SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C99: Soil and pollen samples are normally taken from side walls in test units and normally are not randomly collected. These would be collected near the end of the Phase II testing activities. C100: The DEIR states that most of CA-SJO-0043 exists off project property. The primary concern is that it is a part of a larger site that extends onto the project site. As the commenter points out, burials were excavated by McGeein in a "sterile" level. Our recommendations are not constrained by the 1929 report. Please refer to Moratto (1984),page 214. C101: Auguring is inherently destructive and is not appropriate for a Phase I surface survey,especially in an area where both mass and isolated burials are known or suspected to be present. Auguring is more appropriate for Phase 11 investigations. Furthermore,the scope of work for this EIR did not call for auguring. C 102: The DEIR did not recommend determining the location of the two sites on the south side of the Mokelumne River, but recommended surveying only the proposed road area. The commenter appears to be commenting on an earlier version of the cultural resources study. Page 3-19 of the DEIR calls for placing the areas of high sensitivity under the protection of a third party organization. There is no mention that a third party monitor the sites. C 103: Surface indications such as artifacts, midden, debitage, bone and baked clay are continuous for the "River" site. For the "Lake" site breaks occur only for modern disturbance and drainage channels. As called for in the DEIR, further identification and specific mapping are recommended as part of Phase 11. Part of Phase II is determining the depth and mass of these sites. C 104: The seven lithic specimens collected during the fieldwork phase were turned over to the San Joaquin County Community Development Department in January 1992 which in turn were transferred these specimens to the developer. Due to the recent passage of Public Law 101-601 (November 16, 1990),the ownership of these artifacts is in question. C 105: Site CA-SJO-0240was recorded by the DEIR archaeologists on March 21, 1992. The area "east of the dam" is off the project property. C 106: Refer to responses C91 and C92. C 107: Burial sites previously uncovered are identified in the confidential technical report. Neither the Phase I study nor the scope of work for the DEIR include subsurface investigations to determine the presence of burial sites. The commenter should refer to the abstract and introduction of the technical report. C 108: Refer to response C 1. C 109: The commenter's statements regarding lack of data for these complexes seem to support the recommendation of the DEIR consultants for further archaeological testing at these sites. C 110: What evidence is there that Brovelli Woods in 1840 was "undoubtedly quite different than that present?" The DEIR archaeologists maintain that the project area is both naturally and 1I1-173