SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C74: As the commenter is aware, field maps are normally provided in a Phase I study,thus the figures were not drawn to scale. The Phase 11 study would produce a scaled map. C75: The Phase I maps by their nature are not complete,nor to scale. A Phase II map would identify all structure floors and map them accurately. C76: The "River" and "Lake" site names were used for field use by the EIR authors and were considered temporary field names until such time permanent trinomials were issued. The latter part of this comment is speculative on the part of the commenter as to the use of the site. If the sites were contemporaneous,they may reflect moieties in which case such trips may have been restricted. A Phase II study would determine the contemporaneousness of these sites and possible moiety affiliations. C77: This information is noted. These features are within the boundary of CA-SJO-0011 and if this boundary needs to be expanded,the Phase Il study will do so. The number of structural depressions within this site is so large that no individual depressions were discussed in the Phase I report. An intensive mapping during the Phase II study was recommended in the existing report. C78: The areas described should be subject to Phase II testing. C79: Refer to response A20. C80: A Phase Il study would determine the integrity of this area of the site and whether or not these impressions are structural remains. Again, this project is not limited by the findings of the previous work. C81: The EIR authors cannot speculate why Dawson did not excavate this site. He was an untrained amateur whose work was directed by personal interests. C82: The commenter is requesting information that is determined in a Phase II study and not in Phase I. Mitigation Measure 4.9-1(d)calls for additional studies that fall under the Phase 11 category. The EIR authors neglected to identify this as a Phase II. The mitigation has since been revised. C83: Regarding soil testing to identify the boundaries of each cultural deposit, this method may be useful in determining the interrelationship of areas within a site, but in itself it has too many flaws to be used as more than one tool that may or may not be selected for use. A major flaw is that the surrounding soil has been in agricultural use for decades. Phosphates are used in fertilizer which may have been applied to the soil, and cattle have occupied the area for more than 150 years, leaving phosphates in their dung and urine. Additionally,Phase I Late Horizon and older sites may have been leached sufficiently to seriously question this type of investigation. High phosphates may only indicate a limited range of cultural activity, such as refuse areas. Other areas cleaned by Native Americans,such as house floors that were swept, may not contain a high level of phosphates. The pH of archaeological sites is determined by many factors, among them: parent soils, permeability, leaching and site use or type. Only testing sites with a high pH may overlook type sites and areas that do not produce acidic residue, e.g., stone knapping area, ash producing activity areas, or areas regularly cleaned such as house floors. III-170