SUGAR LOAF MOUNTAIN TRAIL CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY, COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for the Bear Yuba Land Trust

August 2016 SUGAR LOAF MOUNTAIN TRAIL CULTURAL RESOURCES SURVEY, NEVADA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared for Bill Haire, Trails Coordinator Bear Yuba Land Trust 12183 Auburn Road Grass Valley, CA 95949

Prepared by Mark D. Selverston 161 Nevada City Highway Nevada City, CA 95959

August 2016

Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain ii Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain iii

CONTENTS

I. Management Summary ...... 1 II. Project Description ...... 3 Project Background ...... 3 Proposed Trail ...... 3 Trail Construction ...... 5 III. Cultural Resources Study ...... 6 Methods ...... 6 Findings...... 6 History of Sugar Loaf Mountain ...... 6 Identified Cultural Resources ...... 11 BYLT-SLMT-1...... 11 BYLT-SLMT-2...... 13 BYLT-SLMT-3...... 13 BYLT-SLMT-4...... 13 IV. Preliminary Evaluation ...... 14 Application of the Criteria for Evaluation ...... 14 Criteria Consideration ...... 14 Criterion 1: Event ...... 14 Criterion 2: Person...... 15 Criterion 3: Design/Construction ...... 15 Criterion 4: Information Potential ...... 15 Integrity Consideration ...... 16 Location ...... 16 Design ...... 16 Setting ...... 16 Materials ...... 16 Workmanship ...... 17 Feeling ...... 17 Association ...... 17 Summary Evaluation ...... 17 V. Management Considerations ...... 18 VI. References Cited ...... 19

Appendices Appendix A. North Central Information Center Letter Report Appendix B. Historic Resource Inventory Forms

Figures Cover: Bird’s-eye View of the City of Nevada, Nevada County, California (Koch 1871). Figure 1. Parcel map

Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

Figure 2. Proposed trail alignment. Figure 3. General Land Office plat map of T16N/R9E (Dyer 1867). Figure 4. Detail of map by Uren (1897) showing Manzanita Placer Mine operation’s “Hydraulic Excavation.” Figure 5. Portion of Englebright’s (1884) map. Figure 6. Portion of USGS 1897 topographic map by Waldemar Lindgren. Figure 7. Map of identified Cultural Resources.

Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

I. MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

A cultural resources survey was conducted for a proposed trail alignment connecting the top of Sugar Loaf Mountain, just north of Nevada City, California, with the intersection of Highway 49 and North Bloomfield Road/East Broad Street. The study was conducted in June and July 2016 at the request of the Bear Yuba Land Trust (BYLT). BYLT is working with the City of Nevada City under an MOU to develop the trail. The proposed trail would incorporate City property, Highway 49 right of way, and private property easements on parcels 05-310-09 and 05-310-10 (Figure 1). The enhancement is in early stages of planning. No funding has been acquired. It is reasonable to expect this trail will constitute a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) that requires environmental review. This study found that no relevant cultural resources studies or cultural resources have been filed with the state prior to this investigation (see Appendix A). Research found that historic-era mining took place in the vicinity of the proposed trail alignment, particularly at lower elevations around Highway 49 and the United State Forest Service (USFS) facility. Field inspection of the flagged trail alignment on July 2 confirmed evidence of 19th-century gold mining in the lower portion, in the area of Highway 49 and the USFS facility, in the form of steep mining cuts and sluiced ravines. This area has been severely impacted by highway and facilities development and earthmoving, however. Segments of two water conveyance ditches and a road were observed midway along the trail on the terraces between the USFS facility and peak of Sugar Loaf Mountain. Portions of these linear features have also been impacted by modern activity. A possible prospect was also found in this area. A few small gullies in this terraced area appear to be the upper segments of races feeding into a sluiced ravine below. These resources have been recorded on Historic Resource Inventory Forms (DPR 523 series) and filed with the state (Appendix B). No cultural remains were found on the steep slopes of the trail’s highest switchbacks. No Native American resources were observed or indicated in the literature. The identified cultural resources do not appear to be threatened by the proposed trail, in the opinion of the author. While they are associated with California’s gold mining legacy, they do not retain integrity to convey that association. They are potentially eligible under Criteria 4, for their archaeological data, but this value does not appear to be threatened by trail construction and use. Therefore, it appears the project would not alter any of the characteristics that potentially qualify the sites for listing to the State’s inventory of important cultural resources. With regard to the potential for the trail alignment to contain potentially dangerous remains left over from the gold mining era, no evidence of gold processing, such as mill remains or tailings, was observed anywhere during the survey or found in the literature. The type of mining activity that occurred in the trail alignment would likely not have left toxic remains. Similarly, there is no evidence of hard rock mining at this location, and none was observed, so there are no potentially harmful waste dumps present.

