cultural resource survey for the lower cow creek

Okun Consulting Solutions

PREPARED FORPathfinder Environmental, LLC

PREPARED BYOkun Consulting Solutions

AUGUST 2018

CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY FOR THE LOWER COW CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, SAN MIGUEL COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

NMCRIS ACTIVITY NUMBER 141269

CULTURAL RESOURCE SURVEY FOR THE LOWER COW CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT, SAN MIGUEL COUNTY, NEW MEXICO

Prepared forPathfinder Environmental, LLC 1800 Old Pecos Trail, Suite ESanta Fe, NM 87505

Prepared and Submitted byAdam Okun, Principal InvestigatorOkun Consulting Solutions441 Morningside Dr. NEAlbuquerque, NM 87108

Reviewing AgenciesUnited States Army Corps of EngineersNew Mexico Historic Preservation Division

Survey Conducted UnderNew Mexico General Archaeological Investigation Permit Number: NM-18-285-S

Okun Consulting Report Number: OCS-2018-24

29


August 2018 | Pathfinder Environmental, LLC

LOWER COW CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT

ABSTRACT The Upper Pecos Watershed Association is proposing a riparian restoration project along lower Cow Creek in San Miguel County, New Mexico. The project is approximately 0.75 miles long and is located less than 1 mile northwest of the town of North San Ysidro. Cow Creek is designated as a cold-water fishery, but water quality in the creek is currently impaired by high temperatures. The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce the water temperature in the creek, which is needed to support its designated use and improve riparian habitat. The project is being funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Surface Water Bureau of the New Mexico Environment Department. It will take place entirely on private lands. A variety of restoration treatments are proposed, which will alleviate stream entrenchment and riverbank erosion and improve riparian habitat.

The only cultural resource identified during 100-percent pedestrian survey of the area of potential effects (APE) is a portion of the North San Ysidro acequia system, which was documented as a linear resource and assigned the resource number HCPI 45368. No archaeological sites, buildings, districts, isolated occurrences, or other resources were discovered.

HCPI 45368 retains historic significance and integrity and is recommended as eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criterion A for its association with locally significant historic events, such as the establishment of dispersed farming communities in the Upper Pecos Watershed. However, the acequia and its laterals only enter the project area in a few locations, and these features will not be impacted by the proposed project. Where the main canal comes closest to Cow Creek, the stream bank will be reinforced to prevent ongoing erosion that is threatening to undercut the acequia, which is on the slope above the stream. However, the acequia itself will be fully avoided, as will the field laterals to the south. Restoration efforts will not alter the setting or detract from the characteristics that qualify the acequia system for listing on the NRHP. As a result, the proposed project will have no effect on HCPI 45368

Subject to agency consultation and comment, the proposed undertaking would have no effect on any historic property listed, or eligible for listing, on the NRHP. However, if buried cultural deposits are discovered during project activities, work shall cease and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) shall be notified immediately. This cultural resource investigation complies with the provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended through 1992 and any other applicable cultural resource rules or regulations. The project was completed in accordance with §4.10.15 New Mexico Administrative Code: Standards for Survey and Inventory.

30




TABLE OF CONTENTSCHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................1

CHAPTER 2: ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING .............................................................................................................7

CHAPTER 3: HISTORIC BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................10

Early Spanish Colonial Period (1598 to 1680) .............................................................................................................................. 10

Late Spanish Colonial Period (1680 to 1821) ............................................................................................................................... 11

Mexican Colonial Period (AD 1821 to 1848) ................................................................................................................................. 12

The Territorial Period (1848 to 1912) ............................................................................................................................................... 12

The Twentieth Century ........................................................................................................................................................................ 13

Lower Cow Creek/North San Ysidro ................................................................................................................................................ 13

CHAPTER 4: METHODS ..........................................................................................................................................15

Pre-Field Investigations ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Survey Methods ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 5: PREVIOUS RESEARCH ......................................................................................................................17

CHAPTER 6: SURVEY RESULTS ..............................................................................................................................18

HCPI 45368 ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Eligibility and Management Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER 7: MANAGEMENT SUMMARY ..............................................................................................................23

REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................................................24

APPENDIX A ..........................................................................................................................................................26

31




Figure 1. Project Location Map ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. Project Area Map on USGS Quadrangle (1:24,000 Scale) ............................................................................ 4

Figure 3. Aerial View of the Project Area ....................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 4. Plan of Proposed Restoration Activities ....................................................................................................... 6

Figure 5. HCPI 45368 (San Ysidro Norte Acequia System) Overview Map .............................................................. 19

LIST OF TABLESTable 1. Monthly Historical Climate Data for Pecos, New Mexico (1916 to 2016; WRCC 2017) .......................... 8

LIST OF PHOTOGRAPHSPhotograph 1. Project Overview showing Cow Creek Valley and Adjacent Landforms ....................................... 8

Photograph 2. Gently Sloping Terrain along Cow Creek ............................................................................................ 8

Photograph 3. Wide Section of Cow Creek in Southern Portion of Project Area ................................................... 9

Photograph 4. HCPI 45368 Main Acequia Where it Passes Close to Cow Creek ................................................... 20

Photograph 5. Concrete Diversion Structure and Metal Screw-lift Gate Southwest of Project Area ................ 20

Photograph 6. Log Mill Outside Project Area (Facing North) .................................................................................. 21

Photograph 7. Wooden Vertical Lift Gates along Field Lateral ................................................................................ 22

Photograph 8. Field Lateral Flowing South along Western Edge of Survey Area .................................................. 22

LIST OF FIGURES

1




CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTIONThe Upper Pecos Watershed Association (UPWA) is proposing a riparian restoration project along lower Cow Creek in San Miguel County, New Mexico (Figure 1). The project is approximately 0.75 miles long and is located less than 1 mile northwest of the town of North San Ysidro (Figures 2 and 3). Cow Creek is designated as a cold-water fishery, but water quality in the creek is currently impaired by high temperatures. The purpose of the proposed project is to reduce the water temperature in the creek, which is needed to support its designated use and improve riparian habitat. The project is being funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the Surface Water Bureau of the New Mexico Environment Department. It will take place entirely on private lands.

