Reso 2005-020 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

~.~ ENVIRONMENTAL CHECHI,IST TABLE 2-2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEYS CONDUCTED WITHIN 1/4 MILE OF THE PROJECT ALIGNMENT Date/# Author Title Recorded Resource Resources in Attributes Project Area 1978/ Sawyer, M. J. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of the Survey was None 5-1743 Hayward-San Leandro Transportation Corridar, negative identified Alameda, California Corridor, Alameda, California 1981/ Roop, VJ., et al. Literature Search and Field Reconnaissance of Survey was None S-2537 the Citation-Jeras Property, San Leandro- negative identified Bayshore, Alameda County. 1990/ Chavez, D. .Cultural Resources Investigations for the Port of Survey was None S-12439 Oakland Phase I Dredging, Cultural Resources negative identified Evaluation. 1993/ Baker, S. Archaeological Survey of Portions of the Survey was None S-15786 Metropolitan Oakland International Airport, negative identified 2002 Airport Development Program, Alameda County, California. Although no evidence of prehistoric or historic cultural resources were encountered within the Project area during the field survey, there is always a possibility that such resources may become apparent once vegetation is removed or during construction excavation. The Project azea is located in an area that was attractive to prehistoric inhabitants in light of the proximity to brackish and fresh water resources. Therefore, ground-disturbing activities have the potential to directly impact unidentified cultural resources. The potential for encountering and disturbing known or unknown cultural resources would be minimized to ales-than-significant level with the implementation of Measure CR-1. Judicators of prehistoric site activity include charcoal, obsidian or chert flakes, grinding bowls, shell fragments, bane, and pockets of dark, friable soils. Historic resources include glass, metal, ceramics, wood and similar debris. In addition to the following mitigation measures, a combination of preconstruction worker training and intermittent construction monitoring by a qualified archaeologist will serve to achieve compliance with the mitigation measures. Worker training typically instructs workers as to the potential for discovery of cultural or human remains, and both the need for proper and timely reporting of such fmds, and the consequences of failure thereof. Because implementation of the Project includes funding from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan, it is necessary to comply with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation Act (NHPA). The SRF is administered by the California State Water Resources Control Boazd (SWRCB} on behalf of the federal government, which provides money for the SRF program. As the de facto lead federal agency for compliance with the NHPA, it is the SWRCB's responsibility to consult with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before granting permits, funding, or other authorization of the undertaking. The Section 106 review process normally involves a four- San Leandro Rccyc~d Water Projec[ 2-20 ESA / ?A3193 Draft IS/NIND