CENTRAL MESA LRT EXTENSION DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT February 2010 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE CENTRAL MESA LRT EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Prepared for Valley Metro Rail, Inc. 101 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 1300 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Prepared by Mark Brodbeck, MA RPA HDR Engineering, Inc. 3200 East Camelback Road, Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018 HDR Cultural Resources Report 09-22 Restricted Distribution To avoid vandalism, restrict information in this report about the location of archaeological sites, as provided for by Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 9(a) of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and Section 39-125 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. February 12, 2010 Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment ii February 12, 2010 Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................ 1.1 Study Background .......................................................................... 1.2 Build Alternative ............................................................................. 1.2.1 Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option ........................................... 1.2.2 Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option ........................................... 1.2.3 Unresolved Issues ................................................................ 1 1 2 6 6 6 2.0 Regulatory Context ............................................................................ 12 3.0 Historic Context ................................................................................. 13 4.0 Previous Research ............................................................................. 14 5.0 Archaeological Survey....................................................................... 16 6.0 Traditional Cultural Resources ......................................................... 17 7.0 Summary ............................................................................................. 17 8.0 References .......................................................................................... 19 9.0 Appendix A: Consultation Letters .................................................... 20 10.0 Appendix B: Class III Archaeological Survey Report...................... 31 Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment iii February 12, 2010 Figures Page Figure 1. Central Mesa Study Area .............................................................. 1 Figure 2. Locally Preferred Alternative ......................................................... 3 Figure 3. Build Alternative, Sycamore to Country Club Drive ....................... 7 Figure 4. Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option Country Club to Hobson ............ 9 Figure 5. Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option County Club Drive to Hobson .... 11 Tables Page Table 1. LRT Operating Plans ...................................................................... 3 Table 2. Stations, Transit Centers, and Park-and-rides................................ 5 Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment iv February 12, 2010 1.0 INTRODUCTION This archaeological assessment technical report is being prepared to support the Environmental Assessment (EA) for high capacity transit improvements being considered in the study area for the Central Mesa Light Rail Transit (LRT) Extension. This report begins with a short background of the study and a description of the alternatives being considered in the EA, and then follows with a review of the archaeological record checks, literature reviews, and field survey conducted for the project, and concludes with a summary of potential project effects for the build alternative. 1.1 STUDY BACKGROUND The Central Mesa LRT Extension study area is bounded on the west by the Light Rail Starter Line’s eastern terminus at Sycamore/Main Street; University Drive to the north; Power Road to the east; and the Superstition Freeway (U.S. 60) on the south (Figure 1). FIGURE 1: CENTRAL MESA STUDY AREA Source: METRO (2009). A two-tiered alternatives development process was implemented to evaluate the Central Mesa Study Area conceptual alternatives. The first phase (Tier 1) included a conceptual level evaluation that analyzed the advantages and disadvantages of the initial list of potential alternatives to address the transportation needs of the study area (see separate Tier 1 Evaluation of Alternatives Report, October 2007, for more information). The initial alternatives considered both LRT and bus rapid transit (BRT) modes. Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 1 February 12, 2010 All alternatives began at the eastern terminus of the recently opened LRT Starter Line Station at Sycamore/Main Street and extended east to the Superstition Springs Center area via Main Street (with 1st Street and 1st Avenue suboptions downtown) and Power Road. Fixed guideway (via LRT or BRT) generally extended east to about Horne (between Mesa and Stapley Drives) with BRT offering limited stop express service further east in existing travel lanes (similar to Valley Metro Link) to Superstition Springs Center. LRT consisted of a dedicated fixed guideway with two tracks (one track in each direction) that ran mostly in the middle of the existing street system. BRT also had a dedicated fixed guideway for a portion of the project as previously mentioned. The initial alternatives were subject to a “fatal flaw’ screening at the Tier 1 phase; the most feasible alternatives were identified and retained for further analysis, and the alternatives deemed unresponsive to Tier 1 evaluation criteria were eliminated from continued study. The alternatives that remained after the Tier 1 analysis and public, agency, and other stakeholder input were then subjected to a more detailed evaluation (Tier 2). The Tier 2 evaluation continued to consider both LRT and BRT build alternatives. The criteria developed to analyze all of the build alternatives in Tier 2 began to quantify ridership potential, capital and operating and maintenance costs, land use and economic development impacts, traffic issues, environmental factors, conceptual engineering, and public preferences. See the complete Tier 2 Evaluation of Alternatives Report, December 2008, which defines the Tier 2 alternatives considered and details the results of the evaluation. Based on the results of the Tier 2 evaluation, public meetings, and agency and other stakeholder input, the recommended build alternative is to advance LRT as the preferred technology and Main Street as the preferred alignment. The locally preferred alternative (LPA) includes a light rail extension on Main Street east to an interim end-ofthe-line near Mesa Drive as Phase 1. See the complete Recommended Alternative Report, Draft June 2009 for discussion of the rationale for selection of the LPA. The Phase 1 project is scheduled to begin operations in 2016 and is the major focus of the EA being prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The NoBuild Alternative will also continue to be considered as specified by NEPA. The Phase 1 project connects logical termini and has independent utility meaning that the project is a reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements are made in the area. 1.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE The LRT Main Street Alternative was selected as the recommended LPA for more detailed analysis in the EA. This LPA recommendation was approved by the City of Mesa City Council (May 2009) and the METRO Board of Directors (June 2009). The LPA has two design options for Main Street in the area east of Country Club Drive: 1) 2 Lanes; and 2) 4 Lanes. The design options are described at the end of this discussion. Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 2 February 12, 2010 Whether to implement the Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option or the Build Alternative, 4Lane Option will be decided after completion of a series of public workshops, the Draft EA, and receipt of input during the Draft EA public comment period. The Build Alternative, or LPA, is shown in Figure 2. The Build Alternative includes a double-track LRT guideway that would operate along the middle of Main Street from just east of Sycamore to just east of Mesa Drive, a distance of 3.1 miles. LRT is electrically powered and receives its power from overhead power lines within the street right-ofway. LRT operations would include a traffic signal priority system (predictive priority), to allow for faster travel times. The light rail vehicles will be the same as the ones currently being used for the LRT Starter Line. Major operating plan features are listed in Table 1. TABLE 1: LRT OPERATING PLANS Headways All day except late evening: 10 minutes Late evening: 20 minutes 6 – Central Mesa LRT Extension 50 – LRT Starter Line and Northwest LRT 56 – Total fleet 2,700 passengers per peak hour per direction (Based on 3 vehicles per train and 150 passengers/vehicle) Daily = ~20 hours Number of Vehicles Line-haul Capacity Hours of Operation FIGURE 2: LOCALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 3 February 12, 2010 This alternative is an extension of the LRT Starter Line that opened in December 2008 and would provide a seamless connection (no transfer required) from the current eastern terminus of the LRT Starter Line at Sycamore and continues east to just east of Mesa Drive. Tail tracks would continue east of the station platform to a point approximately 425 feet east of Hobson. East of Mesa Drive to Superstition Springs Center (near Power Road/US 60), the existing Valley Metro LINK BRT would connect to LRT and operate in mixed traffic as it does today as a skip-stop express service. As a result of the Build Alternative, Valley Metro LINK BRT service would be discontinued along Main Street between Sycamore and Mesa Drive to eliminate service duplication, and its operational frequency in the offpeak will increase from 30 to 15 minutes. However, service during peak periods will remain the same as today (15 minutes). Other than that, no other changes to the LINK operations or facilities will be necessary for the Phase 1 LRT extension being evaluated in the EA. LRT stations/LINK BRT stops, bus interface locations, and park-and-ride locations are identified in Table 2. A new bus interface location would be constructed by the City of Mesa as part of a separate project in the downtown area. A new parkand-ride facility would be built near the end-of-line LRT station at Mesa Drive. The facility would encompass two sites at the Main Street/Lesueur intersection: 1) northwest quadrant; and 2) southwest quadrant. Also recommended as funding becomes available is a future (Phase 2) extension of LRT to Gilbert Road. This extension would provide enhanced regional transit connections and opportunity for a larger regional park-and-ride facility. At this time, Phase 2 is not identified in the MAG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and is not evaluated in the EA. However, the Phase 2 recommendation has been forwarded to MAG and has been identified as an “illustrative project” for inclusion in the RTP. Should the Phase 2 project move forward, it will be subject to NEPA compliance. Construction of the Build Alternative would include installation of trackwork, an overhead contact system (OCS) for the distribution of electricity to LRT vehicles, traction power substations, and signaling and communication systems. The LRT transit way would consist of tracks formed of continuously welded rails. The rails would be embedded track supported on a concrete slab. The depth of construction disturbance along the track corridors would be 2.5 feet deep. The OCS would consist of steel or concrete poles installed along the operating right-ofway to support the electrical power line. Poles would be about 25 feet tall and typically installed at intervals from 90 to 170 feet. The OCS would be designed to be compatible with visual and aesthetic characteristics of the corridor. The poles would generally be located in the center of the two tracks, wherever possible. In some locations, catenary poles may be located on the side of the LRT trackway with the overhead electrical line suspended over the LRT tracks. Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 4 February 12, 2010 Electricity for LRT operations would be supplied to the OCS from traction power substations (TPSS) located along the proposed LRT alignment. These electrical substations would be enclosed structures approximately 20-by-40 feet (30-by-60 feet including the grounding mat around the substation) located proximally to the LRT alignment. One TPSS would be required for roughly each mile of track. Specific locations will be determined as design is further refined. TABLE 2: STATIONS, TRANSIT CENTERS, AND PARK-AND-RIDES Station/Stop LRT Facilities (Stations) Sycamore/Main St. (LRT Starter Line End-of-Line Station) Alma School/Main St. Type of Station Regional Park-andRide Bus Interface Yes Yes Location/ Platform Configuration East of intersection Center platform Facility not attributable to LRT extension Community No No West of intersection Center platform Country Club/Main St. Regional No No East of intersection center platform Centennial/Main St. Community No Yes West/east of intersection center platform Bus Facility is a separate project and is not attributable to LRT extension Mesa/Main St. Community Yes No Station—East of intersection Station—Center platform Park-and-Ride—2 sites (northwest and southwest quadrants of Lesueur/Main intersection) Valley Metro Link BRT Facilities (Existing Stops—Facilities not attributable to LRT extension) Stapley/Main St.1 Neighborhood No No East of intersection Gilbert/Main St.1 Neighborhood No No West/east of intersection Lindsay/Main St.1 Neighborhood No No East of intersection Val Vista/Main St.1 Neighborhood No No West/east of intersection Greenfield/Main St.1 Neighborhood No No West/east of intersection Higley/Main St.1 Neighborhood No No East of intersection Recker/Main St.1 Neighborhood No No West/east of intersection Power/Main St.1 Community No No West of intersection Broadway/Power1 Community No No North of intersection Regional Yes Yes North of intersection U.S. 60/Power (Superstition 1 Springs Center) 1Station locations as part of existing Valley Metro LINK BRT project. Station locations and amenities would remain. Source: METRO (2009). LRT vehicles for the Central Mesa LRT Extension would be maintained and serviced at the existing LRT Starter Line Operations and Maintenance Center (OMC), located south of Washington Street between State Route (SR) 143 and Loop 202. The OMC will have sufficient capacity to service LRT vehicles allocated to the Central Mesa LRT Extension, and no additional facility will be required. The existing traffic lane capacity along Main Street would be maintained between Sycamore and Country Club Drive. Typical cross sections are presented in Figure 3. For the segment east of Country Club Drive to the LRT eastern terminus near Mesa Drive, two design options are being considered: Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 5 February 12, 2010 • • Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option These design options are further described below. 1.2.1 Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option Main Street’s traffic lane capacity would be reduced from two lanes in each direction to one lane in each direction from Country Club Drive to Hobson. Acquisition of additional right-of-way along the alignment would be minimal to accommodate the proposed project as a result of the reduction of travel lanes. Typical cross sections at various locations along the Build Alternative, 2-Lane Option are shown in Figure 4. All of the stations, park-and-ride, and bus interface facility locations are shown in Table 2. 1.2.2 Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option Main Street’s traffic lane capacity would be maintained from Country Club Drive to Hobson. Acquisition of additional right-of-way would be required to accommodate the proposed project as a result of maintaining the existing numbers of lanes. Typical cross sections at various locations along the Build Alternative, 4-Lane Option are shown in Figure 5. All of the stations, park-and-ride, and bus interface facility locations are as illustrated in Table 2. 1.2.3 Unresolved Issues Several issues remain to be decided and will be further considered as the EA proceeds and community outreach continues. In addition to the previously discussed optional traffic design configurations downtown, decisions will need to be made about the following: • • • • • • • • • • • On-street parking Bicycle facilities TPSS location OCS Left turn requirements Pedestrian access points Park-and-ride sizing, layout and capacity Station design Urban design/public art Refinement of utilities and location Construction staging Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 6 February 12, 2010 FIGURE 3: BUILD ALTERNATIVE, SYCAMORE TO COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 7 February 12, 2010 Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 8 February 12, 2010 FIGURE 4: BUILD ALTERNATIVE, 2-LANE OPTION COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE TO HOBSON Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 9 February 12, 2010 Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 10 February 12, 2010 FIGURE 5: BUILD ALTERNATIVE, 4-LANE OPTION COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE TO HOBSON Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 11 February 12, 2010 2.0 Regulatory Context The area of potential effects (APE) for the assessment of potential direct and indirect impacts to cultural resources by the project is defined as the alternative routes and adjacent parcels of property (identified by County Assessor maps) (Rogge et al 2007; Erickson et al. 2008). Cultural resources generally include archaeological sites, historic buildings and structures, artifacts, and places of traditional, religious, and cultural significance. An “historic property” refers to cultural resources that are included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). This technical report addresses archaeological resources that could potentially be affected by the project. The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other parties with a demonstrated interest a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Regulations for Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800) implement Section 106 of the NHPA. These regulations define a process for responsible federal agencies to consult with the State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (S/THPO), Native American groups, other interested parties such as the City of Mesa Historic Preservation Officer, and when necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) to ensure that historic properties are duly considered as federal projects are planned and implemented. FTA is the lead federal agency responsible for Section 106 compliance for the Central Mesa LRT Extension Project. On behalf of FTA, METRO is coordinating the Section 106 compliance activities (Appendix A). To be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register, cultural resource properties must be important in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. In addition, properties must possess integrity of location, design, settings, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet at least one of four criteria: Criterion A: be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history Criterion B: be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction Criterion D: have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 12 February 12, 2010 Properties may be of local, state, or national importance. Typically, historic properties are at least 50 years old, but younger properties may be considered for listing if they are of exceptional importance. 3.0 Historic Context To evaluate the historical significance of cultural resources and their eligibility for inclusion on the National Register, a site or property must be understood within an appropriate interpretive context. The National Park Service (NPS) provides guidance regarding significance and eligibility which is based on the application of historic context: To qualify for the National Register, a property must be significant; that is, it must represent a significant part of history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture of an area, and it must have the characteristics that make it a good representative of properties associated with that aspect of the past. The significance of a historic property can be judged and explained only when it is evaluated within its historic context. Historic contexts are those patterns, themes, or trends in history by which a specific occurrence, property, or site is understood and its meaning (and ultimately its significance) within prehistory or history is made clear (NPS 1990). Historic contexts are established by theme, time period, and geographic limits and provide guidance for assessing sites associated with the context. The historic context for prehistoric and historic archaeological resources was developed as part of the initial cultural resources records and literature review and therefore is not reproduced in this document (Erickson et al. 2007:7-11). In brief, the context defines four main archaeological time periods which represent the major trends of cultural development for the region: the Paleo Indian Period, the Archaic Period, Formative Period, and the Historic Period. The Paleo-Indian Period (10,000– 8,000 B.C.) represents the earliest evidence of human occupation in south-central Arizona and was characterized by small groups of highly mobile hunter and gatherers whose subsistence was partially derived from hunting now extinct large game and wild plant foods. Following climatic changes at the end of the Pleistocene epoch, when warmer, more arid conditions prevailed, the Archaic period (about 8,000 B.C. to A.D. 150) was characterized by the development of more regionally diverse subsistence economies with small, mobile bands of hunter-gatherers foraging within seasonal rounds and exploiting wild foodstuffs and smaller animals such as deer and rabbits. In some locations, evidence of increased reliance on agriculture and sedentism occurs toward the end of the Archaic Period, ca. 1500 B.C.–A.D. 150. Where evidence of the Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 13 February 12, 2010 agricultural trend has been found, such as in the Tucson Basin, this period is now thought of as the Early Agricultural period rather than the Late Archaic period. The Formative period (about A.D. 150-1450) is characterized by sedentism, agricultural intensification, and the emergence of the Hohokam cultural tradition. The Hohokam culture was distinguished by the development of hierarchical settlement systems, largescale irrigation agriculture, production of red-on-buff pottery, highly stylized artifacts made of shell, stone, and bone, wide-ranging trade networks, a highly developed burial ritual involving cremations, and the development of public architecture that included ball courts and platform mounds. Finally, the Historic Period begins with the arrival of Europeans in the seventeenth century and ends with the post-World War II trends of urban development that shaped the Central Mesa Extension LRT Study Area. It is generally assumed that the Akimel O’odham (Pima) and Tohono O’odham (Papago), who were living in south-central Arizona when Europeans first arrived, are the descendants of the Hohokam. Other groups such as the semi-nomadic Western Apache and Yavapai tribes occupied areas north and east of the Salt River Basin, but the full extent of their settlement-subsistence range is unknown. The Historic Period is marked by dramatic cultural change for indigenous peoples, the settlement of Arizona, and the emergence of the Phoenix metropolitan area, which includes the City of Mesa. For a complete discussion of the prehistoric and historic cultural contexts used for the study see Erickson et al. 2007:711. 4.0 Previous Research Initially, a cultural resource records and literature review was prepared for the project which provided the base data for the subsequent Tier 1 and Tier 2 alternatives screenings (Erickson et al. 2007). The Study Area for the review covered east-west from Sycamore Street to Power Road and north-south from University Drive to the Superstition Freeway (US 60). The review included a search on the AZSITE online data base and record checks at the SHPO, Arizona State Museum (ASM), Mesa Historic Preservation Office, Arizona Museum of Natural History, and selected reports. In addition, General Land Office plats were reviewed for indications of potential unrecorded historical resources. A series of 1961 aerial photographs on file at the Mesa Public Library and 1969 Landiscor aerial photographs also were reviewed and compared with current aerial photographs to identify buildings and subdivisions constructed during the historic period. The records check identified 9 previously documented archaeological sites and 50 previous cultural resource studies (Erickson et al. 2007). The prior projects included 33 surveys for wireless telecommunications facilities, 7 surveys for residential and commercial developments, 4 surveys for fiber-optic line installation projects, 2 surveys along Salt River Project (SRP) canals, and two testing projects at site AZ U:9:150 Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 14 February 12, 2010 (ASM), also known as the Turney 8 site. Seven of the sites were remnants of large Hohokam village sites that were recorded decades before the area was developed. The other two sites were investigated more recently. None of the known archaeological sites are directly within the selected Build Alternative APE. One of the previously documented archaeological sites is in close proximity, however. AZ U:9:150 (ASM), also known as Turney 8, is located on the south side of Main Street between Sycamore Drive and Alma School Road. The property was originally developed for agriculture and was part of the University of Arizona Experimental Farm. Recently, the campus for the East Valley Institute of Technology was constructed on the site. Erickson et al. (2007:21) described the prior work at the site: Testing was conducted at site AZ U:9:150(ASM), which was at the location of a village that Turney (1929) had mapped decades earlier and is now known as Turney 8. However, instead of the remnants of a village, the testing found only nine ambiguous features and recovered fewer than 100 Hohokam and early twentieth-century artifacts (DeMaagd et al. 1996). No further investigations were conducted at the site before the parcel was sold and subsequently redeveloped as the East Valley Institute of Technology. Subsequent testing in conjunction with a new building on the campus of the institute found no buried archaeological deposits (Jerry Howard, Curator of Anthropology, Arizona Museum of Natural History, personal communication, September 2007). Based on the results of the prior testing at AZ U:9:150 (ASM), there is no evidence to suggest significant archaeological deposits exist along Main Street north of the site. Therefore, archaeological testing within the Build Alternative adjacent to the site should not be warranted. Following the records and literature review, a Tier 1 alternative screening was conducted (Rogge et al. 2007). The Tier 1 assessment qualitatively compared alternatives with respect to resources within the APE of the Tier 1 alternatives, which were limited to the Mesa Town Center (or Segment 2 of the project between Country Club Drive and Horne). The evaluation was the first step in evaluating unrecorded historic-age buildings and structures that might be eligible for the National Register. That first step involved preliminary evaluation of historic integrity to identify those historic-age properties that were so highly modified that they would not be eligible for the National Register. The Tier 1 study included considerations of alternative impacts to archaeological resources. The study concluded that the alternatives were likely to have no more than limited impacts on archaeological resources, if any (Rogge 2007:25). Tier 2 screening involved a comparison of potential impacts to cultural resources between alternatives (Erickson et al. 2008). The goal of the Tier 2 study was to compare the alternatives quantitatively with respect to potentially adverse effects on significant archaeological, historical, and traditional cultural resources. The analysis used Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 15 February 12, 2010 information compiled during the records and literature review (Erickson et al. 2007) and Tier 1 evaluation (Rogge et al. 2007), as well as additional evaluation of unrecorded historic-age buildings (Erickson et al 2008:4). For archaeological resources, the study noted that all the alternatives had potential for encountering segments of prehistoric canals that were part of Canal System 11 as documented by Turney (1929). Only one of the alternatives impacted a known archaeological site, the First Street option which passed through the Casa Alma site. The First Street option was eliminated from further consideration following the Tier 2 screening. Furthermore, the study found that the alternative which would ultimately be carried forward to the EA as the selected Build Alternative, or LPA, did not impact any known archaeological sites. In the end, the alternative analysis concluded that the potential impact on archaeological resources would be relatively minor, and that because there is good potential for satisfactory mitigation of those impacts, archaeological considerations were not a crucial factor is selecting a locally preferred alternative (Erickson et al. 2008:28). 5.0 Archaeological Survey The Central Mesa LRT Extension project area is a developed urban setting covered by pavement, buildings, and landscaping. As a result, archaeological survey was not possible for most of the project area. An attempt was made, however, to survey the two proposed park-and-ride locations on the northwest and southwest corners of Main Street and Lesueur Street which consisted of vacant lots. The results were reported in A Class III Archaeological Survey for Two Proposed Park-And-Ride Locations for the Central Mesa LRT Extension Environmental Assessment (Brodbeck 2009). The report is included as Appendix B. The park-and-ride lot on the southwest corner of the intersection was made up of fourteen property parcels. A series of 1940s-era commercial buildings once sat on the north side of the lot facing Main Street and a 1940s-era residence located on the south side of the lot faced Lesueur Street (Brodbeck 2009). All the buildings were razed within the last few years. The lot was recently bladed and covered with a fresh layer of decomposed granite, which prevented inspection of the ground surface and precluded any type of archaeological survey. The park-and-ride lot on the northwest corner was surveyed. It was made up of four property parcels. The lot had two residences on it in the early 1900s, and then the Utahna Motel and a commercial building from the 1940s through the 1980s. The properties were razed in the early 1990s. No archaeological sites were identified by the survey. A few remnant concrete foundations and patches of asphalt were observed. These remnant architectural features were not considered historically significant resources and were recommended as not eligible for listing on the National Register. Based on the results of the survey, a recommendation that a finding of “no historic properties affected” was appropriate for the development of the park-and-ride facilities (Brodbeck 2009). Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 16 February 12, 2010 6.0 Traditional Cultural Resources METRO initiated Section 106 consultations with potentially interested American Indian tribes by sending a letter on 10 August 2007. The letters provided information about the project, requested information about places and resources that might have traditional cultural values for their communities, and solicited comments about any concerns the tribes might have about the project. METRO contacted the Ak-Chin Indian Community, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, Gila River Indian Community, Hopi Tribe, and Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community. METRO also contacted the Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona to determine if the Council wanted to participate in the Section 106 consultations. To date, only the Ak-Chin Indian Community and the Hopi Tribe have responded (Appendix B). The Ak-Chin Indian Community indicated that they defer to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community to review and comment on the project. The Hopi Tribe indicated that they do have traditional cultural affiliations with the project area, but do not want to be a participating agency in the environmental review process. They did request to be consulted if the studies indicate that prehistoric cultural resources would be affected adversely and asked that copies of the cultural resource survey report and draft treatment plan be forwarded to them for review. Tribes often consider it inappropriate to divulge information about some cultural traditions to non-tribal members, and only limited inventory information about traditional cultural resources is available. No specific traditional cultural resources have yet been identified within the study area, but it is known that all of the tribes with traditional cultural affiliation with the project area have concerns about the treatment of human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony that might be buried in archaeological sites within the area of potential effects. 7.0 Summary This report presents the results of the archaeological assessment for the Central Mesa LTR Extension EA. The project area is a developed urban setting, and as a result, archaeological survey was not possible for the most part. The proposed park-and-ride location on the northwest corner of Main Street and Lesueur Street was surveyed and no archaeological sites or historically significant resources were observed. The parkand-ride lot on the southwest corner of Main Street and Lesueur Street could not be surveyed due to gravel and landscaping. A review of past archaeological studies in the area indicated that a few large Hohokam village sites had been documented in the vicinity prior to development in Mesa and that the several prehistoric canals were observed crossing through the project area. The current condition and precise location of the canals are unknown. Excavations in the Phoenix Basin have demonstrated that there is potential for deeply buried intact prehistoric features and deposits preserved below the old plow zones and layers of modern development. Nevertheless, if archaeological sites are unexpectedly encountered during the project, any negative Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 17 February 12, 2010 impacts could be mitigated through data recovery excavations. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the project would result in significant impacts to archaeological resources. Based on the results the records check, field survey, and Native American consultations, there is not sufficient direct evidence of known archaeological sites in the project area to warrant archaeological monitoring during construction. Furthermore, the depth of construction disturbance along the track corridors would only be about 2.5 feet deep, therefore observations of subsurface exposures would be limited. Should unanticipated buried cultural resources be discovered during construction, including prehistoric canals, activities should cease immediately until a qualified archaeologist can be contacted to make an assessment for the proper treatment of those resources. If human remains or associated funerary objects are discovered, the Arizona State Museum must be notified as required by A.R.S. Section 41-865. Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 18 February 12, 2010 8.0 References Brodbeck, Mark 2009 A Class III Archaeological Survey for Two Proposed Park-and-Ride Locations for the Central Mesa LRT Extension Environmental Assessment. HDR Cultural Resource Report 09-20. HDR Engineering, Inc., Phoenix. DeMaagd, Holly, Teresa L. Hoffman, Karolyn Jackman Jensen, and John Rapp 1996 Results of Testing at the University of Arizona Experimental Farm, Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona. Project 95-49A. Archaeological Consulting Services, Tempe. Erickson, Kirsten, A.E. (Gene) Rogge, and Don W. Ryden 2007 Central Mesa Corridor High Capacity Transit Improvements Project: Cultural Resource Records and Literature Review. URS Cultural Resource Report 200758(AZ). URS Corporation, Phoenix. 2008 Central Mesa Alternatives Analysis/Environmental Impact Statement: Cultural Resources Analysis of Tier 2 High Capacity Transit Alternatives. URS Cultural Resource Report 2007-65(AZ). URS Corporation, Phoenix. National Park Service [NPS] 1990 How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. National Register Bulletin 15. Revised for the Internet 2002. National Park Service, United State Department of the Interior, Washing D.C. Rogge, A.E. (Gene), Kirsten Erickson, and Don W. Ryden 2007 Central Mesa Corridor High Capacity Transit Improvements Project: Cultural Resources Tier 1 Alternatives Analysis Technical Memorandum (draft). Valley Metro Rail, Phoenix Turney, Omar A. 1929 Prehistoric Irrigation in Arizona. Arizona State Historian, Phoenix. Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 19 February 12, 2010 9.0 Appendix A: Consultation Letters Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 20 February 12, 2010 9.0 Appendix B: Class III Archaeological Survey Report Central Mesa LRT Extension Archaeological Assessment 31 February 12, 2010 A CLASS III ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY FOR TWO PROPOSED PARK-AND-RIDE LOCATIONS FOR THE CENTRAL MESA LRT EXTENSION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Prepared for Valley Metro Rail, Inc. 101 N. 1st Avenue, Suite 1300 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Prepared by Mark Brodbeck, MA RPA HDR Engineering, Inc. 3200 East Camelback Road, Suite 350 Phoenix, AZ 85018 HDR Cultural Resources Report 09-20 Restricted Distribution To avoid vandalism, restrict information in this report about the location of archaeological sites, as provided for by Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 9(a) of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and Section 39-125 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. November 2009 Contents Page Abstract ........................................................................................................ v Introduction .................................................................................................. 1 Location ....................................................................................................... 1 Regulatory Context ...................................................................................... 4 Previous Research ....................................................................................... 5 Survey Methods ........................................................................................... 11 Survey Results ............................................................................................. 13 Summary...................................................................................................... 16 References................................................................................................... 18 Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report iii November 16, 2009 Figures Figure 1. Project area .................................................................................. 2 Figure 2. Survey area .................................................................................. 3 Figure 3. Sanborn maps .............................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Park-and-ride lot north of Main Street, 1949 aerial photograph .... 9 Figure 5. Park-and-ride lot north of Main Street, 2001 aerial photograph .... 9 Figure 6. Park-and-ride lot north of Main Street, 2002 aerial photograph .... 10 Figure 7. Utahna Motel, 1950s postcard ...................................................... 10 Figure 8. Park-and-ride lot south of Main Street, 1949 aerial photograph .... 12 Figure 9. Park-and-ride lot south of Main Street, 2009 aerial photograph .... 12 Figure 10. Park-and-ride lot south of Main Street ........................................ 13 Figure 11. Park-and-ride lot north of Main Street ......................................... 14 Figure 12. Utahna Motel, remnant concrete foundations ............................ 14 Figure 13. Utahna Motel, asphalt driveway and concrete pad ..................... 15 Figure 14. Commercial building foundation on north side of Main Street ..... 15 Figure 15. Utahna Motel, palm trees at corner of Main Street and Lesueur Street ............................................................................ 16 List of Tables Table 1. Property parcels surveyed ............................................................. 