A variety of restoration treatments are proposed, which will alleviate stream entrenchment and riverbank erosion and improve riparian habitat (Figure 4). The following specific activities are proposed:

• transplant approximately 200 willow clumps and plant approximately 40 cottonwood trees in eroded areas along the stream

• install woody debris structures and large boulders along the banks of the channel to facilitate the formation of pools, riffles, and bankside microsites, and to protect the bank by directing flow energy back toward the middle of the channel

• install cross vanes and scour pools to create refugia for fish• use excavated material from scour pools in select locations to narrow the channel and introduce

sinuosity• conduct workshops with local landowners to teach sustainable management practices that reduce

sediment-laden runoff into the creek.

Stream channel geometry improvements will include construction and placement of in-stream rock and woody debris structures, which use natural processes to catch sediments, reduce bank shear stress, encourage channel narrowing in areas where the channel has become too wide and shallow, and reestablish native vegetation in areas that are presently exposed to excessive sunlight. Planting vegetation along exposed, eroded stream banks and manipulating channel morphology will slow surface runoff and overland flows of sediment across the floodplain. All restoration activities will take place within the stream channel or within 25 feet (ft) of the stream banks on each side. The stream will be accessed from an existing gravel road that runs along the eastern side of Cow Creek and from two designated staging areas that are located along the eastern side of the stream.

Proposed project activities within Cow Creek require a Section 401/404 permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to satisfy the stipulations of the Clean Water Act and an NMED Section 401 Water Quality Certification because the arroyo is classified as a jurisdictional waterway. As the proposed project requires a federal permit from the USACE and has the potential to affect cultural resources, it is defined as an undertaking under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA; 54 U.S.C. §306108) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800). This legislation requires the lead federal agency to consider the effects a proposed undertaking may have on historic properties as defined under the NHPA.

To satisfy the above requirements, Okun Consulting Solutions performed a 100-percent pedestrian (Class III) cultural resource survey of the area of potential effects (APE) for the project. The purpose of this investigation was to identify and evaluate all heritage resources within the APE, including historic

2




districts, archaeological sites, and historic buildings and structures over 50 years in age. All discovered resources were evaluated for their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and the all resources defined as historic properties under the criteria in 36 CFR Part 800 were evaluated for potential adverse effects from the undertaking. The APE was defined to include all areas where ground-disturbing restoration activities could occur along the 0.75-mile stretch of Cow Creek. As proposed restoration will be confined to the stream channel and adjacent banks, the APE includes this area and extends laterally for 25 ft in both directions from the stream bank. This survey area totals 4.94 acres (1.99 hectares).

The cultural resource survey was completed on August 1, 2018 by Adam Okun and Micah Smith of Okun Consulting Solutions. Adam Okun served as the principal investigator and authored the report. The investigation was assigned New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System (NMCRIS) Number (No.) 141269. The survey was performed under New Mexico Archaeological Survey Permit NM-18-285-S. The project area is located within Section 33 of Township (T) 15 North, Range (R) 13 East; Sections 3 and 4 of T14 North, R13 East; and Tract 06 of the San Miguel del Bado Grant. It is depicted on the North San Ysidro (35105-D5) 7.5-minute United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (see Figure 2). Survey and resource documentation were conducted in accordance with the guidance set forth in §4.10.15 NMAC: Standards for Survey and Inventory.

3




Figure 1. Project Location Map

#*

Copyright:© 2018 Garmin, Content may not reflect NationalGeographic's current map policy. Sources: National Geographic,Esri, DeLorme, HERE, UNEP-WCMC, USGS, NASA, ESA, METI,NRCAN, GEBCO, NOAA, increment P Corp.

ProjectLocation

#*

Figure 1: Project Location Map

Ü#* Project Location

0 5 102.5 Miles

4




Figure 2. Project Area Map on USGS Quadrangle (1:24,000 Scale)

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed

Project Area

Lower Cow Creek RestorationProject Area Map (1:24:000)

ÜSurvey Area

0 500 1,000250 Meters

0 0.5 10.25 Miles

North San Ysidtro (35105-D5)7.5-Minute Quadrangle Map

5




Figure 3. Aerial View of the Project Area

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity

Staging Area

Lower Cow Creek Stream Restoration

Survey Area

0 50 10025 Meters

Staging Area

6




Figure 4. Plan of Proposed Restoration Activities

7




CHAPTER 2

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTINGThe project area is located along lower Cow Creek immediately south of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains (Photograph 1). Cow Creek is a perennial stream and a major tributary of the Pecos River, which drains the entire southeastern flank of the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. Cow Creek drains the areas around Elk Mountain, Chaparito Knob, Viveash Mesa, and other upland portions of the Santa Fe Mountains east of the Pecos River. It meanders southward, running roughly parallel to the Pecos River, and flows through the towns of Upper Colonias, Lower Colonias, and North San Ysidro, before eventually joining the Pecos near Interstate 25 northwest of the town of San Jose. Within the project area, Cow Creek runs along the bottom of a deep canyon with sandstone cliffs that are several hundred feet tall, restricting views of the surrounding area (Photographs 2 and 3). A wide, gently sloping floodplain surrounds the stream. Elevation ranges from approximately 6,530 ft above mean sea level (amsl) at the southern end of the project area to 6,560 ft at its northern end.

