City staff, archaeologists discuss proposal for an in-house archaeology program and GPR survey of suspected fortification near Georgia O'Keeffe Museum

City staff outlined a concept at the July 10 Archaeological Review Committee meeting for creating an in-house archaeological section within the City of Santa Fe and for pursuing targeted ground-penetrating radar (GPR) research to map a subsurface feature discovered during prior work near the Georgia O’Keeffe Museum. Committee members, city staff and an outside GPR operator discussed feasibility, permissions, procurement and funding pathways.

Steven (city staff) and Paul (staff) said they had canvassed senior archaeologists and historians about supporting a three-year city program that would include periodic technical advisory meetings, scope development for GPR surveys, and, eventually, hiring two to three city archaeologists dedicated to municipal projects. Staff said the public utilities division has particular need for repeated archaeological monitoring related to water and utility line replacement and has available funding streams that might be used to seed the program; staff proposed an initial planning allocation (they referenced an amount for planning sessions) and indicated they would present a fuller budget and proposal to department directors and then to governing body.

The committee and staff discussed how a GPR survey could proceed. Robin Cordero and Jenny (GPR operator) described the method and logistics: GPR is a ground-based system that is typically pushed across flat surfaces (it resembles a lawnmower), can penetrate asphalt and detect anomalies to depths of two to three meters depending on conditions, and can map linear features such as walls and utility conduits. Jenny said the known feature in the O'Keeffe-area scans was roughly one meter to 2.5 meters below the then-grade; staff later estimated the top of the feature would appear about three feet below adjacent sidewalks and extend to about seven feet at its deepest portion in places.

Technical and logistical points raised by the committee and GPR operator included: - Surface access and permissions: sidewalks and roadways can generally be surveyed without private-owner permission; surveys that would require entry onto private parcels would need property-owner permission. - Traffic control: in urban areas GPR surveys are often easiest when roads are closed to traffic for night work; the committee noted that a traffic-control plan and coordination with the Streets department will be required for any road-centered surveys and could affect cost. - Survey geometry: to map a linear archaeological feature, the operator recommended surveying both along and perpendicular to the suspected orientation (crisscross lines) to detect turns or continuity; doing both directions increases time but produces a more reliable map. - Duration and scale: staff and Jenny estimated a modest urban block survey (example given: 30 m x 120 m) could be scoped as one full work day but may require several hours to a full day depending on ancillary mapping and field setup. - Utility information: the committee stressed coordination with utilities to check existing utility maps because trenching and prior utility installs can mask or preclude archaeological detection; Robin said one recent trenching effort found an unrecorded conduit that allowed the utility to avoid additional trenching.

Committee members and staff discussed procurement and funding paths. Staff noted previous uses of the city's Archaeology Fund to support supplemental studies and said the fund can be used for targeted research proposals in some circumstances, though most funding to date had been used to support specific mitigation actions that were part of compliance work or to match outside grants. Staff advised that work paid for by the city would likely be procured through the city’s procurement rules, or arranged as a subcontract under an already-contracted city engineering firm to reduce procurement lead time. Committee members urged staff to prepare a clear scope of work, a cost estimate and a list of required permissions before seeking funding or making requests to governing bodies.

Several committee members framed the proposed program as a way to standardize monitoring and reduce fragmented procurement across departments. Staff said the water division’s planned infrastructure work over the next decades motivated building internal capacity so that recurring municipal work would be covered by a standing city capability rather than ad hoc consultant-by-consultant arrangements. Staff emphasized they would pursue a programmatic agreement or memorandum of understanding with ARC and other stakeholders so that routine monitoring could proceed under an approved programmatic framework and the committee would retain review authority for standards and outcomes.

Why it matters: mapping the feature near the Georgia O'Keeffe Museum would clarify the footprint and depth of a potentially significant archaeological feature that previously showed in GPR profiles; creating an internal city archaeology section could accelerate permitting, produce consistent monitoring standards across departments and reduce repetitive procurement for municipal projects.

Next steps: staff said they will prepare a scoped proposal, cost estimate and procurement approach and will discuss funding with department directors. The committee indicated it wants to see a written proposal and suggested staff include traffic-control estimates, permissions required, and whether the work would be procured as a direct hire, a subcontract or under an existing city contract. The GPR operator offered to advise on technical scope and likely timing if staff pursues the project.