1 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

Figure 1. Parcel map.

2 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

PROJECT BACKGROUND BYLT submitted a proposal for the Sugarloaf Trail to the City of Nevada City in May 2016. This project background is paraphrased from their proposal. After the City of Nevada City acquired the Sugar Loaf property in January 2011, there has been ongoing interest in developing a trail connecting the City sidewalks to the top of the mountain. Recent completion of a sidewalk along East Broad Street to the traffic signal on Highway 49 provides a safe route for pedestrians to the north side of the highway. Presently there is no safe route from there to the top of Sugar Loaf other than the shoulder of highways and roads to a user created trail along Coyote Street. BYLT has worked for years to secure easements across several private parcels and in October 2015 was successful in obtaining them over two parcels. The Nevada City Council approved a Master Plan in January 2016 that provides Goals and Policies for the management and use of the Sugar Loaf property. With the plan in place it became possible to start planning for a trail. BYLT began reconnaissance work the following March to find a suitable path to the top of Sugar Loaf Mountain. They selected a route along the Highway 49 right-of-way, through the two private properties where trail easements have been obtained (parcels 05-310-09 and 05-310-10), and within the City property, connecting with the existing road/trail near the top of the mountain.

PROPOSED TRAIL The following description is paraphrased from BYLT’s proposal. Beginning at the Highway 49 and North Bloomfield/East Broad intersection stoplight, the route parallels the highway within the right-of-way. There is evidence of historic mining and highway construction and a bridge may be necessary to cross a drainage. The ground cover is brushy with scattered conifers, primarily ponderosa pine, and black and live oaks. Westerly of the USFS fenced compound the path turns north, away from the highway. The landscape here was modified by mining and modern development. There is an accumulation of modern refuse. The property is forested with a stand of young ponderosa pine and oaks. From there the route turns east, paralleling the USFS fenced compound climbing at a 6 to 10 percent grade through heavy brush composed primarily of manzanita with scattered pines and oaks. The route continues to climb away from the parking lot on a steep cut. This section of trail is located along what appears to be the upper rim of a placer mine. The trail route then reverses, continuing to climb at the same rate until it reaches the top of the cut. At this point above the historic mining, the slope becomes gentle, and the trail crosses an area that is densely covered with Scotch broom, manzanita, and scattered pines and oaks. This level area was mechanically graded to clear the brush, but it has returned to heights of 5 to 8 feet. The trail continues across private property until the route crosses into the City owned Sugar Loaf property.

3 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

Figure 2. Proposed trail alignment.

4 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

Vegetation on the City’s parcel consists of a mature primarily Manzanita field with poison oak, toyon, Ceanothus spp., and scattered live and black oaks. The trail route passes by a number of squatter campsites in the lower part of the property where the brush is not so dense and there is more tree cover. The manzanita becomes quite large on the steeper slopes. The trail route could only be established by cutting a way through the brush. There was little wildlife observed or heard when working on the land, other than the numerous woodrat nests observed in the thick brush. The route makes five passes across the west face of Sugar Loaf Mountain, climbing at an average grade of 6 to 8 percent. The upper sections of the trail are very uniform in appearance with heavy brush, occasional small openings, and scattered tree cover, primarily oaks. Poison oak is common throughout this section of the property. Finally, the trail route reaches the existing road/trail that provides access from Coyote Street, near the junction with North Bloomfield Road, to the top of Sugar Loaf Mountain. At this point, the trail will utilize the existing road for the last portion of the climb to the top.

TRAIL CONSTRUCTION BYLT’s proposal included details on construction, which is paraphrased here. Standards will incorporate the trail construction standards developed and used by USFS. These are the same standards used for other trails constructed by BYLT, such as the Hirschman Trail and portions of the Tribute Trail. The proposed trail will be built to maintain an average grade of 6 to 8 percent so that it is sustainable and safe for mixed use (e.g., pedestrian and mountain bike). Trail tread width will be 4 feet. Brush screening between switchback legs of the path will be maintained to prevent shortcutting from one leg to another. Long, unobstructed runs will be avoided to discourage increased speeds by mountain bike riders. The trail will be constructed with reverse grades to insure drainage and to temper speeds. As much as possible, the trail route will wind around rocks, trees, and brush while following the contour of the land, gently climbing to the top or descending to the bottom. This will add interest to the trail while controlling speed.