Physiographically, the project area is near the transition between the Sacramento Section of the Basin and Range Province and the Rocky Mountain Province, which extends south from Colorado into north-central New Mexico (Hawley 1986). The Rocky Mountain Province is “a two-pronged system of high ranges separated by deep structural basins of the northern Rio Grande rift” (Hawley 1986:23). The eastern prong includes the Sangre de Cristo Mountains, a north-south-trending chain of structurally complex mountains between the Rio Grande Basin to the west and the High Plains to the east. The Sacramento Section is characterized by high tablelands with broad rolling summit plains, low mountains, escarpments, and widely spaced structural basins. Landforms are often capped in dipping limestone and sandstone of Permian age (Hawley 1986). According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, soils are Laport or Manzano Loam types, which are deep (more than 80 inches), well-drained, and found on valley sides, fans, and floodplains. They consist of mixed alluvium from shale and sandstone and are considered prime farmlands (NRCS 2018)

According to Griffith et al. (2006), the project area falls within the Foothill Woodlands and Shrublands portion of the Southern Rockies. This ecoregion contains ridges, hills, and slopes within the Sangre de Cristo foothills. It is dominated by piñon-juniper woodlands, with sagebrush, mountain mahogany, Gamble oak, serviceberry, skunkbush, and a variety of grasses. While these characteristics are found in the surrounding area, most of the project area contains riparian vegetation or irrigated agricultural fields. Common species include cottonwood, box elder, coyote willow, Wood’s rose, and a variety of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Dick-Peddie (1993) refers to this as the Montane Riparian biotic community.

The closest weather station to the project area with reliable historic climate data is at Pecos, New Mexico, where climate data has been collected from 1916 to the present (Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC} 2018). Historic climate data from this station indicate a high average temperature of 85.3 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in July and 47.1 degrees in January, with an average low of 52.9 degrees in July and 15.1 degrees in January (Table 1; WRCC 2017). Average precipitation is 16.2 inches, with 27.2 inches of annual snowfall. Climate data is presented in Table 1.

8




Table 1. Monthly Historical Climate Data for Pecos, New Mexico (1916 to 2016; WRCC 2017)

The closest weather station to the project area with reliable historic climate data is at Pecos, New Mexico, where climate data has been collected from 1916 to the present (Western Regional Climate Center [WRCC} 2018). Historic climate data from this station indicate a high average temperature of 85.3 degrees Fahrenheit (F) in July and 47.1 degrees in January, with an average low of 52.9 degrees in July and 15.1 degrees in January (Table 1; WRCC 2017). Average precipitation is 16.2 inches, with 27.2 inches of annual snowfall. Climate data is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Monthly Historical Climate Data for Pecos, New Mexico (1916 to 2016; WRCC 2017) Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

Average Maximum Temp 47.1 49.9 55.4 63.9 73.4 83.1 85.3 82.5 77.2 67.4 55.2 48.6 65.8

Average Minimum Temp 15.1 19.2 23.5 30.0 38.2 47.0 52.9 51.6 44.2 33.7 23.1 16.5 32.9

Total Precipitation (inches)

0.70 0.68 0.91 0.84 1.17 1.21 2.91 3.21 1.88 1.22 0.69 0.73 16.2

Total Snowfall (inches) 5.6 5.0 5.5 1.8 0.3 0 0 0 0 0.5 2.5 5.8 27.2

Photograph 1. Project Overview showing Cow Creek Valley and Adjacent Landforms

Photograph 2. Gently Sloping Terrain along Cow Creek

Photograph 3. Wide Section of Cow Creek in Southern Portion of Project Area

CHAPTER 3: HISTORIC BACKGROUND By obtaining knowledge of the local culture history prior to conducting surveys, archaeologists are better able to identify, interpret, and place their findings within the proper context. Furthermore, cultural overviews allow the reader to appreciate the complexity of the cultural record for a specific geographic area. Because the only identified resource in the project areas is a historic acequia, a prehistoric culture history is not necessary for its evaluation, and the following discussion includes only the historic period. Interested readers are encouraged to consult the excellent prehistoric New Mexico overviews provided by Cordell (1997) and Kantner (2004) for additional details on the prehistoric culture history of the area. Much of the following history focuses broadly on Northern New Mexico and, more specifically, on Pecos Pueblo and the surrounding Hispanic farming communities. EARLY SPANISH COLONIAL PERIOD (1598 TO 1680)

The first European contact with the indigenous inhabitants of the Southwest occurred during the Spanish expedition led by Coronado in AD 1540. Spanish explorations continued with the Rodriquez‐Chumusco and Espejo‐Beltran expeditions of 1581 and 1582. In 1596, Don Juan de Oñate was chosen by the Spanish government to colonize New Mexico and was named governor and captain general of the area. Early in 1598, Oñate’s expedition set out with 400 soldiers and settlers and ten Franciscan friars. In mid‐July of 1598, the group reached an area they named San Juan de los Caballeros (San Juan of the Gentlemen). The first settlement founded by the expedition was located in a small valley near the confluence of the Chama and

Photograph 2. Gently Sloping Terrain along Cow Creek

Photograph 1. Project Overview showing Cow Creek Valley and Adjacent Landforms

9




Photograph 3. Wide Section of Cow Creek in Southern Portion of Project Area

10




CHAPTER 3

HISTORIC BACKGROUNDBy obtaining knowledge of the local culture history prior to conducting surveys, archaeologists are better able to identify, interpret, and place their findings within the proper context. Furthermore, cultural overviews allow the reader to appreciate the complexity of the cultural record for a specific geographic area. Because the only identified resource in the project areas is a historic acequia, a prehistoric culture history is not necessary for its evaluation, and the following discussion includes only the historic period. Interested readers are encouraged to consult the excellent prehistoric New Mexico overviews provided by Cordell (1997) and Kantner (2004) for additional details on the prehistoric culture history of the area. Much of the following history focuses broadly on Northern New Mexico and, more specifically, on Pecos Pueblo and the surrounding Hispanic farming communities.

EARLY SPANISH COLONIAL PERIOD (1598 TO 1680)The first European contact with the indigenous inhabitants of the Southwest occurred during the Spanish expedition led by Coronado in AD 1540. Spanish explorations continued with the Rodriquez-Chumusco and Espejo-Beltran expeditions of 1581 and 1582. In 1596, Don Juan de Oñate was chosen by the Spanish government to colonize New Mexico and was named governor and captain general of the area. Early in 1598, Oñate’s expedition set out with 400 soldiers and settlers and ten Franciscan friars. In mid-July of 1598, the group reached an area they named San Juan de los Caballeros (San Juan of the Gentlemen). The first settlement founded by the expedition was located in a small valley near the confluence of the Chama and Rio Grande rivers. However, Oñate’s efforts to create a profitable colony were unsuccessful and he was forced to resign in 1607. The new governor, Pedro de Peralta, moved the capital from Gabriel de Yunque to a more central and defensible location along the Santa Fe River in 1610 (Riley 1995). Santa Fe would remain the only non-Pueblo town and would contain the majority of Spanish settlers in the region until the Pueblo Revolt.

