EXHIBIT E: SCENIC AREAS, HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES ...

Tucson Electric Power Company CEC Application Irvington to Kino 138 kV Transmission Line Project April 2018

E‐1

EXHIBIT E: SCENIC AREAS, HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES,

AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

Describe any existing scenic areas, historic sites and structures or archaeological sites

in the vicinity of the proposed facilities and state the effects, if any, the proposed

facilities will have thereon.

Exhibit E includes summaries of existing visual (scenic), historic sites and structures, and cultural

resources, as well as the potential impacts the proposed Project may have on each resource.

E.1 Scenic Areas and Visual Resources

E.1.1 Overview

This portion of Exhibit E addresses the scenic and visual resources in the project area. The study area does

not contain designated national, state, or local scenic areas. Visual resource inventory data were collected

based on a review of existing and future land use plans, aerial photography, field reconnaissance, and

visual simulations to compare the visual impact of the proposed facilities with the existing facilities. The

narrative that follows provides a description of the visual resource inventory and characterization of

impacts to the landscape setting and the associated sensitive viewers.

E.1.2 Landscape Setting

The landscape setting for the Project study area is associated with urban or developed land within the City

of Tucson and Pima County. Generally, within the study area, there are five settings: residential,

commercial, industrial, park/recreation/open space, and commuter, each of which exhibits a unique

landscape character. Each of these settings has viewers and associated viewer sensitivity, which pertains

to the degree of concern for changes to the developed setting. Residential and recreational viewers are

typically associated with longer viewing duration; therefore, viewer sensitivity in these settings is

anticipated to be high. Viewers associated with commercial and commuter settings are anticipated to

have moderate sensitivity, due to a shorter or temporary viewing duration. Sensitivity is anticipated to be

low for industrial settings because these developments are associated with active industrial uses where

viewers may not be as sensitive to changes in the landscape. The results of the visual inventory described

by project alternative follow the methods.

Alternative A

This route travels arterial streets through Tucson. The four‐lane roadways travel through areas that are

characterized by industrial buildings, warehouses, commercial establishments including motels, open

space, mobile home parks, and, at the north end of the route, a large mixed‐use development (the

Bridges), residential neighborhoods, and a planned Open Space park. Medians in the roadways, when

present, contain scattered landscape plantings. Palm trees and saguaros that occasionally line the

roadways add to the existing vertical features along the route.

The road beds are at‐grade, and therefore the distant views are limited to breaks in roadside plantings

and buildings which line the streets. Existing distribution and transmission lines, and lighting structures


E‐2

line and cross the roadways. Viewers that would have direct views of Alternative A along E Irvington Road,

Benson Highway, and Park Avenue are associated mainly with commercial settings. Benson Highway,

between Tucson Boulevard and Campbell Avenue, is also used as a gateway between the Tucson

International Airport and the City center.

Alternative B

Approximately half of this alternative route parallels I‐10, a regional transportation corridor. I‐10 is a wide

paved corridor that is characterized with vertical structures such as: existing 138kV lattice towers, tall

highway lighting poles, billboards and other signage, which are similar in scale to existing industrial

facilities (i.e., warehouses, manufacturing facilities). At the east end of the route there are scattered

industrial and commercial buildings. The west section of I‐10 that the route parallels is bordered by the

existing North Kino Sports Complex on the north side of I‐10 and the planned expansion of Kino Sports

Complex on the south side of I‐10 and vacant land used as overflow parking for the sports and recreation

facilities.

This alternative route leaves the highway to head north along Campbell Avenue, aligning between existing

and future commercial facilities facing Kino Parkway on the west, and existing residential neighborhoods

on the east, paralleling existing power distribution lines and street lighting structures.

Views along I‐10 are largely open and expansive due to superior (elevated) viewer position associated

with the road bed. As such, distant views of the larger developed area of Tucson, as well as the Santa

Catalina Mountains to the north, the Rincon Mountains to the east, and the Tucson Mountains to the west

are typical. Approximately 85,609 vehicles travel this route every day (per ADOT Average Annual Daily

Traffic count for June). Travelers using this high‐volume corridor would have relatively short viewing

durations; therefore, viewer sensitivity is anticipated to be moderate. High sensitivity viewers include

recreation viewers associated with the Kino Sports Complex. There are a large number of existing light

poles which punctuate the vistas over the ball stops for the baseball fields at the complex.

Views along Campbell Avenue include distant vistas of the Santa Catalina mountains to the north, big box

retail stores to the west, and residential homes behind a screening of trees and shrubs. Existing power

distribution and light poles line the roadway.

Alternative C

Alternative C replaces the section paralleling I‐10 with segments along Palo Verde Road and Ajo Way.

These four‐ and six‐lane roadways travel through areas dominated by industrial, warehouse, commercial,

health care, and recreation facilities. The remainder of the route is the same as for Alternative B along

Campbell Avenue, as described above.

The views along Palo Verde Road and Ajo Way are similar to those along E Irvington Road and Benson

Highway. At‐grade road beds limit distance views to breaks in buildings and landscaping. Existing power

lines and lighting poles line and cross the roadways. Alternative C is different from Alternative A in that

is also travels between the North Kino Sports Complex on the north side of Ajo Way and the South Kino

Sports Complex and the Kino Veterans Memorial Stadium on the south side of Ajo Way. These complexes

are circled by field lighting structures and there is also stadium seating at the Veterans Memorial Stadium.

A footbridge spans Ajo Way to provide for pedestrian traffic crossing between the north and south


E‐3

complexes. The view of the project route by those enjoying the trails and paths in the North Complex is

largely blocked by vegetation, buildings, and landscape berms. Power distribution poles are already

visible along Ajo Way.

E.1.3 Visual Simulations Methods

Field work was conducted to photograph the existing conditions from various locations throughout the

study area. Eighteen (18) Key Observation Points (KOPs) were selected which best captured the view that

could be impacted by construction of the new facilities. The view of individuals traveling through the area

on I‐10 and the arterial streets, residents in the neighborhoods, attendees of area schools, and users of

recreational fields were taken into account in selection of the KOPs. See Exhibit H for additional

information regarding public facilities and Exhibit F for additional recreation opportunities in the project

area.

A georeferenced 3‐dimensional (3d) model was created, using the engineered transmission line design,

structure locations, types, pole finish, and heights. Note that only TEP’s standard pole finish, which is self‐

weathering steel was simulated and analyzed. The model included the proposed 138 kV transmission lines

and towers, and the 138 kV substations. Eighteen (18) visual simulations were created of the proposed

condition to illustrate what the Project would look like to viewers in the study area. See Exhibit G‐5 for

simulations of the proposed facilities, and Exhibit J‐15 for the visual simulations in the format provided to

the public.

E.1.4 Visual Assessment Results

The visual resources impact assessment evaluated the level of visual change, or contrast, that the

proposed transmission line would introduce into each landscape setting in conjunction with effects to

associated sensitive viewers. The components of the visual assessment included identification of the types

of viewers and their sensitivity to the project in each segment of the route and characterization of impacts

that were quantified as low, medium, or high. The visual impact assessment considered the effects of new

structures (the proposed Project) introduced into the existing setting and associated sensitive viewers,

which considered the influence of existing facilities (i.e., existing transmission lines, street light

structures).

Overall, impacts are anticipated to be low for the proposed Project when it is adjacent to or parallel with

similar developed settings or features, such as industrial settings, because visual change would be

reduced. Residential and park/recreation settings, which are typically characterized by open space and

developed recreational facilities, typically result in greater impacts when adjacent to the proposed

Project, because it differs in form and line. Commercial and urban settings are characterized by large to

moderate sized structures and/or open space; here, impacts are anticipated to be lower because form

and line are similar to the proposed Project. Visual impacts resulting from the Project would typically be

reduced when: (1) the proposed route occurs within an industrial setting that is similar in form and line,

and (2) the route is within a corridor that has existing 138 kV or 46 kV transmission lines.

Potential visual impacts for each of the routes are described below.


E‐4

Alternative A

Alternative A (see Exhibits G‐5.1 to G‐5.7 and G‐5.9 for simulations) is compatible with the existing setting

and impacts are anticipated to be low to moderate. This conclusion is based on the mainly industrial and

commercial setting along E Irvington Road and Benson Highway, and the mixed‐use setting of The Bridges

at the north end of the study area. Moderate impacts are anticipated to those residential and (future)

recreational viewers in the area. Exhibit E‐1 provides more detailed information and identifies the types

of viewers in each segment of Alternative A and the potential impacts to these viewers. The most sensitive

segment of Alternative A is along the portion of Benson Highway, between Tucson Boulevard and

Campbell Avenue, which is a gateway route from Tucson International Airport to the City center.

Furthermore, the north side of the road is the location of the future expanded Kino Sports Complex.

Therefore, viewer sensitivity in this segment of Benson Highway is moderate to high. However, since there

are existing 46 kV transmission lines with underbuilt distribution and existing light and traffic signal poles,

the additional impact to commuters (namely tourists) and future recreationists, as a result of the

proposed Project, would likely be only moderate and not rise to a high impact.

The northern portion of Alternative A runs along Park Avenue and 36th Street. Here there are residences

to the west and north and a mixed‐use (existing commercial and future residential) development to the

east and south (The Bridges). Impacts would be moderate for these high sensitivity viewers because the

existing setting includes electrical transmission and distribution lines and street lighting along 36th Street

and Park Avenue and the setting is mixed‐use.