4 Table 2. Previous projects............................................................................ 6 Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report iv November 16, 2009 Abstract Agencies: Federal Transit Administration State Historic Preservation Office Mesa City Historic Preservation Office Valley Metro Rail, Inc. (METRO) Report Title: A Class IIII Archaeological Survey of Two Proposed Park-and-Ride Locations for the Central Mesa LRT Extension Environmental Assessment. November 2009 Report Date: November 16, 2009 Project Numbers: HDR Project Number 62139 Permit: Arizona State Antiquities Act Permit No. 2009-047bl Location: The proposed park-and-ride lots are located on the northwestern and southwestern corners of the intersection of Main Street and Lesueur Street in Mesa, Maricopa County. The parcels surveyed are in the NW¼ and SW¼ of Section 23, Township 1 North, Range 5 East (Mesa, AZ United States Geological Survey [USGS] 7.5' topographic quadrangle; Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian). Jurisdiction: Private Project Description: METRO implemented a two-tiered alternatives development process to evaluate the Central Mesa Study Area conceptual alternatives for the extension of the transit systems into downtown Mesa and into the eastern part of the city. Based on the results of the alternatives evaluation process, public meetings, and agency and other stakeholder input, the recommended build alternative is to advance light rail transit as the preferred technology and Main Street as the preferred alignment. The locally preferred alternative (LPA) includes a light rail extension on Main Street east to an interim end-of-theline near Mesa Drive as Phase 1. The Phase 1 project is scheduled to begin operations in 2016 and is the major focus of the Environmental Assessment being prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As part of the planning process, two potential locations for park-and-ride facilities have been proposed in downtown Mesa at the intersection of Main Street and Lesueur Street. This report presents the results of an archaeological survey of the Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report v November 16, 2009 two proposed park-and-ride locations in compliance with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Arizona Antiquities Act, Arizona Historic Preservation Act, and the City of Mesa Historic Preservation Ordinance. Project Funding: Federal Acres Surveyed: 4.8 acres Number of Sites: 0 Management Recommendations: No archaeological sites were identified during the survey. The proposed location on the southern side of Main Street was covered with a layer of decomposed granite, which precluded inspection of the ground surface. A few motel building foundations and driveway remnants were documented in the park-and-ride lot on the northern side of Main Street. The motel remnants are not historically significant resources and are recommended as not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Given the results of the survey, it is recommended that a finding of “no historic properties affected” would be appropriate for the development of a park-and-ride facility at either location. However, should unanticipated buried cultural resources be discovered during construction, activities should cease immediately until a qualified archaeologist can be contacted to make an assessment for the proper treatment of those resources. If human remains or associated funerary objects are discovered, the Arizona State Museum must be notified as required by Arizona Revised Statutes Section 41-865. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report vi November 16, 2009 Introduction Valley Metro Rail, Inc. (METRO) implemented a two-tiered alternatives development process to evaluate the Central Mesa Study Area conceptual alternatives for the extension of the transit systems into downtown Mesa and into the eastern part of the city. Based on the results of the alternatives evaluation process, public meetings, and agency and other stakeholder input, the locally preferred alternative (LPA) is light rail transit as the preferred technology and Main Street as the preferred alignment. The LPA includes a light rail extension on Main Street east to an interim end-of-the-line near Mesa Drive as Phase 1. The Phase 1 project is scheduled to begin operations in 2016 and is the major focus of the Environmental Assessment being prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As part of the planning process, two potential locations for park-and-ride facilities have been proposed in downtown Mesa at the intersection of Main Street and Lesueur Street. The project is using federal funds administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and, therefore, qualifies as an undertaking subject to Section 106 review under the National Historic Preservation Act (16 United States Code [U.S.C.] 470). On behalf of FTA, METRO is coordinating Section 106 compliance activities for the project. At the request of METRO, HDR Engineering, Inc. (HDR), conducted a Class III archaeological survey of the two proposed park-and-ride lots to determine whether significant archaeological resources are present that could potentially be affected by the undertaking. HDR conducted the survey on October 21, 2009. The work was authorized under Arizona State Antiquities Act Permit No. 2009-047bl. This report presents the results of the archaeological survey and provides management recommendations. Location The proposed park-and-ride lots are located on the northwestern and southwestern corners of the intersection of Main Street and Lesueur Street in Mesa, Maricopa County (Figures 1 and 2). The Temple Historic District is located immediately south of the proposed park-and-ride lot south of Main Street, and the Mormon Temple is to the east across Lesueur Street. Pioneer Park is east of the proposed park-and-ride lot on the northern side of Main Street, with a mix of historic and modern commercial and residential development to the north and west. The parcels surveyed are in the NW¼ and SW¼ of Section 23, Township 1 North, Range 5 East (Mesa, AZ United States Geological Survey [USGS] 7.5' topographic quadrangle; Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian). The proposed park-and-ride lot on the northwestern corner of Main Street and Lesueur Street includes four property parcels, totaling 2.6 acres. The proposed park-and-ride lot on the southwestern side of the intersection is made up of 14 property parcels, totaling 2.2 acres. A summary of the property parcels is provided in Table 1. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 1 November 16, 2009 Brown Rd 8th St University Dr File: E:\Projects\AZ\METRO\Central_Mesa_Ext\map_docs\mxd\Cult_ProjArea.mxd Main St Broadway Rd 8th Ave 0 0 1,000 250 2,000 feet 500 0 Stapley Dr Horne St Mesa Dr Country Club Dr Center St Southern Ave Figure 1. Project area 1,000 meters 0.5 1:24,000 Base: USGS 7.5’ Quadrangle; Mesa, AZ (1982) Project area 1 mile File: E:\Projects\AZ\METRO\Central_Mesa_Ext\map_docs\mxd\Cult_SurvArea.mxd Main Street Lesueur Street Mesa Drive Pioneer Park DigitalGlobe 2008-04-01 Figure 2. Survey area Project area 0 0 250 50 500 feet 100 200 meters The park-and-ride lot on the northern side of Main Street had two residences in the early 1900s and then a motel and commercial building from the 1940s to the 1980s. The motel and store were razed in the early 1990s. The lot is now a vacant lot. The parkand-ride lot on the southern side had a series of 1940s-era commercial buildings facing Main Street and a single late-1940s residential house at 30 S. Lesueur Street. The buildings were recently razed. The property is now a vacant lot covered with a recently deposited layer of decomposed granite. Table 1. Property parcels surveyed Parcel Number North side of Main Street 138-26-013 138-26-016A 138-26-010A 138-26-010B Address 456 E. Main Street None None None Acres 1.835 0.168 0.291 0.341 South side of Main Street 138-27-001 138-27-002A 138-27-002B 138-27-003 138-27-004 138-27-005 138-27-006 138-27-007 138-27-013 138-27-014 138-27-015 138-27-016 138-27-017 138-27-018 135 E. Main Street 443 E. Main Street None 443 E. Main Street None None None 31 S. Udall Street 453 E. Main Street 455 E. Main Street 465 E. Main Street None None 30 S. Lesueur Street 0.183 0.064 0.027 0.037 0.156 0.181 0.181 0.181 0.156 