DOCSLIB.ORG

San Xavier Cooperative Farm Rehabilitation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
San Xavier Cooperative Farm Rehabilitation San Xavier Cooperative Farm Rehabilitation Final Environmental Assessment U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Lower Colorado Region Phoenix Area Office Phoenix, Arizona July 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED .........................................................................................1 1.1 Introduction..............................................................................................................1 1.2 Background..............................................................................................................1 1.3 Purpose and Need for Action...................................................................................3 1.4 Project Area.............................................................................................................4 1.5 Public Involvement ..................................................................................................5 1.6 Decision to be Made ................................................................................................6 CHAPTER 2 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES...............................................................9 2.1 Proposed Action.......................................................................................................9 2.1.1 Water Distribution System.......................................................................................9 2.1.2 Field Irrigation Systems.........................................................................................12 2.1.3 Flood Protection.....................................................................................................12 2.1.4 Farm Roads............................................................................................................15 2.1.5 Farm Administration Building...............................................................................15 2.1.6 Crop Mix and Organic Production.........................................................................15 2.1.7 Water Budget.........................................................................................................16 2.2 No Action...............................................................................................................17 2.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Analyzed in Detail ............................................17 2.4 Comparison of Alternatives ...................................................................................18 CHAPTER 3 S AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ..........................................................................................................25 3.1 Land Use................................................................................................................25 3.1.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................25 3.1.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................26 3.1.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................27 3.2 Water Resources....................................................................................................27 3.2.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................27 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................32 3.2.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................34 3.3 Geology and Soils..................................................................................................37 3.3.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................37 3.3.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................38 3.3.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................39 3.4 Biological Resources.............................................................................................39 3.4.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................41 3.4.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................46 3.4.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................52 3.5 Cultural Resources.................................................................................................55 3.5.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................57 3.5.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................59 3.5.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................62 3.6 Air Quality.............................................................................................................64 3.6.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................64 3.6.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................66 3.6.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................72 3.7 Socioeconomic Resources.....................................................................................72 3.7.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................72 3.7.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................73 3.7.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................74 3.8 Noise......................................................................................................................74 3.8.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................74 3.8.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................76 3.8.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................78 3.9 Indian Trust Assets ................................................................................................78 3.9.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................78 3.9.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................79 3.9.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................79 3.10 Environmental Justice............................................................................................79 3.10.1 Affected Environment............................................................................................79 3.10.2 Environmental Consequences................................................................................80 3.10.3 Mitigation...............................................................................................................80 CHAPTER 4 S AGENCIES AND PERSONS CONSULTED .................................................81 CHAPTER 5 S RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND DIRECTIVES …………...82 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)(42 U.S.C 4321, et seq.) ..............................82 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (PL 85-624)...............................................82 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA)(PL 93-205) ........................................................82 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)..................................................................................83 Clean Air Act (CAA) ........................................................................................................83 Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.)............................................................83 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA)(PL 89-665)..................................................83 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)..........................................................84 Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) .........................................84 Farmland Protection Policy Act (FFPA) ………………………………………………...84 Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management) ..................................................84 Executive Order (EO) 11990 (Wetlands) ..........................................................................84 Executive Order (EO) 12898 (Environmental Justice)......................................................85 Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management) ..................................................85 Department of Interior, Secretarial Order, Indian Trust Assets.........................................85 CHAPTER 6 S LITERATURE CITED.....................................................................................86 APPENDICES A. TOUA Groundwater Quality Data B. CAP Water Quality Data C. CAP Water Salinity Data D. Common Plant and Animal Species E. Special Status Plants of the Tohono O’odham Nation F. PM10
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Southwestern Monuments
    SOUTHWESTERN MONUMENTS MONTHLY REPORT MAY 1939 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE GPO W055 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR *$*&*">&•• NATIONAL PARK SERVICE / •. •: . • • r. '• WASHINGTON ADDRESS ONLY THE DIRECTOR. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE April 2k. 1939. Memorandum for the Superintendent, Southwestern National Monuments: I am writing this as an open letter to you because all of us recognize the fine friendly spirit engendered by your Southwestern National Monuments n.onthly reports. I believe that all park and monument reports can be made as interesting and informative as yours. Your monthly report for L.erch i6 on my desk and I have glanced through its pages, checking your opening statements, stopping here and there to j.ick up en interesting sidelight, giving a few moments to the supplement, and then looking to your "Ruminations". The month isn't complete unless I read themJ As you know, the submission of the monthly reports from the field has been handled as another required routine statement by some of the field men. It seems to me you have strained every effort to rrake the reports from the Southwestern National Monuments an outstanding re­ flection of current events, history, and special topics; adding a good share of the personal problems and living conditions of that fine group of men and women that constitute your field organization. You have ac­ complished a great deal by making the report so interesting that the Custodians look forward to the opportunity of adding their notes. In issuing these new instructions, I am again requesting that the Superintendents and Custodians themselves take the time to put in writing the story of events, conditions, and administration in the parks and monuments they represent.
