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 Monday,
September 25, 2000 at 10:30 a.m. Those present and absent were
listed as follows:
Present:
Dr. Beth Grindell, Arizona State Museum
Ms. Susan Wells, National Parks Service
Ms. Mary Farrell, Coronado National Forest
Ms. Marty McCune, Historic Program Administrator, City of Tucson
Mr. Peter Steere, Tohono O'odham Nation Cultural Preservation
Office
Mr. David Cushman, Pima County Archaeological and Historic Preservation
Office
Ms. Linda Mayro, Pima County Archaeological and Historic Preservation
Office
Absent:
Dr. Paul Fish, Arizona State Museum (Chair)
Mr. Max Witkind, Bureau of Land Management
Mr. Jerry Kyle, Arizona Historical Society
Mr. Joe Joaquin, Tohono O'odham Nation Cultural Preservation Office
(alternate)
There were two members of the public present:
Dr. Jonathan Mabry, Desert Archaeology, Inc.
Mr. Lucas Premo, Graduate Student, University of Arizona.
CALL TO ORDER
No quorum was available for the meeting. Informal discussions
were held and are recorded here. These discussions began at approximately
10:40 a.m.
OLD BUSINESS
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM AUGUST 21, 2000 MEETING
Lacking a quorum, approval of the minutes from the last meeting
was deferred to the next meeting.
NEW BUSINESS
SDCP UPDATES
Linda Mayro gave an update on the status of the SDCP. She discussed
publication of the formal Notice of Intent for the SDCP in the
Federal Register on September 7, 2000. A copy of the Notice was
distributed to the members. This notice formally begins the NEPA
review process leading to the Environmental Impact Statement.
She noted that the federal agencies will be brought into the NEPA
process a this point. She added that the US Fish and Wildlife
Service did recently acknowledge that the issuance of the Section
10 permit under the Endangered Species Act is an undertaking for
the purposes of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act. This is a break through since the agency has been reluctant
to admit this linkage with the NHPA. A copy of the USFWS letter
in this regard was also handed out to the team. A copy of the
Board of Supervisors Memorandum on the Draft Preliminary Sonoran
Desert Conservation Plan was passed out as well.
Ms. Mayro continued to update the Team on the SDCP going over
an abbreviated schedule of the NEPA process as envisioned by the
County Administrator's office and the USFWS, which was also included
in the packets handed out to Team members. She explained that
the agency will begin to schedule public scoping sessions. There
will be topical discussions groups including Cultural Resources.
She encouraged the Team members to participate with herself and
David Cushman to staff these meetings. These meetings, however,
have not been set up yet.
On funding, Ms. Mayro said that the county has requested 1.5 million
dollars from Congress and that we might be able to do some additional
studies should this be approved.
4. NEPA/EIS PROCESS
Mr. Cushman asked the federal agency members what we can expect
of the EIS process. Mary Farrell noted that tribal consultation
under Section 106 (NHPA) will be a big concern. She also noted
that the Forrest Service looks at impacts to known archaeological
sites and has a plan that identifies priorities for their management.
Ms. Mayro noted that the SDCP/EIS could provide the agencies with
opportunities to do things that haven't been done before. She
suggested that they think about what those needs are and how they
can be integrated into the overall planning for the SDCP. Federal
lands will be a part of the Reserve Design, so that this could
be a way of advancing conservation on the landscape level.
Mr. Cushman suggested that the federal agencies be creative. He
noted that the SDCP may be a chance to do things that need to
be done because of new political support (for the SDCP). Link
federal agency management/policy to the goals of the SDCP. He
then asked about the EIS process itself wondering if the EIS is
assembled by different experts or if it is an integrative research
process. Ms. Farrell answered by saying that is really should
be integrative where everyone works together to produce a single
unified document.
Susan Wells added that most agencies write Environmental Assessments
(not EIS documents) and that this process can go on for years
but that ultimately one person writes the document.
Ms. Mayro pointed out the Recon, Inc. will handle the biology
end of the EIS but she was not sure about the cultural resources
part. Probably staff will do this Section. She added that in December
there will be a meeting to determine the format of the EIS. Ranching
and biology will be key components of the EIS and we need to keep
cultural resources in the process.
Mr. Cushman noted that cultural resources will co-occur in the
environment with other resources, for instance in ranch lands,
and that this will boost reserve potential.
RESERVE DESIGN/IMPLEMENTATION
There was continued discussion about the reserve design comparing
the Altar Valley and the Tortolita Fan Subareas. Linda Mayro pointed
out that the high density zoning in the Tortolita Fan area and
continued development pressure had already driven up the value
of the land thereby limiting what the county could do by
way of out right purchase. On the other hand, land values are
low and resource value are still high in the Altar Valley. These
kinds of consideration will have to be a part of the reality of
implementing any reserve design that we create.
Ms. Wells asked if the design is emerging out of the research
and Ms. Mayro replied yes, and added, that it was pretty clear
what the issues are and where to conserve. The debate will be
about costs and priorities. She added that the Team will continue
to work on preservation related issues over the next two years.
Mr. Cushman pointed out that the decision support model will look
at three basic scenarios: Do nothing, do it all, and do something
in between. He added that the modeling was still theoretical but
will ultimately be used to generate reserve design alternatives.
6. CONSTRAINTS LIST
Mr. Cushman raised the next topic of discussion: the constraints
list - cultural resources of exceptional importance that should
be given high priority for conservation. He thought that the team
should develop criteria for making these determinations.
Marty McCune asked if we should include properties that are already
protected. Mr. Cushman responded by say that this one possible
criteria - we need to develop these to guide the team's efforts.
Ms. Mayro suggested that the federal agencies identify those places
that they manage that should be prioritized as well.
Jonathan Mabry noted that we has started a list and suggested
that it could be circulated to a larger audience for input.
Ms. McCune said that we need to better define what is a constraint
first.
Ms. Wells asked about condition of the resource and its integrity,
perhaps these should be evaluated as well.
Ms. Mayro said that these were good points but that she thought
there were other things to consider as well. She would like to
see a plan outlining regional inventory/ and treatment standards
for development action where conservation is not an option, as
well as, a listing of places that are untouchable and should be
conserved.
Dr. Mabry suggested that we work with the existing constraints
list and flesh it out with a committee formed for that purpose.
Then send it out for response, including the Internet. The committee
will need to assign values to the properties to determine which
are truly constraints.
Ms. Mayro suggested that we use the expert group that was assembled
last summer for the site sensitivity modeling.
Following this, there was additional discussion on the need to
bring the Cultural Resource Team together with the members of
the other teams. Ms. Mayro noted that the biologists and the ranchers
have been meeting jointly for field visits and this prompted a
recommendation that we schedule a field visit to a nearby archaeological
site and invite the ranchers and the biologists to attend. Ms.
Mayro suggested the Marana Mound as an ideal candidate, especially
since it is part of the grazing lease. All members agreed.
7. NEXT MEETING
The next scheduled meeting will be on Monday, October 23, 2000
at 10:30 a.m. at the Pima County Public Works Center Conference
Room A. In the mean time, Pima County staff will try to set up
a field visit to the Marana Mound site.
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.
(Notes taken by David Cushman, Pima County Cultural Resources
Office)