Alternative B

Alternative B (see Exhibits G‐5.8 to G‐5.15 for simulations) follows Irvington Road to I‐10 to Campbell

Avenue to 36th Street. The Irvington Road segment is as described above for Alternative A. The open views

along I‐10, though they include vertical structures such as transmission lines, lighting, and signage, are not

blocked from travelers as they are along the at‐grade roadways. Though these travelers are of moderate

sensitivity, the length of open space and relatively unobstructed views along I‐10 increase the impact to

commuters. Impacts to the residences and the future Open Space Park in the north portion of the

Alternative B route along Campbell Avenue would be high because the only existing vertical features are

wood distribution poles. While viewers along 36th Street are the same type as on Campbell Avenue, the

existing setting includes electrical transmission and distribution lines and street lighting and are within a

mixed‐use setting, which is more compatible with the Project, therefore impacts would be low. Exhibit E‐

1 provides more detailed information and identifies the types of viewers in each segment of Alternative

B and the potential impacts to these viewers.

Alternative C

Alternative C (see Exhibits G‐5.9 and G‐5.13 to G‐5.18 for simulations) follows E Irvington Road to Palo

Verde Road to Ajo Way, to Campbell Avenue, to 36th Street. The E Irvington Road segment is as described

above for Alternative A and the Campbell Avenue and 36th Street segments are as described above for

Alternative B. Impacts to viewers associated with commercial and urban settings along Palo Verde Road

are anticipated to be moderate. The long distance views of the Santa Catalina Mountains along this stretch

of Palo Verde Road would be broken up by the addition of taller vertical structures associated with the

proposed Project. Impacts along the east end of Ajo Way are anticipated to be low as changes in existing


E‐5

views are minor. Impacts to recreation viewers associated with Kino Sports Complex and the health care

facilities at Kino Hospital, however, are anticipated to be greater, given the likely longer viewing durations

of recreationists, although the existing vertical features in the area reduce project impacts. New

transmission line poles could also be visible to trail users as they are taller than the existing distribution

structures.

E.2 Historic Sites and Structures, and Archaeological Sites

E.2.1 Overview

A Class I records review was conducted by Tierra Right of Way Services, to determine the extent of

archaeological survey work performed along the three alternative routes, and whether any sites have

been recorded within a 200‐foot‐wide buffer surrounding each alternative’s corridor, see Exhibit E‐2.

5.2.2 Inventory Methods and Results

The study included a records search of the Arizona State Museum’s (ASM’s) online database, AZSITE. The

records review identified 110 cultural resource studies conducted within the Class I study area, which is

within 0.5‐mile of each alternative route. Of these studies, 12 have been conducted within the past 10

years.

The review identified 22 previously recorded sites, of which three (3) are within 100 feet of the alternative

routes (see Exhibit E‐2, and Table 5).

Table 5. Previously Recorded Sites Crossed by Alternatives

ALTERNATIVE AREA SURVEYED/

LENGTH OF ROUTE

SITES CROSSED POTENTIAL IMPACT

A 0.77 miles /

4.64. miles

AZ AA:12:875(ASM), El

Paso Gas Pipeline No.

1007

AZ FF:9:17(ASM), SR

80

Sites are in‐use linear

features, and would be

avoided, therefore no

impacts anticipated, and

no mitigation required.

B 3.4 miles /

3.63 miles

AZ BB:13:688(ASM),

Country Club Road

Site is in‐use linear





C 4.26 miles /

4.26 miles

AZ AA:12:875(ASM), El

Paso Gas Pipeline No.

1007

Site is in‐use linear






E‐6

Recommendations

The archaeologist’s recommendations for the Project are to avoid the El Paso Natural Gas (EPNG) Pipeline,

SR 80, and Country Club Road, and to abide by the requirements of A.R.S. § 41‐865 should any human

remains or cultural materials be discovered during ground‐disturbing activities (Tierra, 2018b). These sites

can be avoided by spanning and no impacts or mitigation are anticipated. A Class III survey will be

conducted upon approval of a route by the ACC and any impacts to newly discovered resources will be

mitigated, as required by law.

E.3 References

Tierra. (2018b). Cultural Resources Records Search for the Irvington‐Kino 138kV Line Siting Project: Tierra

Right of Way.


EXHIBIT E‐1

IRVINGTON TO KINO 138 KILOVOLT TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

VISUAL RESOURCES ANALYSISEXHIBIT E‐1

Segment From To Setting Existing Features Viewer TypeViewer

Sensitivity

Impact

LevelPotential Impacts

E Irvington

Road

Contractor's

Way

Tucson

Blvd

Industrial,

Commercial, a

mobile home

park

Existing 46 kV sub‐

transmission with

distribution underbuild

(self‐weathering steel),

galvanized light poles

and traffic signals

Commute,

work, live

Low‐Moderate Low Minor change in existing

views

Benson

Highway

Tucson Blvd Campbell

Avenue

Commercial

including

small motels.

Note: Future

setting

includes

recreation)


transmission with



existing galvanized light

poles and traffic signals

Commute,

work, travel,

recreation (in

future)

Moderate‐High Low Minor change in existing

views

Benson

Highway

Campbell

Avenue

Ajo Way Commercial

including

small motels,

mobile home

parks


transmission with


(self‐weathering steel

& wood), galvanized

light poles and traffic

signals

Commute,

work, live


views

Benson

Highway

Ajo Way Park

Avenue

Commercial

including

small motels,

mobile home

parks

Existing galavanized

traffic signals, wood

distibution lines

Commute,

work, travel

Moderate‐High Moderate Addition of new poles in a

setting that does not have

existing vertical structures.