Spanish occupation of the Rio Grande in the 1600s was frequently harsh. They strengthened their control of northern New Mexico through Franciscan missions and the implementation of the encomienda (awards of trusteeship over indigenous peoples) system, in which Spanish soldiers were granted authority to collect tribute and labor from the pueblos in lieu of pay for their military service. Because New Mexico was a mission province, the church officials and the priests considered the function of the state to be primarily that of supporting the missions’ goals, and each pueblo was assigned to a specific missionary (Riley 1995). To construct the mission churches that were integral to the conversion of Native Americans to Christianity, the Franciscan priests enlisted the Pueblo inhabitants as the labor force. Government officials helped accomplish their goals by assigning encomiendas to help pay for military operations. Encomenderos (those who owned the encomiendas) were obligated to provide military service to the crown and formed the officer corps for the local militia. In return, they received the right to receive a specific amount of tribute from their assigned pueblos (Riley 1995). While the church and state had different goals, in both cases their programs were paid for by the labor and resources extracted from the Native American Pueblo inhabitants.

The demands of the encomienda system and disagreements regarding religious practices, as well as over land and water, resulted is constant friction between the Spanish and the Pueblos. The Early Spanish Colonial period witnessed an overall decline in population and contraction of the area and number of sites occupied by Pueblo groups. As many as 81 pueblos were occupied along the Rio Grande and adjacent areas when Oñate established his first settlement, but over half of these were abandoned during the 1630s and

11




1670s, and only 31 pueblos remained by 1680 (Barrett 2002). A variety of causes have been proposed for Pueblo contraction, including disease, drought, increased Apachean raids, disruption of trade networks and social organization, and various Spanish practices of suppression (Barrett 2002). Growing tensions between Pueblos and Spanish missionaries and settlers erupted in a Pueblo Revolt in 1680 that successfully removed the Spanish from New Mexico for the next 12 years. A variety of long-term causes of the revolt have been presented, including religious intolerance, forced labor, extraction of tribute, and increased Apachean raiding brought about, in part, by Spanish slave raids. Driven by the desire to reclaim Indian souls lost to Christendom and the need for a buffer against French expansion, the Spanish returned under the command of de Vargas in 1692. While often referred to as a bloodless reconquest, Pueblo unrest and a series of minor rebellions would continue for the next decade.

Pecos Pueblo was one of the largest and most important pueblos at the time of Spanish contact and throughout the early Colonial Period. Coronado launched his expedition onto the Great Plains from Pecos Pueblo in 1541, and subsequent Spanish expeditions encountered resistance at the pueblo (Kessell 1979). Between 1617 and 1620, a church was constructed, and a Franciscan friar became a resident at Pecos, although the surrounding area was not settled by the Spanish at this time.

LATE SPANISH COLONIAL PERIOD (1680 TO 1821)The new goal after the reconquest was securing the New Mexico colony rather than extracting wealth, and this shift required a larger settlement population and the establishment of self-sufficient communities. As a result, De Vargas did not reintroduce the encomiendas, and the new government largely upheld laws against encroachment on pueblo lands, forced labor and evangelization, and other cruelties that had formerly been allowed (Chávez 2006). At the same time, the Spanish instituted a new settlement system that transformed the way they utilized the resources of New Mexico (Wozniak 1987). Rather than depend upon the Puebloans to produce surpluses of food and other resources, New Mexico was settled through the merced, or land grant, system. Mercedes were granted to settlers who were expected to support themselves and their extended families through agriculture and stock raising (Simmons 1969). Most grants in the eighteenth century were given to groups rather than individuals, as a means of settling as many people as possible and to provide for defensible settlements (Simmons 1969). The survival of the colony, then, was tied to the success and self-sufficiency of small agrarian communities and ranches along the Rio Grande Valley. Thus, New Mexico became a region of small Hispanic communities and pueblos, held together by the land grant system and the need for common defense (Wozniak 1987).

As noted by Wozniak (1987), it was under the new settlement system that the character of New Mexican society became so closely intertwined with irrigation. The small farming communities that were fundamental to the success of the New Mexico colony depended on irrigation agriculture to sustain themselves. As a result, land grands and settlements focused on the bottomlands along the Rio Grande and its major tributaries. The construction of an acequia was usually the first task undertaken by new settlers when they were granted land. The alcalde mayor would then divide the irrigable land among the settlers, depending on the size of the settlement and amount of land suitable for cultivation. Settlers built their homes in a dispersed pattern along a road above the irrigable land or along the acequia madre, creating the distinctive long lot settlement pattern. Laterals and smaller ditches were added, and each village had a community-level organization that governed the allocation of water and maintenance of ditches and facilities. Irrigation works were simple, relied on local materials, and were only moderately efficient due to the lack of metal tools and trained engineers, but this technology did allow for dramatic settlement expansion in the 1700s. The spread of this system is evidenced by the expansion of land grants beyond the traditional settlement area of Santa Fe and the Santa Cruz valley.

12




The seventieth century church at Pecos was razed and destroyed during the Pueblo Revolt, possibly by the Tewa (Kessell 1979). Pecos Pueblo sided with the Spanish during the reconquest, and a new church was constructed in the early 1700s. Throughout the 1700s, Pecos was subject to continuous attacks from the Comanche and other nomadic tribes due to its location on the edge of the Plains. Members of the Pueblo fought alongside the Spanish against the Comanche, but the population continued to decline due to raids and disease. By 1773, the church at Pecos had been reduced to a visita of Santa Fe, and the population had declined to 269 when Dominguez arrived in 1776 (Head and Orcutt 2002). As the fortunes of the Pueblo declined, Spanish land grant communities were established along the Pecos River at San Miguel and San Jose del Vado between 1794 and 1802 (Hall 1984).

