TE_43_Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan.pdf

INTEGRATED CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN

FOR FORT HUACHUCA MILITARY RESERVATION,

COCHISE COUNTY, ARIZONA

Work Order Request No. PWE 0380

Prepared for

Mr. Steven S. Crooks, RA Historic Properties Manager

Environmental and Natural Resources Division Directorate of Public Works

U.S. Army Garrison Fort Huachuca, Arizona 85613-6000 and

Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc.

4625 East Fort Lowell Road, Suite 200

Tucson, Arizona 85712

Prepared by

Dennis Gilpin

SWCA Environmental Consultants 114 North San Francisco Street, Suite 100

Flagstaff, Arizona 86001

(928) 774-5500

SWCA Project No. 13233 SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 07-596

December 2007 Revised March 2009

CONTENTS

Lists of Appendices....................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... v List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................... vi List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................vii Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... xi

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Purpose and Scope of ICRMP

1.2 Mission

1.3 Historic Properties at Fort Huachuca

1.3.a History of Research 1.3.b Archeological Sites 1.3.c Historic Buildings 1.3.d Traditional Cultural Properties or Sacred Sites 1.3.e Archeological Collections 1.3.f Paleontological Sites

1.4 Potential Impacts and Threats to Historic Properties

1.5 The Responsibilities of Fort Huachuca

1.6 ICRMP Goals

2. HISTORIC PROPERTIES COMPLIANCE REGULATIONS

2.1 Federal Statutes

2.2 Federal Regulations

2.3 Executive Orders

2.4 Guidelines

2.5 White House Memorandum

2.6 Army Regulations

2.7 Arizona SHPO guidance points

3. PLANNING LEVEL SURVEY

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Literature Review and Site and Map File Searches

3.2.a Archeological Sites 3.2.b Buildings and Districts 3.2.c Sacred Sites 3.2.d Archeological Collections 3.2.e Records 3.2.f Paleontological Sites

3.3 Archeological Sensitivity Assessments or Predictive Models

3.4 Summary of Existing Inventory Results

3.5 Cultural Landscapes

3.5.a Geography 3.5.b Physiographical Setting 3.5.c Geology 3.5.d Climate 3.5.e Soils ii

3.5.f Hydrology 3.5.g Vegetation 3.5.h Fauna 3.5.i Ecological Units 3.5.j Environmental Change 3.5.k Subsistence Resources 3.5.l Chronological Period

3.6 Historic Themes

4. HISTORIC PROPERTIES INVENTORY

4.1 Introduction

4.2 History of Historic Properties Management at Fort Huachuca

4.2.a Archeological Studies 4.2.b Routine Consultation 4.2.c Planned Projects 4.2.d Archeological Excavations 4.2.e Buildings and Structures 4.2.f Smaller Projects Since 2003 4.2.g Planned Projects 4.2.h Tribal Consultation

4.3 Historic Properties

4.3.a Archeological Sites 4.3.b Historic Districts and Historic Buildings 4.3.c Traditional Cultural Properties and Sacred Sites 4.3.d Documents, Photographs, and Maps 4.3.e Archeological Collections 4.3.f National Register of Historic Places

4.4 Predictive Modeling

4.5 Critical Areas

4.6 Inventory Schedule

4.7 Current Task Orders

5. MANAGEMENT PLAN

5.1 Introduction

5.2 Fort Huachuca’s Mission

5.3 Potential Impacts and Threats

5.3.a Fort Huachuca Land Use Agreements and Leases 5.3.b Land Use Patterns and Priority Areas

5.4 Chain of Command

5.5 Historic Properties Policy

5.6 Standard Operating Procedures

5.6.a SOP 1: Historic Properties Clearance for Maintenance, Training, or Construction Activities

5.6.b SOP 2: Historic Properties Clearance for Historic Structures, Landscapes, and Other Aboveground Property

5.6.c SOP 3: Reporting Damage to Historic Properties, Buildings, Sites, Landscapes, Districts, Objects, or Archeological Sites

5.6.d SOP 4: Accidental or Inadvertent Discoveries of Historic Properties

Contents iii

5.6.e SOP 5: Project, LLC—Fort Huachuca HPM Coordination Documentation for Properties within the National Historic Landmark District and Cavalry Park I Capehart Properties

5.7 Other Standard Procedures

5.8 Ongoing and Planned Tasks

5.8.a Garden Canyon Site Report 5.8.b Synthesis of East Range Surveys 5.8.c Apache Scout Camp 5.8.d Archeological Survey of the Oak Savanna 5.8.e Buildings 5.8.f Fort Huachuca Cavalry Stables 5.8.g Residential Community Initiative 5.8.h Rehabilitation of Family Quarters in National Historic Landmark District 5.8.i Southwest Association of Buffalo Soldiers Lease of Mountain View Officers’

Club 5.8.j Lakeside Officers’ Club 5.8.k The Old Magazine Building (No. 22330) 5.8.l Building 22526 Eligibility and Context 5.8.m Building 90551 Eligibility and Context

5.9 Future Tasks/Projected Schedule of Proposed Actions

5.9.a Blacktail Canyon Site, AZ EE:7:251(ASM) Protection 5.9.b Predictive Modeling 5.9.c Additional Survey 5.9.d Historic Context Statements

5.10 Consultation

5.10.a SHPO Consultation 5.10.b Native People Consultation 5.10.c Other Federal Agencies 5.10.d Interested Parties and Stakeholders

6. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

7. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

7.1 Public Interpretation

7.2 Tours and Presentations

7.3 Main Street Program

7.4 Avocational Archeology

7.5 Public Comment

7.6 Public Affairs Office

7.7 Ongoing and Planned Public Involvement

REFERENCES CITED

iv

This page intentionally left blank.

