cultural resource testing, evaluation, and monitoring of ... · i . abstract this report describes...

A%

. i;

I M , -: ik- ,:

V-A,

-, 0-

}t*.'4- 1 �- '

h1

L I I - , .. -.- 4

, .4

. I

V I'I'

4 p.

4I,

4A., "

*1

.7'.1.1

-- ii

, I I

. I .1 4 7 3 . ",I

' ' Homtke MlnJ Company'* 'Rd- . HPk ol~b -t s

Grants, W Mec8020i

. CSknihm -tar.1 ii '-n

I . II

I I I

- I . I I I

t, ,

. 4. % 7

New Me*Ico Stat. itoric Preservation Office .V;ig. ding

i- -

*, , , - * ' - .I

! , i' ; May '.5 19'9W ''

______

.. It ,'. N

.i I

t, : . .

I , . ,

' '

,:

r

Obm

I .

Abstract

This report describes the archaeological testing, evaluation, and monitoring of eightsites located within the windblown contamination cleanup area surrounding the HomestakeUranium Processing Mill, approximately four miles north of Milan, Cibola County. NewMexico. This project was carried out at the request of Fred Craft. Resident Project Manager,Homestake Mining Company. The field work, on private lands, was done under consultationwith the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Five sites, LA100359,LA100360, LA100361, LA104311, and 1A108856, are situated within an area designated forremoval of windblown contaminated material, and three sites, LA104308, LA104309, andLA1043 10, are located within proposed borrow areas.

Testing was undertaken on March 27 through 30, 1995 by Laurens C. Hammack andMary Errickson of Complete Archaeological Service Associates (CASA). to determine whethersignificant subsurface deposits or features are present in the eight sites. Testing suggested thatthree of the eight sites. LA104309, LA104311, and LA108856 contain significant subsurfacedeposits and features, and that sites LA104308, LA104310, LA100359, LA100360, and1A100361 are small surface artifact scatters. Subsequent monitoring of 1A100359, LA100360,LA100361, LA10431 1, and LA108856 by Nancy S. Hammack and Mary Errickson of CASAduring the contaminated material removal process was carried out between April 18 and 21,1995. Monitoring at LA100359 and LA100361 suggests that these sites may also containsignificant subsurface features and cultural deposits. As a result of testing and monitoring, LA100359. LA100361, LA104309, LA104311, and LA108856 are considered significant andeligible for nomination to the NRHP. IA100360, LA104308, and LA104310 are not consideredto be significant or eligible for nomination to the NRHP. No disturbance to any culturaldeposits or features occurred during removal of windblown contaminated materials. SitesLA104308, LA104309, and LA104310 will be totally avoided by borrow activities. All sitesconsidered eligible for nomination to the NRHP have been refenced for avoidance duringreseeding activities.

1

he a:

INTRODUCTION

Homestake Mining Company requested archaeological significance testing,evaluation, and monitoring of eight sites lying within the windblown contamination cleanuparea around the Uranium Processing Mill located 4.0 miles north of Milan, Cibola County,New Mexico (Figure 1). Five of the sites, LA100359, LA100360, LA100361, LA104311. andLA108856 are situated within an area of tailings contamination requiring removal ofwindblown topsoil. Three sites, LA104308, [A104309, and LA104310 are located withinproposed soil borrow areas. After consultation with the New Mexico SHPO office, asignificance testing program was carried out by Laurens C. Hammack and Mary Errickson ofCASA at the eight sites between March 27 and 30, 1995. After preliminary submission oftesting results and further consultation with the New Mexico SHPO office, surface collectionand monitoring of topsoil removal were carried out between April 18 and 21, 1995 by Nancy S.Hammack and Mary Errickson of CASA. All collected materials have been analyzed and willbe returned to Homestake Mining Company. After fieldwork was completed, sites determinedto contain subsurface deposits were refenced so that no machine disturbance would occurduring re-seeding. All significant sites will be re-seeded by hand and the northeast post of thetemporary fencing will be left as a permanent datum to identify the site location.

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND LOCATION

As part of remedial activities, the Homestake Uranium clean-up project entails theremoval of overlying windblown tailing deposits from areas surrounding the mill processingsite. These contaminated deposits have accumulated in active eolian sand dunes over the past35 years, with significant increased deposition over the sites during. the past year as a result ofde-vegetation of the general area during clean-up activities. The contaminated windblowndeposits are removed by heavy machinery and trucked to the tailings pile for burial andcovering. After removal of the windblown contaminated deposits from the entire area, mulchwill be spread and crimped into the soil to a depth of four inches. In the fall, when the mulchhas decomposed, seed will be spread and shallowly disked Into the soil.

The project area is located on privately-owned lands in Section 23, Township 12 North,Range 10 West. approximately 4.0 m north of Milan, New Mexico. The sites are located on theDos Lomas and Grants, New Mexico 7.5 minute quadrangle maps, dated 1957 and photorevisedin 1980 and 1981, respectively (Figure 2). The project area lies in the east end of the Red MesaValley, which Is bounded on the north by Mesa Montanosa, on the east by La Jara Mesa, on thesouth by Grants Ridge, and on the west by El Malpais. The project area is within the alluvialflats of San Mateo Creek. Soils within the area are fine sands overlying strata of silty clayloam and deep clay. Modern vegetation Is very sparse and limited to grasses and four-wingsaltbush. Overviews of the environmental, historical, and cultural settings of the project areaare found in Deyloff (1993a; 1993b; 1994).

Seven of the eight investigated sites were originally recorded in 1993 and 1994 (Deyloff1993a and 1994) by Southwest Archaeological Consultants, Inc. (SAC) during cultural resourceinventories requested by Homestake Mining Company in fulfillment of Uranium FacilityRegulatory Guide 3.8, Revision 2, October 1982. The eighth site, LA108856 was discovered byland surveyors in 1994 and fenced by Homestake Mining at that time. All sites recorded bySAC were recommended as eligible for nomination to the NRHP. At the time of recordation, a50-ft buffer around each site boundary was marked by SAC with orange flagging and the sitenumber. Based on this flagging, the sites were permanently fenced by Homestake within oneweek of the completion of the inventory.