MEXICAN COLONIAL PERIOD (AD 1821 TO 1848)In 1821, the Treaty of Cordova brought New Mexico under the control of the newly independent Republic of Mexico. Although there was little change in the daily lives of most northern New Mexicans, significant changes did occur on a broader scale. First, the formerly outlawed trade with America was legalized, and the Santa Fe Trail was opened (Cordell 1979). Trade with the United States brought inexpensive goods to New Mexico and broke the monopoly of the Chihuahuan merchants, while also allowing many New Mexicans to make their fortunes moving cargo along the Santa Fe Trail (Dary 2000). In addition to goods, Anglo merchants, ranchers, and settlers also began arriving in New Mexico. The second major change was a more lenient land-grant policy, and Mexico began deeding large areas of grazing land beyond the river valleys, which eventually led to the expansion of settlement beyond the Rio Grande and its tributaries. The isolated towns of New Mexico that struggled for economic viability now had an outlet for their goods and could also serve as trade centers between America, Chihuahua, and California.

The population of Pecos Pueblo continued to decline, and most of their agricultural land north of the Pueblo was abandoned by 1825. Spanish settlements continued to expand up and down the Pecos River from San Miguel, which became a major stop on the Santa Fe Trail. Pecos Pueblo was abandoned in 1830, when its remaining residents joined their fellow Towa speakers at Jemez Pueblo.

THE TERRITORIAL PERIOD (1848 TO 1912)In 1846, Mexican rule of New Mexico was terminated when the Kearny Expedition arrived in Las Vegas and, faced with no resistance, claimed the territory for the United States. The U.S. government, as part of its westward expansion, seized upon the liberal Mexican open-door policy and general weakness in its post-revolution government. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican-American War and formalized the ceding of New Mexico to the U.S. government in 1848. As a territory of the United States, New Mexico experienced many economic and political changes.

The railroad arrived in New Mexico in 1879 when the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway (AT&SF) line reached Las Vegas, integrating New Mexico into the growing American market economy. Just as the opening of the Santa Fe Trail brought about major changes in the structure of the Spanish and Mexican borderlands, the arrival of the railroad in 1879 was a watershed moment in the history of New Mexico. The railroad accelerated changes in the population and economy of New Mexico and connected the territory to the east and west coasts of the United States. The railroad brought an influx of materials and American pioneers and settlers to the territory and fostered the development of a cash economy by providing the means to ship minerals, beef, wool, timber, and other resources from New Mexico to outside markets (Maxwell and Post 1992). Towns along the railroad corridors became centers of commerce, jobs, and growth (Myrick 1990). The railroad reached Santa Fe in 1880, and within 10 years the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad had replaced the Santa Fe Trail as the major trade and transportation route. The late nineteenth to early twentieth century was a time of rapid industrialization and technological advance, and the increased

13




access to eastern goods and inexpensive transport had profound effects on frontier economies such as that of New Mexico. Manufacturing and mining in northern New Mexico also increased, while traditional goods such as Pueblo pottery were partially replaced by cheaper, mass-produced eastern versions.

Settlement in the area around Pecos continued to expand during the US Territorial Period. Pigeon Ranch, near Glorieta Pass, became an important stop on the Santa Fe Trail in the 1850s and served as a storage and supply station for the US Army (Hall 1984). A Polish immigrant named Martin Kozlowski established a ranch at a spring south of Pecos Pueblo in 1858. The Kozlowski Trading Post became an important stop for travelers along the Santa Fe Trail, and the ranch served as Union headquarters during the Battle of Glorieta Pass in 1862, while Pigeon Ranch was used as the Confederate field hospital. The Union victory ended the Confederacy’s campaign in New Mexico and ensured that Fort Union remained in Union hands.

The current town of Pecos contained dispersed farms beginning in the 1700s, when Hispanic settlers arrived in the valley after the reconquest. However, the community was smaller than San Miguel and other settlements farther downstream throughout most of the 1700s and 1800s. The name likely derives from a Keres word meaning “place where there is water,” likely referring to the spring at the pueblo. A post office was established in 1883, and the town soon became a local economic center for dispersed farming and ranching communities scattered up and down the Pecos River and its tributaries. When the railroad arrived in 1878, lumber camps and sawmills sprang up in the mountains surrounding Pecos. Subsequently, mineral prospectors discovered copper and other minerals in the mountains, prompting the creation of several hard rock mines that were ultimately unsuccessful. Between 1880 and 1920, Hispanic and Anglo settlers arrived, as the local economy grew based on timber, mining, ranching, and irrigation agriculture.

THE TWENTIETH CENTURYIn 1912, New Mexico was admitted as a state in the American Union, and the region continued to experience economic and technological changes. Due to increased reliance on the automobile, the importance of the railroad began to wane. The establishment of the highway system in 1917 boosted the trucking industry, and the construction of Route 66 through the American West in the 1920s began the transformation of Albuquerque and Santa Fe into automobile-dominated cities. The reduced size of land holdings due to encroachment of federal land into former land grants and the introduction of the US monetary system greatly affected the economy of northern New Mexico. Many New Mexicans gave up traditional farming practices or were disposed of their land, leading them to enter the larger economy as low-level wage earners.

The Santa Fe National Forest was created in 1915, when the Jemez National Forest and Pecos National Forest were combined as a single administrative unit. The current Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District has its origins with the creation of the Pecos River Forest Reserve in 1892. The Pecos Historical Park, which encompasses Pecos Pueblo, was established as a state monument in 1935 and became a national monument in 1965. During the Great Depression, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) work relief program completed substantial projects in the area, within the park and the Santa Fe National Forest. Local CCC camps included the Glorieta Mesa CCC Camp, a few miles west of Pecos. Regional CCC projects focused on reforestation, road construction, firefighting, erosion control, irrigation improvements, and work on recreation trails and facilities. Tourism and recreations pursuits within the Santa Fe National Forest, Pecos Wilderness, and Pecos Historical Park remain integral to the local economy today.

