FORT UNION Administrative History

Figure 14. A Canada goose posed itself in front of the Officers' Quarters and
hissed at visitors through most of the spring of 1984.
Courtesy of Fort Union National Monument.

As a part of the cultural and natural resources of the monument, the Santa Fe Trail ruts raised a new issue for resource management. In the late seventies and the early eighties, the 800-mile Santa Fe Trail was developing a reputation in the public's eye as a significant historic resource in its own right. At Fort Union, the trail became a major attraction in addition to the ruins. A hundred years of revegetation, weathering, and erosion had changed the original appearance of the trail by either deepening the ruts into arroyos or filling them with earth. Sections of the trail, within the monument grounds, were lost through the construction of the visitor center, residential houses, and maintenance buildings. Although the park staff carefully photographed and mapped the ruts for further research, they could not decide how to preserve the trail. [38]

Beginning in 1985, a soil erosion control project helped care for the Santa Fe Trail ruts. Assisted by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service Mora District, Diane Jung and Keith Yarborough from the Southwest Region authored a plan for a two-year arroyo stabilization program at Fort Union. As soon as they finished the blueprint, the maintenance crew started constructing, mulching, and seeding earthen dikes. Banks of an arroyo at the northeast corner of the monument were sloped. In the summer of 1986, 45 Boy Scouts labored for 179 hours on the erosion control program. The project was completed in 1986 when the ruts of the Santa Fe Trail stood more firmly against the threat of erosion. [39]

But the problem was far from resolved. Since the visible ruts of the Santa Fe Trail stretched through the entire valley, their preservation as a whole seemed unrealistic. All wagon wheel ruts could eventually erode away. Even if the Park Service discovered a reliable way to preserve a small section of the ruts, it still could not restore the integrity of the historic trail. Realizing the situation, the fort administration pleaded with the regional office for further study on both the strategy and the tactics of preservation. In recent years, Superintendent Harry Myers made a few contacts with the Santa Fe Trail Association and the U.S. Soil Conservation Service to discuss possible measures. There was no quick answer. As are many interested citizens and government agencies, Fort Union is still searching for a solution. [40]

One of the best studies on the park's natural resources was Sandra Schackel's Historic Vegetation at Fort Union National Monument, 1851-1983. Then a history graduate student at the University of New Mexico, she accepted the Park Service's contract to produce an in-depth investigation of the fort's flora. Because the prairie environment affected Fort Union's physical condition regarding such things as soil erosion, fire hazards, animal habitats, and natural scenery, the Southwest Region decided to approach natural resource management at the "grassroots" level. Schackel pioneered the task. Working closely with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service, she investigated various species of plants and searched government documents to determine whether there was biological continuity or change through the park's history. In 1983, the first study on the history of the park's vegetation appeared.

According to Schackel's study, vegetation conditions at Fort Union in the early 1980s appeared similar to those documented in the historic records of the mid-nineteenth century. The valley possessed rich blue grama and other grasses interspersed with a great variety of beautiful wild flowers until the coming of U.S. troops in 1851. The construction of buildings, gardens, corrals, and the parade ground gradually turned the once luxuriant pasture into a barren, dusty area. In American frontier history, ranchers often followed soldiers. After the closing of this frontier post, the commercial grazing company replaced the military as the catalyst for environmental change. Cattle grazing continued to diminish the remaining vegetation cover for 65 years. However, the establishment of Fort Union National Monument brought new hope for environmental protection as the Park Service fenced the land and allowed the start of a recovering process. In the last 36 years, vegetation at the monument was gradually restored. Today the prairie is once again growing toward a potential climax. [41]

Simultaneously, several other research projects, not funded by the Park Service, were under way. In 1982 while Schackel was studying the park's vegetation, Lee Boyd of West Texas State University came to Fort Union to research the geological features of the nearby Turkey Mountains, which formerly were included in the military reservation. This year-long study resulted in a scholarly work, Geology and Joint Pattern Study of the Turkey Mountains. Park volunteers Charles and Peggy Matlock performed the first survey of birds at the monument and the surrounding areas. They lived at the fort in the fall of 1983. Incorporating data from personal observations and previous records, the Matlocks compiled a report about bird activities in the area. These research projects broadened the park's scope in fields from geology to flora and fauna. [42]

In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service defined and listed all endangered species of flora and fauna in the nation. Fort Union was home to none of them. The threatened creatures of Mora County, the black-footed ferret, the swift fox, and the spotted bat never visited the fort. Only bald and golden eagles occasionally stopped at the fort during their long flights.