Subsequent review by the New Mexico SHPO indicated that three of the sites, LA 104309.LA104310, LA10431 1, were eligible for nomination to the NRHP and that four sites, LA100359,LA100360, LA100361, and LA104308 required additional work prior to determination of

2

Ia

-PIit!L _A

wQER

Figre1. roectloatin ap

3

DOS LOMAS. N. MEX.N3515-W107 4 5 /7 .5

1957PHOTOREVISED 1980

GRANTS. N. MEX.N3507.5-W1074*5/7.5

1957PHOTOREVISED 1981

QUADMULE LOCATION

a

I

SCALE 1:24 0000

00. - X 0

$obo 0 leo 000 - u 3 400 a

I WLE

0 000 6000 700 FEET

1 OO4ETERl .A aI==W - - - __ - � ;ng��

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET :

Figure 2. Locatlion map, showing revised site locations.

4

eligibility. At the request of Homestake Mining, a research design and data recovery plan wasprepared by SAC (Deyloff 1993b) for those sites recorded in 1993. The plan proposed extensivedata recovery at sites LA100359, LA100360, and IA100361 despite that fact that these sites hadnot been determined eligible. A field inspection of the seven sites by Laurens C. Hammack ofCASA in the fall of 1994 Indicated that, with the likely exception of LA104309, it was possiblethat the sites may be limited to surface artifact scatters. As the project area had beenpreviously disturbed by agriculture, it was not known whether intact cultural depositssufficient to filfill the research goals of the SAC data recovery plan exist at these sites. It wasalso felt that If the proposed remedial actions were strictly monitored and strictly limited toremoval of overlying contaminated deposits, it was possible that controlled shallow bladingwould not disturb subsurface cultural deposits at the sites.

PROJECT METHODOLOGY

TESTENG

A significance testing proposal for the eight sites was submitted by CASA to the NewMexico State SHPO office on March 2, 1995. The testing program proposed surface collection,the placement of test units in areas of suspected features, and blading of overlying eoliandeposits to Identify the presence of undisturbed, significant cultural deposits. A review of theproposal by Lynne Sebastian of the New Mexico SHPO office indicated that collection ofsurface artifacts constituted data recovery and that blading on ephemeral sites might destroyall evidence of cultural deposits. As a result, no surface collection or blading was performedduring the significance testing phase of the project

The sites were fenced and undisturbed at the time of testing and were evident from adistance as raised areas of vegetation in the surrounding cleared landscape (Figure 3). Testingfor significance occurred between March 27 and March 30, 1995 and involved the placement ofsmall hand-excavated test units in high potential areas such as artifact or rockconcentrations, and numerous hand and motor-powered auger holes up to 1.0 m In depth overthe site areas (Figure 4). In addition, shallow backhoe trenches were placed in areas ofsuspected pit structures at sites IA104309, IA10431 1, and LA108856 after auguring or test unitsrevealed subsurface cultural deposits. Hand auger holes averaged 50 cm In depth, while motor-powered auger holes extended to 1 m in depth. All soil from auger holes was visually examinedand hand sifted for artifacts, rock fragments, or charcoal. Test pits were generally placed overrock or artifact concentrations and were excavated to a depth where artifacts or rock was nolonger encountered.

On April 3. 1995, a letter report summarizing the results of testing was submitted to theNew Mexico SHPO office. As a result of testing, it was proposed that six of the eight sites did notcontain significant subsurface deposits or features and were not eligible for nomination to theNRHP. Evidence for subsurface architecture and features was discovered during testing at1A104309 and LA108856 and these sites were recommended as eligible. Although possiblemidden deposits were found at LA10431 1, the site was recommended as not eligible because noarchitecture or features were detected and It was felt that the site had been disturbed byagriculture.

It was recommended that LA104309, located within a proposed borrow area, be totallyavoided. It was proposed that LA104308 and LA104310, also located within borrow areas, bebladed and monitored prior to borrow activities. As a result of subsequent discussion withHomestake Mining on April 19, 1995, L&104308 and LA104310 wil also be avoided. Actionsproposed for the five windblown contamination sites, LA100359, LA100360, LA100361,LA104311, and LA108856, included surface collection and monitoring of the motor graderremoval of contaminated deposits, with hand stripping in any areas of suspected features.

5

.z - .1 - .I I . .. I - I � . I

A

Figure 3. View of LA100360, looking northeast and showing general setting.

A"T

Figure 4. View of LA104311,

6

, showing testing activities.

Subsequent reevaluation of NRHP significance by the New Mexico SHPO office on April12, 1995 concurred with all CASA site recommendations except IA104311, where testing hadrevealed possible nidden deposits. With the stipulation that sites LA104309, IA104311, andLA108856 be protected during cleanup activities, the New Mexico SHPO office gave permissionfor cleanup activities to proceed.

SURFACE COLLECTION AND MONITORING

Prior to monitoring activities at the sites, a meeting was held on April 18, 1995 withFred Craft, Resident Manager of the Homestake Uranium Mill Processing Site, to discuss theproposed actions and the possibility of discovery at the sites. It was decided that, in the eventthat contaminated materials extended into subsurface cultural deposits or that removal of thecontaminated deposits would in any way disturb cultural deposits, all remedial actions at asite would be immediately halted. Options would then be discussed regarding data recovery atthe site(s).

With the exception of LA104309, all sites were surface collected on April 18, 1995.Surface collection included the undisturbed areas within the previously fenced site areas aswell as surrounding exterior areas located outside the fencing. The exterior areas had beenscraped by heavy machinery during remedial cleanup activities and scoured of any loosesurface materials by recent winds, and it was evident at LA100359 and LA100361 that culturaldeposits had existed in areas outside the original fenced site areas. In addition, less surfacematerial was evident within fenced site areas at most sites due to the recent wind-blowndeposition of additional sand on the sites since the testing program (Figure 5).