Contents v

Appendices

A. Department of Defense Instruction Draft 4715uu B. Draft Finding of No Significant Impact C. 2001 Programmatic Agreement on Capehart Housing D. Fort Huachuca Archeological Sites E. Historic Buildings and Structures in the National Historic Landmark District, Fort Huachuca F. Historic Buildings outside the National Historic Landmark District, Fort Huachuca G. Historic Properties Policy H. RCI Programmatic Agreement I. 2006 Programmatic Agreement on Rehabilitation of NHL Housing

Figures

1.1. Location of project area

1.2. Fort Huachuca land use patterns

1.3. Archeological survey areas

1.4. Old Post area (from Trousil 2001:Figure 12.1.1b)

3.1. Annual precipitation in the San Pedro Valley (after Cook 2003a:Figure 3.4)

3.2. Surface soil textures in the San Pedro Valley (after Cook 2003a:Figure 3.1)

3.3. Soil units at Fort Huachuca (after Trousil 2001:Figure 12.1.1.b)

3.4. Surface waters of Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and surrounding area

3.5. Vegetative community types at Fort Huachuca (after Trousil 2001:Figure 5.6.1)

3.6. Southeastern Arizona cultural historical units (after Cook 2003a:Figure 3.7)

4.1. East Range watershed improvement plan with planning areas and sites

4.2. Site location favorability map, as projected by SRI (Cook 2003a:Figure 3.9, cited in Altschul and Jones 1990)

4.3. Areas surveyed and distribution of recorded sites

5.1. Internal procedures for clearance of proposed projects at Fort Huachuca

5.2. Form 4283-1 (from Cook 2003a:Figure 5.2)

5.3. Form 420-13-R-E

5.4. Arizona State Historic Preservation Office coordination in the Section 106 process (from

Cook 2003a:Figure 5.1)

5.5. Project, LLC—Fort Huachuca HPM Coordination Flow Chart

5.6. Program, LLC Application Submittal to Fort Huachuca HPM

vi

Tables

4.1. Major Archeological Surveys on Fort Huachuca Since 2003

4.2. Summary of Archeological Surveys in the East Range

4.3. Total Acreage and Percent of Archeological Survey at Fort Huachuca

4.4. Fort Huachuca Projects Since 2003

4.5. Historic Building Projects Since 2003

4.6. Summary of Buildings Evaluated by Thiel (2005)

4.7. Summary of Buildings Evaluated by Levstik (2007)

4.8. Arizona State Museum Collections from Fort Huachuca

5.1. Current Task Orders

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

9th ASC/NETCOM) 9th Army Signal Command/Network Enterprise Technology Command AA Antiquities Act AAS Arizona Archaeological Society ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation ACS Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd.

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act ADWR Arizona Department of Water Resources AEPCO Arizona Electric Power Cooperative AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department AGS Arizona Geological Survey AHPA Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act AIRFA American Indian Religious Freedom Act amsl above mean sea level APE area of potential effect Army U.S. Army ARPA Archaeological Resources Protection Act ASA Army Security Agency ASLD Arizona State Land Department ASM Arizona State Museum ATV all-terrain vehicle AZSITE Arizona State Museum Electronic Site Database AZTS-IOR Range Control BLM Bureau of Land Management BOID Business Operations Integral Division BP before present CCC Civilian Conservation Corps CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second CID Criminal Investigation Division of the Army CNF Coronado National Forest CWA Civil Works Administration DAI Desert Archaeology, Inc.

DoD Department of Defense DoDD Department of Defense Directive DoDI Department of Defense Instruction DPW Directorate of Public Works EA Environmental Assessment EEC Engineering and Environmental Consultants, Inc.

viii

EHSC Engineering Housing Support Center ENRD Environmental and Natural Resources Division EO Executive Order EPG Electronic Proving Ground EPSD Engineering Plans and Services Division, Directorate of Public Works EP&SWR El Paso & Southwestern Railroad FTX Field Training Exercise FY Fiscal Year GIS geographic information system GPR ground-penetrating radar GPS global positioning system HABS Historic American Buildings Survey HAER Historic American Engineering Record HALS Historic American Landscapes Survey ICRMP Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan IMCOM Installation Management Command IMSW-HUA-PLT Range Control IMWE-HUA-PWU Operations and Maintenance Division ITAM Integrated Training Area Management Program INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan LAAF Libby Army Airfield MACC Multiple Award Construction Contract MARS U.S. Army Military Affiliate Radio System MCA Military Construction Army MCAA Military Construction and Authorization Act MOA Memorandum of Agreement NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHL National Historic Landmark District NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NM&AR New Mexico & Arizona Railroad NPS National Park Service NRCS National Resources Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places OMD Operations and Maintenance Division, Directorate of Public Works OPAC Old Pueblo Archaeology Center OPS Operations ORV off-road vehicles PA Programmatic Agreement PAO Public Affairs Office PL Public Law

Acronyms and Abbreviations ix

PLS Planning Level Survey ROW right-of-way SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SOP Standard Operating Procedure SPRNCA San Pedro River National Conservation Area SRI Statistical Research, Inc.

