SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C212: This comment is no longer relevant; refer to revised biological study in Volume II, Section 4.7. C213: Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.12-3(c)in the revised biological study which mitigates Impact 4.13-3. The applicant's management plan does not speak to existing wildlife conditions nor the need to replicate a similar habitat to the one that would be eliminated. The results of the biological survey point out the need to retain a waterfowl management specialist. C214: Information noted. C215: Refer to Mitigation Measure 4.13-1(g)in the revised biological study, Volume II, Section 4.7. C216: Refer to responses C64 through C 120. C217: Figure 4.9-2 in Volume II has been revised; lot 21 is still within the sensitive area. C218: To say that the University of California has excavated these sites is misleading. The 1929 report by Schenck was a review and analysis of work done by an amateur archaeologist. Field classes from Berkeley visited two areas at Tracy Lakes in 1949. An unknown number of units were excavated at that time for the purpose of teaching field techniques. At the time, it was not meant to be a scientific investigation. By today's standards, it would be considered unethical. No research questions have ever been addressed at these sites. C219: The burial grounds along the Consumes River are not occupation sites. Ages are not given for burial grounds to which the commenter is referring. These sites are located in a different county (Sacramento County), in a different ecozone and are not a complex of sites. Only unknownportions of one site extends off project.This complex of sites is important because it has always been in a transition zone from valley bottom to delta, or pre-delta ecozones. C220: The EIR authors concur that these sites should be protected. The proposed Phase II study would further define the areas that might show this linkage. C221: The EIR authors cannot speak for the Miwok or for Dr. Johnson. Our mitigation measures are based upon CEQA criteria, Appendix K. C222: Native Americans and archaeologists often have parallel concerns. However,this has led to the mistaken assumption that all concerns are similar. An archaeological monitor is trained to spot and interpret cultural material in situ, not obvious to the lay person. In addition, the responsibility of archaeologists is derived from CEQA; Native American responsibilities and concerns are derived from other law. The mitigation calls for a qualified archaeologist to monitor grading and excavation activities, not a Native American monitor. If human remains are uncovered,the local Native American Community must be contacted. C223: The design of these standards would be part of the Phase II study. C224: No previous professional work or work performed to modem standards has been done on the project. We cannot respond to the charge regarding stolen material. A comprehensively designed and implemented master plan would be an aid to the understanding and protection of the archaeology of the area. III-182