Removal of contaminated materials was monitored between April 19 and April 21,1995 at IA100359, LA100360, LA100361, LA104311, and LA108856. The surface of each sitewas skimmed in successive layers, 2-6 inches at a time, by a motor grader Figure 6). The motorgrader operator, supplied by Nielsons, was extremely proficient and had worked with CASA onprevious excavations in the Ambrosia area. Two archaeologists were on site to supervisecleanup activities at all times. Two technicians were also present at all times to monitor radonlevels with geiger counters. As soon as acceptable levels were reached, blading of the surfacematerials ceased, whether or not cultural levels had been reached. Cultural levels appeared asa hard-compacted silty clay loam containing charcoal flecking, occasional sandstone, andartifacts, very distinctive from the overlying eolian sand. All blading was halted as soon asthis level was discerned. In some instances, contamination extended into the cultural level inassociation with grass or bush roots. In these instances, the roots were removed by hand by anarchaeologist. All contaminated materials were placed outside of the original fenced area to beremoved for burial. The sites considered to be eligible for nomination to the NRHP were thanrefenced for protection from machinery during reseeding.

Only the northern side of site LA108856 was shallowly bladed, as on-site radon testingshowed that contamination levels were acceptable. The remainder of the site was leftundisturbed and the site was refenced. At LA100359, LA100360, LA100361, and LA104311acceptable radon levels were achieved by removal of all windblown contaminated material byblading and hand shoveling. Evidence on the bladed surface within the fenced area and thewind-scoured surface surrounding the fenced area indicated that additional subsurfacematerials may be present at LA100359 and IA100361, and the reevaluated site boundaries ofthese sites were fenced to protect them from machine damage during reseeding activities. Site1A100360 was not refenced, as no evidence for subsurface deposits was encountered duringblading.

A Laboratory of Anthropology site form for LA108856 and site update forms for theseven previously recorded sites have been submitted to the Laboratory of Anthropology, SantaFe. During recordation, these sites were mislocated by SAC and the corrected site locations areprovided in Figure 2.

7

- - |

-

Ir-

72 ~ , 4 .

40 low'

Figure 5. View of windblown sand-filled test trenches at LA104311.

r

� �.

�J. 0-

* Tht4..

* _

* -4.,-� - -a--

Figure 6. View of blading activities at LA100359.

8

ARTIFACT ANALYSIS

Cultural materials recovered during surface collection and monitoring of the sites wereanalyzed at the CASA Laboratory by Mary Errlckson. A total of 757 artifacts were collected,including 675 ceramic, 73 flaked lithic, 6 non-human bone, and 3 nonflaked lithic items.

Local ceramics, comprising 98.9 percent of sherds, were classified in reference to theCibola White Ware and Gray Ware Chaco Series (Windes and McKenna 1989). Temperingmaterials include a homogeneous fine-grained sandstone with white matrix, a variablemedium-large grained sandstone with white matrix, sherd, and sandstone and sherd. Localceramics are Lino Gray (A.D. 450-900), Kana'a Gray (A.D. 800-900), Tohatchi Banded (A.D. 900-1050), Coolidge Corrugated (A.D. 975-1050), Red Mesa Black-on-white (AD. 875 - 1050), PuercoBlack-on-white (A.D. 1030-1200), and Gallup Black-on-white (A.D. 1025-1200). With theexception of one organic painted bowl sherd from LA104311. all black-on-white sherds aredecorated with mineral paint. Middle - late Pueblo II ceramics constitute the overwhelmingmajority of diagnostic pottery from all sites, with Pueblo I and early Pueblo II types alsopresent in the LA100359 and 1A108856 collections. Non-local pottery was recovered at sitesLA100359, LA100361, LA108856, and LA104311. Three sand-tempered Mogollon Brown Waresherds from the same jar were collected at LA100359 in spatial association with late Pueblo I -early Pueblo 11 sherds. Two sherd-tempered Mogollon smudged bowl sherds were recoveredfrom a disturbed midden area at LA100361. An unidentified White Mountain Red Ware bowlsherd was collected from the madden area at LA10431 1. One Mogollon smudged bowl sherdcontaining sand temper was found at LA108856.

Flaked lithic items are comprised primarily of gray chert and obsldian.with lesseramounts of petrified wood, chalcedony, quartzlte, and brown-speckled chert, commonlyreferred to as leopard chert. Three of the four flaked lithic tools recovered during the projectoriginate from LA108856. These consist of a petrified wood core, a crude obsidian unifacialscraper, and a large, crude chert uniface. The remaining tool is a chert hammerstone fromIA104311. Nonflaked lithics items are limited to a quartzite two hand, bifacially groundmano fragment from LA100361 and two white stone, possibly claystone, beads. The beads wererecovered in a previously disturbed madden area at IA100361. In addition to the beads, sixnon-human bone fragments were also collected from the disturbed midden at IA100361. Onebone fragment exhibits thermal modification.

TESTING AND MONITORING RESULTS

LA100359

SURVEY: recorded 4/15/93 - The site was originally recorded as a temporary campsite datingbetween A.D. 900 and 1180 (Deyloff 1993a). The recorded site area measured 50 by 40 m andincluded approximately 100 surface artifacts, primarily ceramics, with a few flaked lithic andnonflaked lithic items. A possible hearth in association with burned and unburned pieces ofsandstone was recorded near the southwest site boundary. As a result of survey, the site wasrecommended as eligible for the NRHP. Subsequent review by the New Mexico SHPO onSeptember 19, 1993 indicated further data needed to determine eligibility.

TESTING: 3/27/95 - A total of 15 auger holes, 5 shovel tests, and 2 test units were placed in thesite to determine the presence of subsurface deposits (Figure 7). Previously bladed areassurrounding the site were also inspected for cultural materials and deposits, but none wereapparent, although the surface was covered with a shallow layer of wind-blown materials.Few artifacts were observed on ground surface within the fenced area. Auger holes. 1.0 m in

9

IkANI

0 auger testI I . -

Scale: l' - 1O meters

LA 100359

'v ' . shovel test

C test unit (TU)

Figure 7. Site plan map, LA100359, showing test units.