STRATCOM Army Strategic Communications Command SWABS Southwest Association of Buffalo Soldiers SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants TCP traditional cultural property TEP Tucson Electric Power TRADOC Training and Doctrine Command USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USAG U.S. Army Garrison USAIC U.S. Army Intelligence Center USAIC&FH U.S. Army Intelligence Center & Fort Huachuca USAICS U.S. Army Intelligence Center and School USASC U.S. Army Signal Command USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey USPP Upper San Pedro Partnership UTM Universal Transverse Mercator WPA Works Progress Administration x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

U.S. Army (Army) Regulation 200-4 requires that military bases prepare Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plans (ICRMPs) every five years. Army Regulation 200-4 (Army Regulation 200-4) and Army Pamphlet 200-4 (Army Pamphlet 200-4) state that the Army defines cultural resources as historic properties as defined in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, archeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, sacred sites as defined in Executive Order 13007, to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and collections as defined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations 79, Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections (Army Pamphlet 200-4:6–7). In keeping with the language of the NHPA, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer requires the term historic properties to be used in place of cultural resources, and this requirement will be adhered to throughout this document. The overall goal of an ICRMP is to provide land managers and individuals conducting activities that might affect historic properties with the information they need to comply with the laws and regulations that govern the treatment of historic properties. Statistical Research, Inc., prepared a cultural resource management plan for Fort Huachuca in 1997 (Van West et al. 1997). Although it has provided valuable baseline data for subsequent studies, it was never approved by the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

Desert Archaeology, Inc., prepared an updated ICRMP for Fort Huachuca in 2003 (Cook 2003a).

This ICRMP was formally adopted in June 2003 by the U.S. Army Intelligence Center and Fort Huachuca. Since 2003, an additional 4,981 acres of Fort Huachuca has been archeologically surveyed, resulting in the identification and recording of 101 previously unrecorded sites. Also since 2003, the Historic Properties Manager has reviewed proposals for rehabilitation, repair, or installation of wheelchair ramps at 11 historic buildings, for upgrading the Main and East Gates, and for demolishing two historic structures, and private consultants have completed Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation of the Fort Huachuca Cavalry Stables (Parkhurst et al. 2005) and evaluated 16 historic buildings in terms of their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Thiel 2005; Levstik 2007). The current ICRMP is an update of Cook (2003a) and follows the outline for an ICRMP in Army Pamphlet 200-4. This ICRMP

• summarizes the laws and regulations that govern treatment of historic properties;

• compiles existing information about historic properties on the military reservation;

• anticipates, based on the mission of Fort Huachuca and the activities that occur on the military reservation, the undertakings that might affect historic properties; and

• describes how to ensure that historic properties will be treated in compliance with laws and regulations.

Fort Huachuca encompasses 73,142 acres. Established as Camp Huachuca in 1877 as part of a system of military posts intended to control the Apache, it became a Fort in 1882. At the end of the Apache Wars in 1886, the mission of Fort Huachuca changed to international border protection, culminating in the participation of troops from Fort Huachuca in the Punitive Expedition of 1916, during which General Pershing led U.S. troops into Mexico to try to capture Pancho Villa after Villa’s raid on Columbus, New Mexico. Throughout the period between 1877 and the 1920s, when the mission of Fort Huachuca was control of the Apaches and then border protection, the center of activities was the Old Post, a classic example of a Western cavalry post. Apache Scouts were garrisoned at Fort Huachuca during the Apache Wars and subsequently thereafter. Although no African-American troops were stationed at Fort Huachuca during the Apache Wars, in the 1890s African-American troops from the 24th and 25th Infantry and 9th Cavalry were temporarily stationed at Fort Huachuca for brief periods. In 1913, the 10th Cavalry was moved to Fort Huachuca, and in 1928 they were joined by the 3rd Battalion, Headquarters, and Service xii

Company of the 25th Infantry. Like earlier African-American troops of the Indian Wars, these African- American troops were often referred to as Buffalo Soldiers.

In the 1930s, such New Deal agencies as the Works Progress Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps operated out of Fort Huachuca, upgrading old buildings and constructing some new buildings there. During World War II, the post was enlarged to train African-American soldiers. The East Range (east of State Highway 90) was added, and a new cantonment area with administrative offices, training facilities, housing, and support facilities was constructed east of the Old Post. After World War II, Fort Huachuca was closed, and plans were to transfer the land to the Arizona Department of Game and Fish, but the real estate transaction was never completed. The installation was reopened for the Korean War, at which time Libby Army Air Field was established. Fort Huachuca was briefly closed again after the Korean War, then reopened to undertake its current mission, research and training in military intelligence and electronic warfare.

More than two-thirds of the Fort Huachuca Military Reservation has been archeologically surveyed, and 426 archeological sites have been recorded (including three paleontological sites that have been assigned archeological site numbers). Two hundred and seventy-three (273) of the cultural sites are prehistoric, 84 are historic, 46 have both prehistoric and historic components, and 20 are undated (rock piles, for example). Two of the archeological sites—the Garden Canyon Site (AZ EE:11:13[ASM]) and the Garden Canyon Pictographs Site (AZ EE:11:15[ASM])—are listed in the NRHP. (The Garden Canyon Pictographs Site is actually listed in the NRHP as “Garden Canyon Petroglyphs,” which is a misnomer;

throughout this document, the site will be referred to as the Garden Canyon Pictographs Site.)