Of all the fauna at the park, snakes received the most attention. A considerable snake population lives in the Third Fort and the Depot, with sightings recorded in all months except January and February. Unchecked activities by these reptiles, particularly rattlesnakes, threatened public safety. Rattler sightings in public use areas averaged 25 per year, about half of which involved confrontations with humans. Concerned with the safety of visitors, the Park Service, since the establishment of the monument, placed warning signs along the interpretive trail and asked people to stay out of the grass, where poisonous serpents were likely to linger. In past years, the warning sign helped reduce the chance of snake confrontations. [43]

Throughout the history of Fort Union National Monument, there was only one recorded incident of a snake bite. On August 18, 1983, a boy, Nathan Hagman, walked off the marked trail and into the grass. Suddenly, a rattlesnake bit his left leg about six inches above the ankle. It took only five minutes for his father to report the matter to the park staff. Under park ranger Carl Friery's advice, Dale Hagman properly kept his son still with his legs lower than his heart, and rushed the boy to the Northeast Regional Hospital in Las Vegas. [44]

Although only one rattler attack was recorded, the search for a proper way to handle potential confrontations between humans and snakes was needed for both public safety and resource management. Historically, neighboring ranchers killed rattlesnakes on sight. From 1958 to 1971, records indicated that Fort Union exercised the same extermination policy as its neighbors. The environmental preservation movement made the Park Service realize the importance of ecology and the coexistence of various species. Consequently, Fort Union shifted its policy from extermination to relocation. In the last two decades, the relocation philosophy remained the standard. Whenever a rattlesnake moved too close to the public use areas, trained park personnel quickly captured the errant reptile. Each captured snake was marked with brown paint on its tail and released on the northeastern boundary near the water tank. This method met the demands of public safety as well as environmental protection. [45]

In 1984, Fort Union issued its first written rattlesnake policy. Concise and perceptive, it gave an initial account of the park's experience in snake management, with thoughtful comments and practical goals. Approved by the Southwest Region, the rattlesnake policy became effective. In addition to the existing methods of warning and relocation, the park rangers began to encourage visitors to report rattler sightings. Public cooperation helped the Park Service gather more information for further research. The change of policy from extermination to relocation showed that the park administration supported "the native animal life of the parks for their essential role in the natural ecosystem." [46]

During the 1980s, natural resource management developed significantly. It became as important as preservation and interpretation. In 1976, personnel at Fort Union wrote a "Statement for Management," which gave natural resource management minor attention with only one short sentence that mentioned the desire to enhance the park's environmental quality. Soon, this attitude changed. Under pressure from the public and the Park Service, the monument began to prepare for a comprehensive management plan in 1979. It took about two years before unit manager Carol Kruse submitted the plan for approval. This time natural resources received significant attention; a natural-cultural resource balance in management began to arise. [47]

As the first plan of its kind, the "Resource Management Plan and Environmental Assessment" guided the fort's operations through the decade. Every three or four years the park administrators made efforts to revise and update it. The public was encouraged to provide input. In essence, by creating such a written document the administration saw the need for a natural resource management entity at the monument. [48]

In comparison with the ruins preservation and historical interpretation programs, natural resource management in the last two decades failed to cover the many problem spots that revealed themselves in management operations. Today, some areas are still waiting for research. For example, a pollen and soil study will augment Schackel's work and allow the mapping of soil as well as vegetation. A climatological study is needed to provide some insights into weather patterns and to predict their effects on ruins preservation. The animal population at Fort Union remains largely unstudied. Ground squirrels, whose burrows have severely weakened the trails and ruins, are not understood. The increased presence of rodent families raises additional concerns for human exposure to bubonic plague. Indeed, a careful appraisal of all these aspects of the environment is required before the park's natural resource management meets Park Service standards.