1. A Class III Cultural Resource Survey for the San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District (SCIDD) Rehabilitation Project in Reach 2 of the SCIDD and Joint Works Irrigation Facilities, Pinal County, Arizona
- Author
-
Jones, Thomas and Rich, Jennifer
- Subjects
Historic ,Central Pinal County ,AZ U:15:662(ASM)/AZ U:15:5(REC) ,Historic Euro-American ,Florence-Casa Grande Canal ,Diversion Dam Road ,Artifact Scatter ,AZ U:15:124(ASM) ,Archaeological Overview ,AZ U:15:661(ASM)/AZ U:15:7(REC) ,Chipping Stations ,SCIP Utility Line ,EMATL Hayden-Coolidge Transmission Line ,Building Materials ,Ceramic Period ,AZ U:15:862(ASM) ,AZ U:15:665(ASM) ,AZ V:5:198(ASM) ,Reservoir ,Historic Background Research ,Historic US 80 ,AZ U:15:664(ASM) ,Chipped Stone ,Metal ,AZ U:15:667(ASM) ,Canal or Canal Feature ,Hohokam ,The Florence to Picacho Road ,Systematic Survey ,AZ U:15:861(ASM) ,Ceramic ,AZ FF:9:17(ASM) ,AZ AA:3:211(ASM) ,AZ U:15:253(ASM) ,Archaic ,Parshall Flume ,Road ,Euroamerican ,AZ U:15:860(ASM) ,AZ U:15:663(ASM) ,Ground Stone ,Florence Canal ,Glass ,AZ AA:3:215(ASM) ,Historic Electrical Distriution Lines ,Gauging Station - Abstract
As authorized under the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, the San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District (SCIDD) is undertaking a 10-year rehabilitation project of its irrigation system. SCIDD is the non-Indian irrigation component of the San Carlos Irrigation Project (SCIP), which provides irrigation water to the communities of Florence, Coolidge, and Casa Grande in Pinal County, Arizona. The Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office (Reclamation) directed Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd. (ACS) to conduct a Class III survey of the expanded area of potential effect, which includes utility relocations, turnouts, and staging areas, along Reaches 1, 2, and 3 of the SCIP Rehabilitation Project. This report contains the results of the Reach 2 supplemental survey. ACS documented 15 archaeological sites and 30 isolated occurrences during survey. Nine sites were recommended eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, 4 sites were recommended not eligible, and 2 could not be unevaluated based on the data available.
- Published
- 2017
- Full Text
- View/download PDF