Archeologists have recommended that 210 additional sites should be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP and that 37 sites should be considered not eligible for listing in the NRHP; 177 sites (including 11 sites that were evaluated as “potentially eligible”) have not been evaluated.

The Old Post of Fort Huachuca is listed in the NRHP as a historic district and also as a National Historic Landmark District (NHL). Covering 57 acres, the NHL contains 86 buildings, two sites (Brown Field and Henry Circle), and two structures (a flagpole and a bandstand). Sixty-five of the buildings and the two sites are considered contributing elements to the historic character of the NHL. Outside the NHL are 122 additional buildings that are considered historic (that is, they date to the period of significance of the NHL [1875–1924] even though they are not within the NHL, or they date to World War II or before). Under a nationwide Programmatic Agreement, most temporary wooden World War II buildings at Fort Huachuca have been demolished. The Mountain View Officers’ Club for African-American officers, constructed in 1942, has been leased to the Southwest Association of Buffalo Soldiers (SWABS) for use as an interpretive center. The Lakeside Officers’ Club for White officers and three other temporary World War II buildings were among 11 buildings evaluated by SWCA Environmental Consultants and found to be eligible for listing in the NRHP (Levstik 2007). Buildings considered eligible for listing in the NRHP must be documented according to HABS standards prior to demolition. A number of buildings dating to the post–World War II change in mission and expansion of the post have recently become more than 50 years old or are about to become more than 50 years old. The Army’s Training and Doctrine Command has not identified any buildings at Fort Huachuca as eligible for listing in the NRHP as significant examples of Cold War Era architecture on military bases (Cook 2003a:87). The Arizona SHPO disagreed and considered Capehart housing to be significant, and Fort Huachuca preserved one neighborhood.

Federally recognized Indian tribes have identified five sacred sites at Fort Huachuca: the Garden Canyon Site (AZ EE:11:13[ASM]), the Garden Canyon Pictographs Site (AZ EE:11:15[ASM]), the Rappel Cliffs Rockshelter Site (AZ EE:11:30[ASM]), Apache Flats (the former location of the Apache Scout adobes, which are now archeological site AZ EE:7:115[ASM], not standing buildings), and the Apache Scout Camp near the cemetery (which has recently been identified as this Apache Scout Camp, and Fort Huachuca has issued a task order to record the site and evaluate its NRHP eligibility).

Executive Summary xiii

A number of archeological projects have made collections from Fort Huachuca. Except for a small collection (one flaked stone artifact and 117 ceramic sherds) from the Garden Canyon Site, collected in 1951 by Charles Di Peso of the Amerind Foundation, and a box of prehistoric sherds and historic artifacts at the Centre for Archaeological Field Training at Pima Community College, all archeological collections from Fort Huachuca are curated at the Arizona State Museum (ASM) at the University of Arizona.

The current mission of Fort Huachuca focuses on military intelligence and technological research, testing, and training. Fort Huachuca is also used to train operational forces in military intelligence, electronic warfare, and information systems. The installation is also used for aviation and for training of active duty, Reserve, and National Guard units. Most activities occur inside secure buildings. Limited maneuvers take place in open-air settings across the military reservation. Among these are troop training; construction of airstrips, buildings, and other structures; and land navigation training. Most of these activities occur in established training areas where historic properties have been identified and avoided.

Other major types of activities that are likely to affect historic properties are 1) maintenance and repair of historic structures; 2) construction that requires excavation of soil; and 3) training activities. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) ensure that these activities will not affect historic properties. SOPs require historic properties clearance for maintenance, training, or construction activities; historic properties clearance for modifications to historic structures, landscapes, and other aboveground property; reporting of damage to historic properties, buildings, sites, landscapes, districts, objects, or archeological sites; and reporting of accidental or inadvertent discoveries of historic properties.

Natural resource management focuses on water, timber, and fire. Fort Huachuca is mandated by water quality laws and a Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2007) to cooperate as a partner in the Upper San Pedro Partnership to preserve the base flow in the San Pedro River and to ensure the quality of the water flowing into the river. Various range improvement activities, including erosion control, timber management, and fire management, at least partially stem from this agreement. All prescribed fire at Fort Huachuca is conducted in compliance with stipulations set forth in the Fort Huachuca Fire Management Plan (Robinett et al. 1997) and in an interagency regional fire management plan, the Huachuca Area Fire Partners Management Plan (Huachuca Area Fire Partners 2005). SOPs and interagency agreements ensure that these activities will not affect historic properties.

The ICRMP, the Historic Properties Policy, The Fort Huachuca Fire Management Plan, and the Huachuca Area Fire Partners Management Plan all specify how historic properties at Fort Huachuca will be treated.

The garrison commander issues the formal garrison policy on mission impact to historic properties (the Historic Properties Policy). As discussed below, facilities maintenance and repair are coordinated by the Directorate of Public Works, Operations and Maintenance Division. New construction is coordinated by the Directorate of Public Works, Engineering Plans and Services Division. Training activities are coordinated by Range Control. The Historic Properties Manager is the designated position for ensuring compliance with historic preservation needs. This position is filled by Mr. Steve Crooks.

Historic properties management at Fort Huachuca is also guided by Department of Defense programmatic agreements with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation concerning temporary wooden World War II buildings and Capehart Housing. Although these programmatic agreements specify the treatment of these various types of historic properties, Fort Huachuca has also worked with the Arizona SHPO to preserve Capehart Housing. The Arizona SHPO also requires that buildings that are more than 50 years old be assessed before they are demolished.

