercial agricultural operations. In general, larger farming operations can provide greater flexibility in farm management and marketing decisions. Certain economies of scale for equipment and infrastructure can also be more favorable for larger operations. In addition, larger operations tend to have greater impacts upon the local economy through direct employment, as well as impacts upon support industries (e.g., fertilizers, farm equipment, and shipping) and food processing industries. While the size of a given farming operation may in many cases serve as a direct indicator of the overall economic viability of the operation, The California Agricultural LESA Model does not specifically consider the issue of economic viability. The variables of economic viability for a specific farm include such factors as the financial management and farming skills of the operator, as well as the debt load and interest rates being paid by an individual operator, which are issues that cannot readily be included in a statewide LESA model. 14 In terms of agricultural productivity, the size of a farming operation can be considered not just from its total acreage, but the acreage of different quality lands that comprise the operation. Lands with higher quality soils lend themselves to greater management and cropping flexibility and have the potential to provide a greater economic return per unit acre. For a given project, instead of relying upon a single acreage figure in the Project Size rating, the project is divided into three acreage groupings based upon the Land Capability Classification ratings that were previously determined in the Land Evaluation analysis. Under the Project Size rating, relatively fewer acres of high quality soils are required to achieve a maximum Project Size score. Alternatively, a maximum score on lesser quality soils could also be derived, provided there is a sufficiently large acreage present. Acreage figures utilized in scoring are the synthesis of interviews that were conducted statewide for growers of a broad range of crops. In the interviews growers were queried as to what acreage they felt would be necessary in order for a given parcel to be considered attractive for them to farm. The USDA LCC continues to be the most widely available source of information on land quality. Project Size under this definition is readily measurable, and utilizes much of the same information needed to score a given project under the Land Evaluation component of the methodology. This approach also complements the LE determination, which, while addressing soil quality, does not account for the total acreage of soils of given qualities within a project. This approach allows for an accounting of the significance of high quality agricultural land as well as lesser quality agricultural lands, which by virtue of their large area can be considered significant agricultural resources. In this way, no single acreage figure for a specific class of soils (e.g., soils defined as "prime ") is necessary. 15 Site Assessment - The Water Resources Availability Rating The Water Resources Availability Rating is based upon identifying the various water sources that may supply a given property, and then determining whether different restrictions in supply are likely to take place in years that are characterized as being periods of drought and non - drought. Site Assessment Worksheet 2. -Water Resources Availability Worksheet (Table 4) is used to tabulate the score. Step 1. Identify the different water resource types that are used to supply the proposed project site (for example, irrigation district water, ground water, and riparian water are considered to be three different types of water resources). Where there is only one water source identified for the proposed project, skip to Step 4. Step 2. Divide the proposed project site into portions, with the boundaries of each portion being defined by the irrigation water source(s) supplying it. A site that is fully served by a single source of water will have a single portion, encompassing the entire site. A site that is fully served by two or more sources that are consistently merged together to serve a crop's needs would also have a single portion. (e.g., a portion of the proposed project may receive both irrigation district and groundwater). If the project site includes land that has no irrigation supply, consider this acreage as a separate portion as well. Enter the water resource portions of the project in Column B of Table 4, Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability. [As an example, a hypothetical project site is determined to have four separate water supply portions: Portion 1 is served by irrigation district water only; Portion 2 is served by ground water only; Portion 3 is served by both irrigation district water and ground water; Portion 4 is not irrigated at all.] Step 3. Calculate the proportion of the total project area that is represented by each water resource portion, and enter these figures in Column C of Site Assessment Worksheet 2. - Water Resources Availability, verifying that the sum of the proportions equals 1.0. 16 T Y 4 R ca Q N d L 3 O N CD L Y R N d d t N Y L O Y N N d N N Q d Y_ cn d ca R J M 101 u 0 O _T _ O O Q L P R O X U aC/) Q O R T co L o Q) w i m cn O > V) O R a) E oa =o U) V o O cnn O O O O L 2 a a L N a) L m D O U C: O O 'E t� r N M It LO CO aLa° r Step 4. For each water resource supply portion of the project site, determine whether irrigated and dryland agriculture is feasible, and if any physical or economic restrictions exist, during both drought and non - drought years. These italicized terms are defined below: • Aphysical restriction is an occasional or regular interruption or reduction in a water supply, or a shortened irrigation season, that forces a change in agricultural practices -- such as planting a crop that uses less water, or leaving land fallow. (This could be from cutbacks in supply by irrigation and water districts, or by ground or surface water becoming depleted or unusable. Poor water quality can also result in a physical restriction -- for example by requiring the planting of salt - tolerant plants, or by effectively reducing the amount of available water.) • An economic restriction is a rise in the cost of water to a level that forces a reduction in consumption. (This could be from surcharge increases from water suppliers as they pass along the cost of finding new water supplies, the extra cost of pumping more ground water to make up for losses in surface water supplies, or the extra energy costs of pumping the same amount of ground water from deeper within an aquifer.) • Irrigated agricultural production is feasible when: 1) There is an existing irrigation system on the project site that can serve the portion of the project identified in Step 2; 2) Physical and /or economic restrictions are not severe enough to halt production; and 3) It is possible to achieve a viable economic return on crops though irrigated production. (A major question that should be considered is, if there is an irrigated crop that can be grown within the region, can it actually be grown on the project site? Depending upon the jurisdiction, some typical crops that have a large water demand may not be feasible to grow on the project site, while others that require less water are feasible. Information to aid in making this determination can be obtained from county agricultural commissioners, the UC Cooperative Extension, irrigation districts, and other sources.) • Dryland production is feasible when rainfall is adequate to allow an economically viable return on a nonirrigated crop. • Adrought year is a year that lies within a defined drought period, as defined by the Department of Water Resources or by a local water agency. Many regions of the state are by their and nature dependent upon imports of water to support irrigated agriculture. These regions shall not be considered under periods of drought unless a condition of drought is declared for the regions that typically would be providing water exports. it.] Step 5. Each of the project's water resource supply portions identified in Step 2 is scored separately. Water Resources Availability scoring is performed by identifying the appropriate condition that applies to each portion of the project, as identified in Table 5., Water Resource Availability Scoring. Using Table 5, identify the option that best describes the water resource availability for that portion and its corresponding water resource score. Option 1 defines the condition of no restrictions on water resource availability and is followed progressively with increasing restrictions to Option 14, the most severe condition, where neither irrigated nor dryland production is considered feasible. Enter each score into Column D of Table 4. Step 6. For each portion of the project site, determine the section's weighted score by multiplying the portion's score (Column D), by its proportion of the project area (Column C), and enter these scores in Column E, the weighted Water Availability Score. Sum the Column E scores to obtain the total Water Resource Availability Score, and enter this figure in Line 4 of the Final LESA Score Sheet (Table 8). 19 a7 C O U Y Q R R Q N L 7 O N R L6 N R F W U W Df W D Q OO U) O m OM IO O t0 LO O M O O QO U r O 0 M N� O m 11' M M N N W Of U y C E O t vi � � i C .' O}} O} O} U N W Of N z Z m N M C } U U O_ O O O U) U) U) t Z Z Z} O fn d N p W Of o a N co p p 'O 0 N :-. — R O O O O o y } } } }' } } } Z Z Z Z 0 .0-0 — O N d LL O O L V) N N A R > R i o c j'C _��,.00W000WOWOW 0 'i Z Z} Z Z Z} Z} Z )., O R c O W (D 3 O O En U) O N O N O N } Z O a N m R m Q -a R O R co T C � OOOOO W W OZww =3 co O TNC'. } } } } O D CO d a) i W C O C O C O Z U O U O '6 7 1) 7 C N C C,. _0 C O .- -0 C O N OU 4 fn (n (n (n (n (n Cn Cn Cn Cn Cn O_ O a O ,� @ L —a`L a)o.a)o w 'L L CL L L L n Z C O .n r N CO V' LO Co I- co O r N O 0 N Explanation of the Water Resource Availability Rating The Water Resource Availability factor in the California Agricultural LESA Model was developed in cooperation with Nichols- Berman, a consulting firm under contract with the Department of Conservation. A thorough discussion of the development of this rating is presented by Nichols- Berman in a report to the Department entitled, Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors (3). During the development of this factor it became apparent that certain conditions unique to California would need to be represented in this system. First, it was decided to classify water reliability based upon the effects on agricultural production (such as being forced to change to lower -value crops, putting in groundwater pumps, or cutting back on the acreage farmed) rather than the actual type of limitation (such as a limitation on the quantity, frequency, or duration of water delivery). LESA systems have traditionally focused on the latter. However, it was found that the many types of limitations are too varied in California to adequately represent in the LESA system. In the Statewide LESA system, these effects are referred to as restrictions. Second, the factor had to include an interrelation with cost. The historical shortages and unreliability of California water use has led to the establishment of various interconnected and dual systems. Probably more than any other state, reliability is related with cost -- a more reliable water supply can sometimes be obtained, but at a greater cost. Therefore, restrictions were classified into two major categories -- physical and economic. These are separated because, generally, a physical restriction is more severe than an economic restriction and this should be reflected in the LESA system. Third, the factor had to include the effects of the drought cycle in California. During the drought of 1987 to 1992, many agricultural areas of the state experienced water shortages. The impact of these shortages resulted in a number of different actions. Some areas were able to avoid the worst effects of the drought simply by implementing water conservation measures. Other areas were able to obtain additional water supplies, such as by securing water transfers or simply pumping more groundwater, but at an increase in the overall price of water. Other options included shifting crops, replanting to higher value crops to offset the increase in water prices, or leaving land fallow. A project site that experiences restrictions during a drought year should not be scored as high as a similar project site that does not. The easiest way to make determinations of irrigation feasibility and the potential restrictions of water sources is to investigate the cropping history of the project site. For instance, was the water supply to the project site reduced by the local irrigation district during the last drought? If the site has a ground water supply, do area ground water levels sometimes drop to levels that force markedly higher energy costs to pump the water? PAN If the history of the project site is unavailable (including when the site has recently installed an irrigation system), look at the history of the general area. However, remember that the project site may have different conditions than the rest of the region. For instance, the project site could have an older water right than others in the region. Although certain areas of the state had severe restrictions on water deliveries during the last drought, some parcels within these areas had very secure deliveries due to more senior water rights. If this was the case in the region of the project site, check the date of water right and compare it with parcels that received their total allotment during the last drought. The local irrigation district should have information on water deliveries. The scoring of water resource availability for a project site should not just reflect the adequacies of water supply in the past -- it should be a prediction of how the water system will perform in the future. For instance, a local jurisdiction might find that the allocation of flows to stream and river systems has been recently increased for environmental reasons, which will decrease the future available surface water supply. In this case, the past history of the site is not an adequate representation of future water supply and water system performance. 22 3. Site Assessment -The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating Determination of the surrounding agricultural land use rating is based upon the identification of a project's "Zone of Influence" (ZOI), which is defined as that land near a given project, both directly adjoining and within a defined distance away, that is likely to influence, and be influenced by, the agricultural land use of the subject project site. The determination of the ZOI is described below, and is illustrated with an example in Figure 1. Defining a Project's "Zone of Influence" Step 1. Locate the proposed project on an appropriate map and outline the area and dimensions of the proposed project site. Step 2. Determine the smallest rectangle that will completely contain the project site (Rectangle A). Step 3. Create a second rectangle (Rectangle B) that extends 0.25 mile (1320 feet) beyond Rectangle A on all sides. Step 4. Identify all parcels that are within or are intersected by Rectangle B. Step 5. Define the project site's "zone of influence" as the entire area of all parcels identified in Step 4, less the area of the proposed project from Step 1. [In the illustration provided in Figure 1, Parcels W, X, and Y extend beyond Rectangle B and are therefore included in their entirety in defining the project site's Zone of Influence.] 23 Figure 1: Defining a Project's Zone of Influence =1 Rectangle A Iry Step i_ Determine the Step 2. Determine the area and dimensions smallest rectangle that %ill 07 thr ro' t completely nmtain the protect p Jec site ltndicated as Rectangle Al. 4 mll Rectangle a Step 3. Create a second rectangle (Rectangle g) that extends 0.25 mile (1320 feet) beyond Rectangle A on all sides. Step 4. Identify all parcels that are nithm or are intersected by Rectangle g. Ila* Step S. Define the project's 'zone of influence' as the entire area of all parcels Identified In Step 4, less the area of the proposed project from Step 1. In this esampie parcels W X, and Y extend beyond Rectangle a and are therefinre included in the their entirety in defining the project's zone of influence. Measuring Surrounding Agricultural Land Step 1. Calculate the percentage of the project's Zone of Influence that is currently producing agricultural crops. [This figure can be determined using information from the Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Map Series, the Department of Water Resources' Land Use Map Series, locally derived maps, or direct site inspection. For agricultural land that is currently fallowed, a determination must be made concerning whether the land has been fallowed as part of a rotational sequence during normal agricultural operations, or because the land has become formally "committed" to a nonagricultural use. Land that has become formally committed, whether fallow or not should not generally be included in determining the proportion of the Zone of Influence that is agricultural land. For further information on the definition of Committed Land, refer to the following Explanation of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating.] Step 2. Based on the percentage of agricultural land in the ZOI determined in Step 1, assign a Surrounding Agricultural Land score to the project according to Table 6, and enter this score in Line 5 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8) . Table 6. Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating Percent of Project's Zone of Influence in Agricultural Use Surrounding Agricultural Land Score 90-100% 100 Points 80-89 90 75-79 80 70-74 70 65-69 60 60-64 50 55-59 40 50-54 30 45 -49 20 40 -44 10 40 < 0 25 Explanation of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating The Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating is designed to provide a measurement of the level of agricultural land use for lands in close proximity to a subject project. The California Agricultural LESA Model rates the potential significance of the conversion of an agricultural parcel that has a large proportion of surrounding land in agricultural production more highly than one that has a relatively small percentage of surrounding land in agricultural production. The definition of a "Zone of Influence" that accounts for surrounding lands up to a minimum of one quarter mile from the project boundary is the result of several iterations during model development for assessing an area that will generally be a representative sample of surrounding land use. Ina simple example, a single one quarter mile square project (160 acres) would have a Zone of Influence that is a minimum of eight times greater (1280 acres) that the parcel itself. Land within a Zone of Influence that is observed to be fallow will require a case by case determination of whether this land should be considered agricultural land. The Department of Conservation's Important Farmland Maps may be of assistance in making this determination. In addition, land currently in agricultural production may be designated as being "committed" to future nonagricultural development. The Department of Conservation's Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program has a land use designation of Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use, and is defined as "land that is permanently committed by local elected officials to nonagricultural development by virtue of decisions which cannot be reversed simply by a majority vote of a city council or county board of supervisors. The "committed" land must be so designated in an adopted local general plan, and must also meet the requirements of either (a) or (b) below: (a). It must have received one of the following final discretionary approvals: Or 1. Tentative subdivision map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act); 2. Tentative or final parcel map (approved per the Subdivision Map Act); 3. Recorded development agreement (per Government Code §65864); 4. Other decisions by a local government which are analogous to items #1 -3 above and which exhibit an element of permanence. Zoning by itself does not qualify as a permanent commitment. I1 (b) It must be the subject of one of the final fiscal commitments to finance the capital improvements specifically required for future development of the land in question as shown below: 1. Recorded Resolution of Intent to form a district and levy an assessment; 2. Payment of assessment; 3. Sale of bonds; 4. Binding contract, secured by bonds, guaranteeing installation of infrastructure; 5. Other fiscal commitments which are analogous to items #1-4 above and exhibit an element of permanence." Lead agencies are encouraged to identify Land Committed to Nonagricultural Use within a project's ZOI and make the determination whether this land, while still in agricultural production, be considered nonagricultural land for the purposes of the calculation performed here. 27 4. Site Assessment -The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating The Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating is essentially an extension of the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, and is scored in a similar manner. Protected resource lands are those lands with long term use restrictions that are compatible with or supportive of agricultural uses of land. Included among them are the following: • Williamson Act contracted lands • Publicly owned lands maintained as park, forest, or watershed resources • Lands with agricultural, wildlife habitat, open space, or other natural resource easements that restrict the conversion of such land to urban or industrial uses. Instructions for the Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Step 1. Utilizing the same "Zone of Influence" (ZOI) area calculated for a project under the Surrounding Agricultural Land Rating, calculate the percentage of the ZOI that is Protected Resource Land, as defined above. Step 2. Assign a Surrounding Protected Resource Land score to the project according to Table 7, and enter this score on Line 6 of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8 ). Table 7. Surrounding Protected Resource Land Rating Percent of Project's Zone of Influence Defined as Protected Surrounding Protected Resource Land Score 90-100% 100 Points 80-89 90 75-79 80 70-74 70 65 -69 60 60 -64 50 55-59 40 50-54 30 45 -49 20 40-44 10 40 < 0 28 Section III. Weighting of Factors and Final LESA Scoring The California LESA Model is weighted so that 50 percent of the total LESA score of a given project is derived from the Land Evaluation factors, and 50 percent from the Site Assessment factors. Individual factor weights are listed below, with the sum of the factor weights required to equal 100 percent. Land Evaluation Factors Land Capability Classification 25% Storie Index Rating 25% Land Evaluation Subtotal 50% Site Assessment Factors Project Size 15% Water Resource Availability 15% Surrounding Agricultural Lands 15% Surrounding Protected Resource Lands 5% Site Assessment Subtotal 50% Total LESA Factor Weighting 100% Each factor is measured separately (each on 100 point scale) and entered in the appropriate line in Column B of the Final LESA Scoresheet (Table 8). Each factor's score is then multiplied by its respective factor weight, resulting in a weighted factor score in Column D as indicated in Table 8. The weighted factor scores are summed, yielding a Total LESA Score (100 points maximum ) for a given project, which is entered in Line 7 of Column D. 29 Fa— Lail d Q) L N O O v � Q a LU W J O C LL QC Q) Q) H 0 m Q) L L 01 y0 C A co M �� W a) c J V I I II II II II II II O O � L C O U r t II N N O O) Co O O 6666 a w y 0 co W L J L O U � Q) x x x x x x () L O) Z 3 � c 0 O O E O. 0 co Co v LL O 1 p N CI) V to O N Q) 0 0 0 0 C C C C C C J J J J J J V V V V V V C O !n 0 C _ U Q) w _ C Q) (6 N N =; J cu Z L U c Q N �L = U O) 0 co Q Q) LL X .- O O O Q' O Q) O_ 0 Co O N N N C Q) 6 LO C U— U Q7 L O U O Jln L w Q Ua. C �N Q) 04 CO d' Q) = J U) 0 m Section IV. California Agricultural LESA Scoring Thresholds - Making Determinations of Significance Under CEQA A single LESA score is generated for a given project after all of the individual Land Evaluation and Site Assessment factors have been scored and weighted as detailed in Sections 2 and 3. Just as with the scoring of individual factors that comprise the California Agricultural LESA Model, final project scoring is based on a scale of 100 points, with a given project being capable of deriving a maximum of 50 points from the Land Evaluation factors and 50 points from the Site Assessment factors. The California Agricultural LESA Model is designed to make determinations of the potential significance of a project's conversion of agricultural lands during the Initial Study phase of the CEQA review process. Scoring thresholds are based upon both the total LESA score as well as the component LE and SA subscores. In this manner the scoring thresholds are dependent upon the attainment of a minimum score for the LE and SA subscores so that a single threshold is not the result of heavily skewed subscores (i.e., a site with a very high LE score, but a very low SA score, or vice versa). Table 9 presents the California Agricultural LESA scoring thresholds. Table 9. California LESA Model Scoring Thresholds Total LESA Score Scoring Decision 0 to 39 Points Not Considered Significant 40 to 59 Points Considered Significant only if LE and SA subscores are each rg eater than or equal to 20 points 60 to 79 Points Considered Significant unless either LE or SA subscore is less than 20 points 80 to 100 Points Considered Significant 31 Bibliography 1. Conserving the Wealth of the Land- A Plan for Soil Conservation, Department of Conservation. 1987. The Impacts of Farmland Conversion in California. Prepared by Jones and Stokes, Associates, Inc., for the California Department of Conservation. 1991. Statewide LESA Methodologies Report - Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors. Prepared by Nichols - Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995. 4. LESA Guidelines for Local Jurisdictions -Project Size and Water Resource Availability Factors. Prepared by Nichols - Berman, for the Department of Conservation. 1995. 5. Office of the Federal Register National Archives and Records Administration. The Farmland Protection and Policy Act, part 658. Code of Federal Regulations - Agriculture, Parts 400 to 699. 1990. Pease, J and R. Coughlin. Land Evaluation and Site Assessment: A Guidebook for Rating Agricultural Lands, Second Edition; prepared for the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service; Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1996. 7. Pease, J., et al. State and Local LESA Systems: Status and Evaluation; In: Steiner, F., J. Pease, and R. Coughlin, eds. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994. 8. Steiner, F., J. Pease, and R. Coughlin, eds. A Decade with LESA: The Evolution of Land Evaluation and Site Assessment. Soil and Water Conservation Society. 1994. 32 CD / CO 2 \ 3 a / k \ 0 z ; 0 / CL CL \ 0 / § G f (V LL L) \k§{ {G§§ })\§ \ \ j 0 x j k IL IL E a \ d/ E ( ®) \\ \\ )w ;& /- w0 \\ tR =0 Co \ §) X } \ j \ )\ C5 {E ,D (D to f3 \/Z \ \()\ / - 2 r§ k/ C \ ( GS �E \ \ 3 )\d ca 6 a ° -0 ) \( /)/ 3 (f ®3% \ CD _�- \ _ E m { /),) \�) [|»§\ } »2;�e \/Z 0-0. \} `,®) (A a) { 7 ) 0 C\ mot\ =«�| oe °27ow000 ;r§qa) cL) . -« �o -, cn{ 2]))# CL3Z7�m( / \{ Jfff \)(D .rr ; - ® >E ` &aML)'0 E �00L)0f32y / C«£E+(D a \ 0 z ; 0 / CL CL \ 0 / § G f (V LL L) \k§{ {G§§ })\§ \ \ j 0 x j k IL IL E a \ d/ E ( ®) \\ \\ )w ;& /- w0 \\ tR =0 Co \ §) X } \ j \ )\ C5 {E ,D (D to f3 \/Z \ \()\ / r Y d d t fA Y O w C d E N N d N N Gl d d s Y O c O w R w v c R J d O U U) d N_ 65 V d .O aL Y 2 LL C O Y R U N d W R U U y w y o R y �L R U 0 U R J C J � R Kol EN U U> U� JU> � 0 0 -S U 1O U U) J (� d a Cl) N N X R CO V C N U f7 O 'O U — U) i m U o J Co U O L, Q) Y V y O Q V V O O 1 w O O O ti d � a x 0 m m I � 0 0 -S U 1O U U) d a N X CO V C N f7 O 'O y U) i m o Co U O U O U J cn J ~ -i U U J O /N \ U) Q O U N O 0 a L CO G a U M N N O U L a a n R E R .+ o U) 1 w O O O ti d � a x 0 m m I 0 U N N N i LU w J 0 o c T d E N N C t0 U _N N U f0 N O N N 0 Z N N N 0 0 n- N - N U N N N W N N 'y N ID L) O O O C U y U 'O 0_ O R W N N N N~ N T= O _ .LO-. O .L-. 0_O C n C N 'C C J _O O L 3 U CD y N - c 'LN" (O N N O N O - U N N � � N'O O N O) .O U .. N = ! N a o U) N N N N O C N E 'C N N 0_ O O N Co V U U _ w N O y N O 0 0 C "O U N L C C C n > p Q N O 3 J O N L ` O 0 0 0 n o m m M @U N O" . O 6 O 0 2 J _ 0 N 5 d E 0 w C C O N o i c 7 E C N L C�7 E U cOi � a) N a) oo o N N 'O � O N ..L. 0) d N w - N N N o c O C- n Y O > Naco3a-O)EEEL o d + cU) U 7 7 7- V . d y E Na) 0 0 02? O- 'p �?� o UUU i c o E E E E a c m 0.'NU�m���oL Z) E oM U)cAmU v 0EL o--�� 3 a WI Z N C O 0 C) C) 0 3a °O� O J O N N m O) O) R m N M N, m V U 0 A N (00 O V CD N C c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 'O - m of I- O M a N f0 U a) ° mcLo rnrnrnrn N O cam- r U� M V UA O O' 0 0 0 0° Q N W CO V N N O) of l0 M ° U L d O Nto R U ( (� m O rnrnrnrn N M V T A Q A O V N a N •L- 0 A M V 0 N N O m .U. U U U N d L N w E 0 N O N N N L W L Q N O Y N 0a N c 0 N ei = .. CO d 2 O O. O fA wL+ N W C J W M — c to LL N d cu M { ( \ 0 k § 7 CV - -0 / / 2 \�) { - / (k )(j / \ (o SD �� { m U) \\ - \ } § \ k� a)0 \| $ J ) - { t0 \� �§ _ {| - \ _ \G - \§ \ ! £)) ) - S! ® ) §} U), mom= 7! - ) 0 a) _ �)\ \- ` {, > ) )I® »2 { _ - \ \\ ) - §{ 0 \ { /e § \a ){ \ § §a) ° _ ) *(� 0ZQ f \J \| %E ) I _ , �_ \� C U) a) ) /d )))) k` ( \ f_§ �)} )} f( _ ff a�= »/f # - j ) �jD \2a 3\ \ - ;G Q ak 2/ «2£ E. = =m �� � { ( \ 0 k § r 4 Q N d O O N d v m N d d L Y O G v N U1 d Ul N Q w m lal U EN 0 N a N N a 6 vi L L Q w o w a y N �i ) � Q O @ a) E o Q U o 0 t r a N j O CL d N N � >f0 > (n U C O O .O O N M 7 O a a 0 N a N N a 6 vi ,E m H rn c Q U T L A Q a+ 3 O N m tY m G W K W F O Q 00 O) O CA O W t0 N (fl O Y1 V' N M O M M N O N O W U) U � O O n 0— W Z W Y w i T m C N m c Cl N c a) O a) U) O L O C c a m U C c N J O UO n N N a) .O. N L O = Q N m m a) C N — O a) O c w N N N O @ O O E - 0 C a) a) O O U m m m N w O O w m C c N 0 O m] O = O N C N L N C @ T p N @ ~O @ a U N C N ^ = O N L O w@ d ai m C a J m m 3 m w @ w a — — `a c N 0 @ O U N U N'O C O m = m 0� w (6 w a) N m 3 c m •` m O N 0_ rn m N 3 v N m 0 U— °m - aam°'mm N O r L= Q 0 N m` U w Co L C Q C n a> w c 0 0 0@ N (O m C)N m m Nw w 3 �m5 aiN mmcD (D (D 0�� E a0 = m e w - 3 0M w�a)dE m 0-0 5 U U) m m a)a � a) a) II a) a) m U —U)00 o-p- _ a M ry m a 0 U N a) y L Y Q Z lLJ J W a H r c 0 V N c J m 7 U Q rn c C 7 O C A d O V U C � C C � Q J M N o 7 °o w m m Ln LO v v o C U V 'v m O m LO I� O Lq f0 O CO N LO 0 LO Ln 7 O V 7 rn Q a 0 N v n I M d d r Y O C d N N d N tl! a w a 0 L IF w Cam] Pal 0 N W N U n I C U 7 U (6 7 N O (J) ~ O N 7 0� f6 (n J U- 0-0 7 U ~ O U -O E ` m O U) Q J LL 'O C J C O m (D 0 (D La a)2o a� c � L� a :3 Q) m aQ w O N U d W U 7 p N N d O N 0) J Q a c � to � U U 'C Q Q co N Q (6 0 H 0 N W N U n I _ a) o r� m N a) 0r o a)= �� o mm tea) N O w V a) a w d °) N m 'O = O J y O C) _ m m = m C Y'NO N 0 O O U @ N fn C W m m N Q U m w U O O j O C U N w a O O a O J O E a) O O Q O O V OU N co U �° lno a t ° c w c E 3 ° m - (D m N M M m a) m N N d Q O O = y = N � m w 0 O o m Q'- (D to a° a)- myK m� N m .- m o m0) 'a N D J L a) V' m m a) l6 Ol m 3 N C O m m - E U o N NN CD -2 m L N Q .M O. Q -O 0,0 ?i 3 -o a) a) U) u) m <� un o 0- y 2- 0i J c v ca d' a) C a) w N w U) a) 4) m D > m� O y m w O a) U m d V m �- V a) U O m m m C_ d m w c IL wma)£o?��U) �d °)v ��U �wv-j w � m IL H m m c 0 U N s (7 Y LI Z LLl J N a F rn C `o U N _ R J V m O N w v al V O a` rn c ca C 0 w CD U m O a W ° V r _ a w J O IL` O N O p :: n °o rn rn v rn v rn v rn v ao�r�mccLO0vvo ., 0 mI- rZ cococ°LOIt �a a 0 a 0 7 C ° m m Y LLJ Z LU W J N L N s o m 00 O LL U � r 01 0 •— LL j s m N LO O Co C U U m C ° � f O ) LO C `o `o aN) a) 2 co a) U O O °U J U w a) O 0 wa O �O �O m 3 w�0 s 4n GS¢ a) E E u) c_ a) W L E O V N O ° c co NNa) Q w0 o O L_ LL y D w J W E U E ° O L 0 w 0 N �o O N O o O LLB m N m N J o 00 `o U) y C o- w c ° c o o m U E m N d V O w U ° o) o>J N m .m+ m N 3: 3: O 0()2 a)4)m V 4 E E E ° N X W io N (D >, R U C ° m m Y LLJ Z LU W J N L N s o m 00 O LL U � r 01 0 •— LL j N O N LO O Co C c O O f O p O LO C Q � N O LLJ J LL `o aN) R 0 LL y 1 N M Nt LO too V V V V V V >+ C N X W io N (D >, 0) 'O 0 "C N J N L= C c N c U) p cu cu O i 7- a J U O J s cu _ y d = 3 N � 6 c�co N f6 �Q O L =3 L U D ° a) U) U U) J N N > er c 0 U 7 L N c a> 0 V c O U N CO D 0 C O d 0 Q w W J m 7 U a (6 •L O O U 0 w c 3 N O L y N L L_ O) C L Q U V) N t Y c O c 0 E L c N L w 3 L 0 Co LL a 0 a 7 I Mitre - Ramirez, Norma To: Huizar, Maria Subject: RE: Supplemental Materials - City Council Agenda Item #75A Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 5:25 PM To: Mitre - Ramirez, Norma Cc: Orozco, Norma; Trujillo, Rose Ann Subject: FW: Supplemental Materials - City Council Agenda Item #75A Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard From: Cathy Richardson [ mailto :CRichardsonccbsheppardmullin comj Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 2:12 PM To: Huizar, Maria Cc: Deborah Rosenthal; Fregoso, Vince Subject: Supplemental Materials - City Council Agenda Item #75A Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard Dear Maria: Please find attached supplemental materials for the City Council relative to tomorrow's City Council Agenda Item #75A Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard. These materials are referenced in Mr. Wayne Donaldson's letter to the City Council dated March 1, 2014. Please include these supplemental records in the City's public record for the Council hearing. We appreciate a reply email confirming you received this email. Thank you for your assistance. Cathy Richardson Legal Secretary to Deborah M. Rosenthal 714.424.8262 1 direct C Richa rdsonasheopa rd m u l l in. com SheppardMullin Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 -1993 714.513.5100 1 main www.sheppardmullin.com Circular 230 Notice: In accordance with Treasury Regulations we notify you that any tax advice given herein (or in any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax penalties or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any 3/4/2014 2:55 PM 2:55 PM transaction or matter addressed herein (or in any attachments). Attention: This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e -mail and delete the message and any attachments. 3/4/2014 2:55 PM 2:55 PM Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 1 of 8 Weviaes ,.fv * "`- -` 'aT -'.Try 'n`atants MaMA. Next U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service Evaluating a Designed Historic Landscape for the National Register of Historic Places To qualify for the National Register, a designed landscape must have significance as one of the designed historic landscape types listed above and retain integrity of location, design intent, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and meet National Register criteria. Determining the significance of a designed landscape depends upon conducting a systematic investigation of the history, purpose, social significance, qualities, associations, and physical characteristics of the property and using this information to establish whether or not the landscape is an exemplary representative of one of the types listed above. A typical landscape investigation should accomplish the following: 1. Obtain information about the specific example of landscape gardening, planning, and/or design through documentation of its history and collection of available plans and photographs. Conduct site visits to identify the historic characteristics of the design intent of the landscape. 2. Identify the appropriate landscape type (s) within which the landscape should be evaluated. 3. Analvze characteristic features that the landscape should possess to be a good representative of its landscape type. C}-' CA 4. Evaluate the significance of the historic landscape using National Register criteria. (See National Register Bulletin: Flow to ARRIv the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.) 5. Evaluate the integrity of each landscape characteristic and list the features that the {� landscape should retain to possess integrity. J 6. Determine if any aspect of the landscape's history or present condition might place it in a category of properties generally considered ineligible for the National Register, httn : / /www.nns.EOV/iNR/nublications /bulletins /nrb18 /mb18 5.htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 2 of 8* and therefore requiring special justification. (See National Register Bulletin: How to App1y the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.) 1. Obtain Information An evaluation of a designed historic landscape should begin with compiling a general description and history of the property including: • dates of design and construction; • names of owners, landscape architects, designers, and administrators; • identification of construction techniques, methods, and plant materials; • landscape style; • existing and previous uses with the dates of these uses identified; and • the acreage and existing boundaries of the original tract and any subsequent additions or reductions. The researcher should determine the original intent of the landscape design based on original plans, photographs, correspondence, etc., as well as any alterations to the original design and the dates such alterations occurred. Additional information may be important, including the introduction of hybrid or exotic plant materials; the innovative use of new construction materials or techniques; and the relationship between this and other nearby properties, designed by the same individual or firm, or owned by the same individual, family, organization, agency, municipality, or State or Federal government. Information should not be limited to that concerning design and physical appearance, but should also include data concerning the function of the landscape during its history and the individuals or groups associated with its ownership, design, and uses. Narrative Description and Mapping of Present Features and Function The present features and functions of a designed historic landscape should be described in a written narrative and located on a map or plan. Both the written narrative description and the map or plan may include the following features: • existing topography and grading • natural features • land uses • circulation system of roads, paths, trails, etc. • spatial relationships and orientations such as symmetry, asymmetry, and axial alignment • views and vistas into and out of the landscape • vegetation by botanical name and common name with caliper for trees and heights for shrubs (put this onto maps) • landscape dividers such as walls, fences, and hedges • drainage and engineering structures • site furnishings and small scale elements such as benches, planters, and urns • bodies of water such as pools, fountains, lakes, streams, and cascades • lighting: include actual fixture such as street lights and lanterns, as well as the use of both natural and artificial lighting as design elements (e.g., intensity, color) • signs delineating entrances, street names, and other features • buildings such as houses, barns, dormitories, or hospitals that may be contained within httn • / /www.nns.eov/hiR/oublications /bulletins /nrbl8 /nrb18 5.htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 3 of 8 the landscape • structures such as bridges, roads, and dams • sculpture and other works of art Individual features, even though some may be movable or could be considered separately, contribute to the overall identity and character of the landscape and should be considered, in most instances, not individually but in terms of their relationship to the totality of the landscape. A recent survey or aerial photograph of the landscape is often helpful in identifying and locating such features. Narrative Description and Mapping of Historic Features and Function The narrative of the historical appearance should draw upon both documentary evidence and field observations. The discussion should include a chronology describing the evolution of the site from its original state original topography, and native vegetation (i.e., prairie grass, hardwood forest), if known, through its earliest and subsequent uses, designs, and physical alterations. Maps should delineate the exact, if known, or approximate locations of all known historic features. (See "Narrative Description and Mapping of Present Features and Function" above for types of features to include and "Research Field Work. and Documentation Techniques" for assistance in identification.) Determine Period of Significance and Preliminary Boundaries Using the information collected and organized above, the researcher should begin to determine the property's period of significance and preliminary National Register boundaries. The period of significance should be the time period in which the property achieved the qualities that make it eligible for the National Register. Continued use over time does not mean that the period of significance necessarily coincides with that time. There may be several distinct periods of significance for some properties. If this is the case, all historic periods should be noted. 2. Identify Designed Historic Landscape Types and Develop Historic Context Once the history of the landscape has been compiled, it is necessary to determine the type to which it most properly belongs. Then identify important events and trends that influenced the development of the landscape type during the period of the property's design or during any major alterations. At present the standard source for American landscape history is Design on the Land, the Development of Landscape Architecture by Norman T. Newton. It also maybe helpful to check with the State Historic Preservation Officer, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the National Association for Olmsted Parks, the Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation, and other historical, preservation, and landscape professionals and organizations that may have already evaluated the significance of the landscape or identified the designed landscape type that it represents. They may also be able to recommend important source materials, to assist in identifying the physical features necessary to represent a particular type, period, or method of construction or planting, or to suggest significant associations within the development and practice of landscape gardening and planning. Decisions about the significance of properties can only be made with knowledge of the historic and comparative context for the property evaluated. Therefore, determining the httn • / /www_nneFOV/NR /nublications /bulletins /nrb18 /nrbl8 5.htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 4 of 8, relationship between an individual landscape and the historic development and practice of landscape architecture is an essential factor in determining significance. All landscapes that possess age are not significant, and those that are significant must be determined from their connection to the historic theme(s) it represents and in relationship to a group of similarly associated properties. All the information required to demonstrate the significance of a designed historic landscape will vary according to whether it is significant to the local community, the State, or the nation. It may not be necessary to describe the development of Iocal gardening styles, for example, for a designed historic landscape that is significant in the national development of landscape architecture. If, however, the designed landscape has no importance on the State or national level but is a significant example of a local style of landscape gardening or landscape architecture, then such a discussion is required. If a designed landscape is important at all three geographic levels -- local, State, and national - -it should be discussed within the context of all three with significant contributions noted for each level. Many State Historic Preservation Offices are defining formal historic contexts as part of their comprehensive State historic preservation planning process and may be able to assist nomination preparers with the compilation of comparative and thematic data for the evaluation of a property. 3. Analyze Characteristic Features Next, the researcher needs to determine the characteristic features that the property must possess to be a good representative of its type, period, or method of design or construction, and how it relates to the development and philosophy of its designed landscape type. For example, a researcher approaching a park designed in the American Romantic style may be looking for an emphasis on natural scenery and native plant materials, a lack of formal design, and a curvilinear circulation system and other characteristics generally associated with such parks. A landscape where these characteristics are not identifiable would not be a good representative of this type and, therefore, ineligible for the National Register. 4. Evaluate Significance of the Historic Landscape Using National Register Criteria As defined by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the National Register criteria, to be eligible for the National Register a designed historic landscape must possess the quality of significance in American history, architecture (interpreted in the broadest sense to include landscape architecture and planning), archeology, engineering, and culture and integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and A. be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. be 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. httn : / /www.nns.aov/NR/nublications /bulletins /nrb18 /nrbl8 5.htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 5 of 8 Many designed historic landscapes will be eligible because of their associations with significant events and trends. For example, the creation of designed landscapes has historically been associated with social movements. The historic designs for parks, suburbs, and playgrounds have direct links, in many cases, to the social issues of their times. In addition to possessing significance according to such historical themes established by the National Register as social history, agriculture, or transportation and meeting criteria A -D above on that basis, a property nominated because it is a designed historic landscape should meet these criteria primarily on the basis of associations with landscape gardening or landscape architecture under criterion C. In general, such questions as whether a particular designed historic landscape was the first of its type; is noted for some particular innovation in design, construction, planting, or use; or is associated with a significant figure in landscape architecture, gardening, and planning, should be considered. Typically, a designed historic landscape meets criterion C for one of the following reasons: • its association with the productive careers of significant figures in American landscape architecture such as Andrew Jackson Downing, Frederick Law Olmsted, Jens Jensen, Beatrix Farrand, or other noted practitioners; • its association with a historical trend or school of theory and practice within landscape architecture such as the City Beautiful Movement or the Country Place Era, rather than with an individual person of significance; • the presence of highly skilled craftsmanship or use of particular materials in the construction of walls, walks, fountains, and other landscape elements; • evidence of distinguished design and layout that results in superior aesthetic quality and constitutes an important artistic statement; or • a rare or specimen plant materials associated with a particular period or style of landscape history. S. Evaluate Integrity Not all historic properties retain integrity. The National Register criteria recognize seven aspects, or qualities, which, in various combinations, define integrity. Historic location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association must be considered in determining whether a landscape retains enough of its important features to convey its historically significant appearance or associations. Landscapes have unique attributes that often complicate the evaluation of integrity, but the degree to which the overall landscape and its significant features are present today must be evaluated. In general, the researcher should ask the following questions when evaluating integrity: 1) To what degree does the landscape convey its historic character? 2) To what degree has the original fabric been retained? 