    [Show full text]
  • The Synopsis Was Written to Make Researchers Aware of the Amerind
    Amerind Amerind Foundation Collection Synopsis This synopsis was written to make researchers aware of the Amerind Foundation’s holdings. Our cataloged collection consists of over 21,000 objects and tens of thousands of bulk sherd samples. This synopsis is not an exhaustive list. For more information, please contact Chief Curator Dr. Eric Kaldahl at Amerind Foundation, PO Box 400, Dragoon, AZ 85609, (520) 586- 3666, or [email protected]. Archaeological Collections Excavated Collections The Amerind conducted several excavations at prehistoric sites in southeastern Arizona. These excavations were detailed in early Amerind publications. The sites include the Gleeson Site, the Tres Alamos site, Winchester Cave, and Babocomari Village. There were also excavations conducted on Amerind Foundation property in Texas Canyon. Ceramics recovered from these sites suggest a range of periods contemporaneous with the Hohokam Sedentary through Classic periods. Archaeological Notes on Texas Canyon, by William Shirley Fulton. Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation, Vols. 1-3. 1934-1938. New York. An Archaeological Site near Gleeson, Arizona, by William Shirley Fulton and Carr Tuthill. Amerind Foundation Publication No. 1. 1940. A Ceremonial Cave in the Winchester Mountains, by William Shirley Fulton. Amerind Foundation Publication No. 2. 1941. The Tres Alamos Site on the San Pedro River, Southeastern Arizona, by Carr Tuthill. Amerind Foundation Publication No. 4. 1947. The Babocomari Village Site on the Babocomari River, Southeastern Arizona, by Charles C. Di Peso. Amerind Foundation Publication No. 5. 1951. The Amerind Foundation excavated at southern Arizona ancestral pueblo migrant sites known as Davis Ranch Ruin and Reeve Ruin. Ceramics recovered from these sites suggest that they are contemporaneous with the later Hohokam Classic period.
    [Show full text]
  • A General Historic Properties Treatment Plan for Archaeological Investigations Associated with FCC Cell Tower Construction Projects on Private Lands in Arizona
    A General Historic Properties Treatment Plan for Archaeological Investigations Associated With FCC Cell Tower Construction Projects on Private Lands in Arizona Prepared for: Verizon Wireless Tempe, Arizona Prepared by: Terracon Consultants, Inc. Tempe, Arizona Terracon Project No. 65157582 August 2018 ABSTRACT Report Title: A General Historic Properties Treatment Plan for Archaeological Investigations Associated with FCC Cell Tower Construction Projects on Private Lands in Arizona Report Date: August 2018 Agencies: Federal Communications Commission, Arizona State Historic Preservation Office Project Sponsor: Verizon Wireless (Verizon) Project Description: Verizon constructs and collocates telecommunications facilities in Arizona. Due to the involvement of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in the projects, they are considered federal undertakings subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviews FCC-licensed undertakings pursuant to two nationwide programmatic agreements. Some of Verizon’s proposed undertakings may be found by the FCC and SHPO to have an adverse effect on historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The purpose of this General Historic Properties Treatment Plan (General HPTP) is to streamline the resolution of adverse effects to historic properties listed in, or eligible for listing in, the NRHP by Verizon-sponsored undertakings on private lands in Arizona. This streamlined resolution will also include the preparation of a project-specific addendum to the General HPTP. The General HPTP does not apply to state, county, municipal, or Tribal lands including private lands within tribal reservation boundaries, or to lands under federal jurisdiction. i TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.
    [Show full text]
  • KIVA INDEX: Volumes 1 Through 83
    1 KIVA INDEX: Volumes 1 through 83 This index combines five previously published Kiva indexes and adds index entries for the most recent completed volumes of Kiva. Nancy Bannister scanned the indexes for volumes 1 through 60 into computer files that were manipulated for this combined index. The first published Kiva index was prepared in 1966 by Elizabeth A.M. Gell and William J. Robinson. It included volumes 1 through 30. The second index includes volumes 31 through 40; it was prepared in 1975 by Wilma Kaemlein and Joyce Reinhart. The third, which covers volumes 41 through 50, was prepared in 1988 by Mike Jacobs and Rosemary Maddock. The fourth index, compiled by Patrick D. Lyons, Linda M. Gregonis, and Helen C. Hayes, was prepared in 1998 and covers volumes 51 through 60. I prepared the index that covers volumes 61 through 70. It was published in 2006 as part of Kiva volume 71, number 4. Brid Williams helped proofread the index for volumes 61 through 70. To keep current with our volume publication and the needs of researchers for on-line information, the Arizona Archaeological and Historical Society board decided that it would be desirable to add entries for each new volume as they were finished. I have added entries for volumes 71 through 83 to the combined index. It is the Society's goal to continue to revise this index on a yearly basis. As might be expected, the styles of the previously published indexes varied, as did the types of entries found. I changed some entries to reflect current terminology.
    [Show full text]
  • Connecting Mountain Islands and Desert Seas
    Natural Setting as Cultural Landscapes: The Power of Place and Tradition Roger Anyon Pima County Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation Office, Tucson, AZ T. J. Ferguson Anthropological Research LLC, Tucson, AZ Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh Center for Desert Archaeology, Tucson, AZ Abstract—The natural environment of the Madrean Archipelago comprises a mosaic of cultural landscapes. Throughout human history, people have imbued the natural environment with meaning by layering cultural values and historic contexts onto the natural world, allowing them to situate themselves in time and space. Cultural landscapes contain special places that have power associ- ated with important events, people, or critical resources. Effective conservation and management of the Madrean Archipelago require an understanding of the complexities and intricacies of the storied cultural landscapes layered upon the natural environment. the rivers and at other hydrologically advantageous locations. Natural Setting and Cultural The San Pedro Valley is no exception. Because so many ar- Landscapes chaeological sites are located along river courses, and because the conservation of biodiversity in the Madrean Archipelago The Madrean Archipelago is a natural wonder, encom- includes the critical river corridors, there is substantial loca- passing a unique diversity of landforms and life. It is, quite tional overlap in central components of the cultural landscapes understandably, a focus of much environmental research and of ecologists, environmentalists, archaeologists, and American management by a variety of government agencies and private Indians. This is not to say that river valleys are the only overlap sector organizations. Almost all this research and management in these varied cultural landscapes, as mountain ranges and is conducted within a scientific framework, bringing with it a other places have importance in all these perceptions of the set of prescribed constructs and values.