LOWER COW CREEK/NORTH SAN YSIDROAs discussed above, Hispanic communities outside of Pecos Pueblo were established in the late 1700s and early 1800s, including the land grant communities at San Miguel and San Jose del Vado between 1794 and 1802 (Hall 1984). By the 1820s, San Miguel de Bado (downstream from the project area along the Pecos River) had become a local center and would soon develop into an important stop along the Santa Fe Trail.

14




According to Townsend (2000a), acequias in the Cow Creek drainage have a priority date of 1799 (State Engineer Office-Water Rights Division). A plaque on the dam just southwest of the project area indicates the acequia in this stretch of the valley has a priority date of 1828, indicating the area was used by the early 1800s at the latest. The towns of North San Ysidro and South San Ysidro were founded in the early 1800s, as dispersed farming and ranching communities were scattered up and down the Pecos River and its tributaries. Pecos and San Miguel would remain local centers of settlement and economic activity for these scattered communities.

15




CHAPTER 4

METHODSA 100-percent, pedestrian cultural resource survey was conducted in accordance with the guidelines presented in §4.10.15 NMAC: Standards for Survey and Inventory. The following sections summarize the methods used during pre-field preparations, field efforts, and post-field processing of field data.

PRE-FIELD INVESTIGATIONSPrior to conducting the survey, the NMCRIS database was consulted to identify previously recorded archaeological sites, buildings, structures, and surveys in the project area and vicinity (see Chapter 5). Previous reports and historic maps were consulted to understand the cultural background of the project area. The project area shape file and Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates using the North American Datum (NAD) 83 coordinate system were overlaid on USGS quadrangle maps and aerial photographs to accurately identify the project parcels during field survey. Field maps were produced at various scales to aid in the accurate identification of cultural resources during pedestrian survey and to provide field crew members with detailed topographic information on the project area. Geographic Information System (GIS) shape files of the project APE were loaded onto hand-held Global Positioning System (GPS) units to ensure accurate wayfinding and identification of survey area in the field.

SURVEY METHODSThe records review was followed by a 100-percent Class III pedestrian survey of the project area. Project area maps were consistently consulted to assure full coverage of the project area. Notes on topographic features, ground surface visibility, the cultural setting, and sources of disturbance and recent use were recorded during survey. Photographs documenting overviews of the project area, sources of disturbance, and specific topographic features were taken throughout the survey. Surface visibility was highly variable but averaged approximately 30 percent along the creek. Much of the area along Cow Creek is heavily overgrown with riparian vegetation, while adjacent areas contain irrigated agricultural fields. The survey was completed by walking one transect on each bank of Cow Creek, with additional transects used for proposed staging areas.

All cultural materials observed during survey—including all artifacts and features—were closely inspected and evaluated for their age and potential qualification as an archaeological site (criteria are discussed below). Attempts were made to relocate all previously recorded heritage resource sites. Archaeological sites were defined as physical locations of purposeful human activities or events at least 50 years in age. An activity is considered to have been purposeful if it resulted in a deposit of cultural material beyond the level of one or a few accidentally lost artifacts. Generally accepted guidelines for the definition of archaeological sites on state and federal lands in New Mexico were adopted during this investigation. Archaeological sites were defined as locates that include one of the following:

• One or more features• One formal tool if associated with other cultural materials• An occurrence of artifacts (such as pottery sherds, chipped stone, or historic items) that contains

one of the following: (a) three or more types of artifacts or materials; (b) two types of artifacts or materials in a density of at least 10 items per 100 square meters; (c) a single type of artifact or material in a density of at least 25 items per 100 square meters.

16




Cultural manifestations that were more than 50 years old but did not meet any of the above criteria were recorded as isolated occurrences (IOs), which usually consist of a location with fewer than 10 artifacts. Information commonly recorded for IOs include the area (for IOs consisting of more than one artifact), artifact type and frequency, and sketches or photographs of diagnostic artifacts. No IOs were documented during this investigation.

No archaeological sites were documented during this inventory. Historic built environment properties (including acequias) located within the APE were recorded on Historic Cultural Properties Inventory (HCPI) forms. The acequia was documented using an HCPI base form and the new NMCRIS acequia form. Information recorded for the single acequia in the project area included morphology, locational information, and associated features.

All identified resources were evaluated for their eligibility to the NRHP and were assessed for potential impacts from the proposed undertaking. The eligibility of each resource was evaluated based on its ability to satisfy one or more of four criteria:

1. Criterion A: association with events important in local, regional, or national history

2. Criterion B: association with lives of important historical persons

3. Criterion C: displaying the characteristics of a specific type, period, or method of construction; the work of a master; possessing high artistic value; or being part of an entity whose components lack individual distinction (such as a historic district)

4. Criterion D: having yielded, or being likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

The effect of the proposed project on any cultural resource that is eligible or potentially eligible to the NRHP under any of these four criteria was evaluated using the criteria defined in 36 CFR Part 800, which define adverse effects as direct or indirect alteration of the characteristics that qualify a property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that diminishes its integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association.

17




CHAPTER 5

PREVIOUS RESEARCHAdam Okun conducted a pre-field records search of the NMCRIS database on July 20, 2018 to obtain information on all previously conducted surveys and recorded archaeological sites located within 500 meters (m) (1640 ft) of the project area. Current listings of the NRHP and New Mexico State Register of Cultural Properties (NMSRCP) were also consulted to determine the presence of any registered properties or districts in the area. The purpose of these pre-field record searches was to determine the location of known cultural resources within the project area and vicinity, derive expectations regarding the nature and frequency of resources that might be encountered during the field survey, and obtain a better understanding of the previous research along lower Cow Creek.

Only two previous cultural resource investigations are shown in the NMCRIS database within 500 m (1,640 ft) of the project area. Drakos Archaeological Consulting completed a small linear survey for a water system improvement project in North San Ysidro in 1996 (Drakos 1996; NMCRIS 52194). In 2000, Townsend Archaeological Consultants completed a 6-mile survey along the county road between North San Ysidro and South San Ysidro; the survey continued to a point approximately 150 m south of the current project area (Townsend 2000b; NMCRIS 67951). No cultural resources were discovered close to the project area during either of these investigations, and no previously documented resources of any kind are located within 500 m (1,640 ft) of the current project area in the NMCRIS database. The closest previously documented resources are more than one mile away. Please refer to the Archaeological Records Management Section (ARMS) map (Figure A1) in the appendix of this report.

