SU0013451 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CULTURALAARCHAEOLOGICAL REVIEW: We do appreciate the additional archaeological review, supplementing the original archaeological section, but feel the scope of study conducted by Biosystems, Kim J. Tremaine, was too narrow to adequately determine the significance of the site and if adverse project impacts can be properly mitigated. The stated purpose of the study alludes to the limitations of D139 this new review — "... to identify, define, and record all known archaeological sites within the project area." Sure it is fine to know more about the "known" sites, but what about the unknown sites. To "(1) resurvey specified area, (2) relocate and rerecord previously identified prehistoric sites, ..." may help, but it doesn't determine if there are other significant sites that may be adversely impacted by the golf course, its out buildings, pipes and sprinkler lines, and earth moving; the equestrian center, and the other pipes, sewer lines, out buildings, and earth moving activities, etc., throughout the site. What we do know about the site begs a thorough study, without blinders and parameters. To not do so limits a true understanding of the cultural resources, necessary to determine if this project is feasible. The question still remains, "How significant is this site?" Does the new study indicate a greater significance or lessor significance than the prior study? At present, guesses and wishful thinking still reign. We would like to reiterate one of Dr. Jerry Johnson's recommendations listed on page 14, of his April 1 , 1992, critique of the prior archaeological study. He states, " The collections at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Tracy School District should be studied and analyzed before any additional archaeological excavations take place. The potential for collections from the Tracy Lakes area in the possession of local landowners is also possible D140 and should be considered." To not study and analyze what has been taken out of the site limits a true understanding of the significant resources that may be impacted by this project, the significance of the site itself, and determinations of the projects feasibility. To not do so in this most recent cultural resource study indicates the limited scope of the study. We request that these collections be adequately studied before any further project consideration be undertaken. In the summary of the Archaeological Review, page 37, it states that if cultural resources are discovered, "... that work at the location of any find will cease, and a qualified cultural resources professional be contacted immediately to examine and evaluate the D141 discovery." We would like to recommend that whenever earth moving and excavation take place that monitors be on site. To not do so assumes too much good faith on the developers part. We suggest that members from the Native American community be actively recruited for consultations and input on the development project and mitigation that needs to be developed. We suggest that an agreement between the developer and the Native American community be established on the disposition of remains and artifacts before project excavations occurs. In reviewing the Archaeological Review, page 34, under recommendations for mitigation of impacts, we get the feeling that the mitigation measures were developed by the D142 VI-113