SONORAN DESERT CONSERVATION PLAN

Minutes, Cultural and Historical Resources Technical Advisory Team
January 12, 2000

The Cultural and Historical Resources Technical Advisory Team met in regular session in Conference Room A at the Pima County Public Works Center, 201 N. Stone Avenue, Tucson, Arizona on Wednesday, January 12, 2000 at 10:30 a.m. Those present and absent were listed as follows:

Present:

Dr. Paul Fish, Arizona State Museum (Chair)


Dr. Beth Grindell, Arizona State Museum

Ms. Mary Farrell, Coronado National Forest
Ms. Susan Wells, National Parks Service
Mr. Peter Steere, Tohono O'odham Nation Cultural Preservation Office
Mr. Joe Joaquin, Tohono O'odham Nation Cultural Preservation Office
Ms. Linda Mayro, Pima County Archaeological and Historic Preservation Office
Mr. David Cushman, Pima County Archaeological and Historic Preservation Office

Absent:

Mr. Jerry Kyle, Arizona Historical Society

Mr. Max Witkind, Bureau of Land Management

There were two members of the public present:

Mr. Henry Wallace, Desert Archaeology, Inc.
Dr. Jonathan Mabry, Desert Archaeology, Inc.

1.CALL TO ORDER

The meeting was called to order by Paul Fish at approximately 10:35 a.m.

OLD BUSINESS

2.APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM NOVEMBER 15 AND DECEMBER 13, 1999 MEETINGS

The draft Minutes of the fifth and sixth meeting of the CHTAT held on November 15 and December 13, 1999 were approved unanimously upon a motion made by Beth Grindell and seconded by Sue Wells

NEW BUSINESS

3.UPDATES

David Cushman gave an update to the Team on the SDCP. He handed out copies of the Cultural Resources Status Report dated January 3, 2000, prepared by county staff for submittal to the Pima County Board of Supervisors on January 18, 2000. He explained each of the topics presented in the report updating the efforts of county staff and the TAT on cultural resources issues related to the SDCP. There were no questions or discussion.

Paul Fish asked about the status of funding and Linda Mayro explained that we should hear after January 18th. She added that it had not been determined how the budget would be allocated.

Ms. Mayro then reported on the plans to prepare subarea reports on all resources, including cultural resources, and the time frame within which these must be prepared. She explained that Pima County has committed to preparing a draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) by July and that preparing this document, the subarea reports, and giving public presentations to the land panels, would be the focus of the staff's efforts over the next few months. The HCP will contain preliminary recommendations for resources conservation.

Mr. Cushman suggested that given this discussion, the Team should skip item #4 on the agenda and discuss item # 5 first, and then return to the subject of the cultural resources data categories and criteria for evaluation. The Team agreed.

5.DRAFT CONSERVATION PLAN WORKING SCHEDULE

 

Mr. Cushman handed out a draft outline of the subarea reports and explained that he would be responsible for preparing these reports. He then made a request for assistance of the Team members asking them to send him recommendations on what references he should look at in his research.

Dr. Fish noted that there are people in Tucson who know allot about these areas. He asked if names would be helpful and Mr. Cushman said yes.

Ms. Mayro then added that if the county can get a contractor on board, the county will use them to prepare these reports, otherwise, county staff will have to prepare them in house. She explained that the subarea reports will be designed to inform the SDCP Steering Committee Land Panels and educate the public about cultural resources in the subareas.

Mr. Cushman mentioned that there were two reasons for preparing the Draft Habitat Conservation Plan. It is needed as part of the EIS process and there is a need for the Board of Supervisors to demonstrate progress on the SDCP before county elections this Fall. Linda Mayro added that national politics also played a role in the Department of Interior wants to show progress on the SDCP as well.

Jonathan Mabry suggested looking to the contract reports in each subarea as sources of information and Beth Grindell added that the larger project reports will have summaries of previous work.

Dr. Fish suggested talking to Henry Wallace and Al Dart about the Altar Valley. Mr. Cushman said he would talk to each of the Team members and ask for these kinds of recommendations.

Dr. Mabry noted the huge task just pulling this information together would be and recommended using a scanner to input text into an electronic file which could then be manipulated.

Ms. Mayro then asked which agencies had management plans for cultural resources. She said that she wanted this information to indicate where there is public stewardship for cultural resources in each subarea. She added that the county staff would ask the TAT to review the subarea reports as they are drafted.

