SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BUCKEYE RANCH (.4-1-92 ) very strong acidity and lack of carbonates indicate that it was very minimal at best . while these eleven soil samples are far to C83 few to base major mitigation recommendations on they clearly show that it is likely that the exact limits of the prehistoric midden sites can be defined by the use of relatively inexpensive and rapidly taken and analyzed soil chemical tests . CONCLUSIONS Several points need to be considered in regard to a proper evaluation of the cultural resources in the proposed Buckeye Ranch Subdivision . 1 ) . The consulting archaeologists did not find all of the cultural resources , they did not adequately determine the characteristics of the known resources within the project nor the C84 newly discovered cultural resources . and the archaeological site records supplied to San Joaquin County are inadequate . A ) . Based on chemical tests and other observations at least C85 one major well defined archaeological site was not recorded and an older cultural resource may have been missed as well as other prehistoric materials . B ) . The vague boundary placed around the proposed "LAKE SITE" may reflect a philosophical ideal about how a site might have been used prehistorically but it does not identify which resources are going to be found with which lot or other project development , i . e . what would actually C86 be impacted by proposed construction . Middens have definable limits and they can be avoided if those limits are determined. Based on preliminary soil chemical tests it is likely that the midden deposits could be determined without the necessity of massive disturbance to the deposits through archaeological test excavations , which is a very destructive methodology. C ) . The archaeological site records supplied to San Joaquin County do not me-:t professional standards for recordation. They do not meet the standards of the California Archeological Inventory "Handbook" which are the guidelines established by the State Historic Preservation Office ( SHPO) and .which are used to evaluate submitted records by the eleven Information Centers . This "Handbook has been in use since 1983 and the most recent addition is dated March 1989 . The lead consulting archaeologist has been given a copy of this "Handbook" in the past and they C87 are available from the Information Centers . The records are full of errors which include UTMs which are outside the project locality, distances in millimeters from the edge of the map to sites which are wrong , UTMs which do not conform to those required by SHPO, maps with no measurements bearings or datum shown, site area improperly computed, lack of Township, Range , and Section information when it is known, reference to numerous house or structure floors when a specific number of supposed locations are shown on the site maps ( in actuality depressions which were not measured ; without auguring or excavation the presence of "floors" may or may not be confirmed) , improper citation of the project report and the failure to reference published reports which refer specifically to the project locality, and the III-87