Draft Environmental Impact Report - East Bay Municipal Utility District

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.5 Cultural Resources3.5.1 Approach to AnalysisEstates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportCultural ResourcesThe assessment of project impacts on historical resources under CEQA (CEQAGuidelines, Section 15064.5) is a two-step process: (1) determine whether theproject site contains a historical resource as defined in CEQA. 9 If the site is foundto contain a historical resource, then (2) determine whether the project would causea substantial adverse change to the resource. The setting section below describesthe existing properties in the vicinity of Estates Reservoir and assesses whether theproperties are historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. The impactdiscussion that follows reviews the criteria for significant impacts on historicalresources. The historical resources analysis included a literature review and fieldreconnaissance by qualified cultural resource personnel.3.5.2 Setting/Regulatory FrameworkThis section includes information on the prehistoric and historic development withinthe Project area and identifies existing recorded historic resources. An analysis wasperformed to determine whether properties in the Project area can be consideredhistorical resources for the purposes of CEQA. 10 National, state, and local historicpreservation listings and surveys are summarized in this section. For additionalinformation, please refer to the Cultural Resources Assessment Technical Report.Prehistoric SettingCultural chronologies developed for Central California have gone through severalpermutations (See for example Beardsley, 1948, 1954; Bennyhoff and Hughes, 1987;Fredrickson, 1973, 1974; Heizer and Fenenga, 1939; Lillard and Purves, 1936;Lillard et al., 1939; Milliken and Bennyhoff, 1993; Ragir, 1972; Schenck and Dawson,1929). Most recently, Milliken et al. (2007:99-123) developed what they term a“hybrid system” for the San Francisco Bay Area, combining an Early-Middle-LatePeriod temporal sequence with a pattern-aspect-phase cultural sequence.9 “Historical resources” includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place,record, or manuscript that is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural,engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals ofCalifornia (CEQA Guidelines 15064.5). For the purposes of this section, the term “historical resources” issynonymous with “cultural resources.”10 See CEQA Guidelines Section 21084.1.sb09_001.doc 3-5.1 7/22/2009
Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft Environmental Impact ReportCultural ResourcesMilliken et al.’s (2007) San Francisco Bay Area Cultural Sequence includes: Early Holocene (Lower Archaic) from 8000 to 3500 B.C. Early Period (Middle Archaic) from 3500 to 500 B.C. Lower Middle Period (Initial Upper Archaic) from 500 B.C. to A.D. 430. Upper Middle Period (Late Upper Archaic) from A.D. 430 to 1050. Initial Late Period (Lower Emergent) from A.D. 1050 to 1550. Terminal Late Period, post-A.D. 1550.No archaeological evidence dating to pre-8000 B.C. has been located in the Bay Area.Milliken et al. (2007:99-123) posit that this dearth of archaeological material may berelated to subsequent environmental changes that submerged sites, buried sites beneathalluvial deposits, or destroyed sites through stream erosion. A brief summary of theapproach presented by Milliken et al. follows.A “generalized mobile forager” pattern marked by the use of milling slabs andhandstones and the manufacture of large, wide-stemmed and leaf-shaped projectile pointsemerged around the periphery of the Bay Area during the Early Holocene Period (8000 to3500 B.C.). Beginning around 3500 B.C., evidence of sedentism, interpreted to signify aregional symbolic integration of peoples, and increased regional trade emerged. ThisEarly Period lasted until circa 500 B.C. (Milliken et al., 2007:114, 115).Milliken et al. identify “a major disruption in symbolic integration systems” circa 500 B.C.,marking the beginning of the Lower Middle Period (500 B.C. to A.D. 430). Bead HorizonM1, dating from 200 B.C. to A.D. 430, is described by Milliken et al. as marking a‘cultural climax’ within the San Francisco Bay Area (Milliken et al., 2007:115).The Upper Middle Period (A.D. 430 to 1050) is marked by the collapse of the Olivellasaucer bead trade in central California, abandonment of many Bead Horizon M1 sites, anincrease in the occurrence of sea otter bones in those sites that were not abandoned, andthe spread of the extended burial mortuary pattern characteristic of the Meganos complexinto the interior East Bay. Bead Horizons M2 (A.D. 430 to 600), M3 (A.D. 600 to 800),and M4 (A.D. 800 to 1050) were identified within this period (Milliken et al., 2007:116).The Initial Late Period, dating from A.D. 1050 to 1550, is characterized by increasedmanufacture of status objects. In lowland central California during this period,Fredrickson (1973 and 1994) noted evidence for increased sedentism, the developmentof ceremonial integration, and status ascription. The beginning of the Late Period,(circa A.D. 1000) is marked by the Middle/Late Transition bead horizon. The TerminalLate Period began circa A.D. 1550 and continued until European settlement of the area.sb09_001.doc 3-5.2 7/22/2009
Page 1:
Estates Reservoir ReplacementDraft
Page 4 and 5:
TABLE OF CONTENTSEstates Reservoir
Page 6 and 7:
Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft
Page 8 and 9:
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSABABAGAPC
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
SUMMARYS.1 IntroductionThis Draft E
Page 14 and 15:
Estates Reservoir Improvements Draf
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Chapter 2Project Description2.1 Ove
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51: Estates Reservoir Replacement Draft
Page 58 and 59: Chapter 3Environmental Setting, Imp
Page 126 and 127: 3.6 Traffic and Circulation3.6.1 Ap
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 214 and 215:
Page 216 and 217:
Page 218 and 219:
CHAPTER 5Cumulative Impacts, Growth
Page 220 and 221:
Page 222 and 223:
Page 224 and 225:
Page 226 and 227:
Page 228 and 229:
Page 230 and 231:
CHAPTER 6Report Preparers6.1 Lead A
Page 232 and 233:
APPENDIX APublic InvolvementPublic
Page 234:
APPENDIX BNotice of PreparationAUGU
Page 238 and 239:
Dingee Pressure Zone Improvement Pr
Page 240 and 241:
Page 242 and 243:
Page 244 and 245:
Page 246 and 247:
Page 248 and 249:
Page 250 and 251:
Page 252 and 253:
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
Page 266 and 267:
Page 268 and 269:
Page 270 and 271:
Page 272 and 273:
Page 274 and 275:
FIGURESDingee Pressure Zone Improve
Page 276 and 277:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280:
show all

Draft Environmental Impact Report - East Bay Municipal Utility District

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?