Dr. Fish asked if the other teams would be doing the same kinds of reports and presenting their findings to the public at the same time. Ms. Mayro sais yes and noted that she will handle the ranch reports and that Mr. Cushman will be preparing the cultural resources reports.

Peter Steere said that he had done oral interviews with old cowboys in the Altar Valley and that they could be an important source of information. Dr. Fish added that these people know a lot about the archaeological record in this area.

The team then took up item #4 on the agenda.

4.CULTURAL RESOURCES DATA CATEGORIES AND CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION

 

Mr. Cushman circulated a handout to the team. The first page listed the temporal and cultural types, functional property types, and the criteria for evaluation that have been discussed to date. The second page showed a sample of site data tabulated by time and site type that Beth Grindell prepared. The third page showed a bar chart and pie chart of the sample data. After handing this information out, Mr. Cushman observed that the topic of how to categorize the temporal and cultural data in the AZISTE data base needs to be revisited and that no decisions have yet been made on how the TAT will assign value to cultural resources either in concept or in practice. He recommended that the Team form two ad hoc subcommittees to address these issues and then report back to the Team as a whole with their recommendations.

Ms. Mayro recommended that the Team adopt gross categories of information to begin with that can be refined later as needed.

Mr. Cushman recommended that Henry Wallace be on the temporal/cultural subcommittee. He then asked if the AZSITE database could be collapsed into these broad categories and Beth Grindell responded by saying that there would be no problem in doing so.

Henry Wallace noted that how the data are organized should be determined by what the immediate goal is in using the data. He observed that a refined settlement study will require developing research questions to drive the data categorization, but that the data needs in drafting the HCP are general. As such, he suggested that we could use the categories that we already have agreed to with some revisions.

Ms. Mayro asked if this would constrain our future data needs if we use the categories that have already been adopted by the Team. Wallace replied by saying that he didn't think so.

Dr. Mabry asked if there was a category for "unknown prehistoric sites" noting that there will be allot of these kinds of sites in the database. He then asked questions regarding what was meant by certain categories such as the "Early Agricultural" period, and "Habitation." Mr. Cushman responded by saying that these questions are the very sort that need to be addressed and resolved by the Subcommittee that he recommended be formed. He added that site function would need to be defined by attribute since this is how the data are organized in AZSITE

Mary Farrell made a motion that Jonathan Mabry, Beth Grindell, and Henry Wallace should be authorized to serve as needed on a subcommittee to examine the time/function data categories needed for the draft HCP.

There was additional discussion. Dr. Fish noted that we needed to meet on how to organized the data for the modeling project, should it be funded, but that for now extracting the kind of general information needed for the HCP is a different problem.

Mr. Cushman pointed to the Cultural Resources Status Report to illustrate the kinds of data that he believes are needed for this phase of the project noting the charts and graphs.

(Joe Joaquin left the meeting at 11:55 a.m. as did Linda Mayro)

Dr. Mabry expressed concern about lumping data and what this can do to the analysis.

 

Mr. Wallace noted that what is needed now is purely descriptive information and therefor lumping the data shouldn't be a problem provided that it is organized in some detail first.

Dr. Mabry commented that we need a long term plan for the data base and a clear understanding of how it will be used in the future. Dr. Fish agree d with this, and added


that what concerned him is the issue of cultural resources values. He noted that we might have to look at each site record and make subjective assessments.

Mr. Steere asked if there was a danger of being too complex in organizing the database, given the intended audience: The BOS, the Steering Committee, and the public. Mr. Cushman thought that this was a valid point.

Mr. Cushman then reminded the Team that there was a motion before the Team that Mary Farrell had made. Mr. Wallace amended the motion to add Mr. Cushman to the subcommittee.

Dr. Fish reiterated the motion as modified. The amended motion was seconded by Sue Wells. The Team passed the motion by unanimous consent.

Dr. Grindell suggested the subcommittee meet the following week.

 

Dr. Fish recommended that the Team delay creating a subcommittee on the issue of assessing cultural resources values until we see how the other subcommittee works out. He then reported to the group that S.E. van der Leeuw, a researcher with the European Union who is studying the process of desertification is interested in what Pima County is doing with the SDCP. He suggested that the TAT invite him to the next meeting to talk with him.

6.NEXT MEETING

Next meeting will be on Monday, February 14, 2000 at 10:30 a.m. at the public works center room A.

7.ADJOURNMENT

 

As there was no further business to come before the Cultural and Historic Resources Technical Advisory Team, the meeting was adjourned at 12:30 p.m.