SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

45: A letter to Dr. James Bennyhoff requesting comments on the Buckeye Ranch project was sent by the DEIR archaeologists in November 1991. Personal contact with Dr. Bennyhoff to discuss the archaeology of Tracy Lakes was also attempted at this time. Carolyn Rice, EIR archaeologist,both telephoned and visited his place of residence, and learned that Dr. Bennyhoff was neither available nor at home due to illness. When Dr. Bennyhoff was available by phone, Carolyn Rice discussed the project with him and requested a letter summarizing his review of the report. At that time (April 13, 1992), Dr. Bennyhoff made two statements regarding the project: 1) He has no disagreements with the recommendations in the report; 2) If the sites that now comprise CA-SJO-11 (the "lake site") are, indeed, one site, then it is one of the largest in California. C46: Refer to response C44. C47: Refer to responses A20 and C44. Survey methodology is given in the DEIR on page 4.9-4. C48: This is a misreading of our report. The EIR authors did not imply that many sites are scattered over the area, but reported that one large site with boundaries exists where several smaller sites had been reported previously. C49: Five major sites have been recorded by the authors in the project area: CA-SJO-0011, -0043, -0237, -0238, and -0240. Federal and state significance criteria are addressed in the Archaeological Field Investigation,Buckeye Ranch Project, Phase I study, Section 6. Further recommendations will be made at the end of a Phase II study. C50: Refer to response C3. C51: The EIR authors concur with this statement. C52: This project did not identify human remains in the field. Previous research has uncovered as many as 34 human burials and many more are suspected to be in the area (see Dr. Johnson's letter in Attachment B of the Phase I report). Whether or not a legal violation has occurred is not within the scope of this EIR. C53: This information would be elucidated in the proposed Phase II study, ethnographic section. C54: This is a statement of opinion and requires no additional response. C55: Refer to discussion regarding open space and park policies in Section 4.1. C56: The commenter should refer to new mitigation measures in the revised biological and archaeological studies. Not all of the site has been designated as a sensitive area. C57: Comment noted. The EIR has recognized the critical dry season flow situation in the Mokelumne River and the possibility for adverse impacts from the exercise of riparian rights. Accordingly, Mitigation Measure 4.6-3(a)states that detailed environmental studies should be conducted prior to the applicant's use of water under claim of riparian water. This is an added safeguard that would not be required through normal water rights regulation. III-168