In conducting historic properties management, Fort Huachuca is required to consult with the Arizona SHPO and federally recognized Indian tribes. Fort Huachuca consults with 11 federally recognized Indian tribes: Ak-Chin Indian Community of the Maricopa (Ak-Chin) Indian Reservation; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community xiv of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Tohono O’odham Nation of Arizona; White Mountain Apache Tribe of the Fort Apache Reservation, Arizona; San Carlos Apache Tribe of the San Carlos Reservation, Arizona; Mescalero Apache Tribe of the Mescalero Reservation, New Mexico; Fort Sill Apache Tribe of Oklahoma, Pascua Yaqui Tribe of Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; and Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.

Ongoing archeological studies include the preparation of a site report on the Garden Canyon Site, a synthesis of the data from the archeological surveys of the East Range, and documentation of the Apache Scout camp. Ongoing projects that affect historic buildings include demolition, rehabilitation, and reuse of the Fort Huachuca Cavalry Stables, the Residential Community Initiative, rehabilitation of family quarters in the NHL, rehabilitation and reuse of the Mountain View Officers’ Club by SWABS, documentation of the Lakeside Officers’ Club, and rehabilitation and reuse of the Old Magazine Building.

There are currently various ways in which the public can experience and benefit from the rich cultural heritage at Fort Huachuca. Most public involvement is in the form of visiting the Old Post NHL and the Fort Huachuca Museum. Wayside exhibits on the archeology of Fort Huachuca are present at the mouth of Garden Canyon (although these are damaged and largely unreadable), the Garden Canyon Pictographs Site, and the Rappel Cliffs Rockshelter Site. The Mountain View Officers’ Club is leased to SWABS for use as an interpretive center, and the lease can be extended if stipulations are met. Current plans for public involvement include two major projects: 1) using the cavalry stables for mounts of B Troop of the 4th U.S. Cavalry Regiment (Memorial) for an interpretive facility for the U.S. Cavalry at Fort Huachuca and for a demonstration and exercise riding ring; and 2) converting the Old Magazine Building into an interpretive center.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ICRMP

Fort Huachuca encompasses 73,142 acres in southeastern Arizona (Figure 1.1). Originally established as Camp Huachuca in 1877 as part of a network of military posts intended to control the Apaches, it became Fort Huachuca in 1882 and participated in the Apache Wars, international border protection, and training of African-American troops in World War II, before taking on its current mission, which focuses on research and training in military intelligence, electronic warfare, and information technology.

U.S. Army (Army) Regulation 200-4 requires that military bases prepare an Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plan (ICRMP) every five years to provide land managers and individuals conducting activities that might affect cultural resources with the information they need to comply with the laws and regulations that govern the treatment of cultural resources. An ICRMP 1) summarizes the laws and regulations that govern treatment of historic properties; 2) compiles existing information about historic properties on the military reservation; 3) anticipates, based on the mission of Fort Huachuca and the activities that occur on the military reservation, the undertakings that might affect historic properties; and

4) describes how to ensure that historic properties will be treated in compliance with laws and regulations.

This ICRMP was prepared following the guidelines in Army Regulation 200-4 and Army Pamphlet 200-

4. Army Regulation 200-4 and Army Pamphlet 200-4 have since been superseded by Army Regulation 200-1 and draft document Department of Defense Instruction 4715uu, Cultural Resources Management (Appendix A).

Army Regulation 200-4 and Army Pamphlet 200-4 define cultural resources as historic properties according to the definitions provided in the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), cultural items as defined in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), archeological resources as defined in the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA), sacred sites as defined in Executive Order (EO) 13007, to which access is provided under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), and collections as defined in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 79, Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archaeological Collections (Army Pamphlet 200-4:6–7).

The application of these statutes, regulations, and executive orders is discussed in Chapter 2. In addition, paleontological resources are considered cultural resources (Army Regulation 200-4; Cook 2003a:15).

In keeping with the language of the NHPA, the Arizona State Historic Preservation Officer requires the term historic properties to be used in place of cultural resources, and this requirement will be adhered to throughout this document.

In 1997 Statistical Research, Inc. (SRI), prepared a cultural resources management plan for Fort Huachuca (Van West et al. 1997). The 1997 cultural resources management plan summarized historic preservation legislation, regulations, and policies; described the Fort Huachuca environment and land use;

summarized the history of historic preservation projects; presented a culture history for the area and major historic themes relevant to the area; discussed operating procedures designed to protect historic properties; and concluded with references and appendices (primarily site and building lists and historic properties management guidelines). At that time, 59.2 percent (43,289 acres [17,519 ha]) of the military reservation had been surveyed, and 311 archeological sites had been identified (Dendy 2005:3-1).

The National Historic Landmark District (NHL) encompassed the original Old Post cantonment.

2 Chapter 1

Figure 1.1. Location of project area.

Introduction 3

In addition, 117 buildings and structures outside the NHL dated from the 1880s to the 1940s, and 259 buildings and structures within the World War II cantonment area dated to the 1940s. Van West et al.

(1997) also compiled information on all the historic preservation projects that had been conducted on Fort Huachuca and identified research themes that could be used to evaluate the significance of historic properties at Fort Huachuca. The 1997 cultural resource management plan was never formally adopted by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), or the Army Environmental Center, but it provided the baseline background for an updated ICRMP (Cook 2003a).