10

depth, were placed at 5 m Intervals along a low rise in the center of the site. Shovel tests, 30 cmin depth, were placed within the rock scatters, and test units, 30 cm In depth, were placed overand east of the suspected hearth area. Tie test Units showed the rock scatter to be limited to thesurface and contained no charcoal, ash, or burned soil. Sterile, unstratified eolian sand wasencountered in all auger, shovel, and test units. The presence of scattered burned rock at thesite suggested that a hearth may have been destroyed by agriculture. As a result of testing, itwas recommended that the site was not eligible for the NRHP.

SURFACE COLLECTION AND MONITORING: 4/18 /95- 4/20/95 - Prior to surface collection, thepreviously cleaned areas surrounding the site were re-inspected for cultural materials anddeposits. The area had been recently scoured by high winds, revealing small charcoal stains inthe hardened clay soil. Cultural materials were present outside the fence on the west and southsides of the site. An artifact scatter containing fragments of burned adobe was also noted justoutside the northwest fenced boundary. Ceramics from this particular area suggest a latePueblo I - early Pueblo II component based upon the prevalence of Kanada Gray and TohatchiNeckbanded In association with Gray Body sherds. As the areas outside the fence had beenpreviously cleared by heavy machinery, these areas have been highly disturbed. All artifactsfrom outside the fenced site area were collected. Cultural materials and charcoal staining werealso observed on the wind-scoured, machine-disturbed ridge located across the road and east ofLA100359. A very smashed Gallup B/W jar was noted (Figure 8), as well as a light scatter ofceramics and flaked lithics which continued for approxImately 50 m across the ridge. Itappears that a buried site, also dating to the Pueblo H period, once existed in this area.

Recent sand deposition within the fenced area had obscured all auger holes, shovel tests, andtest units which had been placed only three weeks earlier. Blading by motor grader ofcontaminated deposits within the fenced area revealed that substantial eolian sand hadaccumulated at the site, especially on the west and south sides where 1.3 m of unstratifiedsterile sand was removed. It was apparent that prior testing to 1.0 m depth had provedinadequate due to the depth of overlying deposits at the site. Removal of the windblownmaterials coincided with reaching the top of the cultural zone at the site. The cultural zone atthe site Is not contaminated and was not disturbed by removal of the overlying deposits. Thecultural zone is a compacted sandy-to-silty clay loam containing soil stains indicative ofpossible post holes or features, charcoal flecks, sparse artifacts and artifact concentrations,and occasional sandstone fragments. The cultural zone was only observed in the western andcentral portions of the site, with no cultural materials or deposits noted in the eastern ornorthern sections of the original recorded site area. A possible pltstructure Is present in theextreme west portion of the site. Evidence for the pitstructure consists of a dark ashy, sandyfill mixing with eolian deposits, extending at least 3.0 m in diameter. Based upon surfacecollection and monitoring of the site during blading activities, the site is interpreted to haveoriginally contained two habitation components, a late Pueblo I/early Pueblo II componentwhich may have been destroyed by cleanup activities on the northwest side of the site, and amiddle-late Pueblo 1 component, of which most remains Intact.

LA100359 ARTIFACT FREQUENCIES: A total of 127 artifacts, including 121 sherds and 6lithics

PROVENIENCE: Northwest Exterior Area (Area 1112 Gray Bodyjar (same vessel) 2 Gray Bodyjar2 Kana'a Gray jar 3 Tohatchi Banded jar1 Corrugated Body jar 1 Indeterminate B/W jar3 Brown Ware jar (same vessel) 1 chalcedony angular debris

PROVENIENCE: South and West Exterior Areas (Area 212 Gallup B/Wjar 3 Gallup B/W bowl1 Kana'a Gray jar 1 Coolidge Corrugated jar rim1 indeterminate B/W bowl 15 Gray Body30 Corrugated Body 22 Indeterminate B/W/ jar1 quartzite secondary flake 1 spotted chert secondary flake

11

I

1 obsidian secondary flake 2 petrified wood secondary flakes

PROVlENlENCE: Fenced Site Area (Area 317 Gallup B/Wjar (same vessel) 2 Gallup B/Wjar5 Corrugated Body 3 Gray Body5 Indeterminate B/W jar

RECOMMENDATIONS: The site area of 1A100359 within the original fenced boundaries hasnot been disturbed and is considered eligible for nomination to the NRHP. The areas outsidethe original fenced boundaries have been highly disturbed and it Is unlikely that intactcultural deposits still exist in those areas. The boundaries of the cultural zone identifiedduring monitoring (Figure 9) have been temporarily fenced for hand reseeding. A permanentdatum, the northeast corner post of the temporary fencing, will be left to identify the site.

1A100360

SURVEY: recorded 4/15/93 - The site was originally recorded as a Pueblo II artifact scatterconsisting of 18 artifacts, Including sherds from at least three jars (Deyloff 1993a). The siteboundaries were recorded as 25 m by 15 m, with artifacts diffusely scattered over the site.Uthic tools included one biface fragment, two manos, and a metate fragment Site recorderssuggested that food processing and expedient tool manufacture may have occurred at the site.Site was recommended as eligible by recorders. Subsequent review by SHPO on September 19,1993 indicated further data needed to determine eligibility.

TESTING: 3/27/95 - No surface artifacts were observed at this time. Sixteen auger holes 1.0 min depth, placed in 5 m intervals displayed no cultural evidence (Figure 10). Four shovel tests,50 cm in depth, were placed In areas where lithic tools had been recorded during the originalsurvey. As a result of testing, the site was recommended as not eligible for the NRHP.

SURFACE COLLECTION AND MONITORING: 4/18/95 - 4/19/95 - No artifacts were observedwithin the fenced boundaries. During inspection of the bladed areas surrounding the site, oneCornrgated Body sherd was collected 15 m north of the fenced boundary and a Gallup B/W sherdwas collected 25 m south of the fenced boundary. No other materials or cultural evidence wasapparent at the site or in the surrounding areas. No evidence of the previous testing wasapparent due to recent windblown sand accumulation.

