Archaeology and Cultural Heritage: What Should We Check Before Construction?

Part 14 of 14

By Randy Salars · Source-review edition: September 9, 2026

We have spent a lot of time asking what the proposed data center might bring to southern Grant County. There is another question worth asking: what is already there that construction could disturb?

An open stretch of desert can hold traces of homes, travel, work, and burial places that are difficult to recognize from a road. Before building pads are graded and utility trenches are dug, I would like to know whether qualified people have examined the land and whether the communities connected to its history have been heard.

That question does not assume an important archaeological site lies beneath this proposal. It asks for evidence before a decision becomes difficult to reverse.

This region has a human history

A Forest Service archaeological review published in 2006 discusses evidence of past settlement in the Animas and Playas valleys. It provides regional background, including earlier investigations and their limitations. It is not a survey of the proposed data-center property, and its old survey-coverage figures should not be treated as current. Forest Service regional review.

More recent history matters too. New Mexico's official historic-marker account describes Hachita's mining origins around 1875 and the later movement of settlement toward the railroad. Historic roads, buildings, and working landscapes can deserve examination alongside much older remains. The marker does not establish that this project overlaps any of them. Hachita entry, PDF page 15.

Indigenous connections also continue through living communities. The Fort Sill Apache Tribe identifies southwestern New Mexico as part of its ancestral homeland. That is one reason to involve the appropriate tribal governments early. It does not establish that this particular parcel is sacred, identify every tribe with relevant knowledge, or tell us any tribe's position on the development. Fort Sill Apache Tribe.

What do we know about this particular site?

The supplied air-quality notice identifies a proposed location and generating equipment. It does not answer the archaeological questions raised here.

I have not located a public archaeological survey or preservation determination for this proposal in the sources checked. That does not mean none exists. New Mexico's archaeological records system contains information available to qualified users, with restrictions intended to protect sensitive records. A public web search cannot replace that professional records review. New Mexico Archaeological Records Management Section.

The useful request is specific: what review has been completed, what land did it cover, who performed it, and what findings can be shared publicly? The answer should include the report date and reviewing agency's response, where an agency review is required. An old survey may remain useful, but someone needs to explain whether it covers today's design and meets the applicable standards.

What would a useful review involve?

A qualified archaeologist would start with previous records and the proposed construction plans. Fieldwork may include systematically walking the affected ground, documenting visible evidence, and assessing whether buried deposits need further investigation. New Mexico has professional survey standards covering archaeological sites, historic structures, and other cultural properties. The methods and permits must fit the work and the land involved. New Mexico survey standards.

The plans should show more than the computer buildings. Residents should ask about the generating plant, access roads, gas and fiber connections, water facilities, drainage work, equipment staging, and any areas used to obtain or dispose of construction material. Those features are questions about the eventual design, not a claim that every one is already proposed.

Under federal preservation review, the area examined for possible effects can extend beyond a property boundary and below the ground. It can also include changes to a historic property's setting where those changes affect what makes the place significant. The responsible agency determines the scope; federal guidance does not require an identical survey of every acre on every project. ACHP guidance on identifying historic properties.

The community should ask which areas were examined, which were not, and why. A report should make those limits understandable.

Does the law require a survey?

There is no single answer for every data center. The starting questions are who owns the affected land and which government approvals or funds are involved.

Federal involvement: Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires federal agencies to consider effects on historic properties from qualifying projects they fund, permit, approve, or undertake. It includes properties eligible for the National Register, even if they have not been formally listed. A state-issued air permit alone does not establish that this federal process applies. ACHP introduction; identifying historic properties.

Connections outside the campus can matter. BLM rights-of-way cover uses such as roads, pipelines, power lines, and fiber lines on public land. If this project needs a qualifying federal approval for a connection, that could bring federal preservation review into the picture. A nearby pipeline does not prove a new federal right-of-way is needed. BLM rights-of-way.

State involvement: New Mexico state trust land has specific cultural-review and survey requirements before new surface disturbance, subject to exceptions. Other state preservation requirements can depend on public ownership, spending, and the historic properties involved. We should ask the reviewing agencies to identify the applicable requirements for every affected area. State Land Office rule; state consultation checklist.

Private land: Private ownership does not automatically trigger the same federal process. It also does not remove every protection. New Mexico has separate provisions for archaeological work on private land and for unmarked human burials. The developer should obtain a clear explanation of the requirements for its actual plans. Private-land cultural-property rules; unmarked-burial rules.

We have a local example of why funding matters. A 2023 Fort Bayard cleanup memorandum identifies EPA grant funding as the reason EPA was the lead federal agency for Section 106 review. Its discussion identifies the affected area and considers historic properties and effects. That illustrates what a documented review can contain; it does not establish the same requirements for this data center. Fort Bayard memorandum, first page.

Federal procedures are also under review. ACHP announced a proposed rulemaking in July 2026. A proposal is not an effective replacement rule. The responsible agency should identify the rules and any special procedures that actually apply when this project is reviewed. ACHP announcement; current federal regulations.

Tribal consultation is part of the substance

An archaeologist's report and a tribal government's knowledge serve different purposes. A place may have meaning through religious practice, oral history, or relationships with the surrounding landscape. That meaning may not be obvious from objects visible on the ground.

