Minutes, Cultural and Historical Resources Technical Advisory Team
Priority Cultural Resources Subcommittee Meeting
November 30, 2000

On November 9, 2000 the Cultural and Historical Resources Technical Advisory Team created an ad hoc subcommittee to assist in identifying priority cultural resources to be included in all design scenario alternatives for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan. The first meeting of the subcommittee met in Conference Room D at the Pima County Public Works Center, 201 N. Stone Avenue, Tucson, Arizona on Thursday, November 30, 2000 at 10:00 a.m. Those present are listed as follows:

Present:
Dr. Beth Grindell, Arizona State Museum
Ms. Marty McCune, City of Tucson
Dr. Paul Fish, Arizona State Museum
Dr. Jonathan Mabry, Desert Archaeology, Inc.
Mr. David Cushman, Pima County Archaeological and Historic Preservation Office
Ms. Linda Mayro, Pima County Archaeological and Historic Preservation Office

Absent:
Dr. Terry Majewski, Statistical Research Inc.

1.CALL TO ORDER

 

By unanimous consent, Dr. Beth Grindell was nominated and accepted the chair of the subcommittee.


2.PURPOSE OF SUBCOMMITTEE

 

Mr. Cushman opened by stating that the purpose of the subcommittee was to create a list of places considered so important that they should be included in any and all design scenarios for conservation under the SDCP. The problem is how to decided which of the hundreds of places that may be deserving of conservation to recommend as part of the SDCP. Creating the list and the means of selecting the properties is the primary objective of the subcommittee.
Dr. Grindell noted that the process of selecting these places is critically important. Mr. Cushman added that we need to be able to justify what we do and how we do it.
Dr. Fish suggested creating two lists of properties, one historic and the other prehistoric, because of the inherent differences between these two cultural resource types. The group thought that this was a good idea but there was no further discussion on how to make this happen procedurally.
Dr. Grindell asked how long the subcommittee will exist and Mr. Cushman responded by stating that once the list had been prepared and submitted to the full committee, then the subcommittee's work would be concluded and it would be disbanded.


3.DISCUSSION: DEFINITION, CRITERIA, PROCESS

Dr. Mabry submitted a draft memo containing criteria of significance for prehistoric sites. He suggested that there be a threshold of site integrity that must be met and that significance be determined in relation to resource and research issues/themes. He noted that the National Park Service has a publication containing archaeological themes and suggested that the group come up with its our own. He further recommended that we select a team of local experts to assist in the review and selection process and that the results be posted on a web site with an invitation to the public to comment on the selections and to rank them.
Mr. Cushman reviewed past efforts to address cultural resources values from last year when this subject came up before the full committee. During that effort, criteria were identified that could be used to assess the importance of a particular property or site. Mr. Cushman reminded the group that since this evaluative process is similar to what the subcommittee is now addressing, it is worth using what had been developed at that time. He noted that the committee needed to separate out the important from the extra-ordinarily important and that this would require a value judgement. The only way to do this is to carefully define the process that will be used.
He suggested that definitions would be key. This requires formulating working definitions to guide the efforts. Important concepts discussed by the group included "public interest," "extraordinary importance," "recognized by the community."
Dr. Fish stressed the importance of conservation on the landscape level by recognizing inter-related sets of sites on the land.


Dr. Mabry suggested that the goal be to conserve sites in their landscape context.

 

Following this there was a general discussion about scale and the importance of identifying the inter-relationships between sites where that possible as a criteria for assessing their importance.
Mr. Cushman suggested that the group start by focusing on definitions and criteria of selection. The group then worked to define "Constraint" as follows: "Places of such extraordinary importance that their conservation is in the public interest because of their value to our community identity and in understanding our history and culture." This was accepted as a draft definition to be modified later.
Dr. Mabry suggested that the subcommittee drop the word "constraint" as being too confusing and simply refer to these places as "Priority Cultural Resources." All agreed.
Mr. Cushman recommended that all places listed on the National Register of Historic Places be included in the priority list.
Ms. McCune asked if we should focus on those places that were not listed on the National Register but could be listed.


Dr. Mabry suggested that we make up our own themes for context as needed.

 

Ms. Mayro suggested starting with the themes developed by Al Dart in his 1986 inventory of archaeological sites in Pima County.
Mr. Cushman suggested writing out the potential criteria for evaluation on the black board and produced the following list.


1. Meets National Register criteria a through d.
2. Integrity -- we need to define some minimum level of integrity.
3. Research value -- Is it a multicomponent site? What research themes does it address?
4. Ubiquity/rarity -- Is the site type unique or ubiquitous?
5. Landscape/context -- what is the scale of the complex?

6. Community recognition -- how important is the site to various segments of the community?

7. Current use -- is the structure currently being used? For what?

second level of concern including:
1. Threats/vulnerability
2. Preservation potential
3. Is the site currently managed? By whom?
4. Education potential
5. Ownership
6. Location

Mr. Cushman recommended meeting once more to discuss the definitions of each of the proposed criteria, then to meet again to discuss process issues.


4.NEXT MEETING

 

The next meeting was scheduled for Friday, December 15th, from 10 a.m. - 12 p.m. at the Public Works Center in Conference Room D.


5.ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 12 noon.