Blading by motor grader removed 30 cm of windblown contamination to a level of compactedsilty clay loam. At this depth, a few unmodified sandstone rocks, sparse charcoal flecks, and afew sherds were exposed. Contaminated materials did not continue into this level and it wasnot disturbed by blading. The compact surface displayed no soil stains or other evidence offeatures.

:A1060 ARFACT 1FR:EQUENCIES: A total of 2 sherds

EERilENIENE: Outside the fenced site perimeter1 Gallup B/Wjar I Corrugated body sherd

RECOMMENDATIONS: Both testing and blading suggest that site IA100360 does not containsignificant cultural deposits and it is not recommended as eligible for the NRHP based on thepaucity of cultural materials associated with the site and the lack of evidence for features. Thesite area was not re-fenced.

12

�AO

I'll

n /_ lI

Irevised Site rs/Boundary :,5

C. datum ! °

'I I

l I__ _ __ _ _ II

Ii

0 12m

Scale: F - 12 meters

LA 100359

jv 7, heavily disturbedartifact scater

undisturbedN . . . .

. . . .

Figure 9. Revised site plan map, LA100359.

13

0 ouger test

o shovel test ,

Scole: 1 - 5 meters M

LA 100360


14

UA00361

SURVEY: recorded on 4/15/93 - The site was originally recorded as a small artifact scatter withone concentration (Deyloff 1993a). The original site measured 20 m by 15 m, with a 5 mdiameter concentration in the center. Seventeen lithics and approximately 50 sherds wereobserved during recordation. The ceramic inventory Indicated that the site was occupiedduring the Pueblo U period. The site was interpreted as a short-term activity locus related toplant collection and processing or field maintenance. The site was recommended as eligible byrecorders. SHPO review on September 19, 1993 indicated more data needed to determineeligibility.

TESTING: 3/29/95 -At the time of testing, only a very light scatter of sherds and a small rockscatter were visible on modern ground surface within the fenced area. A small scatter of sherdswas noted just outside the northwest comer of the fence. Sixteen auger holes, 1.0 m in depth,were placed In a 10 m grid within the fenced area (Figure 1 1). Two additional auger holes, 1.0 mdeep, and a 2 x 2 m test unit UtU 2) were placed over a small artifact and rock scatter near thecenter of the site. No cultural deposits were evident In the auger holes or TU 2. Testing wasalso performed In the previously cleaned area outside the fence on the northwest side of the sitewhere four auger holes, 25 cm in depth, and a 2 x 2 m test unit (r1U 1) were placed. The test unitrevealed the presence of a thin lens of dark mottled soil 6 cm below the bladed surface, withsterile clay exposed at 10 cm. Based on testing, the site was recommended as not eligible for theNRHP.

SURFACE COLLECTION AND MONITORING: 4/18/95 and 4/21/95 - Prior to surface collection,the previously cleaned areas surrounding the site were re-inspected for cultural materials anddeposits. Wind scouring of the bladed compacted surface north and west of the site showed thatthe site may have been a. habitation which was actually located north of the recorded andfenced site area. Sandstone, fragments of burned adobe, and artifacts were visible in a smallconcentration 20 m north of the fenced area, probably representing surface architecture at thesite. Trowelling in this area indicated no cultural integrity remained. Additional artifactsand pieces of animal bone and fire-cracked rock were exposed outside the northwest boundaryof the site, suggestive of a midden (Figure 12). Trowelling indicated that only 3-4 cm of middendepth remained above sterile clay. Both areas are located outside the original fenced site areaand had been cleared by heavy machinery and later wind-scoured. All artifacts from outsidethe fenced site area were collected.

Within the fenced area, all evidence of previous testing had been obscured by recent windblownsand deposition. Blading of windblown contaminated materials removed approximately 50cm of overburden, exposing a silty clay loam containing soil stains suggesting postholes orfeatures, sandstone fragments and charcoal flecks. Contamination did not continue into thislevel and it was not disturbed by blading.

ARTIFACT FREQUENCIES: A total of 73 artifacts, including 56 sherds, 11 lithics, 6 non-human bone.

EQRVENIENC: Midden area northwest of site, outside fenced site area2 Mogollon smudged bowl sherds 3 Puerco B/Wjar1 Red Mesa B/Wjar 1 Gray Body13 Indetemitnate B/Wjar 9 Gallup B/Wjar1 Coolidge Corrugated jar rim 19 Corrugated Body5 unmodified non-human bone fragments I burned non-human bone fragnent2 white stone beads 1 chert angular debris2 chert secondary flakes 5 chert tertiary flakes

EBQPOEIENCE: Within fenced site area1 quartzite two-hand, bifacial mano fragment2 Gray Bodyjar 3 Corrugated Bodyjar

15

light,t~ sherd

TU 60\ scatter

TU l So)3 /,*

0 0datum

IVK40 ION

Scale: I - 10 metersSite -

Boundary

LA 100361

0 auger test

rl test unit (TU)


-W, ..- -I � I

Figure 8. View of crushed Gallup B/W vessel on bladed surface, LA100359.

W-i

Figure 12. View of possible midden, LA100361. Looking southwestwith site in background.

17

2 Indeterminate Corrugated Jar rims

RECOMMENDATIONS: It appears that the main area of site IA100361, located outside theoriginal fenced site area, may have been destroyed by previous cleanup activities. As the sitemay have been a habitation, It is possible that Intact cultural deposits exist within the originalfenced site boundaries and the site is recommended as eligible for nomination to the NRHP.The fenced site boundary was expanded to include the bladed midden area outside thenorthwest side of the site (Figure 13). As a permanent datum, the northeast fencepost will beleft in place.

LA104308

SURVEY: recorded on 3/19/94 - The site was originally recorded as a diffuse artifact scattercontaining 21 sherds and 2 lithics (Deyloff 1994). The site was interpreted as a short-termactivity area, possibly associated with plant gathering or field maintenance dating betweenA.D. 900 and the late A.D. 1 100s. The site was recommended as eligible for nomination to theNRHP. A review by the New Mexico SHPO office on April 14, 1994 recommended testing todetermine eligibility.