In 2003 Desert Archaeology, Inc. (DAI), prepared an ICRMP for Fort Huachuca (Cook 2003a). At that time, 66 percent (48,433 acres [19,600 ha]) of the military reservation had been surveyed. Cook’s Appendix B listed 324 archeological sites recorded at Fort Huachuca at that time. Cook’s Appendix B did not include the Braden Tusk paleontological site, AZ EE:7:319(ASM), however, so by 2003, 325 sites had been assigned Arizona State Museum (ASM) site numbers.

Since 2003, several major projects that had the potential to affect historic properties have been conducted at Fort Huachuca, resulting in the archeological survey of several thousand acres and the identification and documentation of 101 archeological sites. Smaller projects included survey of six training areas (100 acres). Also since 2003, the Historic Properties Manager has reviewed proposals for rehabilitation, repair, or installation of wheelchair ramps at 11 historic buildings, for upgrading the Main and East Gates, and for demolishing two historic structures, and private consultants have completed Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation of the Fort Huachuca Cavalry Stables (Parkhurst et al. 2005) and evaluated 16 historic buildings in terms of their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (Thiel 2005; Levstik 2007).

Currently, two major archeological studies and several projects relating to historic buildings are being conducted at Fort Huachuca. SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) is preparing a report on previous excavations at and analysis of collections from the Garden Canyon Site (AZ EE:11:13[ASM]).

Archaeological Consulting Services, Ltd. (ACS), is analyzing and synthesizing the results of the archeological surveys of the East Range. The most significant ongoing projects relating to buildings include 1) adaptive reuse of the Fort Huachuca Cavalry Stables; 2) the Residential Community Initiative;

3) leasing of the Mountain View Officers’ Club to the Southwest Association of Buffalo Soldiers (SWABS) as an interpretive facility; and 4) the preparation of a HABS report on the Lakeside Officers’ Club.

Planned historic properties inventories in Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 include an archeological survey of the oak savannah environmental zone at Fort Huachuca and the documentation of the 1922–1934 Apache Scout Camp (see Chapter 5). SWCA has received task orders to complete both of these studies.

1.2 MISSION

Fort Huachuca (Figure 1.2) encompasses 73,142 acres, divided into the East Range (east of State Highway 90), the built-up area (including the cantonment and the Libby Army Airfield [LAAF]), the West Range (west of the cantonment area), and the South Range (south of the cantonment area).

The history of Fort Huachuca’s mission is told in Herbert et al. (1990) and summarized in Van West et al.

(1997), Cook (2003a), and the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) (Trousil 2001).

The mission of Fort Huachuca changed several times during its history, from being part of a chain of forts intended to subdue the Apaches (1877–1886), to protecting the U.S.-Mexican border (1886–1932), to training African-American troops during World War II. After World War II, the base was deactivated and reopened twice (deactivated in 1947 and 1953 and reopened in 1951 and 1954), and after the second reopening in 1954, Fort Huachuca became a training and testing center, focusing on military intelligence and high technology.

4 Chapter 1

Figure 1.2. Fort Huachuca land use patterns.

Introduction 5

Currently, Fort Huachuca is under the management of the Installation Management Command (IMCOM), West Regional Office, San Antonio, Texas. Fort Huachuca is the Headquarters for the U.S. Army Intelligence Center (USAIC) and the 9th Army Signal Command/Network Enterprise Technology Command (9th ASC/NETCOM), formerly the U.S. Army Signal Command (USASC). The Garrison Commander and principal training staff are integrated into the USAIC Headquarters Command, designated USAIC&FH (USFWS 2007:4). Fort Huachuca is the location of the Army’s Electronic Proving Ground and Intelligence Center and School. Also operating at Fort Huachuca are the Army Information Systems Engineering Command, the 11th Signal Brigade, “an element of the Joint Interoperability Test Command,” the Intelligence and Electronic Warfare Test Center, the National Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Training Center, and the Electronic Proving Ground’s Joint Data Base Elements (Trousil 2001).

The current mission of Fort Huachuca focuses on research, testing, and training in military intelligence, electronic warfare, and information systems. The installation is also used for aviation and for training of active duty, Reserve, and National Guard units (Trousil 2001:43). Most activities occur inside secure buildings. Limited maneuvers take place in open-air settings across the military reservation. Most outdoor training activities occur in established training areas where historic properties have been identified and avoided (Trousil 2001).

1.3 HISTORIC PROPERTIES AT FORT HUACHUCA

1.3.a History of Research Archeologists may have recognized the importance of the Garden Canyon Site at Fort Huachuca as early as about 1900. In the 1950s, archeologists from the Amerind Foundation (a private archeological research center in Dragoon, Arizona) and the ASM at the University of Arizona recorded the Garden Canyon Site, and in 1964 Jon Young of the ASM directed excavations there (Young 1964).

In the 1970s the Garden Canyon Site (AZ EE:11:13[ASM]) and the Garden Canyon Pictographs Site (AZ EE:11:15[ASM]) were placed on the NRHP. In 1974 the Old Post was placed on the NRHP as a district, and in 1976, the Fort Huachuca Historic District expanded and named an NHL. The Fort Huachuca NHL boundary was adjusted again in 1977 and 1997 (Thiel 2005:4; Wee and Mikesell 1993:7–4).

