Mount Taylor TCP on hot seat
Meeting confuses many attendees

Copyright © 2009
Gallup Independent
By Helen Davis
Cibola County Bureau

SANTA FE — In an orderly public meeting before the N.M. Department of Culture Affairs’ Cultural Properties Review Committee, citizens from Cibola County and tribal representatives from as far away as First Mesa, Ariz., spoke Friday of concerns about Mount Taylor. Approximately 400,000 acres of the mountain are under consideration for permanent listing on the State Register of Cultural Properties, a distinction which will give the sacred peak certain protections from development.

The lengthy hearing allowed equal time for each speaker to give comments about why most of Mount Taylor should or should not be listed, in hopes of clarify the multitude of issues and emotional concerns that have arisen since February 2008 when the landscape was awarded a premature emergency listing. The listing and the February CPRC where the listing was made became controversial as soon as it was announced. After a second meeting and new vote, the committee again voted to award the emergency one-year listing, effective until the end of June.

Pithy remarks by one opponent summed up the overall effect to Friday’s meeting after the nomination has been presented and discussion begun. “I have more questions than when I came in,” he said.

Key questions about the boundaries of the proposed “contributing” arose with Navajo, U.S. Forest Service, legal and other representatives presenting maps of the area for the TCP nomination.
“I have seen four maps and they don’t match each other,” said a man who identified himself as an owner of Lee Ranch Coal Mine northwest of Grants.”

Questions of the effect of the TCP on private property and who the property owners are dominated much of the commentary.

Ann Rodgers, senior attorney for Chestnut Law Offices, who represents the five nomination tribes — Acoma, Hopi, Laguna, Zuni and the Navajo Nation — said the firm had difficulty in locating all the land owners because tax assessor records were in three counties and records were not always complete. She recommended that landowners not listed please contact Chestnut. A list of landowners the nomination has so far included can be reviewed at http://www.nmhistoricpreservation.org/
documents.php?recordnum=31 by clicking the Attachment 7 link.

Several landowners, whose properties would be excluded or considered “noncontributing” to the cultural property to be protected, said the nomination referred to nearby properties as being affected by the listing under some circumstances, but wanted to know more about what “nearby” meant or how a reference to a “half-acre” might affect them.

Supporters of the nomination asked fewer questions but expressed concerns about possible uranium mining affecting the landscape in general and anyone downstream of possible activity as well as the effect of any development on the water table that serves much of the eastern end of Cibola County, including Laguna and Acoma.

One aspect of the TCP question that raised few, if any, questions was the sacred and cultural relevance of the mountain. Speakers for both sides of the discussion claimed that the mountain was sacred and that they are responsible for the stewardship of the landscape.

Specific sites or uses described differed but most agreed on the nature of the mountain.

State Historic Preservation Officer Katherine Slick said she supported the nomination but recommended that the area in the nomination be renamed “The Mount Taylor Cultural Property to make the intent clear; submit it on a state registration form, state that the level of significance be statewide, list Mount Taylor as contributing and others, excluded, as noncontributing areas, list the 1,000 plus archaeologic sites that are considered contributing, state where noncontributing areas (many privately owned properties) are, added more specific descriptions of shrines and blessings for recognized sites, state social contributions, and clarify in writing the specific boundary of the area being nominated.”

CPRC Chairman Dr. Alan “Mac” Watson suggested language changes that clarified that the intent is guidelines rather than governance, that the “gross acreage be nailed down,” and that whether the term “private property” means surface area only or includes subsurface area as well be determined and stated in the nomination.

The committee expects to vote on the nomination to list described areas of Mount Taylor in the next regular committee meeting on June 5.

The deadline for comments to the review committee is May 20.
Direct comments to: HPDplanning.program@state.nm.us or Historic Preservation Division, 407 Galisteo St., Suite 236, Santa Fe, NM, 8750.

The nomination and supporting information including maps is posted at http://www.nmhistoricpreservation.org.