Search

In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Phoenix Area Office (PXAO) began cultural resource surveys along the Central Arizona Project (CAP) main stem alignment shortly after the CAP was authorized. For the next 25 years, various cultural resource management contractors conducted inventories of the CAP, recording several hundred archaeological sites. From the 1970s to the 1980s, some of these sites were tested and/or excavated as mitigation for the construction of the CAP main stem canal. While many sites were determined eligible or not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Register), some did not receive eligibility determinations and some were located outside of the construction corridor and not affected by construction activities. The legacy survey data and site records from these various investigations have a number of errors and are sometimes contradictory. In an effort to better manage cultural resources on Reclamation land, PXAO has developed an archaeological site database for the CAP canal. The database was developed using all the previous main stem survey data; however, the Register eligibility status of the majority of these sites was unknown following completion of the CAP. Additionally, an unknown number of sites were either destroyed by construction or excavation, while others are no longer within Reclamation’s CAP ROW. It is necessary that the database accurately reflects the current Register eligibility status of all archaeological sites within the CAP ROW to ensure that PXAO can effectively manage these sites. To this end, PXAO has been updating its database and conducted consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 2015, seeking to resolve the eligibility status of sites within the CAP ROW. Following this consultation, the SHPO and PXAO agreed that based on the assessment data provided, further work was required on 117 sites along the Fannin-McFarland and Tucson Aqueducts. For 24 sites determined eligible for the Register, the maps from the original surveys were insufficient. For another 93 sites, the data provided was insufficient to determine whether a site was eligible or ineligible for inclusion in the Register. During ACS’ efforts to relocate 117 previously recorded sites along the Fannin-McFarland and Tucson Aqueducts, eligibility for 10 sites could not be determined and so eligibility testing was conducted at these 10 sites to determine Register eligibility or the extent to which subsurface deposits are likely present with the CAP ROW. Following this work, additional survey was conducted in selected portions of the CAP corridor to try and relocate 15 sites that could not be found due to destruction or misplotting. This file is the log of photographs taken during this project.

In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), Phoenix Area Office (PXAO) began cultural resource surveys along the Central Arizona Project (CAP) main stem alignment shortly after the CAP was authorized. For the next 25 years, various cultural resource management contractors conducted inventories of the CAP, recording several hundred archaeological sites. From the 1970s to the 1980s, some of these sites were tested and/or excavated as mitigation for the construction of the CAP main stem canal. While many sites were determined eligible or not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (Register), some did not receive eligibility determinations and some were located outside of the construction corridor and not affected by construction activities. The legacy survey data and site records from these various investigations have a number of errors and are sometimes contradictory. In an effort to better manage cultural resources on Reclamation land, PXAO has developed an archaeological site database for the CAP canal. The database was developed using all the previous main stem survey data; however, the Register eligibility status of the majority of these sites was unknown following completion of the CAP. Additionally, an unknown number of sites were either destroyed by construction or excavation, while others are no longer within Reclamation’s CAP ROW. It is necessary that the database accurately reflects the current Register eligibility status of all archaeological sites within the CAP ROW to ensure that PXAO can effectively manage these sites. To this end, PXAO has been updating its database and conducted consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 2015, seeking to resolve the eligibility status of sites within the CAP ROW. Following this consultation, the SHPO and PXAO agreed that based on the assessment data provided, further work was required on 117 sites along the Fannin-McFarland and Tucson Aqueducts. For 24 sites determined eligible for the Register, the maps from the original surveys were insufficient. For another 93 sites, the data provided was insufficient to determine whether a site was eligible or ineligible for inclusion in the Register.

