Message #393: From: AzTeC SW Archaeology SIG To: "'Matthias Giessler'" Subject: Testing Plan for McDowell-Gilbert Road (Part I) Date: Tue, 03 Dec 96 08:44:00 MST Encoding: 450 TEXT From: Glenn P Darrington Subject: Testing Plan to SASIG Date: Monday, December 02, 1996 12:31PM Dear Brian: We have no objections to you sending the Dames & Moore testing plan to the SASIG membership (great idea). Sincerly, Glenn Darrington, Dames & Moore [ SASIG Readers -- Please note -- At http://www.sscf.ucsb.edu:80/SAABulletin/14.5/SAA17.html you will find an article titled "THE MANY FACES OF CRM -- The Business of Archaeology: Planning the Work of Cultural Resource Compliance" by Janet L. Friedman. The SAA Bulletin article contains great information about writing successful scopes of work, and, responding to scopes of work. The consulting firm of Dames and Moore (DM) recently prepared an archaeological testing proposal for MCDOT. The SASIG presents the DM proposal in two parts (sorry -- tables and graphics have been stripped from this electronic version). MCDOT views the DM proposal as a highly successful response to our on-call CRM needs. We plan to be in the field in a few weeks. -- Brian Kenny, MCDOT ] ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING PLAN FOR THE McDOWELL ROAD AND GILBERT ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MESA, ARIZONA prepared for Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2901 W. Durango Street Phoenix, Arizona 85009 under Archaeological On-Call Services Contract No. 1996-39/C64-97-079-5 prepared by Glenn P. Darrington & A.E. Rogge, Dames & Moore, 7500 N. Dreamy Draw Drive, Suite 145, Phoenix, Arizona 85020 19 November 1996 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Introduction 1 Regulatory Setting 1 Natural Environment 4 Cultural Setting 4 Goals and Organization of the Testing Plan 7 Research Perspective 9 Investigative Strategies, Methods, and Procedures 10 Archival Research 10 Backhoe Trenching 10 Mapping and Feature Recording 10 Laboratory Methods 12 Reporting 12 Implementing the Testing Plan 13 Schedule and Estimated and Level of Effort 13 Study Team 13 Organizational Qualifications 14 Summary and Conclusions 14 References Cited 15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Project Vicinity 2 Figure 2 Project Area 8 Figure 3 Proposed Trenching Plan 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Estimated Effort 14 ABSTRACT The document proposes a testing plan to assess the potential for subsurface archaeological deposits within the construction area for the McDowell Road and Gilbert Road Intersection Improvement Project located in Mesa, Arizona. The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is proposing to construct turning lanes and install traffic lights to accommodate the volume of traffic at the intersection. This requires an increase of the existing right-of-way for the streets approaching the intersection by up to 22 feet plus an additional 15 to 30 feet of contemporary construction easements in parts of the project area. The project area is located on lands managed by Maricopa County and the City of Mesa, plus new right-of-way being acquired from private landowners. A small parcel of federal land administered by the Bureau of Reclamation, measuring 22 feet by 64 feet, may also be acquired near the extreme southern end of the project area. Although previous archaeological surveys conducted for the proposed project resulted in the recording of only two isolated prehistoric artifacts, archaeological testing has been recommended because archival information suggests the possibility of two prehistoric irrigation canal alignments being present within the construction zone. Several other large prehistoric Hohokam villages have been mapped in the vicinity of the project, and based on recollections of local residents, there also appears to be some potential for buried historic features as well. The proposed testing plan is formulated to assist MCDOT's compliance with the Arizona Antiquities Act. The proposed plan focuses on excavation of a series of backhoe trenches, aggregating to a total of approximately 2,000 to 2,500 linear feet. The strategy is designed to provide a sufficient sample of subsurface deposits to determine whether archaeological resources are present, and to document such resources sufficiently to formulate recommendations regarding their significance and treatment. In addition, the plan proposes additional background research focusing on the historic occupation of the project area. ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING PLAN FOR THE McDOWELL ROAD AND GILBERT ROAD INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT INTRODUCTION The Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT) is proposing to widen the intersection of McDowell and Gilbert roads located in Mesa, Arizona (Figure 1). The proposed project will involve construction of turning lanes and installation of traffic lights to accommodate the volume of traffic through the intersection. The project requires widening each road as it approaches the intersection. MCDOT will acquire up to 22 feet of additional permanent right-of-way, increasing the present right-of-way along these road segments up to 88 feet. In addition, approximate temporary construction easements 15 to 30 feet wide will be needed in some areas. The project area is located in southeastern Maricopa County, at the boundary between the City of Mesa and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. The intersection of McDowell and Gilbert roads lies at the juncture of four townships, and includes portions of Section 1, T1N, R5E; Section 6, T1N, R6E; and Section 31, T2N, R6E. The project area has been designed to avoid any further encroachment onto the Salt River Indian Reservation and does not include any portion of T2N, R5E. The existing right-of-way is held by Maricopa County and the City of Mesa. Additional rights-of-way are being acquired from private landowners. A very small parcel of federal land may be needed at the extreme southern end of the project. This parcel, measuring 22 feet by 64 feet, is administered by the Bureau of Reclamation as an abandoned well site adjacent to the Consolidated Canal. Two previous archaeological surveys have been conducted for the proposed project area (Davis 1994; Mitchell 1995). Each of these studies resulted in the recording of only a single isolated prehistoric artifact, but archival information indicates two prehistoric irrigation canal alignments pass through the project area. Several other large prehistoric Hohokam villages have been mapped in the vicinity. Mormon settlers arrived in the 1870s and the historic community of Lehi is situated approximately a mile to the west of the project area. Therefore archaeological testing was recommended to assess the potential for subsurface archaeological deposits that might provide important information about the Hohokam or Mormon settlement of the region. Dames & Moore was retained under an on-call contract with MCDOT to conduct the proposed archaeological testing. Regulatory Context The archaeological investigations are being undertaken to comply with the Arizona Antiquities Act (Arizona Revised Statutes Title 41, Chapter 4.1, Section 41-841 through 41-846, 3-906.01, 13-3702, and 13-3702.01). Section 41-844 of the Act stipulates that "A person in charge of any survey, excavation or construction on any lands owned or controlled by . . . any county . . .shall report promptly to the director of the Arizona State Museum the existence of any archaeological, paleontological or historical site or object that is at least fifty years old and that is discovered in the course of such survey, excavation or construction or other like activity and, in consultation with the director, and shall immediately take all reasonable steps to secure its preservation." MCDOT has established procedures for incorporating archaeological surveys into the planning of transportation projects to proactively address this requirement in an attempt to avoid delays in project implementation schedules. Figure 1 Project Location The Arizona Antiquities Act protects any "historic or prehistoric ruin, burial ground, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, or site including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature" (Section 41-841) An archaeological specimen is defined as "any item resulting from past human life or activities which is at least one hundred years old including ptetroglyphs, pictographs, paintings, pottery, tools, ornaments, jewelry, textiles, ceremonial objects, weapons, armaments, vessels, ships, vehicles and human skeletal remains." (Section 41-841). A 1990 amendment (ARS 41-844) requires the ASM director to consult with interested parties in determining the disposition of human remains, funerary objects, sacred ceremonial objects, and objects of national or tribal patrimony found on state lands, including lands owned or controlled by counties, municipalities, or other agencies and public institutions of the state (Section 41-844). Section 41-842 of the Antiquities Act stipulates that investigation of antiquities on state lands must be done under the terms of permits issued by the ASM director. Therefore, we will apply for and obtain such a permit before initiating any fieldwork. All investigations will be conducted in accordance with stipulations of the permit. MCDOT has determined that its activities are not governed by the State Historic Preservation Act, but MCDOT nevertheless routinely provides the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) an opportunity to comment on the agency's undertakings concurrent with MCDOT's consultations with the ASM director. This "voluntary compliance" typically follows a three-step framework: (1) identification and evaluation to determine