3) Are changes to the landscape irrevocable or can they be corrected so that the property retains integrity? The specific features that a designed historic landscape must retain will differ for various landscape types. Such features may include, but are not necessarily limited to, spatial relationships, vegetation, original property boundary, topography /grading, site - furnishings, design intent, architectural features, and circulation system. If, for example, a property is primarily significant because of its internal road circulation, yet the historic road patterns are no longer discernible or have been badly damaged, then the landscape has suffered a loss of integrity that may make it ineligible for the National Register. In addition to establishing the reasons for a designed landscape's significance, it is also necessary to determine if the designed landscape is significant for its original or altered character or both. Although a landscape need not retain all the characteristic features that (see list above) it had during its httn J /www.nns.trov/NR/nublications /bulletins /nrbl8 /nrb18 5.htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 6 of 8 period(s) of significance, it must retain enough or have restored enough of the essential features to make its historic character clearly recognizable, and these features should be identified. The clearest evaluation of integrity is based on the presence of identifiable components of the original design. To evaluate the historic integrity of a designed landscape, it is useful to compare the present appearance and function of the landscape to its historical appearance and function. The relationship between present function and that intended or actually in use during the period of significance may also affect the integrity of a designed historic landscape. An area that was designed for passive recreation may have suffered a loss of integrity if it has been converted for active play such as baseball. On the other hand, an open meadow within a large estate or institutional grounds may survive an adaptive use to a golf course without loss of integrity if its open design qualities remain dominant. Conversions of designed landscapes to agricultural or forest uses may also seriously affect historic integrity, although the existing landscape remains scenic. The features to be evaluated should also be considered in terms of survival, condition, and appropriateness to the original design intent and period of significance. Such features include grading, rock formations, water bodies, road networks, and paths. Such elements are relatively stable and their integrity can be addressed in much the same way that one would analyze the integrity of a building. Some additions dating from a period later than the period of significance but that retain the spirit of the original design, such as a rusticated concrete wall extension of an original stone wall, may have achieved significance of their own over time. Site furnishings such as benches, urns, and street lights are particularly vulnerable to periodic change; although their presence may strengthen the integrity of the designed historic landscape, their absence when the special integrity of the designed landscape is intact does not necessarily mean ineligibility. Vegetation, another important feature of most landscapes, is not stable. It is always changing - -by seasonal cycles, maturation, pruning, removal, neglect, and other forces. If one first determines that the more stable elements of the designed landscape are sufficiently intact to represent the original design intent, then it can be determined whether the existing vegetation taken as a whole reinforces or supports the original design intent. A bare site that was once heavily groved, for example, usually would be considered ineligible. Less dramatic changes in vegetation might not disqualify a site on the question of integrity. A designed historic landscape need not exist today exactly as it was originally designed or first executed if integrity of location and visual effect have been preserved. Originality of plant materials can increase integrity but absence of original materials does not automatically disqualify a designed landscape. The absence of original vegetation may not diminish integrity, for example, if the same or similar species of appropriate size have been replanted to replace dead, diseased, or mature specimens. A boulevard that has lost its original trees but where appropriate new street trees have been planted may retain integrity. Some later vegetation, especially specimen varieties, may also possess significance in its own right regardless of its relationship to the original design or implementation. Condition will play a significant role in evaluating integrity. Such categories as excellent, good, fair, deteriorated, and severely deteriorated applied to individual features may assist the researcher in making a final judgment about the overall condition, and thus the integrity, of the property. Plant materials that are diseased, overmature, or have been subjected to excessive pruning or other improper treatment, as well as areas where there is extensive soil erosion, may diminish a landscape's integrity. Condition, of course, is reversible; in many htfn• //u nneanv/ RR /nublications /bulletins /nrbl8 /nrbl8 5.htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 7 of 8 instances it may be possible to enhance integrity through maintenance, replanting, or other restoration or reconstruction procedures. In most instances the original boundaries of the landscape design will define the limits of the geographic area to be evaluated. Adjacent offsite conditions will not be considered in the evaluation of integrity, unless they were included as part of the original design intent. In such cases, a landscape's immediate surroundings may have an impact on an evaluation of integrity. Major adjacent encroachment, such as highways, parking lots, and new buildings, may violate the original design intent and intrude upon the property. Views from the property, for example, that were intended to be pastoral but that are now industrial, or views that were established along sight lines to buildings, monuments, or other features that have been destroyed, may be a serious detriment to the integrity of a historic landscape. 6. Determine the Need for Special Justification Certain types of properties do not usually qualify for the National Register. 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 primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not ordinarily considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify under the criteria as they apply to designed historic landscapes if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the 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 other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or d. a cemetery that 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 historical significance; or g. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. Usually considerations b and c above do not apply to designed historic landscapes, but there may be historic districts that contain properties that must meet these considerations to httn• //t u nns anv/NR /nuhlicatinns /bulletins /nrbl8 /nrbl8 5.htm 2/28/2014 Evaluating: How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes, National Regi... Page 8 of 8 contribute to the historic significance of the designed landscape. Cemeteries and the grounds associated with religious institutions are among the most obvious examples of landscapes requiring justification under the National Register criteria considerations. Only those possessing artistic quality because of their landscape design will meet the test of significance as designed historic landscapes. A landscape that had pivotal physical characteristics reconstructed may be eligible if it is significant for its original landscape design, if it is the sole surviving landscape of its type, or if it is the only survivor associated with a significant figure in landscape architecture. However, the property will require special justification. To be eligible for the National Register, a designed historic landscape that is less than fifty years old must be exceptionally significant. A property that has achieved significance within the last fifty years can be evaluated only when sufficient historical perspective exists to determine that the property is exceptionally important and will continue to retain that distinction in the future. Scholarly recognition is usually required to establish exceptional significance because only that type of analysis can convincingly demonstrate that despite the lack of the passage of the fifty -year period, sufficient historical perspective exists to evaluate the particular property. A property must be compared with other properties of its type that have similar associations and qualities to establish exceptional significance. The reasons for which a property is considered exceptionally significant must be explained along with a discussion of the qualities and characteristics that distinguish the landscape as exceptional. Occasionally, a landscape may contain exceptionally important elements such as sculpture and other works of art. If the work of art is an integral part of the design for the landscape, it may make the entire landscape eligible for the National Register even if it is less than fifty years old. Landscapes not determined to be especially significant should be reevaluated when they are fifty years old. (See National Register Bulletin• Flow To Evaluate and ,.._._.._.. -- the Past Fiflv Years for a more detailed discussion of the evaluation process for properties that are less than fifty years old.) PMVIOU5 - -' ' '9aglct9` vP :3f Fa9ikiw Nut National Register Home I Publications Home I Previous Page I Next P Comments or Questions JPJ IX I httw /AanmY nnc unv/NR /rnihliratinns /bulletins /nrblg /nrblg 5.1itm 2/28/2014 Factors to Consider When Selecting An Appropriate Treatment / Cultural Landscape Gui... Page 1 of 2 INTRODUCTION PRESERVING REHABILITATING RESTORING RECONSTRUCTING Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes Factors to Consider When Selecting An Appropriate Treatment .................................................................... ............................... Change and Continuity. There is a balance between change and continuity in all cultural resources. Change is Inherent in culture] landscapes: t results from both natural processes and human activities. Sometimes that change is subtle, barely perceptible as with the geomorphological effects on landform. At other times, It Is strikingly obvious, as with vegetation, either in the cyclical changes of growth and reproduction or the progressive changes of plant compefifion and succession. This dynamic quality of all cultural landscapes is balanced by the confinuity of distinctive characteristics retained over time. For, in spite of a landscapes constant change (or perhaps because of it), a property can still exhibit continuity of form, order, use, features, or materials. Preservation and rehabilitation treatments seek to secure and emphasize continuity while acknowledging change. Relative Significance in History. A cultural landscape may be a significant resource as a rare survivor or the work of an important landscape architect, horticulturist or designer. It may be the site of an important event or activity, reflect cultural traditions, a other patterns of settlement or land use. This significance may be derived from local, regional, or national importance. Cultural landscapes may be listed in the National Register of Historic Places individually, or as contributing features in a historic district. In some instances, cultural landscapes may be designated National Historic Landmarks by the Secretary of the Interior for their exceptional significance in American history. Geographical Context. The surroundings of a cultural landscape, whether an urban neighborhood or rural fanning area (see center top left and right), may contribute to its significance and its historic character and should be considered prior to treatment. The setting may contain component landscapes or features which fall hf-fn• / /xxnanar nns anv /finq /gtandgrri.R /foiir- treatments / landscape- euidelines /factors.htm 2/28/2014 Overview - r Preservation Planning t Factors to Consider ........................__. --- .._.....- ..._... .... ..... _... I Special Requirements Using the Standards + Guidelines Organization of the Guidelines l:. I d. .... ._.. .... I, Terminology Bibliography Acknowledgments The Standards are neither technical nor prescriptive, but are Intended to promote responsible preservation practices that help protect our Nation's irreplaceable cultural resources. They cannot be used to make essential decisions about which contributing features of a cultural fandscepe should be Before a treatment was seleced forme retained and which can be changed. But once a specific treatment is selected, the Standards can Piper Farm at Antietam Battlefield. a provide the necessary philosophical framework for a consistent and holistic approach for a cultural was important to understand that the landscape project fans complex had a high level of A treatment is a physical intervention carried out to achieve a historic preservation goal —it cannot be integrity forks turn-of-the-century development In true landscape considered in a vacuum. There are many practical and philosophical variables that influence the the of the was °restored' to the selection of a treatment for a landscape. These include, but are not limited to, the extent of histori c battle, it would have resulted in the documentation, existing physical conditions, historic value, proposed use, long and shod term removal of this farm complex and objectives, operational and code requirements (e.g. accessibility, fire, security) and anticipated capital subsequent loss of significant history. improvement, staffing and maintenance costs. The Impact of the treatment on any significant archeological and natural resources should also be considered In this decision making process. (NPS,1994) Therefore, it is necessary to consider a broad array of dynamic and interrelated variables in selecting a treatment for a cultural landscape preservation project. For some cultural landscapes, especially those that are best considered ethnographic or heritage landscapes, these Guidelines may not apply. However, if people working with these properties decide that community coherence may be affected by physical place and space—or if mere is potential for loss of landscape character whose significance is rooted in the community's activities and processes (or other aspects of its history) —this guide may be of service. .................................................................... ............................... Change and Continuity. There is a balance between change and continuity in all cultural resources. Change is Inherent in culture] landscapes: t results from both natural processes and human activities. Sometimes that change is subtle, barely perceptible as with the geomorphological effects on landform. At other times, It Is strikingly obvious, as with vegetation, either in the cyclical changes of growth and reproduction or the progressive changes of plant compefifion and succession. This dynamic quality of all cultural landscapes is balanced by the confinuity of distinctive characteristics retained over time. For, in spite of a landscapes constant change (or perhaps because of it), a property can still exhibit continuity of form, order, use, features, or materials. Preservation and rehabilitation treatments seek to secure and emphasize continuity while acknowledging change. Relative Significance in History. A cultural landscape may be a significant resource as a rare survivor or the work of an important landscape architect, horticulturist or designer. It may be the site of an important event or activity, reflect cultural traditions, a other patterns of settlement or land use. This significance may be derived from local, regional, or national importance. Cultural landscapes may be listed in the National Register of Historic Places individually, or as contributing features in a historic district. In some instances, cultural landscapes may be designated National Historic Landmarks by the Secretary of the Interior for their exceptional significance in American history. Geographical Context. The surroundings of a cultural landscape, whether an urban neighborhood or rural fanning area (see center top left and right), may contribute to its significance and its historic character and should be considered prior to treatment. The setting may contain component landscapes or features which fall hf-fn• / /xxnanar nns anv /finq /gtandgrri.R /foiir- treatments / landscape- euidelines /factors.htm 2/28/2014 Factors to Consider When Selecting An Appropriate Treatment / Cultural Landscape Gui... Page 2 of 2 within the property's historic boundaries, It also may be comprised of separate properties beyond the landscape's boundaries, and perhaps those of the National Register listing. The landscape Context can include the overall pattern of the circulation networks, views and vistas Into and out of the landscape, land use, natural features, clusters of structures, and division of properties. Use. Historic, current, and proposed use of the cultural landscape must be considered prior to treatment selection. Historic use is directly linked to its significance (bottom left], while current and proposed use (s) can affect integrity and existing Conditions. Parameters may vary from one landscape to another. For example, in one agricultural landscape, continuation of the historic use can lead to changes in the physical form of a farm to accommodate new crops and equipment In another agricultural property, new uses may be adapted within the landscape's existing form, order and features. ......................_......_..................... ._ ... ........... .... ........ ,............. ,.. Archeological Resources. Prehistoncand historic archeological resources may be found in cultural landscapes above and below the ground [below] and even underwater. Examples of prehistoric archeological resources include prehistoric mounds built by Native- Americans. Examples of historic archeological resources include remnants of buildings, cliff dwellings, and villages; or, features of a sunken garden, mining camp, or battlefield. These resources not only have historical value, but can also reveal significant information about a cultural landscape. The appropriate treatment of a cultural landscape includes the Identification and preservation of significant archeological resources. Many landscape preservation projects include a site archeologist __........_ ................ _................._............. ....... _.. _. _................. Natural Systems. Cultural landscapes often derive theircharacler from a human response to natural features and systems. The significance of these natural resources may be based on their cultural associations and from their inherent ecological values. Natural resources form natural systems that are Interdependent on one another and which may extend well beyond the boundary of the historic property. For example, these systems can include geology, hydrology, plant and animal habitats, and Climate. Some of these natural resources are particularly susceptible to disturbances caused by changes in landscape management Many natural resources such as wetlands or rare spades fall under local, state, and federal regulations which must be Considered. Since natural resource protection is a specialized field distinct from cultural landscape preservation, a preservation planning team may want to include an expert in this area to address specific issues or resources found within a cultural landscape. Natural systems are an integral part of the cultural landscape and must be considered when selecting an appropriate treatment. ............................... ..... Management and Maintenance. Management strategies are long -term and comprehensive. They can be one of the means for implementing a landscape preservation plan. Maintenance tasks can be day -to -day, seasonal, or cyclical, as determined by management strategies. Although routine horticultural activities, such as mowing and weeding, or general grounds maintenance, such as re- laying pavement or curbs, may appear routine, such activities can cumulatively alter the character of a landscape. In contrast, well - conceived management and maintenance activities can sustain character and integrity over an extended period. Therefore, both the management and maintenance ofcultural landscapes should be considered when selecting a treatment ....................... ..._.................. .............. _......................_ ........._........ Interpretation, Interpretation can help in understanding and 'reading' the landscape. The tools and techniques of interpretation can include guided walks, self- guided brochures, computer -aided lours, exhibfts, and wayside stations. Interpretive goals should Compliment treatment selection, reflecting the landscape's significance and historic character. A Cultural landscape may possess varying levels of integrity or even differing periods of significance, both of which can result in a mule- faceted approach to interpretation. In some cases, interpretation and a sound interpretive strategy can inform decisions about how to treat a landscape. LandsmPe Guldelines Home I,tt, k/.xnxmr„ncc anu /tnc /standards /four- treatments / landscape - guidelines /factors.htm 2/28/2014 NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN Technical information on the the National Register of Historic Places: survey, evaluation, registration, and preservation of cultural resources US. Department of the Interior National Park service Cultural Resources National Register, History and Education DEFINING BOUNDARIES FOR NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTIES ••�•Qtl'Ill �� t# ]a �7iC` y,. title If � ia. 4•� 4l I - {� ��. r -'h'If / f"`�4'('. � .. IIII II �i'a4.•u [� YYY f Gp, ur 'r 3 i lyr Y/ ti x p y� ,r The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes. This material is partially based upon work conducted under a cooperative agreement with the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Cover: (Top Leff) Detail of USGS map showing the National Register boundaries of the Columbia Historic District in Cedarburg, Wisconsin. (Top Right) View of Architect Marcel Brewer's International Style home in Lincoln, Massachusetts. (Ruth Williams) (Bottom Left) View of the Roxborough State Park Archeological District near Waterton, Colorado. (William Tate) (Bottom Right) Detail of a I987 land survey map defining the property boundaries of Gunston Hall in Buncombe County, North Carolina. (Blue Ridge Land Surveying, Inc.) NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETIN DEFINING BOUNDARIES FOR NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTIES BY DONNA J. SEIFERT including Barbara J. Little, Beth L. Savage, and John H. Sprinkle, Jr. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES 1995, REVISED 1997 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE CREDITSAND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............... . ............................................. ............................... . ....................... . ... . ............. .... m I. DEFINING BOUNDARIES FOR NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTIES ................................................... ..............................1 WhyBoundaries are Important ................................................................................................................ ..............................1 1 Getting Help DecidingWhat to Include .......................................................................................................................... ..............................2 "°****"' Factorsto Consider .................................................................................................................................... ............................... 2 3 SelectingBoundaries ............ . ................................................................................................................... ............................... RevisingBoundaries ................................................................................................................................... ..............................4 ]I. DOCUMENTING BOUNDARIES ................................................................................................................... ............................... 5 Completing Section 10, Geographical Data ........................................................................................... ............................... 5 The Verbal Boundary Description and Boundary Justification ......................................................... ............................... 5 Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) References .............................................................................. ............................... 6 GlobalPositioning System (GPS) ............................................................................................................ ............................... 6 ' III. CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................................................................. ............................... 7 Boundariesfor Buil dings .......................................................................................................................... ............................... 7 Buildingsin Urban Settings ..................................................................................................... ............................... 7 Buildingsin Rural Settings ...................................................................................................... ............................... 10 Boundariesfor Historic Districts ............................................................................................................. .............................12 Contiguous Districts in Urban Settings ................................................................................. ............................... 13 DiscontiguousDistricts in Urban Settings ........................................................................... ............................... 16 Contiguous Districts in Rural Settings ..................................................................................... .............................17 Discontiguous Districts in Rural Settings .............................................................................. ............................... 23 Parksas Districts ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 23 Boundaries for Particular Property Types ........................................................................................... ............................... 27 Traditional Cultural Properties ................................................................................................. .............................27 MiningProperties ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 27 Boundaries for Archeological Sites and Districts ............................................................................... ............................... 30 ArcheologicalSites .................................................................................................................... ............................... 31 ContiguousArcheological Districts.. ..................................................................................... ............................. - 33 DiscontiguousArcheological Dist ricts ................................................................................... ............................... 34 ShipwreckSites .......................................................................................................................... ............................... 35 Boundariesfor Historic Sites ................................................................................................................. ............................... 36 Boundariesfor Objects ............................................................................................................................ ............................... 40 Boundariesfor Structures ......................................................................................................................... .............................41 IV. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................... .............................45 V. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION ......................................................................... ............................... 46 VI. NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETINS .......................................................................................................... ............................... 47 APPENDIX: Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties (formerly National Register Bulletin 72: Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties ) ....................... 48 PREFACE The National Register of Historic Places is the official Federal list of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. National Register properties have significance in the prehistory or history of their community, State, or the nation. The National Register is maintained by the National Park Service on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior. National Register Bulletins provide guidance on how to identify, evaluate, document, and register significant properties. This bulletin is designed to help preparers properly select, define, and document boundaries for National Register listings and deter- minations of eligibility. It includes basic guidelines for selecting bound- aries to assist the preparer in complet- ing the National Register Registration Form. Examples of a variety of property types are presented. These examples illustrate several ways to address boundary issues. This bulletin was prepared by Donna J. Seifert, archeologist, under a cooperative agreement between the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers and the Na- tional Park Service. Carol D. Shull Keeper, National Register of Historic Places National Park Service U. S. Department of the Interior CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This bulletin addresses issues originally presented in National Register Bulletin: Definition of Bound- aries for Historic Units of the National Park System and National Register Bulletin: How to Establish Boundaries for National Register Properties. Both were prepared before National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form was revised. This revised bulletin complements the guidelines on boundaries in How to Complete the National Register Registra- tion Form and provides a variety of case studies to assist nomination preparers. This bulletin benefited from the suggestions offered by the staff members of the National Register of Historic Places, who shared their opinions and expertise. Critical guidance was provided by Carol D. Shull, Antoinette]. Lee, and Jan Townsend; Beth Savage provided an important case study, which was included in the bulletin. John Byrne of the National Register staff, pre- pared lists of properties to consider in the selection of the case studies, and Tanya M. Velt of the National Confer- ence of State Historic Preservation Officers provided research assistance. Comments and contributions from the following individuals were particularly valuable: Paul Alley, Western Regional Office, National Park Service; David Banks, Inter- agency Resources Division, National Park Service; Robin K. Bodo, Dela- ware Historic Preservation Office; Carol Burkhart, Alaska Regional Office, National Park Service; William R. Chapman, Historic Preservation Program, University of Hawaii at Manoa; Rebecca Conard, Tallgrass Historians L.C.; Dan G. Diebler, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission; Jim Draeger, Wisconsin Division of Historic Preservation; Audry L. Entorf, General Services Administration; Betsy Friedberg, Massachusetts Historical Commis- sion; Bruce Fullem, New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation; Elsa Gilbertson, Vermont Division for Historic Preser- vation; Susan L. Henry, Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service; Gerri Hobdy, Louisiana Office of Cultural Development; Thomas F. King, Silver Spring, Maryland; John Knoerl, Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service; Paul Lusignan, Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service; Kirk F. Mohney, Maine Historic Preservation Commission; David L. Morgan, Kentucky Heritage Council; Bruce Noble, Interagency Resources Division, National Park Service; William W. Schenk, Midwest Regional Office, National Park Service; and Robert E. Stipe, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make avail- able information concerning historic properties. Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties was developed under the general editorship of Carol D. Shull, Keeper, National Register of Historic Places. Antoinette J. Lee, historian, was responsible for publications coordina- tion, and Tanya M. Veit provided editorial and technical support. Comments on this publication may be directed to Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. iii I. DEFINING BOUNDARIES FOR NATIONAL REGISTER PROPERTIES The preparer of a National Register nomination collects, evaluates, and presents the information required to document the property and justify its historical significance. Among the decisions the preparer must make is the selection of the property's bound- aries: in addition to establishing the significance and integrity of a prop- erty, the physical location and extent of the property are defined as part of the documentation. Boundary infor- mation is recorded in Section 10, Geographical Data, on the National Register Registration Form. This bulletin is designed to assist the preparer in selecting, defining, and documenting boundaries for National Register properties. The bulletin addresses the factors to consider and includes examples that illustrate properly defined boundaries for a variety of property types. WHY BOUNDARIES ARE IMPORTANT Carefully defined boundaries are important for several reasons. The boundaries encompass the resources that contribute to the property's significance. Boundaries may also have legal and management implica- tions. For example, only the area within the boundaries may be consid- ered part of the property for the purposes of Federal preservation tax incentives and charitable contribu- tions. State and local laws that require consideration of historic resources may also refer to boundaries in the application of implementing regula- tions or design controls. National Register boundaries, therefore, have legal implications that can affect the property's future. Under Federal law, however, these considerations apply only to government actions affecting the property; National Register listing does not limit the private owner's use of the property. Private property owners can do anything they wish with their property, provided no Federal license, permit, or funding is involved. , Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, Federal agencies must take into account the effect of their actions on historic properties (defined as properties in, or eligible for, the National Register of Historic Places) and give the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation the opportunity to comment. To be in compliance with the act, Federal agencies must identify and evaluate National Register eligibility of properties within the area of potential effect and evaluate the effect of the undertaking on eligible properties. The area of potential effect is defined as the area in which eligible properties may be affected by the undertaking, including direct effects (such as destruction of the property) and indirect effects (such as visual, audible, and atmo- spheric changes which affect the character and setting of the property). The area of potential effect may include historic properties that are well beyond the limits of the under- taking. For example, a Federal undertaking outside of the defined boundaries of a rural traditional cultural property or an urban historic district can have visual, economic, traffic, and social effects on the setting, feeling, and association of the eligible resources. Large properties present special problems. For example, an undertak- ing in a narrow corridor, such as a pipeline, may affect part of a large archeological site, traditional cultural property, or rural historic district. Such properties may extend far beyond the area of potential effect or access may be denied in areas beyond the undertaking. It is always best to consider the entire eligible property, but it may not be possible or practical to define the full extent of the prop- erty. In such cases, reasonable, predicted, estimated, or partial boundaries encompassing resources within the area of potential effect may be the only way to set the limits of contributing resources when the entire property cannot be observed or evaluated from historic maps or other documents (as in the case of subsur- face archeological resources). Con- sider all available information and select boundaries on the basis of the best information available. When defining boundaries of large resources extending beyond the area of poten- tial effect, it is advisable to consult the State historic preservation office. GETTING HELP In addition to the guidance in this bulletin, assistance is also available from State Historic Preservation Officers, Federal Preservation Offic- ers, and the staff of the National Register of Historic Places. These professionals can help preparers with general questions and special prob- lems. For assistance with specific questions or for information on how to contact the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer or Federal Preservation Officer, contact the National Register of Historic Places, National Register, History and Education, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. Several other National Register publications are also available to assist preparers. National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form provides the basic instructions for boundary selection and documentation. The following instructions, which are consistent with those in How to Complete the National Register Registra- tion Form, provide additional assis- tance for the prepares The following discussion addresses many property types by considering the special boundary problems associated with each type and providing case studies to assist the preparer in dealing with such issues. Bulletins that deal with specific property types may also be useful (see the list of National Regis- ter Bulletins at the end of this publica- tion). DECIDING WHAT TO INCLUDE Selection of boundaries is a judg- ment based on the nature of the property's significance, integrity, and physical setting. Begin to consider boundaries during the research and data - collection portion of the nomina- tion process. By addressing boundary issues during the field and archival research, the preparer can take into account all the factors that should be considered in selecting boundaries. When significance has been evalu- ated, reassess the boundaries to ensure appropriate correspondence between the factors that contribute to the property's significance and the physical extent of the property. Select boundaries that define the limits of the eligible resources. Such resources usually include the immedi- ate surroundings and encompass the appropriate setting. However, exclude additional, peripheral areas that do not directly contribute to the property's significance as buffer or as open space to separate the property from surrounding areas. Areas that have lost integrity because of changes in cultural features or setting should be excluded when they are at the periphery of the eligible resources. When such areas are small and surrounded by eligible resources, they may not be excluded, but are included as noncontributing resources of the property. That is, do not select boundaries which exclude a small noncontributing island surrounded by GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: ALL PROPERTIES (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, p. 56) • Select boundaries to encompass but not exceed the extent of the signifi- cant resources and land areas comprising the property. • Include all historic features of the property, but do not include buffer zones or acreage not directly contributing to the significance of the property. • Exclude peripheral areas that no longer retain integrity due to alter- ations in physical conditions or setting caused by human forces, such as development, or natural forces, such as erosion. • Include small areas that are disturbed or lack significance when they are completely surrounded by eligible resources. "Donut holes' are not allowed. • Define a discontiguous property when large areas lacking eligible resources separate portions of the eligible resource. contributing resources; simply identify the noncontributing resources and include them within the bound- aries of the property. Districts may include noncontribut- ing resources, such as altered build- ings or buildings constructed before or after the period of significance. In situations where historically associ- ated resources were geographically separated from each other during the period of significance or are separated by intervening development and are now separated by large areas lacking eligible resources, a discontiguous district may be defined. The bound- aries of the discontiguous district define two or more geographically separate areas that include associated eligible resources. FACTORS TO CONSIDER There are several factors to con- sider in selecting and defining the boundaries of a National Register property. Compare the historic extent of the property with the existing eligible resources and consider integrity, setting and landscape features, use, and research value. • Integrity: The majority of the property must retain integrity of location, design, setting, feeling, and association to be eligible. The essential qualities that contribute to an eligible property's significance must be preserved. Activities that often compromise integrity include new construction or alterations to the resource or its setting. Natural processes that alter or destroy portions of the resource or its setting, such as fire, flooding, erosion, or disintegration of the historic fabric, may compromise integrity. For example, an abandoned farmhouse that has been exposed to the ele- ments through years of neglect may have lost its integrity as a building; however, it may retain integrity as an archeological site. Setting and Landscape Features: Consider the setting and historically important landscape features. Natural features of the landscape may be included when they are located within the district or were used for purposes related to the historical significance of the prop- erty. Areas at the margins of the eligible resources maybe included only when such areas were histori- cally an integral part of the property. For example, a district composed of farmsteads along a creek may include the creek if it runs through the district, if the creek was impor- tant in the original siting of the farmsteads, or if the creek was a source of water power or natural resources exploited by the farm- steads. Consult National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Land- scapes for additional guidance in selecting boundaries for rural historic landscapes. Use: Consider the historic use of the property when selecting the boundary. The eligible resource may include open spaces, natural land forms, designed landscapes, or natural resources that were integral to the property's historic use. Modern use may be different, and some modern uses alter the setting or affect built resources. The effect of such uses must be assessed in identifying resources that retain integrity. For example, a Hopewell mound archeological site now used as a golf course may retain integrity where the form of the prehistoric earthworks has been preserved, but construction of sand traps or other landscaping that altered landforms would compro- mise integrity. A marsh that provides plant materials for traditional basketmakers may retain integrity where it remains in its natural wetland condition, but may have lost integrity where it has been drained and cultivated. Research Potential: For properties eligible under Criterion D, define boundaries that include all of the resources with integrity that have the potential to yield important information about the past. Such information is defined in terms of research questions to which the information pertains, and the property should include the com- ponents, features, buildings, or structures that include the informa- tion. For example, an eligible prehistoric longhouse site should include longhouse features as well as associated pit features, middens, and hearths. Geographically separate but historically associated activity areas may also be included in the property even when they are not adjacent to the main concentra- tion of eligible resources. For example, lithic procurement and processing loci that were histori- cally associated with a village site but geographically separated from it may be included in a discon- tiguous district. Remember that many properties eligible under other criteria include contributing archeological resources that may yield important information about the property. Consider the extent of associated archeological re- sources when selecting boundaries. SELECTING BOUNDARIES Identify appropriate natural or cultural features that bound the eligible resource. Consider historical and cartographic documentation and subsurface testing results (for archeo- logical resources) in addition to existing conditions. Some boundaries can be directly observed by examin- ing the property; others must be identified on the basis of research. Take into account the modern legal boundaries, historic boundaries (identified in tax maps, deeds, or plats), natural features, cultural features, and the distribution of resources as determined by survey and testing for subsurface resources, Owner objections may affect the listing of the entire property, but not the identification of the boundaries. If the sole private owner of a property or the majority of the private owners (for properties with multiple owners) objects to listing, the property (with boundaries based on an objective assessment of the full extent of the significant resources) may be deter- mined eligible for the National Register but not listed. Boundaries should include sur- rounding land that contributes to the significance of the resources by functioning as the setting. This setting is an integral part of the eligible property and should be identified when boundaries are selected. For example, do not limit the property to the footprint of the building, but include its yard or grounds; consider the extent of all positive subsurface test units as well as the landform that includes the archeological site; and include the portion of the reef on which the vessel foundered as well as the shipwreck itself. • Distribution of Resources: Use the extent of above-ground resources and surrounding setting to define the boundaries of the property. For archeological resources, consider the extent of above - ground re- sources as well as the distribution of subsurface remains identified through testing when defining the boundaries of the property. • Current Legal Boundaries: Use the legal boundaries of a property as recorded in the current tax map or plat accompanying the deed when these boundaries encompass the eligible resource and are consistent with its historical significance and remaining integrity. • Historic Boundaries: Use the boundaries shown on historic plats or land- ownership maps (such as fire insurance or real estate maps) when the limits of the eligible resource do not correspond with current legal parcels. • Natural Features: Use a natural feature, such as a shoreline, terrace edge, treeline, or erosional scar, which corresponds with the limit of the eligible resource. • Cultural Features: Use a cultural feature, such a stone wall, hedgerow, roadway, or curb line, that is associated with the signifi- cance of the property, or use an area of modern development or disturbance that represents the limit of the eligible resource. Selecting boundaries for some properties may be more complicated, however. Consider and use as many features or sources as necessary to define the limits of the eligible re- source. In many cases, a combination of features may be most appropriate. For example, the National Register boundaries of a property could be defined by a road on the south, a fence line on the west, the limits of subsurface resources on the north, and an area of development distur- bance on the east. Consider map features or reasonable limits when obvious boundaries are not appropri- ate. • Cartographic Features: Use large - scale topographic features, contour lines, or section lines on United States Geographical Survey maps to define the boundaries of large sites or districts. • Reasonable Limits: Use reasonable limits in areas undefined by natural or cultural features. For example, define the boundary of a property as 15 feet or 5 meters from the edge of the known resources, or define a straight line connecting two other boundary features. If a surveyed topographic map is available, select a contour line that encompasses the eligible resources. Reasonable limits may also be appropriate for a rural property when there is no obvious house lot or natural or cultural feature to use. Be sure that an appropriate setting is included within arbitrary boundaries, however, and explain how the limits were selected. REVISING BOUNDARIES Boundaries for listed properties need to be revised when there are changes in the condition of the resources or the setting. If resources or setting lose integrity and no longer contribute to the significance of the property, it is appropriate to revise the boundaries. Revisions may also be appropriate for nominations prepared in the early years of the National Register program, when nominations had limited or vague boundary documentation. Follow the guidance presented in this bulletin when revising