2.0 Methods of Investigation, part II.

2.2 Historic Architectural Inventory

As discussed above, MCD facilities that are of historic age, were previously reviewed by Foss (2001) and determined to be ineligible for the NRHP. However, the architectural survey was conducted for the purpose of determining if any undocumented aboveground historic architectural resources would be impacted by the proposed undertaking. The APE as defined in 36 CFR 800.16(d), is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of historic properties if any such properties exist. Typically, the architectural APE includes both the project tract for the proposed undertaking, as well as its viewshed.

Background investigations consisted of a review of current and historic maps and aerial photographs, county tax records, and an examination of all previously recorded architectural resources and surveys located within, or immediately adjacent to, the architectural APE. Recorded real estate deeds and plat maps were examined to determine the patterns of development within the APE. Background research included analysis of historic resource forms for previously recorded historic architectural buildings and structures located within the architectural APE. In addition, files were reviewed to determine whether NRHP listed architectural resources were located within the architectural APE.

Because of the nature and scope of the undertaking, there is limited potential for direct or indirect effects to historic resources anticipated to be created by the decommissioning of the MCD industrial park development. Despite its remoteness, the surrounding township beyond MCD was assessed. However, although the potential viewshed across remote desert flats can be several miles, visual analysis was also impractical for a variety of reasons:

1. Generally speaking the MCD perimeter fence dominates the landscape in most directions.  As described above, the perimeter fence is generally 20-ft. tall sections of corrugated metal. Thus, MCD has already impacted the viewshed, and its removal, would arguably restore the historic landscape of Loteria Township.
2. Conversely, the MCD fence, per Foss (2001)[1], primarily built in 1947 has already been determined to be a historic resource on its own, albeit one that is ineligible for the NRHP.
3. The immediacy of the international border on the eastern and southern MCD perimeter fences adds practical, jurisdictional issues for any historic structures in these areas.

Regardless, within and around such a vast tract as MCD the potential for previously unrecorded historic-age buildings and structures not associated with the federal facility was great. Therefore the project historian undertook both a windshield reconnaissance and an intensive survey of the project APE. The survey included a pedestrian inspection of individual properties that fell within the APE and high-resolution photographs were taken of each resource. Notes were taken as to construction method, design and alterations. Most work took place from public rights-of-way, although closer inspection was made of some properties if staff was granted permission by MCD security. Construction dates and the age of resources were based on information from the, field observations, historic maps, tax assessor data, and occasionally local informants. In addition to the coarse windshield survey, finer survey was assisted by the archaeological survey crew, who, of course, traversed the approximately 30, 000 acre property on foot at 30-m intervals, and had the opportunity to initially record numerous structural anomalies away from surface roads for the historian.

2.3 Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites

Legal mandates pertaining to American Indian cultural resources and religious freedom include the NHPA, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), NEPA, Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), and EO 13007. Consultation with the appropriate American Indian groups is necessary to identify Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs) as well as sacred or ceremonial sites. The NHPA requires protection of TCPs, and access to sacred and ceremonial sites is guaranteed by AIRFA and EO 13007.

The current SOW (USACE-EP 2012) also recommends that, in accordance with Section 110 of the NHPA, consultation with American Indian tribes and other parties should be initiated in an effort to identify TCPs at the facility.

The current CRMP (Foss 2001) previously recommended tribal consultation efforts be considered complete based on personal communications with the local Spanktomie Tribe, whom had been relocated from the Sierra Rica area to southeastern Loteria Township (Section SE ¼, 49) circa 1947.

In early 2012, USACE-EP attempted Tribal consultation for all of MCD property by requesting the Spanktomie provide comment on the 2001 CRMP and the current SOW.  Chief Brown Chicken Brown Cow of the Spanktomie Reservation responded to the request to consult.

In February 2012, TCCRC facilitated a forum was held between representatives of the tribe, GloboMax, Inc. and USACE-EP. Negotiations attempted to draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that outlined potential levels of consultation with consideration to factors such as the cultural significance of a facility to tribe, activity impacts of a proposed project, and consultation options. However, Spanktomie representatives were largely concerned with the disposition of the land following the closure of MCD, and insisted it fall to their ancestral claims, rather than the transferal to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service or U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, all of which had been internally discussed with the General Services Administration, which intended to assume interim management of the property from the Department of Defense. 