In an effort to better manage cultural resources on Reclamation land, PXAO has developed an archaeological site database for the CAP canal. The database was developed using all the previous main stem survey data; however, the Register eligibility status of the majority of these sites was unknown following completion of the CAP. Additionally, an unknown number of sites were either destroyed by construction or excavation, while others are no longer within Reclamation’s CAP right-of-way (ROW). PXAO has been updating its database and conducted consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) in 2015, seeking to resolve the eligibility status of sites within the CAP ROW. Following this consultation, the SHPO and PXAO agreed that based on the assessment data provided, further work was required on 117 sites along the Fannin-McFarland and Tucson Aqueducts. ACS revisited the 117 sites in 2016. Eligibility for 27 sites could not be evaluated. This group includes sites that could not be relocated within the CAP ROW due to misplotting, destruction in the ROW, or were found outside the ROW. This group also includes three sites whose components within the ROW are not contributing to the site’s eligibility. Ten of the 27 sites that could not be evaluated for eligibility based on their surface manifestations are recommended for testing. Eligibility testing is recommended for these 10 sites and this document presents a Plan for eligibility testing.

ACS conducted testing at 10 sites within Reclamation’s CAP ROW seeking to resolve the National Register of Historic Places (Register) eligibility status of sites within the CAP ROW. This document presents the results of that testing.

In February 2017, Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd. (ACS) conducted a site relocation effort (Mitchell et al. 2017) of 117 sites that had not been evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (Register). Fifteen sites were not relocated at the plotted site location or within 200 meters around the site boundary within the Central Arizona Project (CAP) ROW. It was decided that additional survey would be beneficial to determine if these sites were misplotted and could be located by additional survey in their general locations. Survey was conducted around and between sites AZ U:10:5(ASM), AZ AA:3:24(ASM), AZ AA:3:47(ASM), AZ AA:3:62(ASM), AZ AA:3:63(ASM), AZ AA:11:29(ASM), AZ AA:12:125(ASM), AZ AA:12:353(ASM), AZ AA:12:354(ASM), AZ AA:12:355(ASM), AZ AA:12:453(ASM), AZ AA:12:579(ASM), AZ AA:12:624(ASM), AZ AA:16:158(ASM), and NA 18009. Additional survey was also conducted to examine other areas not surveyed since the 1960s and 1970s.

One of several construction programs proposed for inclusion in the Central Arizona Project was a system of aqueducts to link Parker Dam on the Colorado River in western Arizona and the Charleston Damsite on the San Pedro River in southeastern Arizona. Since the possibility existed that archaeological remains might be destroyed by necessary subjugation of lands for the aqueduct, the Southwest Archaeological Center of the National Park Service, U. S. Department of the Interior, made arrangements with several institutions to determine the extent of salvage archaeology requirements. The Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University was asked to conduct an archaeological survey of the Granite Reef and Salt-Gila Aqueducts from the Agua Fria River to the Gila River in central southern Arizona. A purchase order No. 931-18 was initiated by the Southwest Archaeological Center to assist Arizona State University in defraying expenses of the survey. Fieldwork on the program was undertaken with a dual purpose. First, it was necessary to complete the purposes for which the funds were made available, that was, a detailed inventory of sites endangered by proposed construction. Second, this project offered an opportunity to train students in one aspect of salvage archaeology. Since the proposed aqueduct route traversed several landforms and biotic zones, it was possible to include observations on settlement patterns, utilization of the environment, distribution of distinctive cultural remains, and a number of new concepts in surveying techniques. The observations and data obtained added significant depth to the usual survey for salvage archaeology purposes. Only a summary has been included here; detailed notes, as well as the collections, are on file at the Anthropology Laboratory, Arizona State University. Maps of the aqueduct routes were obtained from the Phoenix Office of the Bureau of Reclamation. No stakes were yet in place in the field and constant triangulation with instruments was necessary to be assured of map-field correspondence of location. Since changes in the line might occur when final designs are completed, every effort was made to extend the survey up to 100 meters or more on either side of the present right-of-way and proposed retarding dams. Effects of possible minor deviations were investigated; a major change would require examination of the new alignment. Arizona State University students primarily concerned with the training-research program were Don E. Simonis and Paul R. Fish. Christopher R. Lintz assisted during a major part of the program. Suzanne Kitchen and Joy Stanton were members of the field party upon several occasions. Field, laboratory, and classroom work was under the direction of Dr. Alfred E. Dittert, Jr.; Dr. James Schoenwetter provided additional instruction related to vegetation zones, surface pollen sampling, and similar specialized problems as they were encountered in the field. The research occupied available units of time between 1 October 1968 and 31 April 1969.