TESTING: 3/29/95 - Approximately 10 artifacts were observed on the site surface at this time.Twenty auger holes, 1.0 m in depth, were placed at 5 m intervals over the site (FIgure 14). Afterflagging all surface artifacts, three 1 x I m test units (IU 1 - TU3) were dug in areas of highestartifact density (1/M2 max). Auguring and testing revealed a thick clay stratum 20 cm belowground surface and only minor eollan buildup. No subsurface cultural materials or evidencewere observed during testing. As a result of testing, it was suggested that artifacts in this arearepresent drift from nearby site IA104309, a Pueblo II habitation to the southwest. The sitewas recommended as not eligible.

SURFACE COLLECTION: 4/18/95 -Inspection of the site area and the surrounding wind-scoured areas showed no new evidence of cultural materials.

AFACT FREQUENCIES: A total of 29 artifacts, all sherds

EROVENIENC : within fenced site area9 Corrugated Body jar 15 Gray Body3 Puerco B/W jar 1 Indeterminate B/W/ Jar1 Indeterminate B/W bowl

RECOMMENDATIONS: The site is located in a proposed borrow area. Present plans are tototally avoid the site. In the event that the site area is proposed for borrow in the future byHomestake Mining, CASA will monitor blading of the site to insure that no significantcultural deposits exist. In the event of discovery during blading, all operation will cease andthe site will be avoided. Site LA104308 is recommended as not eligible based on testing.

LA104309

SURVEY: recorded on 3/19/94. The site was originally recorded as a Pueblo II artifact scatterwith a concentration present within the backdlrt of an old Irrigation ditch (Deyloff 1994). Thequantity of cultural materials and the likelihood of buried deposits suggested that long-termoccupation may have occurred. The site was recommended as eligible for nomination to theNRHP with New Mexico SHPO concurrence on April 14, 1994.

TESTING: 3/30/95 - Site corresponded to original recordation. A series of 18 auger holes wereplaced over the site (Figure 15). Motor-powered auguring could only penetrate 25 cm below

18

adobe & artifact scatter

0 [OmlI

Scale: 1 - 10 meters

LA 100361bladed

Idatum


19

MN 0 auger test0 5ml I

Scale: I' - 5 meters

LA 1043084 [j test unit (TU)


datum

0 auger test

I IJ backhoe trench (TR)

/ concentrationMN

0 IOmI

Scale: - - 10 metersLA 104309


21 . i

ground surface due to the compactness of the alluvial soil along the old irrigation ditch. Twobackhoe trenches, 10 m in length and i m in depth, were placed perpendicular to the northditch berm where auguring had brought up subsurface cultural evidence and surface artifactswere densest. A possible pitstructure was observed In the eastern trench. The trenches werethen backfilled. Based on testing, the site was interpreted as a habitation with intactarchitecture and was recommended as eligible for nomination to the NRHP. HomestakeMining Company agreed at this time that the site would be totally avoided .

SITE REVISIT: 4/18/95. As the site was to be totally avoided, a surface collection was notundertaken. The area surrounding the fenced site was inspected to view the recently wind-scoured ground surface. At this time it was noted that wind erosion had exposed a moderatelydense artifact scatter continuing north of the fenced site, in an area that had not beenpreviously disturbed. The site boundaries have been expanded to include this area and thefencing has been extended 60 m to the north to insure protection (Figure 16).

RECOMMENDATIONS: The site, located within a proposed borrow area, will be totally avoided.Testing concurs that site LA104309 is eligible for nomination to the NRHP.

UA104310

SURVEY: recorded on 3/19/94 - The site was recorded as a sparse artifact scatter dating to thePueblo II-I1 period. (Deyloff 1994). Site dimensions extend 55 by 50 m, with two areas of denserartifacts noted. The site was interpreted as a short-term activity locus related to plantcollection and processing or field maintenance. The site was recommended as eligible fornomination to the NRHP with SHPO concurrence on April 14, 1994.

TESTING: 3/29/95 - Surface artifacts limited to a light sherd scatter at this time. Thirty augerholes, 25 - 50 cm in depth, were placed at 5 m intervals over the site (Figure 17). All augertesting showed sterile eolian sand overlying a dense clay layer at approximately 20 cm belowground surface. After flagging surface artifacts, three 1 x 1 m test units (fl1 - TU 3) were placedin the densest artifact cluster (n=4). No cultural evidence was recovered during testing. As aresult of testing, it was proposed that, similar to LA104308, this site may actually representdrift from LA104309, located to the south. The site was recommended as not eligible fornomination to the NRHP.

SURFACE COLLECTION: 4/18/95 - Inspection of the site area and surrounding wind-scouredareas showed no new evidence of cultural materials.

ATMFACT FREgUENCM5_- A total of 10 artifacts, including 9 sherds and one flaked lithic

PIOYENDEMCE: Inside fenced site area1 petrified wood secondary flake 2 Corrugated Body JarI- Gallup B/WJar 1 Puerco B/W bowl3 Indeterminate B/W jar 2 Gray Body jar

RECOMMENDATIONS: The site is located in a proposed borrow area. Present plans are tototally avoid the site. In the event that the site area is needed for borrow in the future byHomestake Mining, CASA will monitor blading of the site to insure that no significantcultural deposits exist. In the event of discovery during blading, operations will cease and thesite zbeavolded. Site LA104310 is recommended as not eligible based on testing.

LA104311

SURVEY: recorded on 3/20/94 - Site was recorded as an artifact scatter measuring 50 m in

N'22z

reviseBour

datum. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. .. . .................................. ................................................................................................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... ....................... .................... . .... .................... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................... ............................... ..............................................................................................

........................... ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Site ............. I..................... ....................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .idary ........... .................................... ......

-ICkoriginal fe-nce. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . ............................................ ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.................................................. .............................

........ .....................................................................................................