The trail will be constructed using a combination of methods, including the use of hand tools exclusively in some areas and the use of mechanized equipment with finish work by hand in other areas. It is anticipated that much of the trail will be built by volunteers, however funding will be sought to allow the purchase of construction services by a qualified trail construction contractor. Brush clearing will take place in the fall, winter, and spring months when there is adequate moisture to reduce fire danger to an acceptable level. Trail construction will also be limited to those times when there is adequate soil moisture to insure that the soils can be worked and compacted to meet the construction standards. Because of the nature of the site, little or no work will be accomplished during summer or early fall.

5 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

III. CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDY

METHODS Cultural Resources inventory consisted of: (1) a records search of the proposed trail alignment and 25 foot buffer on either side by the North Central Information Center (NCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System (File No.: Nev-16-30, see Appendix A); (2) archival research; and (3) field survey of the trail corridor. Mark Selverston conducted a background records search at the Searls Historical Library maintained by the Nevada County Historical Society, the Nevada County Recorder’s Office, private holdings, and the internet, particularly the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) lands files. The majority of archival research took place prior to field work in order to understand the historic context of the study area; an overview of people and events related to the history of the proposed trail. Historic maps, BLM’s Master Title Plat/Indices, and general county histories were particularly useful for developing field expectations. Research into specific individuals and property ownership continued following fieldwork. Mark Selverston conducted the field survey on July 2, 2016, joined by Bill Haire and Greg Archbald, both with BYLT and intimately familiar with the proposed trail. The field component of the study consisted of (1) survey along the flagged trail alignment to identify cultural features; (2) recording descriptive information for identified cultural resources; and (3) mapping of identified cultural resources. Each identified resource was assigned a unique field designation (BYLT-SLMT-#) and filed with the NCIC on DPR 523 series Historic Resource Inventory Forms (see Appendix B).

FINDINGS This section presents the results of the study. A brief history is provided first, followed by a description of the field findings. NCIC’s records search (File No. NEV-16- 30) determined that no cultural resources studies or resources encompassing any portion of the proposed trail have been filed with their office (see Appendix A). History of Sugar Loaf Mountain Archives indicate there was a scramble for gold in the vicinity of the trail in the mid- 1850s. South of Highway 49 was the -era community of Coyoteville, which formed around a rich strike in 1850, but later became part of Nevada City (Gudde 1975:86). Sugar Loaf Mountain, just north of Nevada City, reportedly “yielded richly around 1855” (Gudde 1975:340). Gold on Sugar Loaf Mountain came in the form of Tertiary deposits; ancient river beds subsequently buried now present along ridges and hill tops throughout the . Exposed sections of these deposits were typically discovered after gold in active streams were depleted. Initially miners burrowed into them, giving rise to the term coyoting, but quickly turned to sluicing and hydraulic methods. Hydraulic mining was invented in Nevada City in the early 1850s and became the major gold producer for decades (May 1970). The industry is responsible for processing the largest volume of the State’s Tertiary deposits.

6 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

Figure 3. General Land Office plat map of T16N/R9E (Dyer 1867).

The General Land Office plat map of T16N/R9E, surveyed by E. Dyer in 1867, depicts portions of the southwest side of Section 6, generally west of the trail, as “old hydraulic gold mines,” indicating the antiquity and type of gold mining in the study area (see Figure 3). It is worth noting that only section lines were surveyed for these plat maps, so the hydraulic mine shown could have extended east and/or west. To be “old” by 1867 suggests it was abandoned by the mid-1860s and so were likely actively mined during the rush of 1855. The trail area was definitely mined hydraulically sometime between 1853, when hydraulic methods were invented, and 1866, when the map was created. The same mine scars are still depicted clearly in the bird’s eye view of Nevada City drawn four years after the plat map was surveyed (Koch 1871, see report cover). The blocky, irregular boundary depicted in yellow encompassing Sugar Loaf Mountain and a large amount of acreage generally east of the peak is the consolidated placer gold mining claims of Edwin P. Marcellus, commonly called the Manzanita Placer Mine. The Manzanita Mining Company obtained title to the claim in 1872 (Bradley 1871). “The Manzanita channel was worked in the early days leaving the hydraulic pit as one of the prominent features of topography north of Nevada City” (Mac Boyle1919:98).

