ML20295A296

Redacted - Holtec International, Supplemental Archeological Information on the HI-STORE CISF

ML20295A296
Person / Time
Site:	HI-STORE
Issue date:	10/21/2020
From:	Pangburn J, Therriault S Holtec
To:	Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
References
142729, 5025056
Download: ML20295A296 (75)

Text

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 NMCRIS No.: 142729 NMCRIS INVESTIGATION ABSTRACT FORM (NIAF)

1. NMCRIS 2a. Lead Agency: 2b. Other Agency(ies): 3. Lead Agency Report No.:

Activity No.: Nuclear Regulatory Commission US Bureau of Land Management Carlsbad Field Office 142729

4. Title of Report: 5. Type of Report The Proposed Holtec Railroad Spur, Fence Line, and Access Road Right-of-Ways Located in Sections 13,19, Negative 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 in T 20 S R 32 E; and Sections 18 and 19 in T 20 S R 33 E Positive Author(s)

Jeffrey Pangburn and Stacey Therriault

6. Investigation Type Research Design Archaeological Survey/Inventory Architectural Survey/Inventory Test Excavation Excavation Collections/Non-Field Study Compliance Decision Based on Previous Inventory Overview/Lit Review Monitoring Ethnographic Study Site/Property Specific Visit Historic Structures Report Other

7. Description of Undertaking (what does the project entail?):

On March 8th, 2019, David V. Hill and Jeffrey Pangburn archaeologists with APAC conducted a class III archaeological survey for the ROW for the proposed railroad is located in Lea county, New Mexico crossing sections 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 in T 20 S R 32 E and sections 18 and 19 in T 20 S R 33 E. The fence line and access road are located in section 13 in T 20 S R 32 E. The cultural resource inventory was conducted at the request of Travis Casey and Emily Worth with CHEMM representing Holtec International.

The involvement of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will make the NRC the lead agency for reviewing the cultural survey report.

Andrew Wilkins representing the NRC directed that the cultural survey report be conducted to meet of exceed all current professional standards for cultural surveys in New Mexico crossing Federal managed lands. In keeping with this request the project was registered in the New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System (NMCRIS) /Archaeological Records Management Section (ARMS) a part of the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division (NMHPD). The ARMS website does not offer the NRC as an option for the NRC in the data base. This resulted in a consultation with Derek Pierce NMCRIS Program Manager, on April 9th, 2019 APAC at which time advised to enter BLM-CFO for the lead agency on the NMCRIS website but on the NMCRIS Investigation Abstract Form (NIAF) to put down the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the lead agency.

(+/-) were surveyed for the three separate ROWS equaling 205.35 acres of new survey for this undertaking. The survey corridor on each 1 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 During the course of field work two cultural sites (LA 149299, & LA 187010) and 3 isolated manifestation were found to intersect the proposed project right of way. The recording of LA 149299 is for an existing railroad constructed over 50 years ago. The railroad, while it is over 50 years old is still in use. The current railroad spur surveyed for will be extending from this cultural property. The existing railroad (LA 149299) has a second number assigned along a different segment of the line. That LA number is 170340. The APAC 2019 documentation will reference the LA 149299 site number for this property since it is the lower of the two. This report recommends that these two LA numbers should be combined in NMCRIS and the lowest number LA 149299 be utilized for all current and future updates of this cultural property. A two-page LA update is included for LA 170340 which states this number is combined with LA 149299. LA 187010 is a prehistoric cultural property. All current infield observations of cultural materials are plotted on the project map attached to this report.

These cultural properties (LA 149299 & LA 187010) are documented to meet or exceed all current professional standards in New Mexico.

Three isolated manifestation of cultural material were documented during the current project. The three isolated manifestations consist of one quartzite core reduction flake, and two 1943 USGS brass caps. One brass cap is for a 1/4 section marker, the other is a corner section System of the United States to be utilized in the mapping and partitioning of the territory (Roeder 1995). This grid system iss used to lay out the township and ranges as well as establishes sections. With the distribution of the BLM Manual for Surveyors in 1855, which states that monuments in the ground take precedence in determining land boundaries, a systematic survey of the territory began (U.S.

Government Printing Office 1855). By 1910 the brass cap became a common monument set at section corners within New Mexico where private and public lands adjoin. These monuments remain in continuous use for the establishment of retracement surveys, which identify the monuments of an established prior survey of property corners (Mahoney 2005; Mulford 1912; U.S. Government Printing Office 1947).

The proposed ROW crosses through a relatively flat semi-arid desert with low rises in Lea County, New Mexico. Impacts to the proposed project ROW include existing lease road, fence line, OHE, etc. The survey area of the proposed ROW is plotted on the attached project map. Location plots for the project were obtained by utilizing a survey grade hand held GPS.

[ ] Continuation

8. Dates of Investigation: 5-Feb-19 8-Mar-19 9. Report Date: 12-Mar-19

10. Performing Agency/Consultant: APAC PO Box 1982 Carlsbad, NM 88221-1982 Office 575-200-7099 Jeff 575-200-5099 Principal Investigator: David V. Hill PhD Field Supervisor: Jeffrey Pangburn Field Personnel Names:

Historian / Other:

11. Performing Agency/Consultant Report No.:

APAC 19-02-08

12. Applicable Cultural Resource Permit No(s):

BLM: 270-2920-17-F, State: NM-18-261-S

13. Client/Customer (project proponent):

Center of Exellence for Hazardous Materials Management

Contact:

Emily Worth Address: 505 N Main St. Carlsbad, NM 88220 Phone: 575-885-3700

14. Client/Customer Project No.:

15. Land Ownership Status (must be indicated on project map):

Land Owner (By Agency) Acres Surveyed Acres in APE US Bureau of Land Management Carlsbad Field Office 142.94 35.73 NM State Land Office 0.00 0.00 Private 62.43 15.61 TOTALS 205.37 51.34 2 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056

16. Records Search(es):

Date(s) of HPD/ARMS File Review: Name of Reviewer(s): Kathi Pangburn Date(s) of Other Agency File Review: Name of Reviewer(s): Kathi Pangburn Agency: BLM-CFO Date(s) of Other Agency File Review: Name of Reviewer(s): Kathi Pangburn Agency: GLO Pre-field investigations of the proposed project area consist of the review of web sites and project files located at the BLM-CFO, the Archaeological Records Management Section (ARMS) and the General Land Office (GLO). The records search at the BLM was conducted duplicate recording of LA 149299. during pre-field investigation it was found that 15 previous surveys crossed the current project right-of-way. The NMCRS numbers for these surveys are: 1175, 1525, 36238, 49377, 57188, 78662, 100842, 127779, 137254, 137478, 137815, 137883, 141368, and 141976. None of these surveys could be utilized to justifying not surveying any portion of the project. A review of the GLO files found serial patent NMR 0033745 associated with this proposed right-of-way. Serial patent NMR 0033745 was approved under the June 20th, 1910: New Mexico Enabling Act (36 Stat. 557). This patent details the transfer of land from the BLM to the State of New Mexico. No artifacts were observed during the course of field work that could be connected to this patent.

17. Survey Data:

a. Source Graphics [ ] NAD 27 [ X ] NAD 83 Note: NAD 83 is the NMCRIS standard.

USGS 7.5' (1:24,000) topo map Other topo map, Scale:

GPS Unit Accuracy <1.0m 1-10m 10-100m >100m Aerial Photo(s)

Other Source Graphic(s):

b. USGS 7.5' Topographic Map Name USGS Quad Code LAGUNA GATUNA, NM (1984) 32103-E6 WILLIAMS SINK, NM (Prov. Ed. 1985) 32103-E7

c. County(ies): Lea

d. Nearest City or Town: Jal

e. Legal

Description:

Township (N/S) Range (E/W) Section 20 S 32 E 19 NE1/4 NE1/4 20 S 32 E 20 NW1/4 NW1/4, NE1/4 NW1/4, NW1/4 NE1/4, SW1/4 NE1/4, SE1/4 NE1/4 20 S 32 E 21 SW1/4 NW1/4, SE1/4 NW1/4, SW1/4 NE1/4, SE1/4 NE1/4 20 S 32 E 22 SW1/4 NW1/4, SE1/4 NW1/4, SW1/4 NE1/4, SE1/4 NE1/4 20 S 32 E 23 SW1/4 NW1/4, SE1/4 NW1/4, SW1/4 NE1/4, SE1/4 NE1/4 20 S 32 E 24 SW1/4 NW1/4, SE1/4 NW1/4, SW1/4 NE1/4, SE1/4 NE1/4 20 S 32 E 13 SW1/4 NW1/4, SE1/4 NW1/4, SW1/4 NE1/4, SE1/4 NE1/4, NE1/4 NE1/4, NE1/4 SE1/4 20 S 32 E 18 SE1/4 SE1/4 20 S 33 E 19 L2, L1, NE1/4 NW1/4 Projected legal description? [ ] Yes [ ] No [ X ] Unplatted

f. Other Description (e.g. well pad footages, mile markers, plats, land grant name, etc.):

[ ] Continuation 3 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056

18. Survey Field Methods:

Intensity: 100% coverage <100% coverage Configuration: linear survey units (l x w): 31,131.73' x 200' (+/-) BLM LAND: 13,556.54' x 200'(+/-)

block survey units Private Land other survey units (specify):

Scope: non-selective (all sites/properties recorded) selective/thematic (selected sites/properties recorded)

Coverage Method: systematic pedestrian coverage other method (describe):

Survey Interval (m): 15 Crew Size: 2 Fieldwork Dates: 8-Mar-19 9-Mar-19 Survey Person Hours: 51 Recording Person Hours: 5 Total Hours: 56 Additional Narrative:

Per consultation with Aaron Whaley a BLM Archaeologist, it was determined that the proposed ROW for the railroad, fence line, and of a pedestrian survey, with one field person, walking at 15-meter intervals for 100% coverage of the survey area. This survey was designed to meet, but not limited to, the requirements detailed in the BLM Manual Supplement H-8100-1 New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, Procedures for Performing Cultural Resource Fieldwork on Public Lands in the area of New Mexico BLM Responsibilities 2002. The authority for these standards comes in part from Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Historic Sites Act of 1935, along with all additional federal and state laws for preserving and protecting cultural resources.