if historic properties are present, (2) assessment of potential effects of a proposed project have on historic properties, and (3) consultation to determine mitigative measures to avoid or lessen negative effects. (These procedures are modeled on the federal regulatory process for complying with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.) The criteria for evaluating the significance of "historic properties" protected by the State Historic Preservation Act are those for listing on the State Register of Historic Places (which are essentially identical to National Register criteria). To be determined eligible for inclusion on the Arizona State Register properties must be important in history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. They also must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet at least one of four criteria: criterion A: are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history criterion B: are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past criterion C: embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction criterion D: have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Natural Environment The project area is located approximately one mile south of the Salt River near the northeastern margin of the Gila-Salt Basin, which is within the Basin and Range physiographic province as defined by Thornbury (1965). Generally, this portion of the province is characterized by flat desert valleys with isolated mountain ranges. Elevations range from about 1,200 feet in the desert flats to about 2,000 feet on some peaks. The elevation of the project area is approximately 1,256 feet. The local climate ranges from summer highs of 115 degrees Fahrenheit to occasional below freezing temperatures in the winter. Precipitation averages less than 10 inches a year with rains generally limited to distinct seasons. The summer rains fall between July and September, while the winter rains occur from December to March (National Cooperative Soil Survey 1986). The project area falls within the Lower Sonoran vegetation zone, but has been heavily modified by urban and agricultural development. Prehistoric vegetation communities were probably dominated by a bursage-creosote bush community, with cacti and paloverde trees in hilly, well-drained areas. Prehistorically, extensive marsh areas may have bordered sections of the Salt River, supporting cattail, reeds, bullrush, and arrowweed. Trees, including cottonwood, willow and mesquite, probably grew along the river channel. Prehistoric canals may have been lined with a dense growth of shrubs (Yablon and others 1981:8). Today, there is little to no native vegetation present. Non-native vegetation includes citrus orchards, horse pastures, alfalfa, and a few salt cedar trees (Tamarix sp). Prehistoric fauna probably included abundant small animals such as rabbits, ground squirrel, rats, and mice, as well as reptiles such as snakes and lizards. Larger species, including mule deer and coyote, were also relatively abundant. The presence of marsh areas probably attracted large numbers of birds and supported a large fish, turtle, and amphibian population (Yablon and others 1981). The soils in the vicinity of the project area consist of recent alluvium, accumulated below the Pleistocene terrace that rises just to the south of the project area. The sediments within the direct project area, however, have been heavily disturbed by activities associated with road construction and agricultural development. Cultural Setting Human occupation of the area began with a long, relatively stable life way based on hunting and gathering of native animal and plant foods. After several thousand years of this hunting and gathering adaptation, a culture labeled "Hohokam" appeared. The Hohokam developed a farming economy, and this dynamic society grew and flourished for a millennium or more. When the first European explorers arrived in the Salt River Valley, the region was largely an uninhabited border zone between the Gila River Pimans to the south, and the territory of the Yavapai and Apache to the north and east. Euro-American settlement did not occur until the territory was acquired by the United States and the U.S. Army conquered the Yavapai and Apache. Paleo-Indian and Archaic Eras The Paleo-Indian period is the oldest firmly documented occupation of the New World, dating in the southwestern United States from approximately12,000 to 8,500 BC. Paleo-Indians were nomadic hunters of large game, such as mammoth and giant bison. Paleo-Indian sites are rarely found in the project vicinity, probably due primarily to difficulty of finding them under deep layers of alluvial deposits and their inherent rarity (Marmaduke and Conway 1984). The transition to the Holocene epoch began in Arizona approximately 11,000 years ago (Hendricks 1985), but there are unresolved debates about the nature of major climatic fluctuation in the period between 11,000 to 4,500 years ago (Antevs 1948, 1955; Martin 1963; Van Devender and Spaulding 1979). The Archaic life way developed during the change from the cooler, moister conditions of the Pleistocene epoch to warmer, drier climatic conditions not unlike those of today. Archaic peoples adapted to these climatic changes and the extinction of big game animals by exploiting a broad diversity of native plants and hunting smaller game such as deer and rabbits. Cultural remains documenting Archaic occupations within the Gila-Salt Basin are uncommon. Formative Era Recorded evidence of the prehistoric occupation of the Gila-Salt Basin is overwhelmingly dominated by the remains of Hohokam material culture. The Hohokam were village dwelling farmers and artisans, who developed elaborate agricultural irrigation networks. Their sites of occupation are commonly marked by copious amounts of broken pottery, some of which is elaborately decorated, and other artifacts such as pieces of shell jewelry. The Hohokam have been the subject of relatively intensive study in the Gila-Salt Basin (for example, Crown 1987, 1991; Doyel 1981; Gladwin and others 1938; Haury 1976; Wilcox and Sternberg 1983). There are four (some researchers argue for five) major periods in the Hohokam chronology which in turn, are divided into a number of phases based on differences in decorated ceramics, other artifact styles, architectural styles, and mortuary practices. The Hohokam culture-historical sequence is reasonably well dated, except for the initial appearance of the tradition (Dean 1991; Eighmy and McGuire 1988; Haury 1976; Plog 1980; Schiffer 1982). The chronological sequence proposed by Dean (1991) is followed here. Archaeologists have argued for many years about Hohokam origins. The cultural tradition is viewed on the one hand as an indigenous outgrowth of the preceding Archaic sequence, or alternatively as the result of immigration from Mesoamerica. Many investigators favor the hypothesis of indigenous development (for example, Cable and Doyel 1987; Doelle 1985; Fish and others 1985, 1986), and very recent research in the Tucson and Phoenix basins document the presence of Late Archaic, ceramic producing, agriculturally oriented pit house villages (for example, Mabry and Clark 1994). About 15 years ago, researchers began to attempt reconstructions of the far flung Hohokam "regional system" (Crown and Judge 1991; Wilcox 1979, 1980). The Hohokam "core" area was viewed as the Gila-Salt Basin, which in turn was seen as having been surrounded by a number of peripheral subareas. To the north and east, peripheral areas centered on the Agua Fria River, Verde River, and Tonto Basin are defined. Peripheries south and east of the Gila-Salt Basin include the Safford, San Pedro, Tucson Basin, and Upper Santa Cruz areas. To the west and south, peripheral areas include the Gila Bend area and the eastern and western subdivisions of the Papagueria. Shifts through time in interaction between the core and peripheral areas are the focus on ongoing investigation. The following discussion is limited to a consideration of the Gila-Salt Basin. In the Gila-Salt Basin, the Pioneer period (about AD 300-775) is divided into four phases, but an earlier manifestation, the Red Mountain phase, which predates AD 300, also has been recognized (Cable and Doyel 1987). This phase was originally recognized by Morris (1969), but only very recently has corroborating evidence been recognized. From the few sites that have been investigated, the Red Mountain phase appears similar to the terminal Late Archaic sites documented in the Tucson Basin, and its relation to subsequent Hohokam phases, as in the Tucson Basin, remains unclear. The four succeeding Pioneer period Hohokam phases include Vahki (AD 300-500), Estrella (500-600), Sweetwater (600-700), and Snaketown (700-775) (Dean 1991). Changes primarily in ceramics and architecture signal differences among Pioneer period phases. Phases defined for the Colonial period (about AD 775-975) include Gila Butte (775-850) and Santa Cruz (850-975). It is during the Colonial period that domestic architectural units began to be arranged into clusters or courtyard groups (Howard 1985; Wilcox and others 1981). Monumental architecture in the form of ballcourts also is recognized at some of the more substantial Colonial period villages in the Salt-Gila Basin. Usually a single phase is associated with the Sedentary period (about 975-1150). In the Gila-Salt Basin this is the Sactaon phase. A Santan phase, transitional to the Classic period, is sometimes defined. The Sedentary period witnessed further expansion of settlements and canal irrigation systems as well as the development of various alternate agricultural strategies. The construction of ballcourts continued and another form of monumental architecture, the platform mound, was developed. Hierarchical relationships among Sedentary period sites are recognized in the Gila-Salt Basin as well as the Tucson Basin (Doelle and others 1987; Gregory 1991; Howard 1987; Wilcox and Sternberg 1983). The Classic period is divided into two phases in the Gila-Salt Basin. These are the Soho (1150-1300) and Civano (1300-1400) phases. The Classic period contrasts shapely with the pre-Classic periods, exhibiting radical shifts in material culture, architecture, mortuary practices, and settlement patterning. Agricultural intensification occurred in the Gila-Salt and Tucson basins, and it has been argued that the Tucson Basin increased in importance as a regional center at this time (Doelle and Wallace 1991). A Late Classic or post-Classic occupation, labeled the Polveron phase, has been identified at a small number of sites in the Gila-Salt Basin (Crown and Sires 1984; Rapp 1996; Sires 1983). Researchers still are wrestling with how to interpret this phase (for example, Chenault 1995; Craig 1995; Hackbarth 1995), which is notable for pit houses constructed on top of apparently abandoned platform mounds, small clusters of pit house in other settings, and high quantities of obsidian debitage. Red-on-brown decorated wares are common as are Salado Polychromes; and Hopi yellow wares, although not common, are usually present. Prehistoric sites and canals have been mapped in the Salt River Valley by numerous researchers for several decades. Figure 2 depicts a summary of that information recently compiled by Howard and Huckleberry 1991) for the immediate project area. Two prehistoric canal segments pass through the project area, and several large Hohokam village sites are plotted in the immediate vicinity of the project area as well. The larger sites include Casa de Omni, Crismon Pueblo, Pueblo Moroni, Las Ruinitas, and site AZ U:9:10 (PG). Howard (1987) has referred to these sites as being part of the Lehi canal system community. Little prior research, other than mapping, has been conducted at these sites and canals. Ethnohistoric Groups and Euro-American Settlers When Europeans first arrived in the Phoenix area, they did not encounter any permanent occupants (Cable 1990). The basin was near the contested boundary of territories of Piman villagers who resided on the Gila River to the south, the Yavapais, who lived to the north and west, and the Western Apaches who lived to the northeast and east. By this time, the Pima had also been joined by the Yuman-speaking Maricopa, who migrated up the Gila River from their homeland on the lower Colorado River. Although modern O'odham groups claim affinity with the Hohokam, as do other groups such as the Hopi, the relationship between these ethnohistoric groups and the preceding Hohokam is more difficult to demonstrate archaeologically. Recent re-examination of O'odham and Hopi oral traditions may provide the basis for beginning to better understand the very late prehistoric and protohistoric periods (Teague 1993). The presence of the Hohokam is well documented by archaeological evidence up to about AD 1400. Physical evidence of subsequent periods is rare, however, and the ethnohistoric groups are difficult to recognize archaeologically. No settlement of the Salt River Valley was ever made during the eras of Spanish and Mexican rule of the region. The United States acquired the territory in 1848 under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo at the conclusion of the War with Mexico. In 1865 Fort McDowell (originally known as Camp Verde, and then Camp McDowell) was established approximately 15 miles northeast of the project area near the confluence of the Salt and Verde rivers. This military installation "controlled" the Yavapais and Apaches who resisted Euro-American takeover of their territories and paved the way for the first non-Native settlement in the Salt River Valley. Mormon colonists arrived in the area in the late 1870s. Their first settlement, Utahville, soon failed, but another community, laid out nearby, and remains known today as Lehi (Granger 1983). Subsequent Mormon settlement in the community of Mesa soon grew to overshadow Lehi. The Mormon colonists, like the Hohokam before, survived by developing irrigation agricultural systems. Goals and Organization of the Testing Plan The primary goal of this testing plan is to assist MCDOT in complying with the Arizona Antiquities Act. The compliance strategy is based on determining whether significant archaeological deposits and features are present within the project area, and if so, assessing the potential impacts of the proposed road construction. Figure 2 Project Area The next section of the plan outlines our research perspective, and is followed by a discussion of proposed background research, fieldwork, analysis, and reporting strategies. A proposed schedule is then outlined, along with an estimated level of effort. Key study team personnel are then identified. Cited references are listed at the end of the plan.