Search

As authorized under the Arizona Water Settlements Act of 2004, the San Carlos and Irrigation 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. To assist with project planning, Reclamation directed Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd. (ACS) to conduct a Class I overview of the project area, updating previous Class I reports compiled by Doyel et al. (1995) and Woodson (2000). The Class I update revealed that 172 cultural resource investigations have been conducted within the APE and review area. Although the cultural resource surveys cover approximately 22 percent of the APE and review area, most were conducted more than 10 years ago, or are on the verge. As such, only five percent of the review area was adequately surveyed within the last 10 years. In total, 187 sites have been recorded within the APE and review area, and include a variety of site types and ages and eligible, not eligible, and unknown eligibility determinations to the National Register. The bulk of the sites are prehistoric (n = 121) and include Archaic and Hohokam artifact scatters, habitation sites, resource and procurement sites, and sites with features such as petroglyphs and rock features. At least 52 documented sites are historic, a number of which are associated with the SCIDD and Joint Works system. Other historic sites include homestead sites, structures, roads and highways, railroads and trash scatters. Another 12 sites have been characterized as multicomponent, the bulk of which comprise artifact scatters, some with features, with both prehistoric and historic components. The bulk of the sites had not been evaluated for eligibility (n = 65) or no information is available for them (n = 2). Of the remaining cultural resources that were evaluated, two archaeological districts (Blackwater and Florence) and one structure (the Arizona State Prison Captain of the Guards House) are listed on the State Inventory; 34 sites have been determined eligible for inclusion on the State and/or National Registers; 52 have been recommended eligible; one has been recommended for eligibility testing; and 27 have been recommended as not eligible. Three large prehistoric Hohokam habitation sites along the Gila River are listed on the National Register, including Adamsville Ruin (AZ U:15:1[ASM]), Grewe site (AZ AA:2:2[ASM]) and a site cluster (House Mound) within Casa Grande Ruins National Monument (AZ AA:2:16[ASM]). In addition to the projects and site record checks, historic GLO plat maps and MTP records reveal a number of potentially undocumented historic features and structures in the review area including houses, buildings, canals, ditches, fence lines, railroads, roads, utility lines, and agricultural fields. Modern urban development and expansion of agricultural activity in the area may have obscured or obliterated many of these features. This is the Class I report. A photo of a petroglyph identified during the assessment can be accessed at tDAR ID: 393776.

The Bureau of Reclamation, Phoenix Area Office (Reclamation), undertook the development of a Water Management Plan (WMP) as part of the Central Arizona Project (CAP). In consultation with the San Carlos Irrigation Project (SCIP), the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), and the San Carlos Irrigation and Drainage District (SCIDD), it was proposed that the Joint Works would require rehabilitation or replacement to facilitate the WMP, specifically the delivery of water to the Pima-Maricopa Irrigation Project (P-MIP). The Joint Works consist of SCIP facilities that are used jointly by GRIC and SCIDD for their respective water delivery systems. As part of the SCIP Joint Works Rehabilitation Project, Reclamation directed Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd. (ACS) to conduct a Class I overview of the area that would be impacted by this undertaking. ACS identified 103 previous cultural resource projects had been completed within the area of potential effect, resulting in the identification of 196 archaeological sites, many with multiple components. Of these sites, the majority were prehistoric and associated with the Hohokam. ACS also consulted General Land Office Records (GLO) and identified an additional 178 features. The historical-period sites identified during this project date from the mid-1860s to the 1960s. The report discussion focuses on the quality and reliability of the data, research potential in the project area, and preliminary recommendations regarding eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.

This report presents the results of the Class II (sample) survey of the Tucson Division of the Central Arizona Project. The survey was designed to test the predictive model developed as a part of the Class I (overview) survey of the project area (Westfall 1979). Statistical tests using the survey data show that the model was not particularly successful in predicting the location of cultural resources within the survey area and that it definitely underestimated the archaeological sensitivity of Zone 4, the creosote-bursage community, which covers most of the project area. Although there was no significant difference in the frequency of sites between zones, the survey results suggest that Zone 3, which includes the desert wash systems of the area, is relatively higher in archaeological sensitivity. An alternate model based on topography and availability of water is evaluated using the survey data. This model may provide a more accurate approximation of site distribution. Finally, recommendations for selection of an aqueduct alignment or alignments and for future archaeological work are provided. As suggested by Westfall, the areas along major water sources such as the Santa Cruz River, McClellan, Brady, and possibly Durham washes, are high in archaeological sensitivity. More sites and larger, more complex sites are concentrated in these areas; construction in these areas should be minimized or avoided if possible. Additional archaeological studies should attempt to assess the relationships between sites, and to determine whether the topographic model proposed in this report may be a reliable predictor of site location. Further survey may permit refinement of this model, or may suggest an alternative which is a better estimator of site distribution. The necessary data concerning functional site types are not readily derived from surface observations, and model testing may await excavation of some sites in the area.