Where Section 106 applies, the federal agency has government-to-government consultation responsibilities. A general public meeting or an unanswered developer email does not, by itself, fulfill those responsibilities. Relevant tribes may now be based outside New Mexico. Consultation should begin while the design can still change. ACHP guidance on archaeological consultation.

I would ask who was consulted through the proper channels and how their input affected the plans. I would not ask a tribe to publish sensitive knowledge to prove that its concerns deserve attention.

What happens if something important is found?

Finding a cultural resource does not automatically settle whether a project can proceed. Depending on its significance and the applicable review, options may include moving a road, changing a building location, protecting an area, monitoring specified work, or conducting authorized archaeological investigation.

Preserving a site in place can retain information and meaning that excavation cannot fully preserve. Where excavation is appropriate, the work also needs a plan for analysis, reports, and the long-term care of recovered materials. Archaeology involves more than removing objects before construction resumes. ACHP guidance on treatment and preservation.

Human remains require particular care. New Mexico's rule for unmarked burials on state and private land requires stopping activities that could disturb the discovery and notifying local law enforcement. Federal and tribal lands have different discovery procedures. Workers need the correct written plan for their location. New Mexico burial rule; National Park Service discovery guidance.

Before work begins, contracts should identify who can stop activity near a discovery, who must be contacted, how the area will be protected, and who can authorize work to resume. I would also ask the developer to budget for necessary review, protection, monitoring, and unexpected discoveries. Those costs and responsibilities should be addressed while there is still time to plan.

What about fossils and other land reviews?

Fossils involve paleontology, the study of past life, while archaeology concerns human history. BLM uses the geology's potential to contain important fossils to help decide whether specialist review is needed. That does not establish that fossils are present at this site. It gives us another sensible question: has the geology been screened, and is a separate fossil assessment warranted? BLM paleontology management.

Likewise, an archaeological survey does not answer the separate questions about groundwater, drainage, wildlife, or whether the soil can support a building. Each review should have a clear purpose and should inform the same construction plan.

What should the public receive?

I would like a readable summary showing the area reviewed, the work performed, its limitations, the responsible agencies, and any required protections. Where applicable, it should explain how consultation informed the decision and what remains unfinished.

Detailed locations of vulnerable sites, burial places, and confidential tribal information may need protection. Federal preservation rules allow certain sensitive information to be withheld. A useful public explanation can describe the decision and safeguards while respecting those limits. Federal confidentiality provisions, Section 800.11(c).

I am still undecided about the proposed data center. A careful cultural-resource review would help me judge the proposal, just as clear water, power, and financial information would. Our interest in building a useful future should include care for the history we leave to our grandchildren.

Questions worth asking

• What archaeological and historical review has been completed, and does it cover the current campus and all associated construction areas?
• Who verified land ownership and identified the federal, state, or other review requirements and responsible agencies?
• Which tribal governments have been consulted through appropriate channels, and how has their input informed the plans?
• What protections, discovery procedures, funding, and authority to stop or resume work will be established before construction?
• What public summary and agency findings will residents receive, with sensitive locations and cultural information protected?

Sources and references

Sources checked September 9, 2026. Older publications provide historical context or established guidance; they are not current field surveys of this property.

1. Paul R. Fish and Suzanne K. Fish / USDA Forest Service. Chapter 3: Malpai Borderlands prehistory. 2006.
2. New Mexico Historic Preservation Division. Official Scenic Historic Markers database: Hachita entry, PDF page 15. 2017 edition.
3. Fort Sill Apache Tribe. About. Undated.
4. Site Layer 1, LLC. Published notice of air-quality permit application. Notice supplied for the series; expected application October 1, 2026.
5. New Mexico Historic Preservation Division. Archaeological Records Management Section. Undated.
6. New Mexico State Records Center and Archives. 4.10.15 NMAC: Standards for Survey and Inventory. Rule text retrieved September 9, 2026.
7. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Determining which archaeological sites are significant: Identification. Undated guidance.
8. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. An Introduction to Section 106. Current page retrieved September 9, 2026.
9. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Identifying Historic Properties. Undated guidance.
10. Bureau of Land Management. Rights-of-Way. Undated.
11. New Mexico State Land Office. Cultural Properties Protection Rule. Rule effective December 1, 2022.
12. New Mexico Historic Preservation Division. State Consultation Checklist: Review of Proposed State Projects or Programs. Undated.
13. New Mexico State Records Center and Archives. 4.10.14 NMAC: Cultural Properties on Private Land and Mechanical Excavation Permits. Rule text retrieved September 9, 2026.
14. New Mexico State Records Center and Archives. 4.10.11 NMAC: Permits for Unmarked Human Burials. Rule text retrieved September 9, 2026.
15. AECOM / New Mexico Environment Department. Fort Bayard Section 106 memorandum, first page. March 14, 2023.
16. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. ACHP Votes to Move Forward with Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. July 24, 2026.
17. Office of the Federal Register / eCFR. 36 CFR Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties. Displayed current through September 4, 2026; retrieved September 9, 2026.
18. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Section 106 Consultation about Archaeology. Undated guidance.
19. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Recommended Approach for Consultation on Recovery of Significant Information from Archeological Sites. June 17, 1999.
20. National Park Service. NAGPRA: Discovery and Excavation. Current page retrieved September 9, 2026.
21. Bureau of Land Management. Paleontology Management. Current page retrieved September 9, 2026.

AI assisted most of the research and initial drafting under my direction. Sources are linked; corrections are welcome.