18




CHAPTER 6

SURVEY RESULTSOne linear resource—a portion of an acequia system—was documented during 100-percent pedestrian survey of the project area. No archaeological sites, historic buildings, districts, IOs, or other resources were discovered. An HCPI form for this resource is included as a loose attachment to this report.

HCPI 45368

San Ysidro Norte Acequia System

HCPI 45368 is an acequia system that runs along the western side of the Cow Creek Valley. It includes a main canal, dam, possible mill structure, and several field laterals (Figure 5). The majority of this system is outside the current project area and was not documented, but the main canal runs parallel to Cow Creek for a short distance, and two connected field laterals enter the edge of the survey area along the stream bank. The main acequia likely dates to the early 1800s based on historic documents and a plaque identified in the field. Ackerly (1996:89) notes that acequias along Cow Creek include “San Ysidro Norte (date unknown) and East Justo Gonzales (1828),” among others. Just downstream from the documented acequia system is a metal plaque on a diversion structure that reads “San Ysidro Norte Acequia y Atarque… Water Right Priority of 1828.” The plaque appears to mark the location where a second acequia or a continuation of the main canal documented during this project is diverted from Cow Creek at a modern concrete dam. It is unclear whether the date applies to the portion of the system documented during this project or the segment downstream, but these various lines of evidence suggest the acequia system dates to the early 1800s (possibly 1828) and is either the San Ysidro Norte Acequia (most likely) or the East Justo Gonzales Acequia.

The main canal is diverted from Cow Creek west of the project area, flows east, then turns south, and winds its way along the western edge of the floodplain. For most of its extent, the acequia is far outside the current project area, often as much as 200 ft to the west. However, a 150 ft stretch of the acequia across from a proposed restoration staging area is just inside the survey area boundary, coming as close as 8 ft to the edge of the stream. This segment of the ditch is cut into a moderate slope above Cow Creek. It is earthen, approximately 2 ft wide at the top and has a 2-ft-tall berm along its eastern side, which prevents the acequia from breaching its channel and flowing into Cow Creek (Photograph 4). The acequia leaves the survey area and continues south, eventually terminating at a concrete dam near the southern end of the project area. This segment of the acequia is beyond the project area boundary and was not documented, but it appears to be earthen. A second ditch is diverted from the southern side of Cow Creek into an underground channel through a metal screw-lift gate encased in a concrete structure (Photograph 5). It is unclear whether this represents a continuation of the main canal or the origination of a separate acequia, but the San Ysidro Norte Acequia plaque discussed above is attached to this concrete structure. The gate/structure and dam are outside the project area boundary.

North of the segment of main canal that flows through the project area, a small side lateral appears to be diverted from the canal and through a log structure that a local landowner described as an old mill. The area is extremely overgrown, and the log structure is outside the project area, so it was not documented (Photograph 6). However, general observations indicate water is diverted into a wooden sluice that flows through the structure and turns a wheel, before returning to Cow Creek. The log structure has mud mortar and a pitched, corrugated metal roof.

19




Figure 5. HCPI 45368 (San Ysidro Norte Acequia System) Overview Map

#*

#*#*

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics,CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS UserCommunity

Wooden Gates

HCPI 45368

Survey Area

Main Acequia

Field Lateral

#* Gate

Mill Structure

0 50 10025 MetersMill Structure

Dam

Aceqia WithinSurvey Area

20




Photograph 4. HCPI 45368 Main Acequia Where it Passes Close to Cow Creek

Photograph 5. Concrete Diversion Structure and Metal Screw-lift Gate Southwest of Project Area

21




Several field laterals are diverted from the main canal along this stretch of canyon, and the laterals bring water to agricultural fields along the Cow Creek floodplain (see Figure 5). Most of these are beyond the project area, but one east-flowing lateral continues to the edge of the survey area, where a wooden vertical lift gate cut from a segment of utility pole or other round log diverts water in two directions: (1) east so it can return to Cow Creek and (2) south along the eastern edge of an agricultural field (Photograph 7). At the time of survey, the eastern gate was open, allowing water to return to Cow Creek. The south-flowing lateral continues for approximately 300 ft along a fence line, at the eastern edge of an agricultural field, before terminating at the southeastern edge of the field. This lateral runs parallel to Cow Creek, roughly along the edge of the survey area boundary. It is shallow and earthen with a flat bottom and low earthen berms on both sides (Photograph 8). The lateral is approximately 2 to 3 ft wide at the top and 1 ft deep.

ELIGIBILITY AND MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS HCPI 45368 is a portion of the San Ysidro Norte acequia system, which likely dates to the early 1800s and was in place by 1828. It is mostly outside the project area and contains a main canal, several gates/structures, and field laterals. The main canal and laterals are earthen, well-maintained, and in fair to good condition. The main canal appears to follow its original historic alignment, and the system continues to fulfil its historic function. The acequia was likely a requirement for the establishment of Hispanic settlement at North San Ysidro and a fundamental part of community life from the early 1800s to the present day. The location remains rural and undeveloped, and the acequia system conveys an association with locally significant historic events, such as the establishment of dispersed farming communities in the Upper Pecos Watershed. HCPI 45368 is therefore recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A.

A variety of restoration efforts are proposed along Cow Creek. However, the acequia and its laterals only enter the project area in a few locations, and these features will not be impacted by the proposed project. Where the main canal comes closest to Cow Creek, the stream bank will be reinforced to prevent ongoing erosion that is threatening to undercut the acequia, which is on the slope above the stream. However, the acequia itself will be fully avoided, as will the field laterals to the south. Restoration efforts will not alter the setting or detract from the characteristics that qualify the acequia system for listing on the NRHP. As a result, the proposed project will have no effect on HCPI 45368.