[ ] Continuation

19. Environmental Setting (NRCS soil designation; vegetative community; elevation; etc.):

The railroad, fence line, and access road are in a semi-arid desert environment of Lea County, New Mexico. Impacts to the proposed project pad are limited to cattle grazing through the area and natural sheet was erosion off the hill slopes. The survey area of the proposed pad is plotted on the attached project map. Location plots for the project were obtained by utilizing a survey grade hand held GPS.

To the east of the Pecos River, the landscape is mostly a low, undulating landform, all or parts of which are variously referred to as Mescalero Plain. This area is largely covered by eolian sands, eroded from river valley alluvium and redeposited during Quaternary times.

About 80 percent of the Mescalero Plain, is covered by eolian sands of Quaternary age. Much of this area consists of extensive fields of coppice dunes, but other types of dunes occur as well (Hall 2002; Hall and Goble 2016). Beginning in the late nineteenth century coppice dunes formed, resulting from overgrazing and well digging.

Especially south and southeast of Carlsbad slightly more broken terrain that exposes older, upper Permian and Triassic-age deposits intermittently throughout the Mescalero Plains. These exposures include evaporate deposits that have attracted potash and salt mining. At least some of these areas were probably formed by dissolution of the underlying, Permian-age evaporate deposits and subsequent subsidence Occasional lakes and playas formed in some areas of southeastern New Mexico. Surface water once occurred here at springs and along the tributary drainages of the Pecos River, and in the past this area hosted some major concentrations of human occupation. Other areas of broken terrain in the Mescalero Plain have formed low escarpments, from which springs once issued that provided surface water and created local riparian zones.

The Mescalero Escarpment abruptly separates the Mescalero Plain from the higher Llano Estacado of the Southern High Plains section.

eastward over time (Bretz and Horberg 1949). Meanwhile, erosion along the escarpment front has transported and redeposited sediments from the Ogallala Formation westward into the Pecos River valley, including tool stone-bearing gravels.

Above the Mescalero Escarpment, the Llano Estacado is a flat-lying plain that preserves the piedmont surface of the Ogallala Formation (Bretz and Horberg 1949), which once extended continuously from the mountains, far to the west. Following stabilization of the Llano Estacado surface, rock-hard calcium carbonate formed within the shallow subsurface, creating the Caprock, a visually conspicuous, erosionally resistant layer along the top of the Mescalero Escarpment.

4 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 The Pecos River probably formed during late Tertiary and early Pleistocene times. The river and its tributaries cut into, and removed a large swath of, the Ogallala Formation. Creation of the river valley was probably aided by subsidence and massive collapses resulting from dissolution of underlying Permian-age evaporate deposits (Hawley et al. 1976:246). In the vicinity of Carlsbad, and along stretches downriver, the Pecos River flows through some erosional remnants of Permian-age rocks. Here, the river is flanked by abrupt bluff edges and even some cliff formations, which contain rock shelters used in prehistoric times (Railey 2016:36).

The river and its tributaries have deposited, eroded, and redeposited alluvial sediments within the broad valley, leaving behind terraces and other now-elevated, erosional remnants of river valley deposits (Fiedler and Nye 1933; Kelley 1971). Within these sediments, Pleistocene-age terrace gravels occur topographically 2 to 4 m above the late Holocene alluvial terrace. The terrace itself was formed by down cutting of the floodplain, possibly ca. 1000 years ago when other river channels in the region were incised. Recent deflation and sheet wash have removed 20 cm of the fine-textured sediment from the terrace surface. The age of the alluvium is such that prehistoric occupations may be present within the alluvial deposits (Hall 2016).

The terrace gravels have been mapped for many miles up and down the Pecos River. The gravel contains pebbles and cobbles of fossiliferous limestone, light gray quartzite, purple quartzite, dark gray chert, banded gray chert, quartz, brown sandstone, reddish brown sandstone, red jasper, rhyolite, chalcedony, and fossil wood. Many of these rock types have been reported in lithic assemblages at archaeological sites across the Mescalero Plain.

The areas include some small mesquite, broom snakeweed, all thorn, soap tree yucca, prickly pear, and pencil cholla with some scattered javalina bush. Additional flora in this area included a variety of cacti and grasses such as dropseed and grama. The Pecos river is located approximately 34 miles west of the project right-of-way, various unnamed drainages bisect the project area. Minimal lithic resources were observed throughout the project area, only an occasional chert or quartzite cobble. The surface visibility averages 95% across the project area.

Fauna in the area include mammals, reptiles and birds. The mammals would include pronghorn mule deer, javelina, bobcat, cottontail and jackrabbit, coyote, fox, porcupine, skunk, and badger. Birds include hawks, eagles, dove, quail, crow, scissor-tail flycatchers, turkey vulture, meadowlark, swallowtail, roadrunner, and swallows. Reptiles include snakes and lizards of numerous types. Insects are also beetles.

Disturbances include cattle grazing over the area and farming. An existing pipeline borders this project. Natural processes are present in the project area. These include actions from wind and water. These processes are ongoing and include deposition and erosion of sediments. The Aeolian processes allow for deposition across the project area along with some shallow blowouts. The fluvial processes primarily deposit sediments in low lying areas (i.e. shallow depressions) and are also observed in the form of sheet washing which allows for some deposition and small drainage cuts. The only other factor modifying the landscape include bioturbation and cattle grazing.

[ ] Continuation 20.a. Percent Ground Visibility: 90% b. Condition of Survey Area (grazed, bladed, undistributed, etc.): Disturbed by 2-track and various other mining developments

[ ] Continuation

21. CULTURAL RESOURCE FINDINGS Yes, see next report section No, discuss why:

[ ] Continuation

22. Attachments (check all appropriate boxes):

[ X ] USGS 7.5 Topographic Map with sites, isolates, and survey area clearly drawn (required)

[ X ] Copy of NMCRIS Map Check (required)

[ ] LA Site Forms - new sites (with sketch map & topographic map) if applicable

[ X ] LA Site Forms (update) - previously recorded & un-relocated sites (first 2 pages minimum)

[ ] Historic Cultural Property Inventory Forms, if applicable

[ X ] List and Description of Isolates, if applicable

[ ] List and Description of Collections, if applicable

23. Other Attachments:

[ X ] Photographs and Log [ X ] Other Attachments (Describe):

Location Map, BLM Prefield Map

24. I certify the information provided above is correct and accurate and meets all applicable agency standards.

5 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 Principal Investigator Printed Name: David V. Hill PhD Qualified Supervisor: Printed Name: Jeffrey Pangburn Signature: Date: 21-Mar-19

Title:

Qualified Supervisor

25. Reviewing Agency 26. SHPO Reviewer's Name/Date: Reviewer's Name/Date:

Accepted [ ] Rejected [ ] HPD Log #:

Date sent to ARMS:

CULTURAL RESOURCE FINDINGS

[fill in appropriate section(s)]

SURVEY RESULTS:

Archaeological Sites discovered and registered: 0 Archaeological Sites discovered and NOT registered: 0 Previously recorded archaeological sites revisited (site update form required): 3 Previously recorded archaeological sites not relocated (site update form required): 0 TOTAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES (visited & recorded): 3 Total isolates recorded: 3 Non-selective isolate recording?

HCPI properties discovered and registered: 0 HCPI properties discovered and NOT registered: 0 Previously recorded HCPI properties revisited: 0 Previously recorded HCPI properties not relocated: 0 TOTAL HCPI PROPERTIES (visited & recorded, including acequias): 0 MANAGEMENT

SUMMARY

Archaeological clearance is recommended, for the proposed railroad, fence line, and access road for CHEMM representing Holtec International as the project is currently staked. If cultural materials are encountered, at any time, all work should cease and a BLM-CFO Staff archaeologist notified immediately.

[ ] Continuation IF REPORT IS NEGATIVE, YOU ARE DONE AT THIS POINT.

SURVEY LA/HCPI NUMBER LOG Sites/Properties Discovered:

LA/HCPI No. Field/Agency No. Eligible? (Y/N/U, applicable criteria)

Previously recorded revisited sites/HCPI properties:

LA/HCPI No. Field/Agency No. Eligible? (Y/N/U, applicable criteria)

LA 149299 APAC 19-02-08 JP 1 N LA 170340 APAC 19-02-08 JP 1 N LA 187010 APAC 19-02-08 JP 2 N MONITORING LA NUMBER LOG (site form required)

Sites Discovered (site form required): Previously recorded sites (site update form required):

6 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 LA No. Field/Agency No. LA No. Field/Agency No.

Areas outside known nearby site boundaries monitored? [ ] Yes [ ] No, Explain why:

TESTING & EXCAVATION LA NUMBER LOG (site form required)

Tested LA number(s) Excavated LA number(s) 7 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act 8 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 The Proposed Holtec Railroad Spur, Fence Line, and Access Road Right-of-Ways Located in Sections 13,19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 in T 20 S R 32 E; and Sections 18 and 19 in T 20 S R 33 E in Lea County, NM for Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management Representing Holtec International By Jeffrey Pangburn and Stacey Therriault with APAC of Carlsbad, New Mexico 88221 APAC Project No.: 19-02-08B NMCRIS No.: 142729 9 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Abstract This cultural survey was conducted by APAC of Carlsbad New Mexico at the request of Emily Worth with the Center of Excellence for Hazardous Materials Management (CHEMM) who is representing Holtec International a contractor operating under direction and permitting of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The cultural survey is for a proposed railroad spur, a fence line, and access road right of ways (ROW).

A total of 205.35 acres were surveyed for this project. Pre-field investigations determined this project crosses Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Private Lands making the project a federal undertaking. A consultation with Aaron Whaley of the BLM-CFO during the pre-field investigations for the project determined that while the proposed ROWs do cross BLM managed lands the BLM-CFO would not be the lead agency for the review of the cultural survey report. The involvement of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) in permitting the overall project will make the NRC the lead agency for reviewing the cultural survey report. A meeting with Andrew Wilkins the archaeologist representing the NRC resulted in an infield visit to the project area to review cultural survey findings and discuss the recommendations presented in this report.

During the course of field work two cultural sites were documented during the archaeological survey. Archaeological clearance will be recommended, for the Holtec railroad, fence, and access road ROW as the project is currently staked. The project was conducted to meet or exceed the all current professional standards for cultural surveys crossing BLM managed lands in the State of New Mexico.

10 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Table of Contents Abstract 2 Table of Contents 3 Overall Project Map 4 Description of Undertaking 5 Legal Description 6 Cultural History Paleoindian 7 Archaic 8 Formative or Ceramic 9 Protohistoric 12 Historic 13 Environmental Settings 15 Mescalero Plain 15 Sediments 17 Methods of Examination 18 Description and Analysis of Located Resources 18 Evaluation of Properties 19 Pre-field Findings 19 Cultural Resource Site Narratives LA 149299 20 Figures Figure 3 LA 149299 Site Map 21 LA 187010 22 Figures Figure 4 LA 187010 Site Map 23 Tables Features 24 STP 25 Research Orientation 25 Recommendations 25 Bibliography 27 Figures Figure 1 Overall Map of Project Area 4 Figure 2 Physiographic Map 15 Figure 3 LA 149299 Site Map 21 Figure 4 LA 187010 Site Map 23 Tables Previously Recorded Sites 20 LA 187010 Feature 24 LA 187010 STP 25 Updated Sites 26 Isolated Manifestation 26 11 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)

(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act Figure 1 Overall Project Map 12 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Description of Undertaking On March 8th, 2019, David V. Hill and Jeffrey Pangburn archaeologists with APAC conducted a class III archaeological survey for the three separate proposed ROWs. The proposed surveys are covering the the proposed railroad spur, fence line, and access road.

The ROW for the proposed railroad is located in Lea county, New Mexico crossing sections 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24 in T 20 S R 32 E and sections 18 and 19 in T 20 S R 33 E. The fence line and access road are located in section 13 in T 20 S R 32 E. The cultural resource inventory was conducted at the request of Travis Casey and Emily Worth with CHEMM representing Holtec International.

The involvement of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will make the NRC the lead agency for reviewing the cultural survey report. Andrew Wilkins representing the NRC directed that the cultural survey report be conducted to meet of exceed all current professional standards for cultural surveys in New Mexico crossing Federal managed lands. In keeping with this request the project was registered in the New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System (NMCRIS) /Archaeological Records Management Section (ARMS) a part of the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division (NMHPD). The ARMS website does not offer the NRC as an option for the NRC in the data base. This resulted in a consultation with Derek Pierce NMCRIS Program Manager, on April 9th, 2019 APAC at which time advised to enter BLM-CFO for the lead agency on the NMCRIS website but on the NMCRIS Investigation Abstract Form (NIAF) to put down the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the lead agency.

CHEMM had the centerline of the proposed ROWs delineated with lathe and marking tape prior to the cultural survey. A total of 44725.24 (+/-) were surveyed for the three separate ROWS equaling 205.35 acres of new survey for this undertaking. The survey corridor on each of the ROWs were a 200 (+/-) wide corridor centered on the delineated right of ways.

The proposed railroad line is 37,333.33 in length with the 200 wide survey corridor equaling 171.41 acres that were surveyed. The direct affect for this railroad is 37,333.25 x 50 for 42.85 acres. The indirect affect for the railroad is 37,333.25 x 150 for 128.56 acres.

The fence line is 4,534.98 in length with the 200 wide survey corridor for a total of 20.82 acres that were surveyed. The direct affect is 4,534.98 x 50 for 5.21 acres. The indirect affect for the fence line is 4,534.97 x 150 for 15.62 acres.

The access road is 2,856.93 (+/-) in length width the 200 wide survey corridor a total of 13.12 acres that were surveyed. The direct affect is 2,856.93 x 50 for 3.28 acres. The indirect affect is estimated to be 2,856.93 x 150 for 9.84 acres.

During the course of field work two cultural sites (LA 149299, & LA 187010) and 3 isolated manifestation were found to intersect the proposed project right of way. The 13 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 recording of LA 149299 is for an existing railroad constructed over 50 years ago. The railroad, while it is over 50 years old is still in use. The current railroad spur surveyed for will be extending from this cultural property. The existing railroad (LA 149299) has a second number assigned along a different segment of the line. That LA number is 170340. The APAC 2019 documentation will reference the LA 149299 site number for this property since it is the lower of the two. This report recommends that these two LA numbers should be combined in NMCRIS and the lowest number LA 149299 be utilized for all current and future updates of this cultural property. A two-page LA update is included for LA 170340 which states this number is combined with LA 149299. LA 187010 is a prehistoric cultural property. All current infield observations of cultural materials are plotted on the project map attached to this report. These cultural properties (LA 149299 & LA 187010) are documented to meet or exceed all current professional standards in New Mexico.

Three isolated manifestation of cultural material were documented during the current project. The three isolated manifestations consist of one quartzite core reduction flake, and two 1943 USGS brass caps. One brass cap is for a 1/4 section marker, the other is a corner section marker. The USGS markers represent the establishment of New Mexicos General Land Office in 1854 led to the Rectangular Survey System of the United States to be utilized in the mapping and partitioning of the territory (Roeder 1995). This grid system iss used to lay out the township and ranges as well as establishes sections. With the distribution of the BLM Manual for Surveyors in 1855, which states that monuments in the ground take precedence in determining land boundaries, a systematic survey of the territory began (U.S. Government Printing Office 1855). By 1910 the brass cap became a common monument set at section corners within New Mexico where private and public lands adjoin. These monuments remain in continuous use for the establishment of retracement surveys, which identify the monuments of an established prior survey of property corners (Mahoney 2005; Mulford 1912; U.S. Government Printing Office 1947).

The proposed ROW crosses through a relatively flat semi-arid desert with low rises in Lea County, New Mexico. Impacts to the proposed project ROW include existing lease road, fence line, OHE, etc. The survey area of the proposed ROW is plotted on the attached project map. Location plots for the project were obtained by utilizing a survey grade hand held GPS.

Legal

Description:

T 20S, R 32E, Sec. 13, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24 T 20S, R 33E, Sec. 18 and 19 USGS 7.5 Series: LAGUNA GATUAN, NM (1984) 32103-E6; WILLIAMS SINK, NM (Prov. Ed. 1985) 32103-E7 Land Status: BLM and Private Lands 14 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW LEA COUNTY CULTURAL RESOURCES OVERVIEW THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE LLANO ESTACADO The Llano Estacado is the southernmost portion of the High Plains section of the Great Plains physiographic province. Bordered by the Canadian River Valley on the north, the Pecos River Valley on the west and an erosional escarpment on the east formed by the headwaters of the Red, Brazos, and Colorado Rivers, the Llano Estacado is an isolated remnant of an extensive piedmont plain. Final isolation of the Llano Estacado occurred after the late Kansan glacial period when the Pecos River pirated stream flow from the Portales Valley. Covering approximately 82,000 square km of west Texas and eastern New Mexico, elevations range from 1500 m in the northwest to 750 m in the southeast, where it gradually merges with Edwards Plateau. The Llano Estacado has very little relief, the only relief being sand dunes, blowouts, playa basins, and remnant channels of a once extensive eastward flowing system of drainages. Surface water on the Llano Estacado is limited to large playa basins and a few small downstream sections of some draws, otherwise draw flow is ephemeral (Kibler 1991:13). The abundance of archaeological sites along the draws and playa basins of the Llano Estacado is a good testimony to this former presence of surface water (Brown et al. 2010).

Paleoindian Period While there is tantalizing evidence for the occupation of southern New Mexico prior to 13,000BC, later Paleoindian material culture has been documented at several locations in Lea County (MacNeish and Libby 1998). Three subdivisions are found within the Paleoindian period in southeastern New Mexico: Clovis, Folsom, and Plano. The Paleoindian subsistence economy relied mostly on the hunting of large animals such as mammoth and Bison antiquus, as well as specialized hunting and gathering. Distinctions between them are based primarily on projectile point styles and lithic artifact technology.

Major Paleoindian sites are in Roosevelt County, which shares common border to the north with Lea County. The Paleoindian period is best represented by the excavations at the Blackwater Draw site located in nearby southern Roosevelt County. The Blackwater Draw site was the type site for the Clovis Culture (10,500-9500 B.C.). Clovis artifacts include fluted points that have been found at Blackwater Draw in association with extinct mammoth and camel. Folsom (9,500 B.C.-8200 B.C.) and Plano (8200 B.C.-6000 B.C.)

occupations include camp sites and kill sites of extinct bison. Well documented excavated Paleoindian occupations. Important site relating to the Paleoindian Period include Blackwater Draw, near Portales (Hester 1972); Milnesand (Plano) (Holiday 1997:

138; Warnica and Williamson 1968) and the Elida site (Folsom) (Holiday 1997:137-138).

RO-16 located about eight km west of the Milnesand site produced a collection of Clovis, Folsom and Plano projectile points (Holiday 1997: 142). RO-16 consists of a series of sand-dunes weathered into earlier soils a geological characteristic shared with the 15 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Milnesand site. The Rattlesnake Draw site (Clovis, Folsom, Plano, possibly Archaic),

Laguna Plata (Folsom) and the Tatum site (Plano) are located in Lea county (Brown et al.

2010; Holiday 1997:147-148; Laumbach et al. 1979). A single Midland point (Plano) was recovered from a multi-component site located on Mescalero Ridge (LA 44794) (Main 1992).

Much has been made of the presence of Paleoindian remains occurring in areas subject to erosion (Cordell 1979a; 1979b; Holiday 1997). Most Paleoindian sites in southern New Mexico bear this out. Soils within the proposed survey area are sandy loams or loamy sands, are often shallow, and subject to erosion. That these early sites are found in eroded areas, often the edges of stream-beds or playa lakes makes sense as erosion removes later soil deposits exposing buried artifacts.

Archaic Period (ca. 6,000 B.C. to ca. A.D. 200)

The term Archaic is used here to refer to post-Pleistocene hunter and gatherer adaptations to a more modern physical environment. The lengthy Archaic period begins with a post Pleistocene drying trend that produced an essentially modern climate regime around 6000 B.C. Extensive Archaic occupations have been documented in both upland and basin locations of southeastern New Mexico (Sebastian and Larralde 1989). Prehistoric occupants of this period adapted to a desert grassland and scrub environment with increased spatial and seasonal variability in subsistence resources.

Little independent chronological information is available for Archaic occupations in southeastern New Mexico, especially for the earlier portion of this period. Archaic sites are most commonly dated by the presence of different styles of projectile points. Many sites contain projectile points whose styles have been assigned to different ages elsewhere or produce projectile points that span a considerable period. Such points are not be useful for estimating the time placement of the site or indicate reoccupation during the time of that particular styles popularity (Duran and Laumbach 1979; Hammack 1964). Extensive surveys of public lands and examination of private collections has been conducted by amateur archaeologists for a number of years (Leslie 1979). Poor site integrity in areas of erosion has also adversely impacted Archaic occupations and in some cases likely mixed them with artifacts from later occupations (Brown et al 2010; Hall 2002).

A common feature associated with Archaic occupations in southeastern New Mexico are hearths that contain a substantial portion of fragments of caliche (Wiseman 1993; Main 1992; Railey and Whitehead 2017). The caliche is believed have held heat to bake plant or animal foods. Another type of feature associated with Archaic occupations in southeastern New Mexico and west Texas are prehistoric wells. These wells are excavated into arroyo beds (Evans 1951; Smith et al. 1966; Meltzer 1991; Meltzer and Collins 1987). Extensive dating of wells at the Mustang Draw site located in Martin and Midland counties indicates use of the well-field between 6800-6600 BP (Meltzer 1991).

Wells of Archaic age like those from the Mustang Draw site have also been reported from Blackwater Draw and the Rattlesnake Draw site.

16 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Discussion Important differences exist between the Archaic periods of the lower Rio Grande and southeastern New Mexico. In the lower Rio Grande, seasonal sedentism and some horticulture was part of the adaptive strategy. In southeastern New Mexico a more mobile lifestyle that appears to continue into the Formative period. In terms of lithic technology, the shift from the Paleoindian to the Archaic periods was characterized by change from formal tool production (primarily bifaces) to one based on expedient core/flake tool technology (Vierra 2005: Parry and Kelly 1987). Some attempts have also been made to differentiate Archaic lithic scatters from Formative period lithic scatters lacking ceramics using differences in reduction strategies and material types (Lord and Reynolds 1985).

While these types of studies have increased awareness of the variability between lithic assemblages, and encouraged intensive lithic analysis during the undertaking of surveys, such analysis may not be appropriate. The model of changing lithic technologies assumes that there is a change in lifestyles between the Archaic, Formative and Protohistoric Periods. Data from excavations at Santa Rosa Lake indicate that little change in terms of mobility and subsistence practices took place between the Archaic and subsequent Formative Periods (Kauffman 1984; Schelberg and Akins 1987). Continued analysis of stone tool assemblages from well-dated prehistoric and protohistoric sites will be needed to settle this issue.

The major focus of Archaic Period research should first be chronology building using reliable technique including radiocarbon, Optical Stimulated Luminescence, and archaeomagnatism. Independent dating will not only aid in a general strengthening of chronologies, but if a systematic program of dating features discovered during cultural resource inventories is extended to sites lacking projectile points, those sites can be assigned to a specific time period.

In the case of archaeological survey, more description of the types of lithic materials present on sites, the type of lithic reduction strategy and evidences of tool recycling reflected in the lithic assemblage should be conducted (Hogan 2006). The presence of fire-cracked rock, even when not articulated into a feature should be recorded. With the advent of Optically Stimulated Luminescence dating, undecorated pottery and burned caliche can be as useful for dating an occupation as the presence of charcoal.

Formative or Ceramic Period (200 A.D. to 1450 A.D.)

There is an increase in the number of sites with radiocarbon dates around 2000 years ago (Katz and Katz 1993). Whether the increase in the number of radiocarbon dates at the end of the Archaic Period reflects an increase in population, more frequent reuse of the same site localities or represents better preservation of more recent archaeological occupations is an area of active research.

The appearance of ceramic vessels in the archaeological record of southeastern New Mexico is currently an area of active research. The Archaic 4 phase extends from A.D. 1 17 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 to 500 and is marked by the presence of medium-sized, stemmed dart points and the absence of ceramics (Katz and Katz 1993). The Formative 1 period is recognized by the presence of undecorated brown pottery in association with dart points that are characteristic of the Archaic 4 period. For example, excavations at the Townshed site (LA 34150) in northern Chaves county late Archaic age occupations consists of an aceramic occupation associated with corner-notched projectile points (Akins 2003, Maxwell 1986). Dart points have been found to persist through Formative 2, around A.D.

950 (Katz and Katz 1993).

The appearance of ceramics in artifact assemblages in southeastern New Mexico indicates that either substantiate revision of the Katz and Katz (1993) chronology is necessary or that the appearance of pottery in southeastern New Mexico represents a much more complex history than has been documented previously. Recent research has revised the introduction of ceramics into southeastern New Mexico to A.D. 200, contemporary with early ceramic assemblages that have been recovered from other sites in southern New Mexico (Hill and Staley 1999). Ceramics appear in artifact assemblages between AD 460 and 870 at the Townshed site (Akins 2003, Maxwell 1986). Recent excavations along the Rio Hondo, in Lincoln County reported that ceramics were not present in artifact assemblages recovered from storage structures until around AD 500 (Railey and Ruscavage-Barz 2008).

The Formative Period in Southeastern New Mexico has been divided into seven different periods (Katz and Katz 1993). Based on this dating, the Formative 1 Period should be expanded to the A.D. 200-750. In southeastern New Mexico, it appears that prehistoric people retained several aspects of an Archaic lifestyle except for the introduction of ceramics. Also, presence of basin-type metates indicates that wild plant foods were being processed.

The Formative 3 through Formative 6 periods reflect an increase in exotic ceramics from across southern New Mexico and northern Chihuahua (Haskell 1977; Speth 2004). In southeastern New Mexico evidence of corn horticulture is highly variable. Little or no indication of corn horticulture has been reported at some sites in southeastern New Mexico until around A.D. 1000 (Zamora 2000). The only evidence for horticulture recovered from Lea County are the limited amounts of corn recovered from the Laguna Plata site (LA 5148) (Brown et al. 2010; Main 1992). The Laguna Plata and the Monument Hill sites are multi-component settlements that date from the late Archaic until the end of the Formative Period is located associated with playa lakes (Brown et al.

2010; Laumbach et al. 1979). Both of sites also presented evidence of Formative-period architecture.

Dating sites is especially important in southeastern New Mexico where little is known of the relationship between sites found along the Pecos River and its western feeder streams and those sites located to the Mescalero Plain and Shinnery Oak belt located to the east (Beckett 1976; Leslie 1979). Larger patterns of regional mobility are indicated by the frequent recovery of undecorated ceramics in the sand hills of southeastern New Mexico and west Texas that were produced using materials local to the Sacramento Mountains 18 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 and the El Paso area (Hill 2014). Interestingly, Chupadero Black-on-white, a decorated ceramic type commonly recovered from sites across southeastern New Mexico, was also produced in part in the Sacramento Mountains as well as some of the undecorated pottery (Clarke 2006).

The final phase of the Formative period (Formative 7) as applied in the Carlsbad area is apparently characterized by a shift from an emphasis on gathering and limited horticulture to bison hunting (Jelinek 1966; Katz and Katz 1985a; Speth 2004; Speth and Perry 1980; Staley 1996). The faunal remains from the Henderson site located on a tributary of the Pecos River north of Roswell, and dating to the later thirteenth and early fourteenth century, indicates a diet that included a substantive portion of bison that was supplemented by corn-based horticulture (Speth 2004). The dramatic increase in the presence of bison remains at the Henderson site presages the shift to a more mobile lifestyle evidenced by bison kill sites in southeastern New Mexico in the fifteenth century (Rocek and Speth 1986). Bison remains were found associated with two hearths at Laguna Plata (LA 5148) (Brown et al. 2010).

However, the archaeological record of Lea county presents indicates that whatever forces drove the shift to a more mobile subsistence strategy also encouraged aggregation at some locations. While bison remains were also recovered from the Merchant site, the site produced extensive evidence for corn horticulture including the construction of water management features for farming. The site consists of a pueblo-style room block, pit structures, and additional fewer substantive structures and features. Based on an extended suite of radiocarbon dates the Merchant site was occupied between AD 1300 and 1450 (Miller Graves and Leslie 2016:245). The Merchant site has the distinction of being a source of Ochoa Indented Brown, the only type of prehistoric pottery documented to have been produced in the Eastern Extension of the Jornada Mogollon Area (Leslie 1979).

Discussion Much has been made of the variability in the degree of sedentism practiced by Formative groups resident in southeastern New Mexico (Hill 2009; Hogan 2006). However, without good chronological control it is difficult to assign a site to a specific time period in order to include it into a regional settlement model. Since many of the sites in southeastern New Mexico have been demonstrated to have been reoccupied over extended periods of time, it is necessary to develop good independent chronological control over sites beyond the presence of projectile points and decorated ceramics (Kauffman 1984). Dating using multiple independent techniques should be used to identify multiple occupations that may be present at the same site. During surveys, attention needs to be paid to variations in the artifact assemblages and the environmental context of each site. Ceramics need to be described in terms of their formal attributes. The practice of analysis of collected ceramics will develop a data-base to examine regional patterns of interaction and could also provide evidence of site re-occupation. The circulation of a standard for the description of rock types and lithic tool descriptions will further aid in the collection of consistent data (Hogan 2006).

19 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Protohistoric Period (A.D. 1400/1450 to 1700)

The Protohistoric period in southeastern New Mexico is one of the least defined periods in southwestern archaeology. Wilson (1984) summarizes the problems with our current investigation techniques for this period and the various cultural groups occupying the area during this time:

The realization that an Indian group could enjoy almost unlimited use of a territory for roughly 300 years and yet leave few traces upon the landscape should sober archaeologists as to the impression of their customary tools for interpretation.

This means sites from the Protohistoric period will be ephemeral as to the remaining cultural materials and sites after Spanish Contact in the late sixteenth century in southern New Mexico will not only have limited material remains but would in many cases be intentionally hidden by those cultural groups.

The Protohistoric period is defined by the de-population of southern New Mexico and the abandonment of agriculturally based subsistence strategies. This would suggest the increase of hunter gatherer-based subsistence strategies by native groups have been put forth to explain the changes in adaptation and subsequent depopulation of the area. Speth and Parry claim that deteriorating environmental conditions of this period may have been the primary cause of changes in subsistence patterns (Speth and Perry 1978, 1980).

Worsening environmental conditions made agriculture no longer viable, resulting in populations in the area becoming more mobile. They cite data that indicates the bison herds were also affected by adverse environmental conditions but not to the extent that plant resources were. Recent research conducted in southern New Mexico also suggests the intrusion of migratory cultural groups such as the ancestors of the modern Apaches may have also contributed to the depopulation of the area by Formative Period peoples.

Sites from the Protohistoric are often ephemeral and contain lithic assemblages similar to those found on Archaic Period sites as well as artifacts from the Formative period. At this time a temporal affiliation should only be assigned if absolute dates can be obtained using such methods as radiocarbon dating of annual or short-lived plants and Optical Stimulated Luminescence (OSL). However, recent work in the region suggests that typologies of this period can be developed and recognized these may even establish associations with specific cultural groups of this time period (Seymour 2004; Seymour et al. 2002).

The archaeological records of the Protohistoric period may also contain remnants of Formative groups that may have been ancestral to the present day Manso, Suma, Jano, Jacome, Piro, and Chinarra (Beckett and Corbett 1992; Schroeder 1973). The only group well documented group in southeastern New Mexico is the Mescalero Apache that persisted through the Historic period and into the present day in this region. It is unclear to what extent most of these groups lasted or ranged but by the end of the period only the 20 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Mescalero Apache remained and may have to some extent absorbed the remnants of other cultural groups. To various degrees these same groups would have also been absorbed into Spanish and Anglo cultures occupying this area.

Discussion The Protohistoric is the least well documented portion of the entire archaeological sequence for southeastern New Mexico. We lack the conceptual and methodological tools to identify and interpret to identify Protohistoric occupations and assign them to documented historic populations. Currently Protohistoric occupations are recognized by the presence of circles of rocks that have been recognized elsewhere as tipi rings. These particular features are assigned to Apachean occupations by rote. Otherwise, Protohistoric occupations are documented by the presence of post-prehistoric radiocarbon dated features. The particular type of evidence is fraught with confounding issues such as the kinks in the radiocarbon curve or a lack of understanding what type of material or context that is being dated.

Historic Period (A.D. 1700 to Early Twentieth Century)

The Historic Period has been traditionally viewed as beginning with the arrival of Coronado in 1540. However, because of the limited impact of the Spanish explorers and colonists on the indigenous peoples of southeastern New Mexico until the eighteenth century and later the boundary between the Protohistoric and Historic Periods in southeastern New Mexico is not sharp. The presence of Coronado's expedition in the Rio Grande Valley and a single excursion across the plains probably did not have the local impact that the expedition of Antonio de Espejo did while traveling down the Pecos River on the way back to Mexico in 1583. A well-used trail, possibly a game trail, paralleled the Pecos River along the east side on which the expedition traveled (Hammond 1929).

Expeditions sent out from Pecos Pueblo in 1590 by Gaspar Castano de Sosa also failed to locate any Indians south of the pueblo, but probably did relocate the trail along the Pecos mentioned by Luxan during the Espejo expedition (Schroeder and Matson 1965).

That the Spanish expeditions did not encounter Apaches in the area is unusual, and could be due to several factors including the expeditions coinciding with a seasonal round that did not include riverine resources at that time or fear of the Spanish based on stories passed on from Puebloan trading partners. Certainly, the remains of Apachean groups in the form of tipi rings are common in the Fort Sumner area. These tipi ring sites have not been independently dated and are attributed to the historic period by the presence of historic Pueblo ceramics (Stewart, Batcho, and Hill 1986). While a number of tipi rings have been excavated, they tend to produce few artifacts or independent dates (Hammack 1964).

While there appears to have been some exploitation of the Middle Pecos drainage in the earlier nineteenth century by sheepherders, the area was not systematically investigated until 1850 by Captain Henry B. Judd who first mapped the Pecos River and traveled 21 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 down it covering much of the same route as the Spanish explorers almost three hundred years earlier (Jelinek 1966).

In 1866, two Texas ranchers, Charlie Goodnight and Oliver Loving, decided to drive their cattle along the Pecos River to Fort Sumner and Santa Fe (Sebastian and Levine 1989).

This cattle trail, in spite of episodic raids by Apaches continued to be used until the coming of the railroads some twenty years later.

Little historical archaeology had been conducted in southern New Mexico. This is unfortunate since archaeology can give a better picture of history than written records that tend to focus on individuals and special events, rather than on social processes and adaptive behavior.

Unlike historic research on the Rio Grande, which focused on military sites, historical archaeology in along the Pecos drainage, with the exception of Fort Sumner, has focused on individual homesteads. Some of this work was conducted in conjunction with the prehistoric archaeology at Brantley Dam (Katz and Katz 1985a, 1985b).

The major force driving Euro-American settlement of southeastern New Mexico was the Stock-Raising Homestead Act signed by Abraham Lincoln on May 20th, 1862. This act allowed settlers who occupied up to 160-acre sized parcel of public land for six months and then paid $1.25 per acre would be given title to that land. The Homestead Act was modified in 1909 which expanded the size of the available land parcels to 320 acres. The Homestead Act was again amended in 1916 and renamed the Stock-Raising Homestead Act to allow for the homesteading of 640 acres parcels. In 1910, the Madison Well near Artesia was among the first to produce oil (Pratt 1989). In the late 1920s, potash became one of the area's prominent industries. A major development in the oil and gas mining industry in this region came about with the formation of the E1 Paso Natural Gas Company in 1928.

Discussion Like prehistoric archaeology, historic archaeology can provide information about how people have adapted to changing social, economic and environmental conditions.

Through the inclusion of historical archaeology in a program of regional research, much can be learned of the total range of human use of the landscape.

Survey of historic sites within the project area will find the historic period most varied in terms of cultural materials. In theory, materials could be present representing early Apaches, Spanish explorers, sheep and cattle ranching with limited evidence of farming, the American Military and Navajos. Detailed descriptions, drawings, and photographs should be made of temporally and/or culturally diagnostic artifacts for later comparisons with published literature. Features and structures should be documented as well. Land title searches need to be conducted for habitation structures to look at patterns of ethnicity and time periods of settlement and abandonment.

22 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Environment Setting:

The railroad, fence line, and access road are in a semi-arid desert environment of Lea County, New Mexico. Impacts to the proposed project pad are limited to cattle grazing through the area and natural sheet was erosion off the hill slopes. The survey area of the proposed pad is plotted on the attached project map. Location plots for the project were obtained by utilizing a survey grade hand held GPS.

Figure 2 Physiographic Map Mescalero Plain To the east of the Pecos River, the landscape is mostly a low, undulating landform, all or parts of which are variously referred to as Mescalero Plain. This area is largely covered by eolian sands, eroded from river valley alluvium and redeposited during Quaternary times. About 80 percent of the Mescalero Plain, is covered by eolian sands of Quaternary age. Much of this area consists of extensive fields of coppice dunes, but other types of dunes occur as well (Hall 2002; Hall and Goble 2016). Beginning in the late nineteenth century coppice dunes formed, resulting from overgrazing and well digging.

Especially south and southeast of Carlsbad slightly more broken terrain that exposes older, upper Permian and Triassic-age deposits intermittently throughout the Mescalero Plains. These exposures include evaporate deposits that have attracted potash and salt 23 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 mining. At least some of these areas were probably formed by dissolution of the underlying, Permian-age evaporate deposits and subsequent subsidence.

Occasional lakes and playas formed in some areas of southeastern New Mexico. Surface water once occurred here at springs and along the tributary drainages of the Pecos River, and in the past this area hosted some major concentrations of human occupation. Other areas of broken terrain in the Mescalero Plain have formed low escarpments, from which springs once issued that provided surface water and created local riparian zones.

The Mescalero Escarpment abruptly separates the Mescalero Plain from the higher Llano Estacado of the Southern High Plains section. This escarpment, also commonly known as the Caprock formed by the carving of the Pecos River valley and has been slowly retreating eastward over time (Bretz and Horberg 1949). Meanwhile, erosion along the escarpment front has transported and redeposited sediments from the Ogallala Formation westward into the Pecos River valley, including tool stone-bearing gravels.

Above the Mescalero Escarpment, the Llano Estacado is a flat-lying plain that preserves the piedmont surface of the Ogallala Formation (Bretz and Horberg 1949), which once extended continuously from the mountains, far to the west. Following stabilization of the Llano Estacado surface, rock-hard calcium carbonate formed within the shallow subsurface, creating the Caprock, a visually conspicuous, erosionally resistant layer along the top of the Mescalero Escarpment.

The Pecos River probably formed during late Tertiary and early Pleistocene times. The river and its tributaries cut into, and removed a large swath of, the Ogallala Formation.

Creation of the river valley was probably aided by subsidence and massive collapses resulting from dissolution of underlying Permian-age evaporate deposits (Hawley et al.

1976:246). In the vicinity of Carlsbad, and along stretches downriver, the Pecos River flows through some erosional remnants of Permian-age rocks. Here, the river is flanked by abrupt bluff edges and even some cliff formations, which contain rock shelters used in prehistoric times (Railey 2016:36).

The river and its tributaries have deposited, eroded, and redeposited alluvial sediments within the broad valley, leaving behind terraces and other now-elevated, erosional remnants of river valley deposits (Fiedler and Nye 1933; Kelley 1971). Within these sediments, Pleistocene-age terrace gravels occur topographically 2 to 4 m above the late Holocene alluvial terrace. The terrace itself was formed by down cutting of the floodplain, possibly ca. 1000 years ago when other river channels in the region were incised. Recent deflation and sheet wash have removed 20 cm of the fine-textured sediment from the terrace surface. The age of the alluvium is such that prehistoric occupations may be present within the alluvial deposits (Hall 2016).

The terrace gravels have been mapped for many miles up and down the Pecos River. The gravel contains pebbles and cobbles of fossiliferous limestone, light gray quartzite, purple quartzite, dark gray chert, banded gray chert, quartz, brown sandstone, reddish brown sandstone, red jasper, rhyolite, chalcedony, and fossil wood. Many of these rock types 24 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 have been reported in lithic assemblages at archaeological sites across the Mescalero Plain.

The majority of the project area is dominated by a semi-arid desert with low growths of creosote or acacia at an elevation of 3480 to 3550. The areas include some small mesquite, broom snakeweed, all thorn, soap tree yucca, prickly pear, and pencil cholla with some scattered javalina bush. Additional flora in this area included a variety of cacti and grasses such as dropseed and grama. The Pecos river is located approximately 34 miles west of the project right-of-way, various unnamed drainages bisect the project area.

Minimal lithic resources were observed throughout the project area, only an occasional chert or quartzite cobble. The surface visibility averages 95% across the project area.

Fauna in the area include mammals, reptiles and birds. The mammals would include pronghorn mule deer, javelina, bobcat, cottontail and jackrabbit, coyote, fox, porcupine, skunk, and badger. Birds include hawks, eagles, dove, quail, crow, scissor-tail flycatchers, turkey vulture, meadowlark, swallowtail, roadrunner, and swallows. Reptiles include snakes and lizards of numerous types. Insects are also abundant in the area and include cicada, grasshoppers, flycatchers, dragon flys, mosquitoes, bees, wasps as well as numerous types of beetles.

Disturbances include cattle grazing over the area and farming. An existing pipeline borders this project. Natural processes are present in the project area. These include actions from wind and water. These processes are ongoing and include deposition and erosion of sediments. The Aeolian processes allow for deposition across the project area along with some shallow blowouts. The fluvial processes primarily deposit sediments in low lying areas (i.e. shallow depressions) and are also observed in the form of sheet washing which allows for some deposition and small drainage cuts. The only other factor modifying the landscape include bioturbation and cattle grazing.

Sediments:

Surface sediments included a variety of types with areas of a red brown sand with no surface inclusions in the drainage basin that bisects the project area to light brown/tan loamy sediments with a high density of caliche nodules and cobble inclusions. The ridge and hill tops and slopes contain low to high densities of lag deposits of Pecos gravels intermixed with the caliche surface inclusions. These lag gravel to cobble size inclusions include a variety of chert and quartzite gravels as well as some limestone, rhyolite and basalts. Some bedrock is exposed to the west of the pad project area within one of the documented archaeological sites. The NRCS soils that have been identified in the area include Somona-Pajarito associations, Peyote-Maljamar-Kermit association, and Bernio-Cacique. Simona-Pajarito association: Sandy, deep soils and soils that are shallow to caliche, from wind-worked deposits. Peyote-Maljamar-Kermit association: Gently undulating and rolling, deep, sandy soils. Berino-Cacique association: Nearly level and gently sloping, sandy soils that are deep and moderately deep to soft or indurated caliche.

25 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Methods of Examination:

Per consultation with Aaron Whaley a BLM Archaeologist, it was determined that the proposed ROW for the railroad, fence line, and access road would be surveyed with a 200 (+/-) wide corridor centered on the marked right-of-way. The impacted area for the proposed ROW is estimated to be a 50 (+/-) wide corridor centered on the marked right-of-way. The cultural investigation was conducted by means of a pedestrian survey, with one field person, walking at 15-meter intervals for 100% coverage of the survey area.

This survey was designed to meet, but not limited to, the requirements detailed in the BLM Manual Supplement H-8100-1 New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, Procedures for Performing Cultural Resource Fieldwork on Public Lands in the area of New Mexico BLM Responsibilities 2002. The authority for these standards comes in part from Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, the Antiquities Act of 1906 and the Historic Sites Act of 1935, along with all additional federal and state laws for preserving and protecting cultural resources.

Visibility: 85% (+/-)

Weather: Clear, sunny, warm Lighting Conditions: Fair Work Hours on the Ground: 51 Crew Size: Two people Area Delineation: CHEMM staked the ROW and provided a location map Description and Analysis of Located Resources:

If sufficient artifacts are present on a prehistoric site documented during a cultural resource survey APAC employs a detailed analysis of all cultural features identified, including limited subsurface testing for dateable charcoal along with in-field analysis of a minimum of 100 artifacts. On prehistoric sites, these artifacts might include lithics, tools, ceramic, and groundstone. Thermal material counts not associated with features are also tabulated and size-graded. The analysis of lithic artifacts identifies the raw material flake type, amount of cortex, and size. Detailed analysis of lithic debitage includes the types of flakes and the absence or presence of platforms. Detailed analysis of lithic tools includes retouch type and use wear on the specific tool. Specific ceramic analysis includes identification of rim types if rims are present. This analysis sheet is presented in Appendix A with photos.

Analysis of historic materials encountered during a survey includes classification of the type of historic materials and counts of these types of items. Makers marks on bottles and ceramics are photographed in the field for later identification. Bottle forms and their manufacturing technologies are also recorded including, color, the types of finishes and bases present and seam forms. If enough of the makers mark on a bottle or glass container is present for identification they are photographed and then researched on https://sha.org/bottle/ with the date accessed used to determine the age of manufacture. If enough of the makers mark is present on historic Euro-American ceramics, these also photographed and identified through research to determine their age of manufacture.

26 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 These types of analysis assist in determining the age of historic of materials present on sites or as isolated occurrences encountered during a survey. This analysis sheet is presented in Appendix A with photos.

Evaluation of Properties:

Prehistoric cultural properties found during an investigation will be individually evaluated within the context of prehistory. Evaluation will include the sites potential to address regional research domains such as chronology, subsistence technology, landscape utilization, site function and resource procurement. Evaluations shall include consideration of each sites potential to provide significant and unique information as well as site condition and integrity. Each cultural site will be evaluated on its merits of eligibility for its inclusion into the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Recommendation as to the eligibility of each site shall be presented with reference to the appropriate criterion.

Historic cultural resource sites in the survey area were also evaluated for recommendation for inclusions into the National Register of Historic Places. The sites contents were reviewed to determine if the historic site documented during the current project met NRHP determination for register eligibility under criteria a. That is, if the site would contribute to the broad patterns of the history in southeast New Mexico. As part of this effort a review of historic documents and land patents including GLO records were identified. To assess its eligibility for NRHP inclusion the feature found on the prehistoric site was tested for the presence of dateable organic remains to assess its potential to provide significant chronological or botanical data that would contribute to our understanding of regional prehistory under criteria d.

Pre-Field Findings:

Pre-field investigations of the proposed project area consist of the review of web sites and project files located at the BLM-CFO, the Archaeological Records Management Section (ARMS) and the General Land Office (GLO). The records search at the BLM was conducted on February 5th, 2019, the ARMS and GLO search followed on the February 21st, 2019. A total of 4 cultural sites were found within 500 of the project area. The four sites are LAs, 89676, 149299, 170340, and 187010. Of these sites LA 170340, which was found to be a duplicate recording of LA 149299. during pre-field investigation it was found that 15 previous surveys crossed the current project right-of-way. The NMCRS numbers for these surveys are: 1175, 1525, 36238, 49377, 57188, 78662, 100842, 127779, 137254, 137478, 137815, 137883, 141368, and 141976. None of these surveys could be utilized to justifying not surveying any portion of the project. A review of the GLO files found serial patent NMR 0033745 associated with this proposed right-of-way.

Serial patent NMR 0033745 was approved under the June 20th, 1910: New Mexico Enabling Act (36 Stat. 557). This patent details the transfer of land from the BLM to the State of New Mexico. No artifacts were observed during the course of field work that could be connected to this patent.

27 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Previously Recorded Sites within 500 of the project area LA: # Eligibility Occupation Affiliation Distance 89676 Eligible (SHPO Prehistoric Unknown Within 500 2017) Aboriginal 149299 Not Eligible Historic Anglo/Euro Within 500 American 170340 Not Eligible Historic Anglo/Euro Within 500 American 187010 Eligible (SHPO Pre-historic Unknown Within 500 2017) Aboriginal Unspecific /

Other Prehistoric Other Historic 9500BC 1880AD Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)

(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act 28 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)

(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act 29 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act 30 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act 31 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)

(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act 32 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act 33 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act 34 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Bibliography:

Akins, Nancy J., Jessica Badnar, David V. Hill, Pamela J. McBride, James L. Moore, Jesse Murrell, Mollie S. Toll, John A. Ware, Dean Wilson and Dorothy A. Zamora 2003 Salt Creek, Data Recovery at Seven Prehistoric Sites along U.S. 380 in Chaves and de Baca Counties, New Mexico. Archaeology Notes 298.Office of Archaeological Studies, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Beckett, Patrick H 1976 An archaeological survey of an NGL pipeline from the Phillips Petroleum Company's Artesia.

Plant to the Lusk plant. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

Beckett, P.H. and T.L. Corbertt 1992 The Manso Indians. COAS Publishing and Research, Las Cruces, New Mexico.

Bretz, J. Harlen and Leland Horberg 1949 Caliche in Southeastern New Mexico. Source: The Journal of Geology, 57(5): 491-511.

Brown, Kenneth, Marie E. Brown, Benjamin G. Bury, Peter C. Condon, Richard Doucett, Jeffrey R. Ferguson, Charles D. Frederick, Michael D. Glascock, Martha Graham, Richard G. Holloway, David A. Hyndman, Melissa K. Logan, Linda Perry, J. Michael Quigg, M. Steven Schackley, Regge Wiseman, Adriana Romero, Barbara M. Winsborough, Kenneth Brown 2010 The Laguna Plata Site Revisited: Current Testing and Analysis of New and Existing Assemblages at LA 5148, Lea County, New Mexico. TRC Environmental, Inc. Albuquerque.

Bullock, Peter Y.

2001 Laguna Gatuna: Excavations at LA 120945, Lea County, New Mexico. Office of Archaeological Studies Notes 282. Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Clarke, Tiffany C.

2006 Production, Exchange Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, and Social Identity: A Study of Chupadero Black-on-white Pottery (New Mexico). School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University, Tempe.

Cordell, Linda S.

1979a A Cultural Resources Overview of the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico.

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region.

1979b Prehistory: Eastern Anasazi. In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 9, edited by A. Ortiz, pp. 131-151. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Corley, John A.

1965 Proposed Eastern Extension of the Jornada Branch of the Mogollon. In Transactions of the First Regional Archaeological Symposium for Southeastern New Mexico and Western Texas. Hobbs.

Duran, Meliha S. and Toni S. Laumbach 1979 State Planning Office site density project. New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

Evans, Glen L.

1951 Prehistoric Wells in Eastern New Mexico. American Antiquity 17:1-9.

Fiedler, Albert G. and S. Spencer Nye 35 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 1929 Geology and ground-water resources of the Roswell artesian basin, New Mexicos. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 639. Washington, DC.

Green, Roger C.

1956 Excavations near Mayhill, New Mexico. Highway Salvage Archaeology 2(7):1-9. New Mexico State Highway Department and the Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Hall, Stephen 2002 Field Guide to the Geoarchaeology of the Mescalero Sands Southeastern New Mexico. Prepared for State of New Mexico Historic Preservation Division and New Mexico Bureau of Land Management. Santa Fe, New Mexico Hall, Stephen A., and Ronald J. Goble 2016 Permian Basin Research Design 2016-2026: Volume II: Quaternary and Archaeological Geology of Southeastern New Mexico. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque.

Hammack, Laurens C.

1964 Archaeology of the Ute Dam and Reservoir in northeastern New Mexico. Museum of New Mexico Press, Santa Fe.

Hammond, George P.

1929 Expedition into New Mexico made by Antonio de Espejo, 1582-1583: As revealed in the journal of Diego Perez de Luxan, a member of the party. The Quivira Society, Los Angeles.

Haskell, J. Loring (editor) 1977 Caprock Water System Archaeological Project, Lea County, New Mexico. Agency of Conservation Archaeology, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales.

Hawley,J., G . Bachman, and K. Manley I976 Quaternary Stratigraphy in the Basin and Range and Great Plains Provinces. In Quaternary Stratigraphy of North America, edited by W. C. Mahaney. pp. 235-274. Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania.

Hester, James J.

1972 Blackwater Draw Locality No.1.A Stratified Early Man Site in Eastern New Mexico. Ft. Burgwin Research Center, Southern Methodist University, Dallas.

Hill, David V.

2000 Comments on Ceramic Types from the Jornada Mogollon Area and Elsewhere in Southern New Mexico, West Texas and Northern Chihuahua Hill, David V.

2014 Understanding Sources of Variability of Brownware Ceramics in Southeastern New Mexico.

Manuscript on file, Office of the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer, Santa Fe.

Hill, David V. and David P. Staley 1999 Pots, Points and Dates: New Information Toward Understanding the Archaic-Formative Transition in Southeastern New Mexico. In Sixty Years of Mogollon Archaeology: Papers from the Ninth Mogollon Conference, Silver City, New Mexico, edited by S. M. Whittlesly. pp. 157-162.

Statistical Research, Tucson.

Hogan, Patrick F.

2006 Southeastern New Mexico Regional Research Design and Cultural Resource Management Strategy, Office of Contract Archeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Holiday, Vance T.

1997 Paleoindian geoarchaeology of the Southern High Plains. The University of Texas Press, Austin.

36 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Jelinek, A.J.

1967 A Prehistoric Sequence in the Middle Pecos Valley, New Mexico. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Katz, S.R., and P. Katz 1985a The Prehistory of the Carlsbad Basin, Southeastern New Mexico. United States Bureau of Reclamation, Southwest Region, Albuquerque.

1985b The History of the Carlsbad Basin Southeastern New Mexico. Prepared for the Bureau of Reclamation, Southwest Regional office, Amarillo, TX. Incarnate Word College, San Antonio.

1987 An Occupational History of the Brantley Reservoir Locality, Southeastern New Mexico. In Advances in Middle Pecos Archaeology, edited by Susana R. Katz and Paul Katz, pp.

48-64. Bureau of Reclamation, Carlsbad.

1993 Archaeological Overview of Southeastern New Mexico. The Historic Preservation Division, State of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

Kauffman, Barbara 1984 The Vista Hills Site: Eight Thousand Years at the Edge of the Hueco Bolson. The University Museum, New Mexico State University Occasional Papers, Number 11. Las Cruces.

Kelly, V.

1971 Geology of the Pecos Country, Southeastern New Mexico. Memoir 24. New Mexico Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources, Socorro.

Kibler, Karl William 1991 Surface Distributions of Sites and Survey Strategies for Draws on the Southern Llano Estacado.

Unpublished MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, The University of Texas at Austin.

Laumbach, K.W., T. Laumbach, and K. Silverbird 1979 A Cultural Resource Inventory of the Proposed Laguna Plata Archaeological District. Cultural Resource Management Division, Report 335, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces.

Leslie, Robert H.

1979 The Eastern Jornada Mogollon: Extreme Southeastern New Mexico (A Summary). In Jornada Mogollon Archaeology, edited by Patrick H. Beckett and Regge N. Wiseman, pp. 179-199. Coas Publishing and Research, Las Cruces.

Lord, Kenneth J. and William E. Reynolds 1985 Archaeological Investigations of Three Sites Within the WIPP Core Area, Eddy County, New Mexico. Chambers Consultants and Planners, Albuquerque.

MacNeish Richard S. and Libby Jane G.

2004 Pendejo Cave. The University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Mahoney, Jane 2005 Surveyors Will Celebrate Their Long History in New Mexico. Albuquerque Journal, 20 January. Albuquerque. U. S. Government Printing Office.

Main, Rhonda 1992 Limited Testing at Maljamar, Lea County, New Mexico. Laboratory of Anthropology Note 78, Museum of New Mexico, Santa Fe.

37 of 75

ATTACHMENT 2 TO HOLTEC LETTER 5025056 APAC 19-02-08 Maxwell, Timothy D.

1986 Archaeological Test Excavations at the Townsend Site (LA 34150), Chaves County, New Mexico.

Laboratory of Anthropology Note 344, Office of Archaeological Studies, Santa Fe.

Meltzer, David J.

1991 Altithermal Archaeology and Paleoecology at Mustang Springs, on the Southern High Plains of Texas. American Antiquity 56(2): 236-267.

Meltzer, David J. and Michael B. Collins 1987 Prehistoric Water Wells on the Southern High Plains: Clues to Altithermal Climate. Journal of Field Archaeology, 14. 9-28.

Miller, Myles R, Tim B. Graves, and Robert H. Leslie 2016 The Merchant Site: A Late Prehistoric Ochoa Phase Settlement in Southeastern New Mexico.

Prepared for the Bureau of Land Management, Carlsbad Field Office. Versar Cultural Resources Report No. 836EP, NMCRIS No. 132077. Versar, Inc., El Paso, Texas.

Mulford, A.C.

1912 Boundaries and Landmarks: A Practical Manual. Stanhope Press, Boston.

Parry, William J. and Robert L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by Jay K. Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview Special Studies in Archaeological Research, Westview Press, Boulder.

Pratt, Boyd 1989 Extractive Industries. In Llano, River, and Mountain: The Southeast New Mexico Regional Overview, Volume 1: Historic Overview, by Boyd Pratt and Dan Scurlock. pp. 233-252.

New Mexico Historic Preservation Division. Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Railey, Jim A., and Samantha Ruscavage-Barz 2008 Synthesis and Interpretations. In Archaeology of the Hondo Valley, Lincoln County, New Mexico.

New Mexico Department of Transportation, Cultural Resource Technical Series 2006-1 pp. 721-774. Santa Fe.

Railey, Jim A.

2016 Permian Basin Research Design 2016-2026. Volume I: Archaeology and Native American Cultural Resources. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque.

Railey, Jim A., and William T. Whitehead (editors) 2017 JO BAR TANK, Archaeological Data Recovery at LA 16902 for the South Eddy Cryogenic Plant, Eddy County, New Mexico. SWCA Cultural Resources Report No.: 16-718. SWCA Environmental Consultants, Albuquerque.

Rocek, T. R., and John D. Speth 1984 The Henderson Site Burials: Glimpses of a Late Prehistoric Population in the Pecos Valley.

Museum of Anthropology Technical Reports No. 18, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Roeder 1995 Antepasados: Surveyors in History. New Mexico Professional Surveyors, Santa Fe Schelberg, John D., and Nancy J. Akins 1987 Turtles, Sciurids, and Artemesia: Seasonal Exploitation at Los Esteros. In Advances in Middle Pecos Archaeology: Proceedings of a Symposium Held at the Fourth Jornada Mogollon Conference, Tularosa, New Mexico. October 12th, 1985, edited by Susana B. Katz and Paul Katz, 38 of 75

APAC 19-02-08 pp. 15-29. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Pecos River Project Office, Carlsbad.

Schroeder, Albert H. and Daniel S. Matson 1965 A Colony on the Move: Gaspar Castano de Sosa's journal, 1590-1591. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Sebastian, L. and S. Larralde 1989 Living on the Land: 11,000 Years of Human Adaptation in Southeastern New Mexico. Cultural Resource Series No. 6. Bureau of Land Management, New Mexico.

Seymour, Deni J.

2004 A Rancheria in the Gran Apacheria: Evidence of Intercultural Interaction at the Cerro Rojo Site.

Plains Anthropologist 49(190):153-192.

Seymour, Deni J., Mark T. Harlan and David V. Hill.

2002 Conquest and Concealment: After the El Paso Phase on Fort Bliss: An Archaeological Study of Manso, Suma, and Early Apache. United States Army Air Defense Artillery Center and Fort Bliss Directorate of Environment, Lone Mountain Archaeological Services, Albuquerque.

Sheridan, Tom 1975 The Bitter River: A Brief Historical Survey of the Middle Pecos River Basin. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, Boulder.

Smith, Calvin, John Runyon, and George Agogino 1966 A Progress Report on a Pre-Ceramic Site at Rattlesnake Draw, Eastern New Mexico. Plains Anthropologist 11:302-313.

Speth, John D., editor 2004 Life on the Periphery: Economic Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern New Mexico. Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan Memoirs No. 37. Ann Arbor.

Speth, John D. and William J. Perry 1978 Late Prehistoric Bison Procurement in Southeastern New Mexico: The 1977 Season at the Garnsey Site. University of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology Technical Report 8. Ann Arbor.

1980 Late Prehistoric Bison Procurement in Southeastern New Mexico: The 1978 Season at the Garnsey Site (LA 18399). The University of Michigan Museum of Anthropology, Technical Report No. 12. Ann Arbor.

Speth, John D. and Laura Staro 2012 Bison Hunting and the Emergence of Plains-Pueblo Interaction in Southeastern New Mexico: The View from Rocky Arroyo and Its Neighbors. The Artifact, Vol 50.

Staley, David P. (editor) 1996 Archaeological Investigations along the Potash Junction to Cunningham Station Transmission Line, Eddy and Lea Counties, New Mexico. Mescalero Plain Archaeology, Volume 2. TRC Mariah Technical Report No. 11034-0030. Albuquerque.

Stuart, Trace, David Batcho, and David V. Hill 1986 An Archaeological Clearance Survey of a Proposed Plant Site and Contractor's Yard near Cuervo, New Mexico, including a Description of a Probable Apache Tipi Ring Site. Batcho & Kauffman Associates Cultural Resources Report Number 5. Las Cruces.

Vierra, Bradley J.

39 of 75

APAC 19-02-08 2005 Late Archaic Stone Tool Technology across the Borderlands. In The Late Archaic Across the Borderlands, edited by Bradley J. Vierra, pp. 187-218. University of Texas Press, Austin.

Warnica, James M., and Ted Williamson 1968 Milnesand Site - Revisited. American Antiquity. 33 (1): 16-24.

Wilson, John P.

1984 The El Paso Electric Survey, Amrad to Eddy County, Southeastern New Mexico. Archaeological and Historical Research Report No. 34. Submitted to El Paso Electric Company and the Bureau of Land Management, Roswell District Office. Archaeological and Historical Resources, Las Cruces.

Bureau of Land Management 2002 BLM Manual Supplement H-8100-1 New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, Procedures for Performing Cultural Resource Fieldwork on Public Lands in the area of New Mexico BLM Responsibilities.

State of New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs Historic Preservation Division 1993 ARMS Users Guide, New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System, and Guidelines for Submitting Archaeological Records and notes, ARMS Web page.

U.S. Government Printing Office: The Commissioner for the General Land Office 1908 Manual of Surveying Instructions for the Survey of the Public Lands of the United States and Private Land Claims. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington.

40 of 75

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act

Contains information protected under 10 CFR 2.390(a)(3) and Section 304 of the National Historic Preservation Act