Laserfiche WebLink
BUCKEYE RANCH ( 4- 1-92 ) 13 <br /> today . Most of the oak trees and other vegetation either did not <br /> exist at that time or these existing plants were quite small . <br /> Many of the Mitigation Measures suggested on pages 4 . 9-10 through C110 <br /> 4 . 9-13 would be appropriate if conditions were as the consulting <br /> archaeologists have portrayed. Since the situation at the <br /> proposed Buckeye Ranch Subdivision is in fact quite different it <br /> is not appropriate to make specific recommendations '-concerning <br /> potential impact on sites at this time . All of the cultural <br /> resources have not been located , the limits of the excavatable <br /> archeological deposits and potential burial areas have not been <br /> delimited and appropriate field techniques were not employed <br /> which would yield the kind of data needed to base sound and <br /> reasonable mitigation proposals . <br /> RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> 1 . All of the cultural resources that might be impacted by the C111 <br /> Proposed subdivision need to be precisely located. <br /> 2 The lumping of large numbers of isolated cultural resources <br /> into large sites is appealing philosophically and may actually <br /> reflect the Native American use o2 the area but it does not <br /> provide the specific location of archaeological materials that <br /> will be impacted . In reality the Indians used the entire area <br /> during the late prehistoric period and perhaps as late as the <br /> 18TOs , thus it could be argued that the whole project should be <br /> recorded as one site and this is simply not reasonable . The <br /> specific location of excavatable deposits need to be identified <br /> and recorded in a responsible and professional manner . The C112 <br /> resulting site records should meet -and/or exceed those standards <br /> in the 'Handbook established by the State Historic Preservation <br /> Office . This document is available from the eleven Information <br /> Centers and the State Historic Preservation Office and the most <br /> recent March 1989 version should be used. The boundaries of the <br /> excavatable sites should be determined through soil chemical <br /> tests , and the depth should be determined with several auger <br /> holes at each location identified. These sites should then be <br /> placed on a master map that would be provided to the property <br /> owners , the San Joaquin County Planing Department . the Central <br /> Information Center of the California Archeological Site Survey, <br /> and to individuals -who have a need to know when conducting <br /> additional studies or when it is necessary to avoid resources <br /> during construction. <br /> 3 . The Native American Heritage Commission should be contacted —� <br /> to determine who would be the appropriate Native American C113 <br /> individual or group to consult concerning the proposed Buckeye <br /> Ranch Development . Representatives of the indicated Indian group <br /> should be consulted and their input sought regarding the project <br /> and any changes that may occur . <br /> 4 . Any group of consulting archaeologists should include at <br /> least one individual who has had several years of archaeological <br /> field experience in decision making roles . This individual C114 <br /> should also have considerable experience in the excavation of <br /> mounds in central California , not the northwest coast . desert <br /> regions , Sierra Nevada , American Southwest or some other location <br /> were the nature of the soils and cultural features and artifacts <br /> are different . <br /> III-93 <br />