boundary documenta- tion. II. DOCUMENTING BOUNDARIES COMPLETING SECTION 10, GEOGRAPHICAL DATA Section 10 of the National Register Registration Form is the portion of the form where boundaries of the nomi- nated property are documented. The documentation requirements are discussed in National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form; the information presented here is consistent with that discussion. The information require- ment in Section 10 of the registration form includes acreage of the property, Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) references, a verbal boundary descrip- tion, and a boundary justification. In addition, nomination preparers should submit a USGS map that shows the location of the property and plotted UTM coordinates and at least one detailed map or sketch map for dis- tricts and for properties containing a substantial number of sites, structures, or buildings. SECTION 10, GEOGRAPHICAL DATA THE VERBAL BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION AND BOUNDARY JUSTIFICATION The verbal boundary description describes the physical extent of the nominated property. A verbal boundary description or a scale map precisely defining the property (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, pp. 54-55) Acreage: Calculate the acreage of the property to the nearest whole acre; calculate fractions of acres to the nearest one -tenth acre. For small properties, record "less than one acre." For large properties (over 100 acres), use a United States Geological Survey (USGS) acreage estimator or digitizer to calculate acreage. UTM Reference: Use Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) grid references to identify the exact location of the property. For a small property, use a single UTM reference; for larger properties, use a series of UTM references (up to 26) to identify the boundaries. Even when natural or cultural features are used to define the boundaries, use UTM grid references to define a polygon which encloses the boundaries of the property and identifies the vicinity of the property. Determine UTM references by using a UTM template and USGS quadrangle maps (see Appendix VIII in How to Complete the National Register Registration Form and Using the UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites for assistance in determining UTM references). Verbal Boundary Description: Describe the boundaries verbally, using one of the following: • a map may be substituted for a narritive verbal boundary description • legal parcel number • block and lot number • metes and bounds • dimensions of a parcel of land, reckoning from a landmark, such as a natural or cultural feature Boundary Justification: Provide a concise explanation of the reasons for selecting the boundaries, based on the property's historic significance and integrity. Discuss the methods used to determine the boundaries, Account for irregular boundaries and areas excluded because of loss of integrity. For archeological properties, discuss the techniques used to identify the limits of the eligible resource, including survey procedures and the extent and distribution of known sites. boundaries must be given for all properties regardless of their classifi- cation category or acreage. The verbal boundary description need not be complicated or long, but it must clearly describe (or show) the limits of the resources to ensure that a Federal agency, State historic preservation office, city planning office, planning agency, or property owner can identify the limits of a National Register property. A map drawn to a scale of at least 1 inch to 200 feet may be used in place of a verbal description. When using a map in place of a verbal description, note under the verbal boundary description that the boundaries are indicated on the accompanying map. The map must be clear and accurate. Be sure the map clearly indicates the boundaries of the property in rela- tionship to standing structures or buildings, natural features, or cultural features. Include a drawn scale and north arrow on the map. When the boundary is the same as a legally recorded boundary, refer to that legal description of the property in the verbal boundary description. Citation of the legal description (beyond parcel number or block and lot number) and deed book reference are optional. When natural or cul- tural features are used in defining boundaries, identify these features (such as street names, property lines, geographical features, or other lines of convenience) to designate the extent of the property. Begin at a fixed reference point and follow, the perim- eter of the property, including dimen- sions and directions, in the verbal boundary description. The verbal boundary description may refer to a large -scale map (such as 1 inch to 200 feet) which shows the property boundaries. large -scale maps that show streets, rights -of- ways, property lines, and building footprints are often available from the local planning agency or tax assessor's office. For large rural properties, a small -scale topographic map, such as a USGS map, may be used. If such a map is not available, draw a sketch map to scale (prefer- ably I inch to 200 feet) and show the location of the resources relative to the boundary and surrounding features. Include a north arrow, drawn scale, and date on the map. The verbal boundary description is followed by a justification of the selected boundaries. Explain how the boundaries were selected. clarify any issues that might raise questions, such as excluding portions of the historic property because of lost integrity. UNIVERSAL TRANSVERSE MERCATOR (UTM) REFERENCES Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) references are required to indicate the location of the property. Generally, the UTM coordinates do not define the property boundaries, but provide precise locational infor- mation. Plot a single UTM reference on a 7.5 minute series USGS map for a small property; plot three or more UTM references that define the vertices of a polygon encompassing the area to be registered for properties over 10 acres. UTM references may also be used to define boundaries (for example, large rural properties lacking appropriate cultural or natural features to define boundaries). When UTM references define bound- aries, the references must correspond exactly with the property's bound- aries. For additional guidance, see National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registra- tion Form and National Register Bulle- tin: Using the UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites. GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) The Global Positioning System (GPS) technology now can be used to define boundaries for National Register properties. GPS technology records (digitizes) the location of lines, points, or polygons on the earth's surface using tnlateration from satellites orbiting the earth. The locational accuracy of the data varies between 2 and 5 meters (when using differential correction). Thus, districts and archeological sites can be digi- tized as polygons, and historic trains or roads, as lines. The result is a potential National Register boundary. With GPS, the UTM references are automatically calculated along with any other type of descriptive data, such as condition, materials, intru- sions, and integrity. Data from GPS is generally entered into a Geographic Information System (GIS). Using GIS, boundary data can be combined with data on cultural and natural features, such as roads, rivers, and land cover, to yield a composite map suitable for inclusion with the registration form. III, CASE STUDIES Many kinds of property types are eligible for inclusion in the National Register, and different property types have different boundary issues to be considered. To illustrate a variety of appropriate boundaries, examples are given for several property types. For each property type, the general guidelines are presented. Appropri- ate examples are provided to illustrate the issues and solutions. The sum- mary information is abstracted from registration forms of properties listed in the National Register or documen- tation from properties determined eligible for the National Register. The verbal boundary descriptions and boundary justifications are quotations of Section 10 of the registration forms. For some properties, such as archeo- logical sites, locational information is restricted to protect the property. Examples drawn from such properties are edited to omit or alter location] information. BOUNDARIES FOR BUILDINGS Buildings are constructions created principally to shelter any form of human activity. The National Regis- ter use of the term "building" also refers to historically and functionally related units, such as a courthouse and jail. Buildings include houses, barns, churches, schools, hotels, theaters, stores, factories, depots, and mills. Remember that many buildings have associated contributing land- scape and archeological features. Consider these resources as well as the architectural resources when selecting boundaries and evaluating significance of buildings. The verbal boundary descriptions and boundary justifications cited in the following case studies provide examples of boundaries for several GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: BUILDINGS (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, p. 56) • Select boundaries that encompass the entire resource, including both historic and modern additions. Include surrounding land histori- cally associated with the resource that retains integrity and contrib- utes to the property's historic significance. • Use the legally recorded parcel number or lot lines for urban and suburban properties that retain their historic boundaries and integrity. • For small rural properties, select boundaries that encompass signifi- cant resources, including outbuildings and the associated setting. • For larger rural properties, select boundaries that include fields, forests, and open range land that is historically associated with the property and conveys the property's historic setting. The areas included must have integrity and contribute to the property's historic significance. types of buildings in a variety of settings. In a few cases, the preparer has elected to provide a large -scale map (such as a tax map) that shows the boundaries in lieu of a verbal boundary description. Buildings in Urban Settings La Casa Blanca, Coamo, Puerto Rico, is a Spanish Creole vernacular house constructed in 1865. Character- istics of this style include a raised, wooden construction; main living core with rear service wing (martillo), forming an L-shaped plan with an interior courtyard; full- length frontal balcony or veranda; and hipped or side - gabled, usually high - pitched roof covered with corrugated zinc. La Casa Blanca includes these character- istics, except that the martillo opens into the grounds at the southeast corner of the lot and not into an interior courtyard. The house is located at 17 Josd I. Quinton Street, the corner of Quinton and Ruiz Belvis streets. The boundaries of the Na- tional Register property follow the legal lot boundaries. Verbal bound- ary description: The house is bounded in the north by Josd Quinton Street; south, No. 18 Federico Santiago Street; east, Ruiz Belvis Street; and west, No. 19 Josd Quinton Street. Boundary justification: The boundary includes the entire city lot that has been historically and is currently associated with the prop- erty. VNW tutw Yq�tmuu of Vw In1Mar NeLbnJ Puk &,vice National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet s,ctb mffl — Pape _ Lxepfan Ppu / 6-1.9 WON La Casa Blanca, Coanw, Puerto Rico. City plan showing the National Register boundaries (shaded lot). Sndian &reef - S.. PLM` Denbac Seeool Fart Hyera. F�orldn scale, 1 1neL 91 foes (appzoxlnatel wgtnatea ptopercy I iJ i � Snxr I 3> 1 I t �� 4 � /ounf Street Paul Lawrence Dunbar School, Fort Myers, Florida. Plan showing the National Register boundaries. Paul Lawrence Dunbar School, Fort Myers, Lee County, Florida, is a two -story, T- shaped, Mission -style building built in 1927. The school was built as the first high school for African American students in Lee County. The original building has undergone few alterations and still serves its original function as a public school. The present school complex includes several buildings constructed in the 1950s, which are excluded from the nomination. The Paul Lawrence Dunbar School is significant for its association with African American community life and education in the Fort Myers, Florida, area. This property illustrates boundaries including the historic core of a prop- erty but excluding peripheral, noncon- tributing buildings. Verbal boundary description: The boundary for the Dunbar School is shown as the dotted line on the accompanying scale map entitled "Site Plan, Dunbar School." Boundary justification: The bound- ary includes the building and immedi- ately adjacent grounds historically associated with Dunbar School and excludes that part of the original site now occupied by new construction. Thomas I. Stoner House, Des Moines, Polk County, Iowa, is an early 20th century Spanish Eclectic style house. The Stoner house is significant as a rare example of its style, display- ing high artistic values and properly expressed design principles associated with the style, particularly the de- tailed stonework and balanced massing with side wings. The house is located on an irregular corner lot, overlooking Waveland Golf Course. The boundary for this property is limited to area that continues to be associated with the house and ex- cludes areas historically separated from the house. Verbal boundary description: The nominated property occupies the eastern 31.4 feet of lot 53 and all of lots 54, 55, and 56 in Waveland Hills in Des Moines and is roughly 168 x 181 feet in size. Bound- ary justification: The boundary includes the immediate grounds that have historically been associated with the property and that maintain historic integrity. At the time of construction, the owner also owned lots 52 and 57 -60, property that was later subdivided and therefore is excluded from this nomination. John D. Bush House, Exira, Audubon County, Iowa, is a two - story frame house built for john Bush by Danish immigrant carpenter Jens Uriah Hansen in the 1870s. When it was built, the house was on the outskirts of town and was part of a larger holding, which included Bush's stock farm. The town expanded and now encompasses the Bush property within a residential area. Through the years, the Bush holding has been subdivided and the large lot on which the house is situated is all that re- mains intact of the original Bush holding. The property is significant as the best surviving example of the early Danish immigrant dwellings built by Hansen, who was the first Dane to settle in Audubon County and was responsible for the construc- tion of several of the early buildings, homes, and outbuildings in the Extra area. The legal property boundary was used to define the National Register property boundary. Verbal boundary description: The nomi- nated property is bounded by the legal description as recorded in the Audubon County Recorder's Office: Part of Lot 14, Subdivision of Original Lot 9, Town of Exira, Section 4, T78N, R35W. Boundary justification: The boundary of the nominated property is the remnant of the original parcel historically associated with the property. Marshall Field Garden Apart- ments, Chicago, Cook County, Illinois, include ten buildings sur- rounding a spacious interior garden court, built in 1928 -1929. The com- plex occupies two city blocks. The buildings are oriented toward Sedgwick Street, the busiest of the streets bordering the complex: twenty storefronts and offices face this street. The central interior courtyard runs the length of the complex, with the small inside courtyards of the eight H- shaped buildings opening on to the central courtyard. The two end buildings extend the length of the block. The complex is a notable example of early privately funded, moderate- income housing in Chicago. The limits of the two city blocks occupied by the apartments define the boundaries of the National Register property. Verbal boundary descrip- tion: The area bounded by Sedgwick, Evergreen, Hudson, and Blackhawk streets, starting at the northwest corner of Blackhawk and Sedgwick, i I I n..sn =m i I r u� �l I \ 3H, idV� 4T@ PGMYi EgPLT OM ssn11 xu. name Thomas 1. Stoner House, Des Moines, Iowa. Plan showing the National Register boundaries. LL„ cr a f s ¢.. _ ,g. ,r 1• 4 �,� RESIDENCE. or .STOCK FARM or JOHN D.BUsF,'6EYJR:S;Audabon Chian John D. Bush House, Exira, Iowa. Drawing of the house front the 1875 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Iowa: Eighth Congressional District (Andrea Atlas Company). 0 W ..• -- L J s � amace , ss,e x• ssr n• vlaw I iTIF \ 3H, idV� 4T@ PGMYi EgPLT OM ssn11 xu. name Thomas 1. Stoner House, Des Moines, Iowa. Plan showing the National Register boundaries. LL„ cr a f s ¢.. _ ,g. ,r 1• 4 �,� RESIDENCE. or .STOCK FARM or JOHN D.BUsF,'6EYJR:S;Audabon Chian John D. Bush House, Exira, Iowa. Drawing of the house front the 1875 Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Iowa: Eighth Congressional District (Andrea Atlas Company). 0 Marshall Field Garden Apartments, Chicago, Illinois, Detail of USGS quadrangle map showing the National Register boundaries. 10 extending south 938'9" to Evergreen Street, extending west 2639" to Hudson Street, extending north 938' to Blackhawk Street and back east 263' to the northwest corner of Blackhawk and Sedgwick. These dimensions are measured from the masonry edges of the buildings. Boundary justifica- tion: This acreage has historically been associated with the Marshall Field Garden Apartments. Minto School, Minto, Walsh County, North Dakota, was built in 1895. The property includes the school building with attached rear additions and six noncontributing elements moved to the site in the past 20 years and associated with the school building's present use as the Minto Museum, operated by the Walsh County Historical Society. The moved structures are arranged to the south and west (rear) of the school grounds, where they do not affect the integrity of the school's original setting. The National Register bound- aries include the 12 adjacent lots comprising the north half of the city block occupied by the school and its newly associated buildings. Verbal boundarydescription: Thenorthhalf of block 11, Original Townsite, Minto, North Dakota, comprising lots 1 -12.. Boundary justification: The bound- ary includes the north half of block 11 (lots 1 -12), which has been historically and is currently associated with the property. Buildings in Rural Settings Theophilus Jones House, Newhaven County, Wallingford, Connecticut, is an 18th century farmstead, which includes a house, barn, carriage house, carpentry shop, woodshed, pigeon house, icehouse, and well with washing terrace. The house was constructed ca. 1740. The property retains the character and feeling of its period, because the property is bounded on the south by open land and the arrangement of the outbuildings blocks the view of more recent residential construction to the north and east. The house faces Jones Road, originally a farm road serving only the house, which is now a residential street. The immediate neighborhood is mostly residential, although there are farms and orchards in the vicinity. The property is significant for its association with Wallingford's origins as an agricul- W UW Fe 9 -1s AE 4469621 - sr.L N 463k 69D s/ Fhy CHICAGO, LOOP, ILL. - 4 E 4910 so: oa%'i�2t -'-N . 4.3y G90 reorcwsn c1. C E 441050 rimgAGlrm tmx .. H. y ^e 39 ❑90 'YV"�'., �h eYfie IMM EEP1E6neE D -yyc 9c0 Marshall Field Garden Apartments, Chicago, Illinois, Detail of USGS quadrangle map showing the National Register boundaries. 10 extending south 938'9" to Evergreen Street, extending west 2639" to Hudson Street, extending north 938' to Blackhawk Street and back east 263' to the northwest corner of Blackhawk and Sedgwick. These dimensions are measured from the masonry edges of the buildings. Boundary justifica- tion: This acreage has historically been associated with the Marshall Field Garden Apartments. Minto School, Minto, Walsh County, North Dakota, was built in 1895. The property includes the school building with attached rear additions and six noncontributing elements moved to the site in the past 20 years and associated with the school building's present use as the Minto Museum, operated by the Walsh County Historical Society. The moved structures are arranged to the south and west (rear) of the school grounds, where they do not affect the integrity of the school's original setting. The National Register bound- aries include the 12 adjacent lots comprising the north half of the city block occupied by the school and its newly associated buildings. Verbal boundarydescription: Thenorthhalf of block 11, Original Townsite, Minto, North Dakota, comprising lots 1 -12.. Boundary justification: The bound- ary includes the north half of block 11 (lots 1 -12), which has been historically and is currently associated with the property. Buildings in Rural Settings Theophilus Jones House, Newhaven County, Wallingford, Connecticut, is an 18th century farmstead, which includes a house, barn, carriage house, carpentry shop, woodshed, pigeon house, icehouse, and well with washing terrace. The house was constructed ca. 1740. The property retains the character and feeling of its period, because the property is bounded on the south by open land and the arrangement of the outbuildings blocks the view of more recent residential construction to the north and east. The house faces Jones Road, originally a farm road serving only the house, which is now a residential street. The immediate neighborhood is mostly residential, although there are farms and orchards in the vicinity. The property is significant for its association with Wallingford's origins as an agricul- tural community; its association with prominent 20th century resident and scholar of American decorative arts, Charles F. Montgomery; and its embodiment of distinctive characteris- tics of Connecticut domestic architec- ture of the 1740s and 1750s. The National Register boundary corre- sponds to the legal block and lot description of the property. Verbal boundary description: The nomi- nated property includes the house, outbuildings, and associated lot known as 40 Jones Road, shown as Map 085, Block 003, Lot 017 in the Wallingford Assessor's records and recorded in the land records in Volume 544, page 476. Boundary justification: The boundary includes the farm house, outbuildings, and farm yard that have historically been part of the Jones farm and that maintain historical integrity. Adjoin- ing parcels of the original farm have been excluded because they have been subdivided and developed into a residential neighborhood. Chris Poldberg Farmstead, Shelby County, Iowa, includes a house, barn, hog house, poultry house, machine shed, cob house, granary, and metal grain bin. The farmstead was estab- lished in the early 20th century by Danish immigrants. The house is situated on the south side of the cluster of farmstead buildings and structures, with the cob house situ- ated off the rear of the house within the yard. The west side of the cluster consists of the poultry house, machine shed, and barn, with the grain bin, granary, and hog house forming the north side of the cluster. A dirt lane extends into the farmstead from the gravel road, bisecting the cluster between north and south halves. Historically, the entire area west, south, and east of the house had a dense tree cover. The property's section, township, and range descrip- tion is used to locate the property; reasonable limits and cultural features (roads) are used to define the Na- tional Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The topo- graphic location of the nominated property is as follows according to the USGS quadrangle map, Prairie Rose Lake, Iowa 1978: E'/4, SE 1/4, SE 1/4, NE' /4 of Section 27, T79N, R37W, Jackson Township, Shelby County, Iowa. The specific property boundary is described as follows: Beginning at a point 10 feet north of the hog house and starting at the west Plumbush, Philipstown, New York. Tax map showing the National Register boundaries. edge of the gravel road proceed west 300 feet, turn south for 300 feet, turn east for 300 feet to the west edge of the road, and turn north for 300 feet to the point of beginning. Boundary justification: The boundary of the nominated property includes that portion of the historic farm holdings that encompasses all of the buildings and structures of the farmstead itself. Plumbush, Putman County, New York, consists of two contributing buildings, a mid -I9th century farm- house and an associated wood house. The original carriage house has been extensively remodeled for use as a garage and is, therefore, noncontrib- uting, as is a modern two -story house, which is separated from Plumbush by a wooded area. The surrounding neighborhood is Waal, with few residences located nearby. The property is bounded on the north, northeast, and south by the Cold Spring Cemetery; on the west by Route 91); on the south by Moffet Road; and on the east by private property. Much of the original 65- acre farm has been subdivided, and extensive infrll has destroyed the historical integrity and setting of the larger farm. The limits of the tax parcel that includes the eligible resources define the boundaries of the National Register property. Verbal boundary description: Plumbush is located on the east side of Route 9D between the intersections of Peekskill and Moffet roads. The nominated property includes two adjacent tax parcels which comprise 9.3 acres as shown on accompanying tax map. Boundary justification: Historically, Plumbush was part of a 65 -acre farm owned by Robert Parker Parrott. Over time, much of the property was subdivided and sold off. Extensive modern infill on the original farm acreage has destroyed the historical integrity and setting of the larger farm. The 9.3 -acre nominated prop- erty is all that remains of the original farm associated with the house. 11 0 6RRlM /� • HOUSL ? tlaF _ cHUACt� i g N a AL s The Church of Saint Dismas, The Good Thief, Dannemora, New York. Detail of tax map showing the National Register boundaries. Church of St. Dismas, The Good Thief, Dannemora, Clinton County, New York, is a large, stone chapel on the grounds of the Clinton Correc- 12 tional Facility. The chapel, which was completed in 1941, was built on the site of the abandoned prison farm building along the north edge of the prison grounds within the walls; 1.07 acres were set aside for the building, and the boundary of the nominated property coincides with the lot lines drawn around the 1.07 acres when the church was built. The boundary encompasses three additional historic features directly associated with the chapel: a greenhouse, a terraced stone wall, and a grotto. The remain- der of the Clinton Correctional Facility, established in 1845, had not been surveyed at the time the chapel nomination was prepared nor evalu- ated for National Register eligibility; therefore, only the chapel and its grounds are included in the nomi- nated property. Verbal boundary description: Heavy black outline on attached county tax map defines boundary of nominated property. Boundary justification: The bound- ary is drawn to coincide with the 1.07 -acre parcel which was delineated when the prison farm was abandoned and the church was constructed. GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL DISTRICTS BOUNDARIES FOR HISTORIC DISTRICTS A historic district possesses a significant concentration or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aestheti- cally by plan or physical develop- ment. Districts may include several contributing resources that are nearly equal in importance, as in a neighbor- hood, or a variety of contributing resources, as in a large farm, estate, or parkway. Noncontributing resources located among contributing resources are included within the boundaries of a district. When visual continuity is not a factor of historic significance, when resources are geographically separate, and when the intervening space lacks significance, a historic district may contain discontiguous elements. (See National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form for further discussion about defining a district.) (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, pp. 56 -57) Select boundaries that encompass the single area of land containing the significant concentration of buildings, sites, structures, or objects making up the district. The district's significance and historic integrity should help determine the boundaries. Consider the following factors: • Visual barriers that mark a change in the historic character of the area or that break the continuity of the district, such as new construction, highways, or development of a different character. • Visual changes in the character of the area due to different architectural styles, types or periods, or to a decline in the concentration of contributing resources. • Boundaries at a specific time in history, such as the original city limits or the legally recorded boundaries of a housing subdivision, estate, or ranch. • Clearly differentiated patterns of historic development, such as commercial versus residential or industrial. A historic district may contain discontiguous elements only under the following circumstances: • When visual continuity is not a factor of historic significance, when resources are geographically separate, and when the intervening space lacks significance: for example, a cemetery located outside a rural village may be part of a discontiguous district. • When cultural resources are interconnected by natural features that are excluded from the National Register listing: for example, the sections of a canal system separated by natural, navigable waterways. • When a portion of a district has been separated by intervening development or highway construction and when the separated portion has sufficient significance and integrity to meet the National Register Criteria. National Register properties classified as districts include college campuses, business districts, commercial areas, residential areas, villages, estates, plantations, transportation networks, and landscaped parks. Historic districts often include contributing archeological resources that should be considered when evaluating signifi- cance and selecting boundaries. Examples of such properties are included in the discussions of districts in rural settings. Examples of archeo- logical districts are presented in the discussion of archeological sites. Boundaries of historic districts are often difficult to describe verbally. Consider using a scale map instead of a narrative verbal boundary descrip- tion to define the boundaries. Contiguous Districts in Urban Settings Taylorsville Historic District, Taylorsville, Spencer County, Ken- tucky, encompasses 34 contributing buildings and 2 contributing sites in the center of the town. The district includes the contiguous, intact, historic resources at the center of the community, which comprise the residential, commercial, governmen- tal, and religious resources that document the development of Taylorsville from its early days through the 1930s. These buildings, along with the streets, alleys, and lots on which they are located, provide an excellent picture of the development of Taylorsville from 1818, the date of the earliest extant house, to 1938, the construction date of the most recent historic building in the district. The district is eligible under Criterion A because it reflects the effects of a number of key events in the town's history, including designation in 1824 as the seat of newly formed Spencer County and the destruction and rebuilding of its commercial area and courthouse after fires in 1898, 1899, and 1913. The district also reflects gradual trends, such as changing patterns in siting and housing types and styles and the development of the community into a commercial and supply center for the surrounding agricultural county. The district is also significant for its representation of community planning and develop- ment: the streets, lots, and buildings in the district document Taylorsville's growth from a tiny, early 19th century settlement to an antebellum govern- ment center and into a small early 20th century county seat. Legal lot descriptions and a reasonable limit were used to define the boundaries of the National Register district. Verbal boundary description: The district is clearly delineated on the accompany- ing sketch map. With one exception, it follows the rear property lines of the properties included in the district. At the Enoch Holsclaw House on Garrard Street ( #1), the western 50 feet of the property where a 1980s house is located have been excluded. Boundary justification: Excluded from the district are other areas of historic Taylorsville where small pockets of historic buildings and individual buildings have been isolated from the district by nonhistoric construction. The historic development along Main Cross Street north of Main Street was considered for inclusion in the district but deter- mined ineligible. Although the area contains a number of historic and contributing buildings including the Taylorsville Public Library, All Saints Church, and some historic houses, the large percentage of nonhistoric and other noncontributing buildings along the street makes it a poor representa- tion of the historic character of the town. Two other collections of historic buildings have also been considered for National Register listing but considered ineligible. Along Reasor Street and Maple Avenue, in an area developed begin- ning in 1899 as "Reason's Addition;' is a collection of small, modest houses dating from about 1900 through the 1940s. A large number of these houses have been seriously altered by the addition of new siding, major changes to front porches, and lateral additions that alter the form of the house. They no longer constitute an intact historic district. At the east end of Main Street, east of Railroad Street, is another collection of 12 historic houses. Although many of these houses retain a significant number of their identifying features, it was determined that they were too dispar- ate a group, with no theme to unite them, to justify a district. Ten historic buildings in Taylorsville have been determined to be individually eligible for the National Register and will be nominated as part of the current project. The district encompasses the contiguous intact historic properties along Main Street and Garrard Street that help to document the district's area of significance— community planning and development. The district boundaries are determined by concentrations of nonhistoric proper- ties that surround the district on all sides. To the east are nonhistoric and noncontributing commercial build- ings. To the south is the 1948 flood wall. To the west, a few remaining historic houses are interspersed with several nonhistoric governmental buildings, including a post office and Spencer County School office and a number of late 1940s infill houses. To the north along Washington Street and Main Cross Street, a number of historic houses at the north ends of the streets are separated from the district by a 1950s church and single - family houses and apartments, all dating from the late 1940s through the 1980s. . o•�' et° e P ao m�a v v� Taylorsville Historic District, Taylorsville, Kentucky. Detail of Spencer County Property Identification Map T -2 showing contributing and non- contributing resources, photo views, and National Register boundaries. 13 Bay Shore Historic District, Miami; Dade County, Florida, in- cludes 201 single - family residences and 70 outbuildings. The district, which is located about 31 /x miles north of downtown Miami, represents a wide variety of early 20th century architectural styles, including Medi- terranean Revival, Art Deco, Colonial Revival, Mission, and Masonry Vernacular. The 90 -acre district is roughly bounded by N.E. 55th Street on the south, Biscayne Boulevard on the west, N.E. 60th Street on the north, and Biscayne Bay on the east. The Bay Shore Historic District is significant at the local level under Criterion A as one of Miami's most intact historic neighborhoods and the city's best extant example of a planned, Boom -era suburb that continued to develop in the years prior to World War E. The district is also significant under Criterion C for its wealth of Mediterranean Revival, Art Deco, and Masonry Vernacular style houses that reflect the diversity and evolution of architectural design in South Florida during the 1920s and 1930s. The National Register bound- aries, defined on a map, are based on assessments of historic boundaries and modern setting. Verbal bound- ary description: The boundary of the Bay Shore Historic District is shown as the heavy line on the accompany- ing map entitled "Bay Shore Historic District" Boundary justification, The boundaries of the Bay Shore Historic District have been drawn to generally follow those of the original Bay Shore subdivisions, platted between 1922 and 1924, and the Bay Shore Plaza subdivision, platted in 1936. Excluded from the district are those portions of the Bay Shore subdivisions located west of Biscayne Boulevard, which is now a major commercial area. The proposed boundaries encompass those portions of the present Bay Shore neighbor- hood that contain a predom nance of buildings constructed between 1922 and 1942. The plan and period of significance clearly set the Bay Shore Historic District apart from its sur- roundings. The boundaries of the district are based on boundaries at a specific time in history, visual changes, and visual barriers. N.E. 60th Street was selected as the north- ern boundary because it is the north- ern limit of the earliest Bay Shore subdivision. Furthermore, the area north of this street contains few 14 IF I ME 900 ► ,ato, t Bay Shore Historic District, Miami, Florida. Detail of map showing a portion of the district's National Register boundary. historic buildings and is of a different character, containing a number of multi - family buildings. On the east, Biscayne Bay and Momingside Park form natural physical boundaries, as well as significant historic boundaries. The bayfront lots help to define the character of the district, and their presence was a major factor in the district's development. Morningside Park is not included because it was not opened until 1951, although the northern portion was acquired by the city in 1935. The rear property lines between N.E. 55th Street and N.E. 53rd Street were chosen as the south- ern boundary because they delineate the southern limit of the Bay Shore Plaza subdivision. in addition, the majority of houses south of this line were constructed after 1942. Finally, Biscayne Boulevard was selected as the rough western boundary because a majority of the development on Biscayne Boulevard is of a different character. Since the mid- 1960s, Biscayne Boulevard has developed into a major thoroughfare with office zoning, and many of the newer buildings are large -scale office or residential structures. Several historic structures do remain, however, and these have been converted into office use. That portion of the original Bay Shore subdivision west of Biscayne Boulevard was excluded because it no longer contains a concentration of historic buildings. Clifton Townsite Historic District, Clifton, Greenlee County, Arizona, clearly defines an intact grouping of buildings of various types dating from the early years of Clifton's development, 1871 -1920. These resources lie within the bottom of the canyon formed by the San Francisco River at its intersection with Chase Creek. This low -lying location, while giving the town a visual boundary, has subjected it to periodic flooding. This has had the greatest impact along Park Avenue where many buildings have been washed away in the past. Many aspects of Clifton are repre- sented by the various buildings and structures: residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, religious, and governmental buildings are included as well as character - defining engineering works such as bridges and flood- control features. Remain- ing buildings represent a variety of late 19th and early 20th century styles. The physical setting in the canyon along the San Francisco River as well as the relative proximity and visual continuity of the structures unifies the district. The general architectural integrity of the district is good, although many properties are aban- doned and have fallen into disrepair: 32 of the 86 resources are noncontrib- uting. The district is significant under Criterion A for its association with the early copper mining and smelting operations in that region and with the town that grew to support those operations. The district is additionally significant under Criterion C for its intact examples of architecture typical of Arizona's mining towns. Two sites within the district, the smelter ruins and a commercial building ruin, are significant under Criterion D as above - ground remnants which reveal important information about signifi- cant aspects of the district. The district's period of significance begins with the construction of the earliest remaining structure in 1874 and ends when the copper smelter moved to Morenci in 1937. The National . Register boundaries are defined on a map; natural and cultural features were used to define the property. Verbal boundary description: The boundary of Clifton Townsite Historic District is shown as the dashed line on the accompanying map entitled "Clifton Townsite Historic District." Boundary justification: The bound- ary includes the properties within an area in central Clifton that retain integrity and are associated with the functioning of Clifton as a major copper smelting center. The boundary excludes, where possible, properties that have lost integrity and /or have no significance. Beginning at the northwest boundary of the district, the cliffs form a natural and well- defined limit encompassing the visible rem- nants of the smelter and associated structures. Proceeding clockwise, the northern limit of the district is marked by the transition from industrial uses to a residential area that contains modern and historic houses of poor integrity. At the point at which the floodwalls appear at the east bank of the San Francisco River, the boundary includes the riverbed and floodwall. The northeast boundary may be divided into two parts: at the north end, geographic limits of the cliffside define the boundary, no further structures being visible uphill; to the south, the slope becomes less steep and additional structures, either modern or of poor integrity, appear uphill from Park Avenue. Properties one - lot -width uphill from Park Avenue are included within the district, because all properties, even noncontributors, are an important part of the Park Avenue Steetscape. At the southernmost end of Park Avenue, no structures exist at the northeast side of the street and the boundary is drawn to exclude this open land. The boundary continues Clifton Townsite Historic District, Clifton, Greenlee County, Arizona. Map showing the National Register boundaries. south, excluding open land, but including the east floodwall south to its end. The southern boundary is defined by a line connecting the southernmost ends of the formally constructed floodwalls at both sides of the San Francisco River (slag - rubble walls continue to the south through much of the town). This location coincides with a construction in the width of the canyon, a bend in the river, and a break in continuity of development from the remainder of the town to the south. The boundary continues northwest along the west- ern floodwall, excluding the site of the former freight depot (now demol- ished). The boundary then is drawn to include the passenger depot, following the geographic boundary of the cliffside, which firmly delineates the boundary at this location. At the point where the canyon of Chase Creek and the San Francisco River meet, the boundary is drawn at the edge of U.S. Route 666 to exclude an area of intruded properties that step up the cliffside, which is not as steep at this point. At the south side of the Chase Creek commercial area, the property line or street curbline and the cliffside largely coincide to define the edge of development in Clifton. The westernmost termination of the district at Chase Creek is drawn at the end of the area of dense commercial character of Chase Creek and at the westernmost extant of the stone retaining wall at the cliffs north of Chase Creek. This location coincides with a restriction in the width of the canyon and a corresponding pause in the continuity of development sites from development further west. 15 Elm Hill, Wheeling, Ohio County, West Virginia, is a mid -19th century Greek Revival mansion on a secluded esplanade. The area, which was historically farmland, is now part of suburban Wheeling. The grounds are landscaped lawn with shade trees, evergreens, and shrubs. The associ- ated brick springhouse /smokehouse, barn /garage, and cemetery are contributing resources. The legal property description was used to define the National Register bound- aries of the property. Verbal bound- ary description: The nominated property is inclusive of the 1933 -acre tract identified as parcel #7, sur- rounded by acreage of the Wheeling Country Club, on Ohio County assessor's Map RD -14, Richland District, February 1960, Wheeling, West Virginia. Boundary justifica- tion: The property is inclusive of broad lawns and open areas that form a significant setting between Bethany Pike and the rear property lines. Within this green space stand the house, smokehouse / springhouse, barn, and cemetery. Discontiguous Districts in Urban Settings Plemons —Mrs. M. D. Oliver - Eakle Additions Historic District, Amarillo, Potter County, Texas, includes about 40 blocks of residential development originally platted as the Plemons Addition (1890) and the Mrs. M. D. Oliver -Eakle Addition (1903). The district is characterized by an eclectic mix of modestly scaled dwellings representing architectural styles of the early 20th century. The historic landscaping reinforces the neighborhood's cohesiveness. De- spite the intrusion of a major arterial highway (which separates the district into two discontiguous parts), the historic district retains a high level of its historic integrity, with 357 of 535 resources classified as contributing elements. The district is one of Amarillo's most intact early 20th century residential neighborhoods. The design, scale, and materials of the building stock reflect the cyclical development of Amarillo's economy from the turn of the century to the beginning of World War 1I. The predominant Prairie School and Craftsman- influenced bungalow styles reflect Amarillo's growth from the 1910s through the 1930s as re- gional discoveries of oil and natural 16 Elm Hill, Wheeling, West Virginia. Tax map showing the National Register boundaries. Plemons =Mrs. M. D. Oliver -Eakle Additions Historic District, Amarillo, Texas. Detail of USGS map showing the National Register district boundaries and UTM references. ELM HrcL �hFrFRr (f G11K rKnmc .wuwmr au u 77 AiK SM Ran Elm Hill, Wheeling, West Virginia. Tax map showing the National Register boundaries. Plemons =Mrs. M. D. Oliver -Eakle Additions Historic District, Amarillo, Texas. Detail of USGS map showing the National Register district boundaries and UTM references. gas augmented agriculturally based wealth. The district is nominated to the National Register under Criteria A and C. The National Register bound- aries of this discontiguous district follow existing roadways that encom- pass the eligible resources. Verbal boundary description: As indicated by the solid black lines on the accom- panying USGS map, the historic district is comprised of two discontiguous elements divided by Interstate Highway 40. The northern portion of the historic district encom- passes 86 acres bounded by the following parameters: Beginning at the center point of the intersection of E. 16th Avenue and S. Taylor Street, proceed south along the center line of South Taylor Street continuing to its intersection with the center line of the North Access Road of Interstate Highway 40; thence southwest and west along the center line of the North Access Road of Interstate Highway 40 to its intersection with the center line of the alley west of S. Madison Street; thence north through the alley along its center line to its intersection with the center line of W. 16th Avenue; thence east along the center line of 16th Avenue until reaching the point of beginning. The southern portion of the historic district encompasses 94 acres bounded by the following parameters: Beginning at the center point of the intersection of S. Taylor Street and E. 26th Avenue, proceed west along the center line of 26th Avenue continuing to the point of its intersection with the alley west of S. Van Buren Street; thence north through the alley along the center line to its point intersection with W. 24th Avenue; thence east along the center line of W. 24th Avenue to its point of intersection with S. Van Buren Street; thence north along the center line of S. Van Buren Street to its intersection with the center line of the South Access Road of Interstate Highway 40; thence east and southeast along the center line of the South Access Road of Interstate Highway 40 to the point of its intersection with S. Taylor Street; thence south along the center line of S. Taylor Street until reaching the point of beginning. Boundary justification: Consisting of two discontiguous elements currently divided by the incursion of Interstate Highway 40, the Plemons —Mrs. M. D. Oliver -Eakle Additions Historic District encompasses a cohesive collection of residential properties dating to the early 20th century. District boundaries coincide with concentrations of historic properties within the original limits of the Plemons Addition and the Mrs. M. D. Oliver -Eakle Addition to the City of Amarillo. The boundaries encompass those portions of the neighborhood that retain a significant degree of integrity of historic setting and feeling strengthened by the continuity provided by historic streetscapes. Areas beyond these boundaries generally consist of properties whose character differs from those within the historic district, including residences that exhibit loss of historic integrity or were built following the historic development period of the neighbor- hood. Properties outside the historic district also include functionally different resources, such as nonhistoric commercial properties and large -scale institutional proper- ties. Changes in the historic residen- tial character of the neighborhood establish the boundaries on all sides. The northern boundary along 16th Avenue demarcates the transition between the commercial and institu- tional character of Amarillo's central business district and the residential neighborhoods in the southern reaches of the city. The eastern boundary along Taylor Street coin- cides with the dissolution of historic residential character prompted by the incursion of Interstate Highway 27. Numerous noncontributing commer- cial and residential properties com- promise the integrity of the area east of this boundary. The southern boundary along 26th Avenue occurs at the point of transition between residential properties developed during the early 20th century and those developed in the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. On the west, the district boundary coincides with the limits of residential development with the Mrs. M. D. Oliver -Eakle Addition, as the campus of Amarillo College hems in the neighborhood along this bound- ary. Interstate Highway 40, which obliterated portions of the historic neighborhood between 18th and 19th Avenues, is excluded from the historic district and divides it into dis- contiguous components. North of Interstate Highway 40, the western boundary falls along the alley west of Madison, which separated historic residential development from non- contributing commercial development along Washington Street. Contiguous Districts in Rural Settings Woodlawn Historic and Archaeo- logical District, King George County, Virginia, is a 899 -acre historic riverfront plantation along the north bank of the Rappahannock River and the west bank of Gingoteague Creek. Woodlawn is among the oldest plantations in the county and retains essentially the same boundaries it had when the land was first consolidated in the late 18th century. The property includes 21 buildings, sites, and structures: the planation house, dating from ca. 1790, and its early to mid -19th century ancillary buildings, with major additions and renovations to the plantation house ca. 1841, 1934, and 1982. There are 6 contributing buildings, including the plantation house and two antebellum outbuild- ings and slave quarters and an early 20th century barn and implement shed. The 10 contributing archeologi- cal and landscape sites include 5 prehistoric sites, a historic domestic site, a ditch network, the field system, the farm road network, and a springhousefoundation site. There are 3 noncontributing buildings, l noncontributing site, and 1 noncon- tributing structure. Periods of signifi- cance are represented by contributing prehistoric Native American re- sources and the historic resources of the 17th century and of the late 18th century through 1937. Woodlawn Historic and Archaeological District is eligible under Criteria A, C, and D at the state and local levels. The well - preserved plantation house is one of a number of important and interrelated houses built along the Rappahannock River between 1760 and the 1850s. In addition to its architectural signifi- cance, the district also represents the historical influence of agriculture and transportation on the settlement and economy of the Northern Neck of Virginia. Woodlawn is also signifi- cant for its association with the Turner family, whose history in Virginia dates to the mid -17th century and whose occupation of Woodlawn lasted into the 1920s. The Turners were members of an extended family of prominent landowners who left an important architectural legacy in the area. The social and cultural values of the antebellum planter class are reflected in the architectural traditions of Woodlawn. The patterns of residential, agricultural, and wood lot 17 land use persist today. Field patterns, vegetation, and drainage ditches dating from the period of significance survive. Natural and cultural features and reasonable limits were used to define the National Register bound- aries of this large rural property. Verbal boundary description: The boundary of Woodlawn Historic and Archaeological District begins at the northern bank of the Rappahannock River at UTM 18 309780 4226640; and continues north /northeast until it intersects the drainage ditch (Archeo- logical Site 44KG94) at UTM 18 309910 4227160; and continues north/ northeast along the western edge of the ditch until it intersects a tributary of Gingoteague Creek at UTM 18 310380 4228360; and continues north/ northeast until it intersects a dirt road at UTM 18 310560 4228890; and follows the western edge of the dirt road until it intersects State Route 625 to UTM 18 310645 4229165; and continues west along the northern edge of State Route 625 to UTM 18 310645 4229240; and continues north/ northeast to UTM 18 310600 4229520; and continues east until it intersects the northern edge of State Route 625 at UTM 18 310730 4229430; and crosses State Route 625 and follows the southern edge of State Route 625 to UTM 18 310830 4229380; and continues south /southwest to UTM 18 310675 4228845; and continues east to UTM 18 311220 4228820; and continues north /northeast to the southern edge of State Route 625 at UTM 18 311300 4229240; and contin- ues west along the southern edge of State Route 625 to UTM 18 311240 4229240; and continues northeast, crossing State Route 625, to UTM 18 311490 4229495; and continues southeast to UTM 18 311520 4229430, east to UTM 18 311560 4229450, southeast to UTM 18 311610 4229325, east to UTM 18 322735 4229270, and southeast, crossing State Route 625, to the southern edge of State Route 625 at UTM 18 311760 4229220; and continues east along the southern edge of State Route 625 until it intersects the Gingoteague Creek at UTM 18 311830 4229230; and contin- ues south along the center of the Gingoteague Creek until it intersects the Rappahannock River at UTM 18 312045 422660; and continues east along the northern bank of the Rappahannock River to UTM 18 309780 4226640. Verbal boundary justification: The boundary chosen f[:1 Woodlawn Historic and Archaeological District, King George County, Virginia. Detail of USGS map showing contributing resources and the National Register boundaries. for the Woodlawn Historic and Archaeological District corresponds to traditional and current property lines. Significant contributing historic and archeological resources are contained within these bound- aries. Dietz Farm, Greenbrier County, West Virginia, is a 96 -acre property, occupying a high knoll with gently sloping pastures and adjacent wood- lands at Meadow Bluff, overlooking the historic Kanawha and James River Turnpike. During the Civil War, the house served as temporary Confederate and Union headquarters and hospital,and winter quarters were constructed near the house. The brick farm house, two outbuildings, and a noncontributing barn make up the farm complex. On two knolls several hundred meters due west of the house are the earthwork remains of Confederate fortifications. In a depression between the knolls are the unmarked graves of an unknown number of Confederate soldiers who died in the house during the time that it served as a hospital. The burial area is a contributing site. South of the turnpike is a third contributing Confederate earthwork. The Na- tional Register boundaries follow cultural features, natural features, and a contour line, defining the extent of the contributing resources and their setting. Verbal boundary description: Beginning at a point where County Route 60/25 meets State Route 28; thence approximately 750 feet northeast along the west side of Route 60/25; thence in a line approximately 1,600 feet due north- west along the southern side of Route 60/25 to where said route begins to cross Meadow River; thence in a slightly meandering fashion follow- ing the east bank of Meadow River for approximately 2,500 feet south- west to where the major contour tine meets the east side of Meadow River; thence following the principal 2,500 - foot contour line (as lined in red on the accompanying USGS topographic map) in an eastward direction; thence south eastward; thence north for approximately 2,000 feet until the line meets the east side of State Route 28; thence in a line northwest for approximately 500 feet along the west side of State Route 28 to the point of beginning, encompassing approximately 96 acres. Boundary justification: The boundary is drawn so as to include the principal area immediately around the Dietz House /Headquarters that served as outdoor bivouac for soldiers of both sides during the time the property was used for military purposes. On the north and west the boundaries are drawn so as to include the major Confederate trenches along the east side of the Meadow River and the defensive earthworks on the two principal rises that were constructed in anticipation of Federal assault down Route 60 from the northwest. The boundaries also include the burial sites of Confederate soldiers who died while the property was being used as a field hospital. Dietz Farm, Greenbrier County, West Virginia. Topographic map showing the National Register boundaries and UTM reference points. Dune Shacks of Peaked Hill Bars Historic District, Cape Cod, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, is located within Cape Cod National Seashore, on Cape Cod peninsula. The dune shacks, which have been determined eligible for the National Register as a historic district, are scattered along a three -mile stretch of unvegetated dunes in view of the Atlantic Ocean. The shacks were historically used as summer retreats by members of a colony of artists, writers, poets, actors, journalists, bohemians, and socialites from the 1920s to 1960s. The dune shacks and the natural landform of the dunes form a unique historic cultural landscape. The eligible property includes 17 shacks and the surround- ing dune landscape. Because the natural landscape served as setting and inspiration for the inhabitants;' the appropriate boundary includes the collective extent of the visible landscape for all the dune shacks in the district Geographic Information System (GIS) analysis techniques were used to analyze the viewshed for the purpose of defining the district boundaries. Natural features, cultural features, and viewsheds were used to define the National Register bound- aries of the property. Verbal bound- ary description: The boundary for the Dune Shacks of Peaked Hill Bars Historic District encompasses ap- proximately 1,500 acres and is de- scribed as follows: the shoreline to the north, the crest of the second dune line away from the shore south of the second jeep trail delineated on the accompanying USGS map, the viewshed line of the cluster of shacks F, A,1, and D on the west, and the crest of the first dune ridge to the east of shack B. These boundaries are demarcated on the attached map of the area. Boundary justification: This boundary encompasses all of the dune shacks and the area incorporat- ing the entirety of the historically significant cultural landscape and associated important viewsheds as seen from the dune shacks. This boundary is supported by the written documentation and by the attached GIS viewshed analysis. The shifting characteristics of the dune landscape are recognized; for this reason this boundary is a close approximation. In light of dune movement, the boundary may move in some loca- tions some degree, but the basic principles underlying its justification 19 shall remain constant. Allowing for this movement, the boundary shall continue to include the dune shacks and the extent of the landscape to the crest of the second dune ridge, wherever that may occur. Tomahawk Lake Camp Historic District, Oneida County Wisconsin, is a 20th century tuberculosis rehabili- tation camp. The 17 buildings and one structure are located on a site surrounded by forest reserve on Little Tomahawk Lake. The camp was established in response to advances in the treatment of tuberculosis and the perceived need to reforest the cut - over region of northern Wisconsin. At the camp, infected patients were isolated from general hospital patients and benefitted from the curative effects of open space for exercise and fresh air. Natural features, cultural features, and reasonable limits were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: Beginning at the inter- section with the south edge of Rain- bow Road and a north - northwest line extending 200 feet south of Raven Road, commence north- northwest along that line 500 feet to the intersec- tion of a north -south line extending 200 feet east of the garage and work- shops to Little Lake Tomahawk, commencing south along that line to the intersection of the Little Lake Tomahawk shoreline, then northwest along the lake shore to the intersec- tion of a north -south line extending 150 feet west of the garage, then commencing north along that line to the intersection of a west -east line extending 150 feet north of the shed and commencing east along that line to the intersection of a north- north- west line extending 200 feet north of Raven Road and commencing along that line to the intersection of County Highway D, then running south along the west side of County Highway D to the point of beginning. Boundary justification: The Tomahawk Lake Camp boundary was drawn to encompass all historic and nonhistoric resources in the complex. It also includes the surrounding landscape features that provide the northwoods setting. This includes the wooded area around the Raven Road entrance and the woods surrounding the buildings. The northwoods environ- ment was a very important part of the camp's outdoor, health- conscience philosophy that was advertised to 20 Dune Shacks of Peaked Hill Bars Historic District, Barnstable County, Massachusetts. This GIS viewshed analysis snap shows the National Register - eligible historic district in black and the dune shacks as white dots within the district, roads, trails, and lakes are shown in white (Knoerl and Chittenden 1990:7). ( 01IANAWR CARE CAM? H:liJR /c DPSIXI[ GX� 7F'f4MAWX, 04,901 &.7Y N�S:ivIS N 4 +yp 4I / tYt� l 0 O y A O t oaY•JT+xY 7 l` 0• e a 9 j 4!� a $ 1 % 1 i,:•1 yt Ml 6npnpE PJ 1� 8M Y M� 1 t ? � i.io••••c axeni 4I 4 tx \� col � o xo.c r s o 1 ® U '' ra' Q , GLin454x0 QI �•^ FJYHf E�F51NOA q}/ t- II w.rvbxeP lI QI ef0 {wr,T <C'E1t �I t at O w «�u.nwF °I seuuanrtY �ojI3 1 1 °I D; i Lwr res Lfl . `�^OI 91sx�I F..fiY wAy �L2 -9E:P �ZI Tomahawk fake Camp Historic District, Lake Tomahawk, Oneida County, Wisconsin. Sketch map showing the National Register boundaries. prospective patients. The site in- cludes 21 acres of the former 536 -acre site. Acreage not included in the district is heavily wooded and does not contribute to the historic signifi- cance of the complex. Bloomvale Historic District, Dutchess County, New York, is a small industrial site, established in the mid -18th century. The district's eleven contributing resources include the Bloom house and well, the Bloomvale mill, a worker's house, the mill's water system, the old highway and bridge abutments, four mill complex building sites, and the district's archeological remains. The agricultural function of the Bloom farm declined; farm buildings are gone and the agricultural fields are overgrown. However, the industrial history of Bloomvale is well repre- sented, and the Bloom house and the industrial complex remain suffi- ciently intact to preserve the setting of the mill site and the visual and functional interrelationships of its components. Thus, the industrial history of the site is the focus of the district's significance. The bound- aries of the district were selected to include the present -day parcels containing the significant historic resources. National Register bound- aries correspond to tax parcel bound- aries. Verbal boundary description: See attached site map and boundary map composed from local tax maps. Boundary justification: The bound- aries of the district were determined by the present -day parcels containing the significant historic components identified on the site map. Today, the house and the mill are owned sepa- rately. The Bloom house and its lot were divided from the mill site and two northern farm lots in the 1860s. Those farm lots were subsequently sold off and have since been further subdivided. The agricultural function of the Bloom farm declined over the years to the point where the farm buildings have disappeared and the agricultural fields reforested. Con- versely, the industrial history of Bloomvale is well represented and the Bloom house and the industrial complex remain sufficiently intact to preserve the setting of the mill site and the visual and functional interre- lationships of its components. Thus, it is the industrial history of the site that is the focus of the district's significance. Tax map showing nominated boundaries ordishice WM TOWN OF PLEASANT VALLEY 00CHESS COUNTY. NEW YORK 6S6a� TOWN OF WASHINGTON 4NCNf5S COVNYY. MEW TOflK 6565 Bloomvale Historic District, Dutchess County, New York. Tax map showing the National Register district boundaries. Martin M. Bates Farmstead, Richmond, Chittenden County, Vermont, is a 45 -acre property includ- ing a 19th century Italianate farm- house and associated barn, ice house, and chicken house surrounded by hay fields and forested hills. The farm- stead contributes to understanding the development of dairy farming in the region; therefore, the intact open farm fields around the farm buildings are also important components of the farmstead. Although the farm is no longer in operation, the fields con- tinue to be hayed. Natural features, tax parcel boundaries, and reasonable limits were used to define the Na- tional Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The Bates Farmstead includes land on both sides of Richmond Town Highway #1. The boundary above the road is formed by the southern edge of a brook that drains into the Huntington River and the eastern line of tax parcel number 11 -51.1. The boundary below the road follows the southern line of tax parcel number 11 -50 to a point approxi- mately 500 feet from the edge of the road. From that point, the boundary extends in a straight line parallel with the road to the brook, which it touches south of Hillview Road. The boundary thence follows the brook downstream to Hillview Road and continues along the edge of that road to the town highway. Boundary justification: The boundary includes all buildings and the surrounding open fields historically associated with the Bates Farmstead. Martin M. Bates Farmstead, Richmond, Vermont. Plan map showing the National Register boundaries, which include buildings and associated fields and woods. 21 Rocky Butte Scenic Drive Historic District, Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon, includes the view- point on the crest of Rocky Butte, the scenic drive approaches to the view- point, and Joseph Wood Hill Park, also on the crest. Rocky Butte Scenic Drive is a serpentine automobile roadway that climbs with three switchbacks and a final girdling loop to the summit of Rocky Butte. Con- tributing features include the road- ways and accompanying historic structures, the crest viewpoint struc- ture, and the historic aircraft beacon. The district's original association was with recreational driving and scenic views, although residential develop- ment has encroached on the lower portions of the roadway; nevertheless, the viewpoint still offers a scenic vista over the Columbia River plain in all directions. The road right -of -way and tax parcel boundaries were used to define the National Register bound- aries of the property. Verbal bound- ary description: The nominated area is located in Sections 21 and 28, Township IN, Range 2E, Willamette Meridian in Portland, Multnomah County, Oregon. It is a lineal, serpen- tine district consisting of the entire 50- foot -wide right of way of Rocky Butte Road and approach sections of NE 92nd Avenue from Halsey Street on the south and NE Fremont Street from 82nd Avenue on the west to include all historic developed features of the scenic parkway and Joseph Wood Hill Park at the crest of Rocky Butte, encompassing in all 21.48 acres, more or less, in the corporate limits of the city of Portland. The total number of contributing features (14) includes the road system, its retaining walls, two tunnels, drainage structures, stone fenders, stone bollards, the park, a stone outlook with lamp posts, a stone staircase, a viewfinder, a commemo- rative monument, and the historic aircraft beacon. Boundary justifica- tion: The district is located in Town- ship 1 North, Range 2 East, Sections 21 and 28. The district is bounded by the 50 -foot -wide right of way as measured from the center lines of Rocky Butte Road, and of 92nd Avenue from Halsey Street to Rocky Butte Road South, and along Fremont Street from 82nd Avenue to Rocky Butte Road North. Tax Lot 47 of Section 28 is located within the confines of Rocky Butte Road as it circumnavigates the crest of the butte. The district comprises an approximate 22 total of 21.48 acres. This includes 2.38 acres which is the Joseph Wood Hill portion of the district, Tax Lot 47. Because the district comprises ap- proach drives and a viewpoint located within the confines of approach drives, it was felt that the road right of ways would appropriately bound the district. The approach drives pass through residential areas at the butte's foot and then wind through newer residential areas as they climb the butte. Houses cluster along portions of the roads on the butte. Other portions of the roads are still in natural woodland. Weyerhaeuser South Bay Log Dump Rural Historic Landscape, Thurston County, Washington, encompasses 260, acres of uplands and 190 acres of tideland along the Henderson Inlet of southern Puget Sound. Twin estuaries of Woodard and Chapman Bays on Henderson Inlet intersect the property forming north, south, and central peninsulas of land. The property reflects a continuity of land uses and the evolution of functional relationships between wooded land and water in the south Puget Sound region through prehistoric and historic periods. Use of the property by successive groups —Native Americans, Euro- American settlers, loggers, oyster growers, and the Weyerhaeuser log transport operation — reflects historic waterfront activities on lower Puget Sound over thousands of years. The use of the site for log dumping and booming by Weyerhaeuser Corpora- tion since 1926 has forestalled en- croachment of modern subdivision development typical of adjacent areas, thus preserving evidence of the land - use patterns of earlier eras. Evidence of prehistoric and 20th century land use is still evident, and natural landscape features survive as well. The area was occupied by prehistoric Native Americans, who gathered IN Tldelwds EMATIDM MOWER "ML MISTORK 210RILT SOOMMRT MLIlOLR50.Y 1 i i• . � a eamnen tir s rn ua a r6i,r"OCwno-a iv �c WEYERHAEUSER SOUTH BAY LOG DUMP RURAL HISTORIC LANDSCAPE WOOCARO BAY NATURAL RESOURCES CONSERVATION AREA tmn,el. m.., TMq.aoR C.., VA) SKETCHAtAP OF STRUCTURES Weyerhaeuser South Bay Log Dump Rural Historic District, Thurston County, Washington. Plan map showing the National Register boundaries. shellfish and plant foods and hunted there. European- American settlers arrived in the mid -19th century, and logging began in the 1880s. The area was purchased by Weyerhaeuser in the mid -1920s for log transshipment. Tax parcel boundaries were used to define the National Register boundaries of this property. Verbal boundary description: Boundaries as described in parcel numbers 11918100000, 11918410000,11918430000, 11917320000,11917320100, 11917330I00,11917220000, 93006700000,93006800000, 93006900000,93007000000, 93007100000,93007200000, 93007300000,93007400000, 93007500000,93007600000, 93007700000, and 93007800000 on file at the Thurston County Assessor's Office and illustrated in the attached map. Boundary justification: The nominated property includes all land in the historic Weyerhaeuser owner- ship. Discontiguous Districts in Rural Settings (See also Discontiguous Archeological Districts) Crockett Canyon /Coyote Ranch Archeological District, Southwest, [location restricted], contains 16 discontiguous sites associated with prehistoric cultures. The sites are located among the cliffs and canyons of the Ardra Plateau, approximately 20 miles northeast of Fort Sickles. The sites were nominated as a district because they document an extensive, diverse, and well - preserved assem- blage of prehistoric artwork; they define distinct stylistic traditions among petroglyph and pictograph groups; and they identify long -term aboriginal habitation directly associ- ated with the rock art. The sites are related by artistic style, artifact group- ings, and geologic setting. Individual site boundaries are based on the extent of surface features and artifacts. Verbal boundary description: The Crockett Canyon /Coyote Ranch Archeological District consists of 16 significant areas of aboriginal rock art, shelters, and campsites. The accompa- nying topographic maps show the location and configuration of each nominated site by using labeled points and UTM grid coordinates. Crockett Canyon sites are: [excerpted site example] 33GG111 : This site contains approximately 1.5 acres and is found on the USGS 7.5' Crockett Canyon topographical sheet. From point 1 (UTM coordinates QQQ /RRR), follow the 2,400 -foot contour southward to point 2 (UTM coordinates SSS /TTT), a distance of about 197 feet (60 m). Continue to the NE for approximately 197 feet (60 m) to point 3 (UTM coordinates UUU /VVV), and then to the NW about 262 feet (80 m) to point 4 (UTM coordinates WWW /XXX). Proceed southward along the 2,400_ foot contour approximately 197 feet (60 m) back to point 1. The State owns this site, which is located in Section 4, Township 2S, Range 4W. Boundary justification: All 16 sites in the district are culturally linked by similar artifactual and pictographic design styles. The boundaries of the discontiguous district correspond to the boundaries of the 16 individual segments (sites). Individual site boundaries were determined by mapping the extent of surface- visible cultural features and artifacts. All of the sites are fairly discrete locations of cultural activity, with artifacts concen- trated near the petroglyph panels, shelters, and fire - cracked rock hearths that comprise the most significant features at each locus. Areas of low - density scattered artifacts or features (less than approximately 1 artifact per 50 square meters) were not included within the site boundaries. The data the sites present jointly is more important and convincing than when presented in isolation. Taken to- gether, these data overlap and suc- ceed each other, documenting over 7,000 years of occupation and the change in subsistence from hunting and gathering to agriculture. Reflect- ing this economic change is a rich and varied body of artistic expression that spans the entire period of occupation. Parks as Districts Local, State, and national parks may also include National Register properties. Boundaries for National Register properties within parks are limited to eligible resources; therefore, the National Register boundaries may differ from park boundaries. Special provisions apply to historic and cultural units of the National Park System (as discussed below). In selecting boundaries, consider the extent of the eligible resources and their setting. Do not include buffer zones or large areas that lack contrib- uting resources. Each historic and cultural unit of the National Park System is automati- cally listed in the National Register on the date its authorization is signed into law. During the interim period before the National Park Service has defined the extent of the areas of historic value, the National Register boundaries are those defined in the National Park Service authorizing legislation, regardless of ownership. Congress may authorize for the National Park System, with no requirement of notice, land areas not yet acquired as well as those never to be acquired in fee, including those to be controlled by easement acquisition. For each historic or cultural unit, the National Park Service will evalu- ate the entire authorized (listed) area, prepare a nomination form, and precisely define the boundaries to encompass the resources that have historic significance. If the proposed National Register boundaries coincide substantially with the park bound- aries, the documentation is forwarded to the Keeper of the National Register, and a courtesy copy is sent to the State Historic Preservation Officer. When the Keeper signs the nomina- tion form, the boundaries of the property considered to be listed in the National Register are thus defined by the documentation. If the proposed National Register boundaries differ from the area authorized, the documentation is submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer for comment within 45 days. In some cases, the area documented and subsequently listed may be less than the area authorized to exclude nonhistoric buffer zones. The listed area may include privately owned areas, but only to the extent that they have been authorized by Congress. Rock Creek Park Historic District, Washington, D.C., is a 1,754.62 -acre property in the northwest quadrant of the District of Columbia. The prop- erty is legally defined as Reservation 339 and its boundaries are roughly defined as Sixteenth Street on the east, Oregon Avenue and Branch Road on the west, Klingle Road on the south, and the District of Columbia line and Parkside Drive on the north. Rock Creek Park is a natural reserve within a heavily urbanized area. The park is surrounded by commercial and residential development, and it has 23 only two modern areas of concen- trated recreational and administrative activity. Otherwise, Rock Creek Park Historic District retains a high degree of integrity that well reflects the development of this public landscape between 1791 and 1941.. Andrew Ellicott's 1791 survey recorded the topography of the property and shows the location of the District of Columbia boundary at the northwest comer of the park. Verbal boundary description: The boundary of Rock Creek Park Historic District is shown as the bold black line on the accompa- nying map entitled "Rock Creek Park Historic District, 1990." This tract of land is legally defined as Reservation 339. Boundary justification: The boundaries of this district were determined by both legal and histori- cal considerations. Reservation 339 was the land set aside by Congress as Rock Creek Park in 1890 with ap- proximately 100 acres of related boundary rectifications and additions. The Piney Branch Parkway was acquired by the government in 1907 and was extended in the 1920s. It was included in this district because it is legally a part of Reservation 339. Furthermore, there is also historical justification for the parkway's inclu- sion in Rock Creek Park Historic District because this land area was surveyed and included in the 1918 Olmsted comprehensive plan for Rock Creek Park. The plan was prepared in 1917 -1918 by the famous Brookline, Massachusetts, landscape architecture firm of Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., and his half- brother John C. Olmsted. Their plan for Rock Creek Park was adopted in 1919 and has remained a vital management document ever since. As an administrative unit, Rock Creek Park presently contains many other urban parks that are not con- tiguous to Reservation 339, including the Rock Creek and Potomac Park- way, the Normanstone Parkway, and the Soapstone and Klingle valleys. These areas were acquired and integrated into Washington's park system between 1913 and 1950 as access routes and a means of preserv- ing the watershed of the Rock Creek valley. Although the Melvin Hazen Park and Pinehurst Parkway are contiguous to Rock Creek Park, they were acquired and consolidated as park land within the recent past and do not share the Piney Branch Parkway's early legal or historical associations to Reservation 339. 24 Rock Creek Park Historic District, Washington, D.C.. Plan map showing the National Register boundaries. Pecos National Historical Park, San Miguel County, New Mexico, is strategically located at the mountain gateway between the Southern Great Plains And the Rio Grande valley. The boundaries of the 384.8 -acre archeo- logical district are coterminous with Pecos National Historical Park. The history of the upper Pecos River valley, as represented by the archeo- logical and historic sites within the archeological district, demonstrates a succession of attempts to exploit the natural and cultural resources of the Southwest. The 96 archeological sites within the property represent a complex of pueblos inhabited by ancestors of the Pecos Indians from A.D. 800 to 1838 and a series of Spanish Franciscan mission churches and secular buildings constructed during the 17th and 18th centuries. Adolph Bandelier mapped ruins at Pecos in 1881, and archeologists including Edgar Hewett, Kenneth Chapman, AY Kidder, Stanley Stubbs, and Bruce Ellis conducted investigations at various sites on the property during the first half of the 20th century. Verbal boundary description: Pecos National Historical Park is surrounded by private ranch holdings, almost all of which are owned by the Fogelsons. The nom- inated district boundaries are coterminous with the National Historical Park boundaries. Boundary justification: Pecos National Histori- Rock Creek Park Historic District, Washington, D.C. Southeast view of Boulder Bridge (ca. 1901-1902). (William Bushong) cal Park was established in 1965 and added to in the 1980s by land dona- tions from the Fogelsons. Maquoketa Caves State Park Historic District, Jackson County, Iowa, includes 111 acres of land acquired in three parcels between 1921 and 1940. These parcels consti- tute the eastern portion of the park and include all of the park structures, most of which were built between 1932 and 1939. Between I961 and 1981,161 acres were added west of the historic park area as a nature preserve; this acreage is not included in the National Register historic district. In the center of the park is a steep ravine with sheer limestone cliffs ranging from 10 to 75 feet high. NORTH ARROYO Pecos National Historical Park, San Miguel County, New Mexico. Plan map of the Forked Lightning Ruin, adapted from A. V. Kidder's field maps from 1926, 1927, and 1929. Pecos National Historical Park, San Miguel County, New Mexico. Ruins of the 17th century church. (Pecos National Monument) Foot trails snake around the tops of the cliffs to overlooks, which offer views of the valley and caves below. Other trails lead to cave entrances which are connected by underground passages. Nine of the fifteen struc- tures in the park are associated with the 1932 -1939 development period and are contributing resources. The district is significant as one of the first parks established in Iowa, selected because of the property's limestone caves. The property in included in two multiple property submissions, "The Conservation Movement in Iowa, 1857-1942," and "CCC Proper. ties in Iowa State Parks, 1933-1942. " Because of the related periods of significance, the 1940 boundaries are appropriate. Verbalboundary description: The historic portion of Maquoketa Caves State Park com- prises three separate [adjoining] parcels which form an irregular tract of 111.08 acres located in Section 6, T- 84N, R -113. This acreage covers approximately half of the park on the east side. The tract is bounded on the west by newer park Iands and on the north, east, and south by privately owned farmland. Boundary justifica- tion: These boundaries represent the extent of park holdings as of 1942. Hanging Rock State Park Bath- house, Stokes County, North Caro- lina, is the largest and most distinctive facility constructed in North Carolina by the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). The building is significant for its architecture (Criterion Q as the most prominent example of CCC. constructed rustic park facilities in North Carolina. Included in the nomination are the adjacent 12 -acre Hanging Rock Lake and its concrete stone dam, which were built concur- rently with the bathhouse. These resources are also eligible for their associations with the CCC program in North Carolina. The building and its setting embody the ideals of park design that emphasized harmony with the natural landscape through sensitive siting and the use of native building materials and rustic architec- tural forms. The lake and shoreline, which are included as a contributing site, constitute the historic setting, which is integral to the historic character and function of the bath- house. A reasonable limit of 175 feet from the lakeshore was used to define the National Register boundaries. 25 Maquoketa Cave State Park Historic District, Jackson County, Iowa. Plan map showing the park boundaries and the National Register district boundaries. Lac qui Parle State Park WPAiRustic Style Historic utstrtct, lac qui carne L.ounty, Minnesota. Plan map showing the National Register boundaries. i _ -� N N _ 1 o✓n j`f' LAKE ff f �^—�y- - - � i � mn •mcw � / ptxxCeSE ? 1`� - • m.. e..rsnea , I •�-P Maquoketa Cave State Park Historic District, Jackson County, Iowa. Plan map showing the park boundaries and the National Register district boundaries. Lac qui Parle State Park WPAiRustic Style Historic utstrtct, lac qui carne L.ounty, Minnesota. Plan map showing the National Register boundaries. i Hanging Rock State Park Bathhouse, Stokes County, North Carolina. Plan map showing the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The nominated area includes the 12 -acre Hanging Rock lake and 12 acres of surrounding land defined by a line running 175 feet from the high -water edge of the lake on all sides. Bound- ary justification: The nominated area incorporates the bathhouse and its immediate historic setting of lake and surrounding woodland essential to its historic function and character, including the dam that forms the lake. Lac qui Parle State Park WPA/ Rustic Style Historic District, Lac qui Parle County, Minnesota, includes three buildings in the public -use area of the park, located adjacent to the Lac qui Parle River. Architects for these projects were from the National Park Service and the Design Office within the Department of Conservation. The district is significant for its association with the social, political, and eco- nomic impact of the Great Depression and the subsequent development of the Federal relief programs that were responsible for the construction of the contributing buildings. The buildings are outstanding examples of rustic style /split stone construction. The boundaries were selected to include a limited setting around the three contributing buildings. Verbal boundary description: The boundary for Lac qui Parle State Park WPA/ Rustic Style Historic District is shown _ -� N N o✓n j`f' LAKE ff f � � ptxxCeSE 1`� - • m.. e..rsnea Hanging Rock State Park Bathhouse, Stokes County, North Carolina. Plan map showing the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The nominated area includes the 12 -acre Hanging Rock lake and 12 acres of surrounding land defined by a line running 175 feet from the high -water edge of the lake on all sides. Bound- ary justification: The nominated area incorporates the bathhouse and its immediate historic setting of lake and surrounding woodland essential to its historic function and character, including the dam that forms the lake. Lac qui Parle State Park WPA/ Rustic Style Historic District, Lac qui Parle County, Minnesota, includes three buildings in the public -use area of the park, located adjacent to the Lac qui Parle River. Architects for these projects were from the National Park Service and the Design Office within the Department of Conservation. The district is significant for its association with the social, political, and eco- nomic impact of the Great Depression and the subsequent development of the Federal relief programs that were responsible for the construction of the contributing buildings. The buildings are outstanding examples of rustic style /split stone construction. The boundaries were selected to include a limited setting around the three contributing buildings. Verbal boundary description: The boundary for Lac qui Parle State Park WPA/ Rustic Style Historic District is shown as the heavy, cross- hatched line on the accompanying map entitled "Lac qui Parle State Recreation Area." It is defined by the land immediately encompassing three historic build- ings. Boundary justification: The boundary includes the buildings developed by the WPA that have been historically associated with the park and that maintain historic integrity. BOUNDARIES FOR PARTICULAR PROPERTY TYPES Traditional Cultural Properties A traditional cultural property is a building, structure, site, object, or district that is eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that are rooted in that community's history and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. Defining boundaries for traditional cultural properties can be challenging. Carefully consider the traditional uses of the property. For example, where a property is used for contemplative purposes, viewsheds are important and must be consid- ered. In an urban district significant for its association with a specific social group, consider the limits of residence or use by the group. Con- sider changes in time, as well. For example, archeological evidence may contribute information on past use areas, which may differ from present use areas. Select boundaries that encompass the area associated with the traditional use or practice and document the factors that were considered in the boundary justifica- tion. For further assistance, consult National Register Bulletin: Guidelines. for Evaluating and Documenting Tradi- tional Cultural Properties, the appropri- ate State historic preservation office, any concerned Indian tribal preserva- tion program, and the traditional group or community that ascribes values to the property. Kuchamaa (Tecate Peak), Tecate, San Diego County, California, is a sacred mountain to the Kumeyaay Indians of southern California and northern Baja California, Mexico. Although there are modern intrusions (a road and communications facilities on the summit), the mountain is important to the Kumeyaay community's belief system. The peak is a special place, marking the location for the acquisition of knowledge and power by Kumeyaay shamans. Oral tradition records the use of Kuchamaa as the place where several important shamans instructed their initiates and the sacred place of vision quests and purification ceremonies. Contempo- rary Native Americans continue to use Kuchamaa during the full moon and at equinoxes, when they pray for renewal of Earth Mother and peace. Kuchamaa is significant under Criterion A for its association with Native American cultural history. A contour line and a legal boundary were used to define the National Register boundaries of the property. Verbal boundary description: Kuchamaa is 3,885 feet above mean sea level. The nominated area in- cludes all land from the 3,000 -foot contour level up to and including the peak. On the north it drops abruptly to Highway 94. The western flank consists of several dissected subpeaks and the eastern aspect is an upland spine. The southern boundary conforms to the international border [between the United States and Mexico]. This is a total of 510 acres, 320 to the west and 190 to the east. Boundary justification: Kuchamaa was and remains important to south- ern California Native Americans as a structural unit. If the mountain lacked its physical proportions and regional position, then it is quite possible that the peak would not have been revered. The physical stature of Kuchamaa constitutes one reason that it was used as a place of spiritual learning and worship. During a visit to Kuchamaa to evaluate a develop- ment proposal, Native Americans identified a sphere of spiritual influ- ence extending for several miles from the mountain. This constitutes one zone of spirituality; approachable by both Kwisiyai (shamans) and ordi- nary people. Actual Native American use of Kuchamaa provides guidelines for establishing boundaries. This nomination includes that portion of the mountain located above an elevation of 3,000 feet above mean sea level. According to current data, this area is considered sacrosanct. In the ethnographic and prehistoric past, the summit was used for arcane rituals and approached only by shamans and their initiates. Cultural taboos prohibited common folk from ascend- ing beyond a spring known as God's Tear. The location of God's Tear Spring has not been verified, but best estimates place it as the spring located just above the 3,000 -foot level. Fi- nally, according to Rosalie Pinto Roberston [granddaughter of the last traditional chief of the Kumeyaayl, the high mountain slopes hold burials of cremated Kwisiyai. As with the spring, none of these has been veri- fied. Their presence above the 3,000 - foot level requires the use of the contour line as the boundary for the National Register district. The nominated portion of Kuchamaa includes 510 acres, with the eastern segment, consisting of public lands, containing 190 acres. The western, state -owned parcel is demarcated by north -south section lines. This area contains 320 acres. The southern boundary conforms to the interna- tional border. Private lands occupy a large portion of the lower slopes of the mountain below the 3,000 -foot contour line. Mining Properties Sterling Hill Mine, Ogdensburg Borough, Sussex County, New Jersey, is located on a 33-acre tract that includes five mines (open -cut, open - pit, and underground types), nine contributing buildings, one noncon- tributing building, and the ruins of a structure. Primary construction periods were 1830 -1897 and 1916- 1938. The property is located on the west side of Plant Street and the south side of Passaic Avenue, about one- half mile from the municipal center of the Borough of Ogdensburg. The property was divided among three heirs in the early 19th century. The parcels were not commonly owned until the end of the 19th century, when all three parcels were pur- chased by the New Jersey Zinc Company. Mining on the property ceased in 1986, and the property was converted into a museum dedicated to the history of the Sterling Hill Mine, mining history, and mineralogy of the Sterling Hill ore body. The legal description of the lot that includes the eligible resources was used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The boundary of the site consists of the entire parcel of land known as Block 31, Lot 11.07 lying and being within 27 the Borough of Ogdensburg, Sussex County, New Jersey. Boundary justification: The boundary includes the entire municipal lot that has been historically associated with mining activities at Sterling HBI during the period 1830 -1940. Kettle River Sandstone Company Quarry, Sandstone Township, Pine County, Minnesota, is located along the Kettle River on the east edge of the city of Sandstone in east- central Minnesota. The property includes the abandoned quarry site, the pumping station, the artesian well control building, and derrick mast. The quarry, which was active from 1885- 1919, was designated a city park in 1960. The quarry was the source of high - quality sandstone which was used in buildings throughout the United States. Cultural features, natural features, and reasonable limits were used to define the boundaries of the National Register property. Verbal boundary description: The nominated property is roughly bounded by Minnesota Highway 173 to the south, on the north by a point 600 feet north of the Great Northern Railroad bridge, the Kettle River to the east, and the former quarry walls to the west, as shown on the accompa- nying map entitled "Kettle River Sandstone Company Quarry, May 1990." Boundary justification: The boundary encompasses all of the abandoned quarry site including those buildings, structures, and ruins that have historically been part of the Kettle River Sandstone Company and that maintain historic integrity. Within the boundary is city-owned Robinson Park and the recently constructed park shelters and build- ings located toward the south end of the quarry. 