7 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

Figure 4. Detail of map by Uren (1897) showing Manzanita Placer Mine operation’s “Hydraulic Excavation.”

8 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

The Manzanita venture grew to be quite large, switching to drifting after the decline of hydraulic practices in the 1880s. Mine development was concentrated east of Sugar Loaf and the proposed trail, however, as can be seen in Figure 4 on the preceding page. Uren’s 1897 map depicts nothing on the mountain itself or its southern face where the trail is proposed. Instead, there is a rectangular block labeled Hart Placer Mine. This portion of the trail below the steep slopes of Sugar Loaf first appears as “Hart Placer” on Englebright’s Map of the Vicinity of Grass Valley and Nevada City created in 1884 (Figure 5). Virginian gold miner, John W. Hart, bought three lots and house at the top of Coyote Street in 1874 (Deeds 47:316). The population census of 1870 and 1880 listed him as a gold miner living with wife and their children in Nevada City. His son was born in California, which indicates they were in the State by 1862. Deeds suggest they possibly lived around Blue Tent, north of Nevada City, in the mid-1860s (Deeds 29:156; 30:362). Hart was part of a company of gold miners that sold claims on Manzanita Hill in 1866 to Edward Marsellus, along with other owners of the Manzanita Mine. Given the recorded transaction cost of $1, it appears he was an early investor of that consolidated venture, probably given shares in the company as part of the deal (Deeds 23:658). Figure 5. Portion of Englebright’s (1884) map.

John W. Hart, of Nevada City, purchased the lot between the town site and Sugar Loaf Mountain, which the proposed trail route traverses, on April 1, 1884 for $40 (Deeds 65:142). Oddly, the property was not described as mineral property in the deed, nor was

9 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

it ever described that way in tax assessments (years 1884-1887, 1890), even though every map showing the lot depicts it as the Hart Placer Mine. Typically the distinction is clearly made in county records. Hart purchased the property from Ellen Fitzsimmons, the wife of another miner of the area who lived in Grass Valley. It is not entirely clear how she ended up with the property. The deed between her and Hart indicate she obtained it from the tax collector, which usually means by highest bid at auction. The tax deed records were not located to confirm from whom, however. She also obtained property from a divorce settlement, so it may have been associated with her ex- husband’s dealings. Regardless, there is no indication that Hart ever actually developed the property, and simply considered it a potentially valuable investment if the Manzanita venture expanded to the southwest. He evidently held the land until the end of the century, but the conveyance out of his hands was not found. It was still depicted as Hart Placer in 1897 on the earliest reliable topographic map of the study area (Figure 6).

Figure 6. Portion of USGS 1897 topographic map by Waldemar Lindgren.

10 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

The southern portion of the Hart Placer is depicted as “placer diggings” on the map, but actual development probably occurred much earlier, during the 1853-1866 period. The “placer diggings” depicted matches the location of “old hydraulic gold mines” on the 1867 General Land Office Map (See Figure 3). Roads and even some buildings within the “placer diggings” also indicate that these were old and abandoned in 1897. Martha Hart received John’s property after his death, but her last will filed in 1907 did not include the Hart Placer Mine as an asset (Deeds 107:4). The property did, of course, pass on to others, but it appears to have never been further developed as a mine. Highway 49 now crosses what was the Hart Placer, directly across the “placer diggings” depicted on the USGS map, and the USFS facility is located entirely within it.