Park Avenue Benson

Highway

36th

Street

Commercial,

residential

Existing distribution

lines (self‐weathering

steel & wood),


and traffic signals

Commute,

work, live

Low‐Moderate Moderate Minor change in existing

views

36th Street Park Avenue Kino Pkwy Commercial,

residential


transmission with


(self‐weathering steel)

and distribution

(wood), existing


and traffic signals

Commute,

work, live

Low‐High Moderate Minor change in existing

views

E Irvington

Road

Contractor's

Way

Palo

Verde

Road

Industrial,

Commercial, a

mobile home

park


transmission with




and traffic signals

Commute,

work, live


views

I‐10 Palo Verde

Road

Campbell

Ave

Interstate,

Commercial,

recreation

Existing galvanized light

poles and traffic

signals, galvanized

lattice towers,

galvanized sports field

lighting

Commute,

work, travel,

play

Moderate‐High High Addition of new poles in a

setting with long‐range

views

Campbell

Avenue

Ajo Way 36th

Street

Commercial,

residential,

recreation


(wood)

Commute,

work, live,

play


setting that only has wood

distribution poles.

Alternative A

Alternative B

Page 1

IRVINGTON TO KINO 138 KILOVOLT TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT

VISUAL RESOURCES ANALYSISEXHIBIT E‐1

Segment From To Setting Existing Features Viewer TypeViewer

Sensitivity

Impact

LevelPotential Impacts

36th Street Campbell Ave Kino Pkwy Residential,

recreation


transmission with




and traffic signals

Commute,

work, live,

play


views

E Irvington

Road

Contractor's

Way

Palo

Verde

Road

Industrial,

Commercial, a

mobile home

park


transmission with




and traffic signals

Commute,

work, live


views

Palo Verde

Road

E Irvington

Road

Ajo Way Industrial,

Commercial

including a

hotel.


(wood), existing


and traffic signals

Commute,

work

Low Moderate Addition of new poles

against long distance views

Ajo Way Palo Verde

Road

Country

Club

Industrial,

Commercial


(wood), existing


and traffic signals

Commute,

work

Low Low Minor change in existing

views

Ajo Way Country Club Campbell

Avenue

Commercial,

health care,

recreation

Existing galvanized

light poles and traffic

signals, field and

stadium lighting

Commute,

work, play

Moderate‐High Moderate Moderate change in

existing views with addition

of transmission line poles in

a setting that does not

currently have them.

Campbell

Avenue

Ajo Way 36th

Street

Commercial,

residential,

recreation


(wood)

Commute,

work, live,

play


setting that only has wood

distribution poles.

36th Street Campbell

Avenue

Kino Pkwy Residential,

recreation


transmission with




and traffic signals

Commute,

work, live,

play


views

Alternative C

Page 2


EXHIBIT E‐2

Ran dye K . Fe r r i ck , Pr e s i den t & B r oke r 1575 E as t R iver Roa d , Su i te 201 ● Tucson , Ar izona 85718 ● 520 .319 .2106 ● Fax : 520 .323 .3326

R i g h t o f W a y ● C u l t u r a l R e s o u r c e s ● E n v i r o n m e n t a l P l a n n i n g

F e d e r a l , S t a t e , a n d L o c a l P e r m i t t i n g ● G I S / C A D M a p p i n g

w w w . t i e r r a - r o w . c o m

April 10, 2018 Tucson Electric Power Company Attn: Renee Darling 3950 E. Irvington Road Tucson, Arizona 85714-2114 RE: Cultural Resources Records Search for the Irvington – Kino 138kV Line Siting Project At your request, Tierra performed a Class I records search of the Arizona State Museum’s (ASM’s) online database, AZSITE, to determine the extent of archaeological survey work performed along the three proposed route alternatives (Alternatives A, B, C) and whether any sites have been recorded within a 200-foot-wide buffer surrounding the project corridors. In addition, Tierra consulted the National Register of Historic Places to identify any National Register Historic Districts or buildings within a 200-foot-wide buffer surrounding the alternative project corridors. The study area, which encompasses all three of the transmission line alternative corridors, is in south-central Tucson and is roughly bounded by Irvington Road, Benson Highway, Park Avenue, 36th Street, Campbell Avenue, Ajo Way, and Palo Verde Road (Figure 1). Specifically, the study area is located within portions of Sections 28–33, Township 14 South, Range 14 East, Gila and Salt River Baseline and Meridian (G&SRB&M), as indicated on the Tucson, Arizona 7.5-minute 1: 24,000 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle map. The Class I search began by identifying all previously recorded archaeological sites and projects conducted within one-half mile of the three proposed route alternatives (Figure 2). Archaeological sites are any area that contains physical remains of past human activity that are more than 50 years old and meet certain density and variety criteria. Previous projects include pedestrian field surveys conducted by qualified archaeologists to identify and evaluate archaeological sites. The search identified a total of 110 previous projects conducted within the Class I study area (Table 1). Of these, 12 have been completed within the past 10 years. Areas covered by surveys older than 10 years may require an updated, current resurvey. The Class I study area contains a total of 22 previously recorded sites located within one-half mile of the three route alternatives (Table 2). No National Register Historic Districts or buildings listed on the National Register of Historic Places are located within one-half mile of the proposed alternatives. The results of the search by each proposed alternative route (Alternatives A, B, and C) and information on previous surveys and previously recorded archaeological sites within the 200-foot buffer are presented below. The 200-foot buffer centered on each alternative route was used to identify projects that intersect the proposed alternative corridors and to identify archaeological that may be impacted by the proposed undertaking. Alternative routes within 100 feet of all previous projects and previously recorded sites within 100 feet of the alternatives are identified in Tables 1 and 2. Of the 22 archaeological sites located within the Class I study area, only three sites are located