    [Show full text]
  • An Archaeological Perspective on the Hohokam-Pima Continuum
    Bulletin of Old Pueblo Archaeology Center December 2007, No. 51 Old Pueblo Archaeology An Archaeological Perspective on the Hohokam-Pima Continuum By Deni J. Seymour Paired structures of O’odham household grouping showing elongated dome shape and mode of construction using branches. Many times such houses were covered with mud, mud-cov- ered mats, or simply with brush, depending upon the season of use and the degree of seden- tism of the particular group. Archaeological evidence of adobe in the house fills indicates that adobe was commonly used by the riverine Sobaípuri. Drawing by Deni J. Seymour. Were the prehistoric Hohokam Indians direct ancestors in which “Pima” refers specifically to the Upper Pima). of the Upper Piman peoples who were encountered by the Instead of relying on the previously applied methods first European visitors to southern Arizona and northern for answering the question, however, I provide informa- Sonora? The historical Tohono O’odham (Papago), Akimel tion about some recent archaeological findings and in- O’odham (Pima), Sobaípuri, and other O’odham who to- terpretations relevant to the topic, and suggest what other gether are identified by anthropologists as the Upper Pima, kinds of information we need to consider in determining were the peoples first encountered by Spanish missionaries whether this supposed cultural continuum really existed. and explorers, and their descendants now occupy the To- The lines of evidence used previously to decide whether hono O’odham, Gila River Indian Community, and other there is a direct link between the ancient and historical groups Indian reservations that are relatively small compared to are not clear-cut and have been interpreted differently by the “Papaguería” – the traditional O’odham homeland.
    [Show full text]
  • 100 AZ Arch Sites to Visit
    100 AZ Arch Sites to Visit Archaeological Site Site Area Closest City Culture Site Type Land Manager Website Agua Fria National Bureau of Land https://foursquare.com/v/agua-fria-national-monument-1891-school- 1 1891 School House Monument Cordes Lakes Territorial Historic ranching Management house/4f26dda3e4b04d36e04be1f3 Roy P. Drachman, Agua Archaic, Pima County Natural Fria Caliente Regional Hohokam, Prehistoric; historic Resources, Parks 2 Agua Caliente Ranch Park Tucson Territorial ranching and Recreation http://www.pima.gov/nrpr/parks/agua_caliente/ 3 American Flag Mine Oracle-American Flag Oracle Territorial Historic mining City of Oracle http://oracletown.com/history.html Arivaca Pima, Protohistoric, 4 Arivaca Townsite Arivaca Townsite Territorial Historic mining City of Arivaca http://www.arivaca.net/ Agua Fria National Black Canyon Perry Mesa Prehistoric Bureau of Land 5 Badger Springs Monument City Complex petroglyphs Management http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/prog/recreation/hiking/badger-springs.html Besh-Ba-Gowah 6 Besh-ba-gowah Archaeological Park Globe Salado Prehistoric pueblo City of Globe http://www.jqjacobs.net/southwest/besh_ba_gowah.html Tohono O'odham; Native American Mexican and Mexican colonial; settlement; historic ??? Santa Cruz 7 Calabasas Rio Rico Ranch Nogales territorial ranching County http://www.ghosttowns.com/states/az/calabasas.html Native Kingman Arizona Historic American; Prehistoric and 8 Camp Beale Springs Distric Kingman territorial historic springs City of Kingman http://www.mohavemuseum.org/beale.htm
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Native American Culture History in the Oro
    CHAPTER 2 NATIVE AMERICAN CULTURE HISTORY IN THE ORO VALLEY STUDY AREA Throughout the prehistoric period, the Native American peoples who lived in or visited the Cañada del Oro area participated in cultural traditions documented more fully by archaeologists elsewhere in southern Arizona, most notably in the greater Tucson Basin. An understanding of the prehistory of the Cañada del Oro area is possible only with reference to these wider traditions. In this chapter, we provide a brief overview of Native American culture history in southern Arizona, with an emphasis on the Tucson Basin. We begin with the earliest known evidence for human occupation of the region and end with the period just before the earliest contacts with Europeans (Figure 3). The discussion draws on earlier syntheses of southern Arizona prehistory by Chenault and Tucker (2003), Craig (1989), Ezzo (2007a), O’Mack and others (2004), Whittlesey (2003), and Whittlesey and others (1994). Other sources are cited when the discussion touches on particular aspects of prehistory in the region. At the end of the chapter, we briefly summarize Native American culture history in the period after Europeans settled in southern Arizona. Paleoindian Period Archaeologists call the earliest documented Native American occupation of the Americas the Paleoindian period, which began at least as early as 12,000 years ago—many recent studies place its beginning thousands of years earlier—and lasted until around 10,000 years ago (Meltzer 2009). The Paleoindian period was characterized by small, highly mobile bands of people and a hunting- and-gathering way of life adapted to a climate that was generally cooler and wetter than today.