A dialog was maintained by TCCRC following the breakdown of negotiations throughout the period of investigations. However, the Tribe has not been forthcoming with information on their current or historic cultural practices and to date, the TCCRC has received no information from the Tribe regarding the potential for properties of traditional, religious, or cultural importance at this facility.

In compliance with Sections 106 and 110 of the NHPA, the federal government should continue consultation with American Indian tribes and other parties to identify concerning TCPs, sacred or ceremonial sites, and other items of potential concern for the tribes. Following DoDI 4715.16, TCP consultation should be conducted as part of the Tribal review of this current technical report.

2.4 Evaluation of NRHP Eligibility

Cultural resources are evaluated based on the criteria for eligibility to the NRHP as specified in Department of Interior Regulations (36 CFR Part 60: National Register of Historic Places). According to 36 CFR Part 60.4 (Criteria for evaluation), sites can be defined as significant (i.e., eligible for the NRHP) if they “possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association,” and if they:

A. Are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of history; or
B. Are associated with the lives of persons significant in the past; or
C. Embody distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, possess high artistic values, or represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. Have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Archaeological properties are usually evaluated relative to Criterion D. As locations of human activities that include physical remains of those activities, archaeological sites are potential sources of important information. As indicated in 36 CFR Part 60.4(d), archaeological sites “that have yielded, or are likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history” can be eligible for the NRHP. The National Park Service defines two requirements for archaeological sites to be eligible under NRHP Criterion D (Savage and Pope 1998:21)[2]:

1. The site must have, or have had, information to contribute to our understanding of human history or prehistory, and
2. The information must be considered important.

The National Park Service provides clarification for the first requirement by stating that an archaeological site is eligible for the NRHP if that site “has been used as a source of data and contains more, as yet unretrieved data” (Savage and Pope 1998:21).

Regarding the second requirement, Glassow (1977)[3] recommends careful consideration of specific site attributes (integrity, clarity, artifact frequency, and artifact diversity) in determining whether an archaeological site contains important information. Under Criterion D, importance or significance can be defined as research potential. The research potential of an archaeological site lacking architectural remains can be determined by demonstrating that the site retains relatively intact archaeological contexts, such as culturally or temporally diagnostic artifacts, intact features, discrete artifact clusters denoting activity areas, or preserved organic material capable of providing data to assist addressing important research questions.

Architectural resources within the architectural APE were typically evaluated under the first three broad evaluative criteria for determining the significance.

• Under Criterion A, the building or structure must be documented to have existed and to have been importantly associated with significant historic events. Historic structures in and around MCD have the potential to represent significant historic periods from the earliest Mogollon pueblos in the third century to the Spanish haciendas of the 16^th century to the craftwork of the  good people of GloboMax and its subcontractors in the 20^th century.
• Under Criterion B, a building or structure must be associated with a person’s productive life, reflecting the time when he or she achieved significance. Properties that pre- or post-date the individual’s significant accomplishments are usually not eligible unless there are no other properties that might qualify. Historic structures in and around MCD have the potential to be associated with important historic figures from prominent conquistadors on entrada to American Indians and American Indian fighters to the ribbon-cutting dignitaries and emigrant German scientists from the heyday of the MCD production lines.
• Under Criterion C, properties are eligible for the NRHP if they are significant for their physical design or construction, including such elements as architecture, landscape architecture, engineering, and artwork. To qualify under this Criterion, a property must embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction. The built environment at MCD may have the masterwork from the roughhewn Tudor arches of the extant historic uranium mine shafts to the to the Rustic Adobe walls of the local pastoral communities to the Desert Werkbund style of the explosives storage magazines.

Additionally, under Criterion C, properties are eligible for the NRHP as a distinguishable entity with individual component that may or may not be individually distinct. Thus a “district” may be composed of a variety of resources that derive meaning from constituting a unified entity. Its varied resources are consequently interrelated, conveying a visual sense of the overall historic environment or arrangement of historically or functionally related properties. At MCD, arguments can be made, and have, that the 65-year old facility, itself—with its significant contribution to winning the Cold War (A), through the efforts of an endless parade of the most-important scientists, engineers, and politicians of their day (B) within a facility that was and is, the pique of Bauhaus severity and efficiency (C) — meets the requirements of an eligible NRHP district.

It has been determined not to (cf. Foss 2001).