Identified Cultural Resources Each identified resource was assigned a unique field designation (BYLT-SLMT-#) and filed with the NCIC on DPR 523 series Historic Resource Inventory Forms (see Appendix B). Four sites were identified, consisting of two ditches, a road, and a small prospect, all abandoned. These are briefly described below and plotted in relation to the proposed trail route on Figure 7. In addition to the four sites identified, assorted elements of placer mining were identified across the lower portion of the trail route, including overgrown sluice channels, races feeding into one of the sluice channels, steep banks where mining has washed away large volumes of soil and rock, and irregular and undulating ground surface left from various placer mining activities, also called diggings. These elements are also depicted in relation to the proposed trail on Figure 7. All of the observed elements appear to be related to circa 1853-1866 gold mining depicted in Figures 3 and 6, and described above. The observed features can be considered elements of a much larger and complicated gold mining landscape, the full extent of which could not be appreciated nor recorded at the scale and scope of this trail survey, particularly given the extent of massive disturbances that have impacted these diggings. Historic maps and observations along the Highway 49 corridor suggest a much larger and complicated landscape exists interwoven with modern growth and development. These contributing elements have been mapped and addressed here with the hope they will be understood in relation to the whole in future studies, and managed accordingly. BYLT-SLMT-1 This resource is a segment of a substantial water conveyance ditch that contoured around the base of Sugar Loaf Mountain. It is approximately 8 feet wide from berm to berm, 1.5 feet deep, and continues in both directions. The eastern half of the identified segment was observed along a user-defined trail, which appears to have incorporated a portion of the alignment. The abandoned ditch appears to have flowed from the northeast to the southwest, contouring around the slope on a natural terrace at this location. Modern grading has impacted portions of the ditch beyond recognition, while other portions appear to be incorporated in modern road alignment. It may be associated with early, circa 1850-1865 period placer mining downslope. The saddles east and west of Sugar Loaf were important water conveyance locations.

11 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

Figure 7. Map of identified Cultural Resources (Base map: Nevada City; scale 1:4,000).

12 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

BYLT-SLMT-2 This resource is a depression that appears to be a prospect for locating gold deposits. It may also be a so-called “coyote hole” from the act of coyoting (or mining) into buried Tertiary deposits—a common practice downhill around Coyoteville. It is approximately 20 feet east/west by 10 feet north/south and 4 feet deep. The large back dirt pile appears as a berm on the downslope side and is approximately 15 x 15 feet and 4 feet tall. The depression is within what appears to be mined out or sluiced ravine, just below the a ditch (BYLT-SLMT-1). It may mark upper exploration of gold deposits on the slope of Sugar Loaf Mountain. Historic-era mining occurred downslope circa 1850-1865. BYLT-SLMT-3 This resource is a water conveyance ditch segment. It is approximately 4 feet wide from berm to berm and approximately 1/2 feet deep. The intact segment is stone-lined on the downslope berm and appears to continue in both directions. A spring area is located toward the end of observed segment. The southeastern segment turns downslope in a race-like fashion and conveyed water down the small ridge toward the south. The ditch is not depicted on any historic maps reviewed and likely dates to early placer mining below that occurred circa 1850-1865. BYLT-SLMT-4 This resource is an abandoned earthen road segment cut into the slope. It is approximately 10 feet wide and continues in both directions (trending southwest/northeast at this location). The eastern half was observed crossing a user- defined trail and the depicted location is approximate. Segments have stone masonry walls along the downslope edge. The road appears to have once wrapped around the base of Sugar Loaf Mountain.

13 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

IV. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION

This chapter discusses the potential eligibility of identified cultural resources. First, each of the National Register (NR) criteria for evaluation is assessed drawing on specific characteristics of the sites. The seven aspects of the property’s integrity are considered next. As will be shown, all the resources appear to be potentially eligible to the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The CRHR is the official list of properties, structures, districts and objects significant at the local, state or national level. California Register properties must have significance under one or more of the four following criteria and must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historic resources and convey the reasons for their significance (i.e., retain integrity). In the opinion of the author, none of the identified resources are eligible under Criteria 1, 2, or 3. While they are associated with California’s gold mining legacy, they do not retain integrity to convey that association. They are potentially eligible under Criterion 4, for their archaeological data, but this value does not appear to be threatened by trail construction and use. Therefore, it appears the project would not alter any of the characteristics that potentially qualify the resources for listing to the CRHR. With regard to the potential for the trail alignment to contain potentially dangerous remains left over from the gold mining era, no evidence of gold processing, such as mill remains or tailings, was observed anywhere during the survey or found in the literature. The upper margins of gold mining observed are evidence of prospecting and washing activity such as ground sluicing and hydraulic mining that would have drained downslope into sluice boxes or other separation and collection devices. Based on archival sources and tangible remains it appears that process would have occurred downslope of the trail, now in areas highly disturbed and unrecognizable. Similarly, there is no evidence of hard rock mining at this location, and none was observed, so there are no potentially harmful waste dumps present.