28 W.W ® o �o ao 0 0 �g o b o oa 0 0 Sterling Hill Mine, Ogdensburg, Sussex County, New Jersey. Fran map of the National Register boundaries and resources. The Sterling Hill property as it appeared in 1918. (Gant Grenier) Kettle River Sandstone Company Quarry, Sandstone, Minnesota. Plan map (ca. 1990) showing the National Register boundaries and resources. Kettle River Sandstone Company Quarry, Sandstone, Minnesota. Detail of USGS quadrangle map showing the location and boundaries of the National Register property. Kettle River Sandstone Company Quarry, Sandstone, Minnesota. View of the quarry facing south. (MichaelKoop) 29 Ymt wm�+ 1x.0 4 f"1 4 w � a Y r W m r'y t. pY m FR4.5.18.1�y A JM1.,xiuA v ]vLt. T Kettle River Sandstone Company Quarry, Sandstone, Minnesota. Plan map (ca. 1990) showing the National Register boundaries and resources. Kettle River Sandstone Company Quarry, Sandstone, Minnesota. Detail of USGS quadrangle map showing the location and boundaries of the National Register property. Kettle River Sandstone Company Quarry, Sandstone, Minnesota. View of the quarry facing south. (MichaelKoop) 29 BOUNDARIES FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES AND DISTRICTS A site, according to the National Register classification, is the location of a significant event, prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or building or structure (whether standing, ruined, or vanished) where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological value. The most common types of resources classified as sites are archeological resources. Archeological districts generally include several sites and their settings, as well as other types of resources (such as structures and landscape features). For examples of districts that include buildings as well as archeological sites, see the proper- ties cited in the sections on districts in rural settings. 30 Defining boundaries for archeo- logical sites raises special issues because most or all of the eligible resources may be underground. For sites that have not been excavated, subsurface testing can provide data to identify and evaluate the resources and define the boundaries. In situa- tions where the site type is well known (because similar sites in the region have been excavated) and there is clear surface evidence of preserved resources, testing may not be necessary to determine significance or select boundaries. Consider natural topographic or cultural landscape features that indicate the limits of the resources. Legal or lot boundaries may be used for historic sites, both urban and rural, when such boundaries are know to be consistent with the historic boundaries. Note surface evidence of disturbance that may have disrupted or destroyed resources. When access is restricted or when a deeply buried site cannot be tested, select.the boundaries on the basis of predictions (based on topographic setting and site type). Describe the limitations of the data and support the predictions with a discussion, demonstrating the reliability of the predictions in the context of known local and regional site types. For all archeological properties, include a large -scale map (preferably 1 inch to 200 feet) to document the property boundaries, along with a USGS map locating the property. The large -scale map may be used in place of a verbal boundary description. It is difficult to provide a range of examples of boundaries from listed properties because locational informa- tion is routinely restricted to protect the resources from vandalism. Loca- tion and boundary information is recorded in the documentation but is not released to the public. The boundary descriptions that follow are drawn from documented sites, but most descriptions are altered and edited to omit critical locational information: direction, distance, and landmark information in the original GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES AND DISTRICTS (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, p. 57) The selection of boundaries for archeological sites and districts depends primarily on the scale and horizontal extent of the significant features. A regional pattern or assemblage of remains, a location of repeated habitation, a location of a single habitation, or some other distribution of archeological evidence all imply different spatial scales. Although it is not always possible to determine the boundaries of a site conclusively, a knowledge of local cultural history and related features, such as a site type, can help predict the extent of a site. Consider the property's setting and physical characteristics along with the results of archeological survey to determine the most suitable approach. Obtain evidence through one or several of the following techniques: • Subsurface testing, including test excavations, core and auger borings, and observation of cut banks. • Surface observation of site features and materials that have been uncovered by plowing or other disturbance or that have remained on the surface since deposition. • Observation of topographic or other natural features that may or may not have been present during the period of significance. • Observation of land alterations subsequent to site formation that may have affected the integrity of the site. • Study of historic or ethnographic documents, such as maps and journals. If the techniques listed above cannot be applied, set the boundaries by conservatively estimating the extent and location of the significant features. Explain the basis for selecting the boundaries in the boundary justification. If a portion of a known site cannot be tested, the boundaries may be drawn along the legal property lines of the portion that is accessible, provided that portion by itself has sufficient significance to meet the National Register Criteria and the full extent of the site is unknown. Archeological districts may contain discontiguous elements under the following circumstances: • When one or several outlying sites has a direct relationship to the significance of the main portion of the district, through common cultural affiliation or as related elements of a pattern of land use, and When the intervening space does not have known significant resources. Geographically separate sites not forming a discontiguous district may be nominated together as individual properties within a multiple property submission. documentation is not included. Sites are identified by type and region, not by name and specific location. For further assistance, see Appendix: Definition of National Register Bound- aries for Archeological Properties; National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeological Sites and Districts; or contact the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer, Federal Preser- vation Officer, or the National Regis- ter to speak with an archeologist. Archeological Sites Rockshelter Petroglyphs, Upper South [location restricted], includes two petroglyphs components, one on a boulder at the mouth of the shelter and a second on a ledge. The designs are well preserved examples of prehistoric rock art in the region. No other archeological resources have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the rockshelter. Natural features were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The nomi- nated property includes the entire rockshelter, the petroglyph boulder, and that portion of the sandstone ledge containing the chevron -like designs. The boundary for the site is indicated on the sketch map. The center point shown on the sketch map corresponds to the UTM coordinate on the USGS quadrangle. Boundary justification: The rockshelter houses the petroglyphs and is an integral element of this rock art site. The shelter probably served as a tempo- rary or extended habitation and focus of ritual activities associated with the execution of the petroglyphs. As a conspicuous natural feature of cul- tural importance, the rockshelter may also have been ascribed mythological identification in connection with the rock art. Historic Trading Company Ware- house and Clerk's House Site, Pacific Northwest [location restricted], are located on a natural river levee, parallelling the south bank of a major river. By the early 1840s, the trading company established a grain ware- house on the site adjacent to the south bank of the river. The warehouse and an associated clerk's house were erected to maintain the company's monopoly on trade in the region by purchasing agricultural produce from residents of the river valley. A flood o io' i rEi i r� r +`iiki , \\ +� tQ. d•� 6�r z.�. b,�p X11 ' IJ4 LL Oncc �� �'S s4 >lwh)Aa p�,n Rockshetter Petroglyphs, Upper South. Sketch map showing the National Register boundaries. in 1861 destroyed other development in the area and moved the warehouse about 50 yards; it was never used again. The site is significant for its role in the early settlement and trade in the region. Archeological excava- tions indicated that cultural strata - were mixed as a result of 20th century recreational use of the site. However, artifacts are plentiful above the 100 - foot contour line, and horizontal integrity remains to generally define building locations and differential functions of structures within the site. A contour line and a reasonable limit were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal bound- ary description: The nominated property is located in the NW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 4, Township 2S, Range 4W, in a state park. The boundaries of the property encompass 1.03 acres of the 100 -foot contour levee of a flood plain that contains the site of the trading company warehouse and its associated archeological features, including the clerk's house site. The north, south, and west boundaries follow the 100 -foot contour line; the east boundary is defined by a reasonable line crossing the levee and intersecting a granite monument. The monument and a park pavilion are included within the boundaries as noncontributing resources. Boundary justification: The bounds of the site were determined by surface observa- tion, informant testimony, and subsur- face excavation. Prehistoric Quartzite Quarry Archeological Site, Middle Atlantic [location restricted], consists of several large outcroppings of quartzite and sandstone. Surface evidence suggests that the lithic source may have been used by prehistoric Native Americans as early as the Middle Archaic period. Archeological sites in the region often include debitage thought to be from this quarry source. There has been no subsurface testing at the site; evalua- tion is based on surface evidence and knowledge of associated sites in the vicinity. The site is significant for the information it may provide about the extraction of lithic resources in the region. The National Register prop- erty boundaries are based on the extent of the natural feature quarried by Native Americans. Verbal bound- ary description: Boundaries for the site are determined by the natural topography of the area. The site is located within the confines of the hill on which the outcropping of quartzite occurs [as shown on the accompany- ing map]. The base of the hill is the site boundary. Boundary justifica- tion: The boundary for the site k 31 tion: The boundary for the site is established by the limits of the natural outcropping of rock. The site was utilized solely as an extractive or procurement site; therefore, the limits of the site are set by the limfts of the availability of the lithic resource. Prehistoric Camp and Habitation Archeological Site, Western Moun- tains [location restricted], is a multi - component camp and habitation site with at least five occupations, ranging in time from 5050 B.C. to A.D. 750. Three of the occupations reflect short - term camp or special activity uses. Two long -term occupations are represented by pit house ruins and associated materials, dated to the Early Archaic period. The site is at an elevation of ca. 7,000 feet, about 1/2 mile from the area's major river. Test and data recovery excavations re- vealed buried resources including pit houses, lithic tools, ceramics, and faunal remains. Road construction has affected the site; however, excava- tions were conducted in association with recent construction, and the upgraded road was realigned to avoid the pit houses. The distribution of archeological resources (surface artifacts) and natural features were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The southern, southeast- ern, and western boundaries are determined by a sharp reduction in surface artifact density; the northern boundary is at the topographic drop - off into the adjacent gulch, and the eastern boundary is along the east side of a tributary arroyo to the gulch. Boundary justification: The bound- aries of the Prehistoric Camp and Habitation Archeological Site have been determined from a combination of natural, topographic, and archeo- logical evidence. Western, southeast- ern, and southern limits have been drawn on the basis of surface artifact density evidence, after careful surface reconnaissance found a clear decline in the number of visible chipped stone artifacts in this area. A portion of the western boundary at the adjacent ranch house and outbuildings shows such a decline in surface artifact density due to ground disturbances from ranch building construction and occupation, as well as limited ground visibility in an adjacent pasture. The southeastern and southern limits, where surface artifact density is also quite low, are in relatively rocky 32 RESTRICTED INMWTIDN gP f W °oP Ct1UAKMrr& QUA Rey A065PMC' -y w000ft ARC.HAEO- t� 40GKht SIT& jLfL yircb�r, �,��roPPu�19 0 soJ ou�`coPtd o�tJ t u r SkLmA NOT SCfJ�E Prehistoric Quartzite Quarry Archeological Site, Middle Atlantic. Sketch map showing the National Register boundaries, defined by geological and topographic features. terrain with good ground visibility but very little soil accumulation. Archeological survey and excavation data have been used to determine the eastern site boundary, drawn on the east side of a tributary arroyo of the gulch. Burned rock, charcoal-stained soil, and sparse artifacts exposed in the east cut bank of the arroyo led to investigation of the Feature 14 locus, where artifact density at the present ground surface is otherwise very low. The arroyo becomes an entrenched feature only north of the road, then Joins a large tributary wash just upstream of where the latter drainage flows into the gulch. The east bound- ary of the site is drawn along the east side of the arroyo system to include the Feature 10 locus, although no test excavations have been done farther east beyond Feature 10 to search for other buried remains on the interfluvial flat where no surface artifacts are visible. The northern boundary is topographically defined at the south bank of the gulch, beyond which any archeological remains would have been long since eroded away. The 30 -acre site area depicted on the topographic map does not include a continuous scatter of surface artifacts, although at least a light scatter of chipped stone, ground stone, and /or ceramic artifacts is visible inmost areas. Excavations have been conducted in the southern third of the site; the evidence from these excavations, in combination with subsurface exposures in nearby washes, the arroyo, and several road cuts, demonstrates that much of the Prehistoric Camp site resources remain buried. John Houstoun McIntosh Sugarhouse, Camden County, Georgia, built in the early 19th century as a cane - processing facility, consists of an extensive ruin with associated archeological resources. The ruin was constructed of tabby, a coastal building material made by mixing equal parts of oyster shell, lime, and water. The sugarhouse was a rectangular building with three large rooms, two porches, and several door and window openings. The west room was the milling room; the middle room was the boiling room; and the east room was the curing room. The tabby -paved area north of the milling room was probably an . unloading area. In 1934, archeologist James Ford visited the site and concluded that it was not the remains of the Spanish Mission Santa Maria (as it had been previously identified), but the remains of a sugarhouse. Although Ford may have conducted some excavation at the site, no such excavations were reported. In 1981 the University of Florida's Depart- ment of Anthropology investigated the site to define the nature, condi- tion, distribution, and significance of the archeological resources at the site. Archeological investigations focused on the sugarhouse ruins and immedi- ate area of the site. The site is signifi- cant for its association with the 19th century sugar manufacturing industry and for its research potential. The National Register boundaries are based on the extent of above - ground and below - ground resources. Verbal boundary description: The boundary includes the sugarhouse, two depres- sions, and the property surrounding them. The property is marked on the enclosed sketch map. It consists of one acre of land centered on the sugarhouse. Boundary justification: The one acre is inclusive of the sugarhouse and contiguous areas of activity identified by reported archeo- logical investigations. At such time in the future if the locations of associ- ated buildings and /or areas of activity are identified, an appropriate boundary expansion will be pro- posed. Contiguous Archeological Districts Sinarboles Archeological District, Southwest [location restricted], located on a broad lava flow at an elevation of ca. 6,000 feet, includes 39 prehistoric sites occupied between A.D. 800 and A.D. 1300. The sites were exposed as a result of a juniper- eradication project. The surface was disturbed, but subsurface resources retain integrity, although several sites have been looted in the past. Archeo- logical investigations during the late John Houstoun McIntosh Sugarhouse, Camden County, Georgia. The tabby watt ruins of the sugarhouse, facing west. (James R. Lockhart) 1930s addressed several sites. In the late 1980s, an intensive archeological survey of the district was conducted to define the boundaries of the prehistoric community. Factors considered in defining the boundaries included topography, community organization, and the known archeo- logical resources. Survey indicated that site density decreased rapidly north and east of the edge of the lava flow; therefore, the north and east boundaries follow the edge of the flow. West and south boundaries define the limits of the inferred community based on survey data; site density decreases beyond this limit. The district represents the archeologi- cal expression of the prehistoric community. The sites represent a wide variety of types, including artifact scatters, specialized activity areas, and large sites with structures, representing several stages of commu- nity development. Verbal boundary description: The Sinarboles Archeo- logical District is a 4,000 -by -5,125 -foot rectangle defined by the edge of a remnant lava flow on the north and east side with straight lines drawn to the south and west boundaries. Boundary justification: The district is defined by site density and cluster- ing as well as topographic features on the north and east side. Harbor Island Historic and Archeological District, New England [location restricted], is composed of an entire island of about 45 acres located in the harbor of a New England city. The island is half a mile long and irregular in shape. The district in- cludes 22 contributing archeological sites, structures, and buildings repre- senting an extensive period of human occupation, beginning in the Middle Archaic 8,000 years ago and continuing today. Activities associated with that human occupation are related to a number of important themes in North American, State, and local prehistory and history, particularly the exploita- tion of the marine ecology, the develop- ment of a historic maritime economy, and the changing cultural uses as- signed to coastal areas. Contributing historical archeological sites, structures, and buildings are associated with the Coast Guard, a school, and historic residences. Noncontributing resources include modern roads, recreational structures, and residences. These intrusions have had little impact on the island's archeological and historic integrity. Tax parcel boundaries define the National Register district. Verbal boundary description: The Harbor Island Historic and Archeological District boundaries are indicated on the attached Assessors Maps. Boundaries correspond to the island's shoreline, indicated on the assessors maps as a dotted line. Boundary justification: The nominated boundaries include all the land historically and currently known as Harbor Island; an island of about 45 acres. 33 Discontiguous Archeological Districts Midwest Prehistoric Cave and Rock Shelter Sites Discontiguous Archeological District, Central Midwest [location restricted], includes 20 archeological sites in the water- shed of Mule, Goose, and Broad creeks. Archeological sites in rock shelters and caves represent an important part of the settlement pattern of prehistoric hunters and gatherers of the region. Sheltered sites were used as temporary camps, lithic- knapping sites and resource - processing stations, and base camps. Reoccupation and sedimentation has left a deep, stratified record of prehis- toric human activities. The 20 sites in the district are a representative sample of the best preserved shelter deposits in the three creek drainages. The district is significant under Criterion D for the sites' potential to contribute important information on prehistoric life in the region. Shel- tered sites preserve the remains of special uses as well as the activities of daily life. Verbal boundary descrip- tion: [The verbal boundary descrip- tion for this district consists of town- ship, range, section references as well as UTM references for each of the 20 sites. The sites are also marked on accompanying maps of the three drainages. Because this information is restricted, it is not reproduced here]. Boundary justification: This district consists of 20 cave and shelter archeo- logical sites located within the drain- age basins of Mule, Goose, and Broad creeks. The archeological sites are specific points within the three drainage basins and are defined by UTM coordinates. In the future, other cave and shelter sites within the basins may be determined significant and added to the district. Plantation Cemeteries Archeologi- cal District, Deep South [location restricted], consists of two separate but historically associated African American cemeteries dating from the early 1800s to 1929. Both were established as slave cemeteries on adjoining sugar plantations. The land was purchased by the U.S. govem- ment in 1929 for construction of a flood- control project. There are no surface indications of the cemeteries due to extensive modern landscape modifications. Archeological investi- gations, however, demonstrated a 34 high degree of integrity. Investiga- tions included magnetometer survey, topographic survey, excavation of five 1 -by -2 -meter units, backhoe trench- ing, and angering. All cultural remains were left in place. Portions of each cemetery were affected during excavation of water- control ditches; however, damage was limited. Based on identified grave sites and density predictions, each cemetery is esti- mated to include between 100 and 150 graves. The district is significant for its association with African American plantation populations of the antebel- lum and postbellum periods and for its research potential. The boundaries of the two cemeteries are based on cultural features and reasonable limits beyond known resources, as deter- mined by survey and testing. Verbal boundary description: The nomi- nated district consists of two discontiguous historic cemeteries. The first cemetery is delineated by a polygon whose vertices are marked by UTM references A, B, C, and D [listed in registration form and marked on accompanying USGS map]. The second cemetery is delin- eated by the polygon whose vertices are marked by UTM references A, B, C, and D [listed in the registration form and marked on the accompany- ing USGS mapl• Boundary justifica- tion: The fieldwork determined a total site size of ca. 3,000 square meters (under 1 acre) for the first cemetery. The western, northern, and southern boundaries were extended 10 meters beyond confirmed burials. This was considered necessary due to the limited amount of fieldwork and the irregular and elusive nature of this type of archeological resource. No topographic, vegetative, or other natural markers remain to help define the site boundaries. The discovery of burials 10 and 11 in a backhoe trench excavated beyond the previously identified limits of the site illustrated the need to expand the site bound- aries beyond the confirmed burials. The eastern boundary is defined by the haul road which abuts the site. Magnetometer survey did not indicate any burials under the road; however, this boundary is problematic since further archeological investigation was precluded in the road bed. The boundaries described above provide a reasonable estimate of the extent and location of burials at the site. The field work determined a total site size of 3,300 square meters (less than one acre) for the second cemetery. The site boundaries include a 10 -meter exten- sion beyond confirmed burials on the eastern and southern margins of the site and a 20 -meter zone along the northern and western margins. As with the first cemetery, these extended boundaries were required due to the inconclusive nature of the limited fieldwork. Woodland Mounds Archeological District, Upper Midwest [location restricted], is a group of prehistoric mounds located on the grounds of a school. The district originally in- cluded 15 mounds; 12 survive, includ- ing conical, linear, and bird effigy forms. The mounds date to the Late Woodland Period (ca. A.D. 650 - 1300)• The district is composed of three discontiguous areas (A, B, and C), with modern buildings and landscaping separating the areas. Several mound groups in the vicinity were mapped in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including the Woodland Mounds groups, and in the 1930s, three of the mounds were excavated. Remnants of damaged mounds have been identi- fied, but the seriously compromised mounds have not been included in the district. Since the early 20th century, efforts have been made to protect the surviving mounds. Intact deposits probably survive in several of the mounds. The district is significant for its potential to yield information on the Late Woodland period. Research questions are focused on information that can be obtained through non- invasive means, such as location and arrangement, geographical distribu- tion, and proximity to resources. Cultural features were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The site is divided into three areas [bound- aries of which are shown on the accompanying map]. Area A includes UTM reference C and is a small, less - than -1 -acre parcel whose east bound- ary is Mound 1 and west boundary is Mound 2. Area B includes UTM reference B and is an L- shaped 1 -acre parcel. Area B is bounded on the north by Mound 11 and on the south by Oak Drive. UTM reference B is the easternmost point of Area B and is the point where Mound 3 intersects with Oak Drive. UTM point A is the westernmost point of the district an is located in Area C. It is the point where Mound 12 intersects Maple Drive. Boundary justification: The Woodland Mounds Archeological District, Upper Midwest. Detail of plan map showing the locations of two discontiguous areas in the district, Lake Huron Shipwreck Site, Upper Midwest. Underwater view of the ship's wheel and steering gear. boundaries were drawn to include only the mounds and area between them known to be relatively undis- turbed by modern construction. Areas A, B, and C are unconnected and are deemed to be the site portions where the integrity of the mound group is most intact. Shipwreck Sites Lake Superior Shipwreck Site, Upper Great Lakes [location re- stricted], includes the remains of a three - masted schooner constructed in 1869 and wrecked in 1896 against a breakwater. The vessel represents the type constructed in the late 1860s and 1870s for the shipment of iron ore. The vessel was in tow of a steamer when the two vessels encountered a storm. The steamer threw off the schooner's line. The schooner dropped anchor, but continued to drift and hit the breakwater. The vessel sank with the crew seeking . refuge in the rigging, from which they were rescued the following morning. Rigging and masts may have been salvaged, but machinery was left in place. Although thousands of ships have moved through the waters where the wreck ties, the resources have seen relatively little disturbance. The site is significant for its role in local maritime history, the structural integrity of the vessel, and the re- search potential of the site. The National Register boundaries were defined by reasonable limits around the vessel remains. Verbal boundary description: The area included in the shipwreck is a rectangle extending 200 feet southeast and 65 feet on either side of a centerline extending south- east and beginning at a point that is 150 feet from the monument located on the northwestern end of the breakwater. Boundary justification: The Lake Superior Shipwreck Site is about 70 percent intact. The boundary for the site is based on the debris field associated with the wreck. This was determined from information ob- tained by divers during mitigation activities. Lake Huron Shipwreck Site, Upper Great Lakes [location re- stricted], includes the remains of a two - masted wooden schooner com- pleted in 1856. The vessel transported iron ore and pig iron between Lake Huron and Lake Erie ports. During a storm on Lake Huron in 1868, the 35 nIIIIIIIII� F/ * • I 0111 M1100 __ Woodland Mounds Archeological District, Upper Midwest. Detail of plan map showing the locations of two discontiguous areas in the district, Lake Huron Shipwreck Site, Upper Midwest. Underwater view of the ship's wheel and steering gear. boundaries were drawn to include only the mounds and area between them known to be relatively undis- turbed by modern construction. Areas A, B, and C are unconnected and are deemed to be the site portions where the integrity of the mound group is most intact. Shipwreck Sites Lake Superior Shipwreck Site, Upper Great Lakes [location re- stricted], includes the remains of a three - masted schooner constructed in 1869 and wrecked in 1896 against a breakwater. The vessel represents the type constructed in the late 1860s and 1870s for the shipment of iron ore. The vessel was in tow of a steamer when the two vessels encountered a storm. The steamer threw off the schooner's line. The schooner dropped anchor, but continued to drift and hit the breakwater. The vessel sank with the crew seeking . refuge in the rigging, from which they were rescued the following morning. Rigging and masts may have been salvaged, but machinery was left in place. Although thousands of ships have moved through the waters where the wreck ties, the resources have seen relatively little disturbance. The site is significant for its role in local maritime history, the structural integrity of the vessel, and the re- search potential of the site. The National Register boundaries were defined by reasonable limits around the vessel remains. Verbal boundary description: The area included in the shipwreck is a rectangle extending 200 feet southeast and 65 feet on either side of a centerline extending south- east and beginning at a point that is 150 feet from the monument located on the northwestern end of the breakwater. Boundary justification: The Lake Superior Shipwreck Site is about 70 percent intact. The boundary for the site is based on the debris field associated with the wreck. This was determined from information ob- tained by divers during mitigation activities. Lake Huron Shipwreck Site, Upper Great Lakes [location re- stricted], includes the remains of a two - masted wooden schooner com- pleted in 1856. The vessel transported iron ore and pig iron between Lake Huron and Lake Erie ports. During a storm on Lake Huron in 1868, the 35 vessel collided with another schooner near Piney Point. The other schooner managed to make it to port, but this vessel was abandoned by its crew and sank The shipwreck site was discov- ered and surveyed in the late 1980s. The wreck of the schooner rests in an upright position on a sandy bottom in 150 feet of water. The vessel is nearly intact, and major equipment is still in place. The schooner site is significant for the vessel's role in Great Lakes shipping, the naval architecture of the vessel, and the research potential of the site. The National Register bound- aries were defined by reasonable limits around the vessel remains, selected to include the area likely to contain rigging. Verbal boundary description: The Lake Huron Ship- wreck Site is located 2 statute miles west and 1.5 miles north of Piney Point at'the intersection of Loran C coordinates XXX and YYY. The area included in the site is a square 1,000 feet on a side; the geographical center being the charted vessel's position. Boundary justification: The Lake Huron Shipwreck is the site of a relatively intact vessel with structural damage primarily to the rigging only, based on diver assessments and videotape evidence of the site. Little noticeable deterioration has been evident on the vessel in terms of subsequent deposition on the site, ice damage, erosion, or other environ- mental factors with the exception of anchor damage to the hull. The boundary is based on the probability of locating major rigging elements lying near the hull as a result of the wreckdrifting and sinking slowly after the collision. The wreck's depth has prevented a thorough evaluation of the total extent of the site away from the hull itself. BOUNDARIES FOR HISTORIC SITES Locations of significant events or. activities where the location possesses historic or cultural value maybe classified as National Register sites. Cemeteries, battlefields, and natural and cultural landscapes where historic events took place are examples of historic sites. 36 GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: HISTORIC SITES (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, p. 56) Select boundaries that encom- pass the area where the historic events took place. include only portions of the site retaining historic integrity and documented to have been directly associated with the event. Denis Julien Inscription, Grand County, Utah, consists of historic inscriptions on a sandstone block in a side canyon of Green River, in the mouth of Hell Roaring Canyon. There are two inscription panels. The first bears the name D. Julien, the date 3 mai 1863, and a sunburst design and a one - masted boat. The second panel includes five names of early surveyors from the U.S. Reclamation Service . with 20th century dates. Denis Julien, an American fur trapper of French descent, etched his name and date along waterways in eastern Utah at least eight time between 1831 and 1844. In this location, he also in- scribed the one boat, suggest- ing his mode of travel. The site is significant for its association with fur trading and exploration, conservation and reclamation, and minting. Rea- sonable limits were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The site is located within the NE V4, NW V4, SW 1/4, NW 1/4, Section 6 (unsurvey- ed), T26S, RISE. USGS 7.5 minute series, Mineral Canyon, Utah, quad- rangle, 1988. Boundaries of the actual parcel included in the nomination can be described as a circle with a radius of 30 feet centered on the inscription rock. Boundary justification: The description provided above includes the rock upon which the historic inscriptions are located and additional amount of surrounding property deemed sufficient to convey some sense of the site's surroundings. Tinta Massacre Site, Merizo, Guam, is the place where soldiers of the Japanese Imperial Army killed sixteen people of the village of Merizo in 1944. During the last days of the Japanese occupation, soldiers marched a group of thirty men and women from the village to an area called Tinta at the foot of a hill west of the village. The soldiers herded the villagers into a dugout cave, lobbed hand grenades through the opening, and attacked survivors with their sabres. Fourteen people survived the attack. The massacre site is located at the base of the hills on the eastern edge of the Geus Valley. The site is marked only by a wooden cross in the overgrown gully, which is what remains of the dugout cave. Reason- Denis Julien Inscription, Grand County, Utah. This ca. 1909 photograph shows the inscription and its environs. (Utah Historical Society) ttnto Massacre Site, Mertzo County, Guam. Detail of USGS map showing the National Register boundaries. able limits were used to define the boundaries of the National Register property. Verbal boundary descrip- tion: Boundary lines are as indicated on the accompanying USGS map. Boundary justification: The bound- ary of one -half acre is set to protect the integrity and the setting of the massacre site. Palmito Ranch Battlefield, Cameron County, Texas, is the site of the final land engagement of the Civil War. Concentrated military action Conce occurred here on May 12- 13,1865, more than a month after Confederate forces under General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox Court- house, Virginia. The battle, a series of sharp skirmishes, took place across an approximately five -mile area halfway between Brownsville and Brazos Island. Federal troops initially pressed the Confederates as far we-3t as Tulosa Ranch before Confederate reinforcements under the command of Col. John S. (Rip) Ford arrived and drove the Union army back to their base at Brazos Island. The battlefield lies on a windswept plain at the southernmost tip of Texas on sparse land characterized by marsh and chaparral with a few scattered hil- locks. The land's virtually unchanged physical features still convey the battlefield's appearance during the Civil War. National Register bound- aries were organized according to natural topographic features, cultural features, archeological evidence, and reasonable limits based on historical research. Verbal boundary descrip- tion: Refer to the accompanying USGS map for a precise depiction of the boundaries of Palmito Ranch Battlefield. The battlefield is bordered on the north by the Boca Chica c ' i�l A. , l LNTED BTATEB eAAXaE a. NEMCO PALNITO RANCH BATTLEFIELD - wb:m Awry cANERgx fa T4°'LL PHOTO n**, rzzu MAP KEY t p✓ � GfU6AaA1C FFAIVS9r pie . Skein of Wale, n ® una A..asa.bsut..n le..anrr, baoor, rlel bae k.eW lo' Elamllea aurora X 100- -g W Lamar o N11M1 SCALEE,l u¢• I rn o �� National Register Boundwy r¢r..aoo a awo mm cemera View HIPLY•HEafNt%XIE bc,M 199: r. ua.aa.r.a s..r Palmito Ranch Battlefield, Cameron County, Texas. Map showing the National Register boundaries. 37 Highway and on the south by the current course of the Rio Grande River. On the east, the nominated area extends to a point immediately east of Tarpon Bend and immediately west of Stell-Lind Banco No. 128. The western border follows a line from the Loma del Muerto southward to the Rio Grande. Beginning at a point on the United States bank of the Rio Grande immediately south of Loma del Muerto, proceed due north approximately one mile to the inter- section of the Boca Chica Highway and Loma del Muerto. Then proceed east along the Boca Chica Highway, approximately 4.5 miles, to a point on the Rio Grande. Then proceed along the U.S. bank of the Rio Grande approximately 4.5 miles to the point of origin. Boundary justification: Boundaries for Palmito Ranch Battle- field encompass the large expanse of land where the most intense fighting of the conflict took place. Since the battle consisted of a series of moving skirmishes, the battlefield itself covers a large area approximately five miles long. The southern boundary follows the current path of the Rio Grande, since the river formed one border for all fighting. Also, the river, is the international boundary line between the United States and Mexico. The western boundary roughly follows a line extending from the Loma del Muerto southward to the Rio Grande. The line approximates the point at which Confederate reinforcements arrived at the scene of the battle on the afternoon of May 13, 1865, The boundary also approximates the position of "San Martin Ranch," referred to by officers of both armies in written accounts of the battle. The Boca Chica Highway forms the northern boundary of the battlefield. Although some scattered fighting may have taken place north of this line, most of the conflict was concen- trated much closer to the Rio Grande. The placement of the boundary at the highway allows for the inclusion of a broad area north of the river, provid- ing an accurate demarcation of the large area in which the running battle occurred. The battlefield's eastern boundary roughly extends from the westernmost tip of Verdolaga Lake southward to a point on the Rio Grande just east of Tarpon Bend and just west of Stall -Lind Banco No. 128, as shown on the accompanying map. This line marks the approximate location of a small levee referred to in 38 written, first hand accounts of the battle as the scene of the final skir- mish, and the place where the Con- federate Army ceased its pursuit of the Union troops on the eve of May 13,1865. Middle Creek Battlefield, Floyd County, Kentucky, is the location of an important 1862 Civil War battle. The battle was an important early victory for the Union army. After several Union defeats, victory in Kentucky was strategically and politically important. At the end of the battle, troops under the command of Colonel James Garfield held the battlefield, putting the Union in control of eastern Kentucky. The battlefield is located along a series of ridges that surround the confluence of the Right and Left forks of Middle Creek. The eastern part of the battle- field is a cemetery located on a ridge (north of State Route 114). The western boundary is a ridge above a gorge near the mouth of the Left Fork of Middle Creek. The land occupied by Union troops and the location of the engagement is characterized by steep uplands, over 600 feet above the floodplain of the creek. The ridges are bisected by several drainages. Although there are a few modern intrusions (roads and a power line), the battlefield retains integrity to the extent that a soldier who participated in the battle would recognize the battlefield today. Cultural features (roads), natural features (ridges), and reasonable limits were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: Beginning at the point where State Route 114 right -of -way intersects .. with old State Route 114 /West Prestonsburg Road's right -of -way, on the north side of said roads (UTM reference A); proceed northwesterly with Grave Yard Point, approxi- mately 750 meters to a point (UTM reference B); proceed southwesterly approximately 750 meters, across an unnamed hollow to a point (UTM reference C); proceed southeasterly approximately 200 meters to a point (UTM reference D); proceed south- westerly approximately 350 meters, down the ridge to State Route,7,14's right -of -way, (UTM reference P; proceed southeasterly across State Route 114's right -of -way, 450 meters to a point (UTM reference F); proceed east across State Route 404 right -of - Middle Creek Battlefield, Floyd County, Kentucky. Detail of USGS quadrangle showing the National Register boundaries. ��., ��ri1 M1fj, �i� , _ It :•� 7 i >r Middle Creek Battlefield, Floyd County, Kentucky. Detail of USGS quadrangle showing the National Register boundaries. way, the Left Fork of Middle Creek and the CSX railroad right -of -way, approximately 650 meters to a point (UTM reference G); proceed north approximately 650 meters to a point (UTM reference H); proceed north- easterly across the CSX railroad right - of -way, crossing State Route 114's right -of -way approximately 500 meters to a point (UTM reference I); following State Route 114's right -of- way approximately 100 meters to the point of origin. Boundary justifica- tion: The boundary includes the ridges, stream, and the floodplain of that stream on and around which the Battle of Middle Creek took place. A recent site visit produced no earthworks or artifacts that would help determine the exact site limits. The boundary is based upon historic maps, manuscripts, and other docu- mentation both primary and second- ary. The Sands Family Cemetery, Sands Point, Nassau County New York includes twelve rows of 18th and 19th century gravestones, situ- ated on a wooded knoll. The cem- etery was established ca. 1711 when John Sands set aside one acre of his estate as a family burying ground. The 86 well- preserved sandstone and marble gravestones include winged death's heads, skull and crossbones, soul effigies, and plain tripartite sandstone tablets of the 18th century and Neoclassical motifs popular during the 191h century. The progres- sion of motifs and epitaphs on the gravestones reflects the changes in religious beliefs and social customs during the period of interments. The cemetery is surrounded by private property. It is flanked on the east by a modern garage, private road and field; to the west is a private paved drive. The nominated property consists of about one acre of land which is an inholding within a parcel whose boundaries are delineated on the boundaries map. Verbal bound- ary description: The boundary of the Sands Family Cemetery is shown as the solid black line on the accompany- ing map entitled "The Sands Family Cemetery, Sands Point, Nassau County, New York." Boundary justification: The Sands Family Cemetery is situated on the west side of Sands Point Road on a wooded knoll. The cemetery is surrounded by private property. It is flanked on the east by a modern garage, private r ( 1; I W HI Moto �y q Yom¢ amro 1" v Y8 � SANpS PO /NT ROAD 1. ». The Sands Family Cemetery, Nassau County, New York. Plan view showing the Nafional Register boundaries. road, and open field; to the west is a private paved drive that leads to a house northwest of the burial ground. The cemetery property is irregular in shape: The west side is 108.46 feet; the north side bordered by a fence is 56.52 feet long; east side is 73.09 feet, and if is 67.08 feet, on the south side of the property, according to a 1989 survey of the parcel. The nominated property consists of less than one acre of land. The Sands Family Cemetery, Nassau County, New York. The gravestone of Robert Sands, d. 1735. (G. Williams) 001 BOUNDARIES FOR OBJECTS Objects eligible for listing in the National Register are constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed. Although an object may be movable, an object that is a National Register property is associated with a specific setting or environment. Properties such as sculptures, monuments, boundary markers, statues, and fountains are classified as objects. The boundaries for objects may be limited to the land or water occupied by the resource; however, surroundings may be included when they contribute to the ability of the property to convey its significance. GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: OBJECTS (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, p. 56) • Select boundaries that encom- pass the entire resource. • The boundaries for objects maybe the land or water occupied by the resource without any surroundings. Ebenezer Monument, Mena, Polk County, Arkansas, constructed in 1936 at the rear parking lot of the First Baptist Church, 811 Arthur Street, is a square stone and concrete masonry monument that narrows toward the top and contains a vault designed to hold a time capsule. The monument was erected by the congregation as part of the local effort to expel nearby Commonwealth College, a school with militant socialist and unionist leanings. The monument is signifi- cant as the symbol of the anti -Com- munist sentiment that swept the state after the decision by the administra- tion of Commonwealth College to focus its curriculum exclusively on Marxism and Communism and to advocate militant activism by its students and faculty within the growing southern labor movement. The National Register boundaries are limited to the ground on which the 40 monument sits. Verbal boundary description: Beginning at the north- ern comer of the monument's founda- tion (located ten feet south of the southern edge of Church Street and sixteen feet west of the eastern edge of Ninth Street), proceed southwesterly to the monument's western corner; thence southeasterly to the monument's southern comer, thence northeasterly to the monument's eastern corner, thence northwesterly to the monument's northern corner and the point of beginning. Bound- ary justification: This boundary includes all the property historically associated with this resource. Dinosaur Park, Rapid City, Pennington County, South Dakota, is a roadside attraction displaying five concrete and iron pipe sculpted dinosaurs constructed between 1936 and 1938. Skyline Drive bisects the park. The western half includes the five original dinosaur sculptures; the eastern half includes a concession stand, parking lot, and two small dinosaurs constructed after 1938. Designed by Emmit A. Sullivan with assistance from Dr. Barnum Brown of the Smithsonian Institution's Ameri- can Museum of Natural History, the five original dinosaurs were con- structed by WPA workers. The park represents the local residents' grow- ing awareness during the 1930s that the Black Hills had potential as a major tourist attraction. It is one of the most elaborate examples of roadside tourist sculpture in South Dakota and an excellent example of vernacular public art. Operated privately until 1968, Dinosaur Park is now owned by Rapid City. The National Register boundaries are based on cultural features and reason- able limits. Verbal boundary de- scription: The nominated property is bounded by a set of imaginary lines that intersect to form a polygon around the original dinosaur sculp- tures. The eastern boundary line lies along the west edge of Skyline Drive. The southern boundary line extends 270 feet due west from the southern- most point of the retaining wall along Skyline Drive (as shown on the accompanying scaled map of the park). The western boundary line extends 315 feet due north from the western terminus of the southern boundary line. The northern bound- ary line extends from the northern terminus of the western boundary line to the northernmost point of the retaining wall along Skyline Drive. The property is located in the North- west Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 2, Township 1 North, Range 8 East (Black Hills Meridian), in Pennington County, South Dakota. Boundary justification: The boundaries of the nominated property have been set to include the original Dinosaur Park sculptures and to specifically exclude the noncontributing concession building, parking lot, and later sculptures, and any public or private roads. Two different, conflicting plats of the park boundaries are recorded at the Pennington County Register of Deeds Office; therefore, it was not possible to use legal descriptions for the boundaries of the nominated property. Rather, the lines were set using the west edge of Skyline Drive and the retaining wall along Skyline Drive for reference points. i �� • yaRy.4 ..