    [Show full text]
  • CLIFF POLYCHROME PATRICK D. LYONS Center for Desert
    CLIFF POLYCHROME PATRICK D. LYONS Center for Desert Archaeology 300 East University Blvd., Suite 230 Tucson, Arizona 85705 ABSTRACT Gila Polychrome is the key type used to identify deposits and to date events and processes associated with the late Classic Period in southern Arizona, southwestern New Mexico, and adjacent areas. However, because Gila Polychrome was a long-lived type, made circa A.D. 1300-1450, it has proven very difficult to track change through time during the late Classic Period. Previous researchers have identified temporally sensitive characteristics of form and design among Gila Polychrome bowls. The results of more recent research, including Patricia Crown's (1994) analysis of hundreds of Gila Polychrome whole vessels, and the test excavation of Classic Period sites in the San Pedro Valley of southeastern Arizona, confirm that a late form or "subtype" of Gila Polychrome can be discerned. This late type or subtype has been given the name Cliff Polychrome (Harlow 1968). The available evidence suggests Cliff Polychrome was first produced during the period A.D. 1350-1375. Recognizing Cliff Polychrome as a separate typological entity provides archaeologists additional means of subdividing the late Classic Period. INTRODUCTION One of the best dating guides we have in southern Arizona is the polychrome pottery of the Salado division of the Anasazi. This is so because the particular types involved, Gila and Tonto Polychromes, have been dated accurately by tree-rings to the 14th century (Haury 1950:351; with references). Too
    [Show full text]
  • The Protohistoric Period in the Pimería Alta
    The Protohistoric Period in the Pimería Alta Item Type text; Electronic Dissertation Authors Jelinek, Lauren Elizabeth Publisher The University of Arizona. Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author. Download date 04/10/2021 08:30:31 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/222842 1 THE PROTOHISTORIC PERIOD IN THE PIMERÍA ALTA By Lauren E. Jelinek Copyright © Lauren E. Jelinek 2012 A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of the SCHOOL OF ANTHROPOLOGY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY In the Graduate College THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA 2012 2 THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA GRADUATE COLLEGE As members of the Dissertation Committee, we certify that we have read the dissertation prepared by Lauren E. Jelinek entitled The Protohistoric Period in the Pimería Alta and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy _______________________________________________________________________ Date: March 1, 2012 Barnet Pavao-Zuckerman _______________________________________________________________________ Date: March 1, 2012 J. Jefferson Reid _______________________________________________________________________ Date: March 1, 2012 Thomas E. Sheridan _______________________________________________________________________ Date: March 1, 2012 Teresita Majewski Final approval and acceptance of this dissertation is contingent upon the candidate’s sub- mission of the final copies of the dissertation to the Graduate College. I hereby certify that I have read this dissertation prepared under my direction and recom- mend that it be accepted as fulfilling the dissertation requirement.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resources Survey of a 0.98 Mile Long Segment Within State Trust Land and Bureau of Land Management Land on Juniper Flat