A 10 percent sample survey of Fort Huachuca, conducted in 1987 and 1988 by SRI examined 9,720 acres, identified 81 newly recorded sites with 90 components, and generated a predictive model for site locations (Florie et al. 2007:10, citing Altschul and Jones 1990 and Van West et al. 1997).

Since 1989, Fort Huachuca has had an archeologist: Marie Cottrell (1989–1993), John Murray (1993– 1999), and Charles Slaymaker (2000–2008). In 2008 Mr. Steven S. Crooks, a historical architect became the Historic Properties Manager. Cottrell directed members of the Cochise Chapter of the Arizona Archaeological Society (AAS) in excavations at the Garden Canyon Site in 1991 and 1992, and John Murray continued this work from 1994 to 1999. Three large surveys were conducted in the 1990s, covering an additional 21,400 acres and resulting in the recording of 180 archeological sites (Florie et al.

2007:22; Vanderpot 1994a, 1994b, 1997a). Since 2003, virtually the entire East Range has been archeologically surveyed, as well as a 2,460-acre area on the West Range that had been burned by the Ryan Fire in 2002.

6 Chapter 1

1.3.b Archeological Sites Archeological surveys (Figure 1.3) have covered 69.5 percent of the land area of the military reservation (73,142 acres); 426 archeological sites have been recorded (these include two paleontological sites that have been assigned archeological site numbers). The earliest use of Fort Huachuca is represented by a single projectile point dating to the terminal Pleistocene. At least 65 sites evince the hunting and gathering adaptation that occurred from about 8000 B.C.–A.D. 200. Some of these may date to the time when maize agriculture was first introduced into southeastern Arizona (1500 B.C.–A.D. 200). At least 95 sites date to the period when most people were beginning to live in settled villages (A.D. 200–1450), and one of these sites (the Garden Canyon Site, AZ EE:11:13[ASM]) is one of the largest village sites in southeastern Arizona. No sites date to the “protohistoric” period (A.D. 1450–1540); although Spanish and Mexican explorers, missionaries, and colonists used the San Pedro Valley from A.D. 1540–1846, no sites reflecting these uses have been found on Fort Huachuca. At least 125 sites dating to the U.S. occupation of southeastern Arizona (A.D. 1846–present) are military sites and early-twentieth-century homesteads (on the East Range).

The archeological sites at Fort Huachuca have the potential to provide information on several major themes of regional and national significance. Paleoindian sites manifest the earliest human occupation of the Southwest. Archaic sites provide information on the hunting and gathering lifeway, and Fort Huachuca encompasses a substantial portion and probably a representative cross section of an Archaic landscape. Formative sites offer information on the origins of settled village life, and Fort Huachuca encompasses several Formative communities. Historic sites include homesteads dating from about 1902 to 1927 (especially on the East Range), and military landscapes that reflect the changing mission of Fort Huachuca from the Indian Wars (1877–1886), border protection (1886–1920), World War II (1941– 1945), and the post-war period.

1.3.c Historic Buildings The Old Post of Fort Huachuca is listed in the NRHP as a National Historic Landmark District (NHL).

Covering 57 acres, the NHL consists of 86 buildings, two sites (Brown Field and Henry Circle), and two structures (a flagpole and a bandstand) (Figure 1.4). Sixty-five of the buildings and the two sites are considered contributing elements to the historic character of the NHL (Thiel 2005:11). Outside the NHL are 122 additional buildings that are considered historic.

Historic buildings and the NHL at Fort Huachuca are nationally significant for the ways in which they provide a tangible connection with the Apache Wars, the service of the Apache Scouts, the period of Border Protection (including Pershing’s Punitive Expedition of 1916 in response to Pancho Villa’s raid into Columbus, New Mexico), and the role of African-American soldiers in the American military. The way in which the military landscape of Fort Huachuca evolved concomitantly with the changing mission of the post is described in detail in Burt (1998) and Herbert et al. (1990) and summarized in Van West et

al. (1997:317, 319) and Cook (2003a:6–9).

Introduction 7

Figure 1.3. Archeological survey areas.

8 C hapter 1

Figure 1.4. Old Post area (from Trousil 2001:Figure 12.1.1b).

Introduction 9

1.3.d Traditional Cultural Properties or Sacred Sites Federally recognized Indian tribes have specifically identified five sites on Fort Huachuca as traditional cultural properties (TCPs) or sacred sites. In 2003, when Cook wrote her ICRMP (Cook 2003a:15), three sacred sites had been identified at Fort Huachuca: the Garden Canyon Site, AZ EE:11:13(ASM); the Garden Canyon Pictographs Site, AZ EE:11:15(ASM); and the Rappel Cliffs Rockshelter Site, AZ EE:11:30(ASM). Since 2003, consulting tribes have identified two additional sites. The San Carlos Apache Tribe has stated that they consider the location of the former adobe houses used by the Apache Scouts after 1933 or 1934 (AZ EE:7:115[ASM]) to be a TCP because various ceremonies were held at this site. The White Mountain Apache Tribe has said that the 1922–1934 Apache Scout Camp “near the cemetery” is “sacred ground” (consultation meeting, Ramon Riley 30 January 2001). Fort Huachuca has issued a task order to record the Apache Scout Camp (AZ EE:7:65(ASM) and evaluate its NRHP eligibility (Levstik 2008).

