Powerline Plan and Environ. Assessment Jan. 2013 - Flood Control ...
Powerline Plan and Environ. Assessment Jan. 2013 - Flood Control ...
Powerline Plan and Environ. Assessment Jan. 2013 - Flood Control ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<strong>Powerline</strong> <strong>Flood</strong> Retarding Structure<br />
Pinal County, AZ<br />
Draft Supplemental Watershed <strong>Plan</strong><br />
<strong>and</strong> <strong>Environ</strong>mental <strong>Assessment</strong><br />
displaced as a result of a federal or federally assisted project. Property ownership, economic<br />
impacts <strong>and</strong> l<strong>and</strong> use (e.g. commercial, residential, or agricultural) will all need to be factored<br />
into potential displacement/relocation analysis. No displacement <strong>and</strong> relocation impacts will<br />
result from proposed alternatives formulated for the PVR project.<br />
6.3. Cultural Resources<br />
6.3.1. Existing Conditions Study<br />
Kimley-Horn prepared the “<strong>Powerline</strong>, Vineyard road <strong>and</strong> Rittenhouse <strong>Flood</strong> Retarding<br />
Structures Rehabilitation or Replacement Project Cultural Resources Existing Conditions Study”<br />
(Kimley-Horn, July 2010). The purpose of the report was to document the review of the<br />
previous cultural resource documentation as part of the existing conditions study for the PVR<br />
Rehabilitation or Replacement Project <strong>and</strong> to determine if additional Class I level studies were<br />
needed. The purpose of a Class I Literature Review is to document the previous cultural resource<br />
investigations <strong>and</strong> previously recorded sites/resources within a one mile buffer of a project area.<br />
A review of NRCS project documentation for the flood retarding structures indicates that there<br />
were no known cultural resource considerations during original design <strong>and</strong> construction of the<br />
dams. There are also no known cultural considerations during the repairs of the dams conducted<br />
by the NRCS during 1978 to 1991.<br />
A Class III cultural resource survey was completed in December 2009 for geotechnical studies<br />
related to the PVR FRSs Rehabilitation or Replacement Project. The survey entitled, Class III<br />
Cultural Resources Survey Along the <strong>Powerline</strong>, Vineyard, Rittenhouse <strong>Flood</strong> Retarding<br />
Structures Between Queen Creek <strong>and</strong> Apache Junction, Pinal County, Arizona (Jones <strong>and</strong> Florie<br />
2009) included the results of a “site file check” as well as those of the field survey for the<br />
specific geotechnical work that was to be performed. The review area for the PVR FRSs 2009<br />
cultural resource study is a one mile buffer around the PVR FRSs structures.<br />
The 2009 Class III report was prepared in compliance with the National Historic Preservation<br />
Act of 1966 (as amended); Arizona State Antiquity laws (A.R.S. § 41-841 et seq); <strong>and</strong> the State<br />
Historic Preservation Act (A.R.S. § 41-861 through § 41-864). The site file check for the<br />
review area (including the one mile buffer) that was conducted as a component of that report<br />
included site records <strong>and</strong> project files at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) <strong>and</strong> the<br />
AZSITE cultural resource database. Hereinafter, the site file check component of the 2009 Class<br />
III survey effort is referred to as the “2009 cultural resource study”.<br />
Previous Research<br />
The 2009 cultural resource study indicated that at least 59 cultural resource<br />
investigations/surveys have taken place within the review area. Most of these previous survey<br />
areas are linear in nature <strong>and</strong> cut across the review area. Nine of these surveys are over 10 years<br />
old <strong>and</strong> therefore would require re-evaluation <strong>and</strong> resurvey in accordance with SHPO guidance.<br />
Two other investigations were extensive block surveys, conducted for the Lost Dutchman<br />
Heights project areas. These surveys covered portions of the review area in the vicinity of the<br />
<strong>Powerline</strong> FRS.<br />
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources<br />
Within the review area there were 72 previously recorded archaeological sites <strong>and</strong> one<br />
archaeological district identified in the 2009 cultural resource study. Though the vast majority of<br />
USDA- NRCS <strong>Jan</strong>uary <strong>2013</strong><br />
Kimley-Horn <strong>and</strong> Associates, Inc. Page 49