APPLICATION OF THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION Criteria Consideration Criterion 1: Event Properties may be eligible for the CRHR if they are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. All of the resources appear to be associated with gold mining, and possibly some of the earliest hydraulic mining in the world. Hydraulic mining was invented in Nevada City in the 1852-1853 period, and grew from there, resulting in the series of mines along the northern margin of Nevada City. These diggings flourished for a decade before they busted, allowing miners to perfect hydraulic mining and helping to build up Nevada City as the county seat. The ditches, prospect, and isolated placer mining features are all part of that legacy, and probably the road that passed above the workings as well. They are all potentially eligible to the CRHR under Criterion 1.

14 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

Criterion 2: Person Properties may be eligible for the CRHR if they are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past. None of the people identified while researching the history of Sugar Loaf appear to qualify as a person significant in our past. None of the resources appear to be associated with any such individual either. Criterion 3: Design/Construction Properties may be eligible for the CRHR if they 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. None of the resources appear to be eligible under Criterion 3. They are too disarticulated to embody a distinctive system. Criterion 4: Information Potential Properties may be eligible for the CRHR if they have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation. A research design addressing the research potential of mining properties was developed in 2008 for the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) by a team of historical archaeologists and historians. The document lists six important research themes important to historians and archaeologists, providing a model to assess the information potential of mining resources along the proposed trail. Properties that have the potential to contribute to these themes have importance under Criterion 4. The themes (Caltrans 2008:113) are: 1. Technology: mining and technological developments. 2. Historical ethnography/cultural history: stories of mining sites and their populations. 3. Ethnicity: studies of distinctive cultural groups associated with mining and cross-cultural interactions. 4. Gender and family: the roles of women and children. 5. Economy: market development, consumption, and class. 6. Policy: law, regulation, and self-governance.

The resources identified along the trail include types that generally contribute to the technology theme identified in the Caltrans (2008) research design. The placer mine elements, ditches, prospect, and road may provide information that helps to understand the specific mining processes, history, and development of gold mining on the outskirts of Nevada City, one of the greatest mining districts of the Sierra Nevada. The sites may be eligible for listing on the CRHR individually under Criterion 4, for their potentially important data.

15 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

Integrity Consideration This section assesses the integrity of identified cultural resources by examining the seven principal aspects that affect their importance, speicifcally with regard to Criteria 1 and 4. In order to eligible for listing on the CRHR a site must be able to convey its important qualities. A site either has integrity or it does not. Recognizing the often- ruined nature of mining properties, NR Bulletin 42 (NPS 1992) notes that “it is important to remember that the National Register will accept significant and distinguishable entities whose components may lack individual distinction.” In this way, even run-down components that lack individual distinction have the collective ability to convey the importance of historically significant mining operations. This also applies to the CRHR. Location Location is the place where the historic event occurred. All of the identified cultural resources are where they were originally constructed are retain integrity of location. Design Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a resource. It is the degree to which elements reflect their original spatial and relational patterning. The arrangement of the identified resources’ components no longer conveys very well the various processes that occurred here to an observer. However, as data to understanding the processes at an academic level the resources retain very good integrity of design. Therefore, with regard to Criterion 1 they do not retain integrity of design, while they do retain it in relation to their data potential under Criterion 4. Setting Setting is the physical environment of the property, and generally has no bearing on Criterion 4 values of archaeological resources. The other three criteria, however, depend on integrity of the setting to help convey their significance. Modern intrusions can seriously undermine the setting, and the highway, USFS facility, grading and piles of debris, as well as thick overgrowth, all contribute to diminishing the resources integrity of setting as it relates to Criterion 1. The area does not retain a good integrity of setting. Materials Materials are the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. With regard to archaeological sites it concerns the presence of intrusive features and the quality of data, while for the built environment it relates to all the components used during its period of significance. The cultural resources examined on Sugar Loaf Mountain do not retain very good integrity of materials at the Criterion 1 level, while their quality of data under Criterion 4 appears to be sufficient for rigorous study.