1.3.e Archeological Collections Numerous archeological projects on Fort Huachuca have made collections (see Chapter 4). Currently, all known archeological collections from Fort Huachuca are curated at the ASM, except for one flaked stone artifact and 117 ceramic sherds, collected in 1951 by Charles Di Peso of the Amerind Foundation and one box of prehistoric sherds and historic artifacts at the Centre for Archaeological Field Training at Pima Community College. The ASM lists collections from 13 separate projects at Fort Huachuca, and these collections include 466 boxes of excavated material, 15 boxes of survey collections, 579 individually cataloged objects, approximately 98.75 linear inches of documents, and 2,926 photographs (for a breakdown by project, see Chapter 4).

1.3.f Paleontological Sites Paleontological sites are not considered historic properties under the NHPA, but Army Regulation 200-4 and Army Pamphlet 200-4 require that paleontological sites be addressed in the ICRMP (Cook 2003a:15).

At least four sites on Fort Huachuca have fossils dating to the Pleistocene period: the Braden Tusk Site, AZ EE:7:319(ASM) (Cook 2003b, 2005a:109); AZ EE:8:256(ASM) (Cook 2004b:48; Vanderpot 1997b);

the Hurley Site, AZ EE:8:275(ASM) (Cook 2004b:68); and AZ EE:8:328(ASM) (Cook 2004b:101, 104).

Among the mammals identified at these sites are horse and mammoth. In addition, at least 11 caves are known to exist at Fort Huachuca (Trousil 2001:58), and fossils of cave bear and giant ground sloth have been found in one of these, Pyeatt Cave (AZ EE:7:15[ASM]) (Cook 2003a:15; Van West et al. 1997:66).

The paleontological sites are significant in that they provide important information on the geological history of the region, on environmental conditions during the Ice Ages, and on the resources that would have been available to the first known human occupants of the Southwest.

1.4 POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND THREATS TO

HISTORIC PROPERTIES

Activities that might result in impacts and threats to historic properties include 1) mission-related activities; 2) facilities management; and 3) activities related to natural resources management.

As mentioned above, most mission-related activities occur inside secure buildings. Among the mission-related activities that occur in open-air settings across the military reservation are troop training;

construction of airstrips, buildings, and other structures; and land navigation training. Archeological

10 Chapter 1 surveys at Fort Huachuca have focused on areas that are used for open-air activities, locating and recording the significant sites within or adjacent to these areas and allowing the installation to plan activities to avoid all significant historic properties.

Facilities management involves rehabilitation of historic buildings, demolition of historic buildings, and construction, repair, and replacement of various facilities (including buildings, roads, and utilities).

The Military Construction and Authorization Act of 1983 (MCAA) stipulated that before the Army constructs any new building, an existing building must be demolished. In addition, various statutes (most notably the NHPA) and policies (EO 13006, EO 13287, Department of Defense Instruction [DoDI] 4715.3, Environmental Conservation Program, Department of Defense Directive [DoDD] 4165.6, Real Property [Policy section], DoDD 4165.70, Real Property Management [Procedures section], and Army Regulation 200-4) stipulate that 1) historic buildings should be preserved if at all possible; 2) the installation will find new uses for historic buildings and existing buildings for changing needs whenever possible; and 3) the installation will conduct an economic analysis of historic buildings and structures that are being considered for demolition and replacement (see Chapter 6 for a more extensive discussion).

Before a historic building can be demolished, the Arizona SHPO requires that Fort Huachuca submit a report documenting the building, assessing its eligibility for listing in the NRHP, and providing a context statement for the building. New construction, repair, and replacement of facilities are preceded by compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 60).

Natural resources management activities that are most likely to affect historic properties include fire management (including prescribed fire), erosion control, habitat improvement (including construction and maintenance of wildlife water devices, vegetation removal, prescribed fire, revegetation, and fence removal), wetlands management, water quality management, land rehabilitation, and outdoor recreation (see Trousil 2001). These activities are preceded by compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and its implementing regulations.

1.5 THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF FORT HUACHUCA

A number of laws, regulations, and policies direct military installations in the management of historic properties. These are summarized in Chapter 2 of this ICRMP, and Army Pamphlet 200-4 (October 1, 1998) provides extended discussions of most of them. In addition, Army Regulations 200-1, 200-2, and 200-3 explain how historic properties management articulates with environmental protection and natural resources management.

Most of the historic properties management at Fort Huachuca is conducted in accordance with the NHPA.

The NHPA recognizes the importance of historic properties as tangible evidence of U.S. history and declares that it is the policy of the federal government to preserve and enhance these resources. Section 106 of the NHPA directs each federal agency to take into account the effects of its actions on historic properties. The implementing regulations of Section 106 (36 CFR Part 60) specify the “Section 106 process” for making a finding of effect. The agency must first determine whether the proposed action has the potential to affect historic properties. If so, the agency must conduct an inventory to identify historic properties, evaluate their significance, make a finding of effect, consult with the SHPO, Native People tribes, and other interested parties, consider alternatives, and decide how to avoid or mitigate adverse effects.

The ICRMP and the Historic Preservation Plan explain how historic properties at Fort Huachuca will be treated. The garrison commander issues the formal garrison policy on mission impact to historic properties (the Historic Preservation Plan). As discussed below, facilities maintenance and repair are coordinated by the Directorate of Public Works, Operations and Maintenance Division (OMD). New

Introduction 11 construction is coordinated by the Directorate of Public Works, Engineering Plans and Services Division (EPSD). Training activities are coordinated by Range Control (U.A. Army Garrison [USAG] A3 OPS, AZTS-IOR).