East Hills Cultural Resources Report

East Hills Project

Cultural Resources Report

Prepared by: Michelle Durant, M.A. Fremont-Winema NF Eastside Archaeologist

for: Bly and Chiloquin Ranger Districts Fremont-Winema National Forest

August 10, 2017

The U.S, Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Introduction This report fulfills requirements under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), is intended to discuss the potential effects both beneficial and detrimental, that the project may have on cultural resources in the project area.

Cultural resources (also known as heritage resources) include structures, sites, roads, trails, areas, and objects of scientific, historic or social value (as defined in 36 CFR 800.2(e). They are irreplaceable, nonrenewable features documenting past human use on our nation’s lands. Within the National Forests, these sites document the prehistoric and historic life-ways of the American Indian, the routes and actions of the early explorers, trappers, and settlers, the industrial activities of logging, mining, and stock grazing, community resource use, the history of forest recreation, and National Forest administration. Any ground-disturbing activity, including the proposed action or its alternatives, has the potential to damage the significant important data, features, historic qualities, and natural settings of these sites unless adequate protections or mitigations are undertaken.

In addition to NEPA, the Forest Service is required by additional laws to take into consideration the potential effects to cultural resources. Federal laws pertaining to cultural resource protection include: Section 110 and 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (Public Law 89-665; 16 USC 470-470w-6), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (Public Law 91-190; 42 USC 4321-4347) and applicable regulations (36 CFR part 60, 296 and 800). All alternatives of the East Hills Project complies with all applicable laws and regulations pertinent to cultural resources.

Heritage Resource Concerns Cultural resources are inherently finite, and do not recover from detrimental disturbance. Therefore efforts must be made to minimize or avoid disturbance to known resources. Ground disturbance is the main factor with the potential to disturb heritage sites. Proposed activities in this project that have the potential to disturb heritage sites include:

• Mechanized Tree Thinning Commercial Harvest Proposed commercial harvest activities include use of mechanical harvesters and yarding with skidders or forwarders and processing on landings. Logs would be yarded to landings with intact limbs and tops. At the conclusion of the treatment, landings would be scarified. Direct impacts to cultural resources using these methods would be caused by tree falling, use of heavy machinery, yarding and scarification. Tree falling could damage sites by the physical action of large trees landing on sites, gouging tree limbs into the ground surface. Use of rubber tired and tracked equipment and yarding (dragging trees) to landings could also cause damage to sites in the form of soil displacement, compaction and displacement or damage to artifacts. Rubber tired logging and excavating equipment focuses the weight of the machine on just four points which compacts soil more than tracked machinery. Tracked machinery spreads out the weight of the equipment over a larger area reducing soil compaction but causes more soil displacement than rubber tired equipment. Silvicultural soil scarification uses heavy equipment to purposefully scuff the ground surface to promote vegetation growth which can cause displacement or damage to artifacts. Indirect impacts include increased traffic near site locations, exposure both to the elements, and the creation of vegetation “islands” because of the “Flag and Avoid” method to protect sites from

direct impacts. Un-cut “islands” may draw attention from woodcutters, recreationists and even to cattle seeking shade.

Small and Large Tree Mechanical Thinning Mechanical thinning treatments would be accomplished using ground-based equipment limited to areas were slopes are less than 35%. Direct impacts to cultural resources include tree falling and use of heavy machinery. Impacts would mirror those described in the previous paragraphs.

• Hand Tree Thinning Proposed hand treatments consist of cutting small trees, generally <7 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) for lodgepole pine and <9 inches DBH for ponderosa pine, sugar pine and white fir using chainsaws. Treatments conducted by hand is an undertaking that has little to no potential to cause direct effects to historic properties according to Appendix A of the 2004 Programmatic Agreement between the US Forest Service (Region 6), the Advisory council on Historic Preservation, and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Indirect impacts include exposure due to increased traffic near site locations and the elements, and the creation of “vegetation islands” because the Forest practices the “Flag and Avoid” method to protect sites. As previously mentioned, un-cut “islands” draw attention from woodcutters, recreationists and even livestock seeking shade.

• Hand Piling and Pile Burning Material derived from the mechanical or hand treatments may be piled and burned. Pile burning can directly impact cultural resources if the material is piled on a site. When the pile is ignited, the ground where the pile meets the soil experiences intense temperatures. Intense temperatures can consume or alter artifacts.

• Lop and Scatter Lop and scatter leaves debris on the ground which has the potential to increase the fuel load. An indirect potential impact of increasing the fuel load would be an increase in fire temperatures during a wildfire.

• Road Maintenance Road maintenance, such as installation and cleaning of ditches and culverts, construction of water bars, earthen berms and/or cross ditches, in undisturbed ground; has the potential to directly damage sites. Damage occurs when moving material, compacting soil and leaving the area susceptible to erosion. Surface and subsurface artifacts could be displaced and/or crushed by heavy equipment and traffic. Site context and integrity are also threatened. A negative indirect effect may be temporarily increasing public access that may lead to vandalism and/or looting.

• Temporary Road Construction The temporary roads would be built to low-standards, used for only a short duration and decommissioned following project activities. Low-standard construction consists of removal of trees in the path, then blading the path to remove additional vegetation and/or rocks. The road width would average 12-14 feet and the road surface would remain native soils. Blading has the potential to directly damage sites if equipment moves into undisturbed ground. Impacts would mirror those described in the previous paragraph.

• Road System Management Road system management activities include road decommissioning, road closures, and potential motor vehicle use map (MVUM) amendments. Of the three management activities, only road decommissioning has the potential to cause direct effects to cultural resources. Road decommissioning can take a variety of forms from simply removing road identification signs; constructing a barrier, removing culverts, and ripping the road surface; to full re-contour of the road prism. A positive indirect effect of all three road management activities would be decreased access to cultural sites that may lead to a decrease in vandalism and looting. A negative indirect effect would be a decrease in tribal access. Coordination between heritage and road management personnel to ensure that barrier construction and ripping doesn’t occur within a site would prevent direct impacts.

• Prescribed Fire Direct effects of prescribed fire could include site damage associated with fireline construction and potentially excessive heat. Fireline construction, whether by hand or mechanical methods could displace or physically alter surface and subsurface artifacts and other site characteristics such as site context and integrity. Fireline construction may reveal that the site was larger than its surface manifestation. High temperatures generated by heavy fuel loads, and/or unfavorable burning conditions, could damage sites by consuming or altering artifacts such as glass, metal, wood or lithics. Low intensity fires – such as those lower than 212°F at a depth of 1-2 cm – have less adverse effects on many cultural resources than high intensity fires – lower than 662-842°F at 1-2 cm and greater than 212°F at 5 cm (Fowler 2008). Obsidian hydration rinds are compromised at 400-650°F (Green et. al. 1997). Cherts are physically altered at 350-550°F and basalt fractures around 400°F. Fire also causes potlidding and discoloration to groundstone (Deal 2002). Indirect effects may include tree mortality of culturally altered trees (arborglyph and/or peeled cambium trees) and increased erosion due to loss of vegetation cover. Negative indirect effects of re-introducing fire may be increased damage from erosion and artifact exposure. A positive indirect effect could be the restoration of the visual context of the site and possible revitalization of ethnobotanical flora.

Jackpot Burning Jackpot burning is burning of slash concentrations. Fire lines are not used to control the fire during Jackpot Burning. Thus there are no direct effects associated with fireline construction. However, due to the increased fuel load, fire temperatures may increase. Increased temperatures could generate both the direct and indirect effects associated with increased heat as described in the Prescribed Fire section of this document.

Measure of potential effects to Heritage Resources Cultural or heritage resources are qualitative and thus cannot be measured in a quantitative manner.

Affected Environment Existing Condition

Project Area Background/History The East Hills Project analysis area is split diagonally from northeast to southwest by the Sycan River, which lies in the Upper Klamath Basin. The Sycan River flows southwesterly from

springs in the Gearhart Mountain Wilderness through the Sycan Marsh, from which it derives its name, to drain into the Sprague River. “Sycan,” is a combination of two Klamath Tribal words, saiga and keni, meaning “the level, grassy place.” The Klamath Tribal name for Sprague River is Plaikini Koke or “river from the high country” (McArthur 1974:690 and 710).

The Upper Klamath Basin is a transitional zone between the Cascade Mountains to the west and the Basin and Range province to the east, defining the western fringe of the north-westernmost extension of the hydrographic Great Basin. Hydrographic is defined as an area that drains internally (Grayson 1993:11). Yet, contrary to the definition, water from the Upper Klamath Basin flows to the sea.

There is very good documentation on the prehistoric and historic usage of the East Hills Project analysis area. A number of systematic archaeological investigations have been conducted in the Upper Klamath Basin. These include excavations at localities along Sprague River and at Sycan Marsh, which lies within the immediate vicinity of the East Hills Project analysis area. From 1947 to 1951, Luther Cressman, father of Oregon Archaeology, excavated Medicine Rock Cave, Kawumkan Springs and other sites along the Sprague River. He noted that Kawumkan Springs had been intensively occupied for 5,000 years (Cressman 1956).

The majority of the archaeological interest in the East Hills Project analysis area stems from the existence of extensive obsidian deposits in the area. Two obsidian geochemical types, the Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh and the Spodue Mountain, have been identified (Hughes 1985, 1986; Thatcher 2001). These sources “generally occur as buried, but eroding flows with heavily weathered angular, subangular, and subrounded clasts that range in size from boulders to pebbles” (Flanniken et. al. 1990:29). Unfortunately, a complete landscape distribution analysis of the deposits is not yet available for the two geochemical sources.

However, Spodue Mountain obsidian from the East Hills Project area has been found in additional archaeological contexts throughout the state, which suggests a widespread distribution of the material. For example, two of the 158 obsidian artifacts recovered at the Paisley Fivemile Point Caves (35LK3500) originated at Spodue (Skinner 2008). The Caves are located in the Summer Lake Basin of south-central Oregon. Spodue obsidian was also discovered at the Paulina Lake site (35DS34) in Deschutes County, the Tahkenitch Landing Site (35-DO-130) in Douglas County and at sites along the Upper Klamath River (Aikens et. al. 2011:160-164; Thatcher 2001; Mack 2011).

In the late 1970s, a land exchange between Weyerhaeuser Company and the Deschutes, Fremont and Winema National Forests was proposed. An Environmental Assessment was initiated and a cultural survey of the lands proposed for exchange was conducted. Surveyors recorded lithic scatters and resource procurement sites. They declared that the land exchange would have an adverse effect on the cultural resources and pursued an Archaeological District designation on the National Register of Historic Places. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation agreed that the proposed Sycan Marsh Archaeological District was eligible, but it was never listed (Bunten 1977 and 1979). In the end, the proposed land exchange failed due to the adverse effect claim.

In 1980, the Fremont National Forest sponsored an analysis of 20 sites within the proposed Sycan Marsh Archaeological District. The focus of the analysis was “to evaluate the stone tool technology evident at these sites” (Flenniken, et. al. 1980:1). Based on the collected data, researchers found two distinct biface reduction systems. Unfortunately, chronological limits were not established for the systems (Flenniken, et. al. 1980:9).

In 1983, an X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis of the local obsidian occurred. Researchers systematically surface collected samples of natural obsidian from five lithic scatter/quarry sites along the Sycan and Sprague River. Four of the five sites currently exist within the East Hills Project analysis area boundary. At the time, the objective of the obsidian analysis was to assist the Winema National Forest in implementing the Forest Service, Region 6, Lithic Scatter Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement. Through the obsidian analysis, researchers found a distinct separation between the Silver Lake/Sycan and the Spodue Mountain sources just south of the Sycan Marsh, before Torrent Spring (Hughes 1985).

In 1989, the Sycan Marsh site (35LK2336), located just outside of the East Hills Project boundary, was excavated. Excavation resulted in the conclusion that the site had “been a seasonally occupied residential site where procurement of obsidian and plant materials were the major prehistoric activities” (Flenniken et.al. 1990:ii). XRF analysis of a sample of obsidian artifacts from 35LK2336 found that although the majority of obsidian derived from the local Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh obsidian source, a few originated from the Spodue Mountain and Cougar Mountain obsidian sources (Flenniken et. al. 1990).

The East Hills Project analysis area lies within Klamath Tribal Territory. On December 15, 1843, John C. Fremont, on his 2nd Expeditionary Route, traveled through Sycan Marsh where he spoke with a Klamath sub-chief (Fremont 1845). In 1910, ethnographer Barrett reported that the Sycan Marsh area was within Klamath territory despite the fact that one of his Paiute informants claimed the marsh was within the Yahooskin (also spelled Yahuskin) band of Northern Paiute territory (Barrett 1910:240-241). Later, ethnographer Leslie Spier also placed the Sycan Marsh and its associated river within Klamath territory. He wrote that the “Sycan River, Sycan Marsh and Yamsey Mountain [were] summer resorts of the Klamath Tribe who had their easternmost settlement (hicdic-lue’luke) somewhere west of Gearhart Mountain” (Spier 1930:10). However, he wasn’t certain that the Sycan River was regularly occupied, but it was a root harvesting area (Spier 1930:13). Stern reinforced Spier’s conviction that the Sycan Marsh was an important root source for the Klamath and the Paiute (Stern 1966:12).

The Klamath Tribe, known to themselves as ma’klaks, were divided into four or five subdivisions (Spier 1930:21). They were semi-sedentary hunter-gatherers who practiced a subsistence and settlement strategy based on seasonal availability of local plant and animal resources, with a focus on riverine and lacustrine resources (Silvermoon 1985:48-50). Permanent villages were typically located in the lowlands and were occupied during the winter months. Mountain uplands such as the East Hills Project analysis area, typically received seasonal use associated with subsistence needs such as summer deer hunting, berry picking and root gathering. Root crops like epos, onion and biscuit root continue to thrive within the scabrock meadows that exist in the area. As noted above, the East Hills Project analysis area also has abundant obsidian deposits which were exploited for tool manufacturing (Minor et al. 1979:96-98; Silvermoon 1985:37-39).

General Land Office (GLO) maps dated 1866 to 1895 for Township 34 South, Range 11 and 12 East supports the idea that the East Hills Project analysis area was heavily used for subsistence and obsidian procurement. The maps record an intricate network of aboriginal trails. The trails may also indicate that the East Hills Project analysis area was a travel corridor between residential areas as noted by ethnographer Leslie Spier.

Today, the Klamath, along with the Modoc and the Yahooskin band of the Northern Paiute, are part of the Klamath Tribes. In 1864, the Klamath Tribes signed the Klamath Lake Treaty ceding over 13 million acres of their lands to the United States government. About 1.1 million acres were retained for the Klamath Reservation. The boundary of the reservation shrank to 862,622

acres by 1954 due to several land exclusions (Zucker et al. 1983:107-108). The eastern boundary of the former 1954 Klamath Reservation cuts through the eastern portion of the East Hills Project analysis area. Thus, more than ¾ of the analysis area falls within the former 1954 Klamath Reservation (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The East Hills Project analysis area in association with the former 1954 Klamath Reservation.

Lieutenant-Colonel Drew and the missions of the U.S. Army in the 1860s helped set the stage for Euro-American settlement. In 1865, Bryan J. Pengra, president of the Southern Oregon Military Road Company and Surveyor General of Oregon, surveyed through the Sprague River Valley looking for a good route for the proposed Southern Oregon Military Road (Minor et al. 1979:148). The road, recorded today as site 35LA379, was to connect Eugene to Boise, Idaho. To facilitate construction (which began in Eugene in 1865), Congress granted Oregon alternate odd-numbered sections for three miles on either side of the proposed route. In turn, the odd- numbered sections were granted to the Southern Oregon Military Road Company (Minor et. al. 1979:150-156). On the eastern side of the Cascade Mountain Range, the route headed south from the Crescent Lake area, through Upper Klamath Marsh to the Sprague River, traversing the Klamath Reservation. The route then headed east following Sprague River. It crossed the Sycan River at its confluence with Sprague River (O’Callaghan 1952). This portion of the route was constructed in 1868 and 1869. Later, portions of the road became State Highway 140, which was built in the late 1930s.

Euro-American settlement in the Upper Sprague River Valley and Sycan watershed began in the 1870s and steadily grew as cattle producers recognized the areas potential for economic prosperity. The first settler was William H. Gearhart, who brought a herd of cattle into the area in 1872 (Helfrich 1974:21). In 1879, Edward Drinker Cope, an American paleontologist and evolutionist, traveled from Fort Klamath along Sprague River then north through Sycan Marsh to Silver Lake. He noted two houses with numerous cattle at Sycan Marsh (Cope 1889:972). Since

1980, the Sycan Marsh has been managed by the Nature Conservancy in partnership with the historic ZX Ranch, who holds the grazing lease for the area.

Even the Fremont National Forest’s primary function, from its conception in 1908 to around the 1940s, was grazing administration (Silvermoon 1985:159; Bach 1981: iv). The Fremont National Forest began as the Goose Lake Forest Reserve, which was proposed in 1903 and then established in August 1906 after President Theodore Roosevelt signed into law the Transfer Act of 1905 which created the U.S. Forest Service. The Reserve “extended from the Warner Mountains north of the California line, and the area surrounding Dog Lake north to the line between the Klamath Indian Reservation and the town of Paisley” (Bach 1981:13). It was soon followed by the establishment of the Fremont Forest Reserve in September. The Fremont Forest Reserve extended north of the Goose Lake Reserve almost to Bend. Then in 1908, portions of the Fremont Forest Reserve transferred to the Deschutes and the Umpqua and the Fremont and Goose Lake Forests were combined to become the Fremont National Forest (Bach 1981: 12-13, 33).

Prior to the establishment of the Fremont, the newly formed Forest Service was authorized by Congress in 1897 to regulate grazing and permit it as long as it did not injure forest growth. In an effort to control grazing on the Forests, the Forest Service developed a permit system and divided up the National Forest System lands into grazing allotments that were then further divided into pastures. Stock driveways were also designated throughout the Fremont Forest. Stock Driveways allowed stock to be moved across grazing leases. The center of each driveway was marked with metal signs nailed to trees. One such driveway generally follows the eastern boundary of the East Hills Project analysis area. It was 40 miles long and was called the Bly- Silver Lake Stock Driveway. According to a 1945 Fremont National Forest Grazing Report, it took 4 days for cattle to be driven across the driveway and 4 to 5 days to drive sheep.

It was during this time that the Upper Sprague River and Sycan watershed experienced intense grazing pressure, more intense than is allowed today. The former Klamath Reservation was managed by the Department of the Interior, Indian Service (known today as the Bureau of Indian Affairs). The Indian Service encouraged livestock grazing as a viable economic strategy for Klamath Tribal members. Stern (1966:61) noted that there were 1,485 cattle, 3,640 horses, 340 mules, 195 hogs and an uncounted number of sheep on the reservation in 1886. By 1907, Guy Ingram, Fremont Forest Supervisor, reported that overstocking and overgrazing on the Fremont Forest was one of his top concerns (Bach 1981:21). Competition between stock raisers had grown fierce and the effects of overgrazing on the landscape become apparent even to them. In response to the concern, Congress passed the Taylor Grazing Act on June 28, 1934. The act provided for better administration of the range with consideration of local conditions when defining season of use and carrying capacity (Beckham 2000:104-105, 110; Bach 1981:148-149).

In addition to grazing, the Indian Service, managed the former Klamath Reservation for timber production. Management emphasis within the Indian Service switched from grazing to timber after 1910 when Congress passed legislation allowing for the commercial sale of timber on reservations to benefit tribes. The Forestry Branch of the Indian Service also feared that if logging units were not logged quickly, then timber proceeds would be lost. Regulations set forth in the 1926 Reservation Timber Management plan forbid single sales of more than 100 mmbf, (Tonsfeldt 1987:145-146). By the early 1920s, the Klamath Reservation was carved up into sale areas (Pierce 1957; Tonsfeldt 1987b:91-93). By the end of the 1920s, the Klamath Reservation had provided more than half the timber in the Klamath Basin (Tonsfeldt 2002:63).

During the 1930s, the western bark beetle infestation forced a change. Beetle damage was first noted on the southern slopes of the Black Hills and Calimus Butte in 1918 (Durant 2006:131).

By 1928, the Forest Insect Laboratory of Stanford University declared that approximately 10% of the total stand in the Upper Sprague River and Sycan watershed was lost (Kenny 1950). Some attention was then diverted from timber exploitation to conservation in the form of beetle control until WWII. To do the work, the Indian Service employed the Civilian Conservation Corp – Indian Division (CCC-ID). Treatment consisted of conducting a survey during the summer months to find beetle infestation centers. Infected trees were blazed and marked with a serial number. During the winter, CCC-ID enrollees were sent into the infected centers, where they felled the marked trees, then peeled the bark away from the trunk and stump (Figure 2). The bark would then be burned (Durant 2006: 131-132).

Figure 2. CCC-ID enrollees removing bark from a western bark beetle infected log on the Klamath Reservation in 1935.

According to a 1957 logging map, three reservation timber sale areas fall into the East Hills Project analysis area, the Sykan, the Kanott and South Kanott. All three areas were further dissected into small cutting units. Cutting units in the Sykan area were cut between 1938 and 1946. The Kanott area was cut between 1945 and 1949. South Kanott saw activity from 1939 to 1944 (Pierce 1957).

In the aftermath of the Depression, the late 1930s and early 1940s was a time of technological transition within the timber industry. Timber companies were looking to reduce costs by introducing new technology such as fairlead arches and trucks, and shying away from the use of railroads (Tonsfeldt 1987a:162-168). This probably accounts for why there are few railroad logging sites within the East Hills Project analysis area. However, there is one prominent railroad site. It is the second line, the Woods Line, off of the Oregon California & Eastern Railroad that stretched from the town of Klamath Falls to the town of Bly.

Construction of the OC&E Woods Line began in 1940, about ½ mile north of the town of Beatty. At the connection of the two railroad lines, Weyerhaeuser also established an interchange yard and shop to repair logging and railroad equipment. The Woods line travels northeast, along the eastern boundary of the East Hills Project analysis area, ending at Sycan Marsh. Today, the OC&E Woods Line is Oregon’s longest linear state park.

The Long Bell Tract consists of approximately 87.000 acres of timberland. The Tract shares a southern and southeastern land ownership boundary with the East Hills Project analysis area. The tract was once part of the Klamath Reservation. Its creation assisted in reducing the Reservation from the approximate 1.1 million acres to 862,622 acres by 1954. As noted above, soon after the Klamath Treaty was signed, Congress authorized the construction of the Oregon Central Military Road. Shortly thereafter, the odd-numbered sections were granted to the Oregon Central Military Road Company. The land grants were then purchased by the California and Oregon Land Company. Conflict arose. In response, the federal government sued the land company in 1889 claiming that their granted lands were invalid because the Oregon Central Military Road was never completed. The case, known as the Yamsay Mountain Case, was held at the Supreme Court which eventually ruled that the land company should not be held responsible for past wrongs, they were “purchasers in good faith” (U.S. v. California and Oregon Land Co. (1904), 192 U.S. 325; Zucker et. al 1983:109-110). The federal government tried again in 1905 to stop the conflicts. By this time the California and Oregon Land Company had sold their interests within the reservation to the Booth-Kelly Lumber Company. The Secretary of the Interior was authorized to offer the Lumber Company an opportunity to trade its alternate sections for a consolidated 87,000 acre track of timberland. The Klamath Tribes were asked to surrender the