� $ I eF_ I_ Dinosaur Park, Rapid City, Pennington County, South Dakota. Map showing the boundaries of the National Register property. Lincoln Street Electric Streetlights, Twin Falls, Twin Falls County, Idaho, are ten lights on cast - iron posts along the 100 and 200 blocks of Lincoln Street. Located on the east and west sides of the street in a residential neighborhood, the lights are placed close to the curb so that they have not been obscured by landscaping and thus remain an integral part of the streetscape. The lights were installed prior to 1920, before the Blue Lakes Addition was developed, the first subdivision of Twin Falls, and before electricity was available. The lights were part of developers' efforts to make the subdivision attractive. The National Register boundaries are defined by the legal definition of the city right -of- way for two blocks. Verbal boundary description: A rectangular piece of land comprising the city right -of -way for Blocks 1 and 2 of Lincoln Street, bounded by Heyburn Avenue on the north and Addison Avenue on the south as the same appears in the plat of the Blue Lakes Addition to the City of Twin Falls, Book 3 of Plats, page 29, records of the Twin Falls County Recorder. Boundary justification: The parcel is one contiguous parcel owned by the City of Twin Falls, being a platted and dedicated right - of-way for a city street, known as Lincoln Street, and constituting part of the land platted in the Blue Lakes Addition to the City of Twin Falls. It is the parcel historically associated with the subject of this nomination. Lincoln Street Electric Streetlights, Twin Falls, Idaho. Photograph of a representative streetlight and its setting. (Elizabeth Egleston) Mountain Pass Tree, Pacific Northwest [location restricted], is an inscribed mountain hemlock, located at a pass in the mountains. It is situated in a stand of hemlock and subalpine fir, facing an open meadow. The tree is 86 feet tall and 29.5 inches in diameter about 5 feet above the ground. Mountain Pass Tree is associated with early efforts to develop a transportation route across the mountains. It is the only known resource remaining from the 1893 and 1894 exploration, survey, and con- struction of a trail. Reasonable limits were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal bound- ary description: The area encom- passed by a square 200 feet on each side, centered on the tree and having sides oriented to the cardinal direc- tions. Boundary justification: This property is located within an unsur- veyed area of the public domain, with limited opportunities to establish precise natural or cultural boundaries. The area described includes portions of the adjacent timber and meadow needed to maintain the setting. BOUNDARIES FOR STRUCTURES Structures that may be eligible for listing in the National Register are functional constructions designed for purposes other than human shelter. Structures include bridges, tunnels, roadways, systems of roadways and paths, road grades, canals, boats and ships, railroad locomotives and cars, aircraft, gold dredges, kilns, shot towers, fire towers, turbines, dams, power plants, wind mills, corn cribs, silos, grain elevators, mounds, cairns, palisade fortifications, earthworks, bandstands, gazebos, and telescopes. GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING BOUNDARIES: STRUCTURES (summarized from How to Complete the National Register Registration Form, p. 56) • The boundaries for structures, such as ships, boats, and railroad cars and locomotives, may be the land or water occupied by the resource without any surroundings. George W. Johnson Park Carousel, Endicott, Broome County, New York, is a 1934 carousel in a city park. The carousel was donated to the commu. nity by George Johnson, the major employer in Endicott. The park that includes the carousel, the surround- ing working -class neighborhood, and the factory complex were all devel- oped by the Endicott Johnson Corpo- ration in the 1920s and reflect the company's influence over the history of Broome County. The boundary of the property, a circle with a radius of 28 feet, contains the original 1934 carousel located within the ca. 1934 housing pavilion. The park, the surrounding residential working -class neighborhood, and the nearby. factory complex are all located within the designated boundaries of the Endicott Urban Cultural Park District and the Endicott Historic District. Verbal boundary description: The nomi- nated boundary encompasses only the carousel and its housing and the ground upon which they stand. Boundary justification: The nomina- tion boundary was drawn to include only the carousel itself and its hous- ing. Although the park itself may be eligible, it has not yet been evaluated due to the specific focus of this [Broome County Carousals] theme. I BEPYdID .YE. ' , PP4YNL4l y S �O .tr, SS AYiMONI9 E ; _ GEa AE W. 3-WUN xgc Z.li C IEEL George W. Johnson Park Carousel, Endicott, New York. A sketch plan of the park showing the carousel's National Register boundaries. 41 George W. Johnson Park Carousel, Endicott, New York. The carousel and its setting. (G. Joseph Socki) Crawford Ditch, El Dorado County, California, was built in 1852 as the second segment of the Jones, Furman & Company ditch system to provide river water to miners of the Mother Lode Gold Rush. The trough- shaped earthen trench averages 5 feet across between the edge of the up -hill bank and the inner face of the retaining berm. The Crawford'Ditch is the last functioning industrial structure in the Pleasant Valley area of El Dorado County. Only the Clear Creek segment of the Crawford Ditch is nominated; the remainder of the ditch has lost its historic integrity. The legal right-of- way of the ditch was used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: A 7.5 -mile -long ditch with a 50- foot -wide working right -of -way. It falls in that length from the Clear Creek intake weir (near Pleasant Valley) at the 2,285 -foot contour to the feeder siphon at the northeast side of the intersection of Hanks Exchange Road and Ranch Road (near the Hanks Exchange Gbmmunity at the 2,245 -foot contour). See the accompanying USGS map, Camino Quadrangle, California, 7.5 minute series (topographic), photorevised 1973, the Crawford Ditch. Find the Clear Creek segment per the UTM references noted above, as marked on the map. Boundary justification: The boundaries encompass the one remain- ing section of the Crawford Ditch that retains sufficient integrity to meet National Register standards. The boundaries encompass the ditch and the right -of -way historically associated with it. 42 Newport Stone Arch Bridge, Newport, Herkimer County, New York, was built in 1853 to join the older core of the village on the east bank of West Canada Creek with an industrial and residential area on the west bank. The nominated property includes an area of the West Canada Creek and its bank approximately 250 feet in length and 225 feet in width. In addition to the bridge itself, the site includes two contributing stone retaining walls on the west bank of the creek. A concrete dam north of the bridge and a modern power generation facility east of the bridge are excluded from the nominated property. The Newport Stone Arch Bridge is a good example of tradi- tional arched masonry bridge con- struction and represents a significant Crawford Ditch, El Dorado County, California. Detail of a USGS map showing the nominated segment of the ditch. mid -19th century engineering accom- plishment in the county. Natural and cultural features and reasonable limits were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal bound- ary description: The nominated property is 250 feet in length, east to west, and 236 feet in width, north to south, encompassing the bridge at the center, and including the stone retaining walls at the west bank of the West Canada Creek. Proceeding clockwise, the boundary follows the east bank of the creek to a point 125 feet south of the bridge, where it turns west to follow a line parallel with the bridge to the west bank of the creek. The boundary turns north at the west bank, where it follows stone retaining walls to a point 75 feet north of the bridge before turning east. The northern segment of the boundary parallels the bridge to the point where it intersects the eastern section of the boundary. Refer to the attached site plan. Boundary justification: The boundary has been established to isolate the bridge, its ancillary retain- ing walls, and its immediate setting from adjacent areas that are not directly associated with the history of the bridge. •a M Newport Stone Arch Bridge, Newport, New York. Sketch plan showing the property's National Register boundaries. Hanford B Reactor, Benton County, Washington, is a plutonium - production reactor that was con- structed during World War II as part of the Manhattan Project. Construc- tion of the reactor began in 1943 and the facility produced fissionable material for national defense until its deactivation in 1968. The B Reactor is housed inside the 105-B reactor containment building in the B/C Area of the Hanford Site. The containment building is surrounded by various support structures that are not included in this nomination. The Hanford B Reactor is significant for its association with nuclear power and the Manhattan Project: this reactor produced the plutonium used in the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. A cultural feature (the existing fence) was used to define the National Register boundary. Verbal boundary description: The Hanford B Reactor is located in the 1006 /C Area of the Hanford Site, .05 mile south of the Columbia River and 3.5 miles east of the point where Washington High- way 240 crosses the Columbia River at Vernita Bridge. The structure and adjoining land lie within a 650 -foot- square plot, the center point of which is at the above - referenced UTM coordinate. Boundary justification: The boundary includes the structure and space around it as currently defined by fencing. Lusk Water Tower, Lusk, Niobrara County, Wyoming, is a round water tank about 25 feet in diameter and about 25 feet high, supported by a wood column structure. The water tower is significant for its association with the Chicago and Northwestern Rail Line, a line of major importance in Wyoming's settlement. The water tower was originally located in the center of the town of Lusk, near the depot; the water tower was moved to its present location, north of the Chicago and Northwestern Rail Line, in 1919 when the depot was rebuilt in the center of town. The water tower property, enclosed by a chain -link fence, is less than 1/4 acre in size. The property is bordered by a mil line to the south, pasture to the west and east, and a residential rural subdivi- sion to the north. The move has had little effect on the historic integrity of the structure, as its new setting is associated with the rail line and reflects the continued development of the railroad and its function. The legal description of the parcel was used to define the National Register boundary. Verbal boundary descrip- tion: The 1982 Warranty Deed to the Niobrara County Historical Society states that the Lusk Water Tower site consists of 0.2 acres. This tract of land is in the B !/2 of Section 8, Township 32 North, Range 63 West of the 6th P.M. USGS Lusk, Wyoming, Quad- rangle map, described as follows: From the 1/4 section corner on the east section line of Section 8, Township 32 North, Range 63 West of the 6th P.M. along the 1/4 section line a distance of 1,300 feet to point of beginning. Thence north 69 32' west, a distance of 230 feet; thence south 53 02' east, a distance of 173 feet; thence south 69 32' east, a distance of 94.5 feet; thence north 20 28' east, a distance of 50 feet; thence north 69 32' west, a distance of 32.5 feet to the point of beginning. Containing 0.2 acres, more or less. Boundary justification: The bound- ary is. based on the legally recorded boundary lines that encompass the single parcel of land that is occupied by the water tower and its immediate surroundings. This represents the parcel owned and protected by the Niobrara County Historical Society. Lusk Water Tower, Lusk, Wyoming, (Richard Collier) 43 Saint Cloud and Red River Valley Stage Road — Kandota Section, Todd County, Minnesota, is the best pre- served section of the road built by the Minnesota Stage Company in 1859. The property is significant for its association with the transportation history of Minnesota, as defined in the Overland Staging Industry in Minne - sota,1849 -1880, Multiple Property Submission. The property meets the following registration requirements: conforming. to the original route; being unimproved, passable, and distinct from the surrounding land; being long enough to evoke a sense of destination or direction; and retaining the wooded setting of the area's condition during the period of signifi- cance. The land beyond the north- west end of the nominated property, which has been plowed, bears no signs of the road and is therefore excluded from the nomination. Reasonable limits were used to define the National Register boundaries. Verbal boundary description: The property consists of a six - foot -wide strip of land centering on the line delineated on the accompanying map (USGS 7,5 minute series, West Union, Minnesota, Quadrangle). The line connects the following UTM reference points: A 15 344350 5070710, B 15 344120 5070890. Boundary justifica- tion: The property boundaries encompass the visible roadway as determined through field survey by Robert Hybben, 22 May 1990. 44 Saint Cloud and Red River Valley Stage Road— Kandota Section, Todd County, Minnesota. Detail of USGS quadrangle map showing location of the National Register property. Saint Cloud and Red River Valley Stage Road — Kandota Section, Todd County, Minnesota, The.stage road trace, facing northwest. (Robert Hybben) �, ST�CLOVU .4ND 2GD_�?�6,e rro ulri Ref«we Pont, "ro 06 ?co N /E� U/✓!DN Qvi� Saint Cloud and Red River Valley Stage Road— Kandota Section, Todd County, Minnesota. Detail of USGS quadrangle map showing location of the National Register property. Saint Cloud and Red River Valley Stage Road — Kandota Section, Todd County, Minnesota, The.stage road trace, facing northwest. (Robert Hybben) IV. REFERENCES Knoerl, John, and Betsy Chittenden. Boundary Analysis of the Dune Shacks of Peaked Hill Bars Historic District, Cape Cod, Massachusetts, Cultural Resources Information Management Series. Washington, D.C.: Cultural Resources Geographic Information Systems Applications Center, National Park Service, U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, 1990. McClelland, Linda Flint, J. Timothy Keller, Genevieve P. Keller, and Robert Z. Melnick. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Districts. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1990. National Register Bulletin: Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties. Washing- ton, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1985. National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991. National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991. National Register Bulletin: Using the UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, Na- tional Park Service, U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, 1977. Parker, Patricia L., and Thomas F. King. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Docu- menting Traditional Cultural Proper- ties. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, Na- tional Park Service, U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, 1990. Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeologi- cal Sites and Districts. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1993. 45 V. NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION The National Register's standards for evaluating the significance of Properties were developed to recog- nize the accomplishments of all people who have made a contribution to our country's history and heritage. The criteria are designed to guide State and local governments, Federal agencies, and others in evaluating potential entries in the National Register. The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, 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: A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive charac- teristics 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 indi- vidual distinction; or 91 D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criteria considerations: 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 primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved signin- cance 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 the criteria or if they fall within the following categories: a. a religious property deriving primary significance from architec- ture or artistic distinction or histori- cal importance; or b. a building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architec- tural value, or which is the surviv- ing 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 other appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or d. a cemetery that derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design fea- tures, 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 commemora- tive in intent if design, age, tradi- tion, or symbolic value has invested it with its own historical signifi- cance; or g. a property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. VII. NATIONAL REGISTER BULLETINS The Basics How to Apply National Register Criteria for Evaluation Guidelines for Completing National Register of Historic Places Form Part A: How to Complete the National Register Form * Part B: How to Complete the National Register Multiple Property Documentation Form Researching a Historic Property Property Types Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Historic Aids to Navigation Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering America's Historic Battlefields Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeological Sites Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places How to Evaluate and Nominate Designed Historic Landscapes * Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating and Registering Historic Mining Sites How to Apply National Register Criteria to Post Offices * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties Associated with Significant Persons Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Properties That Have Achieved Significance Within the Last Fifty Years Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Rural Historic Landscapes * Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties Nominating Historic Vessels and Shipwrecks to the National Register of Historic Places Technical Assistance Contribution of Moved Buildings to Historic Districts; Tax Treatments for Moved Buildings; and Use of Nomination Documentation in the Part I Certification Process Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties* Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning How to Improve the Quality of Photographs for National Register Nominations National Register Casebook: Examples of Documentation Using the UTM Grid System to Record Historic Sites The above publications may be obtained by writing to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. Publications marked with an asterisk ( *) are also available in electronic form on the World Wide Web at www.cr.nps.gov /nr, or send your request by e-mail to nr_ reference @nps.gov. 47 APPENDIX: DEFINITION OF NATIONAL REGISTER BOUNDARIES FOR ARCHEOLOGICAL PROPERTIES Edited by: Barbara J. Little, Beth L. Savage, and John N. Sprinkle, Jr. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................... ............................... 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................. ............................... II. WHAT IS AN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE? ......... ............................... III. DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES IV. CASE STUDIES ................. ..................................... I ....... I ................... , V. REFERENCES ....................................... . ............................. I ............... . 48 .................. 49 .................. 49 ......... I........ 50 .................. 51 .................. 52 .................. 62 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The first version of National Register Bulletin: Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties was edited by National Register Historian Beth L. Savage and released in 1985. The compilation of that bulletin was the result of the work of numerous individuals. Issues relating to the delineation of boundaries for archeological nominations were identified as a National Register Bulletin topic in the early 1980s by a committee of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, led by Valerie A. Talmage, former State Historic Preservation Officer of Massachusetts. Earlier work by Bruce MacDougal and Herbert Brito on boundary delineation for National Register properties served as a framework for the bulletin. Yvonne Stewart, Carol Dubie and John Knoerl played integral roles in the bulletin's completion. Helpful suggestions provided by the staff of the National Register and Planning Branches, Interagency Resources Division, and the insightful comments of many State Historic Preservation Offices contributed to the final publication. Answering an expressed need to provide continuing guidance in the area of delineating boundaries for archeological properties, the National Register reevaluated the usefulness of the original version of Bulletin 12 in 1994. We thank the following for their comments: Carl Barna (BLM), Colorado Historical Society, John Cornelison (NPS Southeast Archeol- ogy Center), Frank R. Finch (Depart- ment of the Army), Leland Gilson (Oregon SHPO), J. Bennett Graham (Tennessee Valley Authority), Richard R. Hoffman (FERC), Diane Holliday (State Historical Society of Wiscon- sin), Elizabeth Horvath (NPS South- east Archeology Center), Judy McDonough (Massachusetts SHPO, Massachusetts Historical Commis- sion), Arleen Pabon (Puerto Rico SHPO), Gary Shaffer, (Maryland Historical Trust), Herschel Shepard (University of Florida), Robert E. Stipe, Lois Thompson (DOE), Western Regional Office, Valerie Talmage (former Massachusetts SHPO) and Richard Guy Wilson (University of Virginia). Several reviewers suggested incorporating National Register Bulle- tin: Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties into a more broadly applicable boundary bulletin. In 1995, a revised National Register Bulletin: Defining Boundaries for National Register Proper- ties was issued. This current reprint of that bulletin incorporates an updated and streamlined version of National Register Bulletin: Definition of National Register Boundaries for Archeological Properties as this appendix. John H. Sprinkle, Jr., (Woodward -Clyde Federal Services) wrote most of the new material on site definition and identified new examples. Barbara J. Little (Archeologist, National Register of Historic PIaces) organized the bulletin into this appendix and deleted redundant examples. Carol D. Shull supervised the revisions. Mary F. McCutchan edited the text and prepared it for publication. Jan Townsend, Antoinette J. Lee, and Beth Savage assisted with various aspects of its preparation I. INTRODUCTION This appendix defines recom- mended approaches, with illustra- tions where applicable, to delineating boundaries for archeological proper- ties. Section II defines the concept of an archeological site. How archeolo- gists define the boundaries of archeo- logical sites is outlined in Section III. Section IV presents case studies which address the delineation of archeologi- cal site boundaries for a variety of both hypothetical and actual National Register properties. The case studies illustrate the necessary details — including background information, boundary description, approaches used, and boundary justification — with acceptable delineated bound- aries which typify situations com- monly encountered in preparing nominations. In each of the examples, the prop- erty has already been determined eligible for listing in the National Register. The cases are chosen to illustrate decisions regarding bound- aries. Reflecting the various types of historical associations retained by cultural resources, many historic properties are eligible for inclusion in the National Register under more than one of the four Criteria: A, B, C, or D. However, the National Register recognizes only one boundary for each historic property. Asite that is eligible under Criterion D for the important information contained in its buried remains, may also be eligible under Criterion A for its significance to modern Native American groups as a Traditional Cultural Property. Although the physical boundaries of the archeological site may be rela- tively small, the larger boundaries of the traditional place would be repre- sented in the National Register. Whatever the criteria for eligibility, historic properties should always be delineated by their largest relevant boundary. One continuing issue with historic properties that happen to be archeo- logical sites is the destructive nature of archeological investigation. The National Register does not, as a rule, list archeological sites that have been the subject of complete excavation. The artifacts, field records, photo- graphs, and other data collected through the process of excavation do not retain integrity of location or setting and thus are not eligible for inclusion. Some sites that were the locations of significant milestones in the history of American archeology are listed after excavation as historic sites. However, very few archeological sites are completely excavated in today's world where archeological studies are usually conducted as part of cultural resource management activities. Archeological investigation is by definition a process of sampling the buried record of past lives. At most sites, portions of the site remain unexcavated. In addition, in the framework of data recovery, or Phase III excavations, only a portion of the site, that within the "limits of pro- posed construction" or "area of potential effects" is subject to inten- sive excavations. Often large portions of archeological sites located outside the "mitigated" areas survive the development process. Care should be given, at the completion of data recovery excavations, to evaluate and nominate the significant surviving portions of the "unmitigated" area of such archeological sites. For example, in a recent case from a southeastern state, a large multi component archeological site, dating from the Late Archaic and Contact periods, was subject to data recovery excavations in the area slated for construction of a reservoir dam in the late 1980s. Subsequently in the mid 1990s, another portion of the site underwent Phase III excavations as the result of a second federal under- 49 taking. However, portions of the site located between the two areas of previous data recovery excavations have the potential to contain signifi- cant archeological information. Proposed for preservation in place, this surviving parcel is eligible for the National Register although the site as a whole has endured two previous data recovery operations. Finally, the National Register has long recognized the disproportionate under - representation of archeological sites (approximately 7 %) within its approximately 67,000 listed proper- ties. Clearly, many thousands of historic buildings, structures, and districts contain unrecognized archeo- logical components that are equally eligible for the National Register. The National Register has made amending nominations to include the archeo- logical portions of currently listed historic properties, a relatively simple and straightforward process. Nomina- tions may be quickly prepared or amended using the computer - resident nomination forms available from the National Register. Specific procedures for amending nominations can be found in National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. Nomination amendments should be used to increase or decrease the boundaries of a property or district, as well as adding or subtracting criteria and areas of significance. National Register nominations should not be considered static documents. Indeed, as land uses at a site change, or as further information is gathered, it may be desirable to update the nomination to reflect current conditions. Over the years, a National Register nomination may require a certain amount of "informa- tion maintenance" in order to recon- sider the property's description, contributing elements, period of significance, applicable criteria, and of course, boundaries. 50 11. WHAT IS AN ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE? The main text of this bulletin (p.30) defines a site as "the location of a significant event, prehistoric or historic occupation or activity, or building or structure, (whether standing, ruined, or vanished) where the location itself possesses historic, cultural, or archeological value" and goes on to note that "the most com- mon types of resources classified as sites are archeological resources." Most archeologists practicing their craft today would agree that together with the artifact and the feature, the "archeological site" is one of the fundamental concepts in our disci- pline. Yet, it is sometimes difficult to find a simple, meaningful definition of what an archeological site is, and what it is not. Archeologists have always recog- nized the site as one of the founda- tions of all research on past cultures. In his 1956 work, A Short Introduction to Archaeology, the British archeologist, V. Gordon Childe described how although "antiquities' could be commonly found either on the surface of the ground or through excavation, "such objects in themselves are only potential archeological data." Arti- facts only become data "when classi- fied in light of their associations, of the contexts in which they have been found" within archeological sites - Thus, for Childe, a "site" was simply the source of archeological informa- tion. Field manuals for archeologists provide common definitions of archeological sites. A site is "a fairly continuous distribution of the remains of a former single unit of settlement" (Dancey 198I:13). An archeological site is usually the scene of past human activity. It may be marked by the scanty remnants of a brief en- campment, or by the abundant remains of a settled village. If a site shows evidence of repeated occupation or use, it is still considered a single site, but various levels or periods of use may be distinguished within it (Hester, Heizer, and Graham 1975:13). Each archeological site is a unique time capsule. Each has its own distinct character and problems. Sites represent a body of data relevant to their setting and their cultural patterning and must be interpreted in relation to both this local setting and to their function as a link between cultures (Joukowsky 1980:35). outlining the mysteries of archeol- ogy in an effort to protect sites on private property, National Park Service archeologist Susan Henry (1993:6 -7) relates several characteris- tics of sites: The focus of the archeo- logical attentions is the site —a place where human activity occurred. An archeological site has horizontal and vertical dimensions. Few archeo- logical sites are simple and straightforward. Most are complex, containing diverse elements, or components, each of which may represent a different activity. All site compo- nents bear a relationship to one another, and all components, including the buildings and landscapes, need to be studied in order to understand the way of life once carried out at [a site]. Archeologists occasionally have pointed out that the site concept is inadequate because the archeological record often is not clustered. Several researchers have supplemented the site concept with that of "nonsite sites" (for example, Dunnell and Dancey 1983; Lewarch and O'Brien 1981). "Distributional archeology" (Ebert 1992) focuses on surface material rather than sealed sites in order to concentrate on human use of the whole landscape rather than on discrete, rare places. For the purpose of nominating an archeological site to the National Register, there must be clearly defined and justified boundaries. See Cases 15 and 16 for examples of delimiting site bound- aries where the artifact record is continuous. In an attempt to add consistency to the process of cultural resource management, many State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPO) have offered specific statements on the characteristics of archeological sites. For SHPOs, the definition of archeo- logical site is often tied to the process of completing an archeological site form, which forces the regulators to standardize terms and provide guidance for just what is and what is not a site. For example, Virginia's guidelines for archeological survey provide one definition of a site: In general terms, an archeological site is defined as the physical remains of any area of human activity greater than 50 years of age for which a boundary can be established. Examples of such resources would include the following: domestic /habitation sites, industrial sites, earthworks, mounds, quarries, canals, roads, shipwrecks, etc. Under the general definition, a broad range of site types would qualify as archeological sites without the identifica- tion of any artifacts (VDHR 1996:1). All archeological sites have some form of physical expression, either through the presence of artifacts or other evidence of modification of the natural world through human agents. It is difficult to think of an archeologi- cal site that would have no surviving physical remains. In fact, the Na- tional Register generally does not list archeological sites that have been fully excavated, that is, where no physical remains of the site survive, because of the loss of integrity. The theoretical construct of "site" plays a fundamental role in the ways archeologists view past societies. Concepts regarding archeological sites can be expressed through four phrases: 1. Methodology Mechanics. The methods used by archeologists to look for sites influences the sites that are identified. This concept reinforces the traditional scientific and archeological premise that methods and theory fundamentally influence the nature of the recovered information. Thus, a clear definition of how to define the location and boundaries of sites must be an essential part of every archeologist's theoretical and method- ological tool kit. 2. Artifact Axiom. An archeological site must have some physical evi- dence of occupation, use, or tranSfOr- mation. This evidence is usually in the form of artifacts, but also includes human alterations to the landscape. Without some form of physical presence it is impossible to define boundaries to archeological sites. 3. Density Dilemma. Is the center of the site the place with the most artifacts? The boundary of archeologi- cal sites should not be defined solely on the basis of artifact density re- vealed in an archeological survey. As the remains of past human activities, archeological sites may contain areas where artifact density is relatively low, separating two portions of the same site. In addition, various cultural and natural transformations have fundamentally altered the condition of readily apparent archeo- logical sites. Through time, vegeta- tion may obscure artifacts, plowed areas may blanket subsurface fea- tures, and soil movement by a variety of processes may have buried sites. The definition of a site's boundary must consider the land use history of the site as well as artifact density. 4. Present vs. Past. How certain are the limits of a prehistoric or historic period site? Obviously, the definition of an archeological site's boundaries is a judgment made in the present. It is molded by the archeologist's training, education, and view of the past. Care should be given to consider how the site may have been perceived in the past. Historic boundaries, if they can be defined or modeled, should be given primacy over modern bound- aries. III. DEFINING THE BOUNDARIES OF ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES While defining boundaries usually requires some limited excavation, it is also often possible to use nondestruc- tive methods prior to archeological fieldwork to identify the location and extent of suspected subsurface features within archeological proper- ties. Over the years, archeologists have adapted a variety of methods from other disciplines to see beneath the earth. Geophysical prospecting techniques most commonly used by archeologists include electrical resistivity and conductivity (including metal detectors), ground - penetrating radar (GPR), and magnetic prospect- ing. Analysis of soil chemistry also has been used successfully to identify sites and activity areas within sites. Aerial photography is a well -known technique used extensively to identify sites. Although some types of remote sensing can be executed by archeolo- gists trained in their use, it is common to hire specialists because the tech- niques and technologies of remote sensing change rapidly. Advantages to geophysical meth- ods are that they are nondestructive (or minimally destructive) and are relatively fast. However, geophysics is an indirect science which detects "anomalies' which then usually require some level of sub - surface testing to verify as archeological resources. Remote sensing is particularly useful in underwater archeological endeavors. In the case of one recently listed shipwreck along the eastern seaboard, the site was identified using a towed -array proton precision magnetometer as part of a state - sponsored survey. The 30- by 40- meter boundary of the site was identified by using metal detector survey as well as test excavations. Clearly, as new technologies and methodologies are adapted to the needs of archeological investigations, these techniques can be used to help define boundaries of National Regis- ter properties. Whether using new technologies or old, the level of effort to define boundaries should be an explicit part of research designs for archeological surveys designed to identify all potentially National Register eligible sites. In addition, the principles for demarcating the limits of archeologi- cal sites should also be explicitly stated in the survey methodology. Once defined, this methodology should be consistently applied to each potential archeological site identified in a survey. National Register boundaries distinguish, from their surrounding environment, archeological sites meeting the National Register criteria for evaluation either individually or as contributing elements in an archeo- logical district. Site boundaries often are reasonable distinctions that may not always reflect the spatial concepts implicit in certain theoretical perspec- tives, notably those of "nonsite" 51 archeology. However, boundary determinations require clear recogni- tion of how physical features and their mutual relationships form a "site." Usually this requires the archeologist to decide the degree of fall off in cultural material density that is no longer acceptable in order for an enclosed area to be considered part of the significant "site." Boundaries for National Register properties are horizontal boundaries that can be clearly marked in two dimensions. Vertical boundaries of a site probably will have been estab- lished or predicted through testing to evaluate the site for significance. Absolute boundary definition is often unachievable. Boundaries usually represent compromises reconciling both theory and field conditions to facilitate communication with agencies and the public about sensitive geographic locations having important concentrations of archeo- logical information. There are several methods for obtaining boundary evidence for archeological sites. These are summa- rized on page 30 in the main text of this bulletin. Examples of each are provided in this appendix or in the main text of this bulletin. Each of the techniques used must be adequately documented in the text of the nomina- tion. The first two, "subsurface testing" and "surface observation," provide direct documentation of archeological resources. Several examples in the main text use these methods. See the discontiguous district of Crockett Canyon /Coyote Ranch Archeological District (p. 23) as well as most of the examples under "Archeological Sites and Districts" (pp.30 -36). In this appendix see Case I for an example of direct documentation through subsur- face testing and Case 2 for an example of surface observation. The third method, "observation of topographic and other natural fea- tures," often provides logical and defendable boundaries for sites. For examples in the main text, see in particular Rockshelter Petroglyphs (p.31), Prehistoric Quartzite Quarry Archeological Site (p.31), and Harbor Island Historic and Archeological District (p.33). In this appendix see Case 3 for a further example. The fourth technique, "observation of land alterations," includes the documentation of land disturbance that may have destroyed portions of a 52 site, thereby indicating a boundary for the remaining resource. See Case 4 for an example. It may also involve documenting the lack of disturbance to a property as evidence supporting a site's integrity. This latter case is illustrated in Cases 5 and 6. The last technique listed on page 30 is "study of historic or ethnographic documents." This technique often involves the use of maps and legal boundaries. Several examples in the main text illustrate the use of such documents for determining bound- aries. See these contiguous districts in rural settings: The Wood lawn Historic and Archeological District (p.17), Bloomvale Historic District (p.21), Weyerhaueser South Bay Log Dump Rural Historic landscape (p.22). The boundaries for Pecos Archeological District are coterminous with the legal boundaries of Pecos National Histori- cal Park (p.24). Cases 7, 8, and 9 in this appendix provide further ex- amples. In addition to these five techniques is the "property type model;' which was defined in earlier editions of this appendix (as Definition of National Boundaries for Archeological Districts). The property type model is based on known site types. For example, a late archaic camp in a swampy area is discovered during a survey and is nominated for the important informa- tion potential of its well - preserved plant remains. However, testing was not done to determine the boundaries of the site. To describe and justify a boundary coterminous with the rise of land overlooking the swamp, a property type model could be used. Such a model would compare this type of site to other known sites in the region, clearly presenting and sup- porting the expected boundary for this type of site. Case 10 provides an example of the property type model. IV. CASE STUDIES It is an archeological truism that "every site is different." The process of determining the boundaries of an individual archeological site depends, to a certain degree, upon the indi- vidual characteristics of that site and its surroundings. The following case studies add to those presented in the main text. It is important to note that in most cases, more than one tech- nique is used to determine bound- aries. Examples for each of the main techniques discussed above are provided first. Following those is Case 11, a district with boundaries based on more than one area and period of significance; Case 12, a site eligible under criteria A and D as both a traditional cultural place and an archeological site, Case 13, a bound- ary reduction; and Cases 14 and 15, examples of delimiting boundaries amid continuous distribution of artifacts. Case 1. Shovel Test Pits delimiting a prehistoric site located within a forest. A multicomponent prehistoric site was located within Federal property in a state in the upper South. The boundaries of the site were defined through the excavation of 46 shovel test pits and limited surface collection of artifacts along a road. Information potential and National Register eligibility was confirmed through the excavation of 151 x 1 meter test units. Although some disturbance to the site resulted, previous construction of the road does not appear to have significantly compromised the integrity of this property. In situ materials were found as deep as 50 cm below the present ground surface. The distribu- tion of artifacts at this site conforms to a model of site definition in which the highest density of artifacts is judged to be located at the center of the site, with fewer artifacts found in outlying areas. The edge of the site is defined by the boundary between the presence of artifacts and the absence of artifacts, as revealed in test pits. Boundary Description: The site is located along AAA Road with the extreme northeastern boundary being located approximately 3,000 feet north of the confluence of BBB Branch and CCC Branch, at an elevation of 1500 ft. amsl. From this point the site area follows the road to the west (which coincides with the contour of the ridge top) for an additional 1,000 feet. The site is confined to the north and south by its topographic situation; cultural materials were confined to the level or near level portions of the ridge system. (See Figure 1.) Boundary Justification: The site boundaries were determined by the limits of cultural materials as defined by subsurface shovel testing. A surface collection along the road revealed a continuation of materials outside of the defined boundaries; Figure 1. (Case 1). The site boundaries for this prehistoric archeological site from a state in the upper south were defined by the presence of artifacts recovered during shovel test pit excavation. The map included with the National Register nomination clearly shows the limits of the site with a bold line, illustrates the location of excavation units, and clearly locates the position of the site within a forested environment. Figure 2. (Case 2). Located primarily within a plowed field, the bounds of this site were determined through direct documentation. Although no testing occurred within the woods to the north of the fields, the presence of higher artifact densities in this area suggested that the site continued beyond the plowed field. however, it is likely that recent road improvement activities are respon- sible for the current location of these materials. For this reason, the bound- aries as defined by the shovel testing appear to be the most accurate definition of the site's size and extent. Case 2. A Plowed Prehistoric Site Identified through Surface Collec- tion, Natural Topography, and Land Disturbance. The site lies on a rise of land partly in a wooded lot (11.5 acres) and partly in a plowed field (ca.5 acres) entirely within property owned by a state agency. The site was discovered in 1981 when the State agency leased land for farming; the plowed field was surface - collected and artifacts and features were mapped. The site was defined by direct documentation (observation of surface features and surface collec- tion; natural topographic features; and land disturbance.) Boundary Description: The site is bounded on the south by the known extent of cultural materials, on the west by railroad tracks and on the north and east by a contour line defining a terrace overlooking a wetland (See Figure 2.) Boundary Justification: The southern boundary of the site is established by the limit of cultural materials and features and roughly corresponds to a lowering in grade. The highest artifact densities recov- ered during surface collection were noted at the northern and western edges of the plowed field. By ex- trapolation, it is likely that the site extends into the wooded areas to the north and west. The western bound- ary is established by the railroad cut which corresponds roughly to the original terrace edge. The northern and eastern boundaries are set by the contour line marking an abrupt fall to the wetland. Case 3. A Prehistoric Site Defined by Natural Topographic Features: The site was discovered in 1965 and was investigated archeologically between then and 1977 by the State University and the State Archeological Society. Excavations and surveys revealed that the site was occupied from Early =hArchaic through Woodland times and istoric historic, eighteenth - century, English - colonial component is also present. 