[1] Foss, Gene 2001. Mountweazel Chemical Depot Cultural Resources Management Plan. Prepared for the GloboMax, Inc., Richmond, Virginia, under contract with US Army Corps of Engineers, El Paso District. Third Square Consulting, LLC., Philadelphia.

[2] Savage, Beth L., and Sarah Dillard Pope. 1998. National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, DC.

[3] Glassow, Michael. 1977. Issues in Evaluating the Significance of Archaeological Resources. American Antiquity 42:413-420.

---

5.2 FS-2 (El Diablito Site)

UTM: Zone 13R, E202XXX N3520XXX (NAD 27) [Redacted]

USGS Quadrangle: Victorio Ranch, NM

PLSS: NE ¼, NE ¼, NW ¼, Section 2, T29.5S R13W

Cultural Affiliation: Historic

Site Type: Hand-dug Well

Nearest Water Source: Unnamed tributary to Wamels Draw, 600 m NE

Environmental Setting: Flat/Pavement

Soil type: Molniya silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Elevation: 1410 m (4625 ft) amsl

Site Size: 5-meter diameter

NRHP Eligibility Recommendation: Unknown

Field Site-2 was likely first identified within visual inspection of the NW ¼ of Section 2 (T29.5S R13W) which MCD incorporates in this area.[1] Survey transects at 30-m increments were traversed north (0°), perpendicular to the northern MCD perimeter fence. The site was first identified as an open 0.3 m shaft in the desert floor approximately 350 m north of the abandoned settlement of Sierra Rica (Figures 5.3 and 5.4; Table 5.2).  Other than this shaft, presumed to be a hand-dug water well, no evidence of this former Sierra Rica community was identified in the field. Presumably all trace evidence has been obliterated by the construction of the Naphtha fueling station in this area.

Although several foot paths radiate from the former site of Sierra Rica to the mountains to the southwest, the abandoned village of El Cinco De Mayo to the southeast, and the creek to the east, FS-2 lies at some distance from any visible human or game trail.  The local, seasonal tributary to Wamels Draw lies 600 m to the northeast of FS-1. Notably, the only vegetation noted in this portion of the base is the occasional devil’s claw cactus (Echinocactus texensis.).[2]

Figure 5.3. FS-2 shown in NW ¼, Section 2, T29.5S R13W.

Although identified on the surface, a shovel tests were excavated at 10-m and 20-m increments in four cardinal directions surrounding the well. No tests, of course, was possible at the feature itself, however the shaft its self was investigated via reel tapes, plumb lines, and all other means available.

Soils in the well shaft were comparable to the expected NRCS designation for this area, Molniya silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes:

• Stratum I – 10 cm of dark brown (10YR 3/3) silty loam (A1 Horizon)
• Stratum II – 10-40 cm of dark grayish brown (2.5Y 4/2) silty loam (A2 Horizon).
• Stratum III – 40-110 cm of light olive brown (2.5YR 5/3) loam (E Horizon)
• Stratum IV – 110-205 cm of pale olive (5YR 6/4) silty clay loam (EB Horizon)
• Stratum V – 205-365 cm of strong brown (7.5YR 5/6) clay loam (Bw1 Horizon)
• Stratum VI – 365-515 cm of weak red (5YR 5/2) clay loam (Bw2 Horizon)
• Stratum VII – 515-735 cm of red (2.5YR 4/8) clay loam (2Bw3 Horizon)
• Stratum VIII – 735-810 cm of reddish yellow (7.5YR 7/6) clay and fine gravels (2Btx1 Horizon)
• Stratum IX – 810-1165 cm of very pale brown (10YR 7/4) sandy clay loam and unsorted gravel (2Btx2 Horizon)
• Stratum X– 1165-1375 cm of brown (10YR 4/3) sand (C1 Horizon)
• Stratum XI – 1375-1885 cm of dark gray (10YR 4/1) sand (C2 Horizon)
• Stratum XII – 1885-2905 cm of black (10YR 2/2) sand (C3 Horizon)
• Stratum XIII – 2905-43365 cm of banded gray (10YR 5/1) and pink (5YR 7/3) migmatite (R Horizon)
• Stratum XIV – 43365-50000+ cm of olive gray (5YR 4/2) limestone (R Horizon)

Field Technicians were unable to map the wall of the shaft beyond Stratum XIV, and were not able to probe the bottom of the well, which was not conclusively reached, for cultural materials which may have fallen during excavation or in an provide a date for the well’s construction.