    Cultural Resources Survey of a 0.98 Mile Long Segment within State Trust Land and Bureau of Land Management Land on Juniper Flats Road, Northeast of Bisbee, Cochise County, Arizona Michael W. Diehl Reviewed by Patricia Castalia Desert Archaeology, Inc. 3975 N. Tucson Boulevard Tucson, Arizona 85716 Submitted to Juniper Flats Road Maintenance Association Jim Alexander P.O. Box 788 Bisbee, AZ 85603-0788 Project Report No. 17-105 Desert Archaeology, Inc. Project No. 17-111 3975 N. Tucson Boulevard, Tucson, Arizona 85716 ● 25 April 2017 SURVEY REPORT ABSTRACT Report Title: Cultural Resources Survey of a 0.98 Mile Long Segment within State Trust Land and Bureau of Land Management Land on Juniper Flats Road, Northeast of Bisbee, Cochise County, Arizona Client: Juniper Flats Road Maintenance Association Client Project Name: Compliance Level: State (Arizona State Land Department), Federal (Bureau of Land Management [BLM]) Applicable Laws/Regulations: Arizona Antiquities Act of 1960 (ARS 41-841, et seq., as amended), Arizona Historic Preservation Act of 1982 (ARS 41-861, as amended), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470f, as amended). Applicable Permits: Arizona Antiquities Act Blanket Permit 2017-065bl, Archaeological Resources Protection Act Permit AZ-000595. Arizona State Museum Accession No. 2017-0110. Tribal Consultation: N/A Project Description: Class III cultural resources survey of 0.98-mile long segment of 90-ft-wide road right-of-way (ROW) on Arizona State Trust Land and BLM land Fieldwork Dates and Person-days: 7 April 2017; 1 person-day Final Disposition of Records: Arizona State Museum, BLM Tucson Field Office Legal Description: Cochise County, Sections 25 and 36, Township 22 South, Range 23 East, Gila and Salt River Base and Meridian, as depicted on the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quad Bisbee, Ariz.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyrighted Material Not for Distribution
    Contents List of Figures | ix List of Tables | xiii Acknowledgments | xv COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL 1. CommunitiesNOT and Households FOR DISTRIBUTIONin Southwestern Archaeology: Historical and Theoretical Perspectives Robert J. Stokes | 3 Part I: Household Action, Decision- Making and Identity, and Structural Relations within Communities 2. Household Action, Communal Ritual, and Treachery in the Ridges Basin Community James M. Potter | 29 | vii 3. The Rapidly Evolving Household: Episodic Change at Chodistaas and Grasshopper Pueblos, Arizona Stephanie M. Whittlesey and J. Jefferson Reid | 48 4. The Role of Landless Families and Households in the Creation of New Pueblo Communities in the Mimbres Area during the Classic Period Robert J. Stokes | 81 5. Social Distancing and Fragmentation: The 150- Year- Long Transition to the Hohokam Classic Period in the Tucson Basin of Southern Arizona Henry D. Wallace and Michael W. Lindeman | 111 6. Pliant Communities: Commonalities between Snowbirds and Seasonal Mobile Group Visitation at the Eastern Frontier Pueblos Deni J. Seymour | 131 7. Those Who Stayed Behind: Lipan Apache Enclaved Communities Oscar Rodriguez and Deni J. Seymour | 152 Part II: Community Organization and Structures of Integration, the Role of Households in the Community, and Change through Time 8. Pithouse Community Development at the Harris Site, Southwestern New Mexico Barbara J. Roth | 183 9. Houses, Public Architecture, and the Organization of Fremont Communities Katie K. Richards, James R. Allison, Lindsay D. Johansson, Richard K. Talbot, and Scott M. Ure | 201 10. Integrating Households and Communities at Jornada Mogollon Pueblos MylesCOPYRIGHTED R. Miller | 229 MATERIAL 11. Household, NOTCommunity, FOR and Circular DISTRIBUTION Pueblos in the American Southwest: A Case Study from the Salinas Region of Central New Mexico Alison E.
    [Show full text]