53 Boundary Description: The boundaries of the site correspond to the edges of an erosional remnant, the 140 -foot contour line on the topo- graphic quad, a ridge. The site is bounded by the creek and swamp on the northwest, and by low -lying floodplain on all other sides (See Figure 3.) Boundary Justification: The boundaries of the site correspond to those of the landform on which it lies. Archeological investigations have revealed artifacts only in those areas above the 140 -foot contour of the valley floor in all sampled areas of the ridge. The site's maximum length northeast to southwest is 2,500 feet, and its maximum width is 800 feet. The low -lying nature of the swamps and floodplain surrounding this erosional upland remnant presumably made this ridge the only habitable portion of the area, implying strongly that topography constituted a behav- ioral boundary here. Case 4. Documented Land Distur- bance of a Riverine Site Defined by Natural Features and Modern Land Uses: A Woodland period prehistoric archeological site was identified by avocational archeologists and re- ported to the SHFO. The 50 -acre site comprises surface finds along a floodplain adjacent to a meandering river course. No scientific excavations have been conducted at the site. Boundary Description: The site is bounded by natural topographic features and manmade alterations to the landscape. The 600 -foot contour line defines the northern, western, and eastern boundaries of the site. The southern portion of the site is defined by a railroad right -of -way which was constructed at the toe of a steep slope marking a topographic boundary as well as a manmade one (See Figure 4.) Boundary Justification: The river forms a naturally occurring boundary to nearly three sides of the site. The area contained within the inside bend of the curve of the river had bearing on the living space which was avail- able to prehistoric people. Surface collections have yielded prehistoric cultural materials over most of the dry land area to within a few feet of the present shore and as far south as the railroad easement. The marshy area lying between the 600 -foot contour and the river was not in- cluded because interpretations of the 54 Figure 3. (Case 3). The boundary of this site was primarily determined by topographic features and contains the ridge area encompassed by the 140 -foot contour line. Archaic and Woodland prehistoric components, in addition to an eighteenth - century historic occupation, are constrained by a creek, swamps, and flood -plain settings. RIVER O / RAILROAD SITE BOUNDARY ` 1 KILOMETER Figure 4. (Case 4.) The river and associated swamp forma natural boundary for this prehistoric site on its west, north, and east sides. The southern boundary was truncated by construction of a railroad sealed at the base of a topographic rise. environmental history of the site indicate that the area has been sub- jected to river scouring during various meander episodes, leading to little expectation of the existence of cultural remains. The railroad easement that defines the southern boundary represents a corridor of highly disturbed land from which archeological resources cannot be expected to have survived. The right -of -way also serves to mark a sharp break in slope, delineating the well- drained alluvial terrace which lies on the inside bend of the river from the steep (greater than 15 %), rocky, fill covered northerly facing slope. The topographic characteristics beyond the easement would have rendered this area unattractive for occupation. Case S. Documents and Lack of Land Disturbance of a Historical Archeological Site in an Urban Setting: An eighteenth - century house in a Colonial -era town has been nominated. The townhouse is located on a deep lot maintained as lawn and gardens. Historical research confirms that the current property lines were established in the original plat of the block in the 1700s and that substantial construction has never occurred. Archeological investigation of other houses in the urban area has revealed the presence of associated buried privies and trash deposits. Discussion: Historic documenta- tion of legal boundaries would be the most appropriate in this case where the documentation confirms that current property lines represent the historic property lines. In addition, the lack of interior block disturbance is documented, leading to an expecta- tion of buried feature remains such as privies. This expectation maybe confirmed by surface observation of site features and materials. Subsurface testing would not be necessary for boundary definition in this case. Modern legal boundaries should be used in concert with historic docu- mentation which confirms that the current legal boundaries are histori- cally the legal boundaries of the site. Case 6. Documents and Lack of Land Disturbance for a Multiple Property Nomination for Charcoal Iron Furnaces: Numerous charcoal iron furnace complexes and associ- ated communities have been identi- fied. All known examples of this class of property are included. Although predominantly subsurface in nature, a few aboveground resources are present. Archival research and intensive restoration of one of the furnace complexes have established a description of the types and functions of the resources represented, their time range, their physical characteris- tics, and the probable classes of important research data represented. Original plats for individual furnace complexes and communities as well as historic photographs are available. Limited archeological surveys have confirmed the presence of historically documented features at several of the furnace sites and associated commu- nities. Typically, the iron furnaces and associated communities have not been developed following their abandonment. Boundary Description: For each furnace complex and associated community, the boundary is defined by the historical limits of the resource as illustrated in historic plat maps and verified as undisturbed based on field inspection (See Figure 5.) Boundary Justification: Given that all members of this class of resources have been identified; that the original plat are available to establish bound- aries; that archival research, restora- tion, and limited archeological research have established the types and functions of the various resources represented; and that the furnace sites are located in a region of the State that has experienced little development, it is appropriate to use historic docu- ments (plats) to determine the bound- Dries of each property included in the nomination. Subsurface testing is not necessary for boundary justification, because enough is known about the site functions and features to accu- rately predict Iocations of activity loci and expected data classes. Limited surface reconnaissance on several properties and restoration of one furnace and auxiliary building have confirmed the presence of expected features, based on historic documen- tation. Visible signature features, such as furnace stack remnants, earthen ramps, slag dumps, ore pits, and building foundations in conjunc- tion with plats, historic photographs, and standing buildings have been useful in locating specific features, i.e., stacks are located near streams TYPICAL CHARCOAL IRON FURNACE LAYOUT (2025 ACRES) ` FURNACE STACK, BUILDING REMNANTS AND SOME EQUIPMENT REMAIN FESTORAGE SHEDS BRIDGE HOUSE FURNA BL STACK i ENGINE FOUNDRY ❑ HOUSE CAST SHED ❑ MANAGER'S WORKERS' Q HOUSE HOUSING O ❑ N COMPANY 0 El STORE & OFFICE ROAD Figure 5. (Case 6). This figure shows a typical charcoal iron furnace dating from the nineteenth century. As part of a multiple property nomination, the boundary of each complex was estimated based upon historical cartographic documentation and confirmed using limited field investigations. 55 and sandstone banks, but are gener- ally not useful in establishing bound- aries. Later land alterations are virtually nonexistent or have had minimal impact on the properties in question. In sum, use of historic documentation (plats), in conjunction with visits to each of the sites to confirm expectations regarding integrity, is considered appropriate to define boundaries for each of the properties included in the multiple property nomination. Case 7. Use of Legal Boundary for a Site Divided by Modern Property Lines: A prehistoric site has been discovered as the result of a cultural resource survey in preparation for a construction project on part of parcel A. It is clear that the site extends beyond the construction project limits onto parcel B. The developers in- volved and their archeological con- tractors have been unable to gain the adjacent private owners consent to survey parcel B in the area of the site for the purpose of boundary defini- tion. Investigations of the site area within parcel A establish that the site, as it exists within parcel A, meets National Register criteria. The SHPO or other nomination sponsor would be expected to make every effort to identify the totality of the property prior to nomination, so that the nomination reflects the entire resource. However, if examination of the part of the site on parcel B has been legally prohibited, and if there is no other basis for a well - justified estimation of the boundaries of the entire site, and, what is most impor- tant, if the portion of the site within parcel A was clearly eligible on its own, then the known portion of the site could be nominated. Discussion: Where direct docu- mentation of boundaries is not possible, and natural and topographic conditions do not help demarcate a site, legal boundaries may be used to define boundaries. In this case, the lot line shared by parcels A and B will form the defined eastern boundary. (See Figure 6.) Case 8. Use of Documents for a Partially Inundated Historic Fortifi- cation: Archeological investigations were conducted at an early nine- teenth- century coastal fortification along the eastern United States. Although the aboveground elements of the fort were determined not to 56 meet National Register criteria due to renovations in the twentieth- century, the subsurface remains of the facility contained unique deposits represent- ing the military occupation The site. Significantly, deep testing confirmed that a portion of the "old tabia[sic.] barracks and magazine" had been buried by up to nine feet of sand. Other tabby foundations (tabby is a cement -like construction material) were observed eroding out of the adjacent beach area. These discover- ies reinforced historical and carto- graphic research that suggested portions of the early nineteenth- , century fort remained buried within periodically inundated areas of the coastline. Discussion: The northern, western, and eastern boundaries of the prop- erty were defined as the current legal bounds of the military property. The area surrounding the fort that may have contained archeological remains has been heavily disturbed through subsequent residential development. The southern boundary along the coastline was interpreted from historical maps as extending approxi- mately 150 feet into the adjacent river. These boundaries contain the docu- mented extent of the fortifications. PARCEL A Case 9. The Use of Documents for the Site of an Eighteenth- Century Settlement: The irregularly shaped site marks the remains of an eigh- teenth- century settlement situated on a high bluff on the west bank of a river. This area is presently in planted pines, mixed forest, and abandoned pecan orchards. The site was located on the basis of documentary and map information as well as by archeologi- cal data obtained in sampling excava- tions carried out there in I974 and 1977 by the State University. Boundary Description: The site is bounded on the west side by a railway line for a distance of about 1500 feet. The north and south boundaries turn eastward from either end of this boundary line. The northern boundary runs eastward 700 feet, turns southward for 450 feet, and continues 2,700 feet eastward to the western edge of the river. The southern boundary runs eastward 1,300 feet, turns northward 450 feet, and continues eastward roughly 2,100 feet to the western edge of the river. A line along the western edge of the river forms the eastern boundary of the site. Boundary Justification: The boundaries of the settlement were 1 N Figure 6. (Case 7). In this example, the eastern boundary of this prehistoric site was estintated, because access was denied to this portion of the property. The figure illustrates the polygons used to calculate the UTM coordinates for the nomination, while the actual boundaries are shown on the west side of the parcel, 1 PROBABLE t EASTERN II 1 i LIMIT OF SITE ARBITRARY BOUNDARY PARCEL B; PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR NO ACCESS FOR SURVEY OR NOMINATION TESTING Figure 6. (Case 7). In this example, the eastern boundary of this prehistoric site was estintated, because access was denied to this portion of the property. The figure illustrates the polygons used to calculate the UTM coordinates for the nomination, while the actual boundaries are shown on the west side of the parcel, defined by comparing the configura- tion of modern roads with those shown on early maps of the region. Based on this information, archeologi- caI sampling was conducted to ascertain the location and spatial limits of the past settlement. The results of these excavations were employed to extrapolate the overall distributions of structural and special- ized activity artifacts. These distribu- tions revealed that the early settle- ment lay along both sides of an abandoned road running westward from the river landing and along either side of a north -south road intersecting it about 1,000 feet from the riverbank. These distributions reflect the linear layout of the site indicated in comparative documents relating to contemporary settlements of similar function and corroborate the scanty documentation for the settlement of the site itself. The western, northern, and south- ern boundaries of the site are defined by the gradual thinning out of arti- facts in the area. The western bound- ary is also demarcated by the railroad, the construction of which destroyed archeological evidence in its immedi- ate vicinity. The northern and south- ern boundaries of the site near the river are also defined by the presence of two deep gullies and a slough; the steep slopes of which mark the end of the occupied area. A road cut through the bluff indicates the actual landing site on the river. Presently, the western edge of the river was chosen as the eastern boundary due to the absence of underwater archeological investigation. Underwater compo- nents are commonly found in associa- tion with land sites situated along rivers in the State and the presence of such a component here is likely. If, as the result of an underwater survey, underwater components are discov- ered, the eastern boundary may be expanded. Case 10. Property Type Model for a Deeply Buried Site: Prehistoric cultural material is discovered deeply buried in a ftoodplain. The materials have come from a depth of approxi- mately 20 feet. Sufficient cultural material has been recovered through soil core testing to allow identification of the site's cultural /temporal affilia- tion. This appears to be an important multiuse site, and eligibility under the National Register criteria is firmly established. Discussion: Subsurface testing is the preferred approach, but it is considered infeasible in this case for technological reasons. Natural topo- graphic features may be used to define the site limits, however, completely different topography may have existed when the buried level was the ground surface. The effort required to testa site at such depth exceeds the technology commonly available in a survey program. Therefore, the site was listed with reasonable boundaries. The basis of the property type model (i.e., analogy to a known site, etc.) should be thoroughly explained in the nomina- tion. The implications of using such a method include the probable inclu- sion of areas lacking significant site remains, as well as the exclusion of actual site areas. Where accurate boundaries cannot be confirmed, a property type model should be used to outline a reasonable boundary believed big enough to include the entire site. Case 11. A Large National Register District: The 650 -acre district is a multicomponent locality displaying at least two discrete occupations. The earlier occupation is represented by a series of Pueblo II (ca. loth -11th century, A.D.) residential sites and associated special -use localities (field houses, lithic quarries). The later occupation (early 20th century) is Figure 7. (Case 1I). The border of this multicomponent district was established based on the distribution of known archeological sites. 57 centered around a limestone quarry and kiln at the southwest corner of the district. Associated with this limekiln is a concentration of Navajo hogans, probably occupied by work- ers at the mine. The sites are scattered around the periphery of the valley floor used for agricultural purposes by the Puebloan occupants. Boundary Description: Starting at a point (area of Point A) on the 35-36 section line, 1,500 feet south of the marked corner of sections 25, 26, 35, and 36, the boundary trends east about 200 feet, then south for a chord distance of approximately 2,700 feet, crossing an unimproved road, to the area of Point B. From there, the boundary trends southwest, following the edge of the canyon, approximately 9,200 feet (chord distance) to where the boundary intersects the section 10- 11 line, in the area of Point C. From there, the boundary trends west - southwest for approximately 1,500 feet (area of Point D), then north and northeast approximately 3,000 feet to Point E (crossing the canyon and two unimproved roads). From Point E, the boundary trends northeast, again following the edge of the canyon for about 4,400 feet to the area of Point F. From there, the boundary continues northeast, with a southeastward curve, for a chord distance of 5,600 feet to the point of beginning (area of Point A -See Figure 7.) Boundary justification: The external boundary is based on the known distribution of individual cultural properties. The boundary includes all culturally and behavior- ally related sites associated with the Pueblo II and early twentieth- century limekiln settlements located within the geographically defined canyon. The two separate areas of significance are considered as one district because the property distributions overlap in the southwestern area of the district, with the additional acreage necessary to include the entire limekiln complex being minimal compared to the overall district size. Within the boundary is the alluvial valley used for agricultural purposes by the Puebloan occupants. The valley floor has been included because it contains the agricultural land that made settlement here possible. Although surface inspection revealed few visible cultural resources, aerial surveys may reveal buried agricul- tural features in this valley. In this particular case, the valley floor is 58 included within the district without evidence of archeological materials due to the small scale of the district and the dispersal of sites within the district around the valley. However, for larger districts, evidence of agricultural use, such as the presence of vegetable pollen, would be necessary to justify the inclusion of the valley floor within the bound- aries of the district. In the absence of such evidence, the boundaries would be drawn to exclude the valley floor from the center of the district or become a "contiguous one. Case 12. Archeological Site and Traditional Cultural Property. This nomination describes three archeo- logical sites found within a cultural landscape important to a Native American group in a western state. The property includes about 5 acres of an adjacent river, which was used in traditional subsistence practices. Archeological components include a village midden area with a depth of about 2 feet, while the landscape features include rocks, a grove of trees, and a waterfall. Within this site there is significant linkage be- tween archeological record and traditional cultural features. The site was determined eligible under criteria A and D. The limits of the archeological sites and cultural landscape were defined using a combination of direct docu- mentation (ethnographic and archeo- logical studies) with topographic setting. The boundaries for this site were documented both by a series of maps and an aerial photograph, each showing the limits of the property Boundary Description: The boundary is indicated on the map accompany- ing the nomination. (See Figure 8.) Boundary justification The property is situated on a 40 -acre river terrace and that portion of the river directly adjacent to the terrace. The property is bounded on the north by the mountainous slope rising from the terrace. The river channel which loops around the terrace forms the eastern and southern boundary. The western boundary is defined by a relatively steep slope rising up from the terrace. The boundaries encompass the resources and their immediate setting. LEGEND •••••SIfEM1. iMOMY p .Mip V[WPONL PRFEVME r CONIFER OV RSTORY OPEN PRAIaE F1.,7j\ I F2 r �•. s pp°WNSLOP 01 0P i , Figure 8. (Case 12). This nomination from a western state included aerial photographs to illustrate site boundaries. A transparency with the site boundary indicated was. overlaid on the photo to show the extent of this site. The site also included elements of a traditional cultural property. The boundaries of this site were determined through archeological and ethnographic survey. Case 13. Boundary Reduction of a Large National Register District. Listed on the National Register in the early 1970s, a large district in a northwestern state contained over 400 archeological sites across more than 400,000 acres. Sites within the district represented all periods of human occupation in North America, from Paleoindian through the early twenti- eth century. Only 10 percent of the entire district had been the subject of archeological investigations at any level. Site distribution in the district appears to have been influenced by a variety of environmental factors, including topographic and hydrologi- cal setting. Most of the recorded sites are wholly on the ground surface or are shallowly buried, while many of the sites are threatened by natural forces (wind and water erosion) and degradation by human activities. Discussion: After 20 years of archeological studies, the district's boundaries were reduced in the early 1990s by 50 percent in order to more accurately reflect the distribution of known sites and areas with high probability to contain additional important sites. A very few of the previously identified sites were excluded from the revised bound- aries, now totaling over 200,000 acres. Excluded from the district were areas with the highest elevations and slopes greater than 20 percent that were unlikely to contain any archeological sites. Revision of the boundaries also removed unnecessary "buffer" areas from the district. Because of the large size of the district and the amount of new archeological information, a completely new nomination was prepared rather than a simple amend- ment to the existing nomination. Case 14. Continuous Artifact Distri- bution: Multiple Prehistoric Sites Located on a Flood Plain: The flood plain of the river is a broad, flat plain with little topographic relief. The known distribution of prehistoric sites located in the floodplain derives principally from the mapping of numerous artifact collecting areas, representing the past 30 years of surface collection activities by numer- ous individuals. To date, there has been no systematic subsurface testing survey of the floodplain, chiefly due to the presence of deep alluvium deposits which prohibit cost - effective testing. Many of the artifact collecting areas overlap and indicate an almost continuous pattern of prehistoric land use on the homogeneous floodplain (See Figure 9.) Assignment of a polygonal bound- ary is appropriate in this case, since it encompasses the area of a known Late Woodland- Contact Period Settlement within a broad, featureless expanse generally known for its almost continuous distribution of prehistoric cultural remains. The polygonal area may be replaced by more precise site boundaries as site formation pro- cesses and improvements in archeo- logical methodology provide further data regarding the floodplain's prehistoric land use. Boundary Description: The boundaries of the site are defined by a polygon. The polygon is square, measuring 500 meters on a side, covering 25 hectares. The boundaries of the site are defined by LrfM coordinates which mark a polygon s corners. The unit includes land in private ownership on a bend of broad floodplain of the river in an area known for its very high density of 061 150^ RIVER �♦ \� PREHISTORIC O RIVER BANK INTERSTATE HIGHWAY O 250 KEY RIVER �Q N UNIT OKNOWN ARTIFACT COLLECTING AREA 1 --t METERS 0 300 500 Figure 9. (Case 14). Numerous circles on this figure illustrate the location of recorded archeological sites located on this broad floodplain area. The National Register property is shown by the rectangle, which encompasses four known sites. A reasonable boundary was assigned to this property. 59 N 30611 30 •12��<�5 3 .11 8.R 5U 59 ma.18 ` .$ ^� -Y 30&15 �v=' 03.21'�!ii�J 908.3 JOb3 0b33Yf1�"30 9b, 800: 308 6 30e-s1 ,!]O8 38 •30&21 N.1 Y+t: Obi ._.388--i(2 , lilt I �r 88.81 47,' `i F4 t• < NVALUES OR OR MEDIAN BUT LESS THAN THE 75th PERCENTILE _ VALUES FOR LITHICSIgem GREATER THAN THE 75th PERCENTILE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF LITHICS _ — PRESENCE OF THE FIRE CRACKED ROCK SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF FCR 30B•15!�14 !hp N f1 3O3n SOS )' 6 _ • 30845 )30843 308-21rr.�� L J 0023�ji '3 25 30.3 30334 - (r � 3a8 -31 l ..' . 30681"30030 &3 f 3063 T 26 Par. ..'803TY'.• •� 308 08.13 '�'' e! .... ` V - 3034 �� � '30 &5 h ��'riY��•¢? F w'�T'n��d°�2F��.. ���.`.�1�'.�ii•eAA:�l }��f` T_:T ,,yB, I� A'IIInn�IX'_ VALUES FOR GRAMS OF TOTAL SHELLuem ql III6 GREATER THAN THE MEDIAN BUT LESS THAN THE 75th PERCENTILE _ VALUES FOR GRAMS OF TOTAL SHELLIgcm GREATER THAN THE 75th PERCENTILE SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF SHELL REMAINS KEY EXCAVATION UNIT--_--_ - SHOVEL TEST PIT------- - ABANDONED ROAD __ ____ FOOTPATH------- - -- CONCENTRATION---__!=1 SITE BOUNDRY ------ mm 0 5,0 100 METERS Figure 20. (Case 15). The boundary of this archeological site was determined by the density of artifacts found through extensive testing of the area. Although numerous concentrations of artifacts (lithics, shell remains, and fire- cracked rock) are shown across the hillside overlooking a marsh and cove, the National Register boundary for this site includes the largest area of artifact distribution. 60 sites, as evidenced by overlapping artifact areas. Boundary Justification: The nominated area (geographic) of the floodplain includes the majority of four known collecting areas. The artifacts and features within the polygonal area demonstrate the presence of Late Woodland and Contact Period occupations, on which the statement of significance is based. Through a series of fortunate events surrounding a recent flooding episode of the river, the archeological remains of a large Late Woodland- Contact Period village were exposed in this area of the floodplain. The exposed domestic features and artifact concen- trations were carefully recorded by amateur archeologists, but only within the areas fortuitously stripped of alluvium by the flood. Subse- quently, the property owner inten- tionally refilled this area, thus recreat- ing a deep, featureless plain. Without intensive archeological testing below the 1 -3 meters of alluvium and fill above the prehistoric occupation zone, it is impossible to define the site boundaries on the basis of presence or absence of cultural materials. In fact, by comparison to the east bank of the river, which has been more inten- sively surface collected, it appears that the distribution of prehistoric cultural materials is almost continu- ous across miles of land. Case 15. Continuous Artifact Distri- bution: Prehistoric Camp Site Over- looking an Estuary: The site is located on a prominent hill on the western side of the mouth of a cove overlook- ing the southern half of a marsh. Concentrations were delimited all along the base of the hill (the base is at approximately the same location as the abandoned road shown as a dashed line on Figure 10). Concentra- tions also occur on its eastern and northeastern slopes, both of which include sizable areas that are nearly level. The site is in mainly open fields at present with thick shrubs in wet areas, scattered evergreens, and broad leafed forest undergrowth vegetation. Two kinds of test units — shovel tests and excavation units —were used to define the site boundary and concentrations within the site. The density per .25 cubic meters of the number of lithics, grams of shell, and fire- cracked rock were calculated for each unit and mapped. Density contour lines using the median and 75th percentile values were drawn on large scale maps for each of the site areas. These lines were used as boundaries between site and non -site areas and among concentrations within the site. Boundary Description: The site is bounded by the marsh on the south and east, and by the density of artifact distributions (boundary established at the 75th percentile isopleth) on the north and the west. Boundary Justification: An essential step for analyzing archeo- logical remains on a regional basis is the careful identification of compa- rable units. This example establishes such units by using an explicit defini- tion of two concepts —the site and the concentration. "Site" as used here refers to a bounded area within which artifact concentrations occur. Site boundaries were set along contour lines of artifact density, interpolated from shovel test and excavation unit data. In this context, sites are areas that contained concentration of artifact deposits. These concentra- tions represent areas bounded by contour lines representing a certain density within the site of one or more kinds of archeological materials e.g., lithics, shell or fire - cracked rock remains. The size, structure, shape, and contents, as well as other charac- teristics of each concentration, can then be investigated. Al V. REFERENCES Childe, V. Gordon 1956 A Short Introduction to Archaeology. Collier Books, New York. Dancey, William 5.1981 Archaeological Field Methods: An Introduction. Burgess Publishing Company, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Delaware State Historic Preservation Office 1992 Guidelines for Architec- tural and Archaeological Surveys in Delaware. Dover, Delaware. Dunnell, R. and W. Dancey 1983 The SiteIess Survey: A Regional Scale Data Collection Strategy. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 5. Edited by M. B. Schiffer. pp. 267 -287. Academic Press, New York. Ebert, James 1992 Distributional Archaeology. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. 62 Henry, Susan L. 1993 Protecting Archeological Sites on Private Lands. National Park Service, Washington, DC. Joukowsky, Martha 1980 A Complete Manual of Field Archaeology: Tools and Techniques of Field Work for Archaeologists. Prentice -Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Lewarch, Dennis E. and Michael J. O'Brien 1981 The Expanding Role of Surface Assemblages in Ar- chaeological Research. In Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 4. Edited by M. B. Schiffer. pp. 297 -342. Academic Press, New York. Seifert, Donna J. 1995 National Register Bulletin: Defining Boundaries for National Register Properties. Na- tional Register of Historic Places, Washington, D.C. Shaffer, Gary D. and Elizabeth J. Cole 1994 Standards and Guidelines for Archeological Investigations in Maryland. Maryland Historical Trust Technical Report Number 2. Annapolis, Maryland. Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archeologi- cal Sites and Districts. Washington, D.C.: National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1993. Virginia Department of Historic Resources 1996 Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Virginia: Additional Guidance for Implementation of the Federal Standards Entitled, Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines. Richmond, Virginia. Wiley, Gordon R. and Philip Phillips Method and Theory in American Archaeology. University of Chicago Press, 1958. Organization of the Guidelines / Cultural Landscape Guidelines INTRODUCTION PRESERVING REHABILITATING RESTORING RECONSTRUCTING Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes Organization of the Guidelines Page 1 of 2 `J Overview ......._..........._.._. .._.....- . ..... _......._....._ Preservation Planning Factors to Consider _... ......_......_- . ...... _._.._------ --------- _I —-...... Special Requirements ___ ...... .I .... _ .... _ ....... .._...__. _._....__...._.......__. Using the Standards + Guidelines ..._._. ............. . Organization of the Guidelines _.. ...... .__.­ _...._ _......_ . Terminology Bibliography .................... ___ .......... _ .... ..... _._.. .......... : Acknowledgments Cultural landscapes are composed of a collection of features which are organized in space.They include small -scale features such as individual Two aerial photographs[ lop left and fountains or statuary, as well as patterns of fields and forestwhich define the right] ofthe changing geographical spatial character of the landscape. comext at Rancho Las Alamitos taken a Individual features in the landscape should never be viewed in isolation, but in relationship to the half century apart, from expansive farm lands to suburban subdivisicti Is landscape as a whole. Each situation may vary, and some features may often be more important than eminentty, clear. This dramatic change to others. For example, circulation may be an important historic element in one landscape, while in the property's context will have an effect another R may have little if any significance. an future planning and treatment Overall, it Is the arrangement and the interrelationship of these character -defining features as they recommendations. (Rancho Los existed during the period of significance that is most critical to consider prior to treatment. As such, Alamitos Foundation) landscape features should always be assessed as they relate to the property as a whole. Thus, spatial organization and lard patterns are always listed first in each section of the Guidelines. ................................. ........ ........... ........._..................... I.............. Organizational Elements of the Landscape Pe �� Spatial Organization and Land Patterns refers to the three-dimensional organization C•w�2 and patterns of spaces in a landscape, like the arrangement of rooms in a house. Spatial ::.•� organization is created by the landscape's cultural and natural features. Some form visual links or barriers (such as fences and hedgerows); others create spaces and visual mnnecfrons in the landscape (such as topography and open water). The organization of such features defines and creates spaces in the landscape and often Is closely related to land use. Both the functional and visual relationship between spaces Is integral to the historic character of a property. In addition, It is important to recognize that spatial relationships may change overtime due to a variety of factors, including: environmental impacts (e.g. drought, flood), plant growth and succession, and changes in land use or technology. .........I _ _..... ....................................... ......... I....... I ....... ..... _.......... Character- Defining Features of the Landscape There are many character - defining features that collectively contribute to the historic character of a cultural landscape. These are as follows: Topography, the shape of the ground plane and its height or depth. Is a character- ] :p'y defining feature of the landscape. Topography may occur naturally or as a result of 111a •( human manipulation. For example, topographic features may contribute to the creation of LLOi °if outdoor spaces, serve a functional purpose, or provide visual interest. Vegetation features may be individual plants, as in the case of a specimen tree, or groups of plants such as a hedge, aliee, agricultural field, planting bed, or a naturally. occurring plant community or habitat. Vagetation Includes evergreen or deciduous trees, shrubs, and ground covers, and both woody and herbaceous plants. Vegetation may derive its significance from historical associations, horticultural or genetic value, or aesthetic or functional qualities. It is a primary dynamic component of the landscape's character, therefore, the treatment of cultural landscapes must recognize the continual process of germination, lxttn• / /xxnxnxr nnC onV/ tnR/ Ctan(InTrIR /fniiT- trP.Atment.S/ tan( 1CC3ne- Lllldehnes /Graanlzation.htrn 2/28/2014 Organization of the Guidelines / Cultural Landscape Guidelines Page 2 of 2 ' growth, seasonal change, aging, decay, and death of plants. The character of Individual plants is derived from habit, form, color, texture, bloom, fruit, fragrance, scale and context. - Circulation features may include, roads, parkways, drives, traits, walks, paths, parking areas, and canals. Such features may occur individually or be linked to forth networks or systems. The characterof circulation features is defined by factors such as alignment, width, surface and edge Vestment, grade, materials, and infrastructure. Water features may be aesthetic as well as functional components of the landscape. They may be linked to the natural hydrologic system or may be fed artificially; their associated water supply, drainage, and mechanical systems are important components. Water features Include fountains, pools, cascades, irrigation systems, ponds, lakes, streams, and aqueducts. The characteristics of water features and reflective qualities; and associated plant and animal life, as well as water quality. Special consideration may be required due to the seasonal changes in water such as variations in water table, precipitation, and freezing. Structures, site furnishings, and objects may centdbute to a landscape's significance and historic character. Structures are non - habitable, constructed features, unlike buildings which have walls and roofs and are generally habitable. Structures may be significant individually or they may simply contribute to the historic character of the landscape. They may include walls, terraces, arbors, gazebos, follies, tennis courts, playground equipment, greenhouses, cold frames, steps, bridges, and dams. The placement and arrangement of buildings and structures are important to the character of the landscape; these guidelines emphasize the relationship between buildings, structures, and other features which comprise the historic landscape. For additional and specific guidance related to the treatment of historic buildings, please consult the Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabi @alm Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. Site furnishings and objects generally are small -scale elements in the landscape that may be functional, decorative, or both. They can include benches, lights, signs, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, fences, tree grates, clocks, flagpoles, sculpture, monuments, memorials, planters, and urns. They may be movable, used seasonally, or permanently installed. Site furnishings and objects occur as singular items, in groups of similar or identical features. or as part of a system (e.g. signage). They may be designed or built for a specific site, available though a catalog, or created as vemacular pieces associated with a particular region or cultural group. They may be significant in their own right, for example, as works of art or as the work of an Important designer. Landscape Guidelines Home httrr / /www- nns.Pov /tns /standards/ four - treatments / landscape- ¢uidelines /oraanization.htm 2/28/2014 ' Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage,.. Page 1 of 11 Technical Preservation Services Home > How tour,, ,epv > Preservation Briefs > 36 Cultural Landscapes manna, Park serelre U3. Department of the interior Some of the web versions of the Preservation Briefs differ somewhat from the printed versions. Many Illustrations are new and in color; Captions are simplified and some complex charts are omitted. To order hard copies of the Briefs, see Printed Publicationsl5. PRESERVATION BRIEFS 36 Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Management of Historic Landscapes Charles A. Birnbaum, ASLA Developing a Strategy and Seeking Assistance Preservation planning for Cultural Landscapes Historic Preservation Approach and Treatment Plan Preservation Maintenance Plan and Implementation Strategy Recording Work and Future Research Recommendations Summary and References Reading List Download the POFM Taro nelds In Hanalel, Hoorah. Photo: Nn files. Cultural landscapes can range from thousands of acres of rural tracts of land to a small homestead with a front yard of less than one acre. Like historic buildings and districts, these special places reveal aspects of our country's origins and development through their form and features and the ways they were used. Cultural landscapes also reveal much about our evolving relationship withthe natural world. Patterns on Me land have been preserved through the continuation or traditional uses, such as the gape nalds at the sterling Vineyards In Calletoga, California. Photo: NPs nles. A cultural landscape is defined as "a geographic area,including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife or domestic animals therein, associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values.' There are four general types of cultural landscapes, not mutually exclusive: historic sites, historic designed landscapes, historic vernacular landscapes, and ethnographic landscapes. These are defined below. Historic landscapes Include residential gardens and community parks, scenic highways, rural communities, institutional grounds, cemeteries, battlefields and zoological gardens. They are composed of a number of character - defining features which, Individually or collectively contribute to the landscape's physical appearance as they have evolved over time, In addition to vegetation and topography, cultural landscapes may include water features, such as ponds, streams, and fountains; circulation features, such as roads, paths, steps, and walls; buildings; and furnishings, including fences, benches, lights and sculptural objects. Most historic properties have a cultural landscape component that is integral to the signiftcance of the resource. Imagine a residential district without sidewalks, lawns and trees or a plantation with buildings but no adjacent lands. A historic httD: / /www.nns.sov /tns/how -to- preserve/ briefs /36- cultural- landscapes.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 2 of l l property consistsof all Its cultural resources — landscapes, buildings, archeological sites and collections. In some cultural landscapes, there may be a total absence of buildings. This Preservation Brief provides preservation professionals, cultural resource managers, and historic property owners a step -by -step process for preserving historic designed and vernacular landscapes, two types of cultural landscapes. While this process is Ideally applied to an entire landscape, it can address a single feature, such as a perennial garden, family burial plot, or a sentinel oak In an open meadow. This Brief provides a framework and guidance for undertaking projects to ensure a successful balance between historic preservation and change. Definitions Historic Designed Landscape —a landscape that was consciously designed or laid out by a landscape architect, master gardener, architect, or horticulturist according to design princlples,or an amateur gardener working in a recognized style or tradition. The landscape may be associated with a significant person(s), trend, or event in landscape architecture; or Illustrate an important development in the theory and practice of landscape architecture. Aesthetic values play a significant role in designed landscapes. Examples Include parks, campuses, and estates. Historic Vernacular Landscape —a landscape that evolved through use by the people whose activities or occupancy shaped that landscape. Through social or cultural attitudes ofan Individual, family or a community, the landscape reflects the physical, biological, and cultural character of those everyday lives. Function plays a significant role in vernacular landscapes. They can be a single property such as a farm or a collection of properties such as a district of historic farms along a river valley. Examples Include rural villages, Industrial complexes, and agricultural landscapes. Historic Site —a landscape significant for Its association with a historic event, activity, or person. Examples include battlefields and president's house properties. Ethnographic Landscape —a landscape containing a variety of natural and cultural resources that associated people define as heritage resources. Examples are contemporary settlements, religious sacred sites and massive geological structures. Small plant communities, animals, subsistence and ceremonial grounds are often components. Developing a Strategy and Seeking Assistance Nearly all designed and vernacular landscapes evolve from, or are often dependent on, natural resources. It Is these Interconnected systems of land, air and water, vegetation and wildlife which have dynamic qualities that differentiate cultural landscapes from other cultural resources, such as historic structures. Thus, their documentation, treatment, and ongoing management require a comprehensive, multi - disciplinary approach. Today, those involved in preservation planning and management of cultural landscapes represent a broad array of academic backgrounds,tralning, and related project experience. Professionals may have expertise In landscape architecture, history, The -Soot Fence," nor D.H. Lawrence Ranch, guests, New Mexico, is an example of a Chaucer -0erining Iandscepe feature. Photo: Courtesy, Cheryl Wagner. landscape archeology, forestry, agriculture, horticulture, pomology, pollen analysis, planning, architecture, engineering (civil, structural, mechanical, traffic), cultural geography, wildlife, ecology, ethnography, interpretation, material and object Another example of a very different lantlsmpe conservation, landscape maintenanceand management. Historians and historic feature Is this tree planting detail for lefferson preservation professionals can bring expertise in the history of the landscape, m Magnal Park, St. Louts, Missoua. Photo: courtesy, Dan Kiley, architecture, art, industry, agriculture, society and other subjects. Landscape preservation teams, including on -site management teams and independent consultants, are often directed by a landscape architect with specific expertise in landscape preservation. It is highly recommended that disciplines relevant to the landscapes' Inherent features be represented as well. Additional guidance may be obtained from State Historic Preservation Offices, local preservation commissions, the National Park Service, local and state park agencies, national and state chapters ofthe American Society of Landscape Architects, the Alliance for Historic Landscape Preservation, the National Association of Olmsted Parks, and the Catalog of Landscape Records in the United States at Wave Hill, among others. A range of issues may need to be addressed when considering how a particular cultural landscape should be treated. This may include the in -kind replacement of declining vegetation, reproduction of furnishings, rehabilitation of structures, htfnJ /www.nnq.gov /tns/ how- to- nreserve/ briefs /36- cultural- landscal3es.