0.156 0.156 0.181 0.181 0.181 Regulatory Context Cultural resources generally include archaeological sites, historic buildings and structures, artifacts, and places of traditional, religious, and cultural significance. “Historic property” refers to cultural resources that are included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register). The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 470), requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties, and afford the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and other parties with a demonstrated interest a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 4 November 16, 2009 Regulations for Protection of Historic Properties (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800) implement Section 106 of the NHPA. These regulations define a process for responsible federal agencies to consult with the State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (S/THPO), Native American groups, other interested parties such as the City of Mesa Historic Preservation Office, and when necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), to ensure that historic properties are duly considered as federal projects are planned and implemented. FTA is the lead federal agency responsible for Section 106 compliance for Central Mesa LRT Extension Project. On behalf of FTA, METRO is coordinating the Section 106 compliance activities. To be determined eligible for inclusion in the National Register, cultural resource properties must be important in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. In addition, properties must possess integrity of location, design, settings, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and meet at least one of four criteria: Criterion A: be associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history Criterion B: be associated with the lives of persons significant in our past Criterion C: embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; or represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic values; or represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction Criterion D: have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history Properties may be of local, state, or national importance. Typically, historic properties are at least 50 years old, but younger properties may be considered for listing if they are of exceptional importance. Previous Research Prehistoric Archaeology A cultural resource records and literature review was prepared for the Central Mesa Light Rail Transit (LRT) Extension Project by URS Corporation (Erickson et al. 2007). The Study Area for review covered the portion of Mesa, east-to-west from Sycamore Street to Power Road and north-to-south from University Drive to the Superstition Freeway (US 60). The overview provided a summary of past projects and previously documented prehistoric and historic cultural resources, including those within a 1-mile Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 5 November 16, 2009 radius of the proposed park-and-ride locations. In addition to these studies, HDR reviewed the AZSITE online database to check for any new projects that might have taken place since the time of the URS review. The two proposed park-and-ride lots had not been previously investigated for archaeological resources. The records review indicated that seven compliance surveys have taken place within approximately 1 mile of the survey areas, but no archaeological sites had been identified (Table 2). This is probably largely due to the built-out urban nature of central Mesa, where most of the natural land surface has been covered over with pavement, buildings, and landscaping. Table 2. Previous projects Project Number 1999-587.ASM Project Name PBNS Fiber-Optic Line Survey Resultsa No sites Reference Doak 1999 2000-723.ASM AT&T NexGen/Core Project Fiberoptic Line Survey No sites Kearns et al. 2001 2000-751.ASM Family Violence Communications Facility Survey No sites Lundin 2000 SHPO-2001-2211 Sun YMCA Telecommunications Facility Survey No sites Howard 2001 SHPO-2002-856 Qwest Stapley Park Telecommunications Facility Survey No sites Luhnow and Dobschuetz 2002 2004-357.ASM AT&T NexGen/Core Project Fiberoptic Line Survey (four reroutes addendum) No sites Wheeler et al. 2004 2004-524.ASM Kerby’s Furniture Telecommunications facility survey No sites Jones 2004 a results within approximately 1 mile of the survey areas Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 6 November 16, 2009 Perhaps more telling with regard to the potential for archaeological deposits below the urban layers are the findings of early researchers that documented sites prior to the development of the area. The URS literature review for the project identified nine previously recorded archaeological sites within the overall project Study Area (Erickson et al. 2007). Casa de Fe, La Casa De Mesa, and Casa Alma were large Hohokam villages located within 1.5 miles of the proposed park-and-ride lots. These large Hohokam village sites were documented by early researchers in the early and mid1900s, although substantial excavations were never carried out (Haury 1945; Midavale 1945; Schroeder 1940; Turney 1929). Nevertheless, the presence of these sites in the area is testament to the intensity of prehistoric occupation of the region, which would have included an abundance of smaller habitation and activity sites. Excavations in Mesa and throughout the Phoenix Basin have demonstrated that there is often potential for deeply buried intact prehistoric features and deposits preserved below old plow zones and layers of modern development. In addition, remnants of prehistoric Hohokam canal systems may also be preserved subsurface in the area. As documented by Turney (1929), the Hohokam Canal 11 irrigation system traversed the Study Area west of Gilbert Road. Historic Archaeology In addition to considering the potential for prehistoric resources, HDR reviewed historical aerial photographs and Sanborn Insurance maps to determine the potential for historic-period archaeological resources within the two proposed park-and-ride lots. None of the Sanborn maps covered the area of the proposed park-and-ride lot on the southern side of Main Street. The park-and-ride lot on the northern side of Main Street parcels is covered by the 1915, 1923, and 1948 Sanborn Insurance maps. The 1915 and 1923 Sanborn maps shows two houses on the property parcels 138-26-101A and 138-26-013 (Figure 3). The 1948 Sanborn map shows a series of “auto camp cabins” along with the earlier house in parcel 138-26-013 and small store facing Main Street in front of the house on parcel 138-26-010A. The auto camp was the Utahna Motel, which was in operation from the 1940s to the 1980s, then razed in the early 1990s (Figures 4–6). The type of business that operated in the small commercial store is unknown. The original house on 138-26-013 parcel likely served as an ad-hoc office when the motor court first opened. The motel office shown in a 1950s postcard is a brick construction with metal casement windows and, therefore, likely replaced the original house (Figure 76). The locations of both residences in the northern park-and-ride lot are not one of the known early Victorian homes of Mesa. The original residences shown on the 1915 map were likely built about that time and would have had indoor plumbing. Therefore, there is little to no potential for significant subsurface historical archaeological resources. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 7 November 16, 2009 1915 1923 1948 Approximate location of park-and-ride lot on northern side of Main Street Figure 3. Sanborn maps Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 8 November 16, 2009 Figure 4. Park-and-ride lot north of Main Street, 1949 aerial photograph Figure 5. Park-and-ride lot north of Main Street, 2001 aerial photograph Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 9 November 16, 2009 Figure 6. Park-and-ride lot north of Main Street, 2002 aerial photograph Figure 7. Utahna Motel, 1950s postcard Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 10 November 16, 2009 There were no Sanborn maps showing the area for the park-and-ride lot on the southern side of Main Street. Historical aerial photographs, however, show a series of commercial buildings on the northern side facing Main Street and a single residence at 30 S. Lesueur Street (Figures 8 and 9). The commercial buildings and residence were built in the late 1940s. The buildings were razed in the last few years. Given the age of the buildings, there is no potential for significant subsurface historical archeological resources. Survey Methods HDR conducted a full-coverage pedestrian survey of the project area with transects spaced 10 meters apart. The field crew consisted of qualified archaeologists who meet standards outlined in Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Archaeological sites and isolated occurrences were defined according to site-recording criteria established by the Arizona State Museum (ASM 1998): a) any concentration of 30 or more artifacts or other cultural items of a single class in a discrete scatter b) any concentration of 20 or more artifacts of more than one artifact class in a discrete scatter c) one or more archaeological features in temporal association with any number of artifacts d) two or more temporally associated features without artifacts Cultural manifestations not meeting these criteria were recorded as isolated occurrences unless otherwise noted at the discretion of the field supervisor. Intuitively, sites are locations with artifacts and/or features that have integrity and are potentially interpretable in terms of past human behavior and activities. In contrast, isolated occurrences are single artifacts or relatively few artifacts spatially scattered and/or disassociated manifestations lacking contextual information. All cultural resources were recorded in the field through written notes, digital photographs, and sketch maps. Site locations were recorded with Global Positioning System units and plotted on United States Geological Survey topographic quadrangles. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 11 November 16, 2009 Figure 8. Park-and-ride lot south of Main Street, 1949 aerial photograph Figure 9. Park-and-ride lot south of Main Street, 2009 aerial photograph Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 12 November 16, 2009 Survey Results The survey was performed on October 21, 2009. No archaeological sites were observed. The proposed park-and-ride facility on the southern side of Main Street was bladed and covered with about a 1-inch-thick layer of recently deposited decomposed granite (Figure 10). The east and west ends of the southern half of the proposed parkand-ride lot were also recently landscaped with low berms and desert vegetation. The landscaping and ground cover precluded inspection of the surface, which had essentially no visibility. No artifacts or evidence of the former buildings was observed. The proposed location for the park-and-ride lot on the northern side of Main Street was heavily disturbed by earth moving activity (Figure 11). Much of the surface was covered with gravel. Surface visibility was about 75 percent, but most of what was observed was heavily disturbed soils and fill materials. A few remnant foundations and asphalt from the 1940s Utahna Motel and commercial building were observed (Figures 12–14). A discontinuous light scatter of trash, mostly broken bottle glass, was dispersed across the lot, but none was distinctively historic. No prehistoric artifacts were observed. Figure 10. Park-and-ride lot south of Main Street Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 13 November 16, 2009 Figure 11. Park-and-ride lot north Main Street Figure 12. Utahna Motel, remnant concrete foundations Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 14 November 16, 2009 Figure 13. Utahna Motel, asphalt driveway and concrete pad Figure 14. Commercial building foundation on north side of Main Street. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 15 November 16, 2009 A cluster of palm trees at the southern end of the lot near the street corner are the only remaining recognizable features of the Utahna Motel (Figure 15). Tamarisk trees along the western side and northern end of the lot, visible in the 1949 aerial photograph, may have been associated with a residence that predated the motel. Figure 15. Utahna Motel, palm trees at corner of Main Street and Lesueur Street Summary At the request of METRO, HDR conducted a Class IIII archaeological survey of two proposed locations for park-and-ride facilities as part of the Central Mesa LRT Extension Project. No archaeological sites were identified during the survey. The proposed location on the southern side of Main Street was covered with a layer of decomposed granite, which precluded inspection of the ground surface. A few remnant building foundations were documented in the parcel on the northern side of Main Street. The foundations are not historically significant resources and are recommended as not eligible for listing on the National Register. Given the results of the survey, it is recommended that a finding of “no historic properties affected” would be appropriate for the development of park-and-ride facilities at either location. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 16 November 16, 2009 However, should unanticipated buried cultural resources be discovered during construction, activities should cease immediately until a qualified archaeologist can be contacted to make an assessment for the proper treatment of those resources. If human remains or associated funerary objects are discovered, the Arizona State Museum must be notified as required by Arizona Revised Statutes Section 41-865. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 17 November 16, 2009 References Arizona State Museum (ASM) 1998 Revised Site Definition Policy. Memorandum issued by Paul R. Fish, Curator, Archaeology Division, Arizona State Museum, Tucson. Doak, David P. 1999 An Archaeological Survey in Support of Permitting for a Proposed Fiber Optic Line from Phoenix, Arizona, to the Arizona/New Mexico State Line. Cultural Resource Report 99-72. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Tucson. Erickson, Kirsten, A.E. (Gene) Rogge, and Don W. Ryden 2007 Central Mesa Corridor High Capacity Transit Improvements Project: Cultural Resource Records and Literature Review. URS Cultural Resource Report 2007-58(AZ). URS Corporation, Phoenix. Haury, Emil W. 1945 The Excavations of Los Muertos and Neighboring Ruins in the Salt River Valley, Southern Arizona. Papers of the Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology 24(1). Harvard University, Cambridge. Howard, Jerry B. 2001 A Class III Archaeological Survey Report for the GTI Cellular Tower Project PHX-187E, Mesa, Arizona. Howard Archaeological Surveys, Chandler. Jones, Thomas E. 2004 Cultural Resources Survey of a Proposed Cell Tower Location at then Northeast Corner of Broadway Road and Mesa Drive, Mesa, Maricopa County, Arizona. Project 04-026-02. Archaeological Consulting Services, Tempe. Kearns, T. M., T. J. Lennon, J. Jones, and S. F. Mehls 2001 An Archaeological Survey of Link Three of the AT&T NexGen/Core Project, Arizona and California. Report WCRM(F) 179. Western Cultural Resource Management, Farmington. Luhnow, Glenda, and Kris Dobschuetz 2002 A Class I Records Review and Class III Survey for the Qwest Stapley Park Telecommunications Project, Mesa, Arizona. Environmental Planning Group, Phoenix. Lundin, Deil 2000 Archaeological Survey of the PHX-187D Family Violence Tower Site in Maricopa County, Arizona. Cultural Resources Report 00-464. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Phoenix. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 18 November 16, 2009 Midvale, Frank 1945 Prehistoric Sites and Canals of the Mesa Terrace. Frank Midvale papers, on file, Arizona Room, Hayden Library, Arizona State University, Tempe. Schroeder, Albert H. 1940 A Stratigraphic Survey of the Pre-Spanish Trash Mounds of the Salt River Valley, Arizona. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arizona, Tucson. Turney, Omar A. 1929 Prehistoric Irrigation in Arizona. Arizona State Historian, Phoenix. Wheeler, Charles W., Kathy Baker, and Andrea M. Greenaker 2004 An Archaeological Survey of Four Reroutes: Addendum 3 to An Archaeological Survey of Link Three of the AT&T NexGen/Core Project, Arizona and California. Report WCRM(F)220. Western Cultural Resource Management, Farmington. Central Mesa LRT Extension Draft Class III Archaeological Survey Report 19 November 16, 2009