2

within 100 feet of or are crossed by the proposed route alternatives and could be impacted by the proposed undertaking. Only these three sites are analyzed below by alternative.

Alternative A

Alternative A is 4.64 miles in length. The S. Park Avenue portion of Alternative A was surveyed in 2012 (2012.73.ASM) approximately 0.77 miles have been surveyed in the past 10 years (2008-355.ASM and 2012.73.ASM). Approximately 3.85 miles of Alternative A have not been surveyed within the past 10 years, and the relevant land managing agencies may require a new survey. Because Alternative A follows existing developed road rights-of-way, especially E. Benson Highway and E. Irvington Road, there is very little potential for the survey to identify significant archaeological sites within the project corridor. Two archaeological sites are crossed by Alternative A: AZ AA:12:875(ASM), El Paso Gas Pipeline No. 1007, and AZ FF:9:17(ASM), State Route 80 (see Figure 2). Both are in-use linear features that include portions determined eligible by SHPO. Power poles would be placed to avoid the gas line and placed within the State Route 80 right-of-way; therefore, no impacts are anticipated and the undertaking would result in no adverse effect.

Alternative B

Alternative B is 3.63 miles in length. Only a narrow portion of Alternative B is crossed by a project completed within the past 10 years (2008-355.ASM), and the relevant land managing agencies may require a new survey of the entire corridor. Because Alternative B follows existing developed road rights-of-way, especially the I-10 corridor and E. Irvington Road, there is very little potential for the survey to identify significant archaeological sites within the project corridor. One linear archaeological site, AZ BB:13:688(ASM), Country Club Road, is crossed by Alternative B. This is an in-use linear feature that includes portions determined eligible by SHPO. Power poles would be placed within the road right-of-way; therefore, no impacts are anticipated and the undertaking would result in no adverse effect.

Alternative C

Alternative C is 4.26 miles in length and has been partially covered by portions of three projects within the past 10 years (2008-816.ASM, 2008-355.ASM, 2013-486.ASM). Approximately 3.8 miles of Alternative C have not been surveyed within the past 10 years, and the relevant land managing agencies may require a new survey. Because Alternative C follows existing developed road rights-of-way, especially E. Ajo Way, S. Palo Verde Road, and E. Irvington Road, there is very little potential for the survey to identify significant archaeological sites within the project corridor. One linear archaeological site, AZ AA:12:875(ASM), El Paso Gas Pipeline No. 1007 crosses the alternative. It is currently in use and includes portions determined eligible for the NRHP by SHPO. The linear feature is in use and power poles would be placed to avoid the gas line; therefore, no impacts are anticipated and the undertaking would result in no adverse effect.

3

Alternatives Analysis

TEP identified 11 criteria to be used in their alternatives analysis that are aligned to the CEC decision factors (Arizona Revised Statute § 40-360.06) and TEP’s design philosophy and standards. Tierra was tasked with assessing Criterion 7, which is described as: Criterion 7 - Known or potentially eligible cultural resources in the corridor as measured by documentation through previous survey effort and ranked by degree of mitigation required. Using Criterion 7, each alternative was scored based on the results of the cultural resources literature and records review, in which locations of recorded cultural resources were overlaid on maps of the study area and the alternatives. A score of 3 was given to alternatives where no impacts to known or potentially eligible cultural resources would occur. A score of 2 was given to alternatives where known or potentially eligible cultural resources would be impacted but could be mitigated. A score of 1 was given to those alternatives where impacts to known or potentially eligible cultural resources would occur and could be mitigated, but mitigation would approach cost- prohibitive. All three alternatives cross linear sites that are currently in use and where only portions have been determined eligible for the NRHP by SHPO. None of the alternatives would result in impacts to known or potentially eligible resources; therefore, all alternatives scored a 3.