Notably the shaft remains at approximately 0.3 m wide for only the first meter deep; upon reaching clayey substrata excavations seem to have broken through much wider (approximately 1.3 m diameter) as perhaps hitting a void of some kind. Upon reaching rocky strata the smoothed southern profile of the pit was retained (and was mapped), however the width of the shaft could no longer be estimated, having the excavation perhaps having broken through into a more cavernous chamber.  Given the penchant for flash flooding, sink holes, and other non-intuitive, rapid sedimentation to the desert southwest, such voids have been reported in the area, with local folktales of livestock or security patrol helicopters being swallowed by the earth in the night. Also notably is the amount of geothermal heat given off by the shaft, typically 15 degrees warmer than the surrounding air temperature, as is the unique acoustic effects incurred if one places his ear by the shaft. The “drumbeats and screeching tones” heard are likely reverberations from one’s blood pumping in one’s ears not unlike the effect f a seashell to the ear.

Regardless, 0.3 m eight shovel probes were excavated to an average depth of 1 m before being refused by clayey subsoil.  And as, all tests were sterile of additional cultural material, FS-2 was initially defined as only the well-shaft itself. The well has no aboveground brick or adobe construction and it is presumed this has been lost over time, as for both convenience and safety it is unlikely that such a dangerous shaft would have been left unclearly marked. However, the Principal Investigator, upon a later field visit, collected some artifacts were collected near the mouth of the shaft which hadn’t been previously noted (see Table 5.2).  Perhaps these attribute some additional interpretation of the feature.

Table 5.2. Artifacts from surface collection of FS-2, El Diablito Site.

Prehistoric wells have been recorded to up to 75 m deep by the first white settlers to the New Mexican desert and it is only by ethnocentric modern drilled well standards that we conceive of their hand-dug counterparts as primitive, shallow and of low yield. Still, this well appears much deeper than even the deepest recorded prehistoric/aboriginal wells. Further, the scoring and gouging marks on the shaft having been surprisingly well-preserved, the historic tools recovered near the mouth of the shaft appear to have been those (i.e. shovel and trowel) that were used to excavate the initial shaft. Therefore, although such oases have been crucial to survival in the southwest for millennia, we interpret this feature to have to have been excavated in the recent historic period. Indeed, it is likely this was an exploratory probe which was able to breach a subterranean aperture in the aquifer. Likely the last of a series of such probes started much closer to the surficial run-off from the Sierra Ricas.

Figure 5.4. Detail of FS-2, looking northeast.

Well placement techniques have a long and varied history ranging from close consideration of the terrain for indicators of a shallow aquifer to so-called “water-witching.” Regardless of technique the ability to site a good well is a point of honor in most arid communities, prehistoric, historic or otherwise, as the thirsty labor to dig a deep shaft and conversely have no pay off could spell disaster in such a community. One wonders the opinion of the “water witch” who chose the site of FS-2.  That is, although excavations on some level appear to have been fairly easy, given the apparent subterranean voids, not having reached the bottom ourselves, it is not clear to us whether he/she was ultimately successful in reaching the fresh water. Whether the excavation tools left near the mouth of the shaft were abandoned out of disgust or forgotten during celebration is something we may never know.

In any case, as is, our investigations of FS-2 have pushed the envelope of the Safety protocols afforded us in the SOW[3].  Further investigations of FS-2 may provide valuable information on the lost town of Sierra Rica, of which to date this is the only evidence. Particularly examining the limits of the excavation for artifacts associates with the town may provide some insight to the former community.

Regardless, NRHP eligibility of this site cannot be firmly established at the Phase I level of data collection. Further Phase II investigations, including additional documentation, sampling and research in hydrology, and dowsing in the southwestern desert, is required to fully assess this site’s potential significance. Therefore pending additional study, FS-2 remains of unknown eligibility for the NRHP.

[1] Although this feature was ultimately flagged and recorded by survey crews, there appear to be no notes on its initial discovery. Notes for several transects in this area are missing; it is likely  a short term technician failed to return his field notebook. [fjt]

[2] Notable in so much that, I assume this “devilish” field site was named for the cactus; I see no other demonic aspect to this rather featureless pit into the bowels of the earth. [fjt]

[3] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, El Paso District. 2012. Memorandum of Agreement for National Historic Preservation Act Compliance  Regarding the Closure of Montweazel Chemical Depot, under the Recommendation of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission.