Cultural Resources Specialist’s Report Whittington Forest Health Restoration Project

______Hat Creek Ranger District Archaeologist

February 24, 2012 Cultural Resources

Affected Environment

Cultural sites on the Lassen National Forest reflect human lives, spanning thousands of years before the time of local written records, history that began when fur trappers and other early travelers began creating written accounts, and traditional practices that continue today. The sites can be divided into three corresponding types: prehistoric, historic, and Traditional Cultural Properties.

Prehistoric sites chronicle the activities of ancestral Native Americans, showing where they chose to live, how they made their livings, their technologies, and sometimes how they interacted. Remains range from large, complex sites with pit houses to scattered flakes of stone left by prehistoric flintknappers. Archaeological evidence from the northern portion of the Lassen National Forest suggests that humans occupied the area by 7,500 years ago, and potentially much earlier.

Historic times began when Euro-Americans arrived in northeastern California early in the 19th century. Fur trappers were among the earliest arrivals. Travelers headed for the gold fields or settlement areas elsewhere passed through northeastern California, and local settlers established homesteads. Important historic economic activities included cattle and sheep ranching and lumbering. Later historic activities included construction of hydroelectric facilities, utility lines, and an increasingly complex road network. Related sites include wagon roads, building remains, and artifact scatters.

Traditional Cultural Properties are important for ―association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that community's history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the community‖ (Parker and King 1998). Traditional Cultural Properties are frequently associated with Native American traditional activities. Physical remains of the activities may or may not be present. Many Native Americans maintain traditional use of national forest lands, including sacred areas, places of cultural significance, and sites where traditional gathering activities, or ceremonies, occur.

The Whittington project boundary encompasses lands traditionally associated with the Pit River Tribe, falling within the territory of the Atsuge[wi] band. Traditional Cultural Properties, possibly including some with ties to the Pit River Tribe, could be present within the project area. Discussion with tribal members suggests that at least one location was formerly specifically visited by tribal elders: however, relatively recent activities have seriously altered the landscape in this location, perhaps decreasing the sense of a connection to the area.

2

Much of the project area has been previously surveyed for historic and prehistoric sites. However, a relatively recent addition to the project area—in the Twin Buttes vicinity—includes small areas that remain to be surveyed. Areas not previously surveyed to modern standards and that would be affected by the project would receive survey prior to project implementation.

The previously recorded sites have been monitored. Only a few previously recorded sites are present in the project area; these include two (possibly associated) historic utility lines and a site with a variety of historic and prehistoric components. Survey completed for the current project identified a fourth site, consisting of a series of discontinuous historic stand markers.

History

Non-Native American peoples occupied Northeastern California later than many other portions of the state. Certain activities that played a major role in the state‘s history were important on a local scale as well, and some have clearly affected the project area. The development of tree plantations, which initially took place in the 1930s with modifications in the 1960s and later, was a major activity. Settlement and travel occurred within the project area historically. In contrast, the area is well outside current grazing allotments, and ranching use appears limited relative to many other areas on the Hat Creek District. Logging apparently took place historically on nearby lands owned by the Red River Lumber Company; use of the adjacent Forest lands for this purpose could also have occurred. Fur-bearers of various types are present within the project area, and trapping may well have occurred historically.

Fur Trapping. Fur trappers were among the first Euro-Americans to venture into the general vicinity of the project area. The first written record discussing the Pit River may be that of Peter Skene Ogden, leader of a Hudson‘s Bay Company expedition. In 1827, the expedition entered an area wherein an unidentified river fits the description of the Pit River (Wheeler-Voegelin 1974:6- 7). Within the project area, fur-bearing animals may have included martin and fisher, bobcat and coyote.

Exploration and Travel: By the mid-1840s, pioneers were crossing northeastern California to interior California, and Oregon settlement, locations. Starting in 1848 with the discovery of gold at Sutter‘s Mill, travelers through northeastern California soon included Americans, Europeans, Latin Americans, Australians, and Asians, all on their way to the gold fields. Settlers and gold seekers followed three major historic trails into and across northeastern California. These were the Applegate (the southern route of the Oregon Trail, established in 1846), the Lassen (leading south to the California gold fields, blazed in 1848), and the Nobles (blazed in 1851, and briefly

3 known as the Fort Kearney, South Pass, and Honey Lake Wagon Road, also leading to the gold fields) Trails.

Topographic maps indicate that Baker‘s Toll Road (from Fall City to Millville) and a trail segment, both as shown on an 1882 map, were partly within the project area. However, survey designed specifically to identify any toll road remnants within the project area has not yet indicated any.

Settlement and Development. The Bureau of Land Management‘s on-line General Land Office data indicates limited use of the project area, but does list one relevant homestead patent. It was to Amelia L. Chase/Pritten, on August 4, 1893. Other transactions include a 1902 Lands to California Patent and early (1892) cash sales to Libbie G. Cox, William A. Smith, and James W. Hall.

Plantations. The Burney Spring Experimental Plantation was a reforestation experiment ―conducted in a typical northern California brushfield between August 1936 and November 1938‖ (Dunning and Kirk 1939:58). The main body of the brushfield, about 1,100 acres, was burned, with work completed on August 28, 1936 (Dunning and Kirk 1939:13). Once the area had been burned, it was stripped, an effort completed by the time winter snow fell. Tractors and trail-builders removed the brush stumps in strips about 8-10 feet wide and 10 feet apart, disturbing the ground to a depth of about six inches (Dunning and Kirk 1939:17).

A small additional area was stripped without burning, using a Plumas brush stripper pulled by a tractor (Dunning and Kirk 1939:22). The strips were approximately 20 feet apart, and the soil was disturbed down to about six inches. The report also suggests that 38 acres were burned without stripping.

Seedlings were planted in some areas, seeds in others. Conical rodent screens were placed over the seeds (Dunning and Kirk 1939). Poison spray was tested as a means of rabbit control. The trees initially planted were ponderosa and Jeffery pine, with sequoia added in a later replanting.

A weather shelter and fencing are shown in a May 1937 photograph (Dunning and Kirk 1939:16). Remnants of these cultural features could still exist in areas that are now too overgrown for effective survey.

No history of the treatment of the Cypress plantation was available at the time of writing. Activities within that plantation are anticipated to have been similar to the Burney Spring Plantation‘s.

4 Administrative Use/CCC Activities. The Burney Spring Experimental Plantation, at least, had work completed by CCC employees. A 1939 report on the plantation notes regarding the planting of seedlings that ―the planters were three technically trained foresters and four Junior Assistant Technicians, CCC‖ (Dunning and Kirk 1939:31). Seeds were planted by two technical foresters and five Junior Assistant Technicians (Dunning and Kirk 1939:32).

A local informant (not named here since we have not yet requested permission to use his name) had previously noted that he worked for the CCC out of the Burney Springs CCC Camp. It appears possible that the reference was not to Burney Spring proper, but to Green Burney Camp, originally called the Burney Springs Camp but located approximately 5.5 miles to the northwest, on private land outside the project area.

However, a 1941 report on the Cornaz Tract does indicate a stub camp (a temporary work camp) within the Burney Springs/Cornaz area. (Since the photo attached to the report is not dated, the actual camp use date(s) could be earlier than 1941.) The report also notes the importance of a spring, apparently Burney Spring, to fire protection, especially in light of the ―increasingly hazardous slash areas being left by nearby logging operations‖ (Hatcher 1941:4).

Range use. The 1941 report also notes that grazing by sheep, on lands held by the Red River Lumber Company and government lands, occurred in the Burney Springs/Cornaz vicinity.

Logging. Forest Service activities within the project area have focused largely upon the plantations. For example, the Hat Creek District‘s atlas of timber sales 1924-1964 does not indicate any sales within the project boundary. The Red River Logging Company logged on adjacent private lands during that time frame.

Recreation. The 1960 Pit District large-scale map shows an improved Forest Camp south of and near Burney Spring; it is called Burney Springs. A second improved Forest Camp, in or near the project area, is shown in the Eiler Gulch vicinity, and is called Cypress. Recreational activities in the general area today include fall deer hunting, dispersed camping (often associated with deer hunting), and recreational driving; these are also likely to have occurred historically.

Ethnography

Current information indicates that the project area falls within Atsugewi (specifically Atsuge band) territory. The Pit River Tribe as a whole encompasses the Atsugewi and Achumawi peoples. In turn, the Atsugewi grouping consists of two bands, the Atsuge (sometimes Atsugewi) and Aporige, with the other nine bands falling under the Achumawi division.

5 The Achumawi and Atsugewi languages together form the Palaihnihan family, a member of the Hokan stock (a linguistic grouping of possibly related languages widely distributed in California and Mexico). Within each language are dialects that may correspond to the band divisions (McGuire 2007:168).

Pit River Tribe settlement patterns were designed to take advantage of seasonally available resources. Winter villages were made up of semi-subterranean (partially underground) dwellings made with poles, bark, and brush. Summer shelters were less formally constructed, sometimes made of willow and tule (Raven 2004:438).

The Achumawi traded basketry caps, acorns, salmon and salmon flour, dentalia (shells), tule baskets, steatite (a soft stone suitable for carving), and rabbit skin blankets to the Atsugewi, who returned seed foods, epos roots, other roots and vegetables, furs, hides, and meat. The Atsugewi also sometimes traded with the Yana, although relations were apparently not always friendly (Johnson 1978:363; Theodoratus 1981:125).

Along the Pit River and its major tributaries, Pit River Tribe groups obtained salmon (at least west of Fall River—Atsugewi peoples fished at the invitation of the Achumawi), trout, freshwater mussels, and bottom-feeding fish such as suckers. Groups of the Achumawi, Atsugewi, Yana, and Maidu occasionally congregated to take advantage of salmon runs on the lower Pit River, or acorns or roots in other areas (Garth 1978:238; Waechter et al. 2003). Fishing technologies included nets and basketry traps. Swamps along the Pit River offered waterfowl. Game animals including deer, pronghorn, jackrabbits, and sage hens were available in areas of sage and juniper. Bighorn sheep occupied high mountain areas (Raven 2004:437-438).

Deer were widely available and were important in mountain areas and along the Pit River. In fact, the Pit River is said to have received its name from the pits local Native Americans dug along it to trap game that included deer. Dried deer meat was important as a winter food, and, at least among the Atsugewi, deer meat was a prestigious food (Garth 1978:242-243; Olmsted and Stewart 1978:228; Theodoratus 1981:127-128).

For the Achumawi and Atsugewi peoples, an important plant food was the epos, a carrotlike root found in areas near the Pit River. This root was dried and stored for winter. Achumawi plant foods also included pine nuts (including gray and sugar), grass seeds, camas bulbs, and berries including manzanita berries. Acorns available where oaks grew along the Pit River were an important dietary staple and trade item (Raven 2004:437-438; Olmsted and Stewart 1978:229; Waechter et al. 2003:6). Pit River peoples used fire to improve growing conditions for seed, berry, and tobacco plants (Anderson 2005:173, 279).

6 Within the project area, plant resources may have differed somewhat from those currently present. Potentially helpful in considering the prehistoric setting is a 1939 account of the vegetation in the vicinity of what became the Burney Springs Plantation. The report noted ponderosa (Pinus ponderosa), Jeffery (Pinus ponderosa Jefferyi), and sugar pine (Pinus Lambertiana), white fir (Abies concolor), and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) on the fringes of the brushfield.

Cold depressions in the area had lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). Within the brushfield, vegetation included greenleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula), snow brush (tobacco brush, Ceanothus velutinus), bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata), Sierra chinquapin (Castanopsis sempervirens), western chokecherry (Prunus demissa), whitethorn (Ceanothus cordulatus), bitterbrush (Purshia tridentata), and serviceberry (Amelanchier alnifolia). Cypress (incorrectly reported as MacNab, actually Baker‘s) is also reported for the brushfield.

Many of the plants named above could have been harvested prehistorically. The Atsugewi gathered the greenleaf manzanita berries in July and August, stored them in pits, then pounded them into a fine flour used to make biscuit-like cakes; they used the leaves as a medicine, pounding and boiling them for use on cuts and burns (Mead 2003:43).

Serviceberries were placed in tule baskets and mashed; water was added to make a paste that was eaten raw. The berries were also dried and then soaked in water when the time came to eat them. Pikni is reported as the Atsugewi name for this species (Mead 2003:25). Sticks from serviceberry were also used to make a type of armor (Dixon 1908:214). Chokecherries can be eaten fresh or dried, and chokecherry shoots are suitable for making arrows.

Various trees within the project area would have offered edible pine seeds, including those of ponderosa and Jeffery pine. Sugar pine nuts were eaten by many tribes (Mead 2003:307). Anderson (2005:281) comments that ―pine nuts were so important to the western branch of the Atsugewi that their name Atsuge literally means ‗pine tree people‘.‖ Mead adds that the Atsugewi and Achumawi used yellow pine (Jeffery or ponderosa) roots in basket-making (2003:310). Further, the Atsugewi used sugar from pine sap as a medicine (Mead 2003:304-305).

Oaks would have offered acorns, an important food resource for many tribes, and one available to the Atsuge (Dixon 1908:211). Cedars wood could have been used for making bows.

Animals would have offered opportunities for fur and food. Today, species known or expected to be found within the project area include mule and Columbian black-tailed deer, black bear, coyote, bobcat, mountain lion, badger (known from droppings), and raccoon. Marten and fisher may also have been present. Small animal species reported in the brushfield that became the

7 Burney Springs Plantation were white-footed mice, chipmunks, and rabbits; bushy-tailed woodrats and yellow-haired porcupines were reported for the vicinity.

Garth reports that the Atsugewi avoided eating martin and coyote; Dixon notes, however, that coyote skins were sometimes used for clothing. Rabbits were hunted by driving into nets or use of the bow and arrow. In addition to their use for meat, deer skins were used for garments and quivers for holding arrows (Dixon 1908:213; Garth 1978:242-243).

Water resources are relatively rare within the project area, but do occur at locations such as Eiler Gulch and Burney Spring. This factor may have constrained use of the project area.

Prehistory

Patterns of prehistoric human activity in the project area would be expected to be complex, since it lies near the intersection of several geographic, ecological, and cultural zones. Archaeological influences from the Sierra Nevada, Great Basin, Southern Cascades, and Central Valley may all be represented. Artifact types within the project area suggest Western Pacific and Great Basin influences. Source analysis for flaked stone materials suggests a variety of ties (possibly indicating trade, possibly reflecting trips to the resource) to locations outside the project area. For the partially prehistoric site within the project area, ties to the east and west are suggested.

Clelland (1997) has proved the most complete prehistoric cultural chronology for the Hat Creek District, but his reference is specific to a portion of the Pit River; its applicability more generally has not been fully resolved. Essentially, his chronology suggests sporadic use of the area before 7,500 years ago, with more substantial use developing between 5000-7500 years ago. Sites elsewhere on the District, including in the project vicinity, appear to go back at least as far as 5,000 years, but much more work is needed to clarify the chronology of the Atsuge area.

The specific project area includes only one currently known prehistoric site. Flaked stone and groundstone are among the site components.

Methods of Analysis

As discussed in more detail in the compliance section, heritage work completed for the Whittington project was designed to conform to the regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other applicable legislation, and to comply with management direction in the Lassen Land and Resource Management Plan. The 2001 Programmatic Agreement (see the reference section for its lengthy full name) provides the framework for Cultural Resources work for the project.

8

Project Cultural Resources work includes prefield research, field survey, and analysis of site protection needs, as well as tribal consultation. Prefield research included a review of: (1) Forest Service files, to identify previously known sites and to review the adequacy of previous survey coverage; (2) historic maps, to locate historic features still potentially in existence; and (3) written ethnographic information, to determine whether any resources or locations important to tribal members were indicated. Available Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) information was also reviewed. Additional information from local residents is being sought.

Tribal consultation has included presenting maps and a project description at the quarterly meeting between the Pit River Tribe and the Lassen National Forest on April 1, 2009. Scoping letters have been provided to tribal and band members.

Site Protection Considerations

The effects of fire and, to a lesser degree, mechanical equipment on sites can be complex, Appendices A and B thus provide District-wide overviews of the considerations that the District Archaeologist applies for each project in determining whether particular uses of fire (Appendix A) or mechanical equipment/hand work (Appendix B) are reasonably expected to affect sites. (In the latter case, the types of activities listed are restricted to those included in the current project, for brevity and clarity.) Drawing upon the information presented in the appendices, this section explores whether project activities could affect site values, and how those effects would be avoided through application of mitigation measures.

According to current Hat Creek survey data, only four recorded sites lie within the project area. Of these, three are historic (two utility lines, a series of historic stand markers), while one includes both historic and prehistoric elements. Project activities that could damage sites are discussed briefly below. Protection measures to avoid the damage are set forth in the Mitigation Measures section of Chapter 1, and a short discussion is provided under the heading ―Conclusions‖ below.

Project activities that could—without the application of appropriate protection measures— damage sites include mechanical tree removal, mechanical brush removal (including mastication and/or crushing decadent brush with a tractor or dozer), pile burning, and prescribed fire/underburning. Fireline construction (including hand line, line constructed with an ATV and plow, and line constructed with a tractor) associated with the prescribed fire or underburning could result in ground disturbance, affecting sites if present; the same is true of fence or barrier installation. Road construction or maintenance, and landing or staging area construction can displace or damage artifacts and features. Road use can lead to cumulative damage.

9

New water source development could result in ground disturbance and would require review as an addition to the project area. Road rehabilitation, depending on the methods, could also result in ground disturbance. Vegetation removal methods using hand tools—such as hand cutting of brush and small trees—would be relatively less likely to cause damage, as long as no historic vegetation is removed and no burn piles are created within sites. Trampling during such tree removal could result in artifact damage or displacement and damage to features; this effect can in some cases be avoided by flagging routes to avoid walking on sensitive artifacts and features. Tree planting and seedling release (hand grubbing and/or brush cutting) would require ground disturbance.

Brush piling and burning would also occur, and would result in a relatively hot fire of long duration over a small area, increasing the potential for artifact damage. Leaving masticated materials on the ground to decay could increase the potential for effects from wildfires, as it could result in materials on the ground surface (thus potentially in close proximity to artifacts) burning for a relatively long time.

Laboratory tests (involving constructed fuelbeds 7 cm deep) for masticated manzanita (manzanita is common in the project area) indicated flaming times of 13.8 to 23.3 minutes and smoldering times of 48.2 to 55.5 minutes—the amount of time depended on fuel moisture (5 or 13%) and the condition of the masticated materials (Kreye 2008:59). The amount of time involved is sufficient to place various artifact and feature types, if present, at risk.

Examining whether activities could affect site values. For management purposes, values are defined largely in terms of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria as discussed in the Existing Condition section. Not all sites will have values making them eligible for the NRHP. Interpretive and tribal concerns may also apply.

Some types of project activities, if allowed within site boundaries, potentially benefit sites. For example, a very low-temperature underburn over a site that would not be substantively damaged at that temperature may, through removing fuels, provide some protection from a more damaging wildfire. Others may be neutral—hand tool use that would not damage site components or associated soil matrix is a potential example. Yet others—as noted in Appendices A and B— have potential to cause many types of effects. Project activity types and effects, and the nature of the sites, must be taken into account in determining the needed protection measures for each site.

For eligible or potentially eligible sites that have primarily information values (NRHP Criterion D), damage to individual artifacts that does not result in the loss of significant data may in turn be

10 insignificant. For example, burning of some types of artifacts (such as tin cans without labels) may alter their appearance but not meaningfully reduce their information content.

Certain aspects of overall site integrity may be more important for some site types than others— for example, setting may be relatively unimportant for sites eligible only for informational values. For other site types, such as historic trails (often eligible under Criterion A, association with important events), setting is an important aspect of the site‘s integrity.

In general, damage that results in the loss of data related to topics such as site chronology, artifact types and raw materials present, food harvesting/preparation/consumption, technology, or within- site artifact patterning that has implications for past human activities could be considered significant in terms of information values. Damage to artistic or religious expressions (such as rock art), in contrast, might be considered significant as an aspect of culture (Criterion A) or as loss of the work of a skilled artist (Criterion C). Criterion B would involve association with a famous person.

Conclusions. The prehistoric/historic site would be evaluated, to clarify its values, before any project activities occur within it. Fire is not needed for this location, and would be excluded using handline or other measures as needed. For other activities, project design would avoid or minimize effects to the resource to the extent possible, in consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Office (as appropriate) and the Pit River Tribe. If effects to values cannot be avoided entirely, mitigation measures (such as data recovery) would be applied as appropriate.

For the communications lines and the markers, use of mechanical equipment could occur between individual elements of the site, in cases where no buried site components are anticipated and no effects would result. If such use occurs, the individual elements would be avoided.

A particular consideration for this project is the nature of the plantations. It is possible that the dense vegetation is concealing unrecorded sites. Although the creation of the plantations would be expected to have disturbed many site types (such as surface flaked stone scatters), it cannot be assumed that the disturbance has resulted in loss of all site values. Such unanticipated discoveries would be treated in accordance with the provisions of the mitigation measures. Post- implementation survey would help identify and ensure future protection of any resources not identified during the course of the project.

Existing Condition

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations require Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties, meaning

11 sites listed in the National Register of Historic Places. For the purposes of this project, and in compliance with the 2001 Programmatic Agreement, sites not yet evaluated are treated as if they were listed.

Sites can be listed in the National Register based on integrity (the seven aspects of which are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association) and one or more of four criteria—A, B, C, or D. Criterion A relates to association with an event important in broad patterns of history; Criterion B relates to representation of the lives of significant persons. Criterion C involves representation of a particular type, period or method of construction, the work of a master at their craft, or high artistic values. Criterion D refers to the potential of a site to contribute information important in history or prehistory.

Traditional Cultural Properties are often considered under Criterion A, prehistoric sites under Criterion D. Some types of prehistoric properties, such as rock art sites, may also have Criterion C values. Overall, Criterion D is most likely to be applicable within the project area.

Archaeological Survey

Most of the project area has received survey to modern standards. The remainder would receive survey to modern standards prior to project implementation.

Tribal Consultation

Tribal consultation for the project has involved multiple elements. Mary Price, the project forester, initially presented the project at a quarterly consultation meeting between the Pit River Tribe and the Forest Service on April 1, 2009. District Ranger Kit Mullen and District Archaeologist Brenda Reed, at the October 6, 2010 quarterly consultation meeting invited tribal members to attend the public meeting for the project on October 28. One year later, at the October 5, 2011 meeting, Kit and Brenda provided an update on the project‘s progress, noting the measures that were being taken to protect the site with a prehistoric component. An interested tribal member later participated in a project field trip on September 7, 2011.

The Hat Creek District Ranger and District Archaeologist would provide project updates to the tribe, and inform them if any currently unknown prehistoric sites become known. An additional field trip to the project area would be completed if the tribe desires. In the sense that tribal input would continue to be welcomed, tribal consultation is ongoing.

Past Projects with Potential to be Associated with Cumulative Effects

12 The main body of the Burney Springs brushfield—about 1,100 acres—was burned in 1936 as part of plantation development. An area (it is not clear whether all 1,100 acres were stripped after firing—the report later states that ―about 30 acres of the burned portion of the experimental plantation was stripped and 38 acres remained unstripped. The area of unburned brush is about 24 acres‖ (Dunning and Kirk 1939:22). The area of unburned brush was also apparently stripped.

Of the portion of the project area that was stripped after being burned, Dunning and Kirk comment that in addition to the depth reached by the blades, ―action of the tractor tracks, equipped with cleats, contributed toward very thorough disturbance of the soil.‖ Thus, any currently unknown prehistoric sites within that portion of the project area have likely had their surface and near-surface components at least somewhat disturbed. (Historic sites older than the plantation are relatively unlikely to be present; Dunning and Kirk indicated a probable age of a century or so for the brushfield—suggesting that it has been unoccupied for at least that long.) Although no report discussing the Cypress Plantation has currently been located, activities were presumably similar in that plantation (also within the project area) as well.

In addition to the creation and maintenance of plantations, past work in the project area has included timber sales (with an emphasis on commercial thinning, but also including other types such as salvage sales) and brush mastication. Other activities have included post-fire planting and road construction/use/maintenance. Limited range use is reported for the vicinity in historic times.

Firewood cutting is common in the project area, and small amounts of post-and-pole and Christmas tree cutting may also be occurring. Recreational activities demonstrably include hunting and dispersed camping, and could also include recreational driving, OHV use, mountain biking, and hiking.

Regarding future actions, certain types of post-implementation work, such as continued underburns, are implied. Other ongoing uses are reasonably expected to include firewood cutting, road use and maintenance, hunting, and dispersed camping.

Desired Condition

For the purposes of the current project, the desired condition is that any historic properties present be protected from project effects that could damage their documented and potential values.

13 Environmental Consequences

Direct Effects of the Proposed Action (Alternative 1)

The Proposed Action would not result in direct effects to currently recorded sites. Plantation areas could conceal unrecorded sites. Project implementation could put them at risk of ground disturbance or fire damage, but would also allow the sites to be identified and recorded. Any currently unrecorded sites would then be addressed in accord with the mitigation measures for this project.

Indirect Effects of the Proposed Action

Mitigation measures would prevent ground disturbance within sites, ensuring retention of ground cover to avoid indirect effects to the sites, including looting and erosion.

This alternative would reduce the possibility of site impacts as a result of wildfire, because fire would be less intense and easier to control. The potential fro damage from fire suppression activities could also be reduced where firefighters have more options in fighting wildfires. For example, it may be possible to dig handline as opposed to dozer line, and to design routes to avoid sites.

Cumulative Effects of the Proposed Action

For cultural resources, the affected geographical area would be defined as the boundaries of the project area. More specifically, it would be the sites within the project area, since these are the locations that could be physically impacted and that contain specific values to be protected during a proposed project. The ethnographic record indicates the potential for historic and prehistoric uses in the project area, such as travel routes and watering areas. Project activities could disturb unknown sites until they are identified and protected. Cumulative effects to cultural resources from ground-disturbing activities (such as use of mechanical equipment or line construction) would be avoided by keeping these activities away from the elements of three of the known sites. Evaluation/project design would apply to the fourth site.

14 To avoid cumulative effects from fire, burning (prescribed, broadcast, or pile) would be excluded from all known sites.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects of the No Action Alternative (Alternative 2)

There would be no direct effects from, selecting this alternative. However, there wold be a continued buildup of fuels and , if a wildfire were to occur, fire severity would be higher than Alternatives 1 or 3 and could cause more resource damage than under the other alternatives.

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects of the Noncommercial Alternative (Alternative 3)

The direct, indirect and cumulative effects for this alternative are similar to those for the proposed action. Mitigation measures would prevent ground disturbance within sites, ensuring retention of ground cover to avoid direct or indirect effects to the sites. Mitigation Measures

Information regarding recorded site locations and concerns would be provided to the project manager once survey and monitoring is completed. Mitigation (protection) measures would be determined for each site according to the Standard Resource Protection Measures identified in the Programmatic Agreement, or in the Standard Resource Protection Measures annexed to the Programmatic Agreement and set forth in the 2004 Interim Protocol for Non-Intensive Inventory Strategies for Hazardous Fuels and Vegetation Projects. Where prescribed fire is applied, protection measures would be implemented in cooperation between Fire Management and Heritage personnel. For the site that is to be evaluated, protection measures would be determined in consultation with the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).

If any currently unknown cultural resources are identified during activities other than prescribed burning, any ground-disturbing work within 20 meters (approximately 65‘) of the resource would stop immediately and the District Archaeologist would be notified. Work within 20 meters of the resource would resume only when a qualified archaeologist has examined the site and identified and implemented any needed protection measures.

Any cultural resources newly identified during a burn would be recorded following the burn. Any damage from the burn would be documented, and if significant (i.e., subtracting from the site‘s values) reported to the SHPO. Subsequent work to protect the site/recover data would be determined on a case-by-case basis in consultation with the SHPO.

Legal and Other Compliance

15 Programmatic Agreement

The 2001 Programmatic Agreement sets forth a process for compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, taking into account other legislation applicable to cultural resources, as further addressed in the following section. Standard Resource Protection Measures (which serve as Mitigation Measures in the NEPA sense), as needed, would stem from this agreement and the 2004 Interim Protocol.

Legal Compliance

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is particularly important for NEPA analysis because it requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on cultural sites. As long as the mitigation (protection) measures are followed, Alternative 1, the Proposed Action, would comply with Section 106 and other applicable legislation as cited in the 2001 Programmatic Agreement. Alternatives 2 and 3 would also be legally compliant.

As noted in the Programmatic Agreement, the Forest‘s authorization to identify, evaluate, treat, protect, preserve, and consult about historic properties is derived from numerous Acts and Executive Orders (too many to list here; the foreword to the Programmatic Agreement provides a full listing). Beginning with the Antiquities Act of 1906 (34 Stat. 225; 16 U.S.C. 431-433), the relevant legislation addresses the values of archaeological sites and sets forth procedures for tribal consultation and addressing tribal concerns.

The analysis and consultation discussed in this document is in conformance with applicable legislation including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (80 Stat. 915 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) and National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (83 Stat. 852 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347). Other relevant legislation guiding the management of cultural resources on Federal lands includes the Archaeological and Historical Data Preservation Act of 1974 (88 Stat. 174; 16 U.S.C. 469), and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA), as amended (93 Stat. 721 et seq.; 16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.).

Legislation pertinent to tribal concerns and the consultation process includes: the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (92 Stat. 469; 42 U.S.C. 1996); the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (104 Stat. 3048-3058; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013); and mandates contained in Executive Order 13007, entitled Indian Sacred Sites, and in Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. Appropriate consultation has been completed.

Forest Plan

16

The 1992 Land Resource Management Plan, Lassen National Forest calls for the maintenance of scientific, historic, and cultural values of cultural sites, and for the management of cultural resources associated with the traditional values of contemporary Native Americans (see pages 3-4 and 4-3). All three alternatives are in keeping with this Forest Plan direction.

17

References

Anderson, M. Kat 2005 Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge of the Management of California’s Natural Resources. University of California Press, Berkeley.

Beck, Charlotte, and George T. Jones 1994 Dating Surface Assemblages Using Obsidian Hydration. Chapter 4 in Dating in Exposed and Surface Contexts, edited by Charlotte Beck, pp. 47-76. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Bellot-Gurlet, L., G. Bigazzi, O. Dorighel, M. Oddone, G. Poupeau, and Z. Yegingil 1999 The Fission –Track Analysis: an Alternative Technique for Provenance Studies of Prehistoric Obsidian Artifacts. Radiation Measurements 31:639-644.

Benson, Arlene 2002 Meadow Canyon Prescribed Burn: Effects of Fire on Obsidian Hydration Dating. In The Effects of Fire and Heat on Obsidian, edited by Janine M. Loyd, Thomas M. Origer, and David A. Fredrickson, pp. 95-112. Papers presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Sacramento, California.

Buenger, Brent A. 2003 The Impact of Wildland and Prescribed fire on Archaeological Resources. Dissertation, University of Kansas. Available from ProQuest Information and Learning Company, Ann Arbor MI.

Bureau of Land Management California General Land Office/Bureau of Land Management Land Patents Records. Available on-line at: http://vredenburgh.org/capatents/index.html.

Clelland, J.H. 1995 Prehistory of the Middle Pit River, Northeastern California: Archaeological Investigations at Lake Britton, Pit 3, 4, and 5 Project. Report prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco.

Colombini, Maria Perla, and Francesca Modugno 2009 Organic Mass Spectrometry in Art and Archaeology. Wiley.

18 Deal, Krista and Denise McLemore 2002 Effects of Prescribed Fire on Obsidian and Implications for Reconstructing Past Landscape Conditions. In The Effects of Fire and Heat on Obsidian, edited by Janine M. Loyd, Thomas M. Origer, and David A. Fredrickson, pp. 15-43. Papers presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Sacramento, California.

DeBano, Leonard F., Daniel G. Neary, and Peter F. Ffolliott 1998 Fire’s Effects on Ecosystems. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

Dixon, Roland B. 1908 Notes on the Achomawi and Atsugewi Indians of Northern California. American Anthropologist 10:208-220.

Dunnell, Robert C., and James K. Feathers 1994 Thermoluminescence Dating of Surficial Archaeological Material. Chapter 6 in Dating in Exposed and Surface Contexts, edited by Charlotte Beck, pp. 115-137. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Dunning, Duncan and Bernard M. Kirk 1939 The Burney Spring Plantation: A Reforestation Experiment in the Brushfields of Northern California. USDA Forest Service, on file at the Hat Creek District Office.

Fites, Jo Ann, Mike Campbell, Alicia Reiner, Todd Decker, Carol Ewell, and Gail Bakker 2007 Antelope Complex Fire Behavior Assessment Report.

Garth, Thomas R. 1978 Atsugewi. In Handbook of North American Indians 8, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 236-243. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Guedes, S., R. Jonckheere, P. A. F. P. Moreira, and R. Hielscher 2008 On the Calibration of Fission-Track Annealing Models. Chemical Geology 248 (1-2):1- 13.

Haecker, Charles M. 2001 Effects of Fire on Historic Structures and Historic Artifacts. Manuscript on file at the National Park Service Intermountain Support Office, Sante Fe.

Halford, Kirk and Anne S. Halford 2002 The Trench Canyon Prescribed Burn: an Analysis of Fire Effects on Archaeological

19 Resources within the Sagebrush Steppe Community Type. In The Effects of Fire and Heat on Obsidian, edited by Janine M. Loyd, Thomas M. Origer, and David A. Fredrickson, pp. 45-68. Papers presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Sacramento, California.

Hanes, Richard C. 2001 Cultural Resources. Chapter VIII in Fire Effects Guide, sponsored by the National Wildfire Coordinating Group Fire Use Working Team, pp. 166-177. On file at the National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, Idaho.

Hanson, Lisa S. 2001 Predicting the Effects of Prescribed Fire on Cultural Resource Visibility in Rocky Mountain National Park. Draft thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

Hatcher, John B. 1941 Cornaz Tract, Lassen National Forest. Tract Valuation Report on file at the Hat Creek Ranger District Office, Fall River Mills, California.

Johnson, Jerald Jay 1978 Yana. In Handbook of North American Indians 8, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 361-369. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Kreye, Jesse K. 2008 Moisture Dynamics and Fire Behavior in Mechanically Masticated Fuelbeds. Thesis, Humboldt State University.

Leach, Jeff D., and Raymond P. Mauldin 1996 Immunological Residue Analysis: Results of Recent Archaeological and Experimental Studies. Texas Journal of Science 48(1). Texas Academy of Science.

McGuire, Kelly R. 2007 Models Made of Glass: A Prehistory of Northeast California. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A. Klar, pp. 165-176. AltaMira Press, Lanham, MD.

Mead, George R. 2003 The Ethnobotany of the California Indians. E-Cat Worlds, La Grande, Oregon.

20 Mealey, Marla M. 2007 Post-Fire Archaeological Site Assessment for Portions of the Cedar Fire Burn Area within Cuyamaca Rancho State Park. In Proceedings of the Society for California Archaeology 20:60-65.

Means, Bernard K., Dennis Knepper, and G. William Monaghan 2011 Department of Defence Legacy Project for Integrating Military Training and Archaeological Site Integrity: A Data Analysis Approach. Prepared for the Department of Defense by Versar and Hayes & Monaghan, Geoarchaeologists. Available online at:

National Park Service 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement for Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area Fire Management Plan.

Office of the Federal Register Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800: Protection of Historic Properties.

Olmsted, D.L. and Omer C. Stewart 1978 Achumawi. In Handbook of North American Indians 8, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 225-235. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Pargeter, Justin 2011 Assessing the Macrofracture Method for Identifying Stone Age Hunting Weaponry. Journal of Archaeological Science 38:2882-2888.

Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King 1998 National Register Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting Traditional Cultural Properties. National Park Service. Available on-line: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb38/

Parr, Jeff F. 2006 Effect of Fire of Phytolith Coloration. In Geoarchaeology 21(2):171-185.

Pearsall, Deborah M. 2009 Paleoethnobotany: A Handbook of Procedures. Second Edition. Academic Press, San Diego.

Raven, Christopher 2004 Northeastern California. Chapter in California Archaeology, by Michael J. Moratto, pp.

21 431-469. Reprint of 1984 edition published by Academic Press, San Diego, by Coyote Press, Salinas, California.

Ridings, Rosanna 1996 Where in the World Does Obsidian Hydration Work? American Antiquity 61(1):136-148.

Rude, Trisha and Anne Trinkle Jones 2001 Bibliography of Fire Effects on Cultural Resources. Western Archeological and Conservation Center, Tucson, Arizona.

Schneider, Joan S., and Bonnie Bruce 2009 Feasibility of Using Protein Residue Analysis to Determine Materials Processed within Bedrock Milling Features. Society for California Archaeology Proceedings 23.

Schroder, Sue-Ann 2002 A Synthesis of Previous Studies that Explored the Effects of Fire on Obsidian: Where We‘ve Been and Where We‘re Going. In The Effects of Fire and Heat on Obsidian, edited by Janine M. Loyd, Thomas M. Origer, and David A. Fredrickson, pp. 5-9. Papers presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Sacramento, California.

Shackley, M. Steven and Carolyn Dillian 2002 Thermal and Environmental Effects of Obsidian Geochemistry: Experimental and Archaeological Evidence. In The Effects of Fire and Heat on Obsidian, edited by Janine M. Loyd, Thomas M. Origer, and David A. Fredrickson, pp. 117-134. Papers presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Sacramento, California.

Skinner, Carl N. 2002 Fire Regimes and Fire History: Implications for Obsidian Hydration Dating. In The Effects of Fire and Heat on Obsidian, edited by Janine M. Loyd, Thomas M. Origer, and David A. Fredrickson, pp. 141-146. Papers presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Sacramento, California.

Skinner, Craig E., Jennifer J. Thatcher, and M. Kathleen Davis 1997 X-Ray Fluorescence Analysis and Obsidian Hydration Rim Measurement of Artifact Obsidian from 35-DS-103 and 35-DS-201, Surveyor Fire Rehabilitation Project, Deschutes National Forest, Oregon. Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory Report 96-98.

Solomon, Madeline 2002 Fire and Glass: Effects of Prescribed Burning on Obsidian Hydration Bands. In The

22 Effects of Fire and Heat on Obsidian, edited by Janine M. Loyd, Thomas M. Origer, and David A. Fredrickson, pp. 69-94. Papers presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Sacramento, California.

Steffen, Anastasia 2005 The Dome Fire Obsidian Study: Investigating the Interaction of Heat, Hydration, and Glass Geochemistry. Dissertation, on file at the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

2002 The Dome Fire Project: Extreme Obsidian Fire Effects in the Jemez Mountains. In The Effects of Fire and Heat on Obsidian, edited by Janine M. Loyd, Thomas M. Origer, and David A. Fredrickson, pp. 159-201. Papers presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the Society for California Archaeology, Sacramento, California.

Stevenson, Christopher M., Ihad Abdelrehim, and Steven W. Novak 2004 High Precision Measurement of Obsidian Hydration Layers on Artifacts from the Hopewell Site Using Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry. American Antiquity 69(3):555-567.

Theodoratus, Dorothea J. 1981 Native American Cultural Overview: Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Theodoratus Cultural Research. Unpublished cultural resources report on file at the Hat Creek Ranger District, Fall River Mills.

Theonissen, Robert, Jane Balme, Wendy Beck 1998 Headroom and Human Trampling: Cave Ceiling-Height Determines the Spatial Patterning of Stone Artefacts at Petzkes Cave, Northern New South Wales. Antiquity 72(275):80-89.

Thoms, Alston V. 2008 The Fire Stones Carry: Ethnographic Records and Archaeological Expectations for Hot- Rock Cookery in Western North America. In Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:443- 460.

Tontarski, Karolyn L., Kyle A. Hoskins, Tani G. Watkins, Leanora Brun-Conti, and Amy L. Michaud 2009 Chemical Enhancement Techniques of Bloodstain Patterns and DNA Recovery after Fire Exposure. Journal of Forensic Science 54(1):37-48.

23 USDA Forest Service 1992 Land and Resource Management Plan, Lassen National Forest. Available on-line at http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/lassen/projects/forest_plan/.

2001 First Amended Regional Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Undertakings on the National Forest of the Pacific Southwest Region. Unpublished manuscript on file at the Hat Creek District Office.

2004 Interim Protocol for Non-Intensive Inventory Strategies for Hazardous Fuels and Vegetation Projects. Annex to the 2001 Programmatic Agreement.

Valamoti, Soultana-Maria, Delwen Samuel, Mustafa Bayram, Elena Marinova 2009 Prehistoric Cereal Foods from Greece and Bulgaria: Investigation of Starch Microstructure in Experimental and Archaeological Charred Remains. Vegetation History and Archaeobotany 17 (Supplement 1):S265-S276.

Waechter, Sharon A., Mary L. Maniery, and Eric Wohlgemuth 2003 A Heritage Inventory of 10,000 Acres for the North 49 DFPZ Project, Hat Creek Ranger District, Lassen National Forest. Prepared by Far Western Anthropological Research Group for the Hat Creek Ranger District. On file at the Hat Creek District Office.

Wheeler-Voegelin, Erminie 1974 Pit River Indians of California. Garland Publishing, New York. American Indian Ethnohistory Series, California Indians III.

Winthrop, Kate 2004 Bare Bones Guide to Fire Effects on Cultural Resources for Cultural Resource Specialists. Bureau of Land Management. Available on-line at: http://www.blm.gov/heritage/Fire%20on%20Cultural %20Resources.htm

24 Appendix A: Hat Creek Ranger District Considerations for Projects Involving Use of Fire

25 Fire effects. Considerable research, both academic and associated specifically with Cultural Resources Management (including work done within the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Forest Service), has been completed to explore the effects of fires of varying severities/intensities on various artifact types. A major focus of the Cultural Resources Management work has been obsidian hydration dating, discussed in a subsequent section. Fire effects are discussed at relatively great length in this report due to their complexity.

The plantation areas have undergone various treatments, with ground disturbance and/or burning among them. Areas of the proposed project would thus be in areas previously deliberately burned (with the intent of using fire hot enough to burn the brush). However, new or cumulative effects to artifacts could still occur, for at least three reasons.

First, despite previous burning, favorably placed artifacts (those not exposed to flames or heat severe enough to damage that particular type of artifact) may have avoided damage during the previous burning. Second, repeated burning may cause cumulative damage to artifacts. Finally, archaeological sites often have materials from beneath the ground surface (where some protection from fire is offered) moved above-ground by burrowing rodents, tree throw, and other natural or cultural agents. Thus artifacts that were once at least somewhat protected from fire can become newly susceptible.

Fire effects, especially in terms of what factors influence how/whether site damage occurs, are discussed more completely in the Heritage Resource Specialist‘s report for the Eastside Underburn Project. (A Bibliography of Fire Effects on Cultural Resources (Rude and Jones), available on-line, gives some idea of the varied studies completed by 2001—note that much additional work has been completed since that time.) The following sections are intended only to provide a general overview of potential types of effects.

Wildfires, laboratory simulations, and prescribed burns have all been studied to assess their effects to artifacts. As a generalization, it is safe to say that researchers anticipate that wildfires will be more damaging to artifacts and sites than prescribed ones. Relevant factors include the potential effects of fire suppression activities and, for most circumstances, a greater expected fire intensity (treated in this document in terms of how hot the fire gets) for wildfire as opposed to prescribed burning. Pile burning is an exception—due to the size of the fuels and their degree of concentration, both the duration and the intensity of the fires pose a potential threat to a variety of archaeological materials, potentially including buried materials, should pile burning occur within a site.

26 Regarding prescribed burning, current research indicates that its use over archaeological sites and artifacts has both positive and negative aspects. Positive aspects stem from a reduction of fuel loads, reducing the potential for more serious damage resulting from wildfires.

Negative aspects are often associated with the potential for some artifacts to be damaged as a result of the prescribed fires. This can occur either because (1) the artifact material is susceptible to even low-temperature/short duration fires, as with the wood in a historic corral, or (2) the effects of fire can form a mosaic in which some artifacts that would not normally be affected are in a specific setting (for example, adjacent to heavy fuels such as a log or root) that results in damage. Other ways in which negative effects can occur include increased site and artifact visibility (leaving the sites more vulnerable to looting), and changes in setting that reduce the sites‘ integrity. Increased erosion could also be an issue, but proper project design would be expected to eliminate this concern.

Because the effects of prescribed burning can both compare and contrast (given the potential for more controlled conditions) with the effects of wildfire, and since prescribed burning has implications for the effects of wildfire, both are discussed in subsequent sections of this report.

Previous burns/interactive effects. Previous burning of an area can take many forms, such as: Native American use of fire, prehistoric wildfires, later wildfires, and previous prescribed burns. The recognition that (historically documented and probably prehistoric) Native American groups often used fire as a tool to manage their surroundings is sometimes taken to suggest that prehistoric sites would have been burned over many times during their existence.

Since surface artifacts tend to be relatively more (numerically and in terms of severity) affected by fire, this could be taken to suggest that artifacts were often fire-damaged before they had the chance to be buried. Also, processes such as tree fall and rodent burrowing can bring even rapidly buried artifacts to the surface. Yet, this does not mean that current fires do not have the potential to do more damage. For example, speaking specifically of one fairly fire-sensitive data type, obsidian hydration—Deal and McLemore comment that the ―greater proportion‖ of surface obsidian samples produce useful hydration readings.

A factor may be that Native American burning practices involving frequent, regular burning may have kept ground fuels reduced, so that the fires would have been of shorter duration than the modern fire, and less severe at the ground surface, at least as regards the glowing and smoldering phase of the fire (Deal and McLemore 2002:21). Thus, the potential for damage to artifacts may have been lower.

27 The proposed project incorporates prescribed burning designed to achieve conditions more like those that existed prior to fire suppression practices. Currently, relatively higher accumulated fuel loads are a potential concern for archaeological sites in many areas on the Hat Creek District.

Types of Fire Effects on Artifacts/Sites

Fire can affect archaeological sites and their individual components in a wide range of ways, some positive, some negative. These effects differ based on a variety of factors, that include interacting factors such as fire intensity and duration in a given location.

The vulnerability of the sites to damage from fire varies according to several factors such as the fuel loading on individual sites and the types of site components present. Particular concerns for loss of site values from prescribed burning involve the artifacts that can be damaged by relatively low temperatures. These include susceptible types of flaked stone (especially certain cherts), organic materials, artifacts suitable for thermoluminescence dating, and certain flaked stone artifacts that have the potential to offer chronological information (as with obsidian hydration dating) or evidence of heat-treatment technology (chert).

Historic artifacts such as food or beverage cans can also be significantly affected under certain circumstances; collection or recording are potential ways to preserve their values. Other types of artifacts can suffer damage if temperatures are sufficiently high or the duration of heating is sufficiently long; these effects may be addressed by avoidance or by controlling the conditions of the burn.

The literature in general (especially studies of wildfires) more effectively deals with temperatures than durations. However, both (and other factors) need to be considered to the extent possible in considering whether the effects discussed below are likely to occur under a given set of circumstances. Minimum temperatures at which effects occur are summarized in Table 2, to provide for comparisons with temperatures expected to be reached under a given set of conditions (Table 1).

Dating methods. Establishing the times of use of particular sites is a priority in understanding what was happening on the landscape, especially in prehistory. Technologies, subsistence practices, and other aspects of daily life often changed over time, for example when the bow and arrow first came into use in hunting. Fire can affect our ability to apply a variety of dating methods (of particular concern are thermoluminescence, archaeomagnetism, obsidian hydration, and under certain circumstances radiocarbon) potentially applicable to sites on the Hat Creek Ranger District.

28 Thermoluminescence. This method is used to date certain previously heated materials, including suitable types of burned flaked stone, as well as brick, pottery, and fire-affected rock (such as that associated with fire hearths). Since thermoluminescence measures the time since an artifact was heated to a certain minimum temperature, subsequent heating can essentially reset the clock and yield a younger date than the correct one.

Where suitable materials are present (in the project area, appropriate flaked stone could be available), this method may be especially helpful in dating surface archaeological materials (see Dunnell and Feathers 1994). Thermoluminescence laboratories state that stone artifacts are expected to have the clocks set when heated to 450oC; for ceramics, the temperature is 500oC. Thus, relatively low temperatures, as with prescribed burns under favorable conditions, are unlikely to have a negative effect. Wildfires and prescribed burns under unfavorable conditions could be problematic.

Archaeomagnetic dating. Archaeomagnetic dating is used for archaeological features that include a soil component—examples of features that have been dated using this method include fire hearths, earth ovens, and prehistoric irrigation canals. Heating to a temperature of greater than 600oC can affect the use of this technique (based on sampling considerations supplied by the Archaeomagnetic Research Group).

Obsidian hydration. Obsidian, a volcanic glass used in prehistory to make stone tools requiring sharp cutting edges, slowly absorbs water into its exposed surfaces. Thus, a freshly flaked surface will eventually build up a layer, called the hydration rind (sometimes compared to the peel on an orange), that has a relatively great amount of water in it. The thickness of the layer can depend on many factors, one of which is time. Thus, if the other factors can be held constant to a significant degree, the thickness of the rind is a clue to when the stone tool was flaked. Fire is one of the factors other than time—it can alter or remove the rind (Steffen 2005:32).

Obsidian hydration, although in widespread use, is sensitive to various environmental factors including soil temperatures over time (see, e.g., Ridings 1996), and thus is often used only as a relative (meaning that it tells whether one thing is older than another, but does not supply a year date range) dating method within a single site. However, it can, minimally, help identify research questions to be more fully addressed by other dating methods. Relatively new approaches to the technique (see, e.g., Stevenson et al. 2004) may also increase the precision and accuracy of obsidian hydration. Meanwhile, this dating method is often valued because it is the only one available for certain site types.

The fire intensity at which the hydration rind begins to be altered is somewhat variable, but many researchers conclude that ―safe‖ temperatures are up to approximately 200oC. Halford and

29 Halford (2002:48) give a temperature of 260oC. Duration of heating and temperature may also interact. Skinner et al., for example, note of an experimental study that an hour at 200oC had begun to affect their experimental sample (1997:10), although the effect was not significant until 300oC. The rind became impossible to measure after an hour at 400oC.

Other laboratory experiments suggest that exposure to elevated temperatures below 100oC for less than 24 hours would not be expected to change hydration rinds (Solomon 2002:85). For the same 24 hours, some specimens changed at 125oC; in contrast, testing at 200-300oC for 12 hours or less generally did not change the measurements, although it did start to visually alter the hydration rinds (Solomon 2002:84).

A case wherein duration was probably a major factor is documented by Deal and McLemore. These authors report a fall burn experiment in which a low intensity fire with 1-3‘ flame lengths unexpectedly damaged hydration rinds on obsidian in various fuel types, including light fuels (defined in their study as 20 tons of fuel per acre, mostly duff). Flame fronts passed over the artifacts in about 10 minutes, but smoldering resulted in increased temperatures for at least 44 hours (2002:20-21). Hydration rinds on both surface and subsurface obsidian were affected. Clearly, both temperature and duration of heating are potential factors influencing effects to obsidian hydration rinds.

Surface obsidian artifacts are often avoided for obsidian hydration dating, for a variety of reasons including concerns about the effects of exposure to past fires. However, artifacts now in buried contexts were usually deposited on former ground surfaces and therefore may have been exposed to past fires while on the surface (Beck and Jones 1994:47). In addition, Northwest Obsidian Studies Laboratory web information for sample selection suggests that obsidian artifacts may be moved upward in the site deposits over time, so that artifacts once buried may come to light on the surface. Thus, hydration analysis should not necessarily exclude surface samples (http:www.obsidianlab.com/howto.html).

Radiocarbon dating. This dating technique is used for remains of once-living things—such as bones, teeth, shells, or plant materials—and can be affected in a variety of ways by fire. These include, of course, destruction of the materials. Charcoal and ash from modern fires can also contaminate older samples, making them appear younger than they really are.

Fission track studies. This dating technique is potentially useful in determining the geological age for materials such as obsidians, and thus provides a potential sourcing (indicating where the stone that people flaked came from, and thus something about human activities on the landscape) method that can complement other methods (see, e.g., Bellot-Gurlet et al. 1999). In some cases, this method may be useful in obtaining archaeological dates, that is, indicating when the stone

30 was knapped. While sourcing relying on chemical composition does not appear significantly affected by burning (Steffen 2002:177; Shackley and Dillian 2002), heat can reset the ―clock‖ for the fission track method.

Other dating methods. Time-diagnostic artifacts, such as projectile points, can also provide clues to site chronologies. Very hot fires can result in mechanical damage to the artifacts that may remove their ability to provide information.

For historic sites, some artifacts have time-diagnostic characteristics such as maker‘s marks (that is, markings, usually on ceramics or glass, which identify the manufacturer and potentially provide a date range). These characteristics can be damaged when fire results in mechanical damage to the artifacts, as when glass shatters or melts, or ceramics craze or fracture.

Artifact types/attributes. The discussion in this section is not intended to be exhaustive; for example, rock art, common in parts of California, is not discussed because it is not expected to be found within the general area.

Organic artifacts. For both historic and prehistoric sites, the most sensitive materials tend to be organic ones, such as bone, shell, and wood. In addition to direct effects, burning of organic artifacts can contribute to weathering. For example, Hanes notes that shell becomes very friable (and by implication more susceptible to weathering) with exposure to high temperatures (2001:170).

Flaked stone. Flaked stone—including flakes as the remnants of the tool-making process, and the tools made—is a common component of prehistoric sites. Toolstones commonly found in California archaeological sites vary; basalt, chert, and obsidian are discussed below because, in combination, they span a wide range of potential effects from fire.

Flaked stone artifacts can offer information regarding how tools were made; use-wear provides clues as to how the tools were used. Tool forms also provide clues to the tasks for which they were used. These types of information can all be removed by mechanical damage resulting from fire, or from other potential sources of damage such as equipment use.

Basalt. Basalt, a volcanic rock, is susceptible to mechanical damage (such as spalling and fracture) from the effects of fire, as are many other rock types. Basalt in particular may be damaged at about 350-400oC (Winthrop 2004).

Obsidian. Obsidian is common in California archaeological sites, and can be influenced by fire in a number of ways (including the loss of the hydration rind, mentioned previously). These include

31 dulling of the surface into a matte finish, development of a surface sheen, development of surface or deep cracks, or, generally with higher temperatures, vesiculation (in which the material turns into a foam-like mass) (Steffen 2005). Buenger notes that many researchers have identified a range of about 450-550oC for most types of damage to obsidian (2003:17), with vesiculation occurring at about 800oC or higher.

Chert. Chert, a fine-grained (technically microcrystalline) sedimentary rock, can be used (as can certain other rock types) for thermoluminescence dating; as mentioned previously, this method can be affected by fire. In terms of mechanical damage, cherts of different types vary in their sensitivity to fire damage, but are generally relatively vulnerable. Benson describes a study of obsidian and chert artifacts in the context of a test burn involving a variety of fuel levels. While more than half of the obsidian specimens were damaged in all fuel types, chert flakes were clearly more vulnerable under the same conditions, with many pieces so badly shattered that the all of the fragments could not even be recovered (Benson 2002:100). Effects range from fracturing, to color alteration, to crazing (see, for example, Buenger 2003:259).

Buenger‘s experiments and observations of the effects of wildfire indicate that some cherts begin to change color at 200oC, and may fracture at 400oC. Another particular concern for chert is that fire effects can obscure evidence of heat-treatment (sometimes compared to baking a potato—it involves a slow, steady application of heat over a long time, so as not to damage the chert), a prehistoric technological process that improves the ease of making a tool from certain cherts. Prescribed burns or wildfire can remove evidence of the application of this technology.

Groundstone. Groundstone (such as mortars and metates) can also be damaged by fire. The rock type can influence the temperature at which damage occurs, with sandstone being relatively susceptible. Contact with flaming or smoldering fuels can be especially damaging (personal observations).

Ceramics. Prehistoric ceramics can suffer mechanical damage and loss of thermoluminescence data, and historic ceramics can suffer significant mechanical damage. Some types of paints oxidize at 600oC (Buenger 2003:313).

In historic sites, the type of ceramic influences the temperature threshold for damage. Unrefined earthenware is relatively susceptible, affected by temperatures exceeding about 500oC; porcelain can tolerate temperatures up to about 1250oC. The resulting damage could be considered significant if it altered time-diagnostic attributes (or other informational attributes, such as those indicating place of manufacture), such as maker‘s marks. Historic archaeologists also have explored use of ceramic and glass artifacts as indicators of information about the people who deposited them, for example their economic status.

32

Residues. Ceramics, flaked stone, groundstone, and other artifacts and features may be associated with residues that can provide clues to past diets, cooking practices, types of tool use, and (for some types) paleoenvironments. Residue studies address a wide variety of microscopic plant remains including starch grains, pollen, phytoliths (mineral bodies formed in plant tissue; distinctive shapes can sometimes help identify the plant of origin); DNA; and animal remains including proteins, lipids (fats), and DNA.

Starch grains can be distorted by heat in the presence of water (as in cooking), but how fires would affect this resource probably warrants further study. Since heat and water can distort starch grains, it seems possible that fire under wet conditions could obscure evidence of past cooking practices. Pearsall notes that charring has negative effects on starch, adding that if the grains survive heating, they may be difficult to extract under certain circumstances (2009:180).

Phytoliths are relatively fire-resistant, but some researchers have argued that color changes can result from fire exposure (e.g., Parr 2006), potentially reducing their ability to supply paleoenvironmental or other information. Pollen is more susceptible, potentially damaged at temperatures greater than 300oC.

Animal proteins may survive to about 800oC (Winthrop 2004). Tontarski et al. note (regarding tests on modern bloodstains) that the DNA did not appear to be affected until temperatures exceeded 800oC (2009). In contrast, Leach and Mauldin (1996) have suggested that heat, potentially as low as 250oC, can remove the ability to use antigens (substances that stimulate the production of antibodies) to identify the types of animals processed using stone tools. A recent field study suggests that animal proteins may survive wildfires in bedrock grinding features such as mortars (note that the bedrock could be shielding the residues), given positive results for a site that had burned over (Schneider and Bruce 2009). Plant proteins appear to warrant further study.

Macrobotanical remains. Under certain conditions, plant remains such as charred seeds may remain in the archaeological record, providing evidence of past dietary practices and other types of plant use. As with other organic materials, fire has the potential to consume these remains. Since such materials would tend to be identified in a buried context, burning roots would be expected to be the major concern for such remains.

Bone. Burned non-human bone is sometimes taken to indicate human processing (such as campfire cooking or cremation). Buenger (2003:321) notes that where heavy fuels are present during natural fires, bones may be altered by the natural fire in ways that could be misinterpreted as the results of human activity. Bone begins to be visually altered (carbonized) at temperatures of about 250oC (Buenger 2003:19).

33

Buenger‘s review of several data sources suggests that grassland fires can cause carbonized color alteration and minor charring affecting surface bone; buried bone in general is relatively unlikely to be altered. However, campfires or other heavy fuel concentrations (which can reach temperatures in excess of 800oC) can alter bone at a depth of 10 cm (Buenger 2003:22). Buried bone could thus be at risk in cases wherein relatively heavy fuels or roots are present.

Burning of human bone, if present, could be mistaken for the effects of cremation. Also, the ability to complete dietary studies on the bones (using isotopes) would be reduced.

Metal. Buenger (2003) gives a melting point for lead at 327oC, for tin at 232oC. These materials are therefore more susceptible than most types of metal. Winthrop (2004) adds a temperature of 135-177oC for tin-alloy solder (used in manufacture of some types of historic tin cans). She adds, however, that overall can morphology is unlikely to be affected by fire (meaning that much of the information value of this artifact type may remain).

Another aspect of can morphology is that many tin-plated steel cans have designs on the cans themselves (not on paper labels) that supply chronological information, information about the contents, or information about the manufacturer. Rapid post-fire deterioration of designs that have otherwise persisted for decades has been observed. A suspected reason is that, when wood ash and hot water come into contact with the cans, the potassium hydroxide associated with the wood ash attacks the tin plating.

Glass. Damage such as cracking and spalling can begin by 200oC-500oC. Loss of information can result from the loss of artifact design elements which, like maker‘s marks, can be time- diagnostic. Glass color, in some cases also time-diagnostic, is usually preserved. Information regarding the contents of a glass vessel (with information about dietary practices) can be lost if the form of the container is destroyed.

Other considerations. Several other considerations apply, and are loosely grouped below.

Features. Fire can affect archaeological features in a variety of ways. Concentrations of fire- affected rock resulting from natural fires can be mistaken for a cultural feature, burned stump holes can be mistaken for pit houses (both of these conclusions based on professional experience); and oxidized soil features and ash pockets can be mistaken for cultural features such as hearths (Buenger 2003:10). Fire has the potential to completely consume some types of artifacts/features, such as historic wooden corrals. It can also destroy vegetation components of historic sites, such as trees or rosebushes that mark historic occupations, that sometimes remain long after the cabins themselves have disappeared.

34

Setting. Fire can alter the settings of sites or Traditional Cultural Properties, sometimes in positive ways (as when burning restores conditions likely to be more similar to those of the past). In some cases, fire can also enhance growing conditions for traditional plants, for example by restoring fire regimes that favor native plants adapted to the local fire regime.

Site visibility. Removal of ground surface fuels can increase the visibility of sites and artifacts, making the sites more vulnerable to looters. Even partial removal of ground surface fuels (especially duff) can increase the visibility of sites (Hanson 2001). A positive aspect of such removal is that (with post-fire survey to identify currently unrecorded sites, or monitoring to better document known ones) it may provide for better understanding and documentation of the archaeological record. Wildfire, at least in general, is a greater concern than is prescribed burning, which can be planned so as to try to reduce the amount of burning down to mineral soil.

Paleoenvironmental data. Modern fire can destroy evidence of fires in prehistory, whether from scars on trees or from use of fire-affected archaeological dating techniques. Knowledge of past fires can provide information useful in restoring past landscape conditions (Deal and McLemore 2002:17), as well as in understanding how prehistoric peoples used fire in land management.

Erosion. Most of the effects discussed immediately above involve direct effects for analysis purposes; erosion, weathering, and increased site visibility involve indirect ones. Erosion in the sense important for archaeology can occur when loss of vegetation cover as a result of fire or other causes results in local soil movement or loss. This can lead to loss of artifact contexts, removing information from the sites.

Weathering. More studies on long-term fire effects to artifacts would be helpful, but it is safe to suggest that organic materials are relatively susceptible to weathering effects. For example, since temperatures above 400oC can fracture weathered bone (Buenger 2003:314), heating to that temperature could result in accelerated weathering.

Looting. Vegetation removal resulting from fire, use of mechanical equipment, or other causes can result in increases site/artifact visibility, increasing the potential for looting.

Interaction with soil disturbances caused by living things (bioturbation). Fire has the potential to interact with various agents that disturb soil, such as livestock trampling, tree fall, and rodent burrowing. Tree fall can affect stratigraphy, artifacts, and features where the tree falls; the pulling up of the roots can also disrupt stratigraphy, bringing buried artifacts to the ground surface and potentially complicating their interpretation by removing them from their context.

35 Prescribed burning may slow the effects of tree fall, where it reduces tree mortality associated with wildfire.

Where fire results in more nutritious vegetation, it may encourage animal trampling associated with grazing. Rodent burrowing—at least by ground squirrels, which favor more open conditions that allow them to see predators more readily—may also be increased by vegetation-removing fire.

Table 1: Temperatures Reached in a Sample of Fuel Types

Fuel Type Surface Duration Comments Source Temperature (Peak Duration* where available) Annual Grassland 80oC-160oC Usually short -- Skinner 2002:143 Grassland 100oC to over 680oC Usually short -- Skinner (General) 2002:143

Grass/Mixed Elevated Buenger Conifer temperatures can 2003:312 Grass 100oC-300oC 10-20 sec persist for up to Grass/Forest 250oC-500oC 5-15 min two hours (for Litter log fuels); in Log 450oC-600oC 5-20 min order of smaller to larger fuels, Buenger categorizes the effects as limited, moderate, and significant (a generalization across artifact types). Shrub/Chaparral Varies Varies Can reach Skinner 700oC, but one 2002:143;

36 Fuel Type Surface Duration Comments Source Temperature (Peak Duration* where available) study reported Halford and averages of 350- Halford 370oC for 2002:48 shrublands. Temperatures over 500oC have been reported for more than 10 minutes. Halford and Halford report even higher temperatures for chaparral, noting 931oC even for subsurface temperatures. Sagebrush Elevated Buenger Small/Medium 150oC-300oC 1-3 min temperatures can 2003:312 Large 250oC-500oC 2-4 min persist for up to 15 minutes; Buenger categorizes the fire impact to artifacts as moderate. Trees Highest Skinner (General) temperatures can 2002:143 range from 620- 1000oC, usually with burning of heavy logging debris.

37 Fuel Type Surface Duration Comments Source Temperature (Peak Duration* where available) Mixed conifer Elevated Buenger Duff/Litter 200oC-400oC 1-2 min temperatures can 2003:312 Log 400oC-800oC 5-20 min last for four or more hours (for log fuels); Buenger categorizes the fire impacts to artifacts as moderate (duff/litter) or significant (log).

Temperatures may be relatively low under some circumstances; one study showed surface temperatures from 90oC to over 250oC (Skinner 2002:143). Yellow Pine 137oC to 482oC. 21 hours for a One fire Fites et al. case in which behavior 2007 logs were assessment consumed. showed a range from 137oC to 482oC, with all fires ranked as low intensity. Understory

38 Fuel Type Surface Duration Comments Source Temperature (Peak Duration* where available) vegetation and pine density varied. *Generally not defined by the authors.

Table 1 shows a wide range of temperatures and durations, for a sample of fuel types. Other variables (such as fuel moisture) are not specified, since the figures are intended only to provide a sense of possible durations and temperatures reached. Table 2 below provides information regarding archaeological artifacts and data types for comparison. In essence, the first table provides some general guidelines to identify circumstances under which a threshold of concern may be reached, while Table 2 documents the thresholds for particular material and data types.

Table 2: Artifact and Data Types and Effects of Fire

Artifact or Data Threshold Temperature for Comments Source(s) Type Damage to Begin Obsidian hydration 149oC and up; 200oC; 204oC; Occurs with short Benson 2002:100; dating >260oC: at these peak duration. Skinner 2002:144; temperatures, the rind may Schroder 2002:8; become diffuse, but may Halford and Halford remain measurable. The rind 2002:48 is removed at approximately 400oC. Thermoluminescence 400oC; 450oC Useful for (burned) De Bano et al. dating flaked stone; 1998:275; Laboratory ceramics; bricks (various) guidelines for sample submission. Archaeomagnetic >600oC; at least 500oC Normally used for Archaeomagnetic dating burned earth Research Group; associated with Thoms 2008 features such as fire hearths, or for sediments associated

39 Artifact or Data Threshold Temperature for Comments Source(s) Type Damage to Begin with archeological features. Radiocarbon Depends upon effects to The technique applies -- dating material types. Mixture of to organic materials modern carbon with the such as wood, bone, materials to be dated can and shell. make artifacts appear younger than they are. Fission track dating Varies depending on mineral Applies to stone with Guedes et al. 2007 type. One study reports certain mineral types complete removal of the (apatite, zircon, tracks after one hour of titanite), and heating to 350oC, on apatite. sometimes glass. Maker‘s marks See glass and ceramics. -- -- (dating) Obsidian 450-550oC for many types of -- Buenger 2003:17; (mechanical damage) damage to obsidian; 313 vesiculation (in which the materials becomes a Styrofoam-like mass) occurs at approximately 800-1000oC Basalt (mechanical 350oC-400oC, for spalling -- Winthrop 2004 damage) and flaking Chert 200oC for color change; other Alterations in color Buenger 2003; changes occur at higher (and luster) can affect National Park Service temperatures, with the exact the ability to identify 2005:B-1 temperature depending partly heat-treatment (a on the chert type. One source technique often used reports that cracking, as part of the spalling, and shattering occur flintknapping at 350oC. process). Ceramics 500oC to 1250oC, depending Original firing Buenger on type temperature affects 2003/various sources the temperatures at which damage occurs. Prehistoric

40 Artifact or Data Threshold Temperature for Comments Source(s) Type Damage to Begin ceramics were often fired at substantially lower temperatures (as low as 400oC) than were historic ones. Shell 300oC (combustion) -- Buenger 2003:313 Bone 250oC (carbonization); 400oC Temperatures starting Buenger 2003:22; (charring) at 100oC will affect De Bano et al. the organic element, 1998:273 but not the inorganic one (see Buenger 2003). Burned bones are more brittle than unburned ones, and therefore overall preservation may be affected (National Park Service 2005:B- 3). Groundstone 375oC for smudging; fire can Effects at higher De Bano et al. also result in the exfoliation temperatures can 1998:271; Mealey of groundstone associated include cracking, 2007 with residues such as protein, spalling, and phytoliths, or pollen; disintegration. mechanical damage develops at differ temperatures for different rock types Macrobotanical Seeds and other plant All types could be National Park Service remains (seeds, materials tend to be preserved consumed, but some 2005:B-3 fibers, and other in the majority of sites only will be more plant elements when carbonized. vulnerable than visible without a Carbonized remains are others (e.g., fibers microscope) relatively fire-resistant. would likely be less However, modern and resistant than seeds). archaeological charcoal (or, potentially, other plant

41 Artifact or Data Threshold Temperature for Comments Source(s) Type Damage to Begin remains) might become more difficult to distinguish from each other in certain contexts. Pollen 300oC -- Winthrop 2004 Phytoliths Relatively fire –resistant Can preserve in Parr 2006, Pearsall (laboratory procedures for prehistoric fire 2009:438 phytolith extraction suggest hearths (potentially that they fare well in representing the types temperatures up to at least of fuels used). 800oC, in at least some Although color can circumstances). be affected by burning (possibly confusing interpretations of plants used for food), it may be possible to distinguish naturally dark phytoliths from burned ones. Starch grains (useful 100oC (for distortion; studies Pearsall 2009 notes Valamoti et al. 2008 in identifying plants suggest that the amount of that moist heat can processed by distortion is dependent on the distort starch grains, humans) amount of available water as and charring can well as temperature); destroy starch grains charring at 270oC can result or make them in complete loss of granule difficult to extract. structure (but this may vary by species). DNA 800oC -- Tontarski et al. 2009 Proteins (useful in 250oC (for antigens); -- Leach and Mauldin studying processing materials for some types of 1996; Winthrop 2004 of plant and animal studies can survive up to resources) 800oC Lipids (informally Needs further research Discussion of the Colombini and defined as fats; they effects of fire on Modugno 2009:197 may provide clues to lipids is limited, past diets) although Colombini

42 Artifact or Data Threshold Temperature for Comments Source(s) Type Damage to Begin and Modugno note that the chemistry of lipids can be affected by heat, among other factors. Glass 200oC (cracking); 750oC- -- Buenger 2003:313 850oC (melting); window and De Bano et al. glass can undergo effects 1998:271; National including melting Park Service 2005:B- temperatures above 500oC. 4 One study reports melting at 540oC for soda lime glass including window glass, 420oC for lead glass (used for such items as ―crystal‖ tableware). Metal 232oC (tin, used for -- Buenger 2003, kitchenware, toys, and Winthrop 2004; building materials) to National Park Service 1,540oC for iron (used for 2005:B-5 cans, nails, and horseshoes, among other artifacts) Leather, rubber, Dimensional lumber can National Park Service wood, historic ignite at about 350oC (wood 2005:B-6; Haecker plastics in historic contexts is 2001 probably more susceptible, in part due to decomposition from weathering); rubber is consumed in relatively low- intensity fires (e.g., certain grass fires); plastics melt between 75 and 265oC; dried leather can char in a low- intensity (grass) fire. Note: Entries in grey would normally be examined in subsurface contexts due to preservation and/or contamination concerns.

43

44 Appendix B: Hat Creek Ranger District Considerations for Use of Mechanical Equipment and Work Completed by Hand

45 Mechanical equipment use (line construction, mechanical tree and brush removal, brush crushing, and construction/maintenance/use of roads, landings, or staging areas). Mechanical equipment driven within a site can break and displace artifacts and damage or destroy features, and may cause ground disturbance including compaction, which can affect soil stratification and spatial relationships among artifacts. Displacement of artifacts can subtract from their ability to provide scientific information (in cases in which patterned artifact distribution within a site would reveal how people organized their activities).

Soil compaction related to vehicle traffic is typically evident between 5 and 30 cm in depth, and therefore has the potential to affect buried deposits. Soil compaction will slow water infiltration, potentially resulting in changes in soil chemistry, organic content, and hydrology, with possible effects including increased runoff and erosion. The amount of soil compaction is affected by many variables including vehicle weight and speed, as well as the frequency of traffic (Means et al. 2011:31).

Soil compression (sometimes treated as a component of compaction) has differing preservation implications for different artifact types. Animal bones, shell, some types of plant remains (including charcoal), and ceramics are likely to decay more rapidly if compression is increased. Stone artifacts are expected to be unaffected (National Park Service Archeology Program Technical Brief 5).

Use of wheeled versus tracked vehicles, and how they are operated within a site, can affect the potential for damage, as can other factors such as soil moisture. One discussion notes that an individual (for their discussion, military) vehicle‘s effects to the landscape depend upon the vehicle‘s static properties (velocity, acceleration, and turning) and the landscape conditions (soil texture and moisture, slope, and vegetation type). Wheeled vehicles, for example, can cause deeper soil disturbance because the weight is spread over less surface area; however, tracked vehicles tend to skid and drag on turns, and may cause more horizontal soil displacement, although wheeled vehicles generally may create wider and deeper ruts (Means et al. 2011:20, 26).

Use of rubber-tired vehicles in archaeological sites under dry or frozen soil conditions and with turns minimized or avoided has sometimes been considered acceptable within certain types of archaeological sites, but the effects of mechanical equipment use within an archaeological site will of course also depend upon the nature of the archaeological materials.

Factors include the depth of the cultural deposits, artifact and feature density, artifact size and fragility, feature dimensions, degree to which the deposits are stratified, and the site‘s structural complexity (list adapted from Means et al. 2011:44). It will also depend upon how the effects relate to the site‘s potential values; damage to or displacement of artifacts may not significantly

46 affect the values, or may have the potential to reduce or destroy a site‘s information potential or other values, depending upon the nature of the values.

Vehicle traffic within sites can also make results of geophysical prospecting more difficult to interpret (Means et al. 2011:20). Several geophysical methods are used in archaeology, frequently to identify buried site features for excavation, or for avoidance by project activities.

Finally, road use or changes in road use can, depending upon the type of site, have ongoing impacts to sites. For example, for lithic scatters, artifact damage can increase as road use continues. Tires can pick up and displace some types of artifacts, and any erosion resulting from the presence of the road can also result in displacement.

Brush piling. Brush piling could be accomplished with grapple piling or a brush rake. Both would pull brush up by the roots, resulting in ground disturbance. Transporting the roots would move some soil (and, potentially, any adhering artifacts) into burn piles. Grapple piling may result in somewhat less surface disturbance than use of a brush rake, but both methods would have the potential to damage artifacts through (1) breakage and displacement associated with mechanical equipment; (2) horizontal and vertical displacement of artifacts or feature elements, and potentially disruption of stratigraphy, as a result of uprooting brush; and (3) fire-caused damage to any artifacts transported into burn piles.

Hand line construction. Ground disturbance is relatively limited in hand line construction, but some potential for damage to or displacement of artifacts, or elements of features, exists. Hand line construction can also make sites and artifacts more readily visible, increasing the potential for looting.

Hand-cutting. A degree of trampling is associated with hand-cutting. If the work is extensive, care would be needed to avoid concentrated tramping within certain types of archaeological sites, including lithic scatters. Any sites with especially susceptible artifacts, such as shell beads, would require further protection measures; however, such artifacts are not known for the project area. Cut materials would be removed from sites to decrease the potential for damage due to wildfire.

Tree planting and seedling release. Again, hand work has less potential to result in damage than does use of mechanical equipment. Artifacts could, however, be damaged or displaced, and the integrity of soil layers (and thus spatial relationships between artifacts) could be reduced.

Brush removal (in general). Brush removal can provide increased access to previously largely impassable areas, which can result in increased potential for looting if sites are present.

47

Trampling (humans). Various experiments have shown that concentrated trampling within a site can impact artifacts and features. When done in prehistoric or historic times, trampling effects to spatial patterning of artifacts can offer information about activities from the time of interest (see, for example, Theunissen et al. 1998). When done in more recent times, it can result in horizontal and vertical displacement of artifacts, and in some cases remove traces of tool use— or create damage that mimics tool use, for example creating fractures that could suggest use in prehistoric arrow/dart/spear points (Pargeter 2011).

Road decommissioning/rehabilitation. Effects of decommissioning and rehabilitation vary depending upon how the work is completed. In general, closures accomplished with barriers placed outside site boundaries would not be expected to damage the sites. Rehabilitation involving ripping the soil can result in new or cumulative damage, for example further damaging and displacing artifacts already affected by road construction/maintenance/use.

Installation of barriers or temporary fencing. Where these activities are ground-disturbing, as with the installation of boulders (which are most effective when the lower surface is buried), there is potential for the disturbance of any buried deposits present. Above-ground fencing, such as jack-and-pole, has a reduced potential for impacts.

Water source development. Potential effects would depend upon the processes needed to develop the water source.

48