Photograph 6. Log Mill Outside Project Area (Facing North)

22




Photograph 7. Wooden Vertical Lift Gates along Field Lateral

Photograph 8. Field Lateral Flowing South along Western Edge of Survey Area

23




CHAPTER 7

MANAGEMENT SUMMARYThe UPWA is proposing a riparian restoration project along lower Cow Creek in San Miguel County. A variety of restoration treatments are proposed. The only resource identified during 100-percent pedestrian survey of the APE is a portion of the North San Ysidro acequia system (HCPI 45368). No archaeological sites, buildings, districts, IOs, or other resources were discovered.

HCPI 45368 retains historic significance and integrity and is recommended as eligible for listing on the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with locally significant historic events, such as the establishment of dispersed farming communities in the Upper Pecos Watershed. A variety of restoration efforts are proposed along Cow Creek. However, the acequia and its laterals only enter the project area in a few locations, and these features will not be impacted by the proposed project. Where the main canal comes closest to Cow Creek, the stream bank will be reinforced to prevent ongoing erosion that is threatening to undercut the acequia, which is on the slope above the stream. However, the acequia itself will be fully avoided, as will the field laterals to the south. Restoration efforts will not alter the setting or detract from the characteristics that qualify the acequia system for listing on the NRHP. As a result, the proposed project will have no effect on HCPI 45368.

Subject to agency consultation and comment, the proposed undertaking would have no effect on any historic property listed, or eligible for listing, on the NRHP. However, if buried cultural deposits are discovered during project activities, work shall cease and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) shall be notified immediately. This cultural resource investigation complies with the provisions of the NHPA of 1966, as amended through 1992 and any other applicable cultural resource rules or regulations. The project was completed in accordance with §4.10.15 NMAC: Standards for Survey and Inventory. This report is consistent with federal and state standards for cultural resource management.

24




REFERENCES CITED Ackerly, Neil D. 1996 A Review of the Historic Significance of and Management Recommendations for Preserving New Mexico’s

Acequia Systems. Prepared for the Historic Preservation Divisions. Dos Rio Consultants. Silver City, New Mexico.

Barrett, Elinore M. 2002 Conquest and Catastrophe: Changing Rio Grande Pueblo Settlement Patterns in the Sixteenth and

Seventeenth Centuries. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Chávez, T. E. 2006 New Mexico, Past and Present. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Cordell, Linda S. 1997 Archaeology of the Southwest. Second Edition, Academic Press, New York. Dary, David 2000 The Santa Fe Trail: Its History, Legends, and Lore. University of Kansas Press, Lawrence. Dick‐Peddie, William A. 1993 New Mexico Vegetation: Past, Present, and Future. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Drakos, Lynne M. 1996 Archeological Survey for a Water System Improvement Project in North San Ysidro, San Miguel County,

New Mexico. Drakos Archaeological Consulting Report Number 96‐001. NMCRIS No 52194. Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, M.M. McGraw, G.Z. Jacobi, C.M. Canavan, T.S. Schrader, P.J Mercer, R. Hill,

B.C. Moren. 2006 Ecoregions of New Mexico (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and

photographs). Reston, Virginia. U.S. Geologic Service (map scale 1:1,400,000). Hall, Emlen G. 1984 Four Leagues of Pecos: A Legal History of the Pecos Grant, 1880‐1933. University of New Mexico Press,

Albuquerque. Hawley, J. W. 1986 Physiographic Provinces I and II. In New Mexico in Maps, edited by J. L. Williams, pp. 23‐27.

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Head, Genevieve, N., and Janet D. Orcutt 2002 From Folsom to Fogelson: The Cultural Resource Inventory Survey of Pecos National Historical Park.

Intermountain Cultural Resources Management Professional Paper No. 66. Department of the Interior, National Park Services, Intermountain Region.

REFERENCES

25




Kantner, John 2004 Ancient Puebloan Southwest. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Kessell, John L. 1979 Kiva, Cross, and Crown: The Pecos Indians and New Mexico: 1540 to 1840. National Park Service.

University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque. Maxwell, T., and S. Post 1992 An Archaeological and Historical Study of Old Pecos Trail. Archaeology Notes No. 58. Museum of

New Mexico, Office of Archaeological Studies, Santa Fe. Myrick, David F. 1990 New Mexico’s Railroads: A Historical Survey. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. National Resource Conservation Service 2018 Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed August 2018. Riley, C. L. 1995 Rio del Norte: People of the Upper Rio Grande From Earliest Times to the Pueblo Revolt. University of

Utah Press. Salt Lake City. Simmons, Marc 1969 Settlement Patterns and Village Plans in Colonial New Mexico. Journal of the West, 8:7‐21. 1977 New Mexico: An Interpretive History, University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque, NM. Townsend, Stephen 2000a A Heritage Resources Inventory on Forest Road 92 Near Cow Creek, Pecos/Las Vegas Ranger District, Santa

Fe National Forest San Miguel County, New Mexico. NMCRIS No. 71274. Townsend Archaeological Consultants.

2000b An Archaeological Clearance Inventory of 6.06 Miles of Right‐of‐Way Along San Miguel County Road B‐43‐B Between South & North San Ysidro, San Miguel County, New Mexico. Townsend Archaeological Consultants Report Number 2000‐04. NMCRIS No. 67951.

Western Regional Climate Center 2018 Historical Climate Information. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/climatedata.html. Electronic Data Accessed

August 2018. Wozniak, F. E. 1987 Irrigation in the Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico: A Study of the Development of Irrigation Systems before

1945. New Mexico Historic Preservation Division, Santa Fe.

APPENDIX A

PREVIOUS RESEARCH DATA

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

The public disclosure of the location of archaeological sites on state and private lands in the State of New Mexico is prohibited by Section 18-6-11.1 NMSA 1978. Public disclosure of

archaeological site locations is federally prohibited by 54 U.S.C. §307103

27




Figure A1. Archaeological Records Management Section (ARMS) Map showing Previous Research in the Project Vicinity

cultural resource survey for the lower cow creek

Documents