Recommendations

Because only small portions of each alternative have been surveyed within the past 10 years and portions of each alternative have not been surveyed, Tierra recommends Class III surveys for significant portions of the selected alternative. A cultural resources survey would be required to identify, record, and assess the significance of any prehistoric or historic cultural resources within the project area that might be adversely affected by the proposed undertaking. However, because each alternative follows existing developed road rights-of-way and no significant prehistoric or historic archaeological sites have been identified in this part of Tucson, there is little potential for the survey to identify significant archaeological sites within any of the project corridors. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (520) 319-2106. Sincerely,

Jerry D. Lyon Principal Investigator, Environmental Planning and Cultural Resources Division

4

Table 1. Summary of Previous Projects Conducted within One-Half Mile of the Proposed Alternative Routes

ASM Project No.

Project Name/Description

Performing Institution

Report Reference

Crosses Portion of IRV-Kino

Alt.

1955-3.ASM Southern Pacific Pipeline Survey

Southern Pacific Wasley 1955 B C

1970-9.ASM Campbell T.I. - 22nd

Street Arizona State

Museum Information not available

B C

1980-155.ASM Santa Cruz /SW

Interceptor Arizona State

Museum Adams et al. 1980

1981-51.ASM Sunbriar Apartments

Arizona State Museum

Clearinghouse 81-85-0101

1982-3.ASM Low Income Housing



1982-109.ASM Sunbriar Apartments



1983-134.ASM

Southeast Interceptor Route


Perrine 1983 A B C

1990-152.ASM Parking Lot on Milber

Street, Tucson

Cultural and Environmental

Systems Slawson 1990

1993-41.ASM Imagine Survey Cultural and

Environmental Systems

Slawson 1993 A B C

1993-213.ASM Julian/Rodeo Wash

Survey



A B C

1993-214.ASM Kino Sports Park

Survey



1994-244.ASM Van Tran Survey

Desert Archaeology, Inc.

Freeman 1994

1995-72.ASM Survey of Tucson-Nogales fiber-optic

ROW

Archaeological Consulting Services

Adams and Hoffman 1995

1995-142.ASM Survey for proposed

water main replacements


Freeman 1995 A B C

1995-372.ASM Ajo Way/Palo Verde

Survey Aztlan Archaeology,

Inc. Slawson 1995

1996-106.ASM

Houghton/Valencia and

Irvington/Alvernon Way Survey


Eppley 1996

A B C

5

ASM Project No.



Report Reference


Alt.

1996-111.ASM Kino and 36th Survey Desert Archaeology,

Inc. Lindeman 1996

A B C

1996-143.ASM Kino Stadium SWCA Myers 1996 A B C

1996-144.ASM Juvenile Court Survey SWCA Myers 1996 B C

1996-286.ASM Park/33rd Street

Survey Desert Archaeology,

Inc. Sliva 1996

A

1997-28.ASM Kino Community

Center Survey Desert Archaeology,

Inc. Eppley 1997

A B C

1997-29.ASM Well

Connections/Meadow Survey


Eppley 1997

1997-33.ASM

Kino-Silverlake Main Survey


Eppley 1997 A

1997-320.ASM 22nd and I10 Main

Replacement Desert Archaeology,

Inc. Stevens 1997

1997-473.ASM Agape Christian

Church

Professional Archaeological Services and Technologies

Stephen 1997

B C

1997-513.ASM Tucson Blvd./

Bantam

Professional Archaeological Services and Technologies

Stephen 1997

1998-44.ASM

S. Park (19th-36th Ave)


Vint 1998 A

1998-65.ASM Ajo-Kino Wellsite


Inc. Sliva 1998

1998-227.ASM

Palo Verde Road at Irvington Road

Intersection Improvement Project

Dames & Moore Bruder 1998

A B C

1998-244.ASM ADOT-Tucson I Stantec Information not available

1998-495.ASM Los Reales Survey SWCA Desruisseaux 1998

1999-15.ASM

Palo Verde Road/ Corporate Drive

Old Pueblo Archaeology Center

Jones 1999

1999-88.ASM

I-10 Kino Blvd. to Valencia Rd. Survey

Statistical Research, Inc.

Deaver et al. 1999 A B C

1999-100.ASM Sundt C-D Booster


Inc. Diehl 1999

6

ASM Project No.



Report Reference


Alt.

1999-283.ASM Butterfield Business

Center 5.67 Acre Survey


Jones 1999 A B C

1999-587.ASM PBNS Level 3 Fiber

Optic Line SWCA Doak 1999

A B C

2000-116.ASM Jct. I-19 - Craycroft

Rd. Entranco Walsh and Montero 2000

A B C

2000-166.ASM Pipeline Anomaly

Digs Project URS Corp. Bauer and Rogge 2000

2000-282.ASM

Palo Verde and Columbia Well Survey


Castilia 2000

2000-822.ASM

Tucson Maintenance I-10

Archaeological Research Services

Barnes and Wright 2001 A

2001-104.ASM

Country Club Road from Irvington Road

to North of 36th Street


Wyman and Dart 2001

A B C

2001-243.ASM 36th Street Housing


Inc. Diehl 2001

B C

2001-399.ASM South Park Survey Desert Archaeology,

Inc. Diehl 2001

2001-491.ASM

Irvington Road Survey

Aztlan Archaeology, Inc.

Slawson 2001

2001-510.ASM

Ajo and Country Club Survey


Slawson 2001

2001-622.ASM/

SHPO-2001-2372

South Dodge Archaeological Survey

SWCA Plummer 2002

2001-769.ASM B-10 Survey


Wright 2001 A

2002-29.ASM

2002-145.ASM

Spectra-Butterfield Survey

Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd.

Klune 2002

2002-250.ASM

Pueblo Gardens Main Survey


Diehl 2002

2002-316.ASM

South Park Back to Basics Survey


Diehl 2002 A

2002-328.ASM Greater Wakefield 1


Inc. Diehl 2002

7

ASM Project No.



Report Reference


Alt.

2003-184.ASM SWG Illinois Tierra Right of Way

Services, Ltd. Olsson 2002

2003-185.ASM Chrysler Survey


Olsson 2002

2003-287.ASM

South Park/ E. 30th St. Survey


Diehl 2003

2003-377.ASM Kino Hospital Survey SWCA Plummer 2002 A B C

2003-474.ASM EPNG Line 1007

Survey SWCA Hesse 2003

2003-505.ASM

Hope VI South Park 35th Street Survey


Diehl 2003

2003-507.ASM Contractor's Way

Project

Harris Environmental

Group Twilling 2003

2003-554.ASM

Kino/Irvington Survey


Moses 2003

2003-915.ASM

AT&T NexGen/Core Project Proposed

Work Space PR03-AZ:04 (Addendum 7 to Link Two Arizona)

Western Cultural Resource

Management Rawson and Kearns 2003

B C

2003-1070.ASM

EPNG Tucson Class III Survey

SWCA Hesse and Gutierrez 2003 A B C

2003-1217.ASM

Hope VI 35th Street Purchase Survey


Diehl 2003 A

2003-1218.ASM

Habitat- 36th and Mountain Survey


Diehl 2003

2003-

1497.ASM Palo Verde Road and

Ajo


Group Twilling 2003

2003-1548.ASM

Arizona Anomaly Repair Project

William Self Associates

Estes 2004

2004-87.ASM

Kino Hospital cell tower

SWCA Tucker 2004

2004-140.ASM

Habitat South Park Survey


Diehl 2003

2004-569.ASM

South Park Elderly Housing Survey


Diehl 2004

2004-1398.ASM

Sunland Vista Survey Desert Archaeology,

Inc. Diehl 2004

2004- 902 E. 35th Street Desert Archaeology, Diehl 2004

8

ASM Project No.



Report Reference


Alt.

1748.ASM Survey Inc.

2004-1840.ASM

Palo Verde Road survey


Group Fahrni 2004

2004-

1865.ASM Monitoring at Palo

Verde & Ajo


Group Fahrni 2004

2005-174.ASM

Sunland Vista Parcels Survey


Diehl 2004

2005-340.ASM Schwan Foods


Klune 2005

2005-375.ASM

32nd and Park Parcels Survey


Diehl 2004

2005-478.ASM

I-10 and Kino Parkway Survey

Northland Research Hopkins 2005

2005-710.ASM Benson Highway and

Irvington Road Survey

Northland Research Craig 2004

2005-767.ASM Palo Verde Survey Harris

Environmental Group

Twilling 2005

2005-870.ASM

James Thomas Park Survey


Cook 2005

2005-887.ASM Mission View Wash

Drainage Improvement Project

URS Compton-Gore and Rogge

2005

2005-1081.ASM

Southeast Quadrant Main Survey


Diehl 2005

2005-1102.ASM

Line 2110 Pima Pork to Tucson

SWCA Levstik and Hesse 2006

2006-1.ASM

SFPP, LP, El Paso to Phoenix Expansion

Project, Arizona Portion: Cochise and

Pima Counties


Rieder et al. 2006

A B C

2006-471.ASM Campbell Avenue and Sunland Vista Survey

Northland Research Hopkins 2006 B C

2006-909.ASM 2102 South Park


Inc. Diehl 2006

2007-894.ASM

COT 07-54 RTA Bus Pullouts Package 1

SWCA West 2008

9

ASM Project No.



Report Reference


Alt.

2008-60.ASM RTA Bus Pullout #2 Tierra Right of Way

Services, Ltd. Doak 2008

2008-355.ASM

EPNG Line 1007 Survey

SWCA Hesse et al. 2009 A B C

2008-454.ASM Hidalgo

Neighborhood Park


Group Urban 2008

2008-816.ASM

MM Michigan Palo Verde

Antigua Archaeology, LLC.