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 3 of 11 accessibility provisions for people with disabilities, or the treatment of Industrial properties that are rehabilitated for new uses. Preservation Planning for Cultural Landscapes Careful planning prior to undertaking work can help prevent irrevocable damage to a cultural landscape. Professional techniques for Identifying, documenting, evaluating and preserving cultural landscapes have advanced during the past 25 years and are continually being refined. Preservation planning generally Involves the following steps: historical research; Inventory and documentation of existing conditions; site analysis and evaluation of Integrity and significance; development of a cultural landscape preservation approach and treatment plan; development of a cultural landscape management plan and management philosophy; the development of a strategy for ongoing maintenance; and preparation of a record of treatment and future research recommendations. The steps In this process are not Independent of each other, nor are they always sequential. In fact, Information gathered in one step may lead to a re- examination or refinement of previous steps. For example, field inventory and historical research are likely to occur simultaneously, and may reveal unnoticed cultural resources that should be protected. The treatment and management of cultural landscape should also be considered in concert with the management of an entire historic property. As a result, many other studies may be relevant. They Include management plans, interpretive plans, exhibit design, historic structures reports, and other. These steps can result In several products Including a Cultural Landscape Report (also known as a Historic Landscape Report), statements for management, interpretive guide, maintenance guideand maintenance records. Cultural Landscape Reports A Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) Is the primary report that documents the history, significance and treatment of a cultural landscape. A CLR evaluates the history and integrity of the landscape including any changes to Its geographical context, features, materials,and use. CLRs are often prepared when a change (e.g. a new visitor's center or parking area to a landscape) is proposed. In such instances, a CLR can be a useful tool to protect the landscape's character - defining features from undue wear, alteration or loss. A CLR can provide managers, curators and others with information needed to make management decisions. A CLR will often yield new Information about a landscape's historic significance and integrity, even for those already listed on theNational Register. Where appropriate, National Register files should be amended to reflect the new findings. Historical Research Research Is essential before undertaking any treatment. Findings will help identify a landscape's historic periods) of ownership, occupancy and development, and bring greater understanding of the associations and characteristics that make the landscape or history significant. Research findings provide a foundation to make educated decisions for work, and can also facilitate ongoing maintenance and management operations, interpretation and eventual compliance requirements. A variety of primary and secondary sources may be consulted. Primary archival sources can include historic plans, surveys, plats, tax maps, atlases, U. S. Geological Survey maps, soil profiles, aerial photographs, photographs, stereoscopic views, glass lantern slides, postcards, engravings, paintings, newspapers, journals, construction drawings, specifications, plant lists, nursery catalogs, household records, account books and personal correspondence. Secondary sources Include monographs, published histories, theses, National Register forms, survey data, local preservation plans, state contexts and scholarly articles. Contemporary documentary resources should also be consulted. This may include recent studies, plans, surveys, aerial and Infrared photographs, Soil Conservation Service soil maps, inventories, Investigations and interviews. Oral histories of residents, managers,and maintenance personnel with a long tenure or historical association can be valuable sources of information about changes to a landscape over many years. For properties listed in the National Register, nomination forms should be consulted. Preparing Period Plans In the case of designed landscapes, even though a historic design plan exists, it does not necessarily mean that it was realized fully, or even in part. Based on a review of the archival resources outlined above, and the extant landscape today, an as -built period plan may be delineated. For all successive tenures of ownership, occupancy and landscape change, period plans should be generated. Period plans can document to the greatest extent possible the historic appearance during a particular period of ownership, occupancy, or development. Period plans should be based on primary archival sources and should avoid conjecture. Features that are based on secondary or less accurate sources should be graphically differentiated. Ideally, all referenced archival sources should be annotated and footnoted directly on period plans. htti): / /www.ni)s.j4ov /tDs/ how- to- t)reservel briefs /36- cultural- landscal)es.htm 2/28 /2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 4 of 11 Where historical data is missing, period plans should reflect any gaps in the CUR narrative text and these limitations consideredin future treatment decisions. Inventorying and Documenting Existing Conditions Both physical evidence in the landscape and historic documentation guide the historic preservation plan and treatments. To document existing conditions, Intensive field Investigation and reconnaissance should be conducted at the same time that documentary researchis being gathered. Information should be exchanged among preservation professionals, historians, technicians, local residents, managers and visitors. To assist in the survey process, National Register Bulletins have been published by the National Park Service to aid In identifying, nominating and evaluating designed and rural historic landscapes. Additionally, Bulletins are available for specific landscape types such as battlefields, mining sites, and cemeteries. Although there are several ways to inventory and document a landscape,the goal is to create a baseline from a detailed record of the landscape and Its features as they exist at the present (considering seasonal variations). Each landscape inventory should address Issues of boundary delineation, documentation methodologies and techniques, the limitations of the Inventory, and the scope of Inventory efforts. These are most often Influenced by the timetable, budget, project scope, and the purpose of the inventory and, depending on the physical qualities of the property, its scale, detail, and the inter- Understanding the geographic oonte,d should be part of Me inventory process. This aerial photograph at Rancho Los Alamitos, Long Beach, CA, was taken In 1936. (See, 1xiow.) Photo: Rancho Los Alamltps FovndaUon. relationship between natural and cultural resources. For example, inventory objectives to develop a treatment plan may differ considerably compared to those needed to develop an ongoing maintenance plan. Once the criteria for a landscape Inventory are developed and tested, the methodology should be explained. This present -day vlew of Rancho Los preparing Existing Condition Plans Alamitos Shows present -day encroachments and adjacent developments Inventory and documentation may be recorded in plans, sections, photographs, aerial that will affect the Nmre treatment of photographs, axonometric perspectives, narratives, video-or any combination of visual and spatial relatlonshlps. Photo: Rancho Los Alamitos Foundation. techniques. Existing conditions should generally be documented to scale, drawn by hand or generated by computer. The scale of the drawings is often determined by the size and complexity of the landscape. Some landscapes may require documentation at more than one scale. For example, a large estate may be documented at a small scale to depict its spatial and visual relationships, while the discrete area around an estate mansionmay require a larger scale to illustrate Individual plant materials, pavement patterns and other details. The same may apply to an entire rural historic district and a fenced vegetable garden contained within. When landscapes are documented in photographs, registration points can be set to indicate the precise location and orientation of features. Registration points should correspond to significant forms, features and spatial relationships within the landscape and Its surrounds. The points may also correspond to historic views to illustrate the change in the landscape todate. These locations may also be used as a management tool todocument the landscape's evolution, and to ensure that its character - defining features are preserved over time through informed maintenance operations and later treatment and management decisions. All features that contribute to the landscape's historic character should be recorded. These include the physical features described above (e.g. topography, circulation), and the visual and spatial relationships that are character defining. The Identification of existing plants, should be specific, including genus, species, common name, age (if known) and size. The woody, and if appropriate, herbaceous plant material should be accurately located on the existing conditions map. To ensure full representation of successional herbaceous plants, care should be taken to document the landscape In different seasons, if possible. Treating living plant materials as a curatorial collection has also been undertaken at some cultural landscapes. This process, either done manually or by computer, can track the condition and maintenance operations on individual plants. Some sites, suchas the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site, in Brookline, Massachusetts have developed a field investigation numbering system to track all woody plants. Due to concern for the preservation of genetic diversity and the need to replace significant plant materials, a number of properties are beginning to propagate historically important rare plants that are no longer commercially available, unique, or possess significant historic associations. Such herbarium collections become a part of a site's natural history collection. hftn-//www.nn.c.Qov /ms/ how -to- nreserve/ briefs /36- cultural- landscanes.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 5 of 11 Once the research and the documentation of existing conditions have been completed, a foundation Is in place to analyze the landscape's continuity and change, determine its significance, assess Its Integrity, and place It within the historic context of similar landscapes. Reading the Landscape A noted geographer, Pierce Lewis, stated, 'The attempt to derive meaning from landscapes possesses overwhelming virtue. It keeps us constantly alert to the world around us, demanding that we pay attention not just to some of the things around us but to all of them —the whole visible world in all of Its rich, glorious, messy, confusing, ugly, and beautiful complexity." Landscapes can be read on many levels — landscape as nature, habitat, artifact, system, problem, wealth, ideology, history, place and aesthetic. When developing a strategy to document a cultural landscape, it is important to attempt to read the landscape In Its context of place and time. Reading the landscape, like engaging in archival research, requires a knowledge of the resource and subject area as well as a willingness to be skeptical. As with archival research, it may Involve serendipitous discoveries. Evidence gained from reading the landscape may confirm or contradict other findings and may encourage the observer and the historian to re- visit both primary and secondary sources with a fresh outlook. Landscape Investigation may also stimulate other forms of research and survey, such as oral histories or archeological Investigations, to supplement what appeared on -site. There are many ways to read alandscape- whatever approach is taken should provide a broad overview. This may be achieved by combining on- the -ground observations with a bird's -eye perspective. To begin this process, aerial photographs should be reviewed to gain an orientation to the landscape and Its setting. Aerial photographs come in different sizes and scales, and can thus portray different levels of detail in the landscape. Aerial photographs taken at a high altitude, for example, may help to reveal remnant Field patterns or traces of an abandoned circulation system; or, portions of axial relationships that were part of the original design, since obscured by encroaching woodland areas. Low altitude aerial photographs can point out Individual features such as the arrangement of shrub and herbaceous borders, and the exact locations of furnishings, lighting, and fence alignments. This knowledge can prove beneficial before an on -site visit. Aerial photographs provide clues that can help orient the viewer to the landscape. The next step may be to view the landscape from a high point such as a knoll or an upper Floor window. Such a vantage point may provide an excellent transition before physically entering the cultural landscape. On ground, evidence should then be studied, including character - defining features, visual and spatial relationships. By reviewing supporting materials from historic research, individual features can be understood in a systematic fashion that show the continuum that exists on the ground today. By classifying these features and relationships, the landscape can be understood as an artifact, possessing evidence of evolving natural systems and human interventions over time. For example, the on -site investigation of an abandoned tum -of- the - century farm complex reveals the remnant of a native oak and pine forest which was cut and burned in the mid - nineteenth century. This previous use is confirmed by a small stand of mature oaks and the presence of these plants in the emerging secondary woodland growth that is overtaking this farm complex in decline. A ring count of the trees can establish a more accurate age. By reading other character - defining features, such as the traces of old roads, remnant hedgerows, ornamental trees along boundary roads, foundation plantings, the terracing of grades and remnant fences —the visual, spatial and contextual relationships of the property as It existed a century ago may be understood and its present condition and integrity evaluated. The findings of on -site reconnaissance, such as materials uncovered during archival research, may be considered primary data. These findings make it possible to inventory and evaluate the landscape's features in the context of the property's current condition. Character - defining features are located in situ, in relationship to each other and the greater cultural and geographic contexts. Historic Plant Inventory within cultural landscapes, plants may have historical or botanical significance. A plant may have been associated with a historic figure or event or be part of a notable landscape design. A plant may be an uncommon cuitivar, exceptional In size, age, rare and commercially /unavailable. If such plants are lost, there would be a loss of historic integrity and biological diversity of the cultural landscape. To ensure that significant plants are preserved, an inventory of historic plants is being conducted at the North Atlantic Region of the National Park Service. Historical landscape architects work with landscape managers and historians to gather oral and documented history on the plant's origin and potential significance. Each plant Is then examined in the field by an expert horticulturist who records Its name, condition, age, size, distribution, and any notable botanic characteristics. Plants that are difficult to Identify or are of potential historical significance are further examined in the laboratory by a plant taxonomist who compares leaf, fruit, and flower characteristics with herbarium specimens for named species, cultivars and httn: / /www.ni)s.aov /tps/ how -to- preserve / briefs /36- culhlral- landscapes.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 6 of 11 r varieties. For plants species with many cultivars, such as apples, roses, and grapes, specimens may be sent to specialists for identification. If a plant cannot be Identified, Is dying or in decline, and unavailable from commercial nurseries, it may be propagated. Propagation ensures that when rare and significant plants decline, they can be replaced with genetically - Identical plants. Cuttings are propagated and grown to replacement size in a North Atlantic Region Historic Plant Nursery. Site Analysis: Evaluating Integrity and Significance By analyzing the landscape, Its change over time can be understood. This may be accomplished by overlaying the various period plans with the existing conditions plan. Based on these findings, individual features may be attributed to the particular period when they were Introduced, and the various periods when they were present. It is during this step that the historic significance of the landscape component of a historic property and Its integrity are determined. Historic significance is the recognized importance a property displays when it has been evaluated, including when it has been found to meet National Register Criteria. A landscape may have several areas of historical significance. An understanding of the landscape as a continuum through history is critical in assessing Its cultural and historic value. In order for the landscape to have integrity, these character - defining features or qualities that contribute to Its significance must be present. While National Register nominations document the significance and integrity of historic properties, in general, they may not acknowledge the significance of the landscape's design or historic land uses, and may not contain an Inventory of landscape features or characteristics. Additional research is often necessary to provide the detailed Information about a landscape's evolution and significance useful in making decision for the treatment and maintenance of a historic landscape. Existing National Register forms may be amended to recognize additional areas of significance and to Include more Complete descriptions of historic properties that have significant land areas and landscape features. Integrity is a property's historic identity evidenced by the survival of physical n a, landscape of Lyndhurst, Tarrytown, new rot,, characteristics from the property's historic or pre - historic period. The seven is signincant in American ctdwre and work of a master gardener, Ferdinand Mangold. Photo: qualities of Integrity ty are location, setting, feeling, association, design, National rust for Historic Preserabon. workmanship and materials. When evaluating these qualities, care should be taken to consider change itself. For example, when a second - generation woodland overtakes an open pasture in a battlefield landscape, or a woodland edge encloses a scenic vista. For situations such as these, the reversibility and /or compatibility of those features should be considered, both Individually, and In the context of the overall landscape. Together, evaluations of significance and integrity, when combined with historic research, documentation of existing conditions, and analysis flndings, Influence later treatment and Interpretation decisions. Developing a Historic Preservation Approach and Treatment Plan Treatment may be defined as work carried out to achieve a historic preservation goal —It cannot be considered In a vacuum. There are many practical and philosophical factors that may Influence the selection of a treatment for a landscape. These include the relative historic value of the property, the level of historic documentation, existing physical conditions, Its historic significance and Integrity, historic and proposed use (e.g. educational, interpretive, passive, active public, institutional or private), long -and short-term objectives, operational and code requirements (e.g. accessibility, fire, security) and costs for anticipated capital improvement, staffing and maintenance. The value of any signiflcant archeological and natural resources should also be considered in the decision- making process. Therefore, a cultural landscape's preservation plan and the treatment selected will consider a broad array of dynamic and inter - related considerations. It will often take the form of a plan with detailed guidelines or specifications. Adopting such a plan, in concert with a preservation maintenance plan, acknowledges a cultural landscape's ever - changing existence and the Inter - relationship of treatment and ongoing maintenance. Performance standards, scheduling and record keeping of maintenance activities on a day -to -day or month -to -month basis, may then be planned for. Treatment, management, and maintenance proposals can be developed by a broad range of professionals and with expertise in such fields as landscape preservation, horticulture, ecology, and landscape maintenance. The selection of a primary treatment for the landscape, utilizing The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties , establishes an overall httre / /www.nns.¢ov /tns/ how- to- ureserve/ briefs /36- cultural- landscapes.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 7 of 11 historic preservation approach, as well as a philosophical framework from which to operate. Selecting a treatment is based on many factors. They Include management and interpretation objectives for the property as a whole, the perlod(s) of significance, integrity, and condition of Individual landscape features. For all treatments, the landscape's existing conditions and Its ability to convey historic significance should be carefully considered. For example, the life work, design philosophy and extant legacy of an Individual designer should all be understood for a designed landscape, such as an estate, prior to treatment selection. For a vernacular landscape, such as a battlefield containing a largely Intact mid- nineteenth century family farm, the uniqueness of that agrarian complex within a local, regional, state, and national context should be considered in selecting a treatment. When the American Elm was plagued with Dull Elm Disease, many historic properties relled on the lapanese zelkoya as a b dl [ The overall historic reservation a pp av s Mum plant (see bHOw). photo: p approach and treatment approach can ensure the m a su proper retention, care, and repair of landscapes and their inherent features. In short, the Standards act as a preservation and management tool for cultural landscapes. The four potential treatments are described. Treatments for Cultural Landscapes Prior to undertaking work on a landscape, a treatment plan or similar document should be developed. The four primary treatments Identified in The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, are: Preservation is defined as the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, Integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, Including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code- required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project. Rehabilitation is defined as the act or process of making possible a compatible use for a property through repair, alterations,and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey Its historical or cultural values. Restoration is defined as the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in Its history and reconstruction of missing feattires from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code - required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project. Reconstruction is defined as the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non - surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and In its historic location. Compared to the American Elm (ahont right), it Is readily apparent that the form and scale or this more is really quite different, and a:ould he an inappropriate substitute plant material Landscape treatments can range from simple, inexpensive preservation actions, to complex major restoration or reconstruction projects. The progressive framework is inverse in proportion to the retention of historic features and materials. Generally, preservation Involves the least change, and is the most respectful of historic materials, It maintains the form and material of the existing landscape. Rehabilitation usually accommodates contemporary alterations or additions without altering significant historic features or materials, with successful projects involving minor to major change. Restoration or reconstruction attempts to recapture the appearance of a property,or an Individual feature at a particular point in time, as confirmed by detailed historic documentation. These last two treatments most often require the greatest degree of intervention and thus,the highest level of documentation, In all cases, treatment should be executed at the appropriate level, reflecting the condition of the landscape, with repair work identifiable upon close Inspection and /or Indicated in supplemental interpretative information. When repairing or replacing a feature, every effort should be made to achieve visual and physical compatibility. Historic materials should be matched in design, scale, color and texture. httn: / /wwtv.nns.,rov /tns/ how -to- preserve/ briefs /36- cultural- landscanes.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 8 of 11 within a restoranen or A landscape with a high level of Integrity and authenticity may suggest preservation as the primary reconstruction protect. Photo: HPS files. treatment. Such a treatment may emphasize protection, stabilization, cyclical maintenance,and repair of character - defining landscape features. Changes over time that are part of the landscape's continuum and are significant in their own right may be retained, while changes that are not significant, yet do not encroach upon or erode character may also be maintained. Preservation entails the essential operations to safeguard existing resources. Rehabilitation is often selected in response to a contemporary use or need — Ideally such an approach is compatible with the landscape's historic character and historic use. Rehabilitation may preserve existing fabric along with introducing some compatible changes, new additions and alterations. Rehabilitation may be desirable at a private residence in a historic district where the homeowner's goal Is to develop an appropriate landscape treatment for a front yard, or in a public park where a support area is needed for its maintenance operations. When the most important goal Is to portray a landscape at an exact period of time, restoration is selected as the primary treatment. Unlike preservation and rehabilitation, interpreting the landscape's continuum or evolution is not the objective. Restoration may include the removal of features from other periods and /or the construction of missing or lost features and materials from the reconstruction period. In all Cases, treatment should be substantiated by the historic research findings and existing conditions documentation. Restoration and re- construction treatment work should avoid the creation of a landscape whose features did not exist historically. For example, if features from an earlier period did not co -exist with extant features from a later period that are being retained, their restoration would not be appropriate. The historic birch allee at Stan HYwet Hall, Akron, Ohio, which had suffered rrom barer Infestation and leaf miner, was preserved through a In rare cases, when evidence is sufficient to avoid conjecture, and no other roe steps that took I executed of j property ty exists that nra that took iv years ed can adequately explain a certain period of history, reconstruction may be utilized to depict a realize. Photo: child associates. vanished landscape. The accuracy of this work is critical. In cases where topography and the sub - surface of soil have not been disturbed, research and existing conditions findings may be confirmed by thorough archeological investigations. Here too, those features that are Intact should be repaired as necessary, retaining the original historic features to the greatest extent possible. The greatest danger in reconstruction is creating a false picture of history. False historicism in every treatment should be avoided. This applies to individual features as well as the entire landscape. Examples of Inappropriate work include the introduction of historic - looking benches that are actually a new design, a fanciful gazebo placed in what was once an open meadow, executing an unrealized historic design, or designing a historic - looking landscape for a relocated historic structure within "restoration." Landscape Interpretation Landscape interpretation is the process of providing the visitor with tools to experience the landscape as it existed during Its period of significance, or as it evolved to its present state. These tools may vary widely, from a focus on existing features to the addition of Interpretive elements. These could Include exhibits, self - guided brochures, or a new representation of a lost feature. The nature of the cultural landscape, especially its level of significance, Integrity, and the type of visitation anticipated may frame the interpretive approach. Landscape interpretation may be closely linked to the integrity and condition of the landscape, and therefore, its ability to convey the historic character and character- defining features of the past. If a landscape has high Integrity, the Interpretive approach may be to direct visitors to surviving historic features without introducing obtrusive interpretive devices, such as free - standing signs. For landscapes with a diminished Integrity, where limited or no fabric remains, the interpretive emphasis may be on using extant features and visual aids (e.g., markers, photographs, etc.) to help visitors visualize the resourceas it existed in the past. The primary goal in these situations is to educate the visitor about the landscape's historic themes, associations and lost character - defining features or broader historical, social and physical landscape contexts. Developing a Preservation Maintenance Plan and Implementation Strategy Throughout the preservation planning process, It is important to ensure that existing landscape features are retained. Preservation maintenance is the practice of monitoring and controlling change In the landscape to ensure that Its historic Integrity Is not altered and features are not lost. This is particularly important during the research and long -term treatment planning process. To be effective, the maintenance program must have a guiding philosophy, approach or strategy; an understanding of preservation maintenance techniques; and a system for documenting changes in the landscape. The philosophical approach to maintenance should coincide with the landscape's current stage in the preservation planning process. A Cultural Landscape Report and Treatment httn: / /www.nr)s.eov /tDs/ho,�v -to- preserve/ briefs /36- cultural- landscat)es.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manage... Page 9 of 11 central Park has developed an in -house historic preservavoo crew to undertake small projects. A specialized crew has been trained to report and rebuild rustic rumishings. Photo: central Park c n Plan can take several years to complete, yet during this time managers and property owners will likely need to address Immediate Issues related to the decline, wear, decay, or damage of landscape features. Therefore, initial maintenance operations may focus on the stabilization and protection of all landscape features to provide temporary, often emergency measures to prevent deterioration, failure, or loss, without altering the site's existing character. After a Treatment Plan is implemented, the approach to preservation maintenance may be modified to reflect the objectives defined by this plan. The detailed specifications prepared in the Treatment Plan relating to the retention, repair, removal, or replacement of features in the landscape should guide and Inform a comprehensive preservation maintenance program. This would Include schedules for monitoring and routine onserva cy. maintenance, appropriate preservation maintenance procedures, as well as ongoing record keeping of work performed. For vegetation, the preservation maintenance program would also Include thresholds for growth or change In character, appropriate pruning methods, propagation and replacement procedures. To facilitate operations, a property may be divided into discrete management zones. These zones are sometimes defined during the Cultural Landscape Report process and are typically based on historically defined areas. Alternatively, zones created for maintenance practices and priorities could be used. Examples of maintenance zones would Include woodlands, lawns, meadow, specimen trees, and hedges. Training of maintenance staff in preservation maintenance skills is essential. Preservation maintenance practices differ from standard maintenance practices because of the focus on perpetuating the historic character or use of the landscape rather than beautification. For example, introducing new varieties of turf, roses or trees is likely to be inappropriate. Substantial earth moving (or movement of soil) may be inappropriate where there are potential archeological resources. An old hedge or shrub should be rejuvenated, or propagated, rather than removed and replaced. A mature specimen tree may require cabling and careful monitoring to ensure that it is not a threat to visitor safety. Through training programs and with the assistance of preservation maintenance specialists, each property could develop maintenance specifications for the care of landscape features. Because landscapes change through the seasons, specifications for ongoing preservation maintenance should be organized in a calendar format. During each season or month, the calendar can be referenced to determine when, where, and how preservation maintenance is needed. For example, for some trees structural pruning is best done in the late winter while other trees are best pruned in the late summer. Serious pests are monitored at specific times of the year, In certain stages of their life cycle. This detailed calendar will, In turn, identify staff needs and work priorities. Depending on the level of sophistication desired, one approach to documenting maintenance data and recording change over time is to use a computerized geographical or visual information system. Such a system would have the capability to include plans and photographs that would focus on a site's landscape features. If a computer is not available, a manual or notebook can be developed to organize and store Important information. This approach allows managers to start at any level of detail and to begin to collect and organize information about landscape features. The value of these maintenance records cannot be overstated. These records will be used in the future by historians to understand how the landscape has evolved with the ongoing care of the maintenance staff. Recording Treatment Work and Future Research Recommendations The last and ongoing step in the preservation planning process records the treatment work as carried out. it may Include a series of as -built drawings, supporting photographic materials, specifications and a summary assessment. New technologies that have been successfully used should be highlighted. Ideally, this Information should be shared with interested national organizations for further dissemination and evaluation The need for further research or additional activities should also be documented. This may Include site - specific or contextual historical research, archeological Investigations, pollen analysis, search for rare or unusual plant materials, or, material testing for future applications. Finally, in consultation with a conservator or archivist -to maximize the benefit of project work and to minimize the potential of data loss —all primary documents should be organized and preserved as archival materials. This may include field notes, maps, drawings, photographs, material samples, oral histories and other relevant Information. Developing a Preservation Maintenance Guide httD: / /w-,vw.nt)s.izov /tns/ how -to- preserve/ briefs /36- cultural- landscanes.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manag... Page 10 of 11 In the past, there was rarely adequate record - keeping to fully understand the ways a landscape was maintained. This creates gaps In our research findings. Today, we recognize that planning for ongoing maintenance and onsite applications should be documented —both routinely and comprehensively. An annual work program or calendar records the frequency of maintenance work on built or natural landscape features. It can also monitor the age, health and vigor of vegetation. For example, onsite assessments may document the presence of weeds, pests, dead leaves, pale color, wilting, soil compaction —all of which signal particular maintenance needs. For built elements, the deterioration of paving or drainage systems may be noted and the need for repair or replacement Indicated before hazards develop. An overall maintenance program can assist In routine and cyclic maintenance of the landscape and can also guide long term treatment projects. To help structure a comprehensive maintenance operation that Is responsive to staff, budget, and maintenance priorities, the National Park Service has developed two computer- driven programs for its own landscape resources. A, Maintenance Management Program (MM)ls designed to assist maintenance managers In their efforts toplan, organize, and direct the park maintenance system. An Inventory and Condition Assessment Program (ICAP) is designed to complement MM by providing a system for Inventorying, assessing conditions, and for providing corrective work recommendations for all site features. Another approach to documenting maintenance and recording changes over time is to develop a manual or computerized graphic information system. Such a system should have the capability to Include plans and photographs that would record a site's living collection of plant materials. (Also see discussion of the use of photography under Preparing Existing Conditions Plans) This may be achieved using a computer -aided drafting program along with an integrated database management system. To guide immediate and ongoing maintenance, a systematic and flexible approach has been developed by the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. Working with National Park Service landscape managers and maintenance specialists, staff assemble information and make recommendations for the care of Individual landscape features. Each landscape feature is inspected in the field to document existing conditions and identify field work needed. Recommendations include maintenance procedures that are sensitive to the Integrity of the landscape. Summary and References The planning, treatment, and maintenance of cultural landscapes requires a multi - disciplinary approach. In landscapes, such as parks and playgrounds, battlefields, cemeteries, village greens, and agricultural land preserves more than any other type of historic resource — communities rightly presume a sense of stewardship. It is often this grass roots commitment that has been a catalyst for current research and planning Initiatives. Individual residential properties often do not require the same level of public outreach, yet a systematic planning process will assist in making educated treatment, management and maintenance decisions. Wise stewardship protects the character, and or spirit of a place by recognizing history as change over time. Often, this also involves our own respectful changes through treatment. The potential benefits from the preservation of cultural landscapes are enormous. Landscapes provide scenic, economic, ecological, social, recreational and educational opportunities that help us understand ourselves as individuals, communities and as a nation. Their ongoing preservation can yield an improved quality of life for all, and, above all, a sense of place or Identity for future generations. Acknowledgements The author, Charles A. Birnbaum, Coordinator, Historic Landscape Initiative, Preservation Assistance Division, National Park Service would like to acknowledge the assistance of H. Ward Jandl and Kay Weeks. The Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation at the Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site Including Margie Coffin, Lauren Meier, Nora Mitchell, and Charlie Pepper provided invaluable support. In particular, the proposed rewrite on Preservation Maintenance and historic plant materials was written by Margie Coffin. Significant contributions were also made by Patricia M. O'Donnell, Linda McClelland, Ellen Lipsey, Christine Capella Peters, Robert Page, Ian Firth and Robert Melnick. Useful comments and technical assistance were provided by regional NPS staff (Mary Hughes, Lucy Lawllss, )ill Cowley, Sherda Williams, Michael Crowe, Robbyn Jackson) and staff at the Preservation Assistance Division (Cheryl Wagner, Michael Auer and Anne E. Grimmer). This publication has been prepared pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, which directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop and make available information concerning historic properties. Technical Preservation Services (TPS), National Park Service prepares standards, guidelines, and other educational materials on responsible historic preservation treatments for a broad public. September 1994 httn: / /www.nns.eov /tos/ how -to- preserve/ briefs /36- cultural- landscapes.htm 2/28/2014 Preservation Brief 36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes: Planning, Treatment and Manag... Page 11 of 11 Reading List Birnbaum, Charles A., guest editor. Preservation Forum. 'Focus on Landscape Preservation'. Washington, D.C.: National Trustfor Historic Preservation, Volume 7, No. 3, May /June 1992. Buggey Susan, guest editor. APT Bulletin, Speciallssue: Conserving Historic Landscapes. Fredericksburg, VA: Association for PreservationTechnology International, Volume XXIV, No. 3 -41 1992. Burns, John A, and the Staff of HAGS /HAER. Recording Historic Structums.American Institute of Architects Press, 1989.(Includes chapter on the documentation of Meridian Hill Park,pp. 206 -219.) Diehl, Janet and Thomas S. Barrett, at al. The Conservation Easement Handbook. Managing Land Conservation and Historic Preservation Easement Programs, The Land Trust Exchange (now Alliance) and the Trust for Public Land, 1988, International Committee of Historic Gardens and Sites, ICOMos- IFLA]ardins at Sites Historiques, Scientific Journal. ICOMOS1993. Compilation of papers on the subject, In both English and French. Kelso, William M., and Rachel Most. Earth Patterns: Essays in Landscape Archaeology.. Charlottesville, VA. University Press of Virginia, 1990. Stokes, Samuel, N., et al. Saving America's Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1989. Tshler, William, editor. American Landscape Architecture: Designers and Places. Washington, DC: The Preservation Press,1989. Tnps.gov EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA° httnl /www.nns . gov /tns/ how -to- preserve/ briefs /36- cultural- landscanes.htm 2/28/2014 Mitre - Ramirez, Norma From: Huizar, Maria Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 4:37 PM Cc: Cavazos, David; Carvalho, Sonia R.; Haluza, Karen; Fregoso, Vince Subject: Correspondence re: Sexlinger project Attachments: Sexlinger Orchard.docx Categories: DONE, Important The letter attached was received today. A complete packet of letter received on this matter will be available at the dais tomorrow. From: Josh McIntosh / DJ Gummo [mailto:djgummo(a)yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 12:17 PM To: Huizar, Maria Subject: City Council Meeting Tomorrow Ms. Huizar, in case I am not able to attend tomorrow night's city council meeting, please make sure that the council members receive this letter. I would also appreciate a response to let me now that you have received it. Sincerely, Joshua Z McIntosh 714 -537 -2205 home 714- 458 -8669 cell djgummo@yahoo.com 3/4/2014 4:07 PM 4:07 PM no March 3, 2014 Maria Huizar City Clerk City of Santa Ana Subject: Sexlinger Orchard mhuizar @santa- ana.org Dear Ms. Huizar, I am writing this letter in regards to the fate of the Sexlinger Orchard at 1584 E. Santa Clara Ave. in Santa Ana. I would like the Santa Ana city council to know that as a resident of Orange County, I am deeply concerned about the fate of one of our last remaining orange groves, which can remain in tact for future generations to appreciate or become yet another high density residential property. While I understand that the property owners have the right to eliminate one of the very last orange groves, which are the namesake of our county, I find it morally wrong to erase our local history. The city council has the power to right this potential wrong on Tuesday night, March the 4th 2014. They can go down in history as the group of people who had the foresight to protect an endangered and important species. I would like the council to consider a compromise. I would like the council to preserve the entire orchard as public green space and offer the property owners an alternate location in the city to build new homes on. The city owns land which can be transferred to the owners in exchange for the orchard. Place it under the parks and recreations department and preserve this orchard for the good of my generation and our future generations. We do not need another housing complex nearly as much as we need green space and a cultural heritage landmark. We don't need the toxic exhaust from more and more vehicles where we had oxygen generating plants in place. This is a rare opportunity to save a piece of history and it only takes an understanding city council who is willing to pursue another avenue in order to satisfy the property developer and the people of Orange County who care about hanging on to one of the last remaining orchards. Too much of our county has been bulldozed and erased to squeeze in more homes, which creates more overcrowding in schools, traffic on our streets and lack of opportunity for employment. There are fewer and fewer places where we can enjoy an inexpensive family outing, especially one that includes educational, historical and cultural values. Preserving this Sexlinger Orchard is the right thing to do and I hope that this council will vote to protect Orange County history, not erase it. Sincerely, Josh McIntosh Orange County Historical Society Santa Ana Historical Society Garden Grove Historical Society Anaheim Historical Society Mar 0412014 6:03PM KANE 858 454 7180 P.1 &gF- M14 - u 0 T-11V 7/ SD Mar 04 2014 0:03PM KF1NE March 4, 2014 858 454 7180 p.2 Diane C3. Xane, Th.D. 7711 Lookout Drive £a JoCCa, CaCifornia 2037 Mayor Miguel Pulido and City Council City of Santa Ana P.O. Box 1988, M -31 Santa Ana, CA 92701 Re: Sexlinger Orchard and Farmhouse EIR Honorable Mayor Pulido and Council Members: I am veteran architectural historian with over 40 years o: of which were as the cultural resource specialist for C surveying agricultural lands for new freeway alignment: as part of environmental review, I have had substantial evaluating historic landscapes. I had the pleasure of vi: Farmhouse historic site on Sunday March 2, 2014. This modest 5 -acre orchard and farmhouse was once a County. But with the rapid and almost complete land us urbanized uses over the past half- century in Orange Co resource that both documents and explains the 20th cer California. The farmhouse tangibly represents the Sexlir as well as its long relationship with the property, a small associated citrus landscape, also known as its "setting another Craftsman bungalow. With the associated orang unit, one of many other small -scale agricultural units t agricultural underpinnings in the early 20°i century. Altl n N O F 'Y7 experience, almost two decades dtrans in Los Angeles. In field throughout Southern California experience in documenting and iting the Sexlinger Orchard and common occurrence in Orange conversion from agricultural to inty, it is now a rare composite ury citrus industry in Southern ler family's middle class status, scale orange grove. Without its the farmhouse would just be grove, it becomes an economic at comprised Orange County's )ugh recognized by the City of Santa Ana with its designation of the property, this wider context is surprisingly underdeveloped in the environmental record's cultural analysis of the property. More specifically, the orange grove's size and location it !in this part of Santa Ana that has all but disappeared Valencia orange trees, and their regular organization in ei the growing portion of the orange industry functioned. Ti carefully pruned into even heights for easier maintenance. control, smudging to prevent frost, fertilization, irrigatio land that note this activity include old irrigation equipmer and smudge pot remnants. Clearly, the entire site is ne meaning. A few representative orange trees adjacent to at insufficient to convey its historical significance. Althoug ticate a wider land use pattern under tract developments. Its -nly spaced rows, explain how :es were uniformly spaced and Ms included spraying for pest t and harvest. Patterns in the , depressed channels for water :ded to explain the property's pica] Craftsman bungalow are some of the orange trees are Mar 04 2014 6:03PM KRNE 858 454 7180 p.3 clearly stressed due to poor maintenance, replacing thi unstressed trees is a viable, feasible and well- respec restoring the contributing vegetation and rehabilitating Without a clear understanding of what the Sexlinger discussion of various project alternatives, or their impac I would recommend taking a closer look at the w farmhouse and its orchard prior to developing a ran,, meaning within the Orange County agricultural landsc< exist, such as the 2012 Hybrid Alternative that pr( association of the landscape than the current proposal. In fact, when historic resources are at risk, a ran, considered. These ideally provide decision makers wit about the trade offs between resource loss or diminishm other desirable project benefits. The current range of and appears to justify a project not well suited to the res Although resource loss or substantial diminishment is an an appropriate level of mitigation should be forthco techniques do not seem adequate for the identified k mitigate the proposed project's impacts to below a level re- design of the current proposal, I would urge the measures might be taken along with project re- design th, impacts. Sincerely, Diane Kane, Ph.D. Architectural Historian in kind with grafted stock from cultural landscape strategy for :orchard. chard property represents, any on the property, are premature. :r agricultural context for the of alternatives that respect its Surely more sensitive options rves more of the feeling and of alternatives is commonly both choice and full disclosure it and economic development or Itematives is woefully deficient utcome of the current proposal, ing. Standard documentation Even if it is not feasible to significance with a substantial ouncil to explore what other would further reduce identified