...................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

............... I......................... .. ........................... ............... .. .............................. ............ \ ................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........... ......... .........

......... .........':A : .. .........

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

bladed ...... \ qI

15m

I--,

-0

-- I b0o 0ec 0

... undisturbed


23

Scale: I- - 15 metersLA 104309

I

Mo auger test

o test unit (TU)N

0 INmo l~i

Scale: I' - 10 metersLA 104310


.24 4:.

24

diameter with a 7 m in diameter concentration In the center of the site (Deyloff 1994). The sitewas dated to A.D. 1150 - A.D. 1250 based on ceramic typology and was interpreted to be a long-term fieldhouse. The site was recommended as eligible for nomination to the NRHP with NewMexico SHPO concurrence on April 14, 1994.

TESTING: 3/29/95 - Site corresponded to original recordation. Initial auguring and test units(TU3 and TU4) focused on an area of dark soil and dense artifacts in the center of the site(Figure 18). Testing revealed that unstratified cultural deposits were present in this area,varying between 10 - 20 cm in depth and only 10 cm below present ground surface in an area ofshallow eollan build-up. Below the cultural layer, the soil was a silty clay loam whichexhibited increasing clay content with depth. Elsewhere at the site, auger holes, 1.0 m in depth,placed at 10 m intervals showed no cultural evidence. Additional test units reaching 35 cm Indepth were placed just outside the artifact concentration, but cultural deposits were notdetected. It was felt that the artifact concentration in association with dark soil indicatedmidden deposits and two backhoe trenches were placed in areas of likely structures that werecovered with substantial eolian overburden. The backhoe trenches, 0.75 m in depth and 10 inin length, scraped the top of the natural clay stratum which underlies the site. No evidence ofstructures or features was found. Based on the presence of a midden, it was proposed thatshallow surface structures may have been present at the site but were destroyed by agriculture.As the site was judged to be disturbed, the site was recommended as not eligible.

SURFACE COLLECTION AND MONITORING:- 4/18/95 - The backhoe trenches placed threeweeks earlier were almost completely obscured by blow sand. Inspection of the fenced site andthe surrounding bladed area revealed that a few rocks and sherds were present on the wind-scoured surface north of the site.

Blading of contaminated deposits varied between 5 and 75 cm at the site, depending on thedepth of overlying eolian sand. After shallow blading across the midden area to remove theupper 5 cm of eolian deposits, the remaining contaminated soil was carefully removed by handin this area. The midden measures 7 m by 5 m and. is characterized by dark sandy soil inassociation with sherds and flaked lithics. No rock, bone, or groundstone was noted.Elsewhere, removal of between 50 - 75 cm of contaminated windblown material was necessary.Below this level, a silty clay loam substrate containing light charcoal flecking, sparsesandstone, and a few sherds was apparent. No evidence of features or architecture was visible.No disturbance to cultural deposits occurred as the result of contaminated material removal.

ARIFACT FREQUENCIES A total of 222 artifacts, including 205 sherds and 17 lithics

PROVENIENCE: outside fenced site area8 Corrugated Body jar 1 Gray Body2 Gallup B/Wjar 1 Gallup B/W bowl1 Puerco B/WJar 2 Indetermlnate W/W/ jar1 obsidian secondary flake 1 chert primary flake

PRVEIENM inside fenced site area1 chert hammerstone 1 chert primary flake9 chert secondary flakes 3 chert tertiary flakes1 petrified wood nodule 1 Indeterminate White Mountain Red Ware bowl1 Gallup B/W plate 75 Corrugated Body jar12 Coolidge Corrugated jar (same vessel) 10 Coolidge Corrugated jar12 Gallup B/Wjar 14 Gray Bodyjar8 Puerco B/Wjar I Cibola Carbon bowl7 Gallup B/W bowl 9 Indeterminate B/W bowl33 Indeterminate B/W/ jar

RECOMMENDATIONS: Site LA104311 is recommended as eligible for nomination to the NRHPbased on the presence of intact midden deposits. It is possible that architecture or features mayexist at the site. The site appears to date to the middle-late Pueblo II period, earlier than survey

25

0 auger test

0 shovel test

[ test unit (TU) 0 IOMIv ~ Jbockhoe trenchI

rScale. I- - 10 meters

concentration LA 104311


26 sa I

estimates. The site was re-fenced and will be re-seeded by hand. After the temporary fence isremoved, the northeast corner post will be left as a permanent datum.

1A108856

SURVEY: recorded on 3/29/95 - This site was recorded by CASA after identification andfencing by Hornestake Mining Company in 1994. The site is a Pueblo II habitation with at leastone pitstructure and one surface feature. A moderately dense artifact scatter in associationwith burned and unburned sandstone is present at the site. The site is recommended as eligiblefor nomination to the NRHP.

TESTING: 3/29/95 - Twenty five auger holes, five test units, and one backhoe trench wereplaced at the site during testing (Figure 19). Auguring to a depth of 1.0 m revealed subsurfacecultural deposits in the west side of the site. Subsequent placement of a test unit (TU4) in thatarea suggested the outline of a pitstructure. A backhoe trench, 60 cm in depth and 10 m inlength, was placed to define the limits of the pitstructure. Within the backhoe trench Figure20), the north and south walls of the pitstructure were 2.7 m apart. TLJ3, placed just west of thepitstructure, showed a shallow (10-15 cm) cultural layer overlying compacted sand. A thickclay stratum was encountered in the backhoe trench and in most auger holes at 50 - 60 cmbelow ground surface. TU5, placed over a small burned rock scatter, revealed the outline of afeature (Figure 21), measuring 90 cm in diameter at 10 cm below ground surface. The remainingtest units TrUl, TU2, and TU6) revealed a 20 cm thick layer of eolian sand overlying sterilecompacted sand and clay. No adobe, charcoal, or other cultural evidence was located in thesetest units. Site was recommended as eligible as a result of testing.

SURFACE COLLECTION AND MONITORING: 4/18/95 - 4/19/95 - Site area and surroundingwind-scoured surface were reinspected prior to surface collection. Little additional culturalevidence was detected. All auger holes and test units were refilled with blow sand, and thebackhoe trench was almost filled.