16 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

Workmanship Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during the property’s period of significance. The NR expects mining resources to have evidence of original workmanship to the largest extent possible (NPS 1992:21). With regard to archaeological sites it relates to the skill required to create an artifact, feature, or system of features. The knowledge and advancement of the placer miners who created various elements of the diggings is evident in the overall arrangement of feature systems and relationships between various features (i.e., prospects, ditches, races, sluices, etc.). However, the site is incapable of conveying to a casual observer the particular and specific details of each improvement or process, such as the water systems linking all the various components. For this reason, the site retains a sense of workmanship as it pertains to data potential, but no longer has this integrity with respect to the other criteria. Feeling Feeling is a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a property’s period of significance. In similar vein as setting, the NR specifically appreciates the image of abandonment, noting that it attracts more attention than active mines (NPS 1992:21). By focusing on what is left, the identified placer mine is no longer capable of evoking a sense of the substantial mining activity that occurred. Accordingly, the property fails to retain any degree of feeling, however, this has no bearing on the Criterion 4 values of archaeological resources. Association Association is the link between a property and an important historic event; in this case, the representation of gold mining history between 1850 and 1865, with special notoriety related to early development of hydraulic mining in the area of its invention. The casual viewer should be able to discern that mining activity happened in the study area. This would be a difficult argument to make for the observed remains, which are so impacted by modern development and vegetation. The resources are clearly associated with specific events, but they fail to effectively convey that association. The resources can contribute to specific research themes important in understanding our history, however. The observed resources therefore retain good integrity of association as it pertains to data potential under Criterion 4. Summary Evaluation Based on the preceding assessment, it appears all of the cultural resources are potentially eligible for listing to the CRHR under Criterion 4, for their contribution for understanding an important facet of our history. A complete evaluation would include a well-developed context, which is beyond the scope of this inventory. Nevertheless, the resources appear to lack integrity and so not eligible under Criterion 1. Criterion 2 and 3 do not appear to be relevant based on the background research conducted.

17 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

V. MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

The observed resources appear to be important for their potential data contribution, in the opinion of the author. The proposed trail will not adversely alter their ability to make this contribution, in the opinion of the author, and so the trail project will not impact them adversely. There does not appear to be any threat of contamination by legacy mining activities along the proposed trail route, in the opinion of the author.

18 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

VI. REFERENCES CITED

Bean, Edwin F. (compiler) 1867 History and Directory of Nevada County, California. Daily Gazette Book and Job Office, Nevada [City, California].

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 2008 A Historical Context and Archaeological Research Design for Mining Properties in California. Division of Environmental Analysis, California Department of Transportation, Sacramento.

Deeds v.d. Deeds on file at the Nevada County Office of the Recorder, Nevada City, California.

Dyer, E. 1867 Official Plat, Township 16 North/Range 9 East. Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records. Online database available at http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/ (accessed v.d. 2016).

Bradley, H. S. 1871 Plat of the Edward P. Marcellus Placer Gold Mining Claim in Nevada County, California, Claimed by the Manzanita Mining Company. Mineral Survey No. 70. On file at the United States Bureau of Land Management, Sacramento.

Englebright, W. F. 1884 Map of the Vicinity of Grass Valley and Nevada City, Nevada County, California. Britton & Rey Lithographers, San Francisco, California. On file at Searls Historical Library, Nevada City, California.

Gudde, Erwin G. 1975 California Gold Camps. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Koch, Augustus 1871 Bird’s-Eye View of the City of Nevada, Nevada County, California. Britton & Rey Lithographers, San Francisco, California. On file at Searls Historical Library, Nevada City, California.

Mac Boyle, Errol 1919 Mines and Minerals of Nevada County. Chapters of State Mineralogist’s Report Biennial Period 1917–1918. California State Printing Office, Sacramento.

May, Philip Ross 1970 Origins of Hydraulic Mining in California. The Holmes Book Company, Oakland, California.

National Park Service (NPS) 1992 Guidelines for Identifying, Evaluating, and Registering Historic Mining Properties. National Register Bulletin 42. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

1997a How to Complete the National Register Registration Form. National Register Bulletin 16a. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

1997b How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

2009 Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines [As Amended and Annotated]. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Available online at http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/arch_stnds_3.htm (accessed 10 February 2009).

19 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

United States Bureau of the Census (U.S. Census). v.d. Nevada County, Manuscript census, population schedule.

United States Bureau of Land Management (US-BLM) 2009 The Official Federal Land Patent Records Site, Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records. Online database available at http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/ (accessed v.d. 2016).

United States Geological Survey (USGS) 1896 Nevada City Special Folio: Grass Valley (Topography) Sheet. In Geologic Atlas of the United States. United States Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.

Uren, Charles E. 1897 Map of the Vicinity of Grass Valley/Nevada City, Nevada County, California. Charles E. Uren, Grass Valley, California.

Wells, Harry L. 1880 History of Nevada County, California. Thompson and West, Oakland, California.

20 Cultural Resources Survey Sugar Loaf Mountain

APPENDIX A

NORTH CENTRAL INFORMATION CENTER LETTER REPORT