Moses and Luchetta 2009

2009-107.ASM

COT 08-03 4 Bus Pullouts

SWCA Griset 2009

2012-73.ASM

Survey of fiber-optic route

Lone Mountain Knoblock 2001 A

2012-266.ASM COT 12-03 Park

Avenue Crosswalk SWCA Hider 2012

2013-486.ASM

36th Street Urban Wildlife Park


Miller 2013 B C

2013-497.ASM Overland Survey Tierra Right of Way

Services, Ltd. Doak 2013

2014-26.ASM Public Cell Towers

Antigua Archaeology, LLC.

Luchetta and Moses 2014

2015-108.ASM

Tesinc Dodge and Refinery Way Survey


Jones 2015

2016-13.ASM

Cox 5225 S. Palo Verde Survey


Copperstone 2016

84-003.ASU

Information not available



SHPO-2001-1652

Section 106 Review - Proposed Antenna

Installation on Existing 108-Foot-

High Tension Utility Tower

SWCA Information not available

SHPO-2001-

548

UTILITY INTERNATIONAL Solomon Industrial


Slawson 2001

SHPO-2003-2009

Nextel Communications, Site # AZ0172A, "Kino

Hospital"

SWCA Tucker 2003

SHPO-2004-0167

T-Mobile, Site # PH30889D, "Keelor"


Stone 2004

10

ASM Project No.



Report Reference


Alt.

SHPO-2004-0315

Nextel Communications, Site

# AZ-0172B (AZ0172B), "Kino"


Stone 2004

Table 2. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites within One-Half Mile of the Proposed Alternative Routes Agency Number (ASM)

Site Type Period Recorder NRHP Eligibility

IRV-Kino Alt. within 100 feet

AZ AA:12:875

El Paso Natural Gas Pipeline No. 1007

Historic (A.D. 1500-1950); Late historic (A.D. 1900-1950)

Jones, Jeffrey T. Portions determined eligible by SHPO

A C

AZ BB:13:122 Sherd and lithic scatter

Ceramic (A.D. 200-1500)

Rozen, K. Not evaluated

AZ BB:13:125

Historic well and artifact scatter

Historic (A.D. 1500-1950)

Fink, M. Determined not eligible by SHPO

AZ BB:13:134 Roasting pits

Archaic (8000 BC- A.D. 200)

Adams, R. Determined eligible by SHPO

AZ BB:13:39 Prehistoric village site

Ceramic (A.D. 200-1500)

Leavitt, E., Johnson, A.E.

Not evaluated

AZ BB:13:40 Two "rock ovens" and sherds

Ceramic (A.D. 200-1500)

Wasley, W.W. Not evaluated

AZ BB:13:46 Sherd scatter

Middle ceramic (A.D. 1000-1300)

Vivian, R.G., Ayres, J.

Determined not eligible by SHPO

AZ BB:13:502 Sherd and lithic scatter

Hohokam Classic Period (A.D. 1100-1450); Ceramic (A.D. 200-1500)

Lenhart, A. Not evaluated

AZ BB:13:515

Lithic scatter with historic trash

Prehistoric (12000 B.C.- A.D. 1500); Historic (A.D. 1500-1950)

Myers, L.; Wadsworth, J.

Considered eligible by recorder

11

Agency Number (ASM)

Site Type Period Recorder NRHP Eligibility

IRV-Kino Alt. within 100 feet

AZ BB:13:516 Lithic scatter

Unknown Myers, L.; Wadsworth, J.


AZ BB:13:517 Artifact scatter



AZ BB:13:518 Rock piles and artifact scatter



AZ BB:13:519 Rock piles and artifact scatter



AZ BB:13:540 Three rock features

Unknown Jones, Jeffrey T, and D. Stephen

Not considered eligible by recorder

AZ BB:13:578

Rock features and artifact scatter

Post-A.D. 1700 Historic (A.D. 1700-1950)

W.L. Deavor and Kristy Ratliff


AZ BB:13:679 Tucson and Nogales Railroad

Late historic (A.D. 1900-1950)

Matthew Smith, Ken Boden, Dianne Berrigan

Portions determined eligible by SHPO

AZ BB:13:688 Country Club Road


D. Schmidt, J. Fino

Determined eligible by SHPO

B

AZ BB:13:701 Historic artifact scatter


S. Plummer and J. Bray


AZ BB:13:702 Historic artifact scatter


S. Plummer and J. Bray

Determined eligible by SHPO

AZ BB:13:717

Three rock clusters and artifact scatter

Prehistoric (12000 B.C.- A.D. 1500)

Moses, James Determined not eligible by SHPO

AZ EE:1:300 Twin Buttes Railroad


Wright, Thomas E. and Terry L. Coriell

Portions determined eligible by SHPO

AZ FF:9:17 SR 80

Late historic (A.D. 1900-1950); Recent (A.D. 1950- present)

Wright, T. Portions determined eligible by SHPO

A

12

Figure 1. Project location.

13

Figure 2. Map showing proposed alternative routes and previous projects conducted within one-half mile.

EXHIBIT E: SCENIC AREAS, HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES ...

Documents

Transcript of EXHIBIT E: SCENIC AREAS, HISTORIC SITES AND STRUCTURES ...