After removal of the upper 10-20 cm of windblown sand on the northern side of the site, it wasdetermined that only very low levels of contaminated materials were present. At that point.blading ceased and the site was re-fenced. No disturbance to the site occurred as a result ofblading. Neither the pitstructure or feature areas were bladed. If the site area is to be re-seeded,it will be done manually.

ARTIFACT FREQUENCIES: A total of 294 artifacts, including 253 sherds and 41 lithics

PROVERNINCR: outside fenced site area12 Corrugated Body jar 3 Indeterminate B/W bowl (same vessel)4 Indeterminate W/W jar (same vessel) 2 Red Mesa B/Wjar (same vessel)5 obsidian angular debris

PROVENIENCE: within fenced site boundaries1 obsidian unifacial scraper 3 obsidian angular debris2 obsidian primary flakes 4 obsidian secondary flakes1 petrified wood core 9 petrified wood angular debris2 petrified wood primary flakes 3 chert primary flakes6 chert secondary flakes 6 chert tertiary flakes1 chert uniface 7 Puerco B/Wjar5 Puerco B/W bowl 17 Indeterminate B/W bowl (2 worked)8 Gallup B/W bowl 23 Indeterminate B/Wjar2 Tohatchl Banded jar 2 Lino Gray jar3 Kana'a Gray jar 11 Gray Body jar132 Corrugated Body jar 5 Coolidge Corrugated jar rims

27

e�. IONC�

artifactconcentration

- --- 1- - =

TU 6o 0 0

OTU 2

0oTU I

0 0 03

pitstructure

5 - - hearth

o o 0 TU 5j0

0

0

Waded

MIN0 auger test

l ~I backhoe trench (TR)

El test unit (TU)

0 10mI .. I

Scale: I- - 10 metersLA 108856


28

,I

Figure 20. Stain in backhoe trench, LA108856. Looking northwest.

Figure 21. LA108856, Test Unit No. 5, showing burned feature.

29

x4

r , t

16 Gallup B/W jar 1 Mogollon Smudged bowl

RECOMMENDATIONS: LA108856 Is recommended as eligible for nomination to the NRHP.The northeast corner post will remain as a permanent datum after the temporary fence hasbeen removed. The presence of small quantities of Kana'a Gray and Tohatchi Banded in thePueblo II dominated ceramic assemblage suggest that, in addition to the Pueblo II component, alate Pueblo I/early Pueblo II component may also be present at the site.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Testing and monitoring of eight sites within the Homestake uranium mill tailingsremedial cleanup project area emphasizes the difficulty of accurately assessing the nature andextent of cultural resources in areas of shifting eolian deposits. The original recordation bySAC indicated that the sites were temporary campsites, short-term activity loci, or fieldhouses. Only one site, IA104309, was considered to have been a long-term habitation.

Testing by means of auguring and small test units indicated that significant subsurfacefeatures were present at LA104309, LA10431 1, and LA108856. However, no evidence ofsubsurface deposits were located during testing at 1A104308, LA104310, LA100359, IA100360,and IA100361 and these sites were recommended as not eligible for nomination to the NRHP.

Monitoring of controlled blading during cleanup activities revealed subsurfacestructural features at IA100359, and evidence that cultural features and deposits had beenpresent surrounding the protected site area at LA100359 and LA100361. These sites arecurrently recommended as eligible for nomination to the NRHP.

Based on the testing and monitoring program carried out on these sites, it Is suggestedthat small test units and auguring may not be sufficient to assess buried sites in shifting eoliandeposits. Auguring might be helpful in determining depth of overlying deposits across the site.However, to determine the full extent and nature of these sites, we strongly feel that it isnecessary to remove all overlying deposits by controlled blading. It is only at this point thateffective testing and evaluation can be carried out.

This project also points out the difficulty in interpreting sites in shifting eoliandeposits based on surface evidence or even limited testing. It is recommended that allarchaeological work, including testing and excavation, if warranted, be carried out prior toany disturbance to the surrounding terrain, as sites may be far more extensive and complexthan indicated by surface evidence.

In conclusion, LA104308, LA104309, and LA104310 are located in a proposed borrowarea and will be avoided by construction. Although at this time IA104308 and LA104310 arerecommended as not eligible for nomination to the NRHP. if these sites cannot be avoided dueto project needs, initial blading will be monitored and the significance of these sites will bereevaluated. Of the remaining sites, only LA100360 is recommended as being not eligible fornomination to the NRHP and was not refenced for machine avoidance during reseedingactivities.

Removal of the contaminated materials from the fenced site areas resulted in noadverse effects to the sites' integrity. Due to the fact that the sites were uncovered only to thetop of a suspected cultural level, additional features may be present beneath old windblowndeposits of unknown depth and nature.

30

le. , ,1 e

V1VcVT-.%%o1%11rd%1C%

Deyloff, Glenda G.

1993a A Cultural Resources Inventory for Homestake Mine near Milan, New Mexico.Southwest Archaeological Consultants Research Series 324. SouthwestArchaeological Consultants, Santa Fe.

1993b Research Design and Data Recovery Plan for 4 Limited Activity Sites Adjacent tothe Homestake Mill near Milan, new Mexico. Southwest ArchaeologicalConsultants Research Series 334. Southwest Archaeological Consultants,Santa Fe.

1994 A Cultural Resources Inventory of 404 Acres Northeast of Milan, New Mexico forHomestake Mine. Southwest Arhcaeological Consultants Research Series 354.Southwest Archaeological Consultants, Santa Fe.

Windes, Thomas C. And Peter J. McKenna

1989 Cibola Whiteware and Cibola Grayware, The Chaco Series. Draft Ms distributedat New Mexico Archaeological Council Ceramics Workshop, Northwestern NewMexcio Region. Red Rock State Park, Gallup. Ms on file, National Park Service,Santa Fe.

31

cultural resource testing, evaluation, and monitoring of ... · i . abstract this report describes...

Documents