A250 • Appendix 2-1 APPENDIX 2-1 SECTION 106 CONSULTATION Appendix 2-1, Section 106 Consultation, contains a record of communications pertaining to the Section 106 Consultation process pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act. Correspondence is generally organized in chronological order by original inquiries with the exception of responses to original inquiries. Responses to original inquiries, regardless of the date, immediately follow the original inquiries. The reader is referred to the Cultural Resources section of Chapter 4, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Mitigation and Chapter 2, Gila River Indian Community Coordination. Appendix 2-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Mr. Garry Cantley, Archaeologist, Bureau of Indian Affairs Ms. Connie Stone, Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management Ms. Carol Heathington, Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Todd Hileman, City Manager, City of Avondale Mr. Pat McDermott, City Manager, City of Chandler Mr. Todd Bostwick, Archaeologist, City of Phoenix Ms. Barbara Stocklin, Historical Preservation Office, City of Phoenix Mr. Ralph Valez, City Manager, City of Tolleson Mr. Rick Anduze, Archaeologist, Salt River Project Mr. David Jacobs, Ph.D., Compliance Specialist, State Historic Preservation Office Mr. Terry Enos, Chairman, Ak Chin Indian Community Mr. Richard Narcia, Gila River Indian Community Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Cultural Preservation Office, Hopi Tribe Ms. Joni Ramos, President, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Mr. Pete Steere, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Tohono O’odham Nation Mr. Joe Joaquin, Cultural Affairs Office, Tohono O’odham Nation Mr. Vincent Randall, Chairman, Yavapai-Apache Nation Mr. Ernest Jones, Sr., President, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe • A251 A252 • Appendix 2-1 Katherine Neustadt City of Phoenix HISTORIC PRESERVATION OfFICE Barbara.Stocklin@phoenix.gov Tuesday, September 09,2003 7:19PM KNeustadt@dot.state.az.us SLaine@dot.state.az.us; jgarrison@pr.state.az.us; bcollins@pr.state.az.us RE: Loop 202 , South Mountain, HA-AZ, NH-202-D(ADY), 202L MA 054 H5764 01 L From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: September 8, 2003 Robert E. Hollis D ivision Administrator U.S. Department ofTransportation FHW A- Arizona Division 400 E. Van Buren Street Phoenix, AZ 85004 Thanks for the information Kim. I continue to recommend that a "records search" effort occur for historic nonarcheological properties at this stage in the proj ect prior to selection of altem atives just as it has for archeological resources. Identification efforts for archeological and non-archeological historic resources should parallel one another. If archeological resources and other environmental resources/impacts are being identified at this preliminary stage prior to selection of alternatives. then the same level of identification effort should be ocurring at the same time for nonarcheological cultural resources. I don't understand why they would be treated differently. Re: HA-AZ, NR-202(ADY), 202L MA 054 H5764 0 I L, Loop 202, South Mountain, Initial Section I 06 Consultation Dear Mr. Hollis: Your office recently forwarded a "Class I" report to my office regarding the proposed Loop 202 freeway conidor. The purpose of the report as explained in your letter is to identify "previously recorded cultural resources" to help with the process of identifying feasible project alternatives for the proposed freeway. I have a number of concerns regarding this report. They are as follows: +It does not appear that this initial study attempted to identify non-archeological historic properties that have been previously identified through historic surveys or determined National Register eligible by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). I am aware of at least several known National Register eligible historic properties located within the conidor area, including the Webster Farmstead at 75th Avenue and Baseline Road (previously determined National Register eligible by the SHPO), South Mountain Park (may or may not be partially in the boundaries of the conidor study), and potentially historic canals and canal laterals (need to confer with Bureau of Reclamation and Salt River Project). +A search of the National Register and Sectiop I 06 files of the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office and the survey files of the City Historic Preservation Office is needed to locate any historic nonarcheological properties in the project conidor and "to identify previously recorded cultural resources" as stated in your letter. We highly recommend that the cultura.l resources "Class I Overview" by amended at this time to incorporate a records search of surveyed and designated historic buildings, structures, districts and objects. +My office also recommends that all further cultural resources identification efforts for this project include a qualified architectural historian on the identification team. This is needed given the high potential to locate other historic non-archeological properties within the project's area of potential effects. My office would desire that non-historic cultural resourc~s show up on the same constraints map on which archeological resources appear when ADOT draws/decides on its selection of alternatives to consider further. If ADOT sees a known National Register historic property on their constraints map, then hopefully they would think twice before even drawing an alternative that might include that resource. I don't recommend that a programmatic agreement be executed prior to ADOT at least doing a records search for nonarcheological cultural resources so that all parties have at least a conceptual idea as to the extent and type of historic resources that may be impacted by the project. As previously noted, there are known National Register eligible/listed historic properties in the project corridor. I don't forsee the suggestion that ADPTdo a records search of known historic resources prior to executing a Programmatic Agreement as an unreasonable request. This should be a relatively easy and rou tine request for a large public agency as ADOT who carries out Section 106 responsibilities on a regular basis. However, I will defer to the SHPO for their opinion. Thanx. Barbara Stocklin City of Phoenix, Historic Preservation Officer KNeustadt@dot.state.a~us 09/09/2003 10:00 AM To: Barbara StoclUr consideration. .. ~ ·: · : .,. :. · EJS:lj :2003 .. ·.. ·. ··· xc: John Ravesloot, Barnaby Lewis, Gila River Indian Community Cultural Resources Management Program Kae Neustadt, Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona State Histo ric Preservation Office :·.....~ .. ... ...: . P.O. Box 123 KYKOTSMOVI,, AZ 86039 (928) 734-3000 530 E . MERRITT PRESCOTT, AZ 863 01-2038 Phone 928-445-8790 FAX 928-778-9445 Appendix 2-1 • A255 2 U.S. D~PARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMJNlSTRATION ARIZONA DMS!ON One Arizona Center, Suite 410 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, AZ. 85004 August 20, 2003 IN REPLY REFER TO HA-AZ l\lH-202-D(ADY ) 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Loop 202, South Mountain Initial Section I 06 Consultation Ms. Carol Heathington Bureau of Reclamation P.O. Box 81169 2222· W. Dunlap, Suite 330 Phoenix,Puizona 85069-1169 Dear Ms. Heathington: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the PuizonaDepartment ofTransportation (ADOT) are planning to construct a loop highway between Interstate 10 (I-1 0) west of Phoenix to the I-1 0 south ofPhoenix. As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives have not yet been decided, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Western Area Power Administration (WAP A), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Cities of Phoenix, Avondale, Tolleson and Chandler, the Salt River Project (SRP), Roosevelt Irrigation District, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Ak Chin Indian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SR?MIC), the Tohono ()'yclhi>Ill Nution, tl1c Hvpi Tribe, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe and the Yavapai Apache Nation. · Cashion site, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An additional 27 sites were previously recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Fifteen (15) sites were identified as being previously___:: recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. One hundred thirty-six (136) sites either were not evaluated for the NRHP eligibility or would require additional information in order. to determine their NRHP eligibility. The Class I overview acknowledges the presence of prior survey data for the South Mountain corridor area and the need for further investigations into the eligibility of the historic properties identified within the corridor. FHWA recommends thaf future cultural resource survey and eligibility determinations be made once potential project alternatives are identified. As a cultural resources survey has not yet occurred for this project, FHW A is not currently making any recommendations of project effect. As additional information regarding the project alternatives, project scope, and historic properties becomes available, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section l.Q6 co!!~u~tation. . Howev~r, h.ecause t!.:)e likelihood is high that historic properties would be · affected, FHWA proposes that a Programmatic Agreement (PA) be developed to address the effects of the project as they become known. Please review the enclosed report and the information provided in this letter. If you agree with FHWA's recommendation that this report serve as consultation initiation and that consultation regarding eligibility, area of potential effect, and project scope as well as effect, be continued once surveys of the preferred alternatives are completed and that a PA be developed to address potential impacts to historic properties, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist at 602-712-8148 or email kneustadt@dot.state.az. us. Thank you. Sincerely, · ~vtL ~ Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator The scope of this project would involve the construction of.a freeway to connect I-1 0 south of Phoenix. to I-10 west ofPhoenix. The project team is in the process of identifying potential project alternatives, but the area of potential effect (APE) has not yet been defined. · II~ 03 Date The GRIC Cultural Resources Management Program performed a Class I overview of the freeway corridor to identify previously recorded cultural resources. The results of the Class I overview are presented in a draft report entitled "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Freeway Corr.idor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002) and is enclosed for your review. A total of 301 cultural resources were identified as being within the proposed project corridor. Two of" these cultural resources, sites AZ T: 12:9(ASM), the Villa Buena site, and site AZ T: 11 :39(ASM), the Enclosure A256 • Appendix 2-1 2 - U.S. DEPMh"IfffiN.f o~i'lr:R!!\.!~SPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ARlZONA DIVISION One Arizona Center, Suite 410 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, AZ. 85004 August 20, 2003 fN REPLY REFER TO HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY ) 202LMA 054 H5764 OIL .Loop 202, South Mountain lniti31 Section l 06 Co!'..sult3ti<:-!! Mr. Todd Bostwick Archaeologjst City of Phoenix Pueblo Grande Museum 4619 E. Washington Phoenix,luizona 85034 Dear Mr. Bostwick: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are planning to construct a loop highway between Interstate 10 (I-10) west of Phoenix to the I-10 south of Phoenix. As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives have not yet been decided, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHW A, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the luizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Cities of Phoenix, Avondale, Tolleson and Chandler, the Salt River Project (SRP), Roosevelt Irrigation District, the Gila River Indian Community (GRJC), the Ak Chin Indian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRP:MIC), the Tohono O'odharn Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe and the Yavapai Apache Nation. A total of301 cultural resources were identified as being within the proposed project corridor. Two of these cultural resources, sites AZ T: 12:9(ASM), the Villa Buena site, and si_te AZ T: 11 :39(ASM), the Cashion site, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An additional27 sites were previously recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Fifteen (15) sites were identified as being previously recommended as ineligjble to the NRHP. One hundred thirty-six (136) sites either were not evaluated for the NRHP eligibility or would require additional information in order to determine their NRHP eligibility. The Class I overview acknowledges the presence of prior survey data for the South Mountain corridor area and the need for further investigations into the eligibility of the historic properties identified within the corridor. FHWA recommends that future cultural resource survey and eligibility determinations be made once potential project alternatives are identified. As a cultural resources survey has not yet occurred for this project, FHWA is not currently making any recommendations of project effect. As additional information regarding the project alternatives, project scope, and historic properties becomes available; it wi.ll be provided to your ~gency through continued Section 106 consultation. However, because the likelihood is high that historic properties would be affected, FHWA proposes that a Programmatic Agreement (P A) be developed to address the effects of the project as they become known. Please review the enclosed report and the information provided in this letter. If you agree with FHWA's recommendation that this report serve as consultation initiation and that consultation regarding eligibility, area of potential effect, and project scope as well as effect, be continued once surveys oftbe preferred alternatives are completed and that a PA be developed to address potential impacts to historic properties, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist at 602-712-8148 or email kneustadt@dot.state.az.us. Thank you. ' Sincerely, ~:~ Division Administrator The scope of this project would involve the construction of a freeway to connect I-1 0 south ofPhoenix to I-10 west of Phoenix. The project team is in the process of identifying potential project alternatives, but the area of potential effect (APE) h'!-s not yet been defined. The GRJC Cultural Resources Management Program perfonned a Class I overview of the freeway corridor to identify previously recorded cultural resources. The results of the Class I overview are presented in a draft report entitled "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002) and is enclosed for your review. Date Enclosure Appendix 2-1 Archaeology Section Pueblo Grande Museum 4619 E. Washington St. Phoenix, Al. 85034 City of Phoenix ·,; . ··' .. Report Review:forni Project No.: ADOT _;. ). Stubing, Michael, ChrisT. Wenker, John M. Lindly, Ph.D., and Douglas Mitchell 2000 Archaeological Testing .a t Site AZ T:l2:117 (ASM) for the Foothills Reserve Development, Phoenix, Arizona. SWCA Cultural Resource Report No. 00-91. . Date Report Submitted: 9-5-03 Report Title: A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona. XDraft :final Author: Damon Burden Action: Accepted Firm: GRIC More Information Requested XRevise & Resubmit Comments: On the abstract page under agency, it should read Phoe~x Parks and Recreation Department. Library is now its own separate Department. On page 2-14, third paragraph, please add river after lower salt and before valley. On page 2-15, first paragraph, the second sentence should read like 'this, For example, habitation sites comprised of courtyard groups focusing on a mutual extramural work areas become a common settlement organizational pattern. In figure 5.3 does the legend explain what the colors of the sites stand for or for the colors of their boundaries? Please add something in the legend to explain this. Figure 5.4 and 5.5 need the same clarification that figure 5.3 does. On page 5-14, last paragraph, please add river between Salt and Valley. Also on the same page p lease replace is with are after examples. Please add Bostwick (2002) and Stubing et a! (2000) to your references cited sectiorL Also add these references and projects to the table you have on previous research in section 3.1. Recommendations: Please revise report accordingly and send the City one final bound copy. Archaeol<~W '-'-' V) r-'1 -o N "'-.) Reviewed By: Robert A. Serocki Jr. and Todd W. Bostwick, Ph.D. \ ~ /? D References to be added: Date: 9-17-03 Bostwick, Ph.D., Todd and Peter Krocek 2002 Landscape ofthe Spirits: Hohokarn Rock Art at South Mountain Park. University of Arizona Press. • A257 A258 • Appendix 2-1 ..,;, '.... : ·; )/" .2 I.J~hese f U.S. DEPARTlV.IENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTR..o\TION ARIZONA DMSION One Arizona Center, Suite 410 . 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, AZ. 85004 August 20, 2003 IN REPLY REFER TO A total of301 cultural resources were identified as being within the proposed project corridor. Two of cultural resources, sites AZ T:I2:9(ASM), the Villa Buena site, and site AZ T: 11 :39(ASM), the Cashion site, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An additional 27 sites were previously recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Fifteen (15) sites were identified as being previously recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. One hundred thirty-six (136) sites either were not evaluated for the NRHP eligibility or would require additional information in order to determine their NRHP eligibility. The Class I overview acknowledges the presence of prior survey data for the South Mountain corridor area and the need for further investigations into the eligibility of the historic properties identified within the corridor. FHWA recommends that future cultural resource survey and eligibility determinations be made once potential project alternatives are identified. HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY ) 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Loop 202, South Mountain Initial Section 106 Consultation David Jacobs, Ph.D. Compliance Specialist State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks Boo·W. Washington Pho~nix, Arizona 85007 Dear Dr. Jacobs: . The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are plarming to construct a loop highway between Interstate 10 (I-1 0) west of Phoenix to the I-10 south of Phoenix. As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives have not yet been decided, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Cities of Phoenix, Avondale, Tolleson and Chandler, the Salt River Project (SRP), Roos~velt Irrigation District, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the.A.k Chin Indian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Hopi · Tribe, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe and the Yavapai Apache N3ttion. As a cultural resources survey has not yet occurred for this project, FHWA is not currently making any recommendations of project effect. As additional information regarding the project alternatives, project scope, and historic properties becomes available, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section I 06 cqnsultation. However, because the likelihood is high that historic properties would be affected, FHWA proposes that a Programmatic Agreement (P A) be developed to address the effects of the project as they become known. Please review the enclosed report and the information provided in this letter. +f you agree with FHWA's recommendation that this report serve as consultation initiation and that consultatio~ regarding eligibility, area of potential effect, and project scope as well as effect, be continuelance surveys of the preferred alternatives are completed and that a PA be developed to address potential impacts to historic properties, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist at 602-712-8148 or email kneustadt@dot.state.az.us. Thank you. Sincerely, iz;;£D-r{,_ '- The scope of this project would involve the construction of a freeway to cormect 1-10 sOtith of Phoenix to I-10 west ofPhoenix. The project team is in the process of identifying potential project alternatives, but the area of potential effect (APE) has not yet been defined. Date *Cu'(~ S0\0vh\'ttal fo_,\Q,~--m ~ ~~ si~w~ lrl~s~L<0 ~ Enclosure The GRJC Cultural Resources Management Program performed a Class I overview of the freeway corridor to identify previously recorded cultural resources. The results of the Class I overv1ew are presented in a draft report entitled "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002) and is enclo$ed for your review. ~~.~~~::·,Hollis Division Administrator .w\Vrvvt.. u:r-<'('L~~·: Cc: 'i-'al<_.~~8t ) ft-1Jcsr- Appendix 2-1 2 Cashion site, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An additional 27 sites were previously recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Fifteen (15) sites were identified as being previously recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. One hundred thirty-six (136) sites either were not evaluated for the NRHP eligibility or would require additional information in order to determine their NRHP eligibility. The Class I overview. acknowledges the presenc~ of prior survey data for the South Mountain corridor area and the need for further investigations into the eligibility of the historic properties identified within the corridor. FHW A recommends that future cultural resource survey and eligibility determinations be made once potential project alternatives are identified. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRAl'lSPORT AT10N FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINIS~'1[0,l'(i ARIZONA DIVISION f One Arizona Center, Suite 410 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, A2. 85004 August 20, 2003 IN REPLY REFER TO HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Loop 202, South Mountain Initial Section I 06 Consultation Ms. Connie Stone, Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Phoenix Field Office 21605 N 7th Ave Phoenix, Arizona 85027 Dear Ms. Stone: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are planning to construc.;t a loop highway between Interstate 10 (I-10) west of Phoenix to the I- 10 south of Phoenix. As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives have not yet been decided, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHW A, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau ofLand Management C6LM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), L'le Western Area Power Administration (ViAP A), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Cities of Phoenix, Avondale, Tolleson and Chandler, the Salt River Project (SRP), Roosevelt Irrigation District, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Ak Chin Indian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe and the Yavapai Apache Nation. The scope ofthis project would involve the construction of a freeway to connect I-1 0 south of Phoenix to I-10 west ofPhoenix. The project team is in the process of identifying potential project alternatives, but the area of potential effect (APE) has not yet been defmed. The GRIC Cultural Resources Management Program performed a· Class I overview of the freeway corridor to identify previously recorded cultural resources. The results of the Class I overview are -presented in a draft report entitled "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002) and is enclosed for your review. A total of 301 cultural resources were identified as being within the proposed project corridor. Two of · these cultural resources, sites AZ T: 12:9(ASM), the Villa Buena site, and site AZ T: 11 :39(ASM), the As a cultural resources survey has not yet occurred for this project, FHWA is not currently making any recommendations of project effect. As additional information regarding the project alternatives, project scope, and historic properties becomes available, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. However, because the likelihood is high that historic properties would be affected, FHWA proposes that a Programmatic Agreement (PA) be developed to address the effects of the project as they become known. Please review the enclosed report and the information provided in this letter. If you agree with FHWA's recommendation that this report serve as consultation initiation and that consultation regarding eligibility, area of potential effect, and project scope as well as effect, be continued once surveys of the preferred alternatives are completed and that a P A be developed to address potential impacts to historic properties, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. · If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist at 602-712-8148 or email kneustadt@dot.state.az.us. Thank you. Sincerely, ~ Division Administrator Signature for BLM Concurrenc Enclosure • A259 A260 • Appendix 2-1 Cashion site, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (1\TR.HP). An additional 27 sites were previously recommended as eligible for the NRHP. Fifteen (15) sites were identified as being previously recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. One hundred thirty-six (136) sites either were not evaluated for the NRHP eligibility or would require additional information in order to determine their NRHP eligibility. The Class I overview acknowledges the presence of prior survey data for the South Mountain corridor area and the need for further investigations into the eligibility of the historic properties identified within the corridor. FHWA recommends that future cultural resource survey and eligibility detern1inations be made once potential project alternatives are identified. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ARIZONA DIVISION One Arizona Center, Suite 410 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, AZ. 85004 August 20, 2003 IN !UlPLY REFER TO HA-AZ 1\TH-202-D(ADY) 202LMA 054 HS764 OIL Loop 202, Souili Mountain Initial Section I 06 Consultation Mr. Gany Cantley, Archaeologist Bureau oflndian Affairs BJA-WROIEQS P.O. Box 10 Phoenix, Arizona 85001 Dear Mr. Cantley: The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) an:: planning to con:;truct a loop !Ughway between Iuterstate 10 (1-10) west of Phoenix to the I-10 south of Phoenix. As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives have not yet been decided, land ownership ofthe project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the $tate Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau ofLand Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BJA), the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Cities ofPhoenix, Avondale, Tolleson and Chandler, the Salt River Project (SRP), Roosevelt Irrigation District, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Ak Chin Indian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Hopi · Tribe, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe and the Yavapai Apache Nation. As a cultural resources survey has not yet occurred for this project, FHW A is not currently making any recommendations of project effect. As additional information regarding the project alternatives, project scope, and historic properties becomes available, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. However, because the likelihood is high that historic properties would be affected, FHWA proposes that a Programmatic Agreement (PA) be developed to address the effects of the project as they become known. Please review the enclosed report and the information provided in this letter. If you agree with FHWA's recommendation that this report serve as consultation initiation and that consultation regarding eligibility, area of potential effect, and project scope as well as effect, be continued once surveys of the preferred alternatives are completed and that a P A be developed to address potential impacts to historic properties, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist at 602-712-8148 or email kneustadt@dot.state.az.us. Thank you. Sincerely, iAzLt)~ ~~~~;~~:· Hollis Division Administrator The scope of this project would involve the construction of a freeway to connect I-1 0 south of Phoenix to I-1 0 west of Phoenix. The project team is in the process of identifying potential project alternatives, but the area of potential effect (APE) has not yet been defined. The GRIC Cultural Resources Management Program performed a Class I overview of the freeway corridor to identify previously recorded cultural resources. The results of the Class I overview are presented in a draft report entitled "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002) and is enclosed for your review. A total of301 cultural resources were identified as being within the proposed project corridor. Two of these cultural resources, sites AZ T: 12:9(ASM), the Villa Buena site, and site AZ T:11 :39(ASM), the OCT 2 7 200J Date. Enclosure Appendix 2-1 2 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRA.l'I(SPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION ARlZONA DMSION Envir?nmcntal Compliance Envll'arunental Services One Arizona Center, Suite 41 0 400 E. Van Buren St. Phoenix, AZ. 85004 August 20, 2003 IN R.El'l.Y REFER TO HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Loop 202, South Mountain Initial Section l 06 Consultation Mr. Rick .iJ.duze Archaeologist Salt River Project M.S. PAB 355 P.O. Box 5625 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2025 Dear Mr. Anduze: Tllt Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Deparlmtnt of Transportation (ADOT) are planning to construct a loop highway between Interstate 10 (I-10) west ofPhoenix to the I-10 south ofPhoenix. As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives have not yet been decided, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau ofindian Affairs (BIA.), the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Cities of Phoenix, Avondale, Tolleson and Chandler, the Bait River Project (SRP), Roosevelt Irrigation District, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Ak Chin fudian Community, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRPMIC), the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Hopi Tribe, the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe and the Yavapai Apache Nation. A total of301 cultural resources were identified as being within the proposed project corridor. Two of these cultural resources, sites AZ T:12:9(ASM), the Villa Buena site, and site A2 T: 11 :39(ASM), the Cashion site, are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). An additional27 sites were previously recommended as eligible for tbe NRHP. Fifteen ( 15) sites were identified as being previously recommended as ineligible to the NRHP. One hundred thirty-six (136) sites either were not evaluated for the NR.HP eligibility or would require additional information in order to determine their NRHP eligibility. The Class I overview acknowledges the presence of prior survey data for the South Mountain corridor area and the need for further investigations into the eligibility of the historic properties identified within the corridor. FHWA recommends that future cultural resource survey and eligibility determinations be made once potential project alternatives are identified. As a cultural resources survey bas not yet occurred for this project, FHWA is not currently making any recommendations of project effect. As additional information regarding the project alternatives, project scope, and historic properties becomes available, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. However, because the likelihood is high that historic properties would be affected, FHWA proposes that a Programmatic Agreement (PA) be developed to address the effects of the project as they become known. Please review the enclosed report and the information provided in this letter. If you agree with FHWA's recommendation that this report serve as consultation initiation and that consultation regarding eligibility, area ofpotentiai effect, and project scope as well as effect, be continued once surveys ofthe preferred alternatives are completed and that a PA be developed to address potential impacts to historic properties, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist at 602-712-8148 or email kneustadt@dot.state.az.us. Thank you. Sincerely, ~D4 ~ Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator The scope of this project would involve the construction of a freeway to connect I-10 south of Phoenix to I-10 west of Phoenix. The project team is in the process of identifying potential project alternatives, but the area of potential effect (APE) has not yet been defined. The GRIC Cultural Resources Management Program performed a Class I overview of the freeway corridor to identify previously recorded cultural resources. The results of the Class I overview are presented in a draft report entitled "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002) and is ~nclosed for your review. Date ~ Enclosure ' • A261 A262 • Appendix 2-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Ms. Connie Stone, Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management Mr. John Czaplick, Bureau of Reclamation Dr. Todd Bostwick, Archaeologist, City of Phoenix Ms. Barbara Stocklin, Historic Preservation Office, City of Phoenix Mr. Rick Anduze, Archaeologist, Salt River Project Dr. David Jacobs, Ph.D., Compliance Specialist, State Historic Preservation Office Mr. Richard Narcia, Governor , Gila River Indian Community Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Cultural Preservation Office, Hopi Tribe Appendix 2-1 T-HE fit. OPI TRIBE Arizona Wayne Taylor, Jr: ··· CHAIRMAN CaiwJc~l.m)A~n-·- . . .. .. '· Victo r M. · - .Mendez . · Director 206 So uth Seventeenth Avenue - ., R~.hoap:-2;0~; South Mountain, Draft Pro~anunatic Agreement RE: DearMs. Neustadt, This letter is in respons~ to your correspo?dence with~ encl?sed draft Progr~atic:A~eement .. dated Decem~er ~. _2003, _regarding -~e Federal Highway Admirustrat10n (FHWA) and Arizona · Department.of,Transportatiprr.{ADOT} planning to.5Jonstruct· a·loop h,ighw.ay between-Interstate 10 (1~·1 0) · west of Phoenix to 1-10 south of Phoenix.' As you know, the ?opi Tribe appreciates FHWA and ADOT's continuing solicitation of our input and your efforts. t6- .ad~ess·ou..r wn~ttlS: ' · ;<_~:·.-: _,. .• · ....•. . .:... ~=. ,! ; ':-. • • · -·:: •• • '·t· . .. : .• :..; :~ l In a letter dated September 10,2003, in response to a correspondence from the Federal Highway Administration dated August 20, 2003, the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office reviewed the cultural resources overview report ·for this project by the Gila River Indian Community that identifies 30 I cultural · resources within the proposed project corridor. We stated we support the continuing use of the Gila RiverIndian Community Cultural Re~our~s Management Program for the identification and mitigation of histo* properties that will be adversely affected by this project. · ._·, ·resource ~urveys, archaeological. and archeological reports for review and comment. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Terry Morgart at the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office. Thank y0u· · ·· ....._ again for consulting with the .Hopi Tribe. ~··.: . ·~: xc: . ,~ r. . Ari?.ona State Historic Preservation.Office · - ·. . .. ·.:_ _. ·· .· ·:· ·.. . ·..... ~·- .·· ·..:. . ~ ,l Billl;llggins ; ... . A(:tfvg State· ·Engineer · ' ',} :, : : '' .!. (: :.' :·1 : .·· ··.· Dear Mr. Bostwick: As y~u are aware, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are planning to construct a loop highway between Interstate 10 (I-1 0) west of Phoenix to the I-10 south of Phoenix. Previous consultation with the Arizona·SWe Histori? Preservation Office (SHPO) recommeilde9 a Programmatic Agreement (PA) be developed to address the effects of the project as they become knoWn .. SHPO concurred with this recommendation (Jacobs [SHPO] to Hollis (FHWA] September 19, 2003). . At this time, ADOT, on behalf ofFHWA, is submitting a draft PA for your review and comment. Please review the enclosed draft P A. If you find the P A adequate, please sign below to ip.dicate your concurrence. If you have . any comments or changes to request, please respoJ1d in writing. If you have any questions or concerns, pleas.e f~el free to contact me at (602) 712-8148 or via email at kneustadt@dot.state.az.us. Thank you. ~----- Kae Neustadt Historic Preservation Specialist Environmental & Enhancement Group 205 S 17th Avenue, Room 213E/ MD 619E · ·Phoenix, AZ 85007 Signature for COP Concurrence Enclosure . - - - - - - - - - - -P.O. BOX 123- KYKOTSMOVI. AZ.- 86039- 1928)734-3000- - - - - - - - - - - _ _ J -December 9, ~003. :_,: '' ·· ·- ·; ·.::·;· Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) · · TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 .01L Loop 202; South Mountain Contin~in'g Section I 06 Consultation QJ,ft?~ J~~ Ra~es~~t, Blimaby L~wis;_-Gila Ri~e; h:~an Community Cu!tu~,R~~otir~sProgn;ID - :. -.-::: ·. ·- Phoenix, Arizona 85007·3213 ,• 206 South dh.Avenue, Room 2l3E, Mail Dr~p-619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007.3213 Kae Neustadt, Historic Preservation Specialist Arizona Department of Transportation, Environmental & Enhancement Group of Transportation · . .•.. :: ...: Todd Bostwick Archaeologist City_ofPhoenix Pueblo Grande Museum 46 19 E. Washington "Phoenix, AZ 85034 December 11, 2003 A263 lntermodal Transportation Division .A OCT Janet'Napolitano Governor Departme~t • c: SThoitlas WVachon / 2 -17- o-s Date A264 • Appendix 2-1 -2 United States Department of the Interior Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft PA. We would appreciate the chance to review the revised P A prior to signing the final version. If you have questions, please contact staff Archaeologist Jon S. Czaplicki at 602-216-3862. SUREAU OF RECLAMATION Ph<>«nix An."' Olllw PO Bnx S ilo~ Phncnix, M jwno SSOC>'I-1169 Sincerely, OEC I 8 2003 PXA0-1500 ENV-3.00 ~D-~- Bruce D. Ellis · Chief, Environmental Resource Manageme~t Division Ms. Kae Neustadt Historic Preservation Specialist · Arizona Department of Transportation _Environmental & Enhancel!!ent Group 205 South 17th Avenue, Room 213E/MD 619E Phoenix, Ari~ona 85007 Subject: Draft Programmatic Agreement (PA) Loop 2002, South Mountain- Project No. NH-202-D(ADY); TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlL Dear Ms. Neustadt: · We have re~iewed the subject PA ana have sever~I com.nients. On page 2, the seventh WHER.A.S dealing with treatment of human remains under NAGPRA applies only to remains found on federally-owned landS. The last WHEREAS should refer to State and private lands only; a permit issued by the Arizona State Museum is not valid on federally-owned land. Another WHEREAS should be added.that addresses permitting on Federal lands under_the Archaeological Resource and Protection Act (ARPA). In this particular ca,se, an ARPA permit from Reclamation is required for any archaeological activity on lands under Reclamation's jurisdiction. · · On page 5 under Item "9. Curation,;, all records. and materials from archaeological .iitvestigations conducted on lands under Reclamation's jurisdiction shall be curated at the Huhugam Heritage Center {HHC), Gila River Indian Reservation. In January 2004, Reclamation's temporary · curatorial facility in Tucson (the Central Arizona Project Repository) will close,and the collections will be moved to the new permanent repository at the HHC. The HHC will serve as Reclamation's new curation facility for all future Reclamation cultural resourc-e activities. . . - Item "12. Discoveries" on page 12 must be changed to reflect that in the case of discovery situations on lands wider the jurisdiction of Reclamation, the Phoenix Area Office archaeological staff shall be notified jmmediately. This is especially true incases involving potential or known human remains, in which case ~eclamation is responsible for·consultation under NAGPRA. Appendix 2-1 ~ Arizona Department of Transportat.ion lntermodal Transportation Division /.\DOT 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Bill Higgins Acting State Engineer December 9, 2003 Victor M. Mendez Director RE: Dear Ms. Stope: As you are aware, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizon~ Department of Transportation (ADOT) are planning to construct a loop highway between Interstate 10 (I-10) west of Phoenix to the 1-10 south of Phoenix. Previous consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended a Prograrnrnatic Agreement (PA) be developed to address the effects of the project as they become known. SHPfPhoentx to the 1-10 south of Phoenix. Previous consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended a Programmatic Agreement (PA) be dev~loped to address the effects of the project as they become known. SHPO concurred with this recommendation (Jacob~JSHPOJ to H. Because of the presence of the South Mountain Range and because areas of traditional cultural signi:ficanc~ are not always identified through archaeological surveys, FHWA would like to request your participation in discussions regarding the potential effects to such resources that could result from the South Mountain Freeway project. · · At this time, FHWA is inquiring whether you have any concerns regarding historic properties. of religious or· cultural importance to your community within the project area. If you have such concerns, ail.y information. you might provide within 30 days of receipt of this Jetter would be considered in the project planning. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA would make a good faith effort to address any concerns. Additionally, FHWA ~s in the process of fmalizing the South Mountain Coq::idor Programmatic Agreement (PA) to address project effects as th~ environmental documentation continues. The original draft PA was circulated in August 2003. At that time few tribes opted to participate. FHWA is re-circulating the draft P A (enclosed) and would like to offer another opportunity for your tribe/community to participate in the PA. Please sign below if you would like to be included as a Concurring Party to the PA and return to FHWA within in 30 days. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your tribe/community through continued Section 106 consultation. We also look forward to continuing consultation with your office. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Serelle E. Laine at 602-712-8636 or e-mail slaineCa:lazdot.gov. Sincerely, Date Enclosures under separate cover: .(Governor: map and Programmatic Agreement) cc: Jonathan Damp, Archaeologist, Pueblo of Zuni, Cultural Resources Enterprise, P.O. Box 1149, Zuni, NM, 87328 (Enclosures under separate cover: map, site table, Programmatic Agreement, and cultural resources survey report) • A273 A274 • Appendix 2-1 United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 11'1 REPLY REFER TO: PXA0-1500 ENV-3.00 Phoenix Area Office P.O. Box 81169 . Phoenix, Arizona 85069-1169 JUL 12 2005 -~ .AOOT Arizona Department of Transportat ion lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeent h Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 July l, 2005 John A. Bogert Chief of Staff · Mr. Todd Bostwick, Archaeologist City of Phoenix Pueblo Grande Museum 4619 E. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85034 Ms. Serrelle E. Laine, Coordinator Historic Preservation Team Environmental & Enhancement Group 205 South 171h A venue Rm. 213E, Mail Drop 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 RE: Subject: Project No: NH-202-D(ADY), TRACS No. 202L MA H5764 OIL, South Mountain Transportation Corridor Dear Ms. Laine: We have reviewed the report titled, "A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005)," and rmd it complete and adequate with one minor revision. The summary of Site Eligibility on page 5-21, paragraph 5, should indicate that the Western Canal AZ T:12: 154 (ASM) has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. We have.also reviewed the second draft Programmatic Agreement for the project and look forward to signing as a concurring party. If you any questions, please do not hesitate to call Mr. Richard Boston at 602-216-3941. Project No:.NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section l 06 Consultation Class ill Survey Report Second Draft Programmatic Agreement Dear Mr. Bostwick: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Enviroruncntal Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses nine variations of five alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler and to I-1 0 in west Phoenix (see attached map). As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. · Sincerely, Land jurisdiction for the alternative alignments includes private land (5,160.7 acres) and lands administered by the Arizona State Land Department (101.4 acres), the Bureau of Land Management (35.1 acres), ~d the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation (62.32 acres). Bruce D. Ellis Cbie.t: Environmental Resource Management Division Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau ofReclamation (Reclamation), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Maricopa County Departmynt of Transportation, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak.-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan Appendix 2-1 Bostwick July I, 2005 Page 2 of6 Bostwick July I, 2005 Page 3 of6 Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. • AZ T:ll :164 (ASM), AZ T:l2:91 (ASM), A2 T:12:127 (ASM) (Baseline Ruin), AZ T:l2:202 (ASM), AZ T:12:203 (ASM), AZ T:·12:204 (ASM), A2 T:12:205 (ASM), and AZT:12:206 (ASM) are prehistoric Hohokam artifact scatters. The sites are recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information on prehistoric Hohokam social organization, settlement, and land use in the lower Salt River Valley, including the development and structure of irrigation communities. • AZ T:l2:197 (ASM), AZ T:12:201 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:211 (ASM) are trail sites with associated features (age and cultural affiliation unknown, but likely Native American in origin). AZ T:l2:207 (ASM) is a prehistoric trail site with an associated Hohokam artifact scatter. The sites are recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information on prehistoric settlement and land use near the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including social mobility and transportation networks. • AZ T: 12:210 (ASM) is a prehistoric quarry (age and cultural affiliation unknown, but likely Native American in origin). The site is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to provide important information prehistoric settlement and land use near the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including lithic resource procurement and ground stone technology. • AZ T:l2:199 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:200 (ASM) are historic O'odham artifact scatters. AZ T:12:199 (ASM) is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to provide important information on historical-period O'odham settlement and land use near the confluence of the Gila and Salf Rivers, including the use of upland areas for subsistence and religious practices. AZ T:l2:200 (ASM) is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP due to a lack of integrity and information potential. • AZ T:12:198 (ASM) and AZ T:12:208 (ASM) are prehistoric petroglyph sites with historic components. The sites are considered eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information of prehistoric Hohokam and historic O'odham settlement~~ land use at the confluence ofthe Gila and Salt Rivers, including the use ofupland.areas for rehgious practices. • AZ T:10:83 (ASM) (Roosevelt Canal) and AZ T:l2:154 (ASM) (Western Canal) are historic American irrigation canals. Both sites have previously been determined eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for their important associations with the development of Arizona's agricultural industry and irrigation networks. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised of five alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (TOl, T02, T03, T04, and T06) that extend from I-10 west ofPhoenix to I-10 in west Chandler, south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. The cultural resources component of the EIS includes four technical studies: • • • A Class I overview of the overall study area: "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy ofthe report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bos~ick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). A Class Ill survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class III Cultural Resource Survey of Five Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005), which is enclosed for consultation and discussed below. Addendum Class I overview and Addendum Class III survey to address the expansion (late 2004 and early 2005) of the overall study area to include portions of the I-10 and State Route lOlL freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments. These two additional reports will be forthcoming as part of the Section 106 consultations. The results of these two studies will be provided in the near future. The initial alternative alignments, defined in March 2003, were·surveyed by the Gila River lndi3.I_l Community's Cultural Resource Management Program (GRIC-CRMP). The results are reported m a report titled A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), which is enclosed for your review and comment. Twenty-one archaeological sites were identified in the proposed alternative alignments (see attached table). Twenty sites are recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D. One site is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP. • AZ T:l2:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and A2 T:l2:52 (ASM) are prehistoric Hohokam villages with existing and/or historically documented public architecture. The sites are recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information on prehistoric Hohokam social organization, settlement, and land use in the lower Salt River Valley, including the village structure and the development of irrigation communities south of the Salt River. ,. 2001 AwordReupent All sites are located on private land, except for AZ T: 10:83 (ASM) - Roosevelt Irrigation District; AZ T:12:154 (ASM) - Bureau of Reclamation/ Salt River Project; AZ T :l2:207 (ASM)- City of Phoenix, Park and Recreation; and AZ T: 12:211 (ASM) - Arizona State Land Department. FHWNADOT is concurrently consulting with these agencies regarding the eligibility of these sites located on their land. ,. 2001 Award Recipent • A275 A276 • Appendix 2-1 ..• c .. . ~. ·: ·· Bostwick July 1, 2005 Page 4 of6 ,(~"\ ~ In addition, FHW AI ADOT is recirculating a second draft Programmatic Agreement (PA, enclosed) because few tribes opted to participate in the P A when it was originally circulated in August 2003. This recirculation will allow the tribes another opportunity to participate in the P A. This second draft PA has been edited to address any comments from the first draft as well as to also addresses TCP properties more specifically. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed survey report, PA, and information provided in this letter. If you find the survey report adequate, agree with the eligibility recommendation for site AZ T: 12:207 (ASM), and find the second draft PA acceptable, please sign below to indicate your concurrence and return to ADOT within 30 days. If you have any comments or changes to request for the PA, please respond in writing. We look forward to continuing consultation with your office as we develop the final PA to address project effects as the environmental documentation continues. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 602712-8636 or e-mail slaine@azdot.gov. Sincerely, ~titl0u Serelle E. Laine, Coordinator Historic Preservation Team Environmental & Enhancement Group 205 South 17th A venue Rm. 213E Mail Drop 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Enclosures 7- 18--osDate cc: SThomas (FHWA); WV achon (FHW A) Archaeology Section Pueblo Grande Museum 4619 E. Washington St Phoenix, AZ. 85034 City of Phoenix PARKS ANO Rl<:REATlON OEI'ARTMEtlT P roject No.: ADOT Date Report Submitted: 7/5/05 Report Title: A Class III Cultural Resource Survey of Five Alternative Alignments in South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona t~e Draft: X Final: Author: Darling Finn: ADOT Action: Accept ed More Information Requested X Revise & Resubmit Comm ents: • Under Agency on the Abstract page (i): Other agencies should be listed here (SHPO, COP, Tribes, other cities, etc.). • Under the Introduction, page 1-1, final paragraph, line 2: Insert the word a between of and detailed. • Under the Introduction, page 1-1, final paragraph: The owners of the property on which the Class III survey was conducted should be listed. • On Figure 1.1, page 1-2: Put TO (the projected freeway corridors) in the key. Also, why is T05 not displayed in the figure (both here and in the rest of the report)? • Under Project Location and Area of Potential Effect (APE), page 2-1, initial paragraph. final sentence: Please explain why there is no T05 corridor. • On Figure 2.1, page 2-3: Please cite which publication this chronology was adapted from. • Under Field Methodology, page 3-1, initial paragraph, initial line: Insert A at the beginning of the initial sentence. • On Figures 4.2 through Figure 4.7, pages 4-3 through 4-12, respectively: Please provide the reasons certain areas were not surveyed or refer the reader to a page where this information can be found. • Under View 5-Laveen and Lone Butte Quadrangles (Alignments T01-T06), page 49, initial paragraph, second-to-last sentence: You mention that the APE crosses several ridges of South Mountain. It is worth noting that most of these ridges are within the South Mountain Preserve. • Under Site Significance, page 5-7, final paragraph, sentence 5: How is it known that only "one other site in the South Mountains" contains prehistoric and historic petroglyphs? There are more of these sites that are known to the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office. Appendix 2-1 • An important reference not cited in this report is: Bostwick, Todd 2001 Gold-Gold-Gold: The Rise and Fall of Mining in Phoenix's South Mountain Park. In The Journal-of Arizona History, Spring 2001. US.Deponmenr a lia1sporrorion Fedeml Highway Admtnistrotion Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2264 July7, 2005 In Reply Refer To: HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Recommendations: Please revise the report accordingly and send one final bound copy of this report to the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office. R eviewed By: Robert A. Serocki Jr. and ---/2 Todd W. Bostwick, Ph.D. ~ \ O:::J Collection to be submitted: No Remarks: No collections were made. Date: 7/19/05 South Mountain Transportation Corridor Section 106 Consultation Traditional CultUral Places Draft Programmatic Agreement Mr. Ernest Jones, Sr., President Yavapai-Prescott Jndjan Tribe 530 E. Merritt Prescott, Arizona 86301-2038 Dear President Jones: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses nine variations of five alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to l-10 in west Phoenix (see attached map). As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. · Land jurisdiction for the alternative alignments includes private land (5,160.7 acres) and lands administered by the Arizona State Land Department (101.4 acres), the Bureau of Land Management (35.1 acres), and the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation (62.32 acres). Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic PreserVation (ACHP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), Salt River Project (SRP), Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, ilie Colorado. River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tn"be, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised of five alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (T01, T02, T03, T04, and T06) that extend from 1-10 west of Phoenix to I-10 in west Chandler, south of the greater Phoenix metr.opolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. The Gila River Indian Community's Cultural Resource Management Program (GRIC-CR1v1P) conducted a Class III cultural resources survey of the proposed alternative alignments. The results of the GRIC-CR.MP • A277 A278 • Appendix 2-1 survey are presented in a report titled A Class m Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Frei!Way Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), which is enclosed for your review. Twenty-one archaeological sites were identified in the proposed alternative alignments (see attached table). Twenty sites are recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D. One site is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP. 2 Because of the presence of the South Mountain Range and because areas of traditional cultural significance are not always identified through archaeological surveys, FHWA would like to request your participation in discussions regarding the potential effects to such resources that could result from the South Moimtain Freeway project. At this time, FHWA is inquiring whether you have any concerns regarding historic properties of religious or cultural importance to your community within the project area. Ifyou have such concerns, any information you might provide within 30 days of receipt efthis letter would be considered in the project planning. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA would make a good faith effort to address any concerns. - ~ ~ /.\COT As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your tn'be/community through continued Section 106 consultation. We also look forward to continuing consultation with your office. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Serelie E. Laine at 602-712-8636 or e-mail slaine{a).azdot.gov. . Sincerely; STEPHEN D. THOMAS Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator The Yavapai ~ Prescott Indian Tribe does not wish to be a party to the Programmatic agreement for this project as it occurs entirely outside abor.iginal Yavapai Terri tory. We defer to the southern tribes. Signature for Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe -Date 7 Concurrence ~~~ Sco)i Kw~tkowski, . Tribal Anthropologist Enclosures under separate cover: (President: map and Programmatic Agreement) 2 2 Ju 1}: 2 0 0 5 cc: Nancy Hayden, Director, Cultural Research Program, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tn'be (Enclosures under separate cover: map, site table, Programmatic Agreement, and cultural resources survey report) SThomas, WVacbon, SLaine (619E), REllis (619E) · SDThomas:cdm 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director Phoenix, Arizona. &50Q7,321:l John A. Bogert July 1, 2005 · · · -r:ai,.t.cfSiaff Dr. Connie Stone, Archaeologist Bureau of Land Management Phoenix Field Office 21605 N. 7 1h Ave. Phoenix, Arizona 85027-2099 RE: Additionally, FHWA is in the process of finalizing the South Mountain Corridor Programmatic Agreement (PA) to address project effects as the environmental documentation continues. The original draft P A was. circulated in August 2003. At that time few tribes opted to participate. FHWA is re-circulating the draft PA (enclosed) and would like to offer another opportunity for your tribe/community to participate in the P A. Please sign below if you would like to be included as a Concurring Party to the PA and return to FHWA within in 30 days. Arizona Department of TraifSlJ~'Sat.ion lntermodal Transportation Division Project No: NH-202-D{ADY) TRACS No. 202LMA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Class ill Survey Report Second Draft Programmatic Agreement Dear Dr. Stone: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses nine variations of five alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (l-1 0) in west Chandler and to 1-10 in west Phoenix (see attached map). As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Land jurisdiction for the alternative alignments includes private land (5, 160.7 acres) and lands administered by the Arizona State Land Department ( 101 A acres), the Bureau of Land Management (35.1 acres), and the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation (62.32 acres). Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Maricopa Cotmty Department of Transportation, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ale-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan Appendix 2-1 Storie July 1, 2005 Page 2 of6 Stone July 1, 2005 Page 3 of6 Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. • AZ T:l1:164 (ASM), AZ T:12:91 (ASM), AZ T:12:127 (ASM) (Baseline Ruin), AZ T:12:202 (ASM), AZ T:l2:203 (ASM), AZ T:l2:204 (ASM), AZ T:12:205 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:206 (ASM) are prehistoric Hohokam artifact scatters. The sites are recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information on prehistoric Hohokam social organization, settlement, and land use in the lower Salt River Valley, including the development and structure of irrigation communities. • AZ T:12:197 (ASM), AZ T:I2:201 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:211 (ASM) are trail sites with associated features (age and cultural affiliation unknown, but likely Native American in origin). AZ T:12:207 (ASM) is a prehistoric trail site with an associated Hohokam artifact scatter. The sites are recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide .important information on prehistoric settlement and land use near the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including social mobility and transportation networks. • AZ T: 12:210 (ASM) is a prehistoric quarry (age and cultural affiliation unknown, but likely Native American in origin). The site is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to provide .import.ant information prehistoric settlement and land use near the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including lithic resource procurement and ground stone technology. • AZ T:l2:I99 (ASM) and AZ T:I2:200 (ASM) are historic O'odham artifact scatters. AZT:l2:199 (ASM) is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to provide important information on historical-period O'odham settlement and land use near the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including the use of upland areas for subsistence and religious practices. AZ T:l2:200 (ASM) is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP due to a lack of integrity and information potential. • AZ T: l 2: 198 (ASM) and AZ T :12:208 (ASM) are prehistoric petroglyph sites with historic components. The sites are considered eligib'le to the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information of prehistoric Hohokam and historic O'odham settlement and land use at the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including the use of upland areas for religious practices. • AZ T:10:83 (ASM) (Roosevelt Canal) and AZ T:l2: 154 (ASM) (Western Canal) are historic American irrigation canals. Both sites have previously been determined eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for their important associations with the development of Arizona's agricultural industry and irrigation networks. The Area ofPotential Effect (APE) is comprised of five alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (T01, T02, T03, T04, and T06) that extend from I-10 west ofPhoenix to I-10 in west Chandler, south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1000-:ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. The cultural resources component of the EIS includes four technical studies: • • • A Class I overview of the overall study area: "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). A Class ill survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class Ill Cultural Resource Survey of Five Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005), which is enclosed for consultation and discussed below. Addendum Class I overview and Addendum Class ill survey to address the expansion (late 2004 and early 2005) of the overall study area to include portions of the 1-10 and State Route lOlL freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments. These two additional reports will be forthcoming as part of the Section 106 consultations. The results of these two studies will be provided in the near future. The initial alternative alignments, defined in March 2003, were surveyed by the Gila River Indian Community's Cultural Resource Management Program (GRIC-CRMP). The results are reported in a report titled A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), which is enclosed for your review and comment. Twenty-one archaeological sites were identified in the proposed alternative alignments (see attached table). Twenty sites are recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D. One site is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP. • AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:12:52 (ASM) are prehistoric Hohokam villages with existing and/or historically documented public architecture. The sites are recommended as eligible for the NRRP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information on prehistoric Hohokam social organization, settlement, and land use in the lower Salt River Valley, including the village structure and the development of irrigation communities south of the Salt River. lies ~J' 2001 AwardRecipent All sites are located on private land, except for AZ T: 10:83 (ASM)- Roosevelt Irrigation District; AZ T:l2:154 (ASM)- Bureau of Reclamation/ Salt River Project; AZ T:12:207 (ASM)- City of Phoenix, Park and Recreation; and AZ T:12:211 (ASM)- Arizona State Land Department. FHW A/ADOT is concurrently consulting with these agencies regarding the eligibility of these sites located on their land. . s r I 2001 Award Redpent • A279 A280 • Appendix 2-1 Stone July l , 2005 Page 4 of6 Cantley July I, 2005 Page 4 of6 In addition, FHWN ADOT is recirculating a second draft Programmatic Agreement (PA, enclosed) In addition, FHWN ADOT is recirculating a second draft Programmatic Agreement (PA, enclosed) because few tribes opted to participate in the PA when it was originally circulated in August 2003. This recirculation will allow the tribes another opportunity to participate in the PA. This second draft PA has been edited to address any comments from the first draft as well as to also addresses TCP properties more specifically. because few tribes opted to participate in the PA when it was originally circulated in August 2003. This recirculation will allow the tribes another opportunity to participate in the P A. This second draft PA has been edited to address any comments from the first draft as well as to also addresses TCP properties more specifically. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed survey report, PA, and information provided in this letter. If you find the survey report adequate and the second draft PA acceptable, please sign below to indicate your concurrence and return to ADOT within 30 days. If you have any comments or changes to request for the PA, please respond in writing. We look forward to continuing consultation with your office as we develop the final PA to address project effects as the environmental documentation continues. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 602-712-8636 or e-mail slaine@azdot.gov. As more information becomes available regarding the South MOlmtain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed survey report, PA, and information provided in this letter. If you find the survey report adequate and the second draft PA acceptable, please sign below to indicate your concurrence and return to ADOT within 30 days. If you have any comments or changes to request for the P A, please respond in writing. We look forward to continuing consultation with your office as we develop the final P A to address project effects as the environmental documentation continues. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 602-712-8636 or e-mail slaine@azdot.gov. Sincerely, relle E. Laine, Coordinator Historic Preservation Team Environmental & Enhancement Group 205 South 17th Avenue Rm. 213E Mail Drop 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 erelle E. Laine, Coordinator Historic Preservation Team Environmental & Enhancement Group 205 South 171h Avenue Rm. 213E Mail Drop 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Enclosures Enclosures ~~-;{~ Signature for BIA Concurrence Signature for BLM Concurrence ·.,. · :Date /!!'~~~ cc: SThomas (FHWA); WVachon (FHWA) cc: SThomas (FHWA); WVachon (FHWA) .t .. • .~ - 2001 Awa~ d Red;ient :. ~ :- -~ ,, '1 \' -~ 2001 Award Reci;ienl Appendix 2-1 "' ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 August 3, 2005 John A Bogert Chief of Staff Mr. Ralph Velez, City Manager City of Tolleson 9555 West Van Buren Street Tolleson, Arizona 85353 RE: Velez August 3, 2005 Page 2 of2 Project No: NH-202-D( ) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 0 1L South Mountain Transportation Corridor Section I 06 Consultation Draft Cultural Resources "Programmatic Agreement" Dear Mr. Velez: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses nine variations offive alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 {I-1 0) in west Chandler and to I-1 0 in west Phoenix (see attached map). As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised of five alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (TO I , T02, T03, T04, and T06) that extend from I-10 west of Phoenix to I-10 in west Chandler, south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternatiye corridors are 1000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. Land jurisdiction for the alternative alignments includes private land (5,160.7 acres) and lands administered by the Arizona State Land Department (101.4 acres), the Bureau of Land Management (35.1 acres), and the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation (62.32 acres). The cultural resources component of the EIS includes four technical studies: • A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Burden 2002). • A Class Ill Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005). • An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). • An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L!DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2005). Twenty-two archaeological sites and Twenty-one historic sites were identified in the proposed alternative alignments. In addition, the South Mountain Range is identified as place of traditional cultural importance to Native American tribes. FHWAIADOT is circulating the draft Programmatic Agreement (P A) that addresses cultural resources for the project for your review. If you find the PA adequate and wish to participate in the final PA, please indicate your concurrence by signing below and return within in 20 days. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 602-712-8636 or e-mail slaine@azdot.gov. Sincerely, elle E. Laine, Coordinator Historic Preservation Team Environmental & Enhancement Group 205 South l71h Avenue Rrn. 213E Mail Drop 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Enclosures Signature for City of Tolleson Concurrence Date cc: SThomas (FHWA); WVachon (FHWA) /{fP 2001 Awatd ReOPen! • A281 A282 • Appendix 2-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Mr. Charlie McClendon, City Manager, City of Avondale Mr. Mike Normand, Transportation Services and Planning Manager, City of Chandler Mr. Ed Beasley, City Manager, City of Glendale Appendix 2-1 ·; 2 Mountain Freeway Col7idor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), which is enclosed for your review. Twenty-one archaeological sites were identified in the proposed alternative alignments (see attached table). Twenty sites are recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places {NRHP) under Criterion D. One site is reco~erided as not eligible to the NRHP. Because of the presence of the South Mountain Range and because areas of traditional cultural significance are not always identified through archaeological surveys, FHWA would like to request your participation in discussions regarding the potential effects to such resources that could result from the South Mountain Freeway· project At this time, FHWA is inquiring whether you have any concerns regarding historic properties of religious or cultural importance to your communitY within the project area. If you have such concerns, any information you might provide within 30 days of receipt of this letter would be considered in the project plaJll!ing, If your office opts to participate in culttqal resource consultation at a later date, FHWA would make a good faith effort to .address any conc:erns. ~ /.\DOT As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to · your 'tribe/community through continued Section 106 consultation. We also look forward to eontinuing cqnsultation with your office. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Serelle E. Laine at 602-712-8636 or e-mail slaine@azdot.gov. Sincerely, ~-v-ri~obert /( E. Hollis ~Division Administrator fl-s--vsDate Enclosures under separate cover: map, site table, Pro~atic Agreement, and cultural resources survey report 206 South Seventeenth Avenue J anet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 John A. Bogert Chief of Staff July' 1, 2005 Mr. Rick Anduze, Archaeologist Salt River Project P.P. Box 52025, Mailstop P AB 352 Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2025 RE: Additionally, FHWA is in the process of fmalizing the South Mountain Corridor Programmatic Agreement (PA) . to address project effects as the environmental·documentation continues. The original draft PA was circulated in August 2003. At that time few tribes opted to participate. FHWA is re-circulating the draftPA (enclosed) and would like to offer another opportunity for your tribe/community to participate in the PA.' Please sign below if you wo~d like to be included as a Concurring Party to the PA and return to FHWA within in 30 days. . Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division Project No: NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Class ITI Survey Report Second Draft Programmatic Agreement Environmental Compliance Environment'al Services Dear Mr. Anduze: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting teclurical studies in support ofthe Envirorunental hnpact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses nine variations of five alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to I-10 in west Phoenix (see attached map). As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Land jurisdiction for the alternative alignments includes private land (5,160.7 acres) and lands administered by the Arizona State Land Department (101.4 acres), the Bureau of Land Management (35.1 acres), and the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation (62.32 acres). Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan • A283 A284 • Appendix 2-1 Anduze July 1, 2005 Page 2 of6 Anduze July I , 2005 Page 3 of6 Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. • AZ T:11:164 (ASM), AZ T:I2:91 (ASM), AZ T:I2:127 (ASM) (Baseline Ruin), AZ T:l2:202 (ASM), AZ T: 12:203 (ASM), AZ T: 12:204 (ASM), AZ T: 12:205 (ASM), and AZ T: 12:206 (ASM) are prehistoric Hohokam artifact scatters. The sites are recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information on prehistoric Hohokam social organization, settlement, and land use in the lower Salt River Valley, including the development and structure of irrigation communities. • AZ T:l2:197 (ASM), AZ T:12:201 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM) are trail sites with associated features (age and cultural affiliation unknown, but likely Native American in origin). AZ T: 12:207 (ASM) is a prehistoric trail site with an associated Hohokam artifact scatter. The sites are recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information on prehistoric settlement and land use near the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including social mobility and transportation networks. • AZ T:12:210 (ASM) is a prehistoric quarry (age and cultural affiliation unknown, but likely Native American in origin). The site is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to provide important information prehistoric settlement and land use near the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including lithic resource procurement and ground stone technology. • AZ T:12:199 (ASM) and AZ T:12:200 (ASM) are historic O'odham artifact scatters. AZ T:12:199 (ASM) is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to provide important information on historical-period O'odham settlement and land use near the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including the use of upland areas for subsistence and religious practices. AZ T:12:200 (ASM) is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP due to a lack of integrity and information potential. • AZ T:l2:198 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:208 (ASM) are prehistoric petroglyph sites with historic components. The sites are considered eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information of prehistoric Hohokam and historic 0 ' odham settlement and land use at the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including the use of upland areas for religious practices. • AZ T: 10:83 (ASM) (Roosevelt Canal) and AZ T: 12:154 (ASM) (Western Canal) are historic American irrigation canals. Both sites have previously been determined eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for their important associations with the development of Arizona's agricultural industry and irrigation networks. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised of five alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (TOI, T02, T03, T04, and T06) that extend from I-10 west of Phoenix to I-10 in west Chandler, south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. The cultural resources component of the EIS includes four technical studies: • • • A Class I overview of the overall study area: "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy ofthe report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). A Class lli survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class III Cultural Resource Survey of Five Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005), which is enclosed for consultation and discussed below. Addendum Class I overview and Addendum Class m survey to address the expansion (late 2004 and early 2005) of the overall study area to include portions of the I-10 and State Route lOlL freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments. These two additional reports will be forthcoming as part ofthe Section 106 consultations. The results of these two studies will be provided in the near future. The initial alternative alignments, defmed in March 2003,-were surveyed hy the Gila River Indian Community's Cultural Resource Management Program (GRIC-CRMP). The results are reported in a report titled A Class m Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Free,way Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), which is enclosed for your review and comment. Twenty-one archaeological sites were identified in the proposed alternative alignments (see attached table). Twenty sites are recommended as eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D. One site is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP. • AZ T:l2:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:12:52 (ASM) are prehistoric Hohokam villages with existing and/or historically documented public architecture. The sites are recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information on prehistoric Hohokam social organization, settlement, and land use in the lower Salt River Valley, including the village structure and the development of irrigation communities south of the Salt River. /ffi 2001 Award Red[ienl All sites are located on private land, except for AZ T: 10:83 (ASM) - Roosevelt Irrigation District; AZ T:12:154 (ASM)- Bureau of Reclamation / Salt River Project; AZ T:l2:207 (ASM)- City ofPhoenix, Park and Recreation; and AZ T:l2:211 (ASM) - Arizona State Land Department. FHWA/ADOT is concurrently consulting with these agencies regarding the eligibility of these sites located on their land. • 2001 Aw~d Reorient Appendix 2-1 Anduze July 1, 2005 Page 4 of6 'l Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division AOOT In addition, FHWN ADOT is recirculating a second draft Programmatic Agreement {PA, enclosed) because few tribes opted to participate in.the PA when it was originally circulated in August 2003. This recirculation will allow the tribes another opportunity to participate in the P A. This second draft PA has been edited to address any comments from the first draft as well as to also addresses TCP properties more specifically. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed survey report, PA, and information provided in this letter. If you find the survey report adequate, agree with the eligibility recommendation for site AZ T:l2:154 (ASM), and find the second draft PA acceptable, please sign below to indicate your concurrence and return to ADOT within 30 days. If you have any comments or changes to request for the PA, please respond in writing. We look forward to continuing consultation with your office as we develop the final P A to address project effects as the environmental documentation continues. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 602712-8636 or e-mail slaine@azdot.gov. Sincerely, E.~oo:~ Historic Preservation Team Environmental & Enhancement Group 205 South 171h Avenue Rm. 213E Mail Drop 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Enclosures 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 David P. Jankofsky Deputy Director August 17, 2005 Terry Enos, Chair Ak-Chin Indian Community 42507 West Peters & Nall Rd. Maricopa, Arizona 85239 RE: Project No: NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Second Draft Progranunatic Agreement follow-up Dear Chair Enos: The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is following up on our recent request for input on the draft Programmatic Agreement (P A) for the South Mountain Corridor freeway project (letter from Hollis, FHWA, July 7, 2005). ADOT/FHWA are in the process of finalizing the South Mountain Corridor P A to address project effects as the environmental documentation continues for the project. A draft PA was circulated in July 2005 along with an invitation to participate in discussions regarding the potential effects of the project on areas of traditional cultural significance, however, at this time, few tribes have opted to participate. ADOT on behalf of FHWA would like to offer another opportunity for your tribe/community to participate in the PA and in discussions regarding potential effects to areas of traditional cultural significance. Please sign below if you would like to be included as a Concurring Party to the final PA and return to ADOT by September 2, 2005. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource c,onsultation at a later date, ADOT/FHWA would make a good faith effort to address any concerns. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 602-712-8636 or e-mail slaine@azdot.gov. cc: SThomas (FHWA); WVachon (FHWA) erelle E. Laine, Coordinator Historic Preservation Team Environmental & Enhancement Group 205 South 171b Avenue Rrn. 213E Mail Drop 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Signature for Ak-Chin Community Concurrence cc: Nancy Nelson, Archaeologist SThomas (FHWA) · Date • A285 A286 • Appendix 2-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Mr. Edward Smith, Chairman, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Ms. Sherry Cordova, Chairwoman, Cocopah Indian Tribe Mr. Daniel Eddy, Jr., Chairman, Colorado River Indian Tribes Mr. Ralph Bear, President, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Ms. Nora McDowell, Chairwoman, Fort Mojave Tribe Mr. Mike Jackson, Sr., President, Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe Mr. Richard Narcia, Governor, Gila River Indian Community Mr. Don Watahonigie, Chairman, Havasupai Tribe Mr. Leigh Kuwanisiwma, Cultural Preservation Officer, Hopi Tribe Ms. Loretta Jackson, Tribal Historic Preservation Office, Hualapai Tribe Ms. Carmen Bradley, Chair, Kaibab-Band of Paiute Indians Mr. Alan Downer, Ph.D., Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department Ms. Herminia Frias, Chairwoman, Pascua Yaqui Tribe Ms. Joni Ramos, President, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community Ms. Kathleen Wesley-Kitcheyan, Chairwoman, San Carlos Apache Nation Mr. John Lehi, Sr., President, San Juan Southern Paiute Mr. Peter Steere, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Tohono O’odham Nation Mr. Joe Joaquin, Cultural Resource Specialist, Tohono O’odham Nation Mr. Ivan Smith, Chairman, Tonto Apache Tribe Mr. Mark Altaha, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, White Mountain Apache Tribe Ms. Jamie Fullmer, Chairwoman, Yavapai-Apache Nation Appendix 2-1 This letter was also sent to: Brian Kenny, Environmental Programs Manager, Maricopa County Dept. of Transportation Stanley Ashby, Superintendent, Roosevelt Irrigation District • A287 A288 • Appendix 2-1 Ross August 31, 2005 Page 2 of 12 Ross August 31 , 2005 Page 3 ofl2 The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised often alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (E1, W55, W7 1, W101WPR, WlOlWFR, Wl01W99, WlOlCPR, Wl01CFR, W101EPR, and W101EFR) that extend from I-1 0 west of Phoenix to I-1 0 in west Chandler, south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23 .6 miles (38.0 km) in length. documented prehistoric canals in the area are viewed as potentially eligible resources that should be investigated if encountered. The cultural resources component of the EIS includes four technical studies: • • • A Class I overview of the overall study area: "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). A Class III survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class Ill Cultural Resource Survey of Five Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurrence responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Bureau of Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), Bureau of Land Management (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quewakia, July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class III survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the I-10 and State Route lOlL freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report is titled An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County. Arizona. The Class III report is titled An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona. Both reports are enclosed for consultation and discussed below. Addendum Oass I Overview Results The addendum Class I overview, titled An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005), identified 27 previously recorded prehistoric and historic archaeological sites, five historical-period linear sites, and 129 historic building properties (see attached Table A). In addition, historical maps indicate that several prehistoric canal alignments pass through the study area. For the archaeological sites, five are considered eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D, five sites are not eligible, nine sites have not been evaluated for eligibility, and the eligibility status of eight sites is unknown due to a lack of available information. Historically- The Class I study revealed five historical-period linear sites in the study area. The linear sites are considered eligible overall under Criterion A with contributing and non-contributing segments. Of the 129 historic building properties, 25 have been previously recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and/or C, 37 have been recommended as not eligible, and 67 have not been evaluated. Seventy-one historic building properties are in the Capital Redevelopment Area in Phoenix, an unnominated residential area with an abundance of historic building properties. Eighteen of the historic building properties are in the Villa Verde Historic District, which is listed on the Phoenix Register of Historic Places. Although the Villa Verde properties were previously recommended as not eligible to the NRHP, they should be re-evaluated within the context of an early Phoenix suburban neighborhood. The vast majority of cultural resources identified in the addendum Class I study area will not be affected by any of the proposed alternative alignments. Cultural resources in the W55 and W71 alignments include AZ T:ll:26 (ASM), AZ T:l2:4 (MNA), AZ T:l2:5 (MNA), AZ T:l2:10 (ASM) (Los Colinas), AZ T:l2:38 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:178 (ASM) (Los Aumentos). Cultural resources in the Wl01 alignments include AZ T:7:167 (ASM) (Grand Canal), AZ T:l0:83 (ASM) (Roosevelt Canal), AZ T:ll:26 (ASM), AZ T:12:4 (MNA), and AZ T:12:178 (Los Aumentos). Addendu m Class Ill Survey Results An addendum survey of shifted alternative alignments, defined in December 2004, and agricultural fields that had been plowed in early 2005 since the time of the initial Class ill survey conducted by the GRIC (Darling 2004), was conducted by HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR). In addition, the addendum Class III survey included documentation of21 historic sites not included in the initial Class ill survey (Darling 2004). The results are reported in a report titled An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2005), which is enclosed for your review and comment. One archaeological site and 21 historic sites were identified in the proposed alternative alignments (see attached Table B). The archaeological site is recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D. Two historic sites aie recommended as eligible under Criterion A. Three historic sites are recommended as eligible under Criterion C. One historic site is recommended as eligible under Criteria A and B. One historic site is recommended as eligible under Criteria A and C. One historic site is recommended as eligible under Criteria A and D. One historic site is recommended as eligible under Criterion A but non-contributing within the proposed alternative alignments. Twelve historic sites are recommended as not eligible. Archaeological Sites • AZ T:12:221 (ASM) is a prehistoric Hohokam artifact scatter. The site is recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to provide important information on prehistoric settlement and land use in the low"' Salt Riv"' Valley near the confluence of Gila and Sal• • 2001 Award Aecipent 2001 AwardReod enr Appendix 2-1 Ross August 31, 2005 Page 5 of 12 Ross August 31,2005 Page 4 of 12 Farmsteads • The SRP 99th Avenue Lateral, located on the east side of South 99th Avenue and north of Lower Buckeye Road, is recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criterion A as a rare irrigation feature that was once common in the agricultural landscape of the Salt River Valley. The lateral is being converted to an underground pipe in response to the Pecan Promenade and City of Phoenix development projects. SRP and Reclamation are currently in the process of preparing a report for the canal that documents its history and engineering, as a form of mitigation. Upon completion of these projects, the 99lh Avenue Lateral will no longer be considered a contributing component of the overall SRP irrigation network. • The Anderson Farm Tenant Residences at 9901 and 9903 West Van Buren Road are recommended as not eligible to the NRHP due to a lack of historical and architectural significance. • The Carter Farmstead at 7201 and 72 15 West Broadway Road is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP. The farmstead has lost too many of its primary elements to convey a good sense of its historic character. While it provides a·picturesque rural setting, it does not provide an accurate portrayal of its historic composition. • The Cecil and Mary Colvin Farmstead located at 5139 West Estrella Road is recommended as not · eligible to the NRHP because it has lost too many of its period elements to convey its historic character. The fannhouse is the only primary element.remaining from the historic period; however, it lacks integrity and architectural distinction. • The Dad Farmstead at 6102 West Dobbins Road is recommen~ed as not eligible for the NRHP due to a lack of historical significance, architectural merit, and integrity. Individually, the fannhouse and bam have been modified and lack architectural distinction. Overall, the property fails to convey its original historic character as a working farmstead. Commercial Properties • Mother's Restaurant at 5760 West Buckeye Road is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP due to a lack historical significance and integrity. The original gas station is heavily modified as a result of its conversion to a restaurant in the 1970s. It no longer retains integrity of workmanship and design. Historically, the gas station was in a rural agricultural setting along a two-lane highway. Today, the property has lost its integrity of setting and feeling, as it is in a modem industrial zone with old US 80 (West Buckeye Road) widened to a five-lane urban thoroughfare. • The Jarvis Marine Repair Shop at 5800 West Buckeye Road is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP due its age and lack of architectural significance. • The Dean Farmstead at 9445 West Broadway Road is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP due to a lack of historical and architectural significance and diminished integrity of workmanship, design, and materials. The fannhouse is heavily modified through additions and is in a general state of disrepair. • The Hudson Farm located at 9300 South 59th Avenue is recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criterion A as an exceptional example of a historic farmstead in Laveen. It retains a complete suite of agricultural buildings and structures from the period of significance that are in good condition and well preserved. In addition, the farmstead does not have any intrusive modem buildings or structures that would detract from its historic setting and feeling (other than a large satellite dish which could be easily removed). The farmstead's combination and overall layout of older buildings and structures, along with other contributing elements such as the mature landscaping, palm tree-lined driveways and entrance gates, provides an inclusive picture of what a working farmstead was like in Laveen during the agricultural era period of significance. The property retains integrity oflocation, workmanship, materials, design, and association. Furthermore, the surrounding agricultural field provides the contextual framework within which the property conveys its historic character as a farmstead. Thus, the agricultural field is an important contributing component that defines and preserves the farmstead's integrity of setting and feeling. It is recommended that the entire 38-acre parcel is eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A as an exceptional example of a historic-period Laveen farmstead. Additionally, the pair of stave silos are recognized as individually eligible to the NRHP under Criterion C, as rare examples of a once common architectural form that was a fundamental component of Laveen's historic agricultural landscape. • The Maddux House at 9 115 West Broadway Road is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP due to a lack of historical and architectural significance. • The Parker Farmstead at 3606 South 83rd Avenue is recommended as not eligible due to a lack of historical and architectural significance. None of the farmstead's historic period buildings and structures remain, except for the fannhouse built in 1950, which is heavily modified with additions and generally lacks integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. • The Pitrat Farmstead at 5901 West Elliot Road is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP due to a lack of architectural integrity and historical significance. The historical layout of the farmstead has been lost as a result of property subdivisions and new construction. The house is heavily modified from its original form through multiple additions. Although the property is consistent with a rural agricultural landscape, in its current condition, it no longer conveys an accurate representation of its historical period character. • 2001 Award Recipml • 2001 Award R«:iperrt • A289 A290 • Appendix 2-1 Ross August 31, 2005 Page 7 of12 Ross August 31, 2005 Page 6 of 12 • The Quinonez House at 9131 West Broadway Road is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP due to a lack of historical and architectural significance and diminished integrity of workmanship, design, and materials • The Sachs-Webster Farmhouse at 7515 West Baseline Road was previously recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion C as an outstanding example of the Pyramid Cottage or NeoClassical bungalow style house. Not only is the house a rare example of a once common Territorialperiod architectural style, it is also exceptional in that few homes built in Phoenix in the Pyramid Cottage style possess as many of the hallmark attributes as does the Sachs-Webster House. transformed from rural agricultural to urban commercial/industrial. It is recommended that the segment in the study area is not eligible to the NRHP as a non-contributing component of US 80. Historic Townsites • Farmsteads with Dairy Components • • The Colvin-Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy located at 6159 West Dobbins Road is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP as a whole because of a lack of integrity and historical significance. However, the dairy "bead-to-toe" bam is recommended as individually eligible under Criterion C as a rare example of a once common architectural form that was a characteristic feature in Laveen's historic landscape and an integral component of its local economy. It is one of the few standing family-operated dairy barns in Laveen. It is also recognized as important within the broader context of the Salt River Valley's dairy industry as a surviving example of a dairy head-to-toe bam used during the height of its agricultural era. The Hackin Farmstead/Dairy at 10048 South 59th Avenue is recommended as not eligible to the NRHP because of a Jack of integrity and historical significance. However, the dairy "flat" barn, is recommended as individually eligible under Criterion C as a rare example of a once common form that was a characteristic feature in Laveen's historic landscape and an integral component of its local economy. It is one of the few remaining family-operated dairy barns in Laveen. It is also important within the broader context of the Salt River Valley's dairy industry as a surviving example of a dairy flat bam used during the height of its agricultural era. Feedlots • The C.O. Pitrat & Sons Feedlot in the 6100 Block of West Elliot Road is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP because of a lack of historical and architecture significance. The feedlot is 50 years old; however, most of its operation occurred in modem times. The structures and buildings are poorly preserved and generally lack integrity. The historic Santa Marie Townsite, located at the southwest comer of Lower Buckeye Road and 83rd Avenue, is recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and B. The unincorporated townsite is a living example of an historic, rural Hispanic agricultural community in the Salt River Valley. Communities such as Santa Maria had an important role in the development and operation of the Valley's agricultural industry throughout the 201h century. In. addition, the townsite has an association with Khattar Joseph Nackard, an Arizona businessman who had an influential role developing and shaping the State's economic and commercial future. As such, it is recommended that the Santa Marie Townsite is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and B. Railroads • The Southern Pacific Railroad Wellton-Phoenix-Eloy Main Line (AZ T:l0:84 [ASMJ) is recommended as eligible to the NRHP for its association with the development of Arizona's railroad network. The railroad has been maintained and upgraded over the years and remains an important component of Arizona's transportation network. Streetscapes • The 6100 Block West Dobbins Road Streetscape is recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and D as an example and reflection of the lower Salt River Valley's agricultural past. In contrast to a more common, barren rural streetscape defined by a two-lane road passing between broad, open agricultural fields, the 6100 Block contains a suite of rural agricultural elements that convey a strong sense of what rural life was like in Arizona in the early to mid 1900s; (i.e., it captures more of the human element). Rural streetscapes are becoming increasingly rare in the lower Salt River Valley, as agricultural communities are replaced by urban development. It is recommended that the 6100 Block West Dobbins Road Streetscape is eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and D, not only for its association with Arizona's early agricultural development, but more so for its information potential to provide future Arizonans with an idea of what rural agricultural life was like in the lower Salt River Valley during the early years of statehood. Highways • US 80 (AZ FF:9: 17 [ASM)) is considered eligible to the NRHP under Criterion A at the national level as one of the first designated transcontinental routes and for its association with the development of the U.S. interstate transportation network. The segment within the study area has been widened and modernized and no longer retains integrity of design, workmanship, and materials. Furthermore, its integrity of setting and feeling are lost with most of the surrounding landscape II=~ 1(dtfil 2001 Awad ReO!ient All sites are located on private land, except for the Sachs-Webster Farmhouse (7515West Baseline Road)- Flood Control District Maricopa County; SRP 991h A venue Lateral -Bureau of Reclamation/Salt River Project; US 80/ AZ FF:9:17 (ASM) - City of Phoenix, and the 6100 Block West Dobbins Road Streetscape- City of Phoenix. FHWAIADOT is concurrently consulting with these agencies regarding the eligibility of these sites located on their land. • 2001 Award Reopen! n P. en en <§' ~ ~ !3 0' .... 0 e; "i1 ::r: ~ :?; ~ "'n ::r 0 ::s ~ >en G Q ::s n c ~ n ~ ...-.. ~ >- tr1 ::s g. 0 en ..,c ~ S o El · ~ o ' c.. ~ o{g~~~~~s.~ ~ o a ~ ~ ~ s s· ... (ij' e. 0. 0. '< 0' sa ~ s·"' s-e. "' ~ tr1 "':;:t. "(") 00 ~8o-cn~»n88 ~ ::S)-f1p~~ g o.~ o~~,.,a ..... a ~ · a. s .., -::s -..]~ ' n ~ t:l t;;l a "" "tl \0 ti1 - ooen ...,_w -- 0 NN 0 0 Vt I» o~e;..,:;:t. 'cnO~~s~::S ~ wN~ wtr1Q E;::o II) c s· ~~- . . ~>-6' OQ c . 0 ~ 1:l ~gOQo~enOQO g;~g.§8 ~~ '-" ::o.g >g'~~'g >Q~~-o~ocn 0 ~. g ~ .g s s. 9 '"t1Ntr1!J:: ::r 0 ::s ..... ~ OVl • 0 0 Q~g~'g""en en • OnO g -· ~ "tl < 0 c ::s~ fr:!i'P:i;l Er cnP> ll>~C~ "tltt'd Red!ieol • A297 A298 • Appendix 2-1 Boston August 31, 2005 ... Page 7 of 12 . ... ~· . :.::' Historic Townsites • The historic Santa Marie Townsite, located at the southwest comer of Lower Buckeye Road and 83'd Avenue, is recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and B. The unincorporated townsite is a living example of an historic, rural Hispanic agricultural community in the Salt River Val1ey. Communities such as Santa Maria had an important role in the development and operation of the Valley's agricultural industry throughout the 201h century. In addition, the townsite has an association with K.hattar Joseph Nackard, an Arizona businessman who had an influential role developing and shaping the State's economic and commercial future. As such, it is recommended that the Santa Marie Townsite is eligible for the NRHP under · Criteria A and B. . ... . ·; .... :·~ The Southern Pacific Railroad We11ton-Phoenix-Eloy Main Line (AZ T: l 0:84 [ASM]) is recommended as eligible to the NRHP for its association with the development of Arizona's railroad network. The railroad has been maintained and upgraded over the years and remains an important component of Arizona's transportation network. Streetscapes • adequate and agree with the eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. We also look forward to continuing consultation with your office. The final Programmatic Agreement is being completed and will be submitted for signature in September 2005. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-712-6266 or e-mail RGreenspan@azdot.gov. erelle E. Laine, Coordinator Historic Preservation Team Environmental & Enhancement Group 205 South l71h Avenue Rm. 213EMail Drop 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Railroads • Boston August 31,2005 Page 8 of12 ~:::::~~~; The 6100 Block West Dobbins Road Streetscape is recommended as eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and D as an example and reflection of the lower Salt River Valley' s agricultural past. In contrast to a more common, barren rural streetscape defined by a two-lane road passing between broad, open agricultural fields, the 6100 Block contains a suite of rural agricultural elements that convey a strong sense of what rural life was like in Arizona in the early to mid 1900s; (i.e., it captures more of the human element). Rural streetscapes are becoming increasingly rare in the lower Salt River Valley, as agricultural communities are replaced by urban development. It is recommended that the 6100 Block West Dobbins Road Streetscape is eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and D, not only for its association with Arizona's early agricultural development, but more so for its information potential to provide future Arizonans with an idea of what rural agricultural life was like in the lower Salt River Valley during the early years of statehood. Signature for Reclamation Concurrence cc: SThomas (FHWA); WVachon (FHWA) All sites are located on private land, except for the Sachs-Webster Farmhouse (7515West Baseline Road) - Flood Control District Maricopa County; SRP 99th Avenue Lateral - Bureau of Reclamation/Salt River Project; US 80/ AZ FF:9: 17 (ASM)- City of Phoenix, and the 6100 Block West Dobbins Road Streetscape- City of Phoenix. FHWN ADOT is concurrently consulting with these agencies regarding the eligibility of these sites located on their land. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it wi11 be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed Class I oveMew and Class Ill swvey report and infonnation provided in this letter. If you find the - 2001 Awwd Reci(.iellt Its; 2001 Award Reci(.iellt Appendix 2-1 ~ "Manag ing a nd conserving natural, c ultural, a nd recr eationa l resources" '- , ~ 11-. September 19, 2005 ~ Dr. Ruth Greenspan ~ ~ ~ ~ Arizona ® S tate Parks Historic Preservation Specialist Environmental & Enhancement Group Arizona Department of Transportation 205 South 17th Avenue Room 213E Phoenix, AZ 85007-3212 RE: Janet Napolitano Governor State Parts Board Members Chair Elizabeth Stewart Tempe William C. Porter Kingman William Cordasco Flagstaff Janice Chilton Payson William C. Scalzo Phoenix John U. Hays Yarnell Mart Winkleman State land Commissioner Kenneth E. Travous Executive Director Arizona State Parks 1300 W. Washington Phoenix, Ill. 8~07 Tel & TIY: 602.542.4174 www.azslateparks.com 800.285.3703 from (520 &928) area codes General Fax: 602.542.4180 Director's Office Fax: 602542.4188 Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA H5764 OlE South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation SHP0-2003-1890 (25323) Dear Dr. Greenspan: Thank you for consulting with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act regarding plans for the South Mountain Freeway connecting Interstate 10 in west Chandler to I10 in west Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona, and submitting cultural resources reports and recommendations for review and comment. Dr. Bill Collins, Deputy SHPO/Historian, and I have reviewed the submitted materials and offer the following comments. The submitted cultural resources reports [An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona and An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona] are adequate. Before responding to the eligibility recommendations, some clarification is needed: 1) Page two of the cover letter states that the Class 1 identified 27 previously recorded prehistoric and historic archaeological sites; the breakdown of the eligibility status of these sites (i.e., 5 eligible, 7 not eligible, 7 not evaluated and 8 unknown) in the report differs from the characterization in the cover letter (i.e., 5 eligible, 5 not eligible, 9 not evaluated, and 8 unknown). 2) The text of the cover letter neglects to mention that the eligible Barnes Dairy Bam and the ineligible Dad Farmstead are part of the eligible 6100 West Dobbins Road Streetscape (although this is part of the listing in Table B to the cover letter). Dr. Collins also commented that the reasoning behind the suggested D eligibility of the 6100 West Dobbins Road Streetscape is actually more appropriate ~o A eligibility, so he disagrees with the recommendation that it is "more" eligible for D than A (see page 7 of cover letter). He agrees that it is A eligible, and did not see D eligibility properly evaluated at all. We appreciate your cooperation with this office in considering the potential impacts of development on cultural resources situated in Arizona. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (602) 542-7140 or electronically at djacobs@pr.state.az.us. Sincerely, ~t: David Jac s Complian e Specialist/Archaeologist State Historic PreserVation Office • A299 A300 • Appendix 2-1 Arizona Department of Transportation Kenny August 31, 2005 Page 2 of2 lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seven teenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 August 31, 2005 • Sam Elters State Engineer Brian Kenny Environmental Programs Manager Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2901 West Durango Street Phoenix, Arizona 85009 RE: Project No: NH-202-D( ) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Section 106 Consultation Draft Cultural Resources "Programmatic Agreement" . Dear Mr. Kenny: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway; EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses nine variations of five alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain FreeWay, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-IO).in west Chandler and to I-10 in west Phoenix (see attached map). As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised of five alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (T01, T02, T03, T04, and T06) that extend from I-10 west ofPhoenix to I-10 in west Chandler, south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23 .6 miles (38.0 km) in length. Land jurisdiction for the alternative alignments includes private land (5,160.7 acres) and lands administered by the Arizona State Land Department (101.4 acres), the Bureau of Land Management (35.1 acres), and the City of Phoenix Parks and Recreation (62.32 acres). The cultural resources component of the EIS includes four technical studies: • • • A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Burden 2002). A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in.the South Mountain Fre~ay Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005). An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck and Touch in 2005). · An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EJS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2005). Twenty-two archaeological sites and 21 histone sites were identified in·the proposed alternative alignments. In addition, the South Mountain Range is identified as place of traditional cultural importance to Native American tribes. Please let me know if you would like to review any of the above reports and t_hey will be sent to you. . FHW AJADOT is circulating the draft Programmatic Agreement (P A) that addresses cultural resources for th~ project for your review. Please review the enclosed draft P A. If you find the P A adequate and wish to participate in the final PA, please indicate your concurrence by signing below and return within in 20 days. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602712-6266 or e-mail RGreenspan@azdot.gov. Sincerely, Serelle E. Laine, Coordinator Historic Preservation Team Environmental & Enhancement Group 205 South 17th Avenue Rm. 213E Mail Drop 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Signature for Maricopa C ty Department ofTransport tion Concurrence Date Appendix 2-1 us Deporrmenr olllonspockllion Federol Hignway Adminl•tration Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2264 2 notice. If there is any additional information you require for this project or if you have any questions or comments, please contact Ruth Greenspan at (602) 712-6266 or via email at rgreenspan@azdot.gov. Thank you. September 27, 2005 S4!cerely, STEPHEN D. THOMAS In Reply Refer To: HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Section 106 Consultation Draft Programmatic Agreement . Enclosure (Map and draft Programmatic Agreement) Ms. Carol Legard Historic Preservation Specialist Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 12136 W. Baywood Avenue, Suite 330 Lakewood,.Colorado 80228 Signature for Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Concurrence Dear Ms. Legard: The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (AD01) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses nine variations of five ~ltemative aligrunents for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate .10 (1-10) in west Chandler and to 1- 10 in west Phoenix (see attached map). As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. FHWA originally consulted with your office regarding the draft Programmatic Agreement (PA) in August 2003. At that time, the Council declined to participate. Recently, FHWA has rec_irculated a second draft Programmatic Agreement to all consulting parties. It was decided to do this because when it was originally circulated, few tribes opted to participate at that time. FHWA felt this re-circulation of the PA would allow the tribes another opportunity to participate in the P A. This second draft P A has been edited to address any comments from the first draft as well as to also address TCP properties more specifically. The purpose of this letter is to notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and to determine Council participation pursuant to 36 CFR § 800.6(1). Please review this information and ifthe Council plans to participate in consultation, inform us within 15 days of receipt of this gEUP ..ERICA cc: SThomas RGreenspan (619E) REllis (619E) SDThomas :cdm Date • A301 A302 • Appendix 2-1 ... 0 U.S.Dei)Orlmenr of ior>SporroTion federal Highway Administration Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizo.oa 85004-2264 September 29,2005 In Reply Refer To: HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Section 106 Consultation Traditional Cultural Places Mr. Richard Narcia, Governor Gila :River Indian Community P.O. Box97 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 2 4. Mr. Lewis said he was not aware of any TCPs north of the Salt River within the study area, but added that other Native American tribes should be consulted to confirm that there are no TCP concerns in that area. 5. Mr. Lewis and Dr. Darling agreed that GRIC will provide FHWA and ADOT with a fonnal response to the consultation letter of July 7, 2005 regarding TCPs, and agreed that the response would include a map of the project area with areas that GRIC would like to see avoided in the event that an alternative other than the nobuild alternative is selected. This response will be made by October 3, 2005. 6. Mr. Lewis and Dr. Darling conf'trmed that GRIC is interested in participating in continuing consultation on this project, and agreed that GRIC will review and provide comments on the draft Programmatic Agreement by October 3, 2005. At this time, no decisions have been made regarding the various alternatives being studied for this project. If GRIC provides FHWA with a map and written infortnation regarding locations and possible mitigation measures for those areas your community would like to see avoided by the proposed freeway, FHWA will be in a position to insure that GRIC's concerns are given full consideration in the decision-making process. Any information provided would be kept strictly confidential. Dear Governor Narcia: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Envirorunental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. As part of this effort, FHWA has previously invited you to review and comment on several cultural resource reports and on a draft Programmatic Agreement (PA), and has requested your participation in discussions regarding the potential effects of the proposed undertaking on areas of traditional cultural significance, including the South Mountain Range. Although no written response to previous consultations has been received, on September 20, 2005, a meeting was held at the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) to discuss Traditional Cultural Places (TCPs) and any other. concerns your community has regarding historic properties of religious or cultural importance that have the potential to be affected by this project. In attendance at the meeting were Barnaby Lewis, Cultural Resource Specialist, GRIC; Andrew Darling, Assistant Coordinator, Cultural Resource Management Program, GRIC; Katherine Neustadt and Ruth Greenspan, Historic Preservation Team, (ADOT); and Mark Brodbeck, Coordinator, Cultural Resources Section, HDR, Inc. The following items were discussed at the meeting: Additionally, if GRIC chooses to participate in future consultation as a Concurring Party to the Programmatic Agreement, any comments on the draft PA provided by October 3, 2005 will be considered in preparation of the f'mal document. If GRIC opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA would make a good faith effort to address any concerns of the Community. As more infortnation becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your tribe/community through continued Section 106 consultation. We also look forward to continuing consultation with your office. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth L. Greenspan at 602-712-6266 or e-mail rgreenspan@azdot.gov. §incerely, STEPHEN D. THOMAS Robert E. Hollis · Division Administrator 1. The GRIC's Cultural Resource Specialist confirtned that all of South Mountain is viewed by the Akimel 0'odham and Pee Posh as an important and sacred place, and that cutting across, or tunneling under, any part of it would be viewed as a desecration. In the opinions of Mr. Lewis and Dr. Darling the only way to mitigate impacts to South Mountain would be to avoid it completely. 2. It was acknowledged by all in attendance that the only ways to completely avoid South Mountain are: a) the no-build alternative, and b) constructing a segment of the freeway on the GRIC reservation. It was the opinjon ofMr. Lewis that a freeway on the northern edg~ of the reservation would create an "unnatural" barrier that would serve to hinder access to South Mountain for Community members. In addition, Community members have voiced general objections to having a freeway on the reservation. 3. There are other TCPs and highly sensitive historic properties, such as the Villa Buena site, within some of the proposed alignments and in the general project area that have potential to be adversely affected by the proposed freeway. Enclosure cc: Barnaby Lewis, Cultural Resource Specialist, Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. BoxE, Sacaton, AZ 85247 J. Andrew Darling, Assistant Coordinator, Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 2140, 192 S. Skill Center Road, Room 200, Sacaton, AZ 85247 Sandra Shade, Director, Department ofTransportation, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 97, Sacaton, AZ85247 SThomas RGreenspan(619E) REllis (619£) SDThomas:cdm Appendix 2-1 . ,· Robert E. Hollis, Division Adrr: : .tator R.E: South Mountain Transportation Corridor September 30, 2005 Richard P. Narcia MARY GovERNOR v. rHOMA l iEUTENANTG OVERi'IQ! Gila ·R iver Indian Community ExECUTIVE OFFICE oF THE GovERNOR & LIEUTENANT GovERNOR 2 continuing cultural identity of the community" (National Register Bulletin 38). Historic sites must exhibit four attributes: an age greater than 50 years; existence as a tangible property; integrity in relationship to the transmission and retention of cultural beliefs or the performance of ceremonial practices; and integrity of condition wherein their traditional cultural significance has not been reduced through alteration of location, setting, design or materials. September 30, 2005 Robert E. Hollis, Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street, Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 RE: South Mountain Transportation Corridor, Section 106 Consultation, Traditional Cultural Places; HA-AZ NH-202-D (ADY); TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Dear Mr. Hollis, This letter is in response to your letter dated July 7, 2005 regarding the "South Mo~tain Transportation Corridor, Section 106 Consultation, Traditional Cultural Places; HA-AZ NH-202-D (ADY); TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL" The Environmental hnpact Statement addresses nine variations of five alt.e.rnatlve alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway. This project, which ~~teii:ds' iu-ound the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in wes~ Chandl~r and to I~'l 0 in west Phoenix would be located in close proximity to the Gila River Iif~ian:~Cilnirounity and would ~egatively impact . cultural resources; especially traditional cul~w:alproperties :.i(,,.., The G~~- ·River liJd{~ : C6llllJ1unity h~· concerns .~ega{M> R£CREAnQN DEPARTMENT • In Table 1, page 6: Please state whose cultural chronology you are basing the table on (Dean [1991])? • In Table 1, page 6: You place the Vahki phase before the Pioneer period, yet under Early Formative and Pioneer Periods, page 8, partial paragraph at the bottom of the page, initial sentence, you state that the Vahki phase is a part of the Pioneer period. Please revise this. • Under Paleo-Indian Period, page 7, line 4: kills sites should read kill sites. • . Under Paleo-Indian Period, page 7, line 10: You state that a single specimen was recovered from the northern edge of the basin. Please clarify which basin you are referring to. Also, for more information on Paleoindian finds in the area, please see: Project No.: ADOT Date Report Submitted: 9/26/05 Report Title: Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona Draft: X Final: Author: Brodbeck and Touchin Firm: HDR Action: Revise & Resubmit Comments: • Under Agency on the Abstract page (iii): ASLD, BLM and the COP Parks and Recreation Department should also be in this section because they are listed as having jurisdiction for the alternative alignments on the first page of the cover letter of this report from Serelle E. Laine for ADOT. Please revise this. • Under Location on the Abstract page (iii), partial paragraph at the bottom of the page, last line and partial paragraph at the top of page iv, first line: According to Figures 27, Sections 3 to 5, 8, 9, 16, 17, 20, 21, 28, 29, and 31 to 36 should read Sections 3 to 5, 8to 10, 15 to 17, 20 to 22, 27 to 29, and 31 to 36. Also, Sections 31 to 36 of Township 2 North, Range 1 West and Sections 1 to 12 ofTownship 1 North, Range 1 West should be added to this section. Please fix this here and under the Introduction, page l , final paragraph. • Under List of Sites on the W55 and W71 Alignments on the Abstract page (iv), final line: AZ T:5: (ASM) should read AZ T:1 Z:5(MNA) here and everywhere it occurs in the report. • Under Management Recommendations on the Abstract page (v), final paragraph and under Summary and Management Roecommendations, page 63, partial paragraph at the bottom of the page, and partial paragraph at the top of page 64: Add the folloWing sentence at the end of each paragraph: If the resources are identified within the City ofPhoenix, the City ofPhoenix Archaeology Office should also be contacted and allowed time to properly assess the materials. • On the Table of Contents page (vi), List of Figures: v should read viii. • On the Table of Contents page (vi), List ofTables: vi should read ix. • Under List of Figures, page viii: Figure 4 should read Figure 3. As a result, all of the remaining figure numbers are off by one both here and in the text of the report. Please revise this here and wherever it occurs in the report. • Under the Introduction, page l, initial paragraph, line 3: Omit is a between This and federally-funded. • Under Chapter 2: Environmental Context, page 4, initial paragraph, line 4: Aqua Fria should read Agua Fria. .,..• ..•, ~ -; : ' ·..:. : .' . North, Chris, Michael S. Foster, John M. Lindly and Douglas R. Mitchell 2005 A Newly Discovered Clovis Point from the Phoenix Basin and an Update on Arizona Clovis Point Attributes. Kiva 70(3): 293-307. • • Under Archaic Period, page 7, initial paragraph, line 9: Please move the dash from · after assemblages to after sedentism. Under Archaic Period, page 8, partial paragraph at the top of the page, first and second lines: Please add the following report to your list of work done on Archaic sites in the Phoenix Basin: Hackbarth, Mark R. 1998 Archaic and Hohokam Occupation ofthe Mayo Boulevard Project Area in Northeast Phoenix, Arizona. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropological Papers No.8. • Under Colonial Period, page 10, partial paragraph at the top of the page, line 6: Insert the word a after become. · • Under Colonial Period, page 10, fmal paragraph, lines 4-5: Doyel (1978), Elson et al. . (1995), Haury (1932) and Mitchell {-1986) are not in the Refemeces Cited section. Please revise this. • Under Classic Period, page 12, partial paragraph at the top of the page, line 3: Howard (1987) is not in the References Cited section. Please revise this. • Under Classic Period, page 12, partial paragraph at the top of the page, second complete sentence: For information on the platform mound at Pueblo Grande, please see: Downum, Christian and Todd Bostwick 2003 The Platform Mound. In Centuries of Decline during the Hohokam Classic Period at Pueblo Grande, edited by David Abbott, pp. 166-200. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. • • Under Historic Period, page 13, line 2: id divided should read is divided. Under The Hispanic Era (A.D. 1694-1853), page 14, partial paragraph at the bottom of the page, initial sentence: It is not clear what group of people are you referring to Appendix 2-1 • • • • • • • • • • • • · • • • • • • when you mention the word Western. Do you mean the Western Apache? Please revise this. Under The Hispanic Era (A.D. 1694-1853), page 15, final paragraph, final sentence: Mention the Mexican-Ameri~an War and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (1848) as well. Under Chapter 4: Regulatory Context, page 17, paragraph 2, line 5: Please omit the comma after NHPA and add a period. Under Chapter 4: Regulatory Context, page 17, partial paragraph at the bottom of the page, initial line: State Historic Preservation of 1982 seems incomplete. Do you mean State Historic Preservation Act of 1982? Under Chapter 5: Results, page 19, paragraph 2, line 2: You state that 76 projects were surveys, yet more than 80 surveys are listed in Table 2. Please revise this. Under Chapter 5: Results, page 19; paragraph 4, line 2 and under Chapter 6: Summary and Management Recommendations, page 63, paragraphs 2 and 4: You state that there were 129 historic buildings, yet 130 are listed in Table 7. Under Chapter 5: Results, page 19, paragraph 4, sentence 3: You state that five archaeological sites are not eligible, yet seven sites are listed as eligible in Table 5. Also, you state that nine archaeological sites have not been evaluated for eligibility, yet seven sites are listed as not evaluated in Table 5. Please revise this. In Table 2, page 20: The Janus Assoc. (1987b) survey is not shown in Figure 5. Please revise this. In Table 2, page 21: The Schroeder (1995) survey is not shown in Figure 5. Please revise this. Also, Stubbing and Mitchell should read Stubing and Mitchell. In Table 2, page 22: The Hart (1999) survey is not shown in Figure 3. Please revise this. In Table 2, page 23 : Please indicate which Touchin and Brodbeck (2003) you mean (a orb). In Table 3, page 24: The projects listed for the Excavations at Las Colinas, the Clark and Henderson (2001) project and the Boston and Ryan (2002) project are not shown in Figure 5. Also, the Shepard (1998) project is not shown in Figure 3. Please revise this. In Table 4, page 25: The Marshall (1996) project is not shown in Figure 5. Please revise this. In Table 4, page 25: The location of the Hart (2001a) project should read T2N, R2E, S32. On Figure 2, page 26: Four UTMs must be displayed. Please revise this both here and throughout the report. On Figure 4, page 28: Hart 2001 c should read Hart 2001 b. On Figure 5, page 29: Hart 2001 d should read Hart 2001 c. In the caption of Table 5, page 32: Previous should read Previously. In Table 5, page 32: You mention the site labeled "ASU'' and cite our base map as a reference, but this site is not labeled "ASU" on any of our maps. On whose records is this site labeled ASU? Table 5, page 32: According to our records, Midvale-6 and AZ T:12:28b(ASU) are two separate sites. Please revise this. • in • • • • • • • • • • • • In Table 5, page 32: Site AZ T: 12: 184(ASM) should be placed in the Site Number column for the Fangmeier (2002) project. In Table 5, page 33: Marshall (1997c) is not in the References Cited section. Please revise this. In Table 5, page 34, Referen~es for Las Colinas: Hammack (1981) is Hammack and Sullivan (1981) in the References Cited section. Heathington (1985) is Heathington et al. (1985) in the References Cited section. Finally, Gregory (1988b) is not in the References Cited section. Please revise this. In Table 5, page 34: Site AZ T: 12: 13(PG) is located far from this project area. It is located in TlS R2E S3. There was originally some confusion on the PGM site card (which has been resolved) as to whether this site is located in TlN or TIS, which may have caused it to be erroneously placed in TlN on SHPO inventory 1210. In Table 5, page 35, References for AZ T:12:38(ASM): Please include the other report referenc.es that were listed in the site file you obtained when you conducted your search at PGM, especially Layhe (1988), Excavations at AZ T: 12:38 (ASM). In The 1982-1984 Excavations at Las Colinas: The Site and Its Features. In Table 5, page 35: O'Brien eta/. 1997 should read O'Brien eta/. 1987. In Table 6, page 36: Please indicate which Touchin and Brodbeck (2003) you are referring to (a or b). On Figure 9, page 47: Many sites are labeled but not displayed. Please revise this both here and in other figures·where this occurs. . On Figure 9, page 47: The site boundary of Los Aumentos does not match that in our database. Please explain any discrepancies in the way that this site is plotted. Under Archaeological Sites (NRHP-Ineligible), page 58, paragraph 2, initial sentence: You state that sites AZ T:l2:4(MNA) and AZ T: l 2:5(MNA) have not been formally evaluated for eligibility and are located within the proposed alignments. Since there is federal involvement, these sites will need to be formally evaluated for eligibility if they will be impacted by the project. Under References Cited: Please insert spaces between the following reports: ASM (1998) and Basso (1983); McDerm6tt(2003) and McDonald (1974); Rosenberg (1983a) and Rosenberg (1983b ); Under References Cited, page 69: The Burden (2002) report that was mentioned in the cover letter from ADOT is not in the References Cited Section (A Class I · Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona). Recommendations: Please revise the report accordingly and send one final bound copy of this report to the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office. Please send the appropriate number of fmal bound copies of this report to the lead federal agency. They w ill then forward copies to all consulting parties. Reviewed By: Robert A. Serocki J r. and ../'\/} Todd W. B o~twick, Ph.D. - \ 1? Collection to be sub mitted: N/A Remarks: Date: 11/1/05 • A313 A314 • Appendix 2-1 ,(~\\ Archaeology Section Pueblo Grande Museum 4619 E. Washington St. Phoenix, /Q 85034 City of Phoenix . , PAR!G AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT • Under Paleo-Indian Period, page 16, second-to-last line: For more information on Paleoindian finds in the area, please see: North, Chris, MichaelS. Foster, John M. Lindly and Douglas R. Mitchell 2005 A Newly Discovered Clovis Point from the Phoenix Basin and an Update on Arizona Clovis Point Attributes. Kiva 70(3): 293-307. Project No.: ADOT Date Report Submitted: 9/26/05 Report Title: An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona Draft: X Final: Author: Brodbeck Firm: HDR • • Under Archaic Period, page 16, initial paragraph, line 9: Please move the dash from after assemblages to after sedentism. Under Archaic Period, page 17, initial paragraph, lines 3-4: Please add the following report to your list of work done on Archaic sites in the Phoenix Basin: Hackbarth, Mark R. 1998 Archaic and Hohokam Occupation ofthe Mayo Boulevard Project Area in Northeast Phoenix, Arizona. Pueblo Grande Museum Anthropological Papers No.8. Action: Revise & Resubmit • Comments: • Under Land Jurisdiction on the Abstract page (iii): FCDMC should also be in this section because it is listed as a land owner in the second table in the Abstract on page iv. Please revise this. • Under Eligibility and ManagementRec6mmendations on the Abstract page (v), paragraph 2, initial line: You mention an archaeological site. Please clarify if this site is historic or prehistoric. • Under Eligibility and Management Recommendations on the Abstract page (v), final paragraph and under Management Summary, page 150, final paragraph: Add the following sentence at the end of each paragraph: If the resources are identified within the City ofPhoenix, the City ofPhoenix Archaeology Office should also be contacted and allowed time to properly assess.the materials. • Under Feedlots on the Abstract page (viii), line 2 and under Feedlots, page 156, line 2: architecture should read architectural. • Under Historic Townsites on the Abstract page (ix) and under Historic Townsites, page 157: If you will use both Santa Maria and Santa Marie to describe the same township, please explain the difference as you do on page 110. • Under Project Background, page 1, line 14: The publication date for MAG (2003) is shown as 2002 in the References Cited section. Please revise this. • In Table 1.1, page 4: Survey Area 5 looks much larger than 10 acres in Figure 1.5. Please revise this. • On Figure 1.4, page 6: Please include the line that identifies quad map boundaries in the legend both here and in any figures where it occurs. • Under Chapter 3: Cultural Context, page 16, lines 4-5: Please enclose the time period of the Formative Period in parentheses, as with the other major stages. ; -~ : .... '.· ~ -~~:·:. - ~ ' . ~!. 1' :..'f., .';:~<~;J.~,~s~;. . . .. :· :: ... . ·,• ~ • • Under Colonial Period, page 19, partial paragraph at the top of the page, line 8: Insert the word a after become. Under Colonial Period, page 19, final paragraph, line 5: Mitchell (1986) is not in the References Cited section. Please revise this. Under Classic Period, page 2 1, partial paragraph at the top of the page, third complete sentence: For information on the platform mound at Pueblo Grande, please see: Downum, Christian and Todd Bostwick 2003 The Platform Mound. In Centuries ofDecline during the Hohokam Classic Period at Pueblo Grande, edited by David Abbott, pp. 166-200. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. • • • • • • Under Classic Period, page 21, final·paragraph, line 12: Sires (1983) is not in the . References Cited section. Please revise this. Under The Hispanic Era (A.D. 1694-1853), page 23, partial paragraph at the bottom of the page, initial sentence: It is not clear what group of people are you referring to when you mention the word Western. Do you mean the Western Apache? Please revise this. Under The Hispanic Era (A.D. 1694-1853), page 24, final paragraph, final sentence: Mention the Mexican-American War and the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo (1848) as well. Under Chapter 4: Regulatory Context, page 26, paragraph 2, line 5: Omit the comma after NHPA and add a period. Under Chapter 4: Regulatory Context, page 26, partial paragraph at the bottom ofthe page, initial line: State Historic Preservation of 1982 seems incomplete. Do you mean State Historic Preservation Act of 1982? Under Chapter 5: Methodology, page 28, initial paragraph, line 3: In addition to referring readers to the Burden (2002) report, refer readers to the Addendum Class I report that was recently completed as well (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). Appendix 2-1 • • • • Under NRHP Eligibility and Management Recommendations for site AZ T: 12:221(ASM), page 33, initial sentence: Please insert the word potentially before eligible. Also, this site needs to be formally evaluated for eligibility. On Figure 6.4, page 34: The legend gives an aerial photo date of Summer, 2003, yet figure. Please revise this. · there is no aerial photo in Under References Cited, page 159: The Burden (2002) report that was mentioned in the cover letter of this report from Serelle E. Laine for ADOT is not in the References Cited Section (A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona). Under References Cited, page 162, Elson et al. (1995): 995 should read 1995. this Recommendations: The City of Phoenix Archaeology Office concurs with the recommendation that archaeological and historic sites determined eligible for the NRHP should be avqided if possible. If avoidance is not possible, then any adverse effects should be mitigated. Please revise the report accordingly and send one fmal bound copy of this report to the City of Phoenix Archaeology Office. Please send the appropriate number of final bound copies of this report to the lead federal agency. They will then forward copies to all consulting parties. Reviewed By: Robert A. Serocki Jr. and Todd W. Bostwick, Ph.D. ~ Collection to be submitted: No Remarks: No collections were made. Date: 11/i/05 -Q Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division AOCT 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director August 17, 2005 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 David P. Jankofsky Deputy Director Peter Steere, Program Manager Joe Joaquin, Cultural Resource Specialist Tohono O'odham Nation Cultural Affairs Office P.O. Box837 Sells, Arizona 85634 RE: Project No: NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Second Draft Programmatic Agreement follow-up Dear Sirs: The Arizona Department of Transportation (AD01) on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is following up on our recent request for input on the draft Programmatic Agreement (PA) for the South Mountain Corridor freeway project (letter from Hollis, FHWA, July 7, 2005). ADOT/FHWA are in the process of finalizing the South Mountain.Corridc;>r PA to address project effects as the environmental documentation continues for the project. A draft·PA was circulated in July 2005 along with an invitation to participate in discussions regarding the potential effects of the project on areas of traditional cultural significance, however, at this time, few tribes have opted to participate. ADOT on behalf of FHWA would like·to offer another opportunity for your tribe/community to participate in the P A and in discussions regarding potential effects to areas of traditional cultural significance. Please sign below if you would like to be included as a Concurring Party to the final PA and return to ADOT by September 2, 2005. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, ADOT/FHWA would make a good faith effort to address any concerns. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 602-712-8636 or e-mail slaineC&.azdot.gov. erelle E. Laine, Coordinator Historic Preservation Team Environmental & Enhancement Group 205 South 17'h Avenue Rm. 213E Mail Drop 6l9E P. enix, Arizona 85 07-3213 Date cc: SThomas (FHW.A) ! . • A315 A316 • Appendix 2-1 US.Deponmenr or TronSI)Ortolion F•d..,al Highway Admini1tralk>n Arizona Division 400 East Van Bur en Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2264 November 22, 2005 In Reply Refer To: HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Section I 06 Consultation Traditional Cultural Places Mr. Richard P. Narcia, Governor Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box 97 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Dear Governor Narcia: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department ofTransportation (ADOT) appreciate your letter dated September 30, 2005 responding to our consultation regarding traditional cultural places. This consultation is part of the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the South Mountain Freeway project. Your letter expressed concern for the protection of 21 archaeological sites and three areas of traditional cultural importance-South Mountain itself, the Villa Buena site, and the Pueblo del Alamo site. The Jetter also requested that FHW A take appropriate mitigation measures to address adverse effects to the physical integrity of these trad'itional cultural places, which are considered sacred sites. The purpose of this letter is to request more specific information regarding the boundaries and cultural importance of these properties so that mitigation strategies can be developed within the context of Section 106 consultations ofthe National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR Part 800). . Under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP's) are defined as historic sites eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in the ·community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community (National Register Bulletin Number 38). Historic sites must exhibit four attributes: an age greater than 50 years; existence as a . tangible property; integrity in relationship to the transmission and retention of cultural beliefs or the performance of ceremonial practices; and integrity of condition wherein their traditional cultural significance has not been reduced through alteration oflocation, setting, design or materials. A TCP may be eligible for the National Register under one or more of the following Criteria: (A) association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of history; (B) association with the lives of persons significant in the past; (C) the embodiment ofthe distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; and (D) history of yielding, potential to yield, information important in prehistory or history (National Register Bulletin Number 38). Your letter dated September 30,2005 identifies South Mountain as a TCP and explains how it is rooted in the community's history and is important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity ofthe Akimel O'odham and Pee Posh. In addition, it has been demonstrated that South Mountain has been used by Akimel O'odham and Pee Posh for religious and ceremonial activities for more than 50 years and it retains integrity in terms of condition and the transmission and retention of cultural beliefs. FHW A and IIi.ERICA. . UP 2 ADOT recommend that South Mountain is eligible to the National Register as a TCP under Criterion A for its association with the broad patterns of Akimel O'odham and Pee Posh ceremonial and religious activity that is rooted in their history and integral to continuation of their cultural identity. To finalize this recommendation and fulfill FHWA 's Section I 06 obligations, we need to be able define the South Mountain TCP as "a tangible property," as defined by the NHP A. Therefore, FHWA requests that the Gila River Indian Community provide~ map marked with the physical boundaries of the South Mountain TCP, in order to assist with our environmental issues assessment. Your letter also identifies two archaeological sites as TCP's, Villa Buena (AZ T:l2:9 ASM) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:l2:52 ASM); however, no information is provided about the association of these sites with cultural practices or beliefs of the community that are rooted in the community's history and are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community. FHWA recommends the two archaeological sites as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D. Additional research would be required to evaluate their status as TCP's. FHW A recommends that a TCP evaluation be prepared to address the sites' TCP eligibility, so FHWA can proceed appropriately. Any information provided in a TCP study would be kept strictly confidential and not included in any documents released to the public. FHWA and ADOT appreciate the efforts of the Gila River Indian Community in addressing these complex issues and are committed to continuing consultation with the Community on these and other issues relating to this project. We are grateful for your efforts in proyiding a tangibll? boundary for the South Mountain TCP so that we can move forward with our legal obligations. Please review the information provided in this letter. If you agree that a TCP evaluation would be appropriate to evaluate the eligibility of Villa Buena (AZ T: 12:9 ASM) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T: 12:52 ASM) for the National Register as TCP's, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. We look forward to continuing consultation with your office. If you have any question or concerns, please do not hesitate to call Steve Thomas at 602-379-3645 ext. 1I7·or email stev.;.thom;ts(i.t\nl\va.dot.gov. Sincerely, STEPHEN 0. THOMAS Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Signature for Gila River Indian Community Concurrence Date cc: Barnaby Lewis, Cultural Resource Specialist, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box E, Sacaton, AZ 85247 John C. Ravesloot, Coordinator, Cultural Resource Management Program, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, AZ 85247 Sandra Shade, Director, Department ofTransportation, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 97, Sacaton, AZ 85247 SThomas, BVachon, KDavis, REllis (619E), RGreenspan (619E) SDTbomas:cdm Appendix 2-1 Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2264 US. Oeporrmenr ol Trorl$p0(101ion Federal Highway November 30, 2005 Administration In Reply Refer To: HA-AZ . NH-202-D (ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Section 106 Consultation Progi'ammatic Agreement Mr. Richard P. Narcia, Governor Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box97 Sacaton,llrizona 85247 Preserving America's Heritage December 27, 2005 Dear Governor Narcia: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are in the process of fmalizing the South Mountain Corridor Programmatic Agreement (PA) to address project effects as the environmental docwnentation continues for the project. A draft P A was circulated in July 2005. At this time, FHWA is following up on our previous request for participation in the P A for the South Mountain Corridor treeway project (letter from Hollis, FHWA, July 7, 2005). FHWA FHWA would like to offer another opportunity for your tribe/community to participate in the P A. Please sign below if you would like to be included as a Concurring Party to the P A and return to FHWA by December 23, 2005. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA would make a good faith effort to address any concerns you may have. We look forward to continuing consultation with your office. Ifyou have any question or concerns, please do not hesitate to call Steve Thomas at 602-379-3645 x 117 or email: Steve.Thomas@fuwa.dot.gov. Sincerely, . STEPHEN D. THOMAS Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Mr. Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Federal Highway Admiriistration 400 East Van Buren Street · One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, AZ. 85004-2264 REF: Proposed South Mountain Transportation Corridor Project Maricopa County, Arizona Dear Mr. Hollis: The ACHP r~ceived your notification and supporting documentation regarding the adverse effects of.the referenced project on properties listed on and eligible for listing on the _National Register of Historic Places. Based upon the information you provided, we do not beheve that our-partiCipation in consultation to resolve adverse effects is needed. However, shot,Jid circumstances change and .you determine that our participation is required. please notify us. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(b)(iv), you ~ill need to file th~ final Memorandum of Agreement and related documentation at the conclusion of the consultation process. The filing of the Agreement with us is required in order to complete the requirements of Section 1 06 of the Nationai'Historic Preservation Act Thank Y9U for. providing -u s with your notification of adverse effect, If you _hav~ any questions or require !I,Jrther ~ssistance, . p!ease ·~ontact Carql Legard, FHWA Liaison, _a~ 202~~06-8503. Sincerely, Signature for'GRIC Concurrence -- Date cc: BamabyV. Lewis, Cultural Resource Specialist, GRIC, P.O. BoxE, Sacaton, AZ 85247 John C. Ravesloot, Coordinator, Cultural Resource Management Program, GRIC, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, AZ 85247 Sandra Shade, Director, Department of Transportation, GRIC, P.O. Box 97, Sacaton, AZ 85247 SThomas, RGreenspan (619E), REllis (619E) SDThomas:cdm I \..-"1 Raymond V. Wallace . Historic Preservation Technician Office of Federal Agency Program's ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION 1.100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 809 • Washington, DC 20004 Phone: 202-606-8503 • Fax: 202-606-8647 • achp@achp.gov • www.achp.gov • A317 A318 • Appendix 2-1 ~ Arizona Department of Transportation lntermodal Transportation Division ~DOT 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolitano Governor Victor M. Mendez Director Jacobs TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5765 OIL January 12, 2006 Page 2 of3 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Sam E!ters Deputy Director January 12, 2006 Dr. David Jacobs State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 understanding the region' s overall cultural pattern of prehistoric and historic use. ADOT and FHW A agree that proper mitigation of impacts to the cultural resources in the South Mountain Freeway corridor should include considerations of"non-site" areas. With this in mind, the IO's that are in proximity to other lOs, or in proximity to defined sites or trails, were called out in the report so that further investigation of them could be considered in any treatment plans that might be developed in the future. However, based on survey data alone, these lOs do not meet the ASM criteria for sites, or the NRHP criteria for historic properties, and we recommend that the site boundaries in the GRIC CRMP report should not be revised to include outlying lOs. Eligibility Recommendations RE: Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA H5764 South Mountain Transportati0n Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Class Ul Survey Report Eligibility Recommendations Dear Dr. Jacobs: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. As part of this effort, we submitted a Class III cultwal resources survey report on July l, 2005 prepared by the Gila River Indian Community' s (GRIC) Cultural Resource Management Program (CRMP). The report was titled A Class OJ Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005). In your response letter dated July 11, 2005, you provided several comments regarding the treatment of isolated occurrences (10) and on the Programmatic Agreement being prepared for the project. The purpose of this letter is to address the 10 comments and request concurrence on the eligibility recommendations for the archaeological sites that were provided in the report (Darling 2005). · Nineteen archaeological sites and two historic canals were identified in GRIC CRMP's Class III report (Darling 2005). The eligibility of the historic canals- AZ T: 10:83 (ASM) (Roosevelt Canal) and AZ T : 12:154 (ASM) (Western Canal)- are currently being reassessed and will be addressed in an eligibility assessment report being prepared by HDR Engineering's Cultural Resources Section which will be submitted to your office at a later date. Of the archaeological sites, 18 are recommended as eligible to the NRHP and one is recommended as not eligible: • AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:12:52 (ASM) are prehistoric Hohokam villages with existing and/or historically documented public architecture. The sites are recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information on prehistoric Hohokam social organization, settlement, and land use in the lower Salt River Valley, including the village structure and the development of irrigation communities south of the Salt River. • AZ T:I1 :164 (ASM), AZ T:12:91 (ASM), AZ T:12:127 (ASM) (Baseline Ruin), AZ T :l2:202 (ASM), AZ T:l2:203 (ASM), AZ T:12:204 (ASM), AZ T:12:205 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:206 (ASM) are prehistoric Hohokam artifact scatters. The sites are recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information on prehistoric Hohokam social organization, settlement, and land use in the lower Salt River Valley, including the development and structure of irrigation communities. • AZ T:12: 197 (ASM), AZ T :12:201 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:211 (ASM) are trail sites with associated features (age and cultural affiliation unknown, but likely Native American in origin). AZ T:12:207 (ASM) is a prehistoric trail site with an associated Hohokam artifact scatter. The sites are recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information on prehistoric settlement and land use near the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including social mobility and transportation networks. • AZ T :l2:210 (ASM) is a prehistoric quarry (age and cultural affiliation unknown, but likely Native American in origin). The site is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to provide important information prehistoric settlement and land use near the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including lithic resource procurement and ground stone technology. Isolated Occurrences In your letter you noted that the report grouped lOs into 12 clusters in "areas where numerous artifacts co-occur but in concentrations less than would merit an archaeological site designation (Darling 2005:413.)" None of the areas with lOs has high enough artifact densities to meet standard site definition criteria. In fact, the term "cluster" is somewhat misapplied in the report. For example, 10 Cluster 4 consists of six artifacts in a roughly 20-acre area; IO 6 has 17 artifacts in a 40-acre area; and, 10 Cluster 7 consists of six artifacts in an approximately 15-acre area. The other 10 "clusters" have similarly low artifact densities. In your letter you also pointed out that the report notes that some of the IO Clusters are associated with prehistoric trails and trail sites near South Mountain with the additional note that some of the trails continue to be used by GRIC today. It should be pointed out that not all lOs in the study area are associated with trails, and in fact, at this point the relationships of the lOs with the trails and other cultural uses of South Mountain have not been investigated beyond collecting basic inventory and location information. ADOT and FHWA recognize that while the lOs are not individually considered eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), they are an important component to • . s 2001 Award Recif)Ml Appendix 2-1 -..J II. .__ Jacobs TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5765 OIL January 12, 2006 Page 3 of3 • • "Manaq , '-'-- lt...,.. AZ T:12:198 (ASM) and AZ T:12:208 (ASM) are prehistoric petroglyph sites with historic components. The sites are considered eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D for their potential to provide important information of prehistoric Hohokam and historic O'odham settlement and land use at the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including the use of upland areas for religious practices. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. If you agree that (1) the lOs d~ not qualify as sites and that the boundaries of the existing sites, as defined by the GRIC CRMP (Darhng 2005), should not be revised to include outlying lOs, (2) that the proper treatment of aff~ed cultural resources in the APE should include considerations of non-site cultural resources, and (3) tf you agree with the National Register eligibility recommendations for the 19 archaeological sites, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. Wt= also look forward to continuing consultation with yo~ office. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 602-712-6266 or e-matl rgreenspan@azdot.gov. ~ ~ Arizona ® State Parks . Janet Napolitano Governor State Parks Board Members Chair Elizabeth Stewart Tempe William C. Porter Kingman William Cordasco Flagstaff Janice Chilton Payson William C. Scalzo John U. Hays YameU giliL Mark Winkleman State Land Commissioner GT=spm Historic Preservation Specialist Environmental & Enhancement Group 205·South 17th Avenue Rm. 213E Mail Drop 619E Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 resources" Dr. Ruth Greenspan Historic Preservation Specialist Environmental and Enhancement Group Arizona Department of Transportation 206 South 17th A venue Phoenix, AZ 85007-3212 RE: Phoenix Sincerely, ·~creationa l January 23,2006 ~ AZ T:12:199 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:.2 00 (ASM) are historic O'odham artifact scatters. AZ T:12:199 (ASM) is recommended as eligible for the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to provide important information on historical-period O'odham settlement and land use near the confluence of the Gila and Salt Rivers, including the use of upland areas for subsistence and religious practices. AZ T:12:200 (ASM) is recommended as not eligible for the NRHP due to a lack of integrity and information potential. a nd con serving natural, c ultural. a ? · Kenneth E. Travous Executive Director Arizona State Parks 1300 W.Washington Phoenix, ~ 85007 Project No. NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Class ill Survey Report; Eligibility Recommendations SHP0-2003-1890 (26970) Dear Dr. Greenspan: Thank you for consulting with this office regarding the cultural resources survey report and the eligibility recommendations associated with the South Mountain Transportation Corridor pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as implemented by 36 CFR Part 800. We have reviewed the submitted letter and eligibility recommendations, and offer the following comments. The earlier submitted cultural resource report [A Class III Cultural Resource Survey of Five Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona] by J. Andrew Darling identified 21 sites and 191 Isolated Occurrences (lOs). The current submitted letter [dated January 12, 2006] notes that the eligibility of the two historic canals [AZ T:10:83 (ASM), the Roosevelt Canal, and AZ T:12:154 (ASM), the Western Canal] are being reassessed, and will be addressed later. Of the remaining 19 sites, one [i.e., AZ T:12:200 (ASM)) is recommended as ineligible, and the 18 others [AZ T:11 :164 (ASM) and AZ T:12:9, 52, 91, 127, 197, 198, 199,201,202,203, 204,205,206, 207,208,210, and 211 (ASM)] are eligible to the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP) under Criterion D . We agree with these eligibility recommendations from a site-by-site consideration, however, consideration needs to be given to a broader context to properly understand the significance of the project area and the surrounding setting. Tel & TIY: 602.542.4174 www.azstateparils.CXlm 800.285.3703 from (520 & 928) area codes Signature for SHPO Concurrence Date General Fax: 602.542.4180 Director's Office Fax: 602.542.4188 cc: SThomas (FHWA); WVachon (FHWA) Iff; 2001 Award llecident Our office noted in an earlier letter [dated July 11, 2005] that many of the lOs should be reconsidered as parts oflarger entities, such as known prehistoric habitation sites, canals, and avenues of travel. Your letter acknowledges that "ADOT and FHWA recognize that while the lOs are not individually considered eligible to the NRHP, they are an important component to understanding the region's overall cultural pattern of prehistoric and historic use" and that "further investigation of them could be considered in any treatment plans that might be developed in the future." Our office agrees conceptually with this, but we are uncomfortable with your usage of the term "non-site" areas. • A319 A320 • Appendix 2-1 January 23,2006 Page 2, Greenspan U.S-Deportment ot llonsponotlon Federal Highway Administration Regarding the term "non-site" areas, the National Historic Preservation Act [NHPA] distinguishes five different property types [i.e., building, structure, site, district, and object] in contrast to the systematics to be found with the assignment of numbers by the Arizona State Museum [ ASM]. In order for this project to meet federal standards, the National Register classification system should be used. In some cases, lOs may be considered to be contributing elements to structures (trails would be structures), districts, and landscapes. lOs may also be considered as objects, defined as constructions that are primarily artistic in nature or are relatively small in scale and simply constructed; although it may be, by nature or design, movable, an object is associated with a specific setting or environment. Examples of objects would include a boundary marker or milepost marker. Regarding the project area, it is clear that a broader context [beyond the individual "site" and beyond the physical footprint of the project) needs to be considered to determine the significance of the many identified lOs, perhaps individually undistinguished, and even the purportedly ineligible and individually considered AZ T:12:200 (ASM), a historic O'odham artifact scatter. The property type of"district" and/or the notion of a cultural landscape should be seriously considered when addressing the significance of the "non-site" cultural resources within the South Mountain Transportation Corridor project area and the development of a treatment plan. Tribal input is crucial; the oral traditions of the O'odham identify the South Mountain area (Greasy Mountain?] as a place associated with Elder Brother [I'itoiJ. We do appreciate your cooperation with this office in considering the impacts of federal undertakings on cultural resources situated in Arizona, and we look forward to reviewing the revised data recovery report. If you have any questions, please contact me at (602) 542-7140 or electronically via djacobs@pr.state.az.us. ~~ Compliance Specialist/Archaeologist State Historic Preservation Office CC: Barnaby Lewis, Gila River Indian Conununity Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2264 March 7, 2006 In Reply Refer To: HRW -AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H576401L South Mountain Transportation Corridor Section 106 Consultation Mr. Steve Dibble Archaeologist United ~tates Army Corp of Engineers P.O. Box 532711 Los Angeles, California 90053-2325 Dear Mr. Dibble: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses nine variations of five alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler and to I-10 in west Phoenix (see attached map). As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Furthermore, because the South Mountain Freeway would cross jurisdictional waters of the US, there will be United States Army torps of Engineers (Corps) involvement. Section 106 consultati~ns were initiated for the project in August 2003. At that time, the Corps was inadvertently excluded from the list of participating agencies. It is therefore the purpose of this letter is to provide a summary of the consultations to date along with accompanying reports; to provide the Corps an ·opportunity to review and comment on the draft Programmatic Agreement (PA) developed for the project; and to inquire as to whether the Corps would prefer to participate in the P A as a Signatory or as a Concurring Party. Lano jurisdiction for the alternative alignments includes private land (5,160.7 acres) and lands administered by the Arizona State Land Department (101.4 acres), the Bureau of Land Management (35.1 acres), and the City ofPhoenix Parks and Recreation Department (62.32 acres). Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation ~ffice (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the NAfUP . .ERICA. Appendix 2-1 2 3 Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Corps, the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the MariCopa County Department of Transportation, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City ofPhoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian . Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pinia-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Trihe, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has declined to participate in the PA at this time. September 19, 2005); SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005); City of Phoenix, Pueblo Grande Museum (Bostwick, November 1, 2005). Finally, the fourth phase of the cultural resources studies entailed an addendum Class III survey. HDR conducted the survey in early 2005 . The survey covered shifted proposed alignments, freshly plowed agricultural fields, and areas with historical resources that had been overlooked during the initial Class III survey (Darling 2005). The results are presented in a report titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizol;la" (Brodbeck 2005). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in · responses from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Czaplicki, September 19, 2005); SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005); and City of Phoenix, Pueblo Grande Museum (Bostwick, November 1, 2005). The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised offi.ve alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors that ext(md from I-10 west of Phoenix to I-1 0 in west Chandler, south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are generally 1000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to yo.ur agency through continued Section I 06 consultation. Please review the .enclo~ed cultural resources technical reports and the draft Programmatic Agreement (PA). If you concur with the adequacy of the reports and their eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by sigrring below as indicated. If you agree with the adequacy of the draft PA, please indicate your concurrence by signing below as indicated. In addition, please indicate below whether the Corps would like to participate as a Signatory or Concurring Party to the PA. We look forward to continuing consultation with your office to address project effects as the envirorunental documentation continues. To date, there have been four cultural resources technical reports prepared for the EIS, which include two Class I overviews and two Class III survey reports: In 2001, the first phase of the technical studies began with the Gila River Indian Community's Cultural Resource Management Program (GRIC-CRMP) preparing the initial Class I overview of the overall study area. The report is titled "A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September22, 2003); City of Phoenix, Historic Preservation Office (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 ); City of Phoenix, Pueblo Grande Museum (Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October27, 2003). The second phase of the project entailed pedestrian surveys of the proposed alternative aligrunents. The GRIC-CRMP conducted the Class III survey between November 2003 and March 2004. The results of the survey are presented in a report titled "A Class III Cultural Resource Survey of Five ,Alternative Aligrunents in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling W05). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in responses from SHPO (Jacobs, January 23, 2006); BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005); BIA (Cantley, August 11, 2005); Reclamation (Czaplicki, July 12, 2005); City of Phoenix, Pueblo Grande Museum (Bostwick, July 18, 2005); and SRP (Anduze, August 8, 2005). · In late 2004 and early 2005, the third phase of the cultural studies included an addendum Class I overview that covered expanded portions of the study area along I-10 and the State Route lOlL freeway corridors on the west side of Phoenix. HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) prepared the addendum Class I overview. The results were provided in a tech.tiical report titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in responses from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Czaplicki, If you have any questions concerning this submission, please call Ruth Greenspan at 602-712-6266 or e-mail RGreenspan@azdot.gov. S_incerely, (, STEPHEN D. THOMAS Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Signature for Corps concurrence with adequacy of the reports and eligibility recommendations Date Signature for Corps Concurrence with adequacy of the draft PA Date • A321 A322 • Appendix 2-1 4 U£0eponment of Traruporf01ion FedefaiHighway Adminislrallon Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 June 26, 2006 The Corps prefers to participate in the PA as a Signatory or Consulting Party. (please circle) HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) In Reply Refer To: Enclosures (draft P A and four technical reports) cc: SThomas WVachon, REllis (ADOT 619E) RGreenspan (ADOT 619E) Cindy Lester- AZ Area Office, 3636 N Central Ave, Suite 900, Phoenix AZ 85012 (with enclosures) SDThomas:cdm }RACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Second Addendum Class III Survey Report Mr. Steve Ross, Archaeologist Arizona State Land Department 1616 West Adams Street Phoenix, Arizona, 85007 Dear Mr. Ross: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical st,udies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses ten variations on three alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate I 0 (I-1 0) in west · Chandler and to I-10 west ofPhoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the U.S. Army Corps .o f Engineers (COE), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), the Maricopa Cm.J.nty Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the ~-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRJC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised often alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (E1, W55, W71, W101WPR, WI01WFR, WIOIW99, W101CPR, W101CFR, W101EPR, and Wl01EFR) that extend from I-10 in west Chandler to I-10 west ofPhoenix, south ofthe greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1,000-ft (304.8'-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. Appendix 2-1 • A323 2 The cultural resources component of the EIS includes five technical studies: Previous Consultation: • A Clll$S I overview of the overall study area: "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). . • A Class III survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class ill Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quetawki), July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class III survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the 1-10 and State Route lOlL freeway corridors and shifts. in the alternative alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class III report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L!DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, November 1, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). Current Consultation: A second addendum cultural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four properties and clarifies the location of a fifth property relative to the APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shifted · north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result of this shift, two historic residential properties were added to the APE: 6304 West Dobbi"ns Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road. Furthermore, two properties in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain Park/Preserve and specific segments of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ T: 10:83 [ASM]) in the alternative alignments. Finally, the location of the Western Canal (AZ T: 12:154 [ASM]) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, ·~Second Addendum Cultural Resource~ Report for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EJS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), assesses the NRHP eligibility of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal 3 (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with EcoPlan Associates (EcoPlan) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). The report is enclosed for your review and comment. South Mountain Park/Preserve is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximately 32 acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed El Alignment. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the National Park Service (NPS) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depression era. The park is also recommended as eligible under Criterion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning natural parks and implementing NPS design standards for improvements in wilderness area parks. While the current study foclised on the 32 acres within the footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the potential to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associations with influential NPS architects; under Criterion C for the architectural merit of its buildings and structures, both individually and collectively as a district; and under Criterion D for its collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and historical mining-related sites (components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal-AZ T: 10:83 (ASM)-is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the historical development of irrigation districts in lower Salt River Valley. While previous studies for the South Mountain EIS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments within the proposed alternative alignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are contributing or non-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersects the proposed alternative alignment footprints in four locations. The canal segments that cross the W55 and W71 Alternatives south of Van Buren Road retain integrity and are recommended as eligible to the National Register under Criterion A as contributing components. The segments that cross the proposed altemati ve alignments in the I-10 and the lOlL freeway corridors are modem realignments that lack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to the project's APE as a result of alignment shifts referred to above. Both properties are on privatelyowned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaluated the properties' eligibility .(Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and architectural merit, therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Finally, the initial Class Ill survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T:l2: 154 [ASM]) as an historic property in the APE, in the El · Alternative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclamation and S_RP. Further study has indicated that this irrigation feature is actually a tail-water drainage ditch and that the Western Canal terminates prior to reaching the APE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will not be affected by the proposed undertaking. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed cultural resource assessment report and information provided in this letter. If you find the report adequate and agree with the eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing A324 • Appendix 2-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Mr. Garry Cantley, Western Regional Archaeologist, Bureau of Indian Affairs Ms. Cheryl Blanchard, Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management Mr. Bryan Lausten, Archaeologist, Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Charlie McClendon, City Manager, City of Avondale Mr. Mike Normand, Transportation Services & Planning Manager, City of Chandler Mr. Ron Short, Deputy Director for Long Range Planning, City of Glendale Dr. Todd Bostwick, Archaeologist, City of Phoenix Ms. Barbara Stocklin, Historic Preservation Officer, City of Phoenix Mr. Ralph Valez, City Manager, City of Tolleson Mr. Larry Hendershot, Flood Control District of Maricopa County Mr. Brian Kenny, Environment Programs Manager, Maricopa County Department of Transportation Mr. Stanley Ashby, Superintendent, Roosevelt Irrigation District Mr. Rick Anduze, Archaeologist, Salt River Project Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist, State Historic Preservation Office Mr. Steve Dibble, Archaeologist, United States Army Corps of Engineers Ms. Delia M. Carlyle, Chairwoman, AkChin Indian Community Mr. Charles Wood, Chairman, Chemehuevi Indian Tribe Ms. Sherry Cordova, Chairwoman, Cocopah Indian Tribe Mr. Daniel Eddy, Jr., Chairman, Colorado River Indian Tribes Mr. Ralph Bear, President, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation Ms. Nora McDowell, Chairman, Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Mr. Mike Jackson, Sr., President, Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe Mr. William Rhodes, Governor, Gila River Indian Community Mr. Thomas Siyuja, Chairman, Havasupai Tribe Mr. Leigh Kuwanisiwma, Hopi Tribe Mr. Gary Tom, Chairman, Kaibab-Band of Paiute Indian Tribes Dr. Allen Downer, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Navajo Nation Historic Preservation Department Ms. Herminia Frias, Chairwoman, Pascua Yaqui Tribe Mr. Arden Quewakia, Governor, Pueblo of Zuni Ms. Joni Ramos, President, Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community Ms. Kathleen Wesley-Kitcheyan, Chairwoman, San Carlos Apache Nation Ms. Evelyn James, President, San Juan Southern Paiute Mr. Peter Steere, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Tohono O’odham Nation Mr. Joe Joaquin, Cultural Resource Specialist, Tohono O’odham Nation Mr. Ivan Smith, Chairman, Tonto Apache Tribe Mr. Dallas Massey, Sr., Chairman, White Mountain Apache Tribe Mr. Jamie Fullmer, Chairman, YavapaiApache Nation Mr. Ernest Jones, Sr., President, YavapaiPrescott Indian Tribe Appendix 2-1 This letter was also sent to Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist, State Historic Preservation Office • A325 A326 • Appendix 2-1 u.s. [)cpo[lmefll oflrons)XlE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will not be affected by the proposed undertaking. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed 4 cultural resource assessment report and information provided in this lett er. If you find the report adequate and agree with the eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-7126266 or e-mail ru:reenspan(a),azdot.!!ov. Sincerely yours, P'fLPrL / _.Robert E. Hollis ~Division Administrator ~ - Z:~ Signature for Chandler Concurrence Enclosure Appendix 2-1 US. Deportment 01 Ttonsportotion Federal Highway Administration Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 June 26, 2006 2 Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1,000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 · miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 Ian) in length. The cultural resources component of the EIS includes five technical studies: In Reply Refer To: HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202LMA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor ·continuing Section 106 Consultation Second Addendum Class ill Survey Report Mr. Brian Kenny Environment Programs Manager Maricopa County Department of Transportation 2901 West Durango Street Phoenix,Pu1zona,85009 Dear Mr. Kenny: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses ten variations on three alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler and to I-1 0 west of Phoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau oflnaian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control" District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City . of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the S~lt River Pima-Maricopa Indian CommlliliJ.xn ~~$.ti~·~9-M~.Gl~( A1W.me Tribe, the San Juan Southern Pru.ute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, thq-:1JP.:¢RA.Jla!>b.e.!f.ribe,:fuel\Wliiit'e'Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-HL"eSC6WlDdianT-ribe!lif.i'lOiilff'l~ The Area ofPotential Effect (APE) is comprised often alternative (o~i~1~J~~gJ~~eway corridors (El, W55, W71, WlOlWPR, Wl01WFR, W101W99, W101CPR, W101CFR, WlOlEPR, and Wl 01 EFR) that extend from I-1 0 in west Chandler to I-I 0 west of Phoenix, south of the greater Previous Consultation: • A Class I overview of the overall study area: "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Ja,cobs, September i9, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November I 0, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). . m Cultural Resource • A Class III survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class Survey of Five Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18,2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quetawki), July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class III survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the I-10 and State Route lOlL freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class III report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & VDCR Projec't, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, November I, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). Current Consultation: A second addendum cultural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four properties and clarifies the location of a fifth prop~rty relative to the APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shifted north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to'historic properties. As a result of this shift, two historic residential properties were added to the APE: 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road. Furthermore, two properties in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain Park/Preserve and specific segments of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ T:l0:83 [ASM]) in the alternative alignments. Finally, the location of the Western Canal (AZ T:l2: 154 [ASM]) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, "A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South • A329 A330 • Appendix 2-1 3 Mountain Transportation Corridor EJS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), assesses the NRHP eligibility of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with EcoPlan Associates (EcoPlan) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). The report is enclosed for your review and comment. · South Mountain Park/Preserve is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximately 32 acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed E1 Alignment. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the National Park Service (NPS) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depress~on era. The park is also recommended as eligible under Criterion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning natural parks and implementing NPS design standards for improvements in wilderness area parks. While the current study focused on the 32 acres within the footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the potential to establish eligibility tinder Criterion B for associations with influential NPS architects; under Criterion C for the architectural merit of its buildings and structures, both individually and collectively as a district; and under Criterion D for its collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and historical mining-related sites (components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal-AZ T: 10:83 (ASM)-is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the historical development of irrigation districts in }ower Salt River Valley. While previous studies for the South Mountain EIS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments within the proposed alternative alignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are contributing or non-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersects the proposed alternative alignment footprints in four locations. The canal segments that cross the W55 and W71 Alternatives south of Van Buren Road retain integrity and are recommended as eligible to the National Register under Criterion A as contributing components. The segments that cross the proposed alternative alignments in the I-1 0 and the 10 I L freeway corridors are modem realignments that lack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to the project's APE as a result of alignment shifts referred to above. Both properties are on privatelyowned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaluated the properties' eligibility (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and architectural merit, therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Finally, the initial Class III survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:154 [ASM]) as an historic property in the APE, in the E1 Alternative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclamation and SRP. Further study has indicated that this irrigation feature is actually a tail-water drainage ditch and that the Western Canal terminates prior to reaching the APE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will not be affected by the proposed undertaking. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed 4 cultural resource assessment report and information provided in this letter. If you find the report adequate and agree with the eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-7126266 or e-mail rgreenspan@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~~ (.?Robert E. Hollis es--:Division Administrator Signature for MCDOT Cone rrence ~hW-I::'e"\ Enclosure Date Appendix 2-1 us.Deponmenr o1 Ttcrnporror!on Fed.,.ol Highway Administration Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 June 26, 2006 2 Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1,000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. The cultural resources component of the EIS includes five technical studies: In Reply Refer To: HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Second Addendum Class III Survey Report Dr. Todd Bostwick, Archaeologist City of Phoenix Pueblo Grande Museum 4619 East Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona, 85034 Dear I;>r. Bostwick: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department ofTransportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses ten variations on three alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler and to I-10 west ofPhoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), th~ Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, _the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation. the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the N.~:-:~J.W:~a~i'Ontfne':P;asq~:.V.'ifqui Tribe, the Puebio of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Corni'p,1@t~;;tif~~~~~:~,l!flB~:~~~M~e Tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apach~ Tnbe~ ·th6 White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised often alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (El, W55, W71, WIOIWPR, WIOIWFR, WI01W99, WlOICPR, WlOlCFR, WIOIEPR, and WI OIEFR) that extend from I-1 0 in west Chandler to 1-10 west of Phoenix, south of the greater Previous Consultation: • A Class I overview of the overall study area: "A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report re~ulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (JB;cobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, . September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). • A Class Ill survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County. Arizona" (Darling 200:S). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quetawki), July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class Ill survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the 1-10 and State Route 101 L freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class III report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclam.ation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City ofPhoenix (Bostwick, November 1; 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). Current Consultation: A second addendum cultural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility offour properties and clarifies the iocation of a fifth property relative to the APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shifted north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to·historic properties. As a result of this shift, two historic residential' properties were added to the APE: 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road. Furthermore, two properties in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain ParK/Preserve and specific segments of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ T: I 0:83 [ASM]) in the alternative alignments. Finally, the location of the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:154 (ASM]) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, ''A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South • A331 A332 • Appendix 2-1 3 Mountain TranSportation Corridor EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), assesses the NRHP eligibility of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with EcoPlan Associates (EcoPlan) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). The report is enclosed for your review and comment. 4 cultural resource assessment report and information provided in this Jetter. If you find the report adequate and agree with the eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-7126266 or e-mail nzreenspan@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, South Mountain Park/Preserve is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximately 32 acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed E 1 Alignment. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the National Park Service (NPS) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depression era. The park is also recommended as eligible under Criterion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning natural parks and implementing NPS design standards for improvements in wilderness area parks. While the current study focused on the 32 acres within ~he footprint of theE 1 Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the potential to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associations with influential NPS architects; under Criterion C for the architectural merit of its buildings and structures, both individually and collectively as a district; and under Criterion D for its collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and historical mining-related sites (components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal- AZ T: 10:83 (ASM)- is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the historical development of irrigation districts in lower Salt River Valley. While previous studies for the South Mountain EIS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments within the proposed alternative alignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are contributing or non-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersects the proposed alternative alignment footprints in four locations. The canal segments that cross the W55 and W71 Alternatives south of Van Buren Road retain integrity and are recommended as eligible to the National Register under Criterion A as contributing components. The segments that cross the proposed alternative alignments in the 1-10 and the !OIL freeway corridors are modern realignments that lack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to the project's APE as a result of alignment shifts referred to above. Both properties are on privatelyowned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaluated the properties' eligibility (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and architectural merit, therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Finally, the initial Class ill survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T: 12:154 [ASM]) as an historic property in the APE, in the El Alternative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclamation and SRP. Further study has indicated that this irrigation fearure is actually a tail-water drainage ditch and that the Western Canal terminates prior to reaching the APE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will not be affected by the proposed undertaking. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed VrL Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Si Enclosure Date Appendix 2-1 S. Mt consultmio n - response from CRIT Page I of I Brodbeck, Mark From: Sent: To : Cc: Subject: Ruth Greenspan [RGreenspan@azdot.gov) Thursday, July 06, 2006 4:49 PM Steve Thomas Brodbeck, Mark S. MI. consultation - response from CRIT Brodbeck, Mark To: Alle n, Jack; Edwards, Amy Subject: FW: S. Mt. consultation • response from CRlT Hi, Steve-- FYI I just got a phone call from Michael Tsosie, who is the director of the Colorado River Indian Tribes Museum, in response to the consultation letter sent for the 2nd Addendum report. He informed me that CRJT would be unable to concur with the consultation, because South Mountain is a TCP for them, and plays an important role in their creation myth. 1 asked him to please make a written response to the consultation letter outlining their concerns, and assured him that the written response would trigger another round of consultation. From: Ruth Greenspan (mailto:RGreenspan@azdot.gov] Se nt: Thursday, July 06, 2006 4:49 PM Ruth To: Steve Thomas C<:: Brodbeck, Mark Subject: s. Mt. consultation - response from CRIT HI, Steve- ----···- ---·- - - -- -- ------ -··- - ·-· Con fi den t i alit y and N on dis clo sure N Ot ice: Thi S email transm>ssion and ;my attachments arc intelldcd ror use by t11c pc>-son(s)/cll!ily(icS) narned a!love and m~y <:ontain confident ial/privileged inronna\iOtl. A•ly un<~utho<;Y.cd usOil(S)/entt\Y(Ie.~} named above ~nd may contain contldent.Jal/prlvlfCQCd lnformilt!On. My unauthofited use, disclosure or distribution Is stnc!l'f prGhlblted . U you are not the lnreoaed re<:lp:eot. ole~se contact the SC!nder by t · mail. and delete or de15troy ;,II coplci plus attachments. • A333 A334 • Appendix 2-1 White Mountain Apache Tribe Historic Preservation Office PO Box 507, Fort Apache, AZ 85941 Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenjx, Arizona 85004-0674 u.s. Deponmenr of TronsponoriOn Fede.~.~~~~~G?t!wbtt '· · t '{ :.· . : :···~ ;• . ; ..1 ...<( • • ;1' ~ ~ r t -" ! • 'j t The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised of tep;:-alte~~tW~ ! 1(irv~\l$i?~8j ,.freeway corridors (El, W55, W71, WIOlWPR, _WIOIWFR, WIOIW99, WIOICPR, WIOlCFR, WlOlEPR, and WIOIEFR) that extend from I-10 in west Chandler to I-10 west' of Phoerux, south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1,000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6lan) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. Appendix 2-1 2 The cultural resources component of the EIS includes five technical studies: Previous Consultation: • A Class I overview of the overall study area: "A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses frox:n SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, ·2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (KuwfU1wisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BlA (October 27, 2003). . • A Class ill survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class Ill Cultural Resource Survey of Five Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, ·2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quetawki), July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class III survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the I-10 and State Route 101 L freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative iilignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Toucbin 2005). The Class III report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, November 1, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). 3 (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with EcoPlan Associates (EcoPlan) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). The report is enclosed for your review and comment. South Mountain Park/Preserve is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximately 32 acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed El Alignment. FHWA and ADOT recomme~d that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the National Park Service (NPS) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depression era. The park is also recommended as eligible under Critepon C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning natural parks and implementing NPS design, standards for improvements in wilderness area parks. While the current study focused on the 32 acres within the footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the potential to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associations with influential NPS architects; wider Criterion c for the architectural merit of its buildings and structures, both individually and collectively as district; and under Criterion D for its collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and historical mining-related sites (components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). a In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal-AZ T:10:83 {ASM)-is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the historical development of irrigation districts in lower Salt River Valley: While previous studies for the South Mountain EIS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments within the proposed alternative alignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are contributing or non-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersects the proposed alternative aligriment footprints in four locations. The canal segments that cross the W55 and W71 Alternatives south of Van Buren Road retain integrity and ar.e recommended as eligible to the National Register under Criterion A as contributing components. The segments that cross the proposed alternative alignments in the I-10 and the lOlL freeway corridors are modern realignments that lack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to the project's APE. as a result of alignment shifts referred to above. Both properties are on privatelyowned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaluated the properties' eligibility (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and architectural merit, therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Curren t Consultation: A second addendum cultural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four properties and clarifies the location of a fifth property relative to the APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shifted north ofthe Salt River to.avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result.ofthis shift, two historic residential properties were added to the APE: 6304 West Dobbins Road arid 7316 West Lower Buckeye Ro.ad. Furthermore, two properties in the ·existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain Park/Preserve and specific segments of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ T:10:83 (ASM]) in the alternative alignments. Finally, the location of the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:154 [ASM)) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, "A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), asse~es the NRHP eligibility of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal Finally, the initial Class III survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:154 [ASM]) as an historic property in the APE, in the El Alternative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed oy Reclamation and SRP. Further study has indicated that this irrigation feature is actually a tail-water drainage ditch and that the Western Canal terminates prior to reaching the APE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will not be affected by the· proposed undertaking. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed cultural resource assessment report and information provided in this letter. If you find the report adequate and agree with the eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing • A337 A338 • Appendix 2-1 4 below. At this time, FHWA is once again inquiring whether you have any concerns regarding historic properties of religious or cultural importance to your community within the project area. If you have such concerns, any information you might provide within 30 days of receipt of this letter would be considered in the project planning. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA would make a good faith effort to address any concerns. However, such consultation would not necessitate a reconsideration of this determination of project effect. We. also look forward to continuing consultation with your office. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-712-6266 or e-mail rgreenspan@azdot.gov. U.S.Deportmenr ot l'JonsporiOlion Arizona Division 400 East Van Bur en Str eet One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 Federal Highway Adrninktroflon June 26, 2006 lnReplyReferTo: HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Second Addendum Class ill Survey Report Sincerely yours, Mr. Larry Hendershot Flood Control District of Maricopa County 2801 West Durango Street Phoenix, Arizona, 85009 Dear Mr. Hendershot: Signature for Hopi Concurrence Enclosure Date The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses ten variations on three alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to I-10 west of Phoenix. As this project would employ federal funds , it is Considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Potential consulting p~es for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the U.s.· Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDO.T), the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City ofTolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Comm·unity, the Chernehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, ·the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan ~outhern Paiute,. the Tohono ? 'odham Nation, th~ Tonto ~4.9~~1-.'h'r.}?~e, 9;tr,,'ffi?lf~,._Mountain Apache Tnbe, the Yavapai-Apache NatiOn, and the Yavapat-PrescP.ttl!lndl~.ri?.h~, 1,jf!. ,~; o!•:t. ;; ~ 1_,. ~: ;{}JfJ rt~~~~ j')~..(.. r-t~ )',..i ;,;;~:·Ht·t.--t! w;·.: ·ri The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised of ten alternative (ov.~~apping) . freeway corridors (El, W55, W71, Wl01WPR, W101WFR, Wl01W99, W101CPR, W forCFR, W101EPR, and WlOIEFR) that extend from I-10 in west Chandler to I-10 west of Phoenix, south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1,000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 mi!es (34.6 Ian) to 23 .6 miles (38.0 Ian) in length. QI!P.KLE UP .~v~WERICA Appendix 2-1 2 The cultural resources component of the EIS includes five technical studies: Previous Cons ultation: • A Class I overview of the overaJl study area: ''A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County,· Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); · Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, Noveinber 10, 2003);·and BIA (October 27, 2003). • A Class III survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class III Cultural Resource Survey of Five Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa · County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, 'July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quetawki), July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class III survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the 1-10 and State Route 101 L freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class III report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick; November I, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). Current Consultation: A second addendum c~tural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four properties and clarifies the location of a fifth property relative to the APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shifted . north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result.ofthis shift, two historic residential properties were added to the APE: 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road. Furthermore, two properties in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain Park/Preserve and specific segments of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ T: I 0:83 (ASM]) in the aJternative alignments. Finally, the location of the Western Canal (AZ T:12:154 [ASM]) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, "A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), assesses the NRHP eligibility of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal 3 (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with EcoPlan Associates (EcoPlan) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). The report is enclosed for your review and comment. South Mountain Park/Preserve is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximately 32 acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed El Alignment. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the NationaJ Park Service (NPS) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depression era. The park is also recommended as eligible under Criterion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning ·natural parks and implementing NPS design standards for improvements in wilderness area parks. While the current study focused on the 32 acres within the footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the potential to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associations with 'influential NPS architects· under Criterion c for the architectural merit of its buildings and structures, both individually and ~llectiv~ly as a district; and under Criterion D for its collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and historical mining-related sites (components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal- AZ T:10:83 (ASM)-is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the historicaJ development of irrigation districts in lower Salt River Valley. While previous studies for the South Mountain EIS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments within the proposed alternative aJignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are contributing or non-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt CanaJ intersects the proposed alternative alignment footprints in four locations. The canal segments that cross the W55 and W71 Alternatives south of Van Buren Road retain integrity and are recommended as eligible to the National Register under Criterion A as contributing components. The segments that cross the proposed alternative alignments in the I-1 0 and the lOlL freeway corridors are modern realignments that lack historicaJ integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The ruraJ residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to the project's APE as a result of alignment shifts referred to above. Both properties are on privatelyowned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaJuated the properties' eligibility (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and architecturaJ merit, therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Finally, the initial Class III survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T:12:154 [ASM]) as an historic property in th,e APE, in the El Alternative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclamation and SRP. Further study has indicated that this irrigation feature is actuaJly a tail-water drainage ditch and that the Western C!'ffial terminates prior to reaching the APE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will not be affected by the propos~d undertaking. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed cultural resource assessment report and information provided in this letter. If you find the report adequate and agree with the eligibility recommendations•. please indicate your concurrence by signing • A339 A340 • Appendix 2-1 4 below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-7126266 or e-mail nrreenspanfa>,azdot.gov. U~Ocvarme.'\1 olllonsporlelioo Sincerely yours, fedeR>I Hlghwqy Admlnhtrorlon P¥1?1{_ ( c:J- ArizonR Division 400 East Von Bur~n Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85011-1-067·1 June 26, 2006 In Reply Refer To: HA-A7. NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H57M 011. South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Sectio11 106 Consulcacirescon Indian Tribe. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised of ten alternative (overlapping) fn:eway corridors (El. W55, W7J, WIOI WPR, WtOJWFR. WJO!W99, WlOlCPR, WlOlCFR., WlOlEPR, and WlOIEFR) that extend from I-10 in west Chandler to J-10 west of Phoenix, south of the greater Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1,000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. · Appendix 2-1 2 The cultural resources component oftbe F.TS includes five technical studies: Previous Con sult11t ion : • A Class l overview of the overall study area: "A Class 1 Overview of the South Mountain Corridor Study Area. Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding ac.kquacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); ELM (Stone, September 22, 200.3); City of Phoenix. (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 und Bostwick. September I 7, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10. 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and ETA (Ot.1ober 27, 2003). • A Class HI survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class ][] Cultural Resource Survey nf Five Altqmativ~ Alignments in rhe South Mou11tain Freeway Corridor Study Area. Maricopa Cou11ty. Arlzo11a" (Darling 2005). Con~ultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concuning re:>ponses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July ll, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix. (Bo5lwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of.Zuni (Quctawki), July \2, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). r overview and addendum Class lll survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the I- I 0 and State Route 10 I L freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments (!are 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class 1 Overview Report for tlze 202L. South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project. Maricopa County. Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class 111 report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freew~y EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concuning respo.n:;es have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of Phoenix. (Bostwick, November 1, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). • An addendum Class Current Consultation: A second addendum cultural resC>urces assessment report has been prepared by HDR.lnc. in order to address the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four properties and clarifies the location of a ijfth property relative to the APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shifted north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result of this shift, two historic residential properties were added It) the APE: 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road. furthermore, two properties in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South. Mountain Park!Preservc and specific segments of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ 1:10:83 [ASMl) in the alternative alignments. Finally, tbe location of the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:154lASMJ) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, "A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L. South Mowuain Transportation Corridor E/S & L/DCR Project. Maricopa Councy. Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), assesses the NRliP eligibility of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal 3 (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with .EcoPlan Associates (EcoPian) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix /1.). The report is enclosed for your review and comment. Soulh. Mountain Park/Prest:rVe is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximate! y 32 acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed E1 Alignn:1ent. FHW A and ADOT recommend that the South MountaiT) Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the National Park Service (NPS) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depression era. The park is also recommended as eligible under Crite::rion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning natural parks and implementing NPS d..:sign standards for imp~:ovemt:{lts in wild~rness area parks. While the current study focused on the -.32 acres within the footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the pote11ti.al to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associatiolls with influential NPS architects; under Criterion C for the architectural merit of its buildings and strucrurcs, both individually and collectively as a district; and unde( Criterion D for its . collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and historical mining-related sites (components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal /I.Z T: 1O:R3 (ASM)-is considered eligible f(lr th.e NRliP under Criterion A for its associations with the historical development of irrigation districts in lower Salt River Valley. While previous $tudies for the South Mountain ETS Study acknowledged th~t the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments within the proposed alternative aligrunents had not been assessed in terms of whether they are coJJtributing or DC.o-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersects the proposed altt:nJative alignment footprints in four locations. The canal segn1.ents rhat cross the WSS and W71 Alternatives south of Van Buren Road retain integrity and are recommended as eligible to the National Register under Criterion A as contrib-uting compollents. The segments that cross the proposed alternative alignments in th.e I-1 0 and the 101 L freeway couidors are modem realignments that Jack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buc.keye Road were added to the project's APE as a result c)f alignment shifts referred to above. .Both properties arc on privately· owned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaluated tl:le properties' eligibility (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and architectural merit. therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is ehgible for inclusiol) in. the NRHP. Finally, the io.itis.l Class lll survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (Al T:l2:154 [ASM]) as an historic property in the APE, in the El Alternative at Elliot Road. The Weste(n Canal is owned and managed by Reclamation and SRP. Further srudy has indicated tbat this irrigation feature is actually a tail-water drainage djtch and that the Western Canal tc::nninates prior to reaching the APE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will nut be affected by the- proposed undertaking. As more information becomes available reg-.u-ding the South Mountain f'(eeway project. it will b~ provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed cultural resource assessment report and information provided in this letter. If you flnd the rep()rt adequate and agree with the eligibility reconunendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing • A341 A342 • Appendix 2-1 "J 4 below. At this time, FHWA is once again inquiring wheLher you have any concerns regarding historic propertie.-; of religious or cultural importance to your community within the projed area. If you have such concerns, any information you might provide within 30 days of receipt of this letter would be considered in the project planning. If your office tlpts to participate in culrural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA :would make a good faith effort to address any concerns. However, such consultation would not necessitate a reconsideration of this determination ()fp;roje~.-i effect. We also look forward to continuing consultation with your office. Tfyou h ave any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-712-6266 or ~mail rgreenspan@azdot.gov. "Manaq -. , ~ ~ ~ '-- July 19, 2006 ~ ~ -~ ~ Arizona ® State Parks .. Sincerely yours, STEPHEN D. THOMAS Janet Napolitano Governor Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator da.>Uw LJ.·. P!Y_t:i~ML:- signa.rure for SUT Concurrence State Parks Board Members C\u.lu j 7t. . D~U ><:..::;J.O:::..W()'-=(q_ _ Enclosure cc. Vemelda Grant, Tribal Archaeologist, P .O. Box 0, San Carlos, Arimna 85550 (enclosure) SThomas RGreenspan (MD 619.E) SDThomas:cdm and conserving natural. cultural. a/ .. · ecreational resources" Chair William C. Porter Kingman William Cordasco Flagstaff Janice Chilton Payson William c. Scalzo Phoenix Reese Woodling Tucson Elizabeth Stewart Tempe Mark Winkleman State Land Commissioner Kenneth E. Travous Executive Director Arizona State Parks 1300 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ &5007 Tel & TTY: 602.542.4174 www.azstateparks.com 800285.3703 from (520 & 928) area codes General Fax: 602.542.4180 Director's Office Fax: 602.542.4188 Robert E. Hollis, Divisi~n Administrator Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division U.S. Department of Transportation· One Arizona Center, Suite 410 400 E. Van Buren Street Phoenix,~ 85004-0674 Attention: Stephen Thomas RE: HA-~; NH-202-D(ADY); TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL; South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 1 06 Consultation SHP0-2003-1890 (29666) Dear Mr. Rolli's: Thank you for consulting with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) regarding the alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway and submitting materials for review and commept pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as implemented by 36 CFR ,Part 800. Dr. Bill Collins, Deputy SHPO!Historian, and I have reviewed the submitted materials and have the following comments. The submitted report [A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & i!DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona] addresses the eligibility for inclusion in the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP) offourproperties in the area.ofpotential effe.ct (APE), and also discusses the location of the Western Canal, previously believed to fall with the APE. We concur with the FHWAIADOT recommendations regarding the two rural residential properties [6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road], the Roosevelt Canal[~ T:10:83 (ASM)], and the Western Canal[~ T:12:154 (ASM)). We also agree with the recommendation that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is el.i..~l;>{~f6i'linclusiqD;.9 t}:le NRHP under Criterion A, ·b.tit suggest restating the • .. .:•iJ ,J. , • • .. L- .,r ...... . ' eligibilicy ~--~~ociati011.,·W~~ -ill.~~ development of parks and,re·creation in Phoenix +! <\ [also in the West geherally for,~~ ,j.uiique emphasis on mountain preserves] and not with the <1::0C. Th~ CCC constitutes just a small porti()n_ the park. Additionally, we agree· with the FHWA/ADOT recommendations regarding eligibility of the South Mountain Park/Preserve for inclusion to the NRHP under Criteria B, C, and D . .. I o ~ •• ~ I • • .. ' ~. '• 11 t ~ of Appendix 2-1 July 19, 2006 Page 2, Hollis If you have any questions, please contact me at (602) 542-7140 or electronically at djacobs@pr.state.az.u_s. ~yt,~ . David Jac bs Complian e Specialist/Archaeologist State Historic Preservation Office CC: Ruth Greenspan, ADOT US.Deponment Of Tror.spOfiO rlon Federol Hlghwoy Adminis1rofion Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Swte 410 Phoenix. Arizona 85004-0674 June 26, 2006 In Reply Refer To: HA-AZ NH -202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202LMA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Second Addendum Class ill Survey Report Mr. Charlie McClendon City Manager Avondale City Hall 11465 West Civic Center Drive, Suite 200 Avondale, Arizona, 85323 Dear Mr. McClendon: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses ten variations on three alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler and to I-10 west ofPhoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau ofReclamation (Reclamation), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COB), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River·Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City ofTolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRJC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised often alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (El, W55, W71, WlOIWPR, WIO!WFR, WlO!W99, Wl01CPR, WlO!CFR, WlOlEPR, and Wl01EFR) that extend from I-10 in west Chandler to I-10 west of Phoenix, south of the greater ·w~UP .· ERICA • I • A343 A344 • Appendix 2-1 2 Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative corridors are 1,000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 krn) in length. The cultural resources component of the EIS includes five technical studies: Previous Con sultation: • A Class I overview of the overall stUdy area: "A Class I Overview of the South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, SeptemJ;>er 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11 , 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). • A Class III survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quetawki), July 12, 2005), Y avapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class III survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the I-10 and State Route l OlL freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative aligrunents (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L. South · Mountain Freeway EIS & L(DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class III report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, November 1, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). C urren t Consultation : A second addendum cultural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address the National Register of Historic Places (NlliiP) eligibility of four properties and clarifies the location of a fifth property relative to the APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W7 I were shifted north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result of this shift, two historic residential properties were added to the APE: 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road. Furthermore, two properties in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain Park/Preserve and specific segments of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ T : I 0 :83 [ASM]) in the altemative alignments. Finally, the location of the Western Canal (AZ T:12: 154 [ASM]) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, "A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South 3 Mountain Transportation Corridor EL'S & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), assesses the NRHP eligibil.ity of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with EcoPian Associates (EcoPlan) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). 111e report is enclosed for your review and comment. South Mountain Park/Preserve is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximately 32 acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed El Alignment. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRRP under Criterion A for its associations with the National Park Service (NPS) and .Civilian Conservation COI]JS (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depression era. The park is also recommended as eligible under Criterion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning natural parks and implementing NPS design standards for improvements in wilderness area parks. While the current study focused on the 32 acres within the footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the potential to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associations with influential NPS architects; under Criterion C for the architectural merit of its buildings and struchms, both individually and collectively as a district; and under Criterion D for its collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and historical mining-related sites _(components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible unde~ Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Rooseveit Canal-A7. T:l0:83 (ASM)-is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the historical development of irrigation districts in lower Salt River Valley. While previous studies for the South Mountain EIS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments within the proposed alternative· alignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are contributing or non-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersects the proposed alternative alignment footprints in four locations. The canal segments that cross the W55 and W71 Alternatives south of Van Buren Road retain integrity and are recommended as eligible to the National Register under Criterion A as contributing components. !he s~gments that cross the proposed alternative alignments in the I-1 0 and the 1Ol L freeway corridors are modern realignments that lack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to the project's APE as a result of aligrunent shifts referred to above. Both properties are on privatelyowned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaluated the properties' eligibility (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and architectural merit, therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Finally, the initial Class III survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T : 12: !54 [ASMJ) as a,n histotic property in the APE, in the El Altemative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclan1ation and SRP. Fw1her study has indicated that this irrigation feature is actually a tail- water drainage ditch and that the Western Canal terminates prior to reaching the APE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will not be affected by the proposed undertaking. As more inforn1ation becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed Appendix 2-1 cultural resource assessment report and information provided in this letter. If you find the report adequate and agree with the eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspa:n at 602-7126266 or e-mail rgreenspan(a).azdot.gov. US.Oepcf1menl of Troosponotion Federal Highway Admini51rclion Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 June 26, 2006 InReplyReferTo: HA-AZ Sincerely yours, NH-202-D(ADY) ~J5L--- TRACS·No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Trausportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Second Addendum Class Ill Survey Report ~. Robert E. Hollis ~ • Division Administrator 7-2:£-IJ b I Date Mr. Bryan Lausten, ArchaeologJSjt Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office 6150 West Thunderbird Road Glendale, Arizona, 85306 Dear Mr. Lausten: Enclosure The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting teclmical studies in support of the Environmental impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses ten variations on three alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to I-10 west of Phoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (ELM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River· Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRTC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi · Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odharn Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is cop1prised often alternative (overlapping) freeway corridors (El, WSS, W71, WlOl WPR, WlOl WFR, W101W99, WlOlCPR, WIOlCFR, WlOlEPR, and WJ OlEFR) that extend from I-10 in west Chandler to I-lO west of Phoenix, south of the greater A345 A346 • Appendix 2-1 2 Phoenix metropolitan area. Alternative conidors are l ,000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. TI1e cultural resources component of the EIS includes five technical studies: Previous Consultation: • A Class I overview of the overall study area: "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27, 2003). • A Class III survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class Ill Cultural Re~ource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuru (Quetawki), July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class III swvey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the I- 10 and State Route lOlL freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDG'R Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class III report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway E!S & L/DC'R Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO ·(Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, November 1, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005) . Current Consultation: A second addendum cultural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four properties and cla.rifies the location of a fifth property relative to the APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shifted north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result of this shift, two historic residential properties were added to the APE: 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road. Furthennore, two properties in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain Park/Preserve and specific segments of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ T: l 0:83 [ASM]) in the alternative alignments. Finally, the location ofthe Western Canal (AZ T:l2:1 54 [ASMJ) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, "A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South 3 Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & L/DCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), assesses the NRHP eligibility of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with ~coP Ian Assoc1at~ (EcoP1an) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendnr. A). The report 1s enclosed for your review and comment. South Mountain Park/Preserve is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximately 32 acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed E1 Alignment. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the South Mountain ~ark/Preserve is .eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the Nat10nal Park Serv1ce (NPS) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depression era. TI1e park is also recommended as eligible under Criterion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning natural parks and implementing NPS design standards for. . improvements in wilderness area parks. While the current study focused on the 32 acres w1thm th~ footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ a?res has the pot~nt!.al to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associations with influential NPS arclntects; under Cntenon C for the architectural-merit of its buildings and structures, both individually and collectively as a district· and under Criterion D for its collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and historical mining~related sites (components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal-AZ T:I0:83 (ASM)-is cons~d~red .eligi?le .for ~he NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the historical development of 1mgatton d1stncts m lower Salt River Valley. While previous studies for the South Mountain EIS Study ac~·10wledged that.th~ Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the spec1fic segments Wlthin the proposed alternative alignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are cont~buti~g or non-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersects the proposed alternative altgrunent footprints in four locations. The canal segments that cross the W55 and .w71 Alt~rnatives sou~ o~Van Buren Road retain integrity and are recommended as eligible to the National Reg1ster under Cntenon A as contributing components. The segments that cross the proposed alternative alignments in the I-10 and the 101 L freeway conidors are modern realignments that lack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to the project's APE as a result of alignment shifts referred to above. Both ?r~pe~i~- ~re on privatelyowned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaluated the propert1es elttpblhty (Brodbeck 2006 Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations ana architectural merit, therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Finally, the initial Class HI survey report for the South Mounta~ Freeway ~tudy (DarlU:g 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T: 12:154 [ASM]) as an histone property m the APE, m the E l Aitemative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclarnati'onsporlmion Fedcra'l Highway Admfnlstralion Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phot!nix, Arizona 85004-0674 June 26, 2006 2 Pb.oenix metropolitan area. Alternative conidors are 1,000-ft (304.8-m) wide and range from 21.5 miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. The cultural resources component of the EIS includes five technical studies: ln Reply Refer To: HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consulta~ion Second Addendum Class III Survey Report Mr. Ernest Jones, Sr., President Y-avapai-Prescott Indian Tribe 530 East Merritt Prescott, Arizona. 86301-2038 Dear President Jones: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Envirorunental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/De~ign Concept Report project. The EIS addresses ten variations on three alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler and to I-10 west of Phoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt IQver Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RJD), the Flood Control District of Maricopa Cetmty (FCDMC), the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, ·the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yurna-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRlC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O 'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised often altemative (overlapping) freeway corridors (El, W55, W71, WlOI"WPR, WlOl WFR, WIOl W99, WlOICPR, Wl01CFR, WlOIEPR, and Wl01EFR) that extend from 1-10 in west Chandler to I-10 west of Phoenix, south of the greater • Previous Consultation : • A Class I overview of the overall study area: ''A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area. Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September I 7, 2003); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisi'Wma, September· ! 0, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Hcathington, September 11, 2003 ); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003 ); and BIA (October 27, 2003). • A Class III survey of the proposed alternative aligrunents: "A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Free'way Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Stone, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Puehlo of Zuni (Quetawki), July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class III survey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the I-10 and State Route 101 L freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class III report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain rl·eeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, November 1, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). Current Consultation: A second addendum cultural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address theN ational Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four properties and clarifies the location of a fifth property relative to the APE. In September 2005, the W55 and W71 were shifted north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result of this shift, two historic residential properties were added to the APE: 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road. Fmtherrnore, two properties in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain Park/Preserve and specific segments of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ T:10:83 [ASM]) in the alternative alignments. Finally, the location of the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:154 [ASM}) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, "A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South A349 A350 • Appendix 2-1 .3 Mountain Transportation Corridor EJS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), assesses the NRHP eligibility of South Mountain Park/Preserve and the Roosevelt Canal (Brodbeck 2006) As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historians with EcoPlan Associates (EcoPlan) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). The repo1i is enclosed for your review and comment. South Mountain Park/Preserve is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximately 32.acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed El Alignment. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the National Park Service (NPS) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depression era. The park is also recommended as eligible under Criterion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning natural parks and implementing NPS design standards for improvements in wilderness area parks. While the current study focused on the 32 acres within the footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the potential to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associations with influential NPS architects; under Criterion C for the architectural merit of its buildings and structures, both individually and collectively as a district; and under Criterion D for its collection of prehistoric archaeological sites and.historical mining-related sites (component.<; of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canai-AZ T:l0:83 (ASM)-is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its associations with the historical development of irrigation districts in lower Salt River Valley. While previous studies for the South Mountain EIS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments within the proposed alternative alignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are contributing or non-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersects the proposed alternative alignment footprints in four locations. The canal segments that cross the WSS and W7l Alternatives south of Van Buren Road retain integrity and are recommended as eligible to the National Register under Criterion A as contributing components. The segments that cross the proposed alternative alignments in the I-1 0 and the l 0 I L freeway conidors are modem realignments that lack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to the project's APE as a result of alignment shifts referred to above. Both properties are on privatelyowned land. Architectural historians with EcoPlan evaluated the properties' eligibility (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and architectural merit, therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither prope1iy is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Finally, the initial Class III survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T: 12:154 [ASM]) as an historic property in the APE, in theE l Alternative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclamation and SRP. Further study has indicated that this irrigation feature is actually a tail-water drainage ditch and that the Westem Canal terminates,prior to reaching the APE. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the Western Canal will not be affected by the proposed undertakjng. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the enclosed 4 cultural resource assessment report and infonnation provided in this letter. If you find the repo~t . adequate and agree with the eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence ,by Sl~tng below. At this time, FHWA is once again inquiring whether you have any concerns regardmg h1stonc properties of religious or cultural importance toyour.co;nrnunity within tt:e proje~t area. If you have such concerns, any infonnation you. might prov1de wtthm 30 days of receipt oftlus letter would b~ considered in the project planning. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consul tatJon at a later date FHWA wo'l1ld make a good faith effort to address any concerns. However, such consultatio~ would not necessitate a reconsideration of this determination of project effect. We also look forward to continuing consultation with your of.fice. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-712-6266 or e-mail rgreenspan@az.dot.gov. Sincerely yours, STEPHEN D. THOMAS Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator ~vJ+ J'l, zoob Date Enclosure cc. Greg Glassco, Director, Cultural Research Program, 530 East Merritt, Prescott, Arizona 86301-2038 (enclosure) SThomas RGreenspan (MD 619E) SDThomas:cdm Appendix 2-1 US.Oeporunenl OITronsporiOflon Fed&rul Highway Administration Arizona Division 400 East Van .Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 l'hoenix, Arizona 85004..0674 June 26, 2006 metropolita~·;~~:-A.It~;:.;;ative-;;n·id.o~ ~-~ (000-ft (304.8-m) Phoenix miles (34.6 km) to 23.6 miles (38.0 km) in length. · ~ide and range from 21.5. · ..2.. The cultural resources component of the EIS includes five technical studies: lnReplyReferTo: HA-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 0 lL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Second Addendum Class III Sw-vey Report Ms. Barbara Stocklin City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Officer 200 West Washington Street Phoenix,Puizona,85003 Dear Ms. Stocklin: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS ad~resses ten variations on three alternative aligrunents for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, whtch would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to I-10 west of Phoenix. As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Potential consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the y.s. Anny Corps of Engineers (COE), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Salt River Project (SRP), the Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID), the Flood Control District of Maricopa County (FCDMC), the Maricopa County Department of Transportation (MCDOT), the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of.Phoenix, the City ofTolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tnbe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fo:t Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRlC), the Hava.supai Tribe, the Hopi Tnbe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Tribe, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) is comprised often altemative (overlapping) freeway corridors (El, W55, W71, WlOIWPR, WIOIWFR, WJOlW99, WlOlCPR, WlOlCFR, WlOlEPR, and WlOlEFR) that extend from I-10 in west Chandler to I-10 west of Phoenix, south of the greater Previous Consultation: • A Class I overview of~e overall study area: "A Class I Overview ofthe South Mountain Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Burden 2002). Previous consultation regarding adequacy of the report resulted in concurrences/responses from SHPO (Jacobs, September 19, 2003); BLM (Stone, September 22, 2003); City of Phoenix (Stocklin, September 8, 2003 and Bostwick, September 17, 2003 ); the Hopi Tribe (Kuwanwisiwma, September 10, 2003); Yavapai Prescott (Jones, September 10, 2003); Reclamation (Heathington, September 11, 2003); SRP (Anduze, November 10, 2003); and BIA (October 27 2003). , • A Class III survey of the proposed alternative alignments: "A Class lli Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Darling 2005). Consultation regarding adequacy of the report is on-going. To date, concuning responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, July 11, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, July 12, 2005), BLM (Storie, July 26, 2005), City of Phoenix (Bostwick, July 18, 2005), Pueblo of Zuni (Quetawki), July 12, 2005), Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe (Kwiatkowski, July 22, 2005). • An addendum Class I overview and addendum Class III sunrey to address the expansion of the overall study area to include portions of the I-10 and State Route lOlL freeway corridors and shifts in the alternative alignments (late 2004 and early 2005). The addendum Class I report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Class I Overview Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Touchin 2005). The Class III report was titled "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2005). To date, concurring responses have been received from SHPO (Jacobs, October 3, 2005), Reclamation (Ellis, September 19, 2005), City'ofPhoenix (Bostwick, November 1, 2005), and SRP (Anduze, September 19, 2005). Current Consultation: A second addendum cultural resources assessment report has been prepared by HDR, Inc. in order to address the National ~egister of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility of four properties and clarifies the location of a fifth property relative to the APE. In September 2005, tbe W55 and W71 were shifted north of the Salt River to avoid potential impact to historic properties. As a result of this shift two historic residential properties were added to theAPE: 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 W~st Lower Buckeye Road. Furthermore, two properties in the existing APE required additional evaluation: South Mountain ParkJPreserve and specific segments of the Roosevelt Canal (AZ T:l0:83 [ASM]) in the altemative alignments. Finally, the location of the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:154 [ASM]) relative to the APE is addressed. The report, "A Second Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South . • A351 A352 • Appendix 2-1 3 Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & LIDC"R Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006), assesses the NRHP eligibility of South Mountain Park/Preserve arid the Roosevelt Canal (Brodbeck 2006). As subconsultants to HDR, architectural historiru1s with EcoP!an Associates (EcoPJan) assessed the two residential properties (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). The report is enclosed for your review and comment. South Mountain Park/Preserve is a municipal park owned by the City of Phoenix and managed by their Parks and Recreation Department. Approximately 32 acres of the 16,000+ acre-park is in the proposed El Alignment. FHWA and ADOT recommend that the South Mountain Park/Preserve is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP WJder Criterion A for its associations with the National Park Sexvice (NPS) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) New Deal programs in Phoenix during the Depression era. The park is also recommended as eligible under Criterion C for its overall sensitive design that set historical precedent in planning natural parks and implementing NPS design standards for improvements in wilderness area parks. While the current study focused on the 32 acres within the footprint of the El Alternative, further evaluation of the park's entire 16,000+ acres has the potential to establish eligibility under Criterion B for associations with influential NPS architects; under Criterion C for the architectural merit of its buildings and structures, both individually and collectively as a district; and under Criterion D for its collection: of prehistoric archaeological sites and historical mining-related sites (components of the park's mining sites may also be eligible under Criterion A pending further study). In its entirety, the Roosevelt Canal-AZ T: 10:83 (ASM)--is considered eligible for the NRHP under Criterion A for its l:!Ssociations with the historical development of irrigation dist:I icts in lower Salt River Valley. While previous studies for the South Mountain EIS Study acknowledged that the Roosevelt Canal was NRHP eligible (Burden 2002; Darling 2005), the specific segments within the proposed alternative alignments had not been assessed in terms of whether they are contributing or non-contributing to that eligibility. The Roosevelt Canal intersects the proposed alternative alignment footprints in four locations. T11e canal segments that cross the W55 and W71 Alternatives south of Van Buren Road retain integrity and are recommended as eligible to the National Register under Criterion A as contributing components. The segments that cross the proposed alternative alignments in the I-1 0 and the 101 L freeway corridors are modem realignments that lack historical integrity, and therefore are recommended to be non-contributing components. The rural residences at 6304 West Dobbins Road and 7316 West Lower Buckeye Road were added to th~ project's APE as a result of alignment shifts referred to above. Both properties are on privatelyowned land. Architectural hjst01iaus with EcoPlan evaluated the prope1ties' eligibility (Brodbeck 2006, Appendix A). Both properties lack important historical associations and architectural merit, '\ therefore, FHWA and ADOT recommend that neither property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Finally, the initial Class III survey report for the South Mountain Freeway study (Darling 2005) had identified the Western Canal (AZ T:l2:J 54 [ASM]) as an historic property in the APE, in the El Alternative at Elliot Road. The Western Canal is owned and managed by Reclamation and SRP. Further study has indicated that this irrigation feature is actually a tail-water drainage ditch and that the Western Canal tenninates prior to reaching the APE. FHW A and ADOT recommend that the Western \ Canal will not be affected by the proposed undertaking. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to yo~r agency through continued Section I 06 consultation. Please review the enclosed 4 cultural resource assessment report and information provided in this letter. If you find the repo1t adequate and agree with the eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ruth Greenspan at 602-7126266 or e-mail rgreenspan(a).azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, Division Administrator rj,~~ _CDP HfJ PJ~ Signatu7e for Historic r'resetvation Office Concurrence Enclosure Appendix 2-1 GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY 'Executive Office ~f tlie g overn or & Lieut enant Governor Wifamn R 'Rfwaes jennifer :M(ison-:Ray Governor Lieutenant Governor The GRIC appreciates the efforts of the Federal Highway Administration in addressing our concerns and anticipates meaningful consultations in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act on this undertaking. Please call GRIC Cultural Resource Specialist, Barnaby V. Lewis at 1-520-562-3570 should you have any questions or require iurther information, Sin~cerely,~ - " os, Govemo' Gila River Indian Community September 25, 2006 Robert E. Hollis, Division Administrator U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Arizona Division _ ; :. 400 East van Buren Stn:::¢(,-.Suit~:ttto . ' Phoenix, Arizona 85Q~~ i.( cc: X .·· . . .. .. \ '}.Kf>' . ·,: ;: ,;:> ·.~ · •) ... . RB: South MounthlW::~~~sYbrt~tion Corridor, Section i n&·-:c()nsJJtat,ion, Traditional Cultural Pla~~~f:fi~i~Z NJ-1-202-D (ADY); TRACS Nd?·.~Q?LM.'A, 054 H5764 Ol L .=;-; :·~~:: -· · /)/J/J " -~~::· ...,., .-_..-}_~:::--· ·.::: : _:', : ::.-::,cj ... :';::::;~~i~:mJ~it(GRJt/~re&l@tjj()~ii:~g. Inc .cwt..ru Resource Repo:rtfQ~~Jtt;·titlbd;~~~fi.n Ev~l'uation of Traditioilal'~riltilffiLP,roperties for the 202L, South M~i!hliDlih'r,~nsportaiion ComdofEIS &LrDCRPr&j~~.t.Naricopa County, Arizona (BrodH~g~~,2Q?Wi . The GRIC Cultural · Resource , ryra_pa$¢~ent Program is 'J.e document to the presently reviewihWJl:I~§;rej'l.PI1 an<:tyilshes to present ru1 evali!~~i~~ g'ftl_ GRIC Cultural ResO:fir¢~Y $~ndii1g · Committee prior to• ·wJ>i#ission to the Federal Highway Administr~ti~ri. -- ., ,: .. . , ... , ,, ._·.••-.~_:_•··•.·• . , ···-·_-·..•. · . . :. _. ~- : . : ~ : o. We understand that in ac6~rdlin~ewitl{the Nati~n~i rli~tbti6 Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.4), which requires fedenii~~en~ie~·to: makeJ-i rilisO:nahle and good faith effort to identify historic properties that coUld be ·. affected by a proposed project_ The aforementioned report was prepared for the Arizona Dcpattmcnt of Transportation and evaluates lhe eligibility ofhi!-itoric properties identified in our letter of July 7, 2005. The Gila River In dian Community w ishes to maintain prut icipation in discussions regarding the potential effects to such resources that could result from the South Mountain Freeway project. We anticipate forwardi ng a formal response to the submitted report in mid October 2006. 525 West Gu u Ki · P.O. Box 97 · Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Telephone: 520- 562-9840 - Fax: 520-562-984 9 · Email: executivemaiJ@gric.nsn.us -~ -~/,~11_.~ 7 Andrew Darling GRIC-CRMP Assistant Coordinator Errol Blackwater, GRIC Land Usc Planning & Zoning Doug Torres, GRIC Department of Transportation Steve Thomas, Environmental Program Manager, FHWA Arizona Division Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist Ruth Greenspan, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist Mark Brodeck, IIDR Engineering, Inc. • A353 A354 • Appendix 2-1 US. Deponclu sion . AZ T: 12:197 CASM)- Trail TCP Recommendation: Eligible GRIC: Concur We concur that this site is eligible under Criterion A as a contributing component of the.South Mountain TCP overall and that it is also considered individually eligible to the NRHP under Criterion D as an archaeological site with important information potential. AZ T: 12:208 CASM)- Petroglyph site GRIC: Concur (in general) .. :· · : TCP Recommendation: Not Eligible We concur that the site is no longer an eligible TCP tinder NRHP criteria die to vandalism and looting. However, it continues to be a contributing feature to the overall TCP status of South Mountain and it should be recognized that this site retains cultural significance for Indian communities, despite the highly diminished integrity of the petroglyphs. Furthermore, the site remains eligible under Criterion D for its association with prehistoric lithic procurement and quarrying. We reiterate at that the landscape view of Muhadagi Doag (South Mountain) will be forever altered by a transportation corridor that will be intrusive to the spiritual connections associated with the people of the Gila River Jndian Community. We are highly concerned that the proposed transportation project will cause the destruction of sacred places and spaces, archeological sites, trails, and shrines located within the proposed corridor. The presence of Muhadagi Doag, the home of ancient deity Se'ehe evokes solerrm reverence among the people of the GRIC and any alteration of the Muhadagi Doag will contribute to diminishing our traditional way of life. The GRIC appreciates the efforts of the Federal Higi1Way Adrninistration ·~'ti'·;,Jdressirrg our concerns that must be resolved through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 106 Consultation process. We anticipate continued and meaningful consultations on t~is federal undertaking. Please call GRIC Cultural Resource Specialist, Barnaby V. Lew1s at l-520-562-3570 should you have any questions or require further infonnation. Sincerely, AZ T:l2:201 (ASM); AZ T:l2:207 CASM): and AZ T:l2:211 CASM) Trail Sites TCP Recommendation: Not Eligible GRIC: Concur (in general) We concur that these three trail sites are eligible under criterion D and may not be TCPs. It should be recognized that some trails may be eligible TCPs under Criterion A and B but this should. be determined on a case by case basis. Active ShrineAZ T:12:ll2 CASM) TCP Recommendation: Eligible Concur GRIC: We concur that the shrine is eligible to the NRHP under Criterion A as a TCP and under Critetion D as an archeological site. Management Recommendation: The GRIC notes that this report only provides eligibility recommendations for TCP status for the sites considered. However, this is only a first step towards effective management. It is clear, but never acknowledged, that construction of the proposed South Mountain No substantive management Freeway alignment will adversely impact TCPs. recommendations, such as avoidance, for example, or other strategies for mitigation, are provided in the TCP evaluation by Brodbeck/HDR Engineering, Inc. Jt is our understanding that management recommendations for TCPs are required in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which apparently exists in draft but has not been received for review by the GRIC Cultural Resource Specialist Office. However, such issues need to be considered in close consultation with the GRIC and other concerned Native American communities. d / ~?-~C William R. Rhodes, Governor Gila River Indian Community cc J. Andrew Darling GRIC-CRMP Coordinator Errol Blackwater, GRIC Land Use P lanning & Zoning Doug Torres, GRIC Department ofTransportation Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist Ruth Greenspan, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist Mark Brodbeck, HDR Engineering, Inc. Appendix 2-1 The previous letter was also sent to: Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist, State HisotoricPreservation Office Mr. Bruce Ellis, Chief, Environmental Resource Management Division, Bureau of Reclamation • A359 A360 • Appendix 2-1 4 "Managing and cont.ervinCj n;rl:ur·. tl. cul1.ural. and recr·ea'!;iol1aln:>source~:,·· ~ ~ ~ City of Phoenix , HISTORIC PRESERVATION OfFICE '-'-'~ December 28, 2006 January 8, 2007 ~ ~ Arizona ® State Parks Robert E. Hollis, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration U.S. Department of Transportation One Arizona Center, Suite 41 0 400 E. Van Buren Street Phoenix, AZ 85004-0674 U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration Arizona Division 400 E. Van Buren Street One Arizona Center, Suite 41 0 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 Attention: Stephen Thomas Janet Napolitano RE: Governor State Parks Board Members Chair William C. Porter Kingman William Cordasco Flagstaff Janice Chilton Payson William C. Scalzo Phoenix Reese Woodling Tucson Elizabeth Stewart Tempe Mark Winkleman State Land Commissioner Kenneth E. Travous Executive Director Arizona State Parks 1300 W. Washington Phoenix. AZ 85007 Tel & TTY: 602.542.4174 www.azstateparks.com 800.285.3703 from (520 & 928) area codes General Fax: 602.542.4180 Director's Office Fax: 602.542.4188 HOP-AZ, NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL SR 202L; South Mountain Section l 06 Consultation Final Programmatic Agreement SHP0-2003-1890 (31612) Dear Mr. Hollis: Enclosed is the Programmatic Agreement (P A) for the Federal Highway Administration project to construct a loop highway (State Route 202L) between Interstate 10 (I-10) west of Phoenix to 1-10 south ofPhoenix in Maricopa County. It was ~igned by James Garrison, the Arizona State Preservation Officer, on December 28, 2006. The document should be filed with the Advisory Council according to 36 CFR § 800.6(b)(l)(iv). We would appreciate receiving a copy of the complete signature page for our files. We look forward to reviewing and commenting on the project's treatment plans according to stipulations of the PA. We appreciate your continuing cooperation with our office in complying with the requirements of historic preservation. Please contact me at (602) 542-7140 or electronically at djacobs@Dr.state.az.us if you have any questions or concerns. · Re: HOP-AZ, NH-202(ADY), TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01 L SR 202 L- South Mountain Final Programmatic Agreement Dear Mr. Robert Hollis: I have signed the enclosed Programmatic Agreement on behalf of the City of Phoenix as a concurring party. If you need additional information, please contact me by telephone at (602) 261-8699 or by fax at (602) 534-4571. Sincerely. ...... , ' '-· -' Barbara Stocklin Historic Preservation Officer Attachment cc: Todd Bostwick, City Archaeology Office Sincerely, ~ DavidJa~ Compliance Specialist/Archaeologist State Historic Preservation Office Cc: Ruth Greenspan, ADOT Enclosure 200 West Washington Street, 17th Floor • Phoenix, Arizona 85003 • 602-261-8699 Recycled Paper FAX: 602·534-4571 Appendix 2-1 P. 0. Box 52025 Phoenix. AZ 85072-2025 (602) 236-5900 www.srpnet.com Mail Station: PAB352 Phone: (802) 238-2804 Fax: (802) 238-3407 Email: raanduze@srpnel. com Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 U.S.Deporrmem or Tronsportolion Federal Highway January 18, 2007 Admjnistration In Reply Refer To: HOP-AZ NH-202-D (ADY) TRACS No. 202LMA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Section 106 Consultation · Traditional Cultural Places Eligibility Evaluation Report 16 January 2007 Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator, Arizona Division USDT Federal Highway Administration 400 East Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix, AZ 85004-0674 ARIZONA DEPT. OF 'fRAN INTERMOOAL T . SPORTATION ~ Mr. William Rhodes, Governor ENVIRONMOO!~~::::CA":!ON DIVISION •·mENTGROIIP RE: HOP-AZ; NH-202-D(ADY); TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 01 L; SR 202L; South Mountain Final Programmatic Agreement Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box 97 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Dear Mr. Hollis: Dear Governor Rhodes: The Salt River Project (SRP) does want to be included as a Concurring Party to the South Mountain Final Programmatic Agreement. I have enclosed the document provided to SRP and signed by Ray Hedrick, Manager, Siting and Studies, Enviwnmental Services. We are in receipt of your letter of December 19, 2006 in response to the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) consultation regarding the report, "An Evaluation a/Traditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2006). The report is being revised in response to your comments, and the revised document will be sent to you for review and further comment. 1'0 ..t::: Sincerely, Richard A. Anduze Environmental Scientist/Archaeologist JAN 19 2007. In the interim, we want to ensure that the interests of the Community continue. to be taken into account as design alternatives are developed and considered for this proposed project. As part of this process, we would like for the design consultants to be able to consider all options for minimizing impacts to those properties that are of cultural significance to your Community. In order for the design team to take into consideration alternatives that would avoid the active shrine site, AZ T :12:112(ASM), it would be necessary for them to be aware of the area to be avoided. File: LEG l-1-2 ARIZONA DEPT. OFTIIANSPORTATION . INTERMODALTRANSPORTATION DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL& ENHANCEMENT GROUP JAN 19 2007 EC 13152.017 We are therefore requesting your permission to disclose the general location of the shrine to the project manager, the prime design consultant, and a small number of support personnel in order to request that they develop design alternatives that would avoid the shrine, allow continued access, and minimize indirect impacts to it. If permission to identify areas of avoidance were given, we would divulge only the general location of the property, and not provide any specific information regarding the nature of the property or its significance. Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you agree to allow disclosure of the general location of the active shrine, AZ T :12:112 (ASM), to a limited number of people involved in the design proce~s, please sign below to indicate your concurreJ+ce. We look forward to continuin~ • A361 A362 • Appendix 2-1 !Fort MctJJowe{{'Yavapai ~tion 2 Office oftfte (jenera£ C()Unse£ consultation with your office. If you have any question or concerns, please do not hesitate to call Ruth Greenspan at 602-712-6266 or email RGreenspan@azdot.gov. .......~.. ;~ ~ 7 ..c...-....:a. P.O. '13oi(l7779, '}'ountainHiffs, M 85269-7779 Pfwne (480) 816-7180 'Ja,t(480) 789-7249 Sincerely, STEPHEN D. THOMAS Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Signature for Tribal Concurrence ~ "' ~· ~ - ~- ~ Date cc: SThomas RGreenspan (M D619E) J. Andrew Darling, Coordinator, Cultural Resource Management Program, GRIC, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, AZ 85247 Barnaby V. Lewis, Cultural Resource Specialist, GRIC, P.O. Box E, Sacaton, AZ 85247 SDThomas:cdm January 16, 2007 Federal Highway Administration Attn: Steve Thomas Arizona Division 400 E. Van Buren Street One Arizona Center Suite 410 Phoenix Arizona RE: Programmatic Agreement - Loop 202 S. Mountain Ext. Dear Steve Thomas: Preside1_1t Bear has signed the attached Agreement on behalf of the Fort McDowell Yavapat Nation ("Nation"). Ruth Greenspan advised me to forward this to you. Sincerely: ~T!o~!!f:f Office of the General Counsel Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation INTE~~~~~~o.;n. OFTRANSPOIITAT!ON £NVIRONMENTARt&NSPORTA TION DIVISION ENHANCEMENT GROUP JAN 2 9 2007 Appendix 2-1 D. .~ ~ ADCT Chandler • Arizona lntermodal Transportation Division 206 South Seventeenth Avenue Janet Napolimno Governor Where l!llues Maile 7'be Difference Victor M. Mondez Director February 22, 2007 May 15,2007 Phoenix, Arizona 85007-3213 Sam Ellers State Engineer Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist State Historic Preservation Office Alizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Phoenix, Alizona 85007 Mr. Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division 400 E. Van Buren Street, One Arizona Center #41 0 Phoenix AZ 85004-0674 Re: Arizona Department of Transportation RE: SR202 South Mountain Final Programmatic Agreement TRACS # 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL Project No NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202LMA 054 H5764 OlL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Continuing Section 106 Consultation Jackson Farmstead Eligibility Dear Mr. Hollis: Dear Dr. Jacobs: The City of Chandler is in receipt of your letter dated December 11, 2006 regarding the Final Programmatic Agreement for the referenced project. Since no construction is anticipated to occur within the City's jmisdiction as part of this project, the City does not wish to sign the Agreement. However, the City would like to be consulted throughout the environmental planning, design and con~truction process. The Federal Highway Administration (.FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. Tbe EIS addresses variations on three alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend arotll1d the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler and to I-10 in west Phoenix. One of the alignments, the W55 alignment, was recently shifted to avoid an industrial facility at the southwest corner of 51st Avenue and Van Buren Street. As a result of this shift, an historic farmstead located at 5727 West Van Bw-en Street, referred to herein as the Jackson fan11Stead, is now in the project's area of potential effects (APE) and requires evaluation. Thank you for your cooperation. Should you have any questions, please contact me at (480) 7823431, or email me at Samuel.Hanna@chandleraz.gov. Sincerely yours, -~ As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. The Jackson farmstead is on private prope1ty in the City of Phoenix. Consulting parties for this assessment include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), and the City of Phoenix Historic Preservation Office. Due to the scope and nature of this component of the project, no tribal consultations will occm. Samuel Hanna, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Transportation Engineer cc: Daniel W. Cook, Acting Public Works Director Mike Normand, Acting Assistant Public Works Director/Transportation & Operations Ruth Greenspan, ADOT Environmental Planning Group 205 S. 17th Ave., Room #213, 1v.1D 619E, Phoenix AZ 85007 EcoPlan & Associates, llJc., as subconsultant to HDR Engineering, Iuc., evaluated the eligibility of U1e Jackson fannstead for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The results of the assessment are reported in a teclmical memorcmdum, dated December 4, 2006 (Dorigo 2006), which is enclose4 for yow· review. Based on Dorigo's evaluation, F.HWA/ADOT recommend the Jackson fannstead is not eligible for inclusion the NRHP due to a general lack of historical and architectural significance. Its Moiling Addrus M:ai!Stop402 POBox4008 Cbandler, Arizona 85244-4008 Public Works Department Transportation Teltphone (480) 782..3425 F~ (480) 782-3415 www.chandlemz.gov U((Jtion 215 East Buffalo Street Chandler, Arizona 85225 • A363 A364 • Appendix 2-1 This letter was also sent to: Ms. Liz Wilson, Historic Preservation Officer, City of Phoenix Appendix 2-1 2 U.S.Deportment of Transportation ARIZONA DMSION Federal Highway Administration 400 East Van Buren Street, Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 602-379-3646 June 13, 2007 In Reply Refer To: HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlL South Mountain Transportation Con·idor Section 106 Consultation Traditional Cultural P laces Eligibility Evaluation Report Mr. William Rhodes, Govemor Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box 97 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Dear Governor Rhodes: As you are aware, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Deprutment of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and Location/Design Concept Report for the proposed Loop 202 (SR 202L), South Mountain Freeway. The DEIS addresses variations of altemative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from the Interstate 10 (I-1 0) and SR 202L traffic interchange to I-10 in westem Phoenix. This project is a federal action that requires compliance with Section 106 of the National Hist01ic Preservation Act. The area of potential effects (APE) consists of the altemative alignment corridors. The proposed altemative alignments being studied for the DEIS have the potential to affect archaeological sites and natural features on the landscape that are deemed sacred by Native American tribes and that may qualify for the National Register of Historic Places as traditional cultural properties (TCPs). In accordance with the regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] Part 800.4), which requires federal agencies to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties that could be affected by a proposed project, FHWA and ADOT conducted an eligibility evaluation ofTCPs in the APE for alternative alignments of the proposed undertaking. The results of the TCP evaluation were rep01ted in An Evaluation of Traditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2006). FHWA and ADOT appreciate the Gila River Indian Community's (Community) comments on the report·, sent on December 19, 2006, and we MOVIUG THE~~ AMERICAN ECONOMY " are in the process of revising the TCP evaluation report accordingly. The pwpose ofthis letter is to ask for additional input on the boundary for the South Mountain TCP. FHWA and ADOT recognize that creating any type of boundary around Muhadagi Doag (South Mountain) is inconsistent with 0' odham and Pee Posh world views and that Muhadagi Doag is part of a continuum of life interwoven with far-reaching social, cultural, spiritual, and physical landscapes. Fwthem10re, we appreciate the Community's understanding that potential traditional cultural propetties must be evaluated with reference to the National Register of Historic Places Criteria for Evaluation (36 C.F.R. Prut 60) to determine if Muhadagi Doag is eligible for the National Register, and that this requires delineating a boundary to define it as a tangible prope1ty. In the draft TCP eligibility repmt (Brodbeck 2006), the boundary for the Muhadagi Doag TCP was initially based on geologic features, and defined the mountain range through a series of disjointed bedrock protrusions (see enclosed map). Per your response, we understand that this boundary was not fully sensitive to its cultural importance as viewed by the Community and not adequate for Section 106 purposes because it was not inclusive of all of its traditional uses. We appreciate your suggestion to use a one mile radius from the base of the geological bedrock formations to provide a boundary that is culturally sensitive to and inclusive oftraditional uses. As shown in the enclosed figure, when this boundary is mapped out it includes a combination of natural desert, agricultural fields, and built-out urban areas, such as residential subdivisions and the I-10/US 60 traffic interchange. To assess the National Register eligibility of the Muhadagi Doag TCP, FHWA and ADOT propose using a boundary that is inclusive of its traditional uses and balanced with the surrounding built urban environment. The revised proposed boundary minimizes the inclusion of surrounding urbru1 areas, such as housing subdivisions and freeway corridors, where no traditional uses of the South Mountain TCP are known to exist. In keeping with the Community's suggestions, this proposed boundary includes surrounding natural and lessdeveloped ru·eas where traditional activities and access to the mountain are maintained. In the Southem Foothills area, there are areas where modem urban development falls within the proposed TCP boundary. These instances are ones where the built environment is fully sunounded by natural, undeveloped areas. The boundary was drawn to include those areas in order to capture the fullest possible extent of culturally sensitive traditional use areas directly associated with the TCP. Ple~e review the information provided in tlus letter and the enclosed map showing our proposed revtsed boundary for the Muhadagi Doag TCP. If you agree with the use of this proposed boundary for the National Register eligibility assessment, please sign below to indicate your concun·ence. At this time we would also like to reiterate our request of January 18, 2007 regru·ding AZ T :12:112(ASM), the active shrine site. FHWA and ADOT ru·e conuuitted to investigating strategies to minimize potential impacts to histotic properties and TCPs. In a letter dated January 18, 2007 we requested pem1ission to disclose the general location of AZ T: 12: 112(ASM) to the project.manager, the prime design consultant, and a small number of support personnel so that they might investigate design alternatives that would avoid the shrine, allow continued access, • A365 A366 • Appendix 2-1 3 and minimize indirect impacts to it. To date, we have not received a response. The draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will be made public soon, and as you pointed out in your December 19, 2006 letter, that document will include management recommendations to mitigate any potential adverse effects to TCPs, including the active shrine. We are requesting your input in investigating potential measures to minimize harm to the shrine, and requesting permission to involve the engineering design team in this effort. Your December 19, 2006 letter also pointed out the need for mitigation strategies to be considered in close consultation with the Community and other concerned Native American communities. We, too, recognize the need for close consultation regarding potential mitigation strategies and other issues of mutual concern relating to the proposed South Mountain Freeway. As there are a number of issues that have thus far not been effectively resolved through our written consultations, we propose some meetings between the Community, FHW A, and ADOT. We recognize that fom1al decisions are unlikely to be made in such a forum, but feel that face-toface meetings would allow for an exchange of ideas and concerns and identify issues that could be brought back to our respective Community/agencies for discussion and consideration. We look forward to continued consultation with you. If you have any question or concerns, please do not hesitate to call Ruth Greenspan at 602-712-6266 or email RGreenspan@azdot.gov. GILA RNER INDIAN COMMIJNITY fxecutive Office of tfte (1ovenl4TY & Lieu.tenant ~crv.e-rnOJ' Jenrai.fer .JUT'rson·1{.ay 1Vimam 1t 'll.fwles Lieutenant GD\'aDor Go\l!fl.lOl' July 2, 2007 Robert E. Hollis, Division Administrator U. S. Departrnen.t ofTI!'lU'Isportation Federal Highway Administration Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street, Suite 41 0 Phoe~x• .Arizona 85004 . . R£: South Mountain T~\..~~tion Corridor; Section 106 Coru;ultation, TradltionaJ Sincerely, Cultural Places, Eligibility Rq)ort: HOP-AZ NH-202-D (ADY); Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 011,. .. · · . . · · ;· .- ..·. STEPHEN D. THOMAS Deat Mr. Hollis, · , I • I • • .. The Gila River .In4ian .Commu_rllty (GRIC) in ~espcm~· to .your tett~&;~ June 13,2007 .. Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator ,, in wrueh you requested addiHQlllil inp.qt on the boundary for ~ :M~~~gi Doag (South Mou.ntain) TCP. - We· ·app:reciate~·that you ~ogni:{e .the neerL for ' close consultation regarding potentia] mitigation Stt~egieS ~ close CQtlsuftation' ·~th 0R1C and other concerned Nativ,e:~erican communities, , · the. Signature for GRIC Concurrence Date ' Enclosure cc: Jennifer Allison-Ray, Lieutenant Governor, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 97, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 David White, Community Manager, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 97, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Bamaby Lewis, Cultural Resource Specialist, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 J. Andrew Darliug, CRMP Coordinator, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 SThomas WVachon KDavis MHollowell (EM02) RGreenspan (EM02) MBruder (614E) SDThomas:cdm .· We app1d at the earfiest. possible time to discuss yoru request for permission to disclose the general location of AZ T: l2: 112 (AS11), aetfll'e shrine. area in order lo investigate design alternatives that WQU]d avoid the shrine. allow continued access. and minimize indirect 525 West Gu u Kf · P.O. Box 97 • Sa.caton 1 Arizona 85247 Appendix 2-1 impacts to the sbrine. We ~uest oOI1Si~eratio~ in inviting the State Historic P~rvation Office to the proposed mce1mg as we diSCuss Issues tl1at ha.ve not been resohed through written communications. -rvv-~o U.S.Deportment of Transportotion Federal Highway Administration ARIZONA DIVISION , .... ... ------v ... Suite410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-0674 602-379-3646 April 22, 2008 In Reply Refer To: HOP-AZ The GRIC appreciates the efforts of the Federall-fighway Administr~tion in ad~·essing our grave concerns that must be resolved th:ro.ugh the Natio~ Histon e Prese_nration A~t 106 Consultation process. We anticipate oonttnued and m~~~l consultation~ on .thts federal undertaking. Ple:ase call GRIC Cultural Resource Spec1ahst. Bam~y V. Lewis at l-520-562~7 1 3 should you have any questions or require further information. NH-202-D(ADY) Project No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIL South Mountain Transportation Corridor Section 106 Consultation Traditional Cultural Places Mitigation Measures Sincerely, ~4-~<-._P' (-? 7~ Me. William Rhodes, Governor Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box 97 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 William R. Rhodes, Gov~mor Gila. River Indian Commwlity cc J. Andre·WDarling GRlC-CRMP Coordinator Errol Blackwater, GRIC Land Use Plmming & Zoning Doug Torres, GR!C Department ofTranspol1ation Kae Neustadt, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist Ruth Oreens~ ADOT H.istoric Preservation Specialist 1\.fark Brodbeck) HDR Engineering, Inc. A.ittONA m:rr. OF 'fii.ANstORTAnON !N'f'£1\:MODAI:. tRAt'ISPORTt\TlON DIVIStON £NVIRONM£tff.U. &ENHANCf.MOO GROUP I JUL 2 7 2007' t Dear Governor Rhodes: In previous consultation regarding the potential effects of the proposed SR 202L (South Mountain Freeway) on historic properties and other places of concern to the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), it was suggested that some informal meetings between representatives of GRIC, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Arizona Department ofTransportation (ADOT), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) should take place in order to address possible mitigation strategies relating to a proposed freeway option. Following receipt of your letter of July 2, 2007, several informal meetings and conversations have held between various representatives of the GRIC Cultural Resource Specialist's Office (CRSO), GRIC Cultural Resource Management Program (CRMP), the FHWA, the ADOT Historic Preservation Team (HPT), the SHPO, and the City of Phoenix Archaeology Section (COP-AS). As a result of these various meetings, FHWA and ADOT have been pursuing two possible strategies to help mitigate potential adverse effects of the proposed freeway on the Muhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Tradition al Cultural Property (TCP) and other places of traditional significance to your communitY. Previous consultation regarding the Muhadagi Doag TCP addressed attempts to define a boundary that could be used to satisfy FHWA's Section 106 (of the National Historic Preservation Act) responsibilities and afford protection to Muhadagi Doag. As a resuit of this consultation, FHWA recognizes that the traditional use areas of Muhadagi Doag extend on the south and southwest beyond the northern boundary of the Community, and that any of the build alternatives of the prop osed freeway would have an adverse effect on the Muhadag f Doag TCP. During consultation • A367 A368 • Appendix 2-1 2 it was also recognized that although some areas of Muhadagi Doag, such as the southwest ridges, clearly active traditional use areas, fully defining. a meaningful boundary for the TCP as a whole will require a more detailed study of traditional uses and cultural significance of Muhadagi Doag . Rather than define an arbitrary boundary until such time as a more meaningful boundary can be identified, FHWA proposes to formally ;iCknowledge that any of the build alternatives of the proposed freeway would impact the southern and southwestern portion ofMuhadagi Doag, and would have an adverse effect on the TCP. At this time, FHWA would like to proceed with consultation addressing specific mitigation measures to addri"~~~: that adverse ~ffect. One such mitigation measure discussed at some of the above-referenced meetings is for~ and ADOT to provide funds for GRIC CRMP to conduct a detailed study of traditional uses and cultural significance of Muhadagi Doag. The City ofphoenix is currently working on a Nationaf Register of Historic Places (NRRP) eligibility study of the archaeological and historical sites within South Mountain Park/Preserve. The City of Phoenix Archaeologist, the GRIC CRMP Coordinator, and the GRIC CRSO have expressed interest in working together and expanding the on-going study to include an evaluation of the Muhadagi Doag TCP. FHWA and ADOT are willing to consider funding GRIC's participation in this proposed studx. If this potential mitigation measure is something that you are interested in pursuing, we request that you provide a brief scope of work and budget for the proposed study, to ensure a common understanding about exactly what proposal is being considered. Additionally, FHWA and ADOT are currently investigating design options to minimize impacts to . the active shrine site, AZ T:l2: 112(ASM)'aud a rock art site, AZ T:l2:198(ASM). We would like · to meet with members of your Community to present and discuss some of these possible options. If you arc interested in pursuing these potential mitigation measures, we look forward to receiving a proposal for a study of the Muhadagi Doag TCP, and to meeting with you to discuss pMsible avoidance measures. We look forward to continued consultation with you. If you have any question or concerns, please do not hesitate to call Ruth Gr~span at 602-712-6266 or email RGreenspan@azdot.gov. Sincerely, STEPHEN D. THOMAS Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Signature for GRIC Concurrence Date 3 cc: Jennifer Allison-Ray, Lieutenant Governor, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 97~ Sacaton, Arizona 85247 . David White, Community Manager, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 97, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Barnaby Lewis, Cultural Resource Specialist, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 J. Andrew Darling, CRMP Coordinator, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 SThomas WVacbon KDavis MHollowell (EM02) RGreenspan (EM02) MBruder (EMOl) MBurdick (118A) SDThomas:cdm Appendix 2-1 GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY RESOLUTION GR-41-07 PAGE20F2 QILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY SACATON, AZ 85247 RESOLUTION NO. GR-41-07 A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE SOUTH MOUNTAIN RANGE (Mulzadag, Avikwaxos) AS A SACRED PLACE AND TRADITIONAL CULTURAL PROPERTY OF THE GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY. WHEREAS, the Gila River Indian Conunw1ity Conncil ("the Commnnity Council") is the governing body of the Gila River Indian Community ("the Conununity''); and WHEREAS, the Community Conncil on January 6, 1982, did adopt Ordinance No. GR0 1-82 under Title XV of the Gila River Indian Comntnnity Law and Order Code in which "[i)t is ... declared as a matter of Commnnity policy and legislative determination, that the public interests of the Pima-Maricopa people and the interests of all other persons living within the jurisdiction of the Gila River Indian Community require that the Commnnity adop~ a means whereby all sites, location, structUres, and objects of sacred, historical or scientific interest or nature.will be protected from desecration, destruction, theft, or other interference."; and WHEREAS, the Cmmnunity Council through Resolution GR-15-89 did approve the Policy Statement of the Fol;lr Southern Tribes (Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Cormnunity, Ak Chin Indian Cormnunity, Tohono O'odham Nation, and the Gila River Indian Community) which outlines the Four Tribes illtent to protect, promote, and preserve cultural affinity to the HuHuKam; and WHEREAS, all, but not limited to, of the places referenced in the oral traditions of the Akimel O'Odham (Pima) and the Pee Posh (Maricopa) are culturally and spiritually significant to the continuing life ways of the Akimel O'Odham (Pima) and the Pee Posh (Maricopa); and WHEREAS, the Muhadag (Pima language) also known as (a.k.a.) Avikwaxos (Maricopa language), a.k.a. Greasy Monntain (English language), and geographically known as the South Mountain, South Mountain· Range, or Salt River Monntains (Range) figures prominently in oral traditions of both the Akimel O'Odham (Pima) and the Pee Posh (Maricopa) NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Comntunity Council hereby does acknowledge and recognize that the South Mountain Range ill its entirety is a sacred place I traditional cultural property and must be kept inviolate. BE IT F1JRTHER RESOLVED, that the Community Conncil hereby strongly opposes any alteration of the South Mountain Range for any purpose would be a violation of the cultural and religious beliefs of the Gila River Indian Comntunity and would have a negative cumulative affect on the continuing lifeways of the people of the Gila River Indian Community. BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Governor, or in his absence, the Lieutenant Governor, is hereby authorized to sign and execute such documents as are necessary to effectuate this resolution. CERTIFICATION Pursuant to authority contained in Article XV, Section 1, (a) (7), (9), (18), and Section 4 of the amended Constitution and Bylaws of the Gila River Indian Community, ratified by the Tribe January 22, 1960, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior on March 17, 1960, the foregoing Resolution was adopted on the 4th of April, 2007, at a Regular Cormnunity Conncil Meeting held in District 3, Sacaton, Alizona at which a quorwn of 10 Members were present by a vote of: 2 FOR; QOPPOSE;! ABSTAIN;~ ABSENT;~ VACANCIES. GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNI1Y WHEREAS, the Cormnnnity Council has always held the preservation of historical, archaeological, cultural, religious sites as a high priority and recognizes the need to protect the cultural heritages of the Akimel O'Odham (Pima) and the Pee Posh (Maricopa); and WHEREAS, the identification and authentication of sacred places I traditional cultural properties is the sole responsibility of the federally recognized tribe according to its unique culture; and WHEREAS, the Community does recognize certain locations to be sacred places I traditional cultural properties based on the unique cultural and spiritual beliefs of the Akimel O'Od.ham (Pima) and the Pee Posh (Maricopa); and ATTEST: • A369 A370 • Appendix 2-1 GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY PoST OFFICE Box 2140, SACATON, AZ 85247 C ULTURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM u.s. Deparlment ARIZONA DlVlSION of Transportation 602-3 79-3646 Federal Highway Administration January 13, 2009 (520) 562-7150 (520) 562-7165 Fax: (520) 562-3268 rn· Reply Refer To: HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) November 18, 2008 Robert E. Hollis, Division Administrator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Arizona Division 400 East Van Buren Street, Suite 410 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 4000 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-1906 202LMA 054 H5764 OlL South Mountain Transpottation Co1Tidor Continuing Section I 06 Consultation Mr. William Rl10dcs, Governor Gila Ri.ver Indian Community P.O. Box97 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Dear Mr. Hollis: In reply to your previous request of April 22, 2008, please find attached a draft summary scope of work for proposed efforts offered as partial mitigation in connection with adverse effects to the Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) known as Muhadagi Doag (South Mountain), which will result with the proposed development of SR 202L (South Mountain Freeway) as currently designed. Dear Governor Rhodes: Phase I -Treatment Plan Development Phase II- Implementation of tl1e Study Phase III- Reporting and NRHP nomination of the South Mountain TCP. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is in receipt of the November 18, 2008 draft summary scope of work that you provided in response to our consultation of April22, 2008. The summary recommends development of a Phased Treatment Plan for a study of the traditional uses and cultural sigpificance of the Traditional Cultural Property (TCP) known as Muhadagi Doag (South Mountain). This study would complement and expand upon ongoing studies that contribute to the overall knowledge base of Muhadagi Doag and would serve as the basis of an evaluation of Muhadagi Doag's eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a TCP. Financial support of this study by FHW A and the Arizona Department ofTranspOitation (ADOT) would constitute partial mitigation to resolve potential adverse effects to Muhadagi Doag as a result of the development oft he proposed South Mountain Freeway. Understanding that previous cultural resource assessments, consultation with ADOT-FHW A, and GRIC Council resolution (with support from other Tribes) all agree that South Mountain is a TCP, this proposal serves to address the need to provide a strategy for mitigation in the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the South Mountain Freeway Project. FHWA and ADOT fmd !.he proposal a(.;cc::ptablc, with !.he following clarifications. If you agree with these bullets, please sign the concurrence line at the end of this letter. The next step after your concurrence, would be for ADOT and Gila River Indian Community (Conununity) to enter into a Joint Project Agreement. This sutnmary scope recommends a Phased Treatment Plan be developed, which is appropriate when eligible properties are adversely affected by a federal undertaking and avoidance is not possible, as follows: We look forward to further comment and discussion oftl!is proposal. Upon receipt of your concurrence or following revision of the proposal, the final version may be cited in the EIS in connection with the Muhadagi Doag TCP. Please note, that all other impacts to cultural properties located within the proposed alignment, or that will be directly or indirectly impacted by prop9sed construction, will need to be addressed in accordance with federal regulations provided under NEPA and the NHPA. If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me at (520) 562-7151 or jadarlin@gilariver.com. • • • • • Sincerely, ?:?~~J' 7' ~~n;;:w Darling • FHWA's role in consultation regarding the study and its deliverables will be limited to the potential effects of the proposed South Mountain Freeway on the Muhadagi Doag TCP as required by Section 106 (of the National Historic Preservation Act), Section 4(f) (of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The process of nominating the Muhadagi Doag TCP to the l\TRHP will be undertaken by the Community. ' FHWA and ADOT will be invited to participate in the public component of the work sessions. FHWA and ADOT will be invited to participate in the development of the Management Plan. With the exception of culturally sensitive documents, or portions of documents, the deliverables resulting from tills study will be available to FHWA and ADOT for use in fulfilling FH.W A's responsibilities under NEPA, Section 106, and Section 4(f) with regards to the proposed South Mountain Freeway or any other current or future projects. The funding of the Muhadagi Doag TCP study is a mitigation measure to resolve adverse effects of the proposed South Mountain Freeway. Therefore, if the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Coordinator AMERICAN ECONOMY i I ..o.·-· ;;.-~-··· Appendix 2-1 .... 2 the proposed project were to be cancelled or put on hold prior to the impleme11tatiou of the proposed TCP study, financial suppo1t of the study would also be cancelled or put on hold lll1til such lime !lS the EIS were to move forward again. Additionally, FHWA and ADOT have responded to the request made at our meeting on November 18, 2008 to investigate an elevated split design to mi.n.imize impacts to the active shrine site, AZ T: 12: 112(ASM). A design has been developed and efforts arc underway to coordinate a presenrntion of that design to your Community. us. Department of 'taisportation federal Hlghwoy Administration ARlWNA DIVl SlON April 28, 2010 4000 North Centml A venue, Suite 1500 Phoenix. AJ'i:1.ona 85012-3500 602-379-3646 Fax: 602-382-8998 http:l/www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdjv/ipdex.htm In Reply Refer To: We look f01ward to your response to our comments regarding the proposed study of the Muhadagi Doag TCP, aod to discussing the proposed avoidance measures. If you have any question or concerns, please do not hesitate to call Ruth Greenspan at 602-712-6266 or email RGreenspan@azdot.gov. NH-202-D (ADY ) HOP-AZ Sincerely, STEPHEN D. THO~ft S NH-202-D (ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 l-15764 OIL South Mountain Tran~portation Corridor Continuing Se<:tion 106 Consultation "no adverse effect" Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator Signature for GRIC Concurrence Date cc: Jennifer Allison-Ray,Lieuteoant Govemor, Gila River Indian Community, P.O.l3ox 97, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 David.White, Community Manager, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 97, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Barnaby Lewis, Cultural Resource Specialist, Gila River Indian Community, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 J. Andrew Darling, CRMP Coordinator, Gila R.iver Indian Community, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, Arizona 85247 SThomas AHaosen A Valle K.Davis MHollowell {EM02) RGreenspan (EM02) MBruder (EMOl) MBurdick (118A) SDThomas:cdm Mr. William Rhodes, Governor Gila River Indian Community P.O. Box97 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Dear Governor Rhodes: The Federal Highway Administration (PHWA) and Lbe Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) initiated consultation regarding a proposed study of the Muhadagi Doag TCP (Hollis [FHW A] to Rhodes [Gila River Indian Community] January 13, 2009). FHW A found the pl'oposal acceptable, pending clarification and elaboration of a few points before formal approval. The consultation letter also addressed the request made at the November 18, 2008 meeting to investigate an elevated split design to minimize impacts to the active shrine site, AZ T:12:112(ASM). A design has been developed and efforts are wtderway to coordinate a presentation of that design to your Communjty, A copy of the cotlsultation is enclosed to assist you in your review. FHWA would like to offer another oppottunity for the Gila River Indian Commtmity to respond to comments regarding the proposed study of the Muhadagi Doag TCP, and to discuss the proposed avoidance measures. We look forward to continuing consultation with your office. If • A371 A372 • . Appendix 2-1 ........·.··.· .. -·· .......... . •• • • v,~.·.··~·.•;,.,,•. - •••• ~·.·.:...•;. .. ". •,•, 2 you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or email Ldavis2@azdot.gov. GILA RNER INDIAN COMMUNITY JUL 1 2010 'Execu.tive Office of tlie Governor & Lieutenant Governor Sincerely yours, ]oseyli:Mcmu.e[ 'Wiilla:m 1l 1U1od£s c>1.Epu r;:iq u .• l'l CI'• ,.., U. -~~ , l.irnt'l'nnnl Gm·rnuw u·, , ,... ~,. (;11\'l'tmtr i' ' Ul.! <·. ': Robert E. Hollis Division Administrator June 23,2010 Enclosure cc: J. Andrew Darling, Coordinator, Cultural Resomce Management Program, GRIC, P .O. Box 2140, Sacaton, AZ 85247 (with enclosures) Barnaby V. Lewis, Cultural Resource Specialist, GRIC, P.O. Box E, Sacaton, AZ 85247 (with enclosmes) SThomas TDeitering A Hansen MFrye KDavis LDavis (EM02) SDThomas:cdm Robert Hollis, Administrator, Arizona Division U.S. Department of Transportation (FHWA) 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 . ;..... ' Dear Mr. Hollis: ·· ··--::·· ·,. ·· ·. "\. . . :. .::·. ,. . ·. :\, .·.·. ln reply to you.O~tterjiated A-R~~l.;28, 2010 regarding potential cffects..9.f..tl}~.l>r~posed SR 202L (South Moun~in F~~way), tb.e.:Gila R~v~r:ltldi.an (;qJ~_rpunity .Cul~ut:ar:Res~ui'ce Managemem PI'Ogram (GRl C.CRM:f) bas prepared the attached proposal for ' t:he.~:iJ;j,aLOO,jiQn of Traditional Cultural Propdi:~ ·a_!}~ ,Adverse·. Effects of Transportation CD_!·ridor Ijeye/.o.Rfn..ent posed by the proposed constru·cf!~n. Qf the current Pecos Alignment of the Souili. .'fltf~~n.~~in Freeway. This proposal has b~.n ~evi~wed and approved by the GRJC Commu.~tji"'- Cqimcil and lh~ GRIC Transportation T~bnjcal Team. A digital (soft copy) was subnutted : io Matthew Burdick (Arizona Departmen~..9f.Jr~!l.Sportatio;l. ::· ADOT) via electronic ~-~i,l oh:J.~~uiuy 19, 20 l 0. \ ·.. <· : . :~ . .. . .. ...... . ' Please be advised thattl~~ c_w,~h~·prop~~al onl)! ad~css~s.p~r~ilil.ni~~res for the mitigation of adverse effects posed by tlie:~ecos aiignmiht tO :Traditio·ri~l. ctilfi#l Property (fCP) including individual sites and the mounfi!jn:(Muhadagi.;Do.ag - South~:M.oi.uitain) and may be used in the preparation and finalization · of ··the· ;EnvJro~~ntal ·:'Ii'npact Statement (EIS). All other requirements under such federal acts as the National Historic Preservation Act (N.HPA) for the protection and preservation of cultural properties including data recovery of archaeological sites within the proposed corridor still pertain to the project and arc not addressed by the attached docwncnt. The Community is aware that as the project developments, design changes and consideration of alternate conidors may require further adjustment or revision to the plan as presented. The attached proposal also acknowledges the engineering solutions provided by ADOT in the form of overpasses fur the avoidance and protection of sensitive cuJrural sites as acceptable concepts and that implementation of lheir design and construction will require fwther 525 West Gu u Ki · P.O. Box 97 · Sacaton, Arizona 85147 Telephone: 520-562·9840 · Fax: 520·562·9849 · Email: executivemail@gric.nsn.us Appendix 2-1 ..... ._....... ~"'''"''' ...... ~r-1•·· ' ....... ·- o'h'"'• , . o . . . ,,,..,)'C.. U, AlUZONA DTVTSTO I U.S. Department consultation in the event these go forward . This includes especially the implementation of proposed massive cuts through the western ridges of Muhadagi Doag and earthworks required for construction of the Pecos aligrunent, which will significantly impact the mountain and the surrounding culturcil landscape. of Transportation Federal Highway Administ ration September 16. 2010 Sincerely, ~~C.-u--7.. Lt. Governor Joseph Manuel, Chair Transportation Technical Team Attachment: South Mountain Freeway Survey Proposal cc: Governor William R. Rhodes Chief of Staff Greg Mendoza Community Managers (5) Transportation Technical Team File Phoenix, Arizona 850 12-3500 602-379-3646 Fax: 602-382-8998 hllp:l/www.lllwa.dot.gov/azdiv/indcx.btm In Reply Refer To: Finally tllis proposal identifies the important and significant overlap of wildlife and culture corridors and the significance of all plants and animals in the traditional culture of the Akimel O'odham and Pee Posb of this Community. 1n this respect, we value the strong connection between the environment, the land, traditional places, and all living things, not just people. To this end, the attached proposal recognizes the intimate COJUlection ofTCPs lo the enviconmcnt in general, wbich certainly will be affected permanently through the construction of tbis major transporta1ion facility. The Gila River Indian Corru1mruty looks forward to continuing consultation through its newly established Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Barnaby V. Lewis (THPO), especi.ally on the draft P.lS once it is assembled. Jf you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to caiJ Dr. J. Andrew Darling, Coordinator, Cultural Resource Management Program at (520) 5627151 or Bamaby V. Lewis (THPO) at (520) 562-7152. 4000 North Centra l Avenue, Suite 1500 202-C- 200 HOP-AZ 202-C- 200 TRACS No. 202L MA 54.0115764 0 I C 202L, South Mountain Freeway, OCR and ELS Continuing Section 106 Consu ltation Revised Prognunmatic Agreement ML John Holt, Environmental Manager Western Area Power Administration 615 South 43rd Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85009 Dear Mr. Holt: The Federal H ighway Admin istration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report proj ect. The EIS addresses a lternative alignmems for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate I 0 (1-1 0) in west Chandler and to f- 10 in west Phoenix. The project would be bui lt entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federa l funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are s till under development, land ownership of the project area is no t yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, Atizona State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona State Museum, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, Bln·eatl of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration (Western), Salt River Project, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Roosevelt Irrigation District, City of Avo ndale, City of Chandler, City of Glendale, City of Phoenix, City ofTolleson, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Chemehuevi Tribe, Cocopab Tribe, Colorado R iver Indian Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Moj ave Tribe, Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, Gi la River Indian Community, Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni , • A373 A374 • Appendix 2-1 Department of Energy 2 Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Carlos Apache Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute, Tohono O'odham Nation, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. In 2007, a Programmatic Agreement (PA) was executed for the project; however, Western had not been included. Westem has transmission lines that intersect the proposed freeway aligitmenls and asked FHWA to be included in the PA. Therefore, per Stipulation 14 of the PA, FHW A has revised the PA to include Western as a concurring party. Additionally, FHWA and ADOT are taking this oppo1tunity to invite the Gila River Indian Community to participate as a concurring party at this time. A copy of the revised PAis enclosed for your review and comment. If Western would like to participate, please sign the enclosed PA and return it to ADOT within30 days. Upon receipt of Western's signature on the PA and of the Gila River Indian Community's s ignature, if they choose to participate at this time, FHWA will forward the updated PA through continued Section 106 consultations. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section I06 consultation. Please review the information provided in ibis letter. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at (602) 712-8636 or by e-mail at LDavis2@azdot.gov Sincerely yours, ~»faa£. iy -b.bert E. Hollis Division Administrator Enclosure Western Area Power Administration Desert Southwest Customer Service Region P.O. Box 6457 Phoenix, AZ 85005-6457 OCT 2 8 2010 OCT 2 5 2010 Robert E. Hollis, District Administrator Arizona Department of Transportation 4000 North Central A venue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 RE: Programmatic Agreement for the Federal Highway Administration and Arizona Department of Transportation South Mountain Freeway Project, Mohave County. Dear Mr. Hollis: The Western Area Power Administration (Western) has received the Programmatic Agreement (PA) regarding the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) which was developed for the proposed South Mountain Freeway Project. The signed agreement is enclosed with the letter. Western supports the Federal Highway Administration and the Arizona Department of Transportation in their section 106 responsibilities related to ti\e project. Western's participation in the PA supports our requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act related to the requirement to move our transmission lines to accommodate the construction of this project. Western looks forward to participating in future meetings and reviewing related documents for the PA. Thank you for inviting us to sign the PA. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact Mary Barger at (602) 605-2524 or call me at (602) 605-2592. Sincerely, John R. Holt Environmental Manager Enclosure Appendix 2-1 2003 ARIZONA DIVISION US.Department of TrCI'ISportalion Federal Highway Administration February I, 20 I l 2 4000 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 602-379-3646 Fax: 602-382-8998 http://www.ntwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP). As a result of these investigations, in 2005 an alternative alignment on 63'd Avenue was developed to avoid these resources. In 2010, the City of Phoenix (COP) provided information to the SMF project team that the 63'd Avenue alignment conflicted witb proposed land uses in the area. Three rezoning cases and one special permit were approved by the COP assuming the 61't Avenue alignment. One of these cases, approved in 2009, was for the location of a hospital and healthcare campus. This facility would be directly in the path of the 63'd Avenue ali gtu11ent. As a result of these conflicts, the COP bas asked FHWA to consider a proposed alig1m1ent of the SMF on 6l ' t Avenue. NRl-IP-eligible properties would be impacted by the alignment of the South Mountain Freeway along 6l' t Avenue. These include: I. The Colvin-Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy located at 6159 West Dobbins Road was determined not eligible to the NRl-IP as a whole because of a lack of integrity and historical significance. However, the dairy " head-to-toe" barn is recommended as eligible to the NRl-IP under Criterion C because it is one of the few standing family-operated dairy barns in Laveen. NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 54.0 H5764 0 IL 202L, South Mountain Freeway DCRand EIS Continuing Section I06 Consultation Revised Alignment Ncar Dobbins Road Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 1300 West Was hington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 2. The Hudson Farm located at 9300 South 59th Avenue was determined eligible to the NRHP w1der Criterion A as an exceptional example of a historic farmstead in Laveen, with the sunounding agricultural field an important contributing component that defines and preserves the farmstead's integrity of setting and feeling. Dear Dr. Jacobs: 3. The 6100 Block West Dobbins Road Streetscape was determined eligible to the NRHP under Criteria A and D as an example and reflection of the lower Salt River Valley's agricultural past. The F ederal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway (SMF), EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from fnterstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. The pJoj~ct would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project ernployS"rederal ftmds, ii is considered an undettaking subject to Section ~ 106 review. This project has been the subject of extensive prior consultation (SHP0-2003-1890). This letter requcs~ncurrence m]Jy on the approach of mitigating impacts to historic properties in the area of the proposed SMF's intersection-with Dobbins Road (see attached map). Land ownership in this portion of the project area is mostly private. Alternative alignments of the proposed SMF are being considered. The 1985 Phoenix General Plan Map bad a proposed transp011ation corridor near 59th Avenue. ADOT's 1988 SMF Design Concept Report and Environmental Assessment presented a prefened ali gnment corridor along 61 51 A venue. That same year, the Phoenix Platming Commission reconunended and City Colmcil approved, an aligtunent shift in the General Plan to a 61 51 Avenue alignment. It remained on tllis alignment until comprehensive cultlll'al resources investigations revealed several properties were eligible for listing on the Potential impacts to NRHP-eligible properties by the alignment of the SMF along 61 st Avenue include: • • • '\)£ fr The Barnes dairy barn would be destroyed by the proposed project. A sixteen-acre strip of the western side of the Hudson Farm would be taken by the proposed SMF. A p01tion of the agricultural field would be used to construct the proposed freeway. The 6100 Block West Dobbins Road Streetscape would be destroyed by the proposed project. I It is important to note that the City of Phoenix has designated this area as the core area of / ,____:downtown" Laveen. Landowners in the area have expressed a desire to develop their properties for commercial and/or residential uses. Therefore, it is llighly likely that development actions by private land owners would also lead to the destruction of these resources. Although the property owners would have to comply with City of Phoenix historic preservation ordinances, it is still likely t11at destruction with limited documentation of these propetties would occur. To mitigate the jJOtential impacts from the SMF and to offer a greater level of protection to these resources than would otherwise be provided, ADOT, FHWA, and the COP's Historic Preservation Office are considering the following approach. The final details of mitigation are • A375 A376 • Appendix 2-1 3 still being developed (including the level of documentation of the resomces) and may be influenced by comments received from the public. However, the approach includes: ARIZONA DIVISlON US. Department of Trcnsportation • • The Colvin-Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy and the West Dobbins Road Streetscape would be subjected to additional documentation and a possible interpretive exhibit/display. The Hudson Farm property: 1. Documentation on the property and proposal for listing on the NRHP 2. Protection of the farmstead complex through a conservation easement on the remaining parcel. The language of the conservation easement would be developed in consultation with the COP, ADOT, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). 3. Convey the property to private or public ownership for reuse 4. Conduct a public iuvolvement meeting in the vicinity of these resources to solicit input from tl1e public. Please review the infonnation provided in tlus letter. If you agree with the proposed approach to mitigating impacts to these tiU'ee historic properties, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. [f you have any questions or concerns, please fee11i·ee to contact Linda Davis at (602) 712-8636 or by e-mail at LDavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yoms, '-!???E.i~ ~laS.Petly Division Administrator I Signature for SHPO concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) e.G . Lt'o'\ J·-..~ X) J~'-l u I f¥0 u1' Enclosure Date Federal Highway Administration February 7, 20 11 4000 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 602-379-3646 Fax: 602-382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.govli!zdiv/iudex.htm ln Reply Refel' To: 202-C-200 HOP-AZ 202-C-200 TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H.5764 01 C 202L, South Mountain Freeway, OCR and ElS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Trnditional Cultural Properties Mr. William Rhodes, Governor Gila River Indian Commwtity P.O. Box 97 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Dear Governor Rhodes: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The ErS addresses altl:niative · alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of • · • South Mountain fromlnterstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandl er nnd to I-10 in west Phoenix. The projeet ; would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section I06 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHW A, ADOT, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Arizona State Land Department, Arizona State Museum, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Adm.inistration, Salt River Project, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Roosevelt Irrigation District, City of Avondale, City of Chandler, City of Glendale, City of Phoenix, City of Tolleson, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Chemehuevi Tribe, Cocopah.Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribe, Port McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Mojave Tribe, Fort Yurna-Quechan Tribe, Gila River Indian Community (GRfC), Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Carlos Apache Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute, Tohono O'odham Nation, Tonto Apache Tribe, Wbite Mountain Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.4), which requires federal agencies to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties that could be affected by a project, FHWA and ADOT prepared a traditional cultural property assessment titled An Evaluation ofTraditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2006), which was sent to your office for review June 2006 Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION 2 us. Department oflrcrlsportation (Hollis (FHWA) to Rl1odes [GRlC] June 28, 2006). GRIC responded in September 2006 notifYing FHW A.t'hat.their Cultural Resource Management Program (CRMP) was reviewing the traditional cultural properties (TCP) evaluation report and that a formal response would be forthcoming (Rhodes (GRIC] to Hollis [FHWA] September 25, 2006). In December 2006, GRlC provided their formal response which included National Register of Historic Places (NRJ-JP) eligibility concurrences and comments on the proposed boundary for the South Mountain TCP (Rhodes [GRIC] to Hollis [FHWA) December 19, 2006). While the GRlC generally concurred with the NRHP eligibility recommendations provided in the TCP report, there were three points where they did not concur: (I) the designation of a O'odham core homeland, (2) the proposed boundary for the South Mountains TCP, ru1d (3) the NRJ-IP eligibility recommendation for Villa Buena site (AZ T: J2:9 [ASM]). Since then, FHWA and ADOT J1ave continued an open dialog with GRJC's cultural resources staff regarding the identification and evaluation of traditional cultural properties as they pertain to the South Mountain freeway project. During this time, the TCP report has been revised per GRlC comments: (I) the report no longer uses the concept of a core O'odham homeland; (2) FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC have agreed to defer delineation ofTCP boundary for the South Mountains until a more detailed 81ld comprehensive study of its traditional uses and cultural significance can be conducted, therefore the boundary proposed in the earlier version of the report has been removed; and, (3) the NRHP eligibility· recommendation for the Villa Buena site has been changed to be inclusive of the entire site. With regards to the later, the Villa Buena site (AZ T: 12:9 [ASM]) is now recommended eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and D. The site is recom mended eligible under Criterion A as a traditional cultural property for its associations with traditional cultural practices of the GRlC. The site is also recommended eligible under Criterion D for its information potential as an archaeological site. The portions of the site off the reservation in agricultural fields, including the portions within the proposed action altemative alignments, do not retain qualities that contribute to its eligibility as a traditional cultural property. A copy of the revised report is enclosed for your review and comment. Please review the information provided in this letter 81ld the revised TCP report. If you find the revised TCP report adequate and agree with FHWA's eligibility recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. As more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency through continued Section 106 consultation. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at (602) 712-8636 or by ~mai l at LDav is2@azdot. gov. Sincerely yours, ~de ~laS.Petty '1-A(- Division Administrator Signature for GRlC Concurrence 202-C-200 Enclosures Date cc: J. Andrew Darling, Coordinator, Cultural Resource Management Program, GRIC, P.O. Dox 2140, Sacaton, AZ 85247 (with enclosures) Barnaby V. Lewis, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, GRJC, P.O. Box 2140, Sacaton, AZ 85247 (with enclosures) Federal Highway Admlnlstratlon 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa .dot. gov/azdiv/index. htm August 8, 2011 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 1-15764 0 IC South Mountain Freeway UPRR OP - TROE Continuing Section 106 Consultation Geotechnical Investigations Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Dr. Jacobs: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are planning geotechnical borings at the W59 Alternative crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) for the proposed South Mountain Freeway in west Phoenix, Maricopa County. As this project is qualified for federal funding, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. This geotech work occurs on private land. Consulting parties for this undertaking include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and UPRR. Due to the limited scope and nature of work, tribal consultation is not warranted. The scope of this project would involve excavating ten 8-inch diameter borings approximately 100 feet deep near the intersection of 59th Avenue and the UPRR tracks, which run east-west about halfway between Van Buren Street and Buckeye Road. Access to the boring locations would be from 59th A venue along the UPRR access roads and adjacent parking lots. No new right of way (ROW) or temporary construction easements are anticipated for this project. The area of potential effects (APE) is defined as 50 feet around the borings and access routes. A copy of the geotechnical boring plan is enclosed to assist you in your review. The UPRR.right-of-way portion ofthe APE has been previously surveyed by SWCA, Environmental Consultants, Inc. (SWCA) in conjunction with a separate undertaking. The results are reported in "Archaeological Survey for a Proposed Fiber Optic Cable Line from Yuma to Phoenix" (Doak 1999). The historic Wellton-Phoenix-Eloy Main Line of the South Pacific Railroad (AZ T:l 0:84 [ASM]) was identified in the project area. The railroad's eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NR.HP) was evaluated as part of the South Mountain Freeway project by HDR Engineering, Inc (HDR). The results are reported in "An • A377 A378 • Appendix 2-1 2 Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Pratt 2005). FHWA recommended that the railroad was eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion A. SHPO previously concurred with the adequacy of the report and eligibility determination (Jacobs [SHPO] to Greenspan [AD01l SHPO concurrence October 3, 2005). ARIZONA DIV ISION us. Department of Trcnsportalicn Federal Highwa y Administration August 8, 2011 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) The remainder of the APE has recently been surveyed by HDR. The smvey results are reported in "A Class Ill Cultural Resources Survey for Geotechnical Investigations for the South Mountain Freeway W59 Alternative UPRR OP, City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck 2011 ), and are enclosed here for your review and comment. No new sites were identified in the project area. HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 0 I C South Mountain Freeway UPRR OP - TROE Continuing Section 106 Consu ltation Geotechnical Investigations AZ T: I 0:84 (ASM), the historic Wellton-Phoenix-Eloy Main Line, is located within the APE but will not be affected by the project. Therefore, FHW A has determined that a finding of "no adverse effect" is appropriate for this undertaking. Please review the enclosed report, geotechnical plans, and the information provided in this letter. If you find the report adequate and agree with FHW A's determination of project effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or email LDavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~aS. Petty Division Administrator Signature for SHPO Concmrence NH-202-D(ADY) Date 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm Mr. Dino Orbiso Manager Environmental Field Operations Union Pacific Railroad 2401 East Sepulveda Boulevard Long Beach, California 90810 Dear Mr. Orbiso: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are planning geotechnical borings at the W59 Alternative crossing of the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) for the proposed South Mountain Freeway in west Phoenix, Maricopa County. As this project is qualified for federal funding, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. This geotech work occurs on private land. Consulting parties for this undertaking include FHW A, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and UPRR. Due to the limited scope and nature of work, tribal consultation is not warranted. The scope of this project would involve excavating ten 8-inch diameter borings approximately I 00 feet deep near the intersection of 59th A venue and the UPRR tracks, which run east-west about halfway between Van Buren Street and Buckeye Road. Access to the boring locations would be from 59th A venue along the UPRR access roads and adjacent parking lots. No new right of way (ROW) or temporary construction easements are anticipated for this project. The area of potential effects (APE) is defined as 50 feet around the borings and access routes. A copy of the geotechnical boring plan is enclosed to assist you in your review. Enclosures The UPRR right-of-way portion of the APE has been previously surveyed by SWCA, Environmental Consultants, Inc. (SWCA) in conjunction with a separate undertaking. The results are reported in "Archaeological Survey for a Proposed Fiber Optic Cable Line from Yuma to Phoenix" (Doak 1999). The historic WeUton-Phoenix-Eloy Main Line of the South Pacific Railroad (AZ T: 10:84 [ASM]) was identified in the project area. The railroad' s eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was evaluated as part of the South Mow1tain Freeway project by HDR Engineering, Inc (HDR). The results are reported in "An Addendum Cultural Resources Report for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & VDCR Appendix 2-1 ~ 2 ZObJ• · . us. Deportment Project, Maricopa County, Arizona" (Brodbeck and Pratt 2005). FHWA recommended that the of lta'lsportotioo railroad was eligible for NRliP listing under Criterion A. SHPO previously concurred with the adequacy of the report and eligibil ity determination (Jacobs [SHPO] to Greenspan [ADOT) SHPO concUtTence October 3, 2005). Federa l Highway Administration \ (" J \u t II 202-C- 200 TRACS No. 202L MA 54.0 H5764 OIC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, OCR and EIS Continuing Section l06 Consultation Revised Programmatic Agreement Mr. Brian Bowker, Director Bureau oflndian Affairs Western Regional Office 2600 North Central A venue, 4th Floor Mailroom Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3050 Dear Mr. Bowker: The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, ETS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section t06 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHW A, ADOT, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona State Museum, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau oflndian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration, Salt River Project, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Flood Control Distri.ct of Maricopa County, Roosevelt Irrigation District, City of Avondale, City of Chandler, City of Glendale, City of Phoenix, City of Tolleson, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Chemehuevi Tribe, Cocopah Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Mojave Tribe, Fort Yuma-Quechan Tri be, Gila River Indian Community, Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Carlos Apache Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute, Tohono O'odbam Nation, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. • A381 A382 • Appendix 2-1 2 ARIZONA DMSION US.Depa1ment In 2005, FHWA circulated a revised draft Programmatic Agreement (PA) to agencies and tribes for review (Hollis [FHWA] to Cantley [BIA) July I , 2005). At that time, the BIA declined pruticipation in the PA (Cantley (BIA] to Laine (ADOT] personal communication via phone call A ugust 3, 2005). Since then, the BIA has asked FHWA to be included in the PA. T herefore, per Stipulation 14 of the PA, FHWA has revised the PA to include BIA as a concurring party. d lalspcrlallon Federal Highway Admf'*fratlon 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm January 23, 2012 In Reply Refer To: 202-C· 200 A revised PA is enclosed for your review and comment. If the BIA would like to participate, please sign the enclosed PA and return it to ADOT within 30 days. Upon receipt ofBIA 's signature on the PA FHW A will forward the updated PA through continued Section 106 consultations. Furthermore, as more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway project, it will be provided to your agency tlu·ough continued Section 106 consultation. Please review the information provided in this letter. Tf you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at (602) 7 12-8636 or by e-mail at LDavis2@azdot.gov Sincerely yours, ~w ~ Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Enclosure HOP-AZ 202-C- 200 TRACS No. 202L MA 54.0 H5764 0 IC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, OCR and EIS Continuing Section I 06 Consultation Revised Programmatic Agreement Mr. Brian Bowker, Director Bureau of Indian Affairs Western Regional Office 2600 North Central Avenue, 4th Floor Mailroom Phoenix, Arizona 85004-3050 Dear Mr. Bowker: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler and to I-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office, Arizona State Land Department, Arizona State Musewn, Anny Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Western Area Power Administration, Salt River Project, Maricopa County Department of Transportation, Flood Control District of Maricopa CoWlty, Roosevelt Irrigation District, City of Avondale, City of Chandler, City of Glendale, City of Phoenix, City of Tolleson, Ak-Chin Indian Community, Chemehuevi Tribe, Cocopah Tribe, Colorado River Indian Tribe, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Fort Mojave Tribe, Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, Gila River Indian Community, Havasupai Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pascua Yaqui Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, San Carlos Apache Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute, Tohono O'odham Nation, Tonto Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Ap.ache Nation. Appendix 2-1 2 In 200~, FHWA.circulated a revised draft Programmatic Agreement (PA) to agencies and tribes for ~~~e~ (~allis [FHWA] to Cantley [BIA] July l, 2005). At that time, the BIA declined partiCipation m the.PA (Cantley [BIA] to Laine [ADOT] personal communication via phone call A~gust ~· 2005). Smce then, the BIA has asked FHWA to be included in the p A. Therefore er Stipulation 14 of the PA, FHWA has revised the PA to include BIA as a concurring party. ' p 0 ARIZONA DMSlON us.~ cna iSP(IIta1icn Pederal HighwaY 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 htto://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm Admlnlstraflon April24, 2012 A revi~d PAis enclosed for your review and comment. If the BIA would like to artici ate P.lease sign the enclosed P A and return it to ADOT within 30 days. Upon receipt Br/.s ' Signature. on the PA FHWA will forward the updated PA through continued Section 106 consultations. ~f In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ F~e~or~, as more information becomes available regarding the South Mountain Freeway pro~ect, tt ~ill be p~vided ~yo~ agency through continued Section 106 consultation. Please revtew the mfo~at10n pr?vtded m this letter. If you have any questions or concerns, lease feel free to contact Lmda Davis at (602) 712-8636 or by e-mail at LDavis2@azdot.gov NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H.S764 OIC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Traditional Cultural Propenies Section 4(f) Determination p Sincerely yours, ~fpJu Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Mr. Gregory Mendoza, Governor Gila River Indian Community P.O.Box97 Sacaton, Arizona 85247 Dear Governor Mendoza: Enclosure cc: Garry Can~ey, Archa~ologist, Bur~u of Indian Affairs-Western Region Office, 2600 N . Central Avenue, 4 Floor Mailroom, Phoemx, Arizona 85004-3050 The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A} and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmentallmpact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The ElS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from 1nterstate 10 (1-10) in west Chandler to 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW}. As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department, the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District ofMaricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City ofTolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemebuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the • A383 A384 • Appendix 2-1 2 Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been carrying out cultural resouroe studies and engaging in an ongoing open dialog with GRIC' s Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) and Cultural Resource Management Program (CRMP) regarding the identification and evaluation of places of religious and cultural significance to the tribe, often referred to as traditional cultural properties (fCPs) as they may be affected by the South Mountain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, the GRIC has identified five TCPs thatare eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and could be affected by the construction of the South Mountain Freeway. These include the South Mountains (Muhadagi Doag). the prehistoric Hohokam villages of Villa Buena (AZ T:12:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:l2:52 [ASM]), a shrine site (AZ T:l2:112 [ASM], and a petroglyph site (AZ T: 12:198 [ASM)) that is also a contributing resource to the South Mountains TCP. In addition, GRIC has identified five other archaeological sites that contribute to the South Mountains TCP (AZ T:12:197 [ASM), AZ T:12:201 [ASM], AZ T:l2:207 [ASM], AZ T:12:208 [ASM], and AZ T:12:211 [ASM]). SHPO previously concurred with FHWA's determination that Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:l2:197, AZ T:12:198, AZ T:12:201, AZ T:l2:207, AZ T:12:208, and AZ T:12:21 1 are eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites (Jacobs [SHPO] to Greenspan [ADOT], January 23, 2006). This letter summarizes consultation between FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC relating to the eligibility of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo, as well as proposed mitigation to address any potential adverse effects to aU TCPs identified within the project area. Through on-going Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC have been developing options for mitigating adverse effects to the TCPs. As a result of these discussions, avoidance alternatives have been developed for two of the TCPs, the petroglyph site and shrine site. They will now be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, there will be no direct impacts to these sites. The South Mountains, Villa Buena, and Pueblo del Alamo TCPs cannot be avoided by project alternatives; therefore mitigation plans have been developed. The mitigation strategies are presented in Treatment Plans titled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance of Muhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation ofTraditional Property and Adverse Effects of Transportation Corridor Development Summary Scope of Work (Draft) (Darling 2008), which the GRIC THPO previously approved (Manuel [GRIC] to Hollis [FHWA], June 23, 2010) and South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance of Traditional Cultural Properties and Mitigation ofTransportation Corridor Development Adverse Effects, Addendum Planning for TCP Mitigation Villa Buena (AZ T:12:9 [ASM] and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:12:52 [ASM}) (Draft) (Darling 2012), which is enclosed for your review. ln addition, we are enclosing fue revised An Evaluation of Traditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS and UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012) for your review. The South Mountains 3 The South Mountain range as a whole is considered a TCP. The range is an important element in the spiritual landscape of the Akimel O'odham and Pee Posh, as well as for some of the Colorado River Tribes. For the Akimel O'odham, South Mountains was one of the homes of the deity and creator, Elder Brother (Se'ehc) and several shrines in the range associated with his presence continue to be recognized and honored by the GRIC. Further, South Mountain served as a resource procurement area for upland plants and animals and was a focal point of prehistoric and historic rock art production. FHWA has recommended that the South Mountains is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A and B as a TCP for its significant associations with the broad patterns of traditional cultural practices and beliefs of the Akimel O'odham, Pee Posh, and other tribes, and for the close association the mountain range has with the O'odham creator deity. The GRIC previously concurred with FHWA's eligibility recommendation (Rhodes [GRIC] to Hollis [FHWA], December 19, 2006). Furthermore, FHWA bas determined that archaeological sites AZ T:12:197 (ASM), AZ T:l2:198 (ASM), AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), AZ T:12:208 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM) are contributors to the South Mountains TCP under Criterion A. At the .request ofFHWA and ADOT, GRIC CR.MP prepared a draft Treatment Plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse affects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP, which GRIC THPO previously approved (Manuel [GRIC] to Hollis [FHWA], June 23, 2010). VIlla Buena and Pueblo del Alamo Villa Buena (AZ T:l2:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:l2:52 [ASM]) are prehistoric villages for which Tribal consciousness and veneration exist to the present day in the form of active association and identification of these places with religious, historical, and ideological perpetuation of GRIC' s community culture. As TCPs, therefore, it is the position of GRIC that in regard to eligibility, these sites cannot be subdivided or otherwise segregated into areas considered contributing or non-contributing to the overall significance of the historic property under NRHP criteria. Instead, these are historic properties in their entirety that are considered sacred. Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo are specifically referred to in the Akimel O'odham creation story, which plays an important role in the on-going cultural traditions of the members of the GRIC. While many aspects of the creation story detail elements of traditional history, such histories also identify places and physical associations in the landscape of the GRIC and its sister tribes (the Four Southern Tribes), as well as other Native communities in southern Arizona, Mexico, and California. By virtue of their associations with regular cycles of universal renewal, places such as Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo are critical to O'odham and Pee Posh beliefs about cultural perpetuation and GRIC survival. In consultation with the GRIC THPO, FHWA bas determined that Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs for their significant associations with the preservation and perpetuation of broad patterns of Akimel O'odham and Pee Posh history and culture. FHW A has also determined, through consultation with the GRIC Appendix 2-1 4 THPO, SHPO, and other consulting parties, that Villa Buena and Pueblo del AJamo are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites. Both Pueblo del Alamo and Villa Buena have been subjected to considerable disturbance from agricultural activities, road construction, and modem construction, as well as bioturbation and erosion. In discussions with ADOT and FHWA, GRIC has expressed the belief that regardless of the current condition of the sites, and regardless of whether the portion of the site within the project area of potential effects (APE) retains physical integrity, these places are known to be sacred and still convey their significance under Criterion A through the perperoation of the traditional O'odham song culture and traditional religious beliefs and practices. Accordingly, the integrity of those elements that contribute to the significance of these sites under Criterion A would remain, despite any potential impacts from project-related construction, and would not be adversely affected by the proposed undertaking. 5 Please review the information provided in this letter and enclosed materials. If you agree with FHWA's determination ofNRHP eligibility for the TCPs, and the adequacy of the draft mitigation Treatment Plan, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~.~ Division Administrator At the request ofFHWA and ADOT, GRIC CRMP has prepared a draft Treatment Plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse affects to the Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo TCPs, which is enclosed for your review. AZ T:12:112 (ASM) AZ T:12:l12 (ASM) includes an active O'odhamjiawul himdag shrine that is part of an archaeological site with prehistoric and historic features. The site is a traditional O'odham shrine with historic precedence used by contemporary Community members actively exercising their traditional religious and ceremonial practices and beliefs. The site and its use are part of a broad pattern of traditional religious and ceremonial practices and beliefs that define the cultural identity, continuity, and tradition of the Akimel O'odham. The site's placement on the landscape also has the potential to provide information on prehistoric networks and regional connectivity. FHWAhas determined AZ T:l2:112 (ASM) is eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under Criterion A as a TCP and under Criterion D as an archaeological site. In consultation with the GRJC TIIPO and CRMP, ADOT and FHWA have developed proposed freeway alternatives that would avoid the site; therefore, it would not be directly impacted by the project Mitigation measures for any potential indirect impacts would be developed through continuing consultations withGRIC. AZ T:l2:198 (ASM) AZ T: 12:198 (ASM) is a petroglyph site that, in addition to being a contributor to the South Mountain TCP, is individually eligible as a TCP. The site includes seven panels of prehistoric and historic rock art. Rock art sites such as this continue to function for the GRlC as shrines or spiritual places and they are important in the perpetuation ofGRIC's identity and culture. In consultation with the GRIC THPO, FHWA has determined AZ T:l2:198 (ASM) is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion A as a TCP and under Criterion D as an archaeological site. In consultation with the GRIC TIIPO and CRMP, ADOT and FHWA have developed proposed freeway alternatives that would avoid the site; therefore, it will not be directly impacted by the project Mitigation measures for any potential indirect impacts would be developed through continuing consultations with GRIC. Signature for THPO Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosures Date • A385 A386 • Appendix 2-1 The previous letter was also sent to” Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Officer, State Historic Preservation Office Appendix 2-1 2 3 Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White MoWltain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. Tile South Mountains The South MoWltain range as a whole is considered a TCP. The range is an important element in the spiritual landscape of the Akimel O'odham and Pee Posh, as well as for some of the Colorado River Tribes. For the Akimel 0'odham, South MoWltains was one of the homes of the deity and creator, Elder Brother (Se'ehe) and several shrines in the range associated with his presence continue to be recognized and honored by the GRIC. Further, South Mountain served as a resource procurement area for upland plants and animals and was a focal point of prehistoric and historic rock art production. In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into accoWlt the effects of their Wldertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been carrying out cultural resource studies and engaging in an ongoing open dialog with GRIC's Tribal Historic ) Preservation Office (THPO) and Cultural Resource Management Program (CRMP) regarding the identification and evaluation of places of religious and cultural ~@!fu:ance to the tribe, often referred as traditional cultural properties (TCPs) as they ~Y be affected by the South MoWltain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, the GRIC has identified five TCPs that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and could be affected by the construction of the South MoWltain Freeway. These include the South MoWltains (Muhadagi Doag), the prehistoric Hohokam villages of Villa Buena (AZ T: 12:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T: 12:52 [ASM]), a shrine site (AZ T: 12:112 [ASM), and a petroglyph site (AZ T:12:198 [ASM]) that is also a contributing resource to the South Mountains TCP. In addition, GRIC has identified five other archaeological sites that contribute to the South MoWltains TCP (AZ T:l2:197 [ASM], AZ T:l2:20l [ASM], AZ T:12:207 [ASM], AZ T:l2:208 [ASM], and AZ T:12:211 [ASM]). to FHWA has detennined that the South MoWltains is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criteria A and Bas a TCP for its significant associations with the broad patterns of traditional cultural practices and beliefs of the Akimel O'odham, Pee Posh, and other tribes, and for the close association the moWltain range has with the O'odharn creator deity. The GRIC previously concurred with FHWA's eligibility determination (Rhodes [GRIC] to Hollis [FHWA], December 19, 2006). Furthermore, FHWA has determined that archaeological sites AZ T:l2:197 (ASM), AZ T:12:198 (ASM), AZ T:l2:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), AZ T:12:208 (ASM), andAZ T:l2:211 (ASM) are contributors to the South Mountains TCP under Criterion A. At the request of FHWA and ADOT, GRIC CRMP has prepared a draft Treatment Plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse affects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP, which is enclosed for your review. SHPO previously concurred with FHWA's determination that Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:l2:197, AZ T:12:198, AZ T:l2:201, AZ T:l2:207, AZ T:12:208, and AZ T:l2:211 are eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites (Jacobs [SHPO] to Greenspan [ADOT], January 23, 2006). This letter summarizes consultation between FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC relating to the eligibility of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo, as well as proposed mitigation to address any potential adverse effects to all TCPs identified within the project area. Vdla Buena and Pueblo del Al4mo Through on-going Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC have been developing options for mitigating adverse effects to the TCPs. As a result of these discussions, avoi~rnroi.UOr f: Jo.., ,Jnd ft I' \111 ll Appendix 2-1 4000 North Central Avenue 2 Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 ARIZONA DMSION us. Deportment (602) 379-3646 d 1tJ'lsporttrtlcn F Avenue in Laveen were reevaluated by AZTEC Engineering Group. Inc. The results of the reevaluation are presented in South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study: Evaluaiion ofFour Historic Buildings andDi.rtricts, Maricopa C0101ty, Arizona (Solliday 2012), a copy of which is enclosed for your review and comment. Consulting parties for this reevaluation include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic PreseJVation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Bureau of Land Management {BLM), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the City of Phoenix-Historic Preservation Office (COP-HPO), the City of Phoenix-Pueblo Grande Museum (COP-PGM), and Salt River Project (SRP). The four historic prope.rties near the Dobbins Road/59111 Avenue intersection that were reevaluated include: 1) Hudson Farm, 9300 South 59th Avenue 2) Hackin Farmstead/Dairy,10048 South 59th Avenue 3) Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy, 6159 West Dobbins Road The Hudson Farm, a historic district, was previously detennined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places {NRHP) under criterion A. The boundaries of the district encompassed nearly 40 acres. Reassessment of the farm and historic farming in the Laveen area determined that the boundaries should encompass nearly 80 acres rather th.an 40. From the earliest times, the family farms in this area included two quart&-quarter sections, both before the Western Canal irrigated Laveen, and after construction of the canal and the establishment of 40-acre farm units. TI1e original 80-acre fann remains intact, minus rights-of-way for roads ond irrigation features. The cement stave silos at the fann v;ere previously detennined to be individually eligible for listing under criterion C. The reassessment agrees with this earlier detennination. Hackin Farmstead/Dairy As a district, the Hackin Farmstead/Dairy was previously dctennined ineligible for listing on the NRHP. However, the dairy barn on the property was found eligible under criterion C. No changes are recommended for these previous determinations. Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy As a district, the Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dair:y was previously determined ineligible for listing on the NRHP. However, the dairy bam on the property was found eligible under criterion C. No changes are recommended for these previous detenninations. Dobbins Road Streetscape The Dobbins Road Streetscape District was previously determined eligible for listmg on the NRHP under criteria A and D. The reevaluation has found that the district is ineligible. There are several characteristics of the Dobbins Road Streetscape that impact the integrity of the resource as a rural agricultural streetscape. Historic rural landscapes often include miles of roadway and surrounding agricultural properties. The 325 feet of roadway along Dobbins Road is of inadequate length to truly convey the rural agricultural character that once dominated this area. In addition. there are modem intrusions easily visible from the streetscape. At the west end there is a prominent 1977 house on ftle north side of the road and a mobile home on the south side of the road that was moved onto the site about 1970. A recently constructed subdivision of two-story houses is located just over a quarter-mile east of the streetscape, and is clearly visible from within the streetscape boundaries. Additionally, many component3 of the historic strectscape have lost their historic character, as detailed in the enclosed report. Therefore, FHWA recommends that this district is ineligible for listing on the NRHP. Following is a summary of the reevaluation: • A391 A392 • Appendix 2-1 This letter was also sent to: Mr. Steve Ross, Achaeologist, Arizona State Land Department Mr. Dave Gifford, Archaeologist, Bureau of Reclamation Ms. Cheryl Blanchard, Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management Ms. Laurene Montero, Archaeologist, City of Phoenix Ms. Michelle Dodds, Historic Preservation Office, City of Phoenix Mr. Richard Anduze, Archaeologist, Salt River Project Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION US.Deparlmeot of l"msportalion federal Highway Admlnlsti"Qtlon 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www. f~wa.dot.govlazdiv/index. htm In Reply Rcfur To: u< !l~~rrc·\liFo·/·1\v;r~rr· ': -=. \J ll,; ~.' : NH-202-D(ADY) Tite Hudson Farm, a historic district, was previously determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRIIP) under criterion A. The boundarim; ofthc district encornpaqsed nearly 40 acres. Reassessment of the farm and historic f1 202L. South Mountain. OCR and EIS.oclf _j ARI ZONA I>IV ISl ON US. ()epar ~oo._ A!X; 10'12 oft< ---~ SUIINAME ROUTt TO . fed erall AI:Jmlnlst all on I1500\ret_, 'I ':R~&v 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602} 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www. fhwa .dot. gov/azd iv/index.htm August 8, 2012 Linda, I In Reply Refer To: Nl-l-202-D(ADY) Reclamation does not appear to have any agency lands or interests in this part of the project area. Per our internal direction, we do not sign concurrence letters when we have no project lands affected. However, feel free to use this email as documentation that we have rece ived and llASS'f!CATION Clllf1'n NO. PROJECT HOP-AZ l responded to your letter. NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 1-15764 0 IC 202L, South Mountain freeway, OCR and EIS Continuing Section I 06 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension Have a good one. Dave Dave Giffor d Archaeologist Bmeau of Reclamation 6 150 W. Thunderbird Road Glendale AZ 85306 623 77 3 -6262 Mr. Bryan M. Lausten, Archaeologist Phoenix Area Office Bureau ofReclamation 6150 West Thunderbird Road Glendale, Arizona 85306-400 I Dear Mr. Lausten: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EJS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative a lignments tor the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain 1i·om Interstate 10 (1- 10) in west Chandler to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section I06 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SIIPO), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the C ity of Glendale, the City of Phoen ix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin (ndian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River fndian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort YumaQuechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache • A403 A404 • Appendix 2-1 ~~ JaniceK Brewer Governor Bryan Martyn Executive Director ~ A1·l%ona .,, State Parks AZStoteParks.(om Board Members Waller D. Armer, Jr., Vail, Chair Maria Baier, State land Commissioner, Vice Chair Kay Dagge«. Sierra Vista Our office appreciates your continued cooperation in complying with federal historic preservation requirements. If you have any questions or concems, please feel free to contact me at 602/542-7140 or e-mail me at djacobs@azstateparks.gov. Alan E'verett, Sedona Larry Landry, Phoenix William c. Scalzo, Phoenix Tracey Westerhausen, Phoenix Si~cere\y,\ \ J , August 13, 2012 Karla Petty, Arizona Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration, U.S Department of Transportation 4000 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, AZ 85012-3500 Attention: Rebecca Swiecki RE: PAGE2 NH-202-D(ADY), TRACS #202L MA H5764 OlC SR 202L, South Mountain Freeway AZ T: 12:287 Site Eligibility Continuing Section 106 Consultation SHP0-2003-1890 (1 06850) Ms. Petty: Thank you for consulting with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office [SHPOJ pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act as implemented by 36 CFR Part 800 regarding the proposed construction of an extension of Chandler Boulevard between 191h Avenue and 27'h Avenue in the City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, Arizona. A cultural resources survey was submitted with several archaeological sites identified within or next to the proposed project area, and recommendations of the eligibility status of the sites and a finding of effect were offered. We have reviewed the submitted materials and offer the following comments. The submitted cultural resource assessment [A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the Chandler Boulevard Extension, 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona] and several assessments of the project area conducted earlier have identified site AZ T:l2:287 (ASM), located just outside the proposed project area. The eligibility of site AZ T:l2:287 (ASM) has been recommended to be not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP] under Criterion D. Although not recommended as register-eligible, there have been earlier consultations in 2008 with the Gila River Indian Community [GRIC] by the Arizona State Land Department and the City of Phoenix that indicate the site in question may have significance as an O'odham shrine. Indeed, your cover letter recommends continuing consultation with GRIC's Tribal Historic Office to confirm its status. When that tribal consultation process is completed, and the status of the eligibility of site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) is detennined, our office will then be prepared to comment upon the eligibility of the sites and an appropriate finding of effect. Arizona State Parks • 1300 W. Washlnglon Street • Phoenix, AZ 85007 PhonerrTY: (602) 5424174 · Fax: (602) 542-4188 ~\>G PJ:.~~..~ • ~\ ) 1\ • \ Davtd Jac<;Sbs Compliance Specialist/Archaeologist Arizona State Historic Preservation Office CC: Barnaby Lewis, GRIC ,. 1?W ., ~OT Laurene 10loufM, City of Phoenix Appendix 2-1 ~ ., ~· AlUZONA DIVISION US. Department ~::s :r::;g.t"-·fg (C ~ u\~~f]j_~~--·1 Admlnlstratlo.H.fJ' -l 1 I l· AUG J 0 2012 _ 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm August 8, 2012 1 _J -ffi&TS£cr10N _j In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 0 IC 202L South Mountain Freeway, DCR and BIS ' Continuing Section 106 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension Mr. Steve Ross, Archaeologist Arizona State Land Department 1616 West Adams Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Mr. Ross: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizou~ Department ofTranspmiation (ADOT) are continuing teclmical studies in support of the ~nvu·on:nental Impact Statem~1~t (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway; EIS & LocattOn/Destgn C~n~pt Report p~OJect. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountam Freewa~, wluch would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (~-10) 111 west Chandler to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely o~.~~-l]g)!t-of~~ (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal fu~tds, it is considered an ulldet1akmg . subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are shll under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Hist~ric Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Depmiment (ASLD), the Anzona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Managc~~nt, t~e Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Powel' Admtmstratton, the. Sa.lt j{.iver Project, the Maricopa County Dcpartm~nt.of'frans~)Ottation, the Flood C~ntrol D1stnct ~f Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Inigation Dtstnct, the Ctty of Avondale, ~he Ct.ty ofChandl:t, the City of Glendale, the City ofphoenix, the City ofTolle~on, the.Ak-C?n1 Indtan Commumty, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, th.e Colorado Rtver Ind1~0 Tnbe, t~1e F~rt McD.owell Yavapai Nation, the FOtt Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yum~-Quechan Tnbe•. the. Gtla R1ve~ IndJan. Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tnbe, the Huala~a1 Tnbe, th~ Kat~ab-Pamte Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pu:blo ofZunt, the Salt RtV~r Pl?laMaricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Natton, the San Juan Southern Pamtc, the 2 Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have undertaken cultural resource studies. 'Ibe El Alternative for the proposed freeway would be built along and replace Pecos Road, effectively cutting off access to residential subdivisions west of 27th Avenue. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension would provide a new access route by extending Chandler Boulevard between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue. The alignment for the proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension follows an existing City of Phoenix water line. The surrounding area is undeveloped. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension is located in Section 36 of Township 1 South and Range 2 East. The land in Section 36 north of the existing City of Phoenix water line is owned by the City of Phoenix. The land in Section 36 south of the water line is administered by ASLD. The area of potential effects (APE) for the Chandler Boulevard Extension is defined primarily by the proposed construction footprint which includes a 200-foot-wide east-west corridor that extends for 6,230 feet between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue and short segments at the east and west end where the corridor is 400 feet wide. The footprint also includes a 120-foot-wide northsouth corridor that extends for 1,180 feet from the western end of the Chandler Boulevard alignment to the current alignment of Pecos Road. A map of the APE is enclosed to assist you in your review. In 1989, Archaeological Consulting Service, Ltd. (ACS), surveyed the APE in its entirety (Adams 1989). The results were reported in An Archaeological Assessment ofthe Proposed South Mountain State Planning Permit Project for Burns International, Inc. (Adams 1989). No sites were identified. In 2000, Logan Simpson Design (LSD) performed an archaeological survey for a City of Phoenix water line which covered a 20-m-wide corridor along the centerline of the Chandler Boulevard Extension. The results are reported in A Class I Inventory and A Class Ill Cultural Resources Survey for the City ofPhoenix Waterline Route Around the Western and Southern Edges ofSouth Mountain Park, Maricopa County, Arizona (Shaw 2000). LSD recorded one site in the APE. Site AZ T: 12:111 (ASM) is a historic mining site that include four features: a collapsed rock ring, a prospecting pit, a tailings pile, and a cleared area. The site was recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 2008, Desert Archaeology, Inc. (Desert) performed a Class III survey that covered the portion of the APE north of the centerline. The results are reported in Cultural Resources Survey of237 Acres Within the 620 Property, South ofSouth Mountain Park, Phoenix, Arizona (Darby and Bagwell 2008). Desert identified two sites near the proposed construction footprint for the Chandler Extension, AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM). Because of their proximity to the construction footprint, the sites were included in the APE for the consideration of indirect effects, such as alterations to visual setting and the potential for vandalism as a result of increased access provided by the new roadway. • A405 A406 • Appendix 2-1 ...- .. 3 Site AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) is a possible prehistoric agricultural site consisting of a set of rock clusters/piles. Desert recommended that the site was eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to yield information about prehistoric land use practices at the margins of the middle Gila River Valley. Site AZ T:l2:287 (ASM) consists of two roc~ features, one with a petroglyph on a portable stone at the center. The petroglyph is etched on to the stone, not pecked. The site lacks diagnostic artifacts and the age of the features is uncertain; the possibility exists that they are of modem origin. Given that the temporal context of AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) was unknown, and that additional investigations of the features was unlikely to uncover this information, Desert could not establish a relevant historic context for the site, and therefore recommended that it was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Desert also recommended that this type of site could represent a contemporary O'odham shrine. As discussed in the report, a meeting took place on August 28, 2008 between representatives from GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (CRMP) and the City of Phoenix archaeologist to discuss the site. The CRMP representatives agreed it was probably a historic O'odham shrine. Because the initial survey of the Chandler Boulevard Extension had been performed in 1989, and previously undocumented sites had been recorded in the area by more recent surveys, ADOT requested that HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) perform a new Class III survey of the APE. The results are reported in A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the Chandler Boulevard Extension, 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). No new sites were identified. The survey confirmed that AZ T:l2:111 (ASM) had been obliterated by the City of Phoenix water line project. The survey also documented the condition of sites AZ T:12:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM). 4 you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's recommendatio~ of.NRHP eligibility and determination of project effect, please indicate your concurrence by stgnmg below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@.azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~~ +:vKarla S. Petty Division Administrator Signatuo1 ,:SAtJt.·Ad ht<.NJL JrU t... ~·,k r~ y~ ~. .:c.::; ·ro a()r.J {.J.... U<....-l.;ftv-..r.f ~-t.l-""1 y,-4-f'-'---vl~r-v {-V\ ~ fLi-Z }/'t-t-u;f f) _I / .rt~~. ~i:!k:~ r~-~~-.c.fft'-}1 !It>!'.... <-J~ j;.. ~vu---0 c.'-4 ~ .>-~w·'"'~ rJ..... iU-e !2-c--:y...~( ;U.)4~J. ~~ Appendix 2-1 0 ARIZONA DIVISION :t~ FedeRJI Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602} 379-3646 Fax: (602} 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm August 8, 2012 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ 2 In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have undertaken cultural resource studies. The E1 Alternative for the proposed freeway would be built along and replace Pecos Road, effectively cutting off access to residential subdivisions west of 27th Avenue. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension would provide a new access route by extending Chandler Boulevard between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue. The alignment for the proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension follows an existing City of Phoenix water line. The surrounding area is undeveloped. NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 HS764 OJC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Director Cultural Preservation Office Hopi Tribe P.O. Box 123 Kykotsmovi, Arizona 86039 Dear Mr. Kuwanwisiwma: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate l 0 (I-10) in west Chandler to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension is located in Section 36 of Township 1 South and Range 2 East. The land in Section 36 north of the existing City ofPhoenix water line is owned by the City of Phoenix. The land in Section 36 south of the water line is administered by ASLD. The area of potential effects (APE) for the Chandler Boulevard Extension is defmed primarily by the proposed construction footprint which includes a 200-foot-wide east-west corridor that extends for 6,230 feet between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue and short segments at the east and west end where the corridor is 400 feet wide. The footprint also includes a 120-foot-wide north· south corridor that extends for 1,180 feet from the western end of the Chandler Boulevard alignment to the current alignment of Pecos Road. A map of the APE is enclosed to assist you in your review. FHWA is inquiring whether you have any concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historical importance to your community within the project area. Any information you provide within 30 days of receipt of this letter will be considered in the project planning. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA will make a good faith effort to address your concerns. In 1989, Archaeological Consulting Service, Ltd. (ACS), surveyed the APE in its entirety (Adams 1989). The results were reported in An Archaeological Assessment of the Proposed South Mountain State Planning Permit Project for Burns International, Inc. (Adams 1989). No sites were identified. In 2000, Logan Simpson Design (LSD) performed an archaeological survey for a City of Phoenix water line which covered a 20-m-wide corridor along the centerline of the Chandler Boulevard Extension. The results are reported in A Class I Inventory and A Class JJJ Cultural Resources Survey for the City of Phoenix Waterline Route Around the Western and Southern Edges ofSouth Mountain Park, Maricopa County, Arizona (Shaw 2000). LSD recorded one site in the APE. Site AZ T: 12: Ill (ASM) is a historic mining site that include four features: a collapsed rock ring, a prospecting pit, a tailings pile, and a cleared area. The site was recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 2008, Desert Archaeology, Inc. (Desert) performed a Class III survey that covered the portion of the APE north of the centerline. The results are reported in Cultural Resources Survey of237 Acres Within the 620 Property, South ofSouth Mountain Park, Phoenix, Arizona (Darby and Bagwell 2008). Desert identified two sites near the proposed construction footprint for the Chandler Extension, AZ T:l2:286 (ASM) and AZ T:12:287 (ASM). Because of their proximity • A407 A408 • Appendix 2-1 4 3 .....c construction footprint, the sites were included in the APE for the consideration of indirect effects, such as alterations to visual setting and the potential for vandalism as a result of increased access provided by the new roadway. Site AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) is a possible prehistoric agricultural site consisting of a set of rock clusters/piles. Desert recommended that the site was eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to yield information about prehistoric land use practices at the margins of the middle Gila River Valley. Based on the above, FHWA has detennined that a finding of "no adverse effect" is appropriate for this undertaking. Please review the enclosed report and information pro...,ided in this letter. If you agree with the adequacy of the repo1tand FHWA's recommendations ofNRHP eligibility and determination ofprojcct effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, Because the initial survey of the Chandler Boulevard Extension had been performed in 1989, and previously undocumented sites had been recorded in the area by more recent surveys, ADOT requested that HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) perform a new Class ill survey of the APE. The results are reported in A Class 111 Cultural Resources Survey for the Chandler Boulevard Extension, 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). No new sites were identified. The survey confinned that AZ T:l2:lll (ASM) had been obliterated by the City of Phoenix water line project. The survey also documented the condition of sites AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM). Site AZ T:12:286 (ASM) was found as described by Desert in 2008, in good condition, and with no new disturbances. FHWA recommends that the site is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to contribute information on prehistoric agricultural practices. The condition of site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) has changed since its 2008 recording. The petroglyph rock has been turned upside down so that the glyph is face down and the top is painted with graffiti. Also, some of the rocks in the outer circle had been shifted. The surrounding area has also been disturbed by off-road vehicles. Because the site could not be placed within a definable temporal context, FHWA recommends that AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as an archaeological site. Furthermore, FHWA recommends continuing consultation with the GRIC's Tribal Historic Preservation Office to confirm its status as a potential traditional cultural property and regarding its management. Because sites AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:287 (ASM) are not located within the construction footprint of the Chandler Boulevard Extension and therefore can be avoided, neither site would be directly impacted. Furthermore, the construction of the Chandler Boulevard Extension would not increase the potential for significant indirect effects because they are already easily accessible given their location near existing roads, biking trails, and residential development. ;~UG 17 20''' ~M Site AZ T:12:287 (ASM) consists of two rock features, one with a petroglyph on a portable stone at the center. The petroglyph is etched on to the stone, not pecked. The site lacks diagnostic artifacts and the age of the features is uncertain; the possibility exists that they are of modern origin. Given that the temporal context of AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) was unknown, and that additional investigations of the features was unlikely to uncover this information. Desert could not establish a relevant historic context for the site, and therefore recommended that it was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Desert also recommended that this type of site could represent a contemporary O'odham shrine. As discussed in the report, a meeting took place on August 28, 2008 between representatives from GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (CRMP) and the City of Phoenix archaeologist to discuss the site. The CRMP representatives agreed it was probably a historic O' odham shrine. ..YKarla S. Petty Division Administrator Date Enclosure Appendix 2-1 0 Salt River PIMA-MARICOPA INDIAN COMMUNITY ARIZONA DMSION US. Department ct1tnsportalia1 Federal Hlghway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http:l/www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm 10,005 EAST OSBORN ROADISCOTISDALE,ARIZONA 85256/PHONE (480) 362-6337 August 8, 2012 Cultural Preservation Program In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ August 14, 2012 Karla S. Petty, Division Administer U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoeni..x, Arizona 85012-3500 NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, OCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension RE: 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ, th e project would extend around Lhe southem side of South Mountain from Interstate JO (1-JO) in west Chandler to l-10 in west PhoenL'<. Ms. Louise Lopez, Chairperson Tonto Apache Tribe Tonto Apache Reservation #30 Payson, Arizona 85541 Dear Karla S. Petty: Dear Chairperson Lopez: This con·espondence is in reference to 202L, South Mountain Freeway, OCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ. This site, the location would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler to I-10 in west Phoenix, is subject to Section 1.06 of the Nationa.l Historic Prese1vation Act (Section 106). The Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community (SRP-MIC) is in receipt of your consultation request and appreciates the opportunity to comment on this prqject. The location of this prqject area is within the adjudicated ancestral claims area of the Four Southern Tribes of Arizona (SRP-1\,IIIC, Gila River Indian Communi ty, Ak-Citin Indian Community and the Tohono O'Odham Nation). The Four Southem Tribes of Arizona (Four Tribes) have an existing consultation management agreement. to address consultation within th e adjudicated ancestral claims area that divides the area into four geographic regions where one of the Four Tribes takes the lead and provides all Section 106 consultation (and all other federal, state, or local statutes as necessary) for specific areas on behalf of all of the Four Southern Tribes of Arizona. The Four Tribes in consensus agreed that the Gila River Indian Community will take the lead in providing comments in for this project. Thank you for your time and considerati on in this matter. Please contact me at (480-362-6337) or email jacob.butler@srpmi c-nsn. gov with additional questions or comment~ in regard to this or any other cultural resource issue in behalf of the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. Sincere ly, Jacob Butler Cultural Resource Specialist SRP-MIC The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (AD01) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (ETS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler to I-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State 1:-listoric Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. • A409 A410 • Appendix 2-1 2 In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have undertaken cultural resource studies. The E1 Alternative for the proposed freeway would be built along and replace Pecos Road, effectively cutting off access to residential subdivisions west of 27th Avenue. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension would provide a new access route by extending Chandler Boulevard between 19th A venue and 27th Avenue. The aligrunent for the proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension follows an existing City of Phoenix water line. The surrounding area is undeveloped. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension is located in Section 36 of Township 1 South and Range 2 East. The land in Section 36 north of the existing City of Phoenix water line is owned by the City of Phoenix. The land in Section 36 south of the water line is administered by ASLD. The area of potential effects (APE) for the Chandler Boulevard Extension is defined primarily by the proposed construction footprint which includes a 200-foot-wide east-west corridor that extends for 6,230 feet between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue and short segments at the east and west end where the corridor is 400 feet wide. The footprint also includes a 120-foot-wide northsouth corridor that extends for 1,180 feet from the western end of the Chandler Boulevard alignment to the current aligrunent ofPecos Road. A map of the APE is enclosed to assist you in your review. FHWA is inquiring whether you have any concerns regarding historic properties oftraditional, religious, cultural, or historical importance to your community within the project area. Any information you provide within 30 days of receipt of this letter will be considered in the project planning. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, FHWA will make a good faith effort to address your concerns. In 1989, Archaeological Consulting Service, Ltd. (ACS), surveyed the APE in its entirety (Adams 1989). The results were reported in An Archaeological Assessment ofthe Proposed South Mountain State Planning Permit Project for Burns International, Inc. (Adams 1989). No sites were identified. In 2000, Logan Simpson Design (LSD) performed an archaeological survey for a City of Phoenix water line which covered a 20-m-wide corridor along the centerline of the Chandler Boulevard Extension. The results are reported in A Class I Inventory and A Class Ill Cultural Resources Survey for the City ofPhoenix Waterline Route Around the Western and Southern Edges ofSouth Mountain Park, Maricopa County, Arizona (Shaw 2000). LSD recorded one site in the APE. Site AZ T:12: 111 (ASM) is a historic mining site that include four features: a collapsed rock ring, a prospecting pit, a tailings pile, and a cleared area. The site was recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 2008, Desert Archaeology, Inc. (Desert) performed a Class III survey that covered the portion of the APE north of the centerline. The results are reported in Cultural Resources Survey of237 Acres Within the 620 Property, South ofSouth Mountain Park, Phoenix, Arizona (Darby and Bah>well 2008). Desert identified two sites near the proposed construction footprint for the Chandler Extension, AZ T:l2:286 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:287 (ASM). Because of their proximity 3 to the construction footprint, the sites were included in the APE for the consideration of indirect effe.cts, such as alterations to visual setting and the potential for vandalism as a result of increased access provided by the new roadway. Site AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) is a possible prehistoric agricultural site consisting of a set of rock clusters/piles. Desert recommended that the site was eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to yield information about prehistoric land use practices at the margins of the middle Gila River Valley. Site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) consists of two rock features, one with a petroglyph on a portable stone at the center. The petroglyph is etched on to the stone, not pecked. The site lacks diagnostic artifacts and the age of the features is uncertain; the possibility exists that they are of modem origin. Given that the temporal context of AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) was unknown, and that additional investigations of the features was unlikely to uncover this information, Desert could not establish a relevant historic context for the site, and therefore recommended that it was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Desert also recommended that this type of site could represent a contemporary O'odham shrine. As discussed in the report, a meeting took place on August 28, 2008 between representatives from GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (CRMP) and the City of Phoenix archaeologist to discuss the site. The CRMP representatives agreed it was probably a historic O'odham shrine. Because the initial survey of the Chandler Boulevard Extension had been performed in 1989, and previously undocumented sites had been recorded in the area by more recent surveys, ADOT requested that HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) perform a new Class III survey of the APE. The results are reported in A Class Ill Cultural Resources Survey for the Chandler Boulevard Extension, 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). No new sites were identified. The survey confirmed that AZ T: 12: Ill (ASM) had been obliterated by the City of Phoenix water line project. The survey also documented the condition of sites AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM). Site AZ T:l2:286 (ASM) was found as described by Desert in 2008, in good condition, and with no new disturbances. FHWA recommends that the site is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to contribute information on prehistoric agricultural practices. The condition of site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) has changed since its 2008 recording. The petroglyph rock has been turned upside down so that the glyph is face down and the top is painted with graffiti. Also, some of the rocks in the outer circle had been shifted. The surrounding area has also been disturbed by off-road vehicles. Because the site could not be placed within a defmablc temporal context, FHWA recommends that AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as an archaeological site. Furthermore, FHWA recommends continuing consultation with the GRIC's Tribal Historic Preservation Office to confirm its status as a potential traditional cultural property and regarding its management. Because sites AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:287 (ASM) are not located within the construction footprint of the Chandler Boulevard Extension and therefore can be avoided, neither site would be directly impacted. Furthermore, the construction of the Chandler Boulevard Extension would not increase the potential for significant indirect effects because they are already easily accessible given their location near existing roads, hiking trails, and residential development. Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DJVISlON 4 US.Deporlment Based on the above, FHWA bas determined that a finding of "no adverse effect" is appropriate for this undertalcing. Please review the enclosed report and information provided in this letter. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's recommendations ofNRHP eligibility and determination of project effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. a 1trlspoltalloo Federal Highway Admlnbtratfon August 8, 2012 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D{ADY) HOP-AZ Sincerely yours, fA&: fr.Karla S. Petty 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 htto:/lwww.fhwa. dot.gov/azdiv/index. htm NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension AUG 16 2012 Division Administrator Mr. Ronnie Lupe, Chairman White Mountain Apache Tribe P.O. Box 1150 Whiteriver, Arizona 85941 1gnature for Tonto Apache Tribe Concurrence NH-202:D0!?Y) /?tJAI()$/"hfM?Stf?&tn.Jf-TMP 4:1i?R/iJ~JTP/f Enclosures Dear Chairman Lupe: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) arc continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler to I-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. • A411 A412 • Appendix 2-1 2 In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have undertaken cultural resource studies. The E1 Alternative for the proposed freeway would be built along and replace Pecos Road, effectively cutting off access to residential subdivisions west of 27th Avenue. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension would provide a new access route by extending Chandler Boulevard between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue. The alignment for the proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension follows an existing City of Phoenix water line. The surrounding area is undeveloped. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension is located in Section 36 of Township I South and Range 2 East. The land in Section 36 north of the existing City of Phoenix water line is owned by the City ofPhoenix. The land in Section 36 south of the water line is administered by ASLD. The area of potential effects (APE) for the Chandler Boulevard Extension is defined primarily by the proposed construction footprint which includes a 200-foot-wide east-west corridor that extends for 6,230 feet between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue and short segments at the cast and west end where the corridor is 400 feet wide. The footprint also includes a 120-foot-wide northsouth corridor that extends for 1,180 feet from the western end of the Chandler Boulevard alignment to the current alignment of Pecos Road. A map of the APE is enclosed to assist you in your review. FHWA is inquiring whether you have any concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historical importance to your community within the project area. Any information you provide within 30 days of receipt of this letter will be considered in the project planning. If your office opts to participate in cultural resource consultation at a later date, PHWA will make a good faith effort to address your concerns. In 1989, Archaeological Consulting Service, Ltd. (ACS), surveyed the APE in its entirety (Adams 1989). The results were reported in An Archaeological Assessment ofthe Proposed South Mountain State Planning Permit Project for Bur1'18 International, Inc. (Adams 1989). No sites were identified. In 2000, Logan Simpson Design (LSD) performed an archaeological survey for a City of Phoenix water line which covered a 20-m-wide corridor along the centerline of the Chandler Boulevard Extension. The results are reported in A Class I Inventory and A Class III Cultural Resources Survey for the City ofPhoenix Waterline Route Around the Western and Southern Edges ofSouth Mountain Park, Maricopa County, Arizona (Shaw 2000). LSD recorded one site in the APE. Site AZ T: 12: Ill (ASM) is a historic mining site that include four features: a collapsed rock ring, a prospecting pit, a tailings pile, and a cleared area. The site was recommended as not eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In 2008, Desert Archaeology, Inc. (Desert) performed a Class Ill survey that covered the portion of the APE north of the centerline. The results are reported in Cultural Resources Survey of237 Acres Within the 620 Property, South ofSouth Mountain Park, Phoenix, Arizona (Darby and Bagwell 2008). Desert identified two sites near the proposed construction footprint for the Chandler Extension, AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM). Because of their proximity 3 to the construction footprint, the sites were included in the APE for the consideration of indirect effects, such as alterations to visual setting and the potential for vandalism as a result of increased access provided by the new roadway. Site AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) is a possible prehistoric agricultural site consisting of a set of rock clusters/piles. Desert recommended that the site was eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to yield information about prehistoric land use practices at the margins of the middle Gila River Valley. Site AZ T:l2:287 (ASM) consists of two rock features, one with a petroglyph on a portable stone at the center. The petroglyph is etched on to the stone, not pecked. The site lacks diagnostic artifacts and the age of the features is uncertain; the possibility exists that they are of modern origin. Given that the temporal context of AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) was unknown, and that additional investigations of the features was unlikely to uncover this information, Desert could not establish a relevant historic context for the site, and therefore recommended that it was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Desert also recommended that this type of site could represent a contemporary O'odham shrine. As discussed in the report, a meeting took place on August 28, 2008 between representatives from GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (CRMP) and the City of Phoenix archaeologist to discuss the site. The CIUviP representatives agreed it was probably a historic O'odham shrine. Because the initial survey of the Chandler Boulevard Extension had been performed in 1989, and previously undocumented sites had been recorded in the area by more recent surveys, ADOT requested that HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR) perform a new Class III survey of the APE. The results are reported in A Class Ill Cultural Resources Survey for the Chandler Boulevard Exte1'18ion, 202L, South Mountain Freeway EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). No new sites were identified. The survey confirmed that AZ T:l2:111 (ASM) had been obliterated by the City of Phoenix water line project. The survey also documented the condition of sites AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:287 (ASM). Site AZ T:l2:286 (ASM) was found as described by Desert in 2008, in good condition, and with no new disturbances. FHWA recommends that the site is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP under Criterion D for its potential to contribute information on prehistoric agricultural practices. The condition of site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) has changed since its 2008 recording. The petroglyph rock has been turned upside down so that the glyph is face down and the top is painted with graffiti. Also, some of the rocks in the outer circle had been shifted. The surrounding area has also been disturbed by off-road vehicles. Because the site could not be placed within a definable temporal context, FHWA recommends that Az T: 12:287 (ASM) is not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as an archaeological site. Furthermore, FHWA recommends continuing consultation with the GRIC's Tribal Historic Preservation Office to confirm its status as a potential traditional cultural property and regarding its management. Because sites AZ T:l2:286 (ASM) and AZ T:12:287 (ASM) are not located within the construction footprint of the Chandler Boulevard Extension and therefore can be avoided, neither site would be directly impacted. Furthermore, the construction of the Chandler Boulevard Extension would not increase the potential for significant indirect effects because they are already easily accessible given their location near existing roads, hiking trails, and residential development. Appendix 2-1 White Mountain Apache Tribe 4 Office of Historic Preservation PO Box 507 Fort Apache, AZ 85926 Based on the above, FHWA has determined that a finding of "no adverse effect" is appropriate for this undertaking. Please review the enclosed report and information provided in this letter. If you agree with the adequacy ofthe report and FHWA's recommendations ofNRHP eligibility and determination of project effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~~ V Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for White Mountain Apache Tribe Concurrence Date NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosure cc: Mark Altaha, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Historic Preservation Office, P .O Box 507, Fort Apache, AZ 85926 (with enclosures) Ramon Riley, Cultural Resource Director, Historic Preservation Office, P.O Box 507, Fort Apache, AZ 85926 Ph : (928) 338-3033 Fax: (928) 338-6055 To: Linda Davis, ADOT Historic Preservation Specialist Date: August 17, 2012 Pr j : NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L South Mountain Freeway The White Mountau1 Apache Tribe Historic Preservation Office appreciates receiving infonnation on the proposed project, August 8. 2012 . In regards to this, please attend to the fo llowing checked items below. ..,. There is 110 n eed w seml atltlitio11al iuform frtion unless project planning or implem entation results in the discow...'t'y ofsites muVor items havi11g k nown or mspected Apache Cu ltural ajfllintion . NIA - The proposed project is located within an area of probable cultural or historical importance to the White Mountau1 Apache tribe (WMAT). As part of the effort to identify historica.l properties that maybe atfected by the project we recommend an etlmo-historic study and interviews with Apache Elders. The tribe's Cultural Heritage Resource Director M r. Ram on Riley may be contacted at (928) 338-3033 for fi.trther information should this become necessary. ..,. Please refer to the attached additional notes in regards to the proposed project: We have received and reviewed the information regarding FHW A/ ADOT proposed continued studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement for 202L. South Mountain Freeway. EIS/ Design Concept Repott project which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 in west Chandler to I-10 west Phoenix, and we have determined the proposed action/plans will n ot/r ave an ad1•erse effect on the White Mountain Apache tribe's 11 t'll htiJMl'l Re: SHPO 2003-1890 (106135) Dear Dr. Jacobs: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are conducting technical studies in support of the environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative aligrunents for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (l-1 0) in west Chandler and to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. As this project would employ federal nds, it is considered a federal undertaking subject to Section 106 review. This project has been e subject of extensive prior consultation (SHP0-2003-1890). Most recently FHWA consulted on a reassessment of historic rural properties along Dobbins Road and 59th Avenue in Laveen. SHPO concurred to the reassessment (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA], July 16, 2012). Consulting parties for this reevaluation of project effect on the Dobbins Road historic properties include FHWA, ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Arizona State Land Department (ASLD), the City of Phoenix-Historic Preservation Office (COP-HPO), the City ofPhoenix-Pueblo Grande Museum (COP-PGM), and Salt River Project (SRP). The purpose of this consultation is to address the project effects of four alternative alignments near these historic properties. AZTEC Engineering Group, Inc. recently prepared a report that assesses the direct and indirect effects from the four alignments on the historic rural properties along Dobbins Road and 59th Avenue entitled South Mountain Transportation Corridor Study: Assessment of Project Effects on Three Historic Buildings and a District, Maricopa County, Arizona (Solliday 2012). A copy of the report is enclosed for your review and comments. All four of the alignment alternatives currently under consideration adequately avoid the Hudson Farm, the Dairy Flat Barn on the Hackin Farmstead/Dairy, and the Dairy Head-to-Toe Bam on the Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy; none of the properties is located within the proposed ADOT right-of-way (ROW). However, the two semi-depressed freeway alternatives would require a realignment .Qf.l!.ccess ro --~son!BaJEes bam. There would be a no adverse effect on the Tyson/Barnes bam as a result of the c_ ::1 ~ ~ laccess modification. 1\V'\\.]\ ~ ~ q lmhrt-t'l fmpat·t Each of the four alignment alternatives would have a similar impact on the Hudson Farm Historic District. The freeway would be at least 200 feet west of the Hudson Farm property and I ,500 feet west of 59th Avenue, and the setting of the farmstead (farmhouse and associated structures) from the primary public view (from 59th Avenue) or from within the farmstead would be buffered by the dense windbreak of trees located on the north and west sides of the farmstead. The freeway would be more visibly intrusive - from the secondary public view (from Dobbins Road) and from some places in the fields associated with the property, but these vantage points do not provide a view of the district's significant features, i.e., the farmstead buildings and structures seen within the context of the whole farm. A drainage basin adjacent to the southern boundary of the Hudson Farm would not be visible from the primary public view or from within the farmstead. Thus, any visual intrusion created by the project would be negligible and would not impact the National Register eligibility of the Hudson Farm or any of its contributing elements. • • • There would be no adverse effect on the Hudson Farm due to general visual intrusion. There would be no adverse effect on the Hudson Farm due to increased traffic noise. There would be no adverse effect on the Hudson Farm due to nighttime lighting. • A431 A432 • Appendix 2-1 t 4 3 Tho freeway woold P"' apl '""""'ly 1,500 feot w"' of tho Haokln barn, I ,000 foet . . , of tho Hudson Farm silos, and.JQ..(eet east of the Tyson/Barnes Dairy barn. Since integrity of design, materials, workmanship;'ail~sociation are most important for these property types, their National Register eligibility would not be impacted by a change in setting. Likewise, the placement of a drainage basin to the south and west of the Hackin barn would not impact its integrity of design, materials, workmauship, and association. · • • • There would be no adverse effect on the individually eligible properties due to general visual intrusion. There would be no adverse effect on tbe individually eligible properties due to increased traffic noise. There would be no adverse effect on the individuaUy eligible properties due to nighttime lighting. Summary of Indirect Impacts to the Dobbins Road H_!storic Pr.~o~p:.=e::.:rti::.:"es=-~-----~1 C 11 ~ollapsed Half :H"iir-aps (J I n· d Dlam 011 d Primary Diamond - 1 Iasmonl DiamondProperty Name and Address El ted I · em • Elevated Semi1 C .t . 1 n eraon eva Depres~ed Depreued I ° Freeway '1 Freeway Freeway In order to proactively address the potential indirect and cumulative adverse effects described above, \ FHWA and ADOT would document the Hudson Farm Historic District and silos, the Hackin barn, and the Tyson/Barnes bam in a Historic Landscape report. The report would be consistent with the SHPO Standards for Documentation of Historic Properties. For each of the properties this documentation would at a minimum include a descriptive narrative of the property, maps showing geographic location and contextual relationships with other structures and the surrounding landscape, reproductions of original plans/engineering drawings or prepared drawings (or creation of plans/drawings if the originals cannot be found), and photo documentation. Please review the information provided in this letter, the attached project location maps, and enclosed report. Ifyou agree with the adequacy of the report and agree with FHWA's revised determination of project effect for each alignment and proposed documentation of the historic properties please indicate your concurrence by signing below and return to FHWA. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at (602) 712-8636 or ~mail LDavis2@a7.dot.gov. Sincerely yours, FreeWIIY._ Eli ible Historic Districts Hudson Fann 9300 S. 59th A venue lndlvidualii Elig!bl_e R istoric Buildi DI!S Hudson Farm - Cement Stave Silos 9300 S. 59th A venue Hackin Farmstead/Dairy - Dairy Flat Barn I 0048 S. 59111 A venue Tyson Farmstead/Barnes DairyDairy Head-to-Toe Barn 6159 W. Dobbins Road Continuing Cultural Resource Management No adverse c No adverse No adverse No adverse No adverse c No adverse No adverse No adverse No adverse c No adverse No adverse No adverse No adverse C:umuiacts to the Dobbins Road Historic Properties Collapsed Collapsed DiamondPrimary DiamondProperty Name and Address SemiCriterion Elevated Depressed Freeway FreewaYEli2iblc Historic Districts Hudson Farm No adverse No adverse A 9300 S. 59'h Avenue III d lVId U3 IIly El bl c H •stone BUl ld llli!S ·~· Stave Silos Hudson Farm - Cement No adverse No adverse c 9300 S. 59'h Avenue Hackin Farmstead/Dairy - Dairy Flat No adverse No adverse Barn c 10048 S. 59'h Avenue Tyson Farmstead/Barnes Dairy No adverse No adverse Dairy Head-to-Toe Barn c 6159 W. Dobbins Road 0 0 0 Half Diamond Elevated Freeway Half DiamondSemiDepressed Freeway No adverse No adverse No adverse No adverse Continuing Cultural Resource Management In order to proactively address the potential indirect and cumulative adverse effects described above, FHW A and ADOT would document the Hudson Farm Historic District and silos, the Hack in bam, and the Tyson/Barnes bam in a Historic Landscape report. The repmt would be consistent with the SHPO Standards for Documentation of Historic Properties. For each of the properties this documentation would at a minimum include a descriptive na1Tative of the property, maps showing geographic location and contextual relationships with other structures and the surrounding landscape, reproductions of original plans/engineering drawings or prepared drawings (or creation of plans/drawings if the originals cannot be found), and photo documentation. Please review the information provided in this letter, the attached project location maps, and enclosed report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and agree with FI-IWA's revised determination of project effect for each alignment and proposed documentation of the historic prope1ties please indicate your concurrence by signing below and return to FHWA. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at (602) 712-8636 or e-mail LDavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, 0 No adverse ~Ju:J ~Karla S. Petty No adverse Division Administrator No adverse g la-r--J~t)- No adverse D~te Cumulative Impacts The City of Phoenix has designated this area as the core area of "downtown" Laveen. Local landowners have expressed a desire to develop their properties for commercial and/or residential uses. Housing developments and some associated commercial centers have been constructed nearby; the advancement of this urbanization was slowed only by the economic collapse. Some adjacent landowners have recently had their property reclassified for either commercial or residential property use. Therefore, it is highly likely that future development by the private landowners would also lead to the destruction of the agricultural properties and the historical setting of rural Laveen. The construction of a freeway through the South Mountain Corridor would accelerate urbanization and likely encourage more commercial and industrial development rather than the predominantly residential construction that has occurred to date. However, since AOOT, the City of Phoenix, landowners, and developers are all planning for future development in the area, it is difficult to determine what the specific agent of change is. Cumulatively, the future development and construction of the freeway has the potential to contribute to an adverse cumulative affect the Hudson Fann and silos, Hackin barn, and Tyson!Bat·ucs bam . Enclosures • A441 A442 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION us. Depatmert d1mspor1a!!on Federal Highway AdmlnlsfraHon 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://Www. fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm October 11, 2012 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA OS4 HS764 OIC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Re: SHP0-2003-1890 (106850) Dear Dr. Jacobs: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (1-1 0) in west Chandler to 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CPR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have undertaken cultural resource studies. The E1 Alternative for the proposed freeway would be built along and replace Pecos Road, effectively cutting off access to residential subdivisions west of 27th Avenue. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension would provide a new access route by extending Chandler Boulevard between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue. FHWA and ADOT initiated consultation regarding the Chandler Boulevard Extension identifying the consulting parties, scope, area of potential effects (APE), and a finding of"no adverse effect'' (Petty [FHWA] to Jacobs [SHPO] August 8, 2012). Concurrence was received from ASLD (Ross [ASLD] to Petty [FHWA] August 14, 2012), ASM (Pitezel [ASM] to Petty [FHWA] September 11, 2012), BIA (Crain [BIA] to Petty [FHWA] September 21, 2012), 2 FCDMC (Stevens [FCDMC] to Petty [FHWA] August 20, 2012), the City of Chandler (Dlugas (City of Chandler] to Petty [FHWA] September 10, 2012), the City of Glendale (Ritz [City of Glendale] to Petty [FHWA] August 13, 2012), the City ofPhoenix Historic Preservation Office (Dodds (City of Phoenix] to Petty [FHWA] August 29, 2012), the City of Phoenix Pueblo Grande Museum (Montero [City of Phoenix] to Petty [FHWA] September 26, 2012), SRP (Anduze [SRP) to Petty [FHWA] August 24, 2012), the Cocopah Tnoe (McCormick [Cocopah Tribe] to Petty [FHWA] August 27, 2012), the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (Pattea [Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation] to Petty [FHWA] August 21, 2012), the Gila River Indian Community (Lewis [THPO] to Petty [FHWA] September 10, 2012),the Hopi Tribe (Morgart [Hopi Tribe] to Petty [FHWA] August 14, 2012), the Tonto Apache Tribe [Leubner [Tonto Apache Tribe] to Petty [FHWA] August 14, 2012), the White Mountain Apache _Tribe_(Altaha [White Mountain Apache Tribe] to Petty [FHWA] August 17, 2012). The Salt River PunaMaricopa Indian Community (SRP-MIC) responded stating that the Four Southern Tribes in consensus agreed that the Gila River Indian Community will take the lead in providing comments for this project (Butler [SRP-MIC] to Petty [FHWA] August 14, 2012). Consultation for the Chandler Boulevard Extension identified three sites near and within the proposed APE, Site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM), Site AZ T:12:286 (ASM), and Site AZ T: 12: 111 (ASM). Site AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) is a possible prehistoric agricultural site consisting of a set of rock clusters/piles located near the APE. The site is in good condition with no new disturbances. FHWA recommended that the site is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion D for its potential to contribute information on prehistoric agricultural practices. Site AZ T: 12: 111 (ASM) is a historic mining site that has been obliterated by a City of Phoenix water line project and FHWA recommended the site as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Site AZ T:12:287 (ASM) is identified as a possible O'odham shrine located near the APE. The site consists of two rock features, one with an etched petroglyph on a portable stone at the center. Because the site could not be placed within a definable temporal context, FHWA recommended that it was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as an archaeological site. Furthermore, FHWA recommended continuing consultation with Gila River Indian Community's Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) to confirm the site's status as a potential traditional cultural property and regarding its management. The Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) responded stating that "when that tribal consultation process is completed, and the status of the eligibility of site AZ T:12:287 (ASM) is determined, our office will then be prepared to comment upon the eligibility of the sites and an appropriate finding of effect" (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] August 13, 2012). In response to the Chandler Boulevard Extension consultation, the Gila River Indian Community's THPO concutred with FHWA's eligibility recommendations and a fmding of"no adverse effect". Additionally, the 'IBPO noted that in 2008 Barnaby V. Lewis and Andrew Darling were consulted in regards to Site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM); at this time they both confirmed that the site is a historic O'odham Shrine and that it is still not considered a NRHP eligible property (Lewis [THPO] to Petty (FHWA] September 10, 20 12). The THPO also recommended that a site visit to AZ T:l2:287 {ASM) be conducted to assess damage to the site, and ascertain if the petroglyph boulder should be collected before it is lost through accumulated disturbance. Appendix 2-1 zoo3 • lq~o(l~~'~' i) US.Depa1mmt 3 Coordination of the site visit is currently underway. A copy of Gila River Indian Community's THPO response is enclosed for your reference. ARIZONA DIVISION d 11"aisporta11oo Federal Highway Administration October 11,2012 ttE fE l\('~y Refer To: Based on Gila River Indian Community's TIIPO concurrence, FHWA recommends Site AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) as eligible for the NRHP, Site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) and Site AZ T: 12:111 . (ASM) as not eligible for the NRHP, and has determined that a finding of"no adverse effect" ts still appropriate for this undertaking. Please revie~ the enclosed ~~P?. response and th7 information provided in this letter. If you agree With the~ e~gtbtlity recommendatton and finding of project effect, please indicate your concurrence by s1gnmg below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. OCT 1 2 2012 NH- o~~~J 2 AM!OAA STAtE n.:;~~l2n2-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L. South Mountain Freeway, OCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Chandler Boulevard Extension Sincerely yours, ~dt(}.Aj -(¥ Karla S. Petty Division Administrator 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http:/lwww.fhwa. dot. qov/azdiv/i ndex. htm Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 1300 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Re: SHP0-2003-1890 (106850) Dear Dr. Jacobs: Signature for SHPO Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosure Date The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (AD01) are continuing tecbnica1 studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EJS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses a1temative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. In accordance with the regu]ations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have illldertaken cultural resource studies. TheEl Alternative for the proposed freeway would be built along and replace Pecos Road, effectively cutting off access to residential subdivisions west of 27th Avenue. The proposed Chandler Boulevard Extension would provide a new access route by extending Chandler Boulevard between 19th Avenue and 27th Avenue. FHWA and ADOT initiated consultation regarding the Chandler Boulevard Extension identifying the consulting parties, scope, area of potential effects (APE), and a finding of"no adverse effect" (Petty [FHWA] to Jacobs [SHPO] August 8, 2012). Concurrence was received from ASLD (Ross [ASLD] to Petty [FHWA] August 14, 2012), ASM (Pitezel [ASM] to Petty [FHWA] September 11, 2012), BIA (Crain [BIA] to Petty [FHWA] September 21, 2012), • A443 A444 • Appendix 2-1 2 FCDMC (Stevens [FCDMC] to Petty [FHWA] August 20, 2012), the City of Chandler (Dlugas [City of Chandler] to Petty [FHWA] September 10, 2012), the City of Glendale (Ritz [City of Glendale] to Petty [FHWA] August 13, 2012), the CityofPhoenixHistoric Preservation Office (Dodds [City ofPhoenix] to Petty [FHWAJ August 29, 2012), the City of Phoenix Pueblo Grande Museum (Montero [City ofPhoenix] to Petty [FHWA] September 26, 2012), SRP (Anduze [SRP] to Petty [FHWA] August 24, 2012), the Cocopah Tribe (McCormick (Cocopah Tribe] to Petty [FHWA] August 27, 2012), the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation (Pattea [Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation] to Petty [FHWA] August 21, 2012), the Gila River Indian Community (Lewis [THPO] to Petty [FHWA] September 10, 2012),the Hopi Tribe (Morgart [Hopi Tribe] to Petty [FHWA] August 14, 2012), the Tonto Apache Tribe [Leubner [Tonto Apache Tribe] to Petty [FHWA] August 14, 2012), the White Mountain Apache Tribe (Altaha [White Mountain Apache Tribe] to Petty [FHWA] August 17, 2012). The Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community (SRP-MIC) responded stating that the Four Southern Tribes in consensus agreed that the Gila River Indian Community will take the lead in providing comments for this project (Butler [SRP-MIC] to Petty [FHWA] August 14, 2012). Consultation for the Chandler Boulevard Extension identified three sites near and within the proposed APE, Site AZ T:12:287 (ASM), Site AZ T:l2:286 (ASM), and Site AZ T:l2:111 (ASM). Site AZ T: 12:286 (ASM) is a possible prehistoric agricultural site consisting of a set of rock clusters/piles located near the APE. The site is in good condition with no new disturbances. FHWA recommended that the site is eligible for inclusion in the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP) under Criterion D for its potential to contribute information on prehistoric agricultural practices. Site AZ T:12:111 (ASM) is a historic mining site that has been obliterated by a City of Phoenix water line project and FHWA recommended the site as not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) is identified as a possible O'odham shrine located near the APE. The site consists oftwo rock features, one with an etched petroglyph on a portable stone at the center. Because the site could not be placed within a definable temporal context, FHWA recommended that it was not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as an archaeological site. Furthermore, FHWA recommended continuing consultation with Gila River Indian Community's Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) to confirm the site's status as a potential traditional cultural property and regarding its management. The Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) responded stating that "when that tribal consultation process is completed, and the status of the eligibility of site AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) is determined, our office will then be prepared to comment upon the eligibility of the sites and an appropriate finding of effect" (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] August 13, 2012). In response to the Chandler Boulevard Extension consultation, the Gila River Indian Community's TIIPO concurred with FHWA's eligibility recommendations and a finding of "no adverse effect". Additionally, the THPO noted that in 2008 Barnaby V. Lewis and Andrew Darling were consulted in regards to Site AZ T:l2:287 (ASM); at this time they both confirmed that the site is a historic O'odham Shrine and that it is still not considered a NRHP eligible property (Lewis [THPOJ to Petty [FHWA] September 10, 2012). The THPO also recommended that a site visit to AZ T: 12:287 (ASM) be conducted to assess damage to the site, and ascertain if the petroglyph boulder should be collected before it is lost through accumulated disturbance. 3 Coordination of~e site visit is currently underway. A copy of Gila River Indian Community's THPO response ts enclosed for your reference. B~ed on Gila River ~d.ian Community's THPO concurrence, FHWA recommends Site AZ T.l2:286 (AS~~ ehg.Ible for the NRHP, Site AZ T:12:287 (ASM) and Site AZ T:l2:111 (~.S:M) as n~t ehg:tble_for the~· and has determined that a finding of"no adverse effect" is ~till appr~pnate ~or th~s un_dertaking. Please review the enclosed THPO response and the mfo~tion p~vtded In this letter. If you agree with the NRHP eligibility recommendation and findi~g ofproJect effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. Ifyou have any ques.ttons or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at 1davts2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, _,;,. ~~t)v Karla S. Petty Division Administrator NH-202-D(ADY) f Enclosure Date OCT 2 2 2012 Appendix 2-1 This letter was also sent to: Mr. Steve Ross, Cultural Resources Manager, Arizona State Land Department Ms. Chery Blanchard, Archaeologist, Bureau of Land Management Mr. Dave Gifford, Archaeologist, Bureau of Reclamation Ms. Michelle Dodds, Historic Preservation Office, City of Phoenix Ms. Laurene Montero, Archaeologist, City of Phoenix Mr. Richad A. Anduze, Archaeologist, Salt River Project • A445 A446 • Appendix 2-1 programmatic solutions focused on preservation, restoration, and perpetuation of the roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in GRIC culture and history. Through the implementation of the TCP Enhancement Plan, adverse effects to the two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. rmplementation of the TCP Enhancement Plan would allow the FHWA to make a determination of no adverse effect for Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A. The FHWA acknowledges that if the plan is not implemented, that the GRIC and the GRIC-THPO would be able to revise their position and not concur with FHWA and ADOT recommendations. In addition, the GRJC-THPO and the FHWA want to make it clearly understood that mitigation of adverse effects for Criterion D is still required. Data recovery efforts must still be undertaken at the two sites. The GRIC-THPO concurs with a determinations of no adverse effect to Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo as it pertains to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and to Criterion A which is defined under 36 CFR 60: National Register of Historic Places. The GRIC-THPO also accepts the TCP Enhancement Plan and all recommendations put forth in the document. The TCP Enhancement Plan is a thoughtful, unique way to avoid potential adverse effects of this undertaking. It is well written. The GRIC-THPO would like to reiterate our appreciation to the FHWA and ADOT for acknowledging and accepting the GRIC worldview. The GRIC maintains and reinforces the cultural significance of South Mountain to the Four Southern Tribes (Gila River Indian Community; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; Ak-Chin Indian Community and the Tohono O ' Odham Nation) together with the Pee Posh (Maricopa). O'Odham oral history and religion defines our life and relationship to the natural world and the cultural landscape. Akimel O'Odham and Pee Posh oral histories, religion, creation stories, ceremonial activities and practices, and the concepts of power and sacred places are inseparably tied to every part of the natural environment. Sacred places and Traditional CuJtural Places (TCPs) must be treated with reverence and respect. The GRIC-THPO looks forward to continuing consultation regarding the proposed 202 Loop. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or Archaeological Compliance Specialist Larry Benallie, Jr. at 520-562-7162. Barnaby V. Lewi Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Gila River Indian Community ARIZONA DIVISION us. Department oflit:nspoltation Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm October 23, 2012 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No.: 2{)2L MA 54 H5764 OlL 202L. South Mountain Freeway DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Section 4(f) No Adverse Effect Dr. David Jacobs, Compliance Specialist State Historic Preservation Office Arizona State Parks 130 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Dear Dr. Jacobs: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOl) are continuing technical studies in support ofthe Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the south side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler to I-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project would employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department, the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau ofLand Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau ofReclamation, the Western Area Power Administration, the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City ofPhoenix, the City ofTollcson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemebuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima- Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800, NHPA), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been canying out cultural resource studies and engaging in an ongoing open dialog with GRIC's Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) and 2 f II\\ \. n \IJ< l I 11 1~ I ( I' l:.nh.u ' ' n..:n l'l.111 Appendix 2-1 2 Cultural Resource Management Program (CRMP) regarding the identification and evaluation of places of religious and cultural significance to the tribe, often referred to as traditional cultural properties (fCPs) as they may be affected by the proposed South Mountain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, the GRIC has identified TCPs that are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and could be affected by the construction ofthe South Mountain Freeway. These include, among others, the prehistoric Hohokam villages of Villa Buena (AZ T: 12:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T: 12:52 [ASM]) (Petty [FHWA] to Jacobs [SHPO], April24 2012). Previous correspondence has summarized the specific qualities of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo as TCPs under Criteria A and D of the NRHP, as well as proposed mitigation to address any potential adverse effects to all TCPs identified within the South Mountain freeway project area (Petty [FHWA] to Mendoza [GRIC], April 24, 20 12). The mitigation strategies presented thus far include Treatment Plans entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 102L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance ofMuhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation ofTraditional Property and Adverse Effects ofTransportation Corridor Development Summary Scope of Work (Draft) (Darling 2008), and an addendum to the aforementioned document entitled Addendum Planning/or TCP Mitigation Villa Buena (AZ T:12:9 [ASM] and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:l2:52 [ASM]) (Draft) (Darling 2012), both of which the SHPO previously approved (Petty [FHWA] to Jarobs [SHPO], April24 2012 [SHPO concurrence 18 May 2012]). However, based on comments received from SHPO as part of previous consultation dated April24, 2012 (Petty [FHWA] to Jacobs [SHPO]), and in further consideration of the GRIC's specific concerns for the spiritual welfare and cultural loss to their members and those of other affiliated Tribes due to potential impacts to Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo, this letter proposes that in the event of :freeway construction an alternative strategy be adopted to prevent potential adverse effects_to these two sites as they pertain to Criterion A of the NRHP. The South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Cultural Property Enhancement and Management Planningfor Villa Buena (AZ T: 12:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T: 12:52 [ASM]), replaces the previously identified "Addendum Plan" for Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo. This document proposes that upon completion of the EIS review process, a TCP Enhancement Plan will be developed and implemented, which would insure the following: 1) Preparation ofthe site(s) and Tribal members for anticipated ground disturbance including Traditional Religious Activities, Exhibits and Outreach, Tribal Consultation, Cultural Sensitivity Training, and the Protection of Equivalent Sites and Sacred Landscapes; and 2) Development of Programmatic Solutions for preservation, restoration, and perpetuation ofthe roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in GRIC culture and history. As noted in previous correspondence with the SHPO (Petty [FHWA] to Jacobs [SHPO], April24, 2012), the present surface e<>ndition of both sites within the area of potential effects (APE) of the proposed western alignments of the 202L freeway is highly disturbed by recent activities such as farming and other development. However, FHWA also recognizes and respects the GRIC's position that these disturbances in no way diminish the qualities of these sites as TCPs. This includes those aspects of site presence, both physical and spiritual; that the GRIC believes will be negatively impacted by freeway construction. These impacts could arguably be considered potential adverse effects under Criterion A of the NRHP. The FHWA also recognizes the GRIC's concerns in regard to site desecration due to intrusion and ground disturbance, which may affect the spiritual welfare of its members and other affiliated Tribes. In order to address these concerns and in consultation with the GRIC, the FHWA position is that the proposal to develop and implement a TCP Enhancement Plan for Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo will serve to prevent or eliminate the potential for these adverse effects to Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Section 106 ofthe NHPA as it pertains to Criterion A of the NRHP. This plan will not address 3 other TCPs in the APE or adverse effects under Criterion D of the NRHP as they pertain to these two sites. However, FHWA believes that this revised strategy addresses the SHPOs concerns over the presence or absence of adverse effect under Criterion A and allows the GRIC to take the lead in developing a plan for eliminating the potential for adverse effects, which they feel remain in spite of the present surface condition ofthese two sites. The attached consultation dated October 22,2012 indicates the GRIC's concurrence that the development and implementation of a TCP Enhancement Plan will prevent potential adverse effects under Criterion A to Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in the event of freeway construction. Furthermore, the GRIC concurred that the TCP Enhancement Plan is an adequate precondition for their concurrence with FHWA's recommendation for a finding of"no adverse effect" under Criterion A. In conclusion, since the proposed strategy for TCP enhancement is to prevent the potential for adverse effects, it is the position of the FHWA that the adoption of the attached proposal is a sufficient and reasonable condition for recommending a finding of ''no adverse effect" for Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Section 106 of the NHPA as it pertains to Criterion A of the NRHP. SHPO concurrence with this finding is requested with the full understanding that FHWA and ADOT are committed to the development and implementation of the TCP Enhancement Plan as presented in the attached proposal. Furthermore, FHWA acknowledges that failure to develop and implement such a plan could result in adverse effects under Criterion A, if freeway construction proceeds, and in that event, the SHPO may find it necessary to revise its position. The TCPs that are the topic oft11is letter are also subject to regulations set forth in Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. 303, as amended. Section 4(£) stipulates that FHWA and other DOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or public and private historic sites unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of that land, and that the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from such use. Section 4(f) generally applies to the use ofTCPs that are determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. FHWA believes that Section 4(£) does not apply to the proposed use of portions of the Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo TCPs for the proposed South Mountain Freeway project alternatives because the impacted area is primarily archeological in nature and preservation in place is not warranted. The exception is detailed in 23 CFR 774.13 as follows: ''The Administration has identified various exceptions to the requirement for Section 4(t) approval. These exceptions include, but are not limited to: (b) Archeological sites that are on or eligible for the National Register when: (1) The Administration concludes that the archeological resource is important chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value for preservation in place. This exception applies both to situations where data recovery is undertaken and where the Administration decides, with agreement of the official(s) with jurisdiction, not to recover the resource; and (2) The official(s) wifu jurisdiction over the Section 4(£) resource have been consulted and have not objected to the Administration fmding in paragraph (b)(l) of this section." As mentioned above, a number of meetings have taken place between FHWA, ADOT, GRIC CRMP, and GRIC THPO in which the nature of and the impacts to the Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo TCPs were discussed. Through these discussions the parties have come to the e<>nclusion that modern development has already significantly altered the portions of these sites that would be impacted by the highway project. While the modem surface development does not diminish the association with traditional cultural practices of the GRIC for purposes of the consultation required by NHPA, for purposes of Section 4(£), the FHWA believes that the impacted area is important chiefly for what could be learned by data recovery of any subsurface features that may still be present. In addition, future archaeological investigations may contribute to their TCP status. • A447 A448 • Appendix 2-1 4 If you have no objection to FHWA's determination under Section 4(f) that the portions of the Villa Buena and Pueblo de Los Alamos TCPs that would be used by the proposed project alternatives under consideration are chiefly important because of what can be learned by data recovery and have minimal value for preservation in place, then FHWA will apply the Section 4(t) exception described above to the use of these properties. This determination is for purposes of Section 4(t) only and would not have any impact on the Section 106 consultation that is underway and will continue. Please review the information provided in this letter and the enclosed consultation.If you agree with FHWA's finding of "no adverse effect" and do not object to the Section 4(t) determinations described above, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~~ .fv"Karla S. Petty Division Administrator 9 Enclosure Date GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY POST OFFICE Box 2140, SACATON, AZ 85147 TRIBAl HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (520) 562-7162 Fax: (520) 562·5083 Octobt:r 22, 2012 Karla S. Petty, Divisi()n Admini.<~trator U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration. Arizona Division 4000 Nonh Central Awnue. Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 850 12·3 500 RF· NH·202-DIADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 0541-15764 OJC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR und ElS Continuing 106 Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) Enhancement Plan. No Adverse Effect D~:ar Ms. Signature for SHPO Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) ~ Petty. The Gila Riv<--r indian Community Tribal Histmic Preservation Office (GRIC-THPO} has ro:ccived report South Mountain Freew~· fSR 202L) Traditional U.fes and Cultural Significance of Tradilirmal Cultural Properties and .Mitigation of 1hmsptlrtatiim Curridor De1·c>Jopment Adverse Effects Addendum Planning .fnr TC!' Mitigation Villu BuelUJ tAZ1':12:9{ASMJJ, Pueblo Del Alamo (AZ T·J2.53[ASMJ) (Dar/in.« and lmmtlmj 201 2) dawd September 26. 20 12. The report evaluates the National Register eligibility status of sites Villa Buena (AZ T:l2;9fASM)) and J1ucblo del Alanw (AZ T: 12:521 ASM I) and plans for mitigation of adverse eflects to the sites For the '"xtcnt of the consultation process. the GRIC-THPO has maintain~d that Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo are Akimel O'Odham and Pee Posh Traditional Cultural Pmpt.."Tlies (TCPs) and Register eligible properties under Criterion A and Criterion D a Enhancement Plan he developed and implcrn~;.1ltcd upon completion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process. The TCP Enhancement Plan would insure that: 1) The sites and the people ill\! phystcally and sptritually pr~pared for anticipated ground disturbance through conducting traditional religious activities., developing and sponsoring exhibits and outreach. through continued tribal consultation, sponsoring of cultural KenSiti\'tty training sessions, and through th*' protoction of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes; and 2) The di.'Vclopment of Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION us. Depcrlment cllta'lsportotlon Federal Highway progranunatic solutions focused on preservation, restoration, and perpetuation of the- roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in GRIC culture and history. Through the implementation of the TCP Enhancement Plan. adverse effects to the two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. Implementation of the TCP Enhancement Plan would allow the FHWA to make a detennination of no adverse effect for Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A. The FHWA acknowledges that if the plan is not implemented, that the GRIC and the GRIC-THPO would be able to revise their position and not concur with FHWA and ADOT recommendations. In addition, the GRIC- TIIPO and the FHWA want to make it clearly understood that mitigation of adverse effects for Criterion D is still required. Data recovery efforts must still be undertaken at the two Administration October 31, 2012 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and ElS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Western Transmission Line Realignment sites. The GRIC-THPO concurs with a determinations of no adverse effect to Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo as it pertains to Section I 06 of the National Historic Preservation Act and to Criterion A which is defmed under 36 CFR 60: National Register of Historic PJaces. The GRIC-TIIPO aJso aC<:epts the TCP Enhancement Plan and all recommendatiom put forth in the document. The TCP Enhancem~mt Plan is a thoughtful, unique way to avoid potentia! adverse effects of this undertaking. It is well written. The GRIC-THPO would like to reiterate our appreciation to the FHWA and ADOT for acknowledging and accepting the GRIC worldview. The GRIC maintains and reinforces the cultural significance of South Mountain to the Four Southern Tribes (Gila River Indian Community; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community; Ak-Chln Indian Community and the Tohono O'Odham Nation) together with the Pee Posh (Maricopa). O'Odham oral history and religion defines our life and relationship to the natural world and the cultural landscape. Akimel O'Odham and Pee Posh oral histories, religion. creation stories, ceremtlnial activities and practices, and the concepts of power and sacred places are inseparably tied to every part of the natural environment. Sacred places and Traditional Cultural Places (TCPs) must be treated with reverence and respect. The GRIC-TIIPO looks forward to continuing consultation regarding the proposed 202 Loop. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me or Archaeological Compliance Specialist Larry Benallie, Jr. at 520-562-7162, Bamaby V. Lewi Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Gila River Indian Community 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http:/fwww.fhwa.dot.gov/azdivlindex.htm Mr. Gregory Mendoza, Governor Gila River Indian Community P.O.Box97 Sacaton, Arizona 85147 Dear Governor Mendoza: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (AD01) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (I-1 0) in west Chandler to 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section I 06 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department, the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Western Area Power Administration (Western), the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District of Maricopa County, the Roosevelt Irrigation District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix. the City ofTolleson, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the To!tono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. In accordance with the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CPR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic propetties, FHWA and ADOT have been carrying out cultural resource studies. The proposed South Mountain Freeway would require realignment of the Liberty-Coolidge 230-kV Transmission Line, which is administered by Western. At the request of ADOT, GRIC's Cultural Resource Management • A449 A450 • Appendix 2-1 2 Program (CRMP) perfonned a Class ill survey of three potential uansmission line realignment corridors that would be required for the proposed South Mountain Freeway. At the time the survey was conducted, twO separate «~~tern ulignmcnts for the freeway, the Pecos Road alignment (E I) aitd an alignment locatcat was previously deteiminc".ona State l'arks 1300 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007 IJellf Dr. Jacobs: The Federal Highway Administration (fHWA) and the Arizona Department of'fnmsportation (ADOT) an: continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 2021", South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concopt Report project The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around tho southern side of South Mountain from Interstate 10 (J·l 0) in west Chandler to I-I 0 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds, it is coosideted an undertaking subject to Section 106 te\iew. Becausc ultenlatives ate still under development. land ownor.;hip of the project area is varied. Consulting parties for this project include l'HWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Pres<;rvatinn Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Depar1ment, the Arizona State Museum, the U.S. Arrny Corps of Engineers, the Bureau ofJ,and Management, the Bureau ofl.ndian Affair.,, the Bureau ofReclama1ion, the \Ve.t, the Cityof'l'olleson, the Ak·Chin Indian Community, the Cbemebuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe., the Colomdo River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the .Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Gila River [ndian C<>mmunity (GRIC), the Havasupai Tribe, the Iiopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pa.ite Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapai-Apache Nation, and the Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe. In accordance with 1!1e regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal age-ncies to take into account the e~cts of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have bc~n carrying out cultural resource studios. The proposed South Mountain Freeway would require realignment of the Liberty-Coolidge 230-kV Transmission Line, which is administcrcxl by Western. At tile request of ADOT, ORIC's Cultuml Resource Management 2 Program (CRMP) performed a Clus Ul survey of three potential transmission tine realignment corridors that would be required for the proposed South Mountain Freeway. At the time the survey was conducted, twn separate eastern alignment• for U1.c freeway, the Pecos Road alignment (El) and an alignment located on the GRIC (F.2), were being studied by FHWA and ADOT. Thus, the ~urvey addressed potential tnmsmissioo line realignment conidors required for both the fll and tho F.2 alignments. CRMJ> docwnented seven archaeological sites within the Western realignment corridors. Site Number Site Type South Mountain Freeway all&nment alternative site Is located within AZ T:12:52 (ASM) / Pueblo del Alamo AZ T:12:112 (ASMI Village with platform mounds and canal Shrine site containing mound, trail, and cleared area Dry farming agricultural site ory farm ins ~eric'!!!!!~~~e Petroglyph site with an associated artifact seatter of shards and In hies Dry farming agricultural site Historic artifact scatter E1 GR-1002 GR-1003 GR-1081 GR-1569 GR·1571 --- -- E2 E2 E2 E2 -·- E2 E2 The B2 South Mountain Freeway alignment will not be carried forward in the 'Draft Environmental Impact Statement. 'l'berefore, this letter does not include a discussion of the realignment corridOtS required for the proposed E2 alignment or the sites affected only by the E2 alignment. The realignment corridor alternative$ required for the proposed E l corridor arc 200 feel wide-. The corridor between transmission line structures 18/1 and 18/6, is located on private land; the corridor between transmission line structunlS 26/2 and 2615 is located on the GRIC and private land. The result.s of CRMP' s Class m survey of the transmission line realignment corridors are reported in "A Class I and Clrus III Cullwt>l Resource Survey for tk Proposed J.iberty-Coolidge 2.10-K• Trun.TTnis:'er Indian Cmnmuniry, the Unincorporated Comm/JJI/ty oflAveen. and the City of Phoenix. Maricopa Cmmty. Arizona" (McCool and Loendorf20 12). A copy of the report is enclosed for your review and comment. Because ofthe confidential nature of \he Tr•ditional Cultur.tl Properties (l'CP) information cooblined within the report, FHWA has limited its dislribution to Westen~, the GRIC, and the SHPO. AZ '1':12:52 (ASM), a.lso known as Pueblo del Alamo, is a prehistoric Hohokarn village site that was previously determined eligible foe inclusion in the National Register ofHistoric Places (NRHP) under Criterion A as a TCP and under Criterion D as llJI arehaeological site (Lewi• [friba! Historic Preservation Officc(THPO)] to Petty [FHWAJ, July 3, 20 12; Jacobs [SHPO) to Petty [l'liWA], May lS, 2012). A portion of the site was documented within the Western realignment corridors. The line realignment for the bl Alternative would require relocating one transmission line tower(structuro 1813) within the site's boundaries. The construction of the new tower would require ground disturbing activitie.s; thorcfon:, FIIWA bas determined thetraJL•mission line realignment would result in an "adverse effect" to AZ T:l 2:52 (ASM)/ Pueblo del Alamo UJ:lder Critedon D a.• an arcMcological site. Mitigation of any ad\•crsc cffeets to the arctuwologic81 site resulting from the realignment would be developed in accordwce with the Programmatic Agreement (PA) that hos been developed and executed for tho project as a whole. • A451 A452 • Appendix 2-1 3 The present surface condition of AZ T: 12:52 (ASM) I Puehlo del AlAmo within the area of potential effe<:IS (APE) is highly disturbed by recent activities such ns frumi.o g and odtcr development; however, FHWA recognizos and rcspeciS the GRlC's position that these disturbances in no way dimi.ni.sh dte qualities of the site as a TCP. This includes che physical and spiritual aspects of !he s.ite thct the GJUC believes could be negatively impacted by the propose-d line relocation. Additionally. FIIWA recognizes the GRIC's concerns in regard to site desee «Karla S. Peuy Division Administrator Signature for SIIPO Con<>urrence NH-202·D(ADY) Enclosure Date AJUZONA DIVISION US.Oepo..-.t c:J Ja i$p011a!Ja I 4000 North Central Avenue Sutte 1500 Phoenix. Arizooa 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 federQI Highway http://www.fhwa:dot.gov/azdivlinde.&l!tro Admlnlthotlon October 31,2012 ln Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) ·fRAcs No. 202L MA0541-!$7640\C 202L, South Mount.Un Freeway, OCR Md ElS Continuing Section IOtS Consuftation Western Transmission Line Realignment Ms. Linda Hughes, Environmental Manager Western Area Power Administration 6\5 South 43rd Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85009 Dear Ms. Hughes: The Federol Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are ~ntinuing technical sll1dies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS & Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addres~ alternative alignmen!'l for the proposed South Mountain freeway, which would extend arou.od the southern side of South Mountain from Tnterstalc I0 (I-10) in west Chand.lerto 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project is scheduled to employ federal funds. it is considered an undertaking subject to Section .I 06 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is varied. COnsulting parties for tb.is project include FHWA, ADOT, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Arizona State Land Department, the Ari>..ona State Museum, tho U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Westero Area !.'ower AdminjstratioJt (Western), the Salt River Project, the Maricopa County Department of Transportation, the Flood Control District ofMarioopa County, the RooseveltlrrigatioJt District, the City of Avondale, the City of Chandler, the City of Glendale, the City of Phoenix, the City of Tolleson, the Ak-Chio Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopab Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribe, the Fort McDowcU Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the GiIa River Indian Commwtity (GRIC). che Havasupai Tribe. the Hopi Tribe, !he Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River PimaMaricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, dtc San Juan Southern Paiut~.lhe ToboJlo O'odltam Natioo, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, the Yavapat-Apru:he Nation, and the Yavapai-Pres<;Q(tlndian Tribe. In accordance with the rcgulatioos implementing Section I 06 ofthe National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects oftbeir undertakings on historic properties, FllW1\ and ADOT have been carrying out cultural resource studies. The proposed Sou!h Mountain Freeway would require realignment of!be Uberty-Goolidge 230-kV Transmission Line, which is administered by Western. At the request of ADOT, GRIC's Cultural Resource Management Appendix 2-1 2 Program (CRMP) performed a Class IT! survey of three potential tcansmission line realignment corridors that would be required for the proposed South Mountain Freeway. At the time the survey was conducted, two separate ca.1urbance, which muy affect tile spiritual welfllre of its membm and other affilillted Tribes. A TCP Enhancement Plan was developed and will be implemented to address these concerns and to prevent adverse eff~ts to the site under Criterion A. The GRIC THPO conCWl'ed that the development and implementation of a TCl' Enh1111cemcnt Plan will prevent pofcntial advci'8C effect• under Criterion A to Pueblo del Alamo (Lewis [THPO] to Petty [FHIVAJ Oc-tober 22, 2012). There!ore it is the position ofthe FHWA that the TCP Enhancement Plan is a sufficient and reasonable condition for recommending a finding of"no adverso effect" for Pueblo del Alamo under Section 106 of the NHPA as it pertains to (.'riterion A oftbe NRHP. Based on the above, t11WA has determined that a fmding of "adverse effectn is appropriate for AZ 1':12:52 (ASM) / Pueblo del Alamo under Section 106 of the NHPA as it pertains to C'riterion D of the NRH:P and that a finding of"no adverse effect" is appropriate under Section 106 oftllc NHPA as it pertains to Criterion A oftbe NRHP for the proposed Western transmission line realignment Pleaso review the enclosed report and information provided in this leiter. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and project effect, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. u·you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at )4_a.Yi$2@azdot.go_l(. 11te E2 South Mountain l'rocway alignment will not be carried forward in the Drnft Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore, this lelt.:r does not include a discussion of the realignment corridors required for the proposed E2 alignment or the sites alTected only by the R2 alignment. Sincerely yours, ~~ The realigtunent oonidor alternatives r«quired for the proposed El conidor ore 200 feet wide. The corridor between transmiseen, and the City of Pltnenb<, Maricopo County, Arizona" (McCool and Loendorf2012). A copy of the report is enclosed for your review and comment. BecauS« oftbe confidential nature of!he Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) information contained within the report, l'llWA ha.< limited its distribution to Western, the GRJC, and the SHPO. -¥ Karla S. Petty Division Adntinistrator Signature for We..~m Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosure AZ T: 12:52 (ASM), also known as Pueblo del Alamo, is a prehistoric Hohokam village site that was previously determined eligible tor inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRl!P) under Criterion 11 a< a TC.P and under Criterion D as an archaeological site (Lewis [Tribal Historic Preservation OffiCe (UIPO)) to Petty (F'HWA], July 3, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA], May IS, 2012). A portion of the site was documented within the West"m n:ali.gnrnent corridors. 11tc line realignment for tbe El Alternative would require relocating one trd!lsrnission l.ine tower (structure 1813) within the site's boundaries. ·ntc construction oftbe new tower would require ground disturbing activities; therefore, fHWA bas detennincd tbc transmission line realignment would result in an "adverse effect" to AZ T:I2:52 (ASM) I Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion D as an archaeological site. Mitigation of any adverse effects to the archaeological site resulting from the realignmeut would be develope.-.! in aceo.ona Department ofTransportatioo (ADOT) arc continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (E!S} for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, ElS & Led in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement (PA) tbal bas been developed and executed for the project as a whole. Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA OMSJON 3 4000 North Central Avenue Sufte 1500 Phoenix, Atttona 85012-3500 Phon~(602)37~6 Fax: (602) 382-8998 htto:HW\wt.ftwm.dot.gcv/azdiv/index.htm The present surl'a~ condition of AZ T: 12:52 (ASM) I Pueblo del Alamo within the aRa of poteoti.al effects (APE) is highly disturbed by rO<:atives are still underdevelorm>ent, land own.,..ship of the project area is not yet koo\>m. In u~<:anlan""" with the Natiuual Hhturi<.: Preservation Act (36 CFR. 800.4), which requires fedeTa! agencies to Lake ioto account the effects of their undertaking~! on historic properties, FH\VA and ADOT have been performing cultural resources studies and consultatioll& with l\'ative American tribes to identify concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, rdigiou.,, culturol, or hi!rtoric importance. In prior coll&ultotion, the Gila Riv~r Indian Community (GRIC) ex(ll'essed concem regarding the eff'l<'ts of tbc projct:t on several traditional cportafion F$derol Highw ay Admlnbtrotlon !l!tp;J/www.fhwa.dot gov/azdwnndex.htm January 31,2013 [n Reply HOP-AZ Based on the above discussion, FHWA and GRIC have agreed that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would adversely affect those characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the South Mountains TCP under Criteria A and B, and that the project would not adversely affect the characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) TCPs under Criterion A. Furthermore, FHWA has determined that a finding of"adverse effect'' for the overall project remains appropriate. Please review the information provided in this letter and the enclosed technical summary report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's determinations of project effect, NRHP eligibility, and management recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, Kt1Svu it' Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for Chemehuevi Tribe Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosure cc: June Leivas, Cultural Center Director (with enclosure) Date Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) Nfl-202-D(ADY) 11Uid potentially qualify as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as TCPs: the South Mountains; two prehistoric Hohokam village sites, AZ T: 12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T: 12:52 (ASM) (l'ucblo del Alamo); two petroglyph sites, AZ T:12: 198 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:208 (ASM); four trail sites, AZ T: 12:197 (ASM), AZ 1':12:201 (ASM), AZ 1':12:207 (ASM), and AZ 1':12:21 1 (ASM); and one archaeological site with a shrine, AZ T: 12:112 (ASM). The report, entitled A CIMs Ill Culwrt•l Resource Survey of /t'ive Altenuuive Alignmems ;nthe South A1ountain Freeway Corridor Study A•·ca, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), wus provided in prior consultation. At the request of FHWA and ADOT, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), perfomted an NRHP evaluation of the ten potential TCPs. 11tc results were provided in a report titled An E••alualion of Traditional Culwral Properties for the 2021.., South Moumain T~a11sportatfon Coi'Tfdor EIS & UDCR l'roject. Maricopa County, Arizona (llrodbeck 2012). To protect confidential information associated with TCPs, the report wus sent to only SHPO and GRIC·THPO for rcviow. Bused on the n.-sults, and continuing discu.ssion with GRIC·THPO and SHPO, FHW A detcrntined that: • the South Mountains were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and 13 as a TCI' • AZ T:l2:9 (ASM)(Villa Buena), AZ T:l2:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo), AZ T:l2:112 (1\SM), and liZ T: 12: 198 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs and under Criterion D as archaeological sites • AZ T:l2:197 (ASM) and AZ T:l2: 198 (ASM) were also NRHI'·eligible under Criterion A as contributors to the South Mountains TCP • AZ T: l2:201 (ASM), AZ T:l2:207 (ASM), AZ T:12:208 (ASM), and liZ T:l2:21 1 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites and 110t as TCI's SHPO and ORIC·THPO concurred with FH\V A's eligibility determinations (Jacobs [SHPO) to Pcuy [F!IWA) May 15, 2012; Lewis (GRIC·TI IPO)to Petty [FIIWA) Jul)' 3, 2012). Through ongoing Section I06 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and mccting.pcd by GRIC'~CRMI', it is believed that the potential for adverse effects on these two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. SHPO and GRIC-THPO concu!Ted with the adequacy of the TCP enhancement plan proposal and that its implementation would eliminate adverse effects on Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A (Lc""s (URIC-"IliPOJ to Peuy [I'HWAJ October 22, 2012; Jacobs [SHPOJ to Petty [FHWAJ October 25, 2012). Based on lite above discussion, FHWA and ORIC have agreed that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would adversely affect those characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the South Mountains TCI' under Criteria A and ll, and that the project would not adversely affect the characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo. AZ T: 12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:l2: 198 (ASM) TCPs under Criterion A. Furthc!Tllore, FHWA has delCmlined tha1 a finding of'ladverse effect" for the overall project remains appropriate. Please review the infonnation provided in this letter a.nd the enclosed technical summary report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHW A's determinations of project effect, NRHP eligibility, and management recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. (f you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to cnnlact Linda Davis at 602-712·8636 or atldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~Jvw -(;..Karla S. Pelly Division Administrator igruuurc for City of Phoenix Concurrence NH·202-D(ADY) Enclosure Date Suite 1500 fhOOn;x, Arizona 95012-3500 Phone: (602) 3J'9..3646 Fax: (802) S82.a998 htnr/fwvNt.fh\va.dot.gov/azdivJining cultural rcsourees studies and consultations with Native Amerit$ tribes lu idenlif)' concern;, regarding llistor;c properties of traditional, religio\IS, eulturnl, ur historic i.roportauce. In pri()r consultation, the Gila River Indifll'l Community (GRIC) expressed eoncem regarding the effects oftlte project on several traditional cultural properties (TCPs). The other southent tribes, Ale-Chin Indian Comnmnity, tlte Tohono O'odham Nation, sod the Salt Ri~r Pima-M>~ricopl! Indian Community, have deferred to GRIC to take the lead in Scclion 106 eoru;ulla:tion regarding tlte TCPs. In response, l'HWA and ADOT have facilitated .a conti.lluing open dialogue with proposal developed by GRJC.CR.\iP. it is beficv~d tbat the potential for advcm: di.,.;ts on these two sites under Criterion A will he eliminated. SHl'O and GR!C-THPO concun-ed with the adequacy of tbe TCP enl!-'Uleement plan proposal Md that its implementation would eliminate adverse effects oo Villa Buena IUld Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A (Lc:wis [GRTC-11fl'O] to Petty [FHWA) October22, 2012; Jacobs [SHPOJ to Petty [FIIWAJ October 25, 2012). 14515 S. Veterans Drive Somerton, Arizona 85350-2689 T elephone (928) 627-4849 Cell (928)503-2291 Fax (928) 627-3173 CCR-037-12-009 Based on the above discussion. FHWA and GRIC bave agrt>ed tru.t Lhe proposed South ~ountaln F=way would adversely aftbct those cbae&eteristics that conttibute to the NRHP eligibility or the South Mou~tains TCT' under Criteria A and B, and that th~ ptojecl would not adversely affect the charactsures -ijl1Jf~ cc: H. Jill McCormick, Cnlturnl Resource< Manager (with enclosur<>) H. Jill McConru"cl(.M.A. Cultural Resource Manager I • A465 A466 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION us. Deportment c:i 1msportalion Federal Highway Administration 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdivlindex.htm 2 Mountain Freeway and has developed treatment plans to mitigate and/or eliminate potential adverse effects that could result from the undertaking. January 31,2013 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Traditional Cultural Properties Mr. Eldred Enas, Chainnan Colorado River Indian Tribes 26600 Mohave Road Parker, Arizona 85344 Dear Chairman Enas: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS and Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountains from Interstate 10 (1-1 0) in west Chandler to I-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.4), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effe.cts of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been performing cultural resources studies and consultations with Native American tribes to identify concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historic importance. In prior consultation, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) expressed concern regarding the effects of the project on several traditional cultural properties (TCPs). The other southern tribes, Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tohono O'odham Nation, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, have deferred to GRIC to take the lead in Section 106 consultation regarding the TCPs. In response, FHWA and ADOT have facilitated a continuing open dialogue with GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (GRICCRMP) and Tribal Historic Preservation ·office (GRIC-THPO) regarding the identification and evaluation ofTCPs as they pertain to the South Mountain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, GRIC has identified five TCPs that could be affected by construction of the South To protect confidential information associated with the TCPs, the evaluation reports and treatment plans have been provided to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO. Information regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of the TCPs is being provided to other consulting parties in a technical summary report entitled Traditional Cultural Property Evaluations for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EJS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (HDR 2012), which is enclosed for your review and comment. This letter provides a summary of the TCP consultation for the project. Consulting parties receiving the TCP technical summary include the Bureau of Indian Affairs and City of Phoenix, who have jurisdiction over the resources, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono 0'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. During the initial Class lli survey for the project, GRIC-CRMP identified ten properties as places of cultural importance that could potentially qualify as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as TCPs: the South Mountains; two prehistoric Hohokam village sites, AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:l2:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo); two petroglyph sites, AZ T:12:198 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:208 (ASM); four trail sites, AZ T:l2:197 (ASM), AZ T:l2:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:211 (ASM); and one archaeological site with a shrine, AZ T:12:112 (ASM). The report, entitled A Class HI Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), was provided in prior consultation. At the request ofFHWA and ADOT, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), performed an NRHP evaluation of the ten potential TCPs. The results were provided in a report titled An Evaluation ofTraditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). To protect confidential information associated with TCPs, the report was sent to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review. Based on the results, and continuing discussion with GRIC-THPO and SHPO, FHWA determined that: • the South Mountains were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and B as a TCP • AZ T:l2:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena), AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo), AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T: 12:198 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs and under Criterion D as archaeological sites • AZ T:l2:197 (ASM) andAZ T:l2:198 (ASM) were also NRHP-eligible under Criterion A as contributors to the South Mountains TCP Appendix 2-1 4 3 • AZ T:l2:201 (ASM), AZ T:l2:207 (ASM), AZ T:l2:208 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites and not as TCPs SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with FHWA's eligibility determinations (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty (FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2612). Through ongoing Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC developed options for mitigating adverse effects on the TCPs. As a result of those discussions, avoidance alternatives were developed for two of the TCPs, a petroglyph site [AZ T:12:198 (ASM)] and a shrine site [AZ T:l2:112 (ASM)]. They will now be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, there will be no direct impacts on these sites. The South Mountains TCP cannot be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, a treatment plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse effects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP was developed by GRIC-CRMP entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance ofMuhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation ofTraditional Property and Adverse Effects ofTransportation Corridor Development (Darling 2009). SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the South Mountain TCP mitigation plan (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRICTHO] to Petty [FHWA) July 3, 2012). Because it may not be possible to avoid Villa Buena and/or Pueblo del Alamo during freeway construction, FHWA proposed that an alternative strategy be adopted to prevent potential adverse effects to these two sites as they pertain to Criterion A of the NRHP. At the request of FHWA, GRIC-CRMP prepared a TCP enhancement plan proposal for the two sites, entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Cultural Property Enhancement and Management Planning for Villa Buena (AZ T:12:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:J2:52 [ASM}) (Darling and Loendorf2012), which was provided to SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review and comment. This document proposes that upon completion of the EIS review process, the TCP enhancement plan be developed and implemented, which would ensure the following: • preparation of the site(s) and people for anticipated ground disturbance include traditional religious activities, exhibits and outreach, tribal consultation, cultural sensitivity training, and the projection of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes • development of Programmatic Solutions for preservation, restoration, and perpetuation of the roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in O'odham culture and history Cultural (TCP) enhancement purposes to elevate O'odham knowledge and awareness of these two sites so that any negative impact on their "presence" in O'odham cultural and history-the loss of connections, or of place, in traditional cultur~are addressed prior to, during, and after freeway construction, and as part of project planning. Enhancement does not address or replace requirements for data recovery pertaining to adverse effects on Villa Buena or Pueblo del Alamo with regard to their eligibility under Criterion D of the NRHP. However, through implementation of the enhancement plan proposal developed by GRlC-CRMP, it is believed that the potential for adverse effects on these two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. SHPO and GRlC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the TCP enhancement plan proposal and that its implementation would eliminate adverse effects on Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A (Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 22, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 25, 2012). Based on the above discussion, FHWA and GRIC have agreed that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would adversely affect those characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the South Mountains TCP under Criteria A and B, and that the project would not adversely affect the characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:l2:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) TCPs under Criterion A. Furthermore, FHWA has determined that a finding of "adverse effect" for the overall project remains appropriate. Please review the information provided in this letter and the enclosed technical summary report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's determinations of project effect, NRHP eligibility, and management recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~~ -kKarla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for Colorado River Indian Tribes Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Date Enclosure cc: Wilene Fisher-Holt, Director, CRIT Museum (with enclosure) • A467 A468 • Appendix 2-1 COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm ARIZONA DIVISION us. Museunt Department a~on I007 Arizona Avenue • Parker, Arizona 85344 Mailing: 26600 Mohave Rd. • Parker, Arizona, 85344 Phone: (9.!8) 66(}-8970 • Fax: (928) 669-1925 Administration Federal Highway January 31,2013 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) February 25, 2013 Karla S. Petty, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration, Arizona Division 4000 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 HOP-AZ FEB 2 7 2n1~ fJL TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 0 LC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, OCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Traditional Cultural Properties RE: NH-202-D(ADY) Dear Ms. Petty: Thank you for your letters dated August 8, 2012 and January 31, 2013 requesting comment on the following project: Project Name: 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS TRACS Number: 202L MA 054 H5764 01 C In order. to fully assess Colorado River Indian Tribes (CRIT) concerns regarding a given project area, Tnbal m~mbe~ ~ould generally have to visit the site. For this particular project, however, CRIT would like to JOID the Ak-Chin Community, the Tohono O'odham Nation, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community in deferring to the Gila River Indian Community to take the lead in Section I 06 consultation regarding the TCPS. At this time the Colorado River Indian Tribes is in concurrence with the Federal Highway Administration finding of"adverse effect" for the overall project, and CRIT does reserve the right to intervene if new or omitted information related to the proposed project becomes available. Thank you. If you have any concerns please feel free to contact me at (928) 669-8970. Sincerely, c/~~~~ Jennifer L. Barangan Archaeological Compliance Technician cc: Wayne Patch, Sr., Chairman Rebecca Loudbear, Acting Attorney General File: CPRL_10029 NH-202-D(ADY) ~,L;l..ll..:i.~~-.:;..~~.... Dr. Clinton Pattea, President Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation P.O. Box 17779 Fountain Hills, Arizona 85269 Dear President Pattea: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS and Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountains from Interstate 10 (1- 10) in west Chandler to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CPR 800.4), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been performing cultural resources studies and consultations with Native American tribes to identify concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historic importance. In prior consultation, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) expressed concern regarding the effects of the project on several traditional cultural properties (TCPs). The other southern tribes, Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tohono O'odham Nation, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, have deferred to GRIC to take the lead in Section 106 consultation regarding the TCPs. In response, FHWA and ADOT have facilitated a continuing open dialogue with GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (GRICCRMP) and Tribal Historic Preservation Office (GRIC-THPO) regarding the identification and evaluation ofTCPs as they pertain to the South Mountain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, GRIC has identified five TCPs that could be affected by construction of the South Appendix 2-1 2 Mountain Freeway and has developed treatment plans to mitigate and/or eliminate potential adverse effects that could result from the undertaking. To protect confidential information associated with the TCPs, the evaluation reports and treatment plans have been provided to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO. Information regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of the TCPs is being provided to other consulting parties in a technical summary report entitled Traditional Cultural Property Evaluations for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EJS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (HDR 2012), which is enclosed for your review and comment. This letter provides a summary of the TCP consultation for the project. Consulting parties receiving the TCP technical summary include the Bureau of Indian Affairs and City of Phoenix, who have jurisdiction over the resources, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yurna-Quechan Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. During the initial Class ill survey for the project, GRIC-CRMP identified ten properties as places of cultural importance that could potentially qualify as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as TCPs: the South Mountains; two prehistoric Hohokam village sites, AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:l2:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo); two petroglyph sites, AZ T:12:198 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:208 (ASM); four trail sites, AZ T:12:197 (ASM), AZ T:l2:201 (ASM), AZ T:l2:207 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:211 (ASM); and one archaeological site with a shrine, AZ T: 12:112 (ASM). The report, entitled A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), was provided in prior consultation. At the request of FHWA and ADOT, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), performed an NRHP evaluation of the ten potential TCPs. The results were provided in a report titled An Evaluation ofTraditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). To protect confidential information associated with TCPs, the report was sent to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review. Based on the results, and continuing discussion with GRIC-TIIPO and SHPO, FHWA determined that: • the South Mountains were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and B as a TCP • AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena), AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo), AZ 1:12:112 (ASM), andAZ 1:12:198 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs and under Criterion D as archaeological sites • AZ 1:12:197 (ASM) and AZ 1:12:198 (ASM) were also NRHP-eligible under Criterion A as contributors to the South Mountains TCP 3 • AZ 1:12:201 (ASM), AZ 1:12:207 (ASM), AZ T: 12:208 (ASM), and AZ 1:12:211 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites and not as TCPs SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with FHWA's eligibility determinations (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Through ongoing Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC developed options for mitigating adverse effects on the TCPs. As a result of those discussions, avoidance alternatives were developed for two of the TCPs, a petroglyph site [AZ 1:12:198 (ASM)] and a shrine site [AZ 1:12:112 (ASM)]. They will now be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, there will be no dirc::ct impacts on these sites. The South Mountains TCP cannot be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, a treatment plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse effects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP was developed by GRIC-C~ entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance ofMuhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation of Traditional Property and Adverse Effects ofTransportation Co"idor Development (Darling 2009). SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy o~the South Mountain TCP mitigation plan (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; LeWis [GRICTHO] to Petty (FHWA] July 3, 2012). Because it may not be possible to avoid Villa Buena and/or Pueblo del Alamo during £J:eeway construction, FHWA proposed that an alternative strategy be adopted to prevent potential adverse effects to these two sites as they pertain to Criterion A of the NRHP. At the request of FHWA, GRIC-CRMP prepared a TCP enhancement plan proposal for the two sites, entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Cultural Property Enhancement and Management Planningfor Villa Buena (AZ T:I2:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:J2:5~ [ASM]) (Darling and Loendorf2012), which was provided to SHPO and GRIC-THPO for reVIew and comment. This document proposes that upon completion of the EIS review process, the TCP enhancement plan be developed and implemented, which would ensure the following: • preparation of the site(s) and people for anti~ipated grollD:d disturbance in~l~d.e tr~ti~nal religious activities, exhibits and outreach, tribal consultatiOn, cultural sensitiVIty trammg, and the projection of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes • development of Programmatic Solutions for preservation, restora~on, and perpetuation of the roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in O'odham culture and history Cultural (TCP) enhancement purposes to elevate O'odham knowledge and awarene~s of these two sites so that any negative impact on their "presence" in O'odham cultural and history-the loss of connections, or of place, in traditional culture-are addressed prior to, during, and after freeway construction, and as part of project planning. Enhancement does not address or replace requirements for data recovery pertaining to adverse effects on Villa Buena or Pu~blo del Al~o with regard to their eligibility under Criterion D of the NRHP. However, through unplementatlon • A469 A470 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION 4 of the enhancement plan proposal developed by GRIC-CRMP, it is believed that the potential for adverse effects on these two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the TCP enhancement plan proposal and that its implementation would eliminate adverse effects on Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A (Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 22, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 25, 2012). US. Deportment ci lta'lsportotion Federal Highway Admlnlstratlon January 31,2013 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ Based on the above discussion, FHWA and GRIC have agreed that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would adversely affect those characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the South Mountains TCP under Criteria A and B, and that the project would not adversely affect the characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:12:112 (ASM), andAZ T: l 2:198 (ASM) TCPs under Criterion A. Furthermore, FHWA has detennined that a finding of"adverse effect" for the overall project remains appropriate. Please review the information provided in this letter and the enclosed technical summary report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's determinations of project effect, NRHP eligibility, and management recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and ElS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Traditional CUirural Properties Mr. Timothy Williams, Chairman Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 500 Merriman Avenue Needles, California 92363 Dear Chairman Williams: Sincerely yours, ~~ f£\38- 20'3 ¥- Karla S. Petty Division Administrator $a~ £-r;g;c) ~-l.J-/3 Signa~McDowell Yavapai Nation Concurrence Date NH-202-D(ADY) Enclosure cc: Erica McCalvin, Planning & Project Manager (with enclosure) Karen Ray, Culture Coordinator (with enclosure) The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS and Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountains from Interstate 10 (I -1 0) in west Chandler to 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.4), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been perfonning cultural resources studies and consultations with Native Ameri~ tribes to identify concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historic importance. In prior consultation, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) expressed concern regarding the effects of the project on several traditional cultural properties (TCPs). The other southern tribes, Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tohono O' odham Nation, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, have deferred to GRIC to take the lead in Section 106 consultation regarding the TCPs. In response, FHWA and ADOT have facilitated a continuing open dialogue with GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (GRICCRMP) and Tribal Historic Preservation Office (GRIC-THPO) regarding the identification and evaluation ofTCPs as they pertain to the South Mountain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, GRIC has identified five TCPs that could be affected by construction of the South Appendix 2-1 2 Mountain Freeway and has developed treatment plans to mitigate and/or eliminate potential adverse effects that could result from the undertaking. To protect confidential information associated with the TCPs, the evaluation reports and treatment plans have been provided to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO. Information regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of the TCPs is being provided to other consulting parties in a technical summary report entitled Traditional Cultural Property Evaluations for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (HDR 20 12), which is enclosed for your review and comment. This letter provides a summary of the TCP consultation for the project. Consulting parties receiving the TCP technical summary include the Bureau of Indian Affairs and City of Phoenix, who have jurisdiction over the resources, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. During the initial Class lli survey for the project, GRIC-CRMP identified ten properties as places of cultural importance that could potentially qualify as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as TCPs: the South Mountains; two prehistoric Hohokam village sites, AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:l2:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo); two petroglyph sites, AZ T:12:198 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:208 (ASM); four trail sites, AZ T:l2:197 (ASM), AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), and AZ T:12:2ll (ASM); and one archaeological site with a shrine, AZ T: 12:112 (ASM). The report, entitled A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), was provided in prior consultation. At the request of FHWA and ADOT, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), performed an NRHP evaluation of the ten potential TCPs. The results were provided in a report titled An Evaluation ofTraditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). To protect confidential information associated with TCPs, the report was sent to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review. Based on the results, and continuing discussion with GRIC-THPO and SHPO, FHWA determined that: • the South Mountains were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and B as a TCP • AZ T:l2:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena), AZ T:I2:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo), AZ T:12:ll2 (ASM), and AZ T: 12:198 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs and under Criterion D as archaeological sites • AZ T: 12:197 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:198 (ASM) were also NRHP-eligible under Criterion A as contributors to the South Mountains TCP 3 • AZ T:l2:201 (ASM), AZ T:l2:207 (ASM), AZ T:l2:208 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:211 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites and not as TCPs SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with FHWA's eligibility determinations (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Through ongoing Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC developed options for mitigating adverse effects on the TCPs. As a result of those discussions, avoidance alternatives were developed for two of the TCPs, a petroglyph site [AZ T:l2:198 (ASM)] and a shrine site [AZ T:l2:112 (ASM)]. They will now be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, there will be no direct impacts on these sites. The South Mountains TCP cannot be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, a treatment plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse effects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP was developed by GRIC-CRMP entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance ofMuhadogi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation ofTraditional Property and Adverse Effects ofTransportation Corridor Development (Darling 2009). SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the South Mountain TCP mitigation plan (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRICTHO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Because it may not be possible to avoid Villa Buena and/or Pueblo del Alamo during freeway construction, FHWA proposed that an alternative strategy be adopted to prevent potential adverse effects to these two sites as they pertain to Criterion A of the NRHP. At the request of FHWA, GRIC-CRMP prepared a TCP enhancement plan proposal for the two sites, entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Cultural Property Enhancement and Management Planningfor Villa Buena (AZT:/2:9 {ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:/2:52 [ASM]) (Darling and Loendorf2012), which was provided to SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review and comment. This document proposes that upon completion of the EIS review process, the TCP enhancement plan be developed and implemented, which would ensure the following: • preparation of the site(s) and people for anticipated ground disturbance include traditional religious activities, exhibits and outreach, tribal consultation, cultural sensitivity training, and the projection of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes • development of Programmatic Solutions for preservation, restoration, and perpetuation of the roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in O'odham culture and history Cultural (TCP) enhancement purposes to elevate O'odham knowledge and awareness of these two sites so that any negative impact on their "presence" in O'odham cultural and history-the loss of connections, or of place, in traditional culture--are addressed prior to, during, and after freeway construction, and as part of project planning. Enhancement does not address or replace requirements for data recovery pertaining to adverse effects on Villa Buena or Pueblo del Alamo with regard to their eligibility under Criterion D of the NRHP. However, through implementation • A471 A472 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION 4 of the enhancement plan proposal developed by GRIC-CRMP, it is believed that the potential for adverse effects on these two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the TCP enhancement plan proposal and that its implementation would eliminate adverse effects on Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A (Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 22, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 25, 2012). us. Deportment d 'l'cnsportclioo Federal Highway Administration January 31,2013 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ Based on the above discussion, FHWA and GRIC have agreed that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would adversely affect those characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the South Mountains TCP under Criteria A and B, and that the project would not adversely affect the characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) TCPs under Criterion A. Furthermore, FHWA has determined that a fmding of "adverse effect" for the overall project remains appropriate. Please review the information provided in this letter and the enclosed technical summary report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's determinations of project effect, NRHP eligibility, and management recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, ~Mb .f~''iarla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for Fort Mojave Indian Tribe Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Date Enclosure cc: Linda Otero, Director, Cultural Resource Management, P.O. Box 5990, 10225 S. Harbor Avenue, Mojave Valley, AZ 86440 (with enclosure) 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa .dotgov/azdiv/index.htm NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 0 IC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section I 06 Consultation Traditional Cultural Properties Mr. Keeny Escalanti, President Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe P.O. Box 1899 Yuma, Arizona 85366 Dear President Escalanti: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS and Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountains from Interstate 10 (1-10) in west Chandler to 1-10 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.4), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been performing cultural resources studies and consultations with Native American tribes to identify concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historic importance. In prior consultation, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) expressed concern regarding the effects of the project on several traditional cultural properties (TCPs). The other southern tribes, Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tohono O'odham Nation, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, have deferred to GRIC to take the lead in Section 106 consultation regarding the TCPs. In response, FHWA and ADOT have facilitated a continuing open dialogue with GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (GRICCRMP) and Tribal Historic Preservation Office (GRIC-THPO) regarding the identification and evaluation ofTCPs as they pertain to the South Mountain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, GRIC has identified five TCPs that could be affected by construction of the South Appendix 2-1 2 Mountain Freeway and has developed treatment plans to mitigate and/or eliminate potential adverse effects that could result from the undertaking. To protect confidential information associated with the TCPs, the evaluation reports and treatment plans have been provided to only SHPO and GRIC-TIIPO. Information regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of the TCPs is being provided to other consulting parties in a technical summary report entitled Traditional Cultural Property Evaluations for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (HDR 2012), which is enclosed for your review and comment. This letter provides a summary of the TCP consultation for the project. Consulting parties receiving the TCP technical summary include the Bureau of Indian Affairs and City of Phoenix, who have jurisdiction over the resources, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. During the initial Class IU survey for the project, GRIC-CRMP identified ten properties as places of cultural importance that could potentially qualify as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as TCPs: the South Mountains; two prehistoric Hohokam village sites, AZ T:l2:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo); two petroglyph sites, AZ T:l2:198 (ASM) and AZ T:12:208 (ASM); four trail sites, AZ T:l2:197 (ASM), AZ T:l2:201 (ASM), AZ T:l2:207 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:211 (ASM); and one archaeological site with a shrine, AZ T:12:112 (ASM). The report, entitled A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), was provided in prior consultation. At the request ofFHWA and ADOT, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), performed an NRHP evaluation of the ten potential TCPs. The results were provided in a report titled An Evaluation ofTraditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). To protect confidential information associated with TCPs, the report was sent to only SHPO and GRIC-TIIPO for review. Based on the results, and continuing discussion with GRIC-THPO and SHPO, FHWA determined that: • the South Mountains were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and B as a TCP • AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena), AZ T:12:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo), AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:198 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs and under Criterion D as archaeological sites • AZ T:l2:197 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:198 (ASM) were also NRHP-eligible under Criterion A as contributors to the South Mountains TCP 3 • AZ T :12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), AZ T:12:208 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:211 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites and not as TCPs SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with FHWA's eligibility determinations (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA) May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Through ongoing Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC developed options for mitigating adverse effects on the TCPs. As a result of those discussions, avoidance alternatives were developed for two of the TCPs, a petroglyph site [AZ T:12:198 (ASM)] and a shrine site [AZ T:l2:112 (ASM)]. They will now be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, there will be no direct impacts on these sites. The South Mountains TCP cannot be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, a treatment plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse effects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP was developed by GRIC-CRMP entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance ofMuhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation of Traditional Property and Adverse Effects of Transportation Corridor Development (Darling 2009). SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the South Mountain TCP mitigation plan (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRICTHO] to Petty [FHWAJ July 3, 2012). Because it may not be possible to avoid Villa Buena and/or Pueblo del Alamo during freeway construction, FHWA proposed that an alternative strategy be adopted to prevent potential adverse effects to these two sites as they pertain to Criterion A of the NRHP. At the request of FHWA, GRIC-CRMP prepared a TCP enhancement plan proposal for the two sites, entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Cultural Property Enhancement and Management Planning for Villa Buena (AZ T: 12:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:12:5~ {ASM]) (Darling and Loendorf2012), which was provided to SHPO and GRIC-THPO for rev1ew and comment. This document proposes that upon completion of the EIS review process, the TCP enhancement plan be developed and implemented, which would ensure the following: • preparation of the site(s) and people for anticipated gro~d disturbance in~l~d.e tra~ti?nal religious activities, exhibits and outreach, tribal consultation, cultural sensitiVIty trauung, and the projection of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes • development of Programmatic Solutions for preservation, restoration, and perpetuation ofthe roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in O'odham culture and history Cultural (TCP) enhancement purposes to elevate O'odham knowledge and awareness of these two sites so that any negative impact on their "presence" in O'odham cultural and history-the loss of connections, or of place, in traditional culture-are addressed prior to, during, and after freeway construction, and as part of project planning. Enhancement does not address or replace requirements for data recovery pertaining to adverse effects on Villa Buena or Pu<:blo del Al~o with regard to their eligibility under Criterion D of the NRHP. However, through unplementatlon • A473 A474 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION 4 of the enhancement plan proposal developed by GRIC-CRMP, it is believed that the potential for adverse effects on these two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the TCP enhancement plan proposal and that its implementation would eliminate adverse effects on Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A (Lewis (GRIC-THPO] to Petty (FHWA] October 22, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO) to Petty [FHWA) October 25, 2012). us.Deportment cl imsportation Federal Highway Administration January 31,2013 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ Based on the above discussion, FHWA and GRIC have agreed that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would adversely affect those characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the South Mountains TCP under Criteria A and B, and that the project would not adversely affect the characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:198 (ASM) TCPs under Criterion A. Furthermore, FHWA has determined that a finding of"adverse effect" for the overall project remains appropriate. Please review the information provided in this letter and the enclosed technical summary report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's determinations of project effect, NRHP eligibility, and management recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-7I2-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, R{kdJJJ ¥ Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Date Enclosure cc: John P. Bathke, Historic Preservation Officer (with enclosure) 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdjv/index.htm NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OIC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, DCR and EIS Continuing Section 106 Consultation Traditional~tura!Properries Mr. Don E. Watahornigie, Chairman Havasupai Tribe P.O. Box 10 Supai, Arizona 86435 Dear Chairman Watahornigie: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS and Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountains from Interstate 10 (I -1 0) in west Chandler to I-IO in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section I 06 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.4), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been performing cultural resources studies and consultations with Native American tribes to identify concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historic importance. In prior consultation, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) expressed concern regarding the effects of the project on several traditional cultural properties (TCPs). The other southern tribes, Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tohono O'od.ham Nation, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, have deferred to GRIC to take the lead in Section I 06 consultation regarding the TCPs. In response, FHWA and ADOT have facilitated a continuing open dialogue with GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (GRICCRMP) and Tribal Historic Preservation Office (GRIC-THPO) regarding the identification and evaluation ofTCPs as they pertain to the South Mountain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, GRIC has identified five TCPs that could be affected by construction of the South Appendix 2-1 2 3 Mountain Freeway and has developed treatment plans to mitigate and/or eliminate potential adverse effects that could result from the undertaking. • To protect confidential information associated with the TCPs, the evaluation reports and treatment plans have been provided to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO. Information regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of the TCPs is being provided to other consulting parties in a technical summary report entitled Traditional Cultural Property Evaluations for the 202£, SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with FHWA's eligibility determinations (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (HDR 2012), which is enclosed for your review and comment. This letter provides a summary of the TCP consultation for the project. Consulting parties receiving the TCP technical summary include the Bureau of Indian Affairs and City of Phoenix, who have jurisdiction over the resources, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odbam Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. During the initial Class III survey for the project, GRIC-CRMP identified ten properties as places of cultural importance that could potentially qualify as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as TCPs: the South Mountains; two prehistoric Hohokam village sites, AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:l2:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo); two petroglyph sites, AZ T:12:198 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:208 (ASM); four trail sites, AZ T:l2:197 (ASM), AZ T:l2:201 (ASM), AZ T:l2:207 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:21l (ASM); and one archaeological site with a shrine, AZ T: 12:112 (ASM). The report, entitled A Class Cultural m AZ T:l2:201 (ASM), AZ T:l2:207 (ASM), AZ T:l2:208 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:211 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites and not as TCPs Through ongoing Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC developed options for mitigating adverse effects on the TCPs. As a result of those discussions, avoidance alternatives were developed for two of the TCPs, a petroglyph site [AZ T:l2:198 (ASM)] and a shrine site [AZ T:l2:112 (ASM)]. They will now be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, there will be no direct impacts on these sites. The South Mountains TCP cannot be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, a treatment plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse effects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP was developed by GRIC-CRMP entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance ofMuhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation ofTradilional Property and Adverse Effects ofTransportation Corridor Development (Darling 2009). SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the South Mountain TCP mitigation plan (Jacobs [SHPOJ to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis (GRICTHO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Because it may not be possible to avoid Villa Buena and/or Pueblo del Alamo during freeway construction, FHWA proposed that an alternative strategy be adopted to prevent potential adverse effects to these two sites as they pertain to Criterion A of the NRHP. At the request of FHWA, GRIC-CRMP prepared a TCP enhancement plan proposal for the two sites, entitled Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), was provided in prior consultation. South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Cultural Property Enhancement and Management Planning for Villa Buena (AZ T: 12:9 [ASM]) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:12:52 [ASM]) (Darling and Loendorf2012), which was provided to SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review At the request of FHWA and ADOT, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), performed an NRHP evaluation of the ten potential TCPs. The results were provided in a report titled An Evaluation and comment. This document proposes that upon completion of the EIS review process, the TCP enhancement plan be developed and implemented, which would ensure the following: ofTraditional Cultural Properties for the 202£, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EJS & LIDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). To protect confidential information associated with TCPs, the report was sent to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review. Based on the results, and continuing discussion with GRIC-THPO and SHPO, FHWA determined that: • the South Mountains were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and B as a TCP • AZ T:l2:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena), AZ T:l2:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo), AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs and under Criterion D as archaeological sites • AZ T:12:197 (ASM) and AZ T:l2:198 (ASM) were also NRHP-eligible under Criterion A as contributors to the South Mountains TCP · • preparation of the site(s) and people for anticipated ground disturbance include traditional religious activities, exhibits and outreach, tribal consultation, cultural sensitivity training, and the projection of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes • development of Programmatic Solutions for preservation, restoration, and perpetuation of the roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in O'odham culture and history Cultural (TCP) enhancement purposes to elevate O'odbam knowledge and awareness of these two sites so that any negative impact on their "presence" in O'odham cultural and history-the loss of connections, or of place, in traditional culture-are addressed prior to, during, and after freeway construction, and as part of project planning. Enhancement does not address or replace requirements for data recovery pertaining to adverse effects on Villa Buena or Pueblo del Alamo with regard to their eligibility under Criterion D of the NRHP. However, through implementation • A475 A476 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DIVISION 4 of the enhancement plan proposal developed by GRIC-CRMP, it is believed that the potential for adverse effects on these two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the TCP enhancement plan proposal and that its implementation would eliminate adverse effects on Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A (Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 22, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 25, 2012). Based on the above discussion, FHWA and GRIC have agreed that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would adversely affect those characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the South Mountains TCP under Criteria A and B, and that the project would not adversely affect the characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the Villa Buena, Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:l2:112 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:198 (ASM) TCPs under Criterion A. Furthermore, FHWA has determined that a finding of"adverse effect" for the overall project remains appropriate. Please review the information provided in this letter and the enclosed technical summary report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's determinations of project effect, NRHP eligibility, and management recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. us. Department d lmsporfaffcn Federal Highway Admlnbtratlon 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm January 31,2013 1ffi~©~K\W~1ffi ill. FEB o 1 2013 Jill BY:-----~-----·· In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 0 IC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, OCR and EIS Continuing Section I06 Consultation Traditional Cultural Properties Mr. Leigh Kuwanwisiwma, Director Cultural Preservation Office Hopi Tribe P.O. Box 123 Kykotsmovi, Arizona 86039 Sincerely yours, Dear Mr. Kuwanwisiwma: ~~ The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS and Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountains from Interstate 10 (I-10) in west Chandler to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are still under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. ~ Karla S. Petty Division Administrator Signature for Havasupai Tribe Concurrence NH-202-D(ADY) Date Enclosures cc: Travis Hamidreek, Director ofNatural Resources (with enclosure) In accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.4), which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, FHWA and ADOT have been performing cultural resources studies and consultations with Native American tribes to identify concerns regarding historic properties of traditional, religious, cultural, or historic importance. In prior consultation, the Gila River Indian Community (GRIC) expressed concern regarding the effects of the project on several traditional cultural properties (TCPs). The other southern tribes, Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Tohono O'odham Nation, and the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, have deferred to GRIC to take the lead in Section 106 consultation regarding the TCPs. In response, FHWA and ADOT have facilitated a continuing open dialogue with GRIC's Cultural Resources Management Program (GRICCRMP) and Tribal Historic Preservation Office (GRIC-THPO) regarding the identification and evaluation ofTCPs as they pertain to the South Mountain Freeway project. As a result of these discussions, GRIC has identified five TCPs that could be affected by construction of the South Appendix 2-1 2 Mountain Freeway and has developed treatment plans to mitigate and/or eliminate potential adverse effects that could result from the undertaking. To protect confidential information associated with the TCPs, the evaluation reports and treatment plans have been provided to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO. Information regarding the identification, evaluation, and treatment of the TCPs is being provided to other consulting parties in a technical summary report entitled Traditional Cultural Property Evaluations for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & UDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (HDR 2012), which is enclosed for your review and comment. This letter provides a summary of the TCP con.Sultation for the project. Consulting parties receiving the TCP technical summary include the Bureau of Indian Affairs and City of Phoenix, who have jurisdiction over the resources, the Ak-Chin Indian Community, the Chemehuevi Tribe, the Cocopah Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, the Fort Mojave Tribe, the Fort Yuma-Quechan Tribe, the Havasupai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Kaibab-Paiute Tribe, the Navajo Nation, the Pascua Yaqui Tribe, the Pueblo of Zuni, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community, the San Carlos Apache Nation, the San Juan Southern Paiute, the Tohono O'odham Nation, the Tonto Apache Tribe, the White Mountain Apache Tribe, and the Yavapai-Apache Nation. During the initial Class lll survey for the project, GRIC-CRMP identified ten properties as places of cultural importance that could potentially qualify as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as TCPs: the South Mountains; two prehistoric Hohokam village sites, AZ T:12:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena) and AZ T:l2:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo); two petroglyph sites, AZ T:l2:198 (ASM) and AZ T:12:208 (ASM); four trail sites, AZ T:12:197 (ASM), AZ T:12:201 (ASM), AZ T:12:207 (ASM), and AZ T:l2:211 (ASM); and one archaeological site with a shrine, AZ T: 12:112 (ASM). The report, entitled A Class III Cultural Resource Survey ofFive Alternative Alignments in the South Mountain Freeway Corridor Study Area, Maricopa County, Arizona (Darling 2005), was provided in prior consultation. - At the request of FHWA and ADOT, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), performed an NRHP evaluation of the ten potential TCPs. The results were provided in a report titled An Evaluation of Traditional Cultural Properties for the 202L, South Mountain Transportation Corridor EIS & VDCR Project, Maricopa County, Arizona (Brodbeck 2012). To protect confidential information associated with TCPs, the report was sent to only SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review. Based on the results, and continuing discussion with GRIC-THPO and SHPO, FHWA determined that: • the South Mountains were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and B as a TCP • AZ T:I2:9 (ASM) (Villa Buena), AZ T:I2:52 (ASM) (Pueblo del Alamo), AZ T:12:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A as TCPs and under Criterion D as archaeological sites • AZ T: 12:197 (ASM) and AZ T: 12:198 (ASM) were also NRHP-eligible under Criterion A as contributors to the South Mountains TCP 3 • AZ T:l2:201 (ASM), AZ T:l2:207 (ASM), AZ T:l2:208 (ASM), and AZ T:12:211 (ASM) were eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion D as archaeological sites and not as TCPs SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with FHWA's eligibility determinations (Jacobs [SHPOJ to Petty [FHWAJ May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRIC-THPOJ to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Through ongoing Section 106 consultations, primarily through a series of discussions and meetings, FHWA, ADOT, and GRIC developed options for mitigating adverse effects on the TCPs. As a result of those discussions, avoidance alternatives were developed for two of the TCPs, a petroglyph site [AZ T:l2:198 (ASM)] and a shrine site [AZ T:12:112 (ASM)). They will now be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, there will be no direct impacts on these sites. The South Mountains TCP cannot be avoided by project alternatives; therefore, a treatment plan that presents measures to mitigate potential adverse effects of the South Mountain Freeway project on the South Mountains TCP was developed by GRIC-CRMP entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Uses and Cultural Significance ofMuhadagi Doag (South Mountain) Evaluation ofTraditional Property and Adverse Effects of Transportation Corridor Development (Darling 2009). SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the South Mountain TCP mitigation plan (Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA] May 15, 2012; Lewis [GRICTHO] to Petty [FHWA] July 3, 2012). Because it may not be possible to avoid Villa Buena and/or Pueblo del Alamo during freeway construction, FHWA proposed that an alternative strategy be adopted to prevent potential adverse effects to these two sites as they pertain to Criterion A of the NRHP. At the request of FHWA, GRIC-CRMP prepared a TCP enhancement plan proposal for the two sites, entitled South Mountain Freeway (SR 202L) Traditional Cultural Property Enhancement and Management Planning for Villa Buena (AZ T:I2:9 [ASM}) and Pueblo del Alamo (AZ T:12:52 {ASM]) (Darling and Loendorf20l2), which was provided to SHPO and GRIC-THPO for review and comment. This document proposes that upon completion of the EIS review process, the TCP enhancement plan be developed and implemented, which would ensure the following: • preparation of the site(s) and people for anticipated ground disturbance include traditional religious activities, exhibits and outreach, tribal consultation, cultural sensitivity training, and the projection of equivalent sites and sacred landscapes • development of Programmatic Solutions for preservation, restoration, and perpetuation of the roles of Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo in O'odham culture and history Cultural (TCP) enhancement purposes to elevate O'odham knowledge and awareness of these two sites so that any negative impact on their "presence" in O'odham cultural and history-the loss of connections, or of place, in traditional culture-are addressed prior to, during, and after freeway construction, and as part of project planning. Enhancement does not a4dress or replace requirements for data recovery pertaining to adverse effects on Villa Buena or Pueblo del Alamo • A477 A478 • Appendix 2-1 ARIZONA DMSION 4 us. Deportment r::J Trc:nsportatia1 with regard to their eligibility under Criterion D of the NRHP. However, through implementation of the enhancement plan proposal developed by GRIC-CRMP, it is believed that the potential for adverse effects on these two sites under Criterion A will be eliminated. SHPO and GRIC-THPO concurred with the adequacy of the TCP enhancement plan proposal and that its implementation would eliminate adverse effects on Villa Buena and Pueblo del Alamo under Criterion A (Lewis [GRIC-THPO] to Petty [FHWA] October 22, 2012; Jacobs [SHPO] to Petty [FHWA) October 25, 2012). Federal Hlghway AdmlniJtraHon January 31, 2013 In Reply Refer To: NH-202-D(ADY) HOP-AZ Based on the above discussion, FHWA and GRIC have agreed that the proposed South Mountain Freeway would adversely affect those characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the South Mountains TCP under Criteria A and B, and that the project would not adversely affect the characteristics that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the Villa Buena. Pueblo del Alamo, AZ T:l2:112 (ASM), and AZ T:12:198 (ASM) TCPs under Criterion A. Furthermore, FHWA has determined that a finding of "adverse effect" for the overall project remains appropriate. Please review the information provided in this letter and the enclosed technical summary report. If you agree with the adequacy of the report and FHWA's determinations of project effect, NRHP eligibility, and management recommendations, please indicate your concurrence by signing below. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Linda Davis at 602-712-8636 or at ldavis2@azdot.gov. Sincerely yours, roo.~ ¥ FEB 8 .. 2013 Karla S. Petty Division Administrator 4000 North Central Avenue Suite 1500 Phoenix, Arizona 85012-3500 Phone: (602) 379-3646 Fax: (602) 382-8998 http:l/www.fhwa.dot.gov/azdiv/index.htm NH-202-D(ADY) TRACS No. 202L MA 054 H5764 OlC 202L, South Mountain Freeway, OCR and EIS Continuing Section I 06 Consultation Traditional Cultural Properties Ms. Louise Benson, Chairwoman Hualapai Tribe P.O. Box 179 Peach Springs, Arizona 86434 Dear Chairwoman Benson: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Arizona Department ofTransportation (ADOT) are continuing technical studies in support of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 202L, South Mountain Freeway, EIS and Location/Design Concept Report project. The EIS addresses alternative alignments for the proposed South Mountain Freeway, which would extend around the southern side of South Mountains from Interstate 10 (1-1 0) in west Chandler to I-1 0 in west Phoenix. The project would be built entirely on new right-of-way (ROW). As this project employs federal funds, it is considered an undertaking subject to Section 106 review. Because alternatives are stiU under development, land ownership of the project area is not yet known. lor.... 'y( ",',(>I)C.\UX'.c t I.OV"