SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

BUCKEYE RANCH ( 4- 1-92 ) 10 Ipas: agricultural activities and with the advent of drip irrigation the land could be developed into vineyards under C94 current allowable use . This would certainly impact the sites . One alternative suggested is to have some public entity purchase the land and manage it as a nature preserve . There are numerous cases where public ownership has led to the destruction of cultural resources not the preservation of them . On Page 3-13 it is stated that Native American concerns shall be addressed . The consulting archaeologists should have indicated tha: the appropriate recommendation is that the project' proponent C95 or : he lead agency should contact the Native American Heritage Commission in Sacramento to find out which individual or group is appropriate to consult in regard to developments that might aiiect cultural resources . There are sometimes conflicts within the Native American Community about who should represent certain localities . By contacting the Native American Heritage Commission staii potential conflic: is avoided because only those ider.: ifi_d as representatives of the Native American Community Ir :hat locality are contacted . Also on Page 3-13 it is indicated that an individual with a B .A. degree would be an appropriate monitor during any altering or excavating activities . Most individuals with B .A . degrees have jus: finished school and most do not have much practical experience . It is likely they would miss the subtleties of an C96 older faint midden deposit , probably would not recognize house floc=s or other features and might allow considerable destruction to occur because of their lack of expertise . If a monitor is to be =resent it is desirable that they have several years of experience and thev have participated in numerous excavations in central California . as opposed to the American Southwest or some other location that has little in common with the midden of the Tracy Lake Locality. On Page 3- 19 it says that the arc:-aeological monitor shall have the authority to stop construction activity within 10 me:ors of any cultural material uncovered. This makes it impor:an: for the monitor to have had several years of excavation experience in central Californian sites so they will have the expertise to make appropriate decisions . It would not do tc. have a supervising archaeologist who has to be contacted who might be out of the area or even out of the state . On Page 3-30 many of the suggested mitigation measures are not appropriate since the cultural resources have not been properly identified or located. without knowing how many cubic meters of excavatable deposit is present it does not make any sense to suggest digging a certain number of units , or for that matter for C97 digging at all . The collections already present at the University of California, Berkeley tell us a great deal about the antiquity of many of the archaeological deposits at Tracy Lake . In aadition if the specific limits of the middens can be determined so that they can be avoided the goal should be to preserve not excavate . Preservation is preferable since at some time in the future new techniques of analysis will allow archaeologists to get more information out of the deposits . including from the soil . Excavation on the other hand is a very des :ructive process which provides some information now but destroys the deposit so that it can not be retrieved for further revi-w and study with newer techniques in the future . Since the consulting archaeologists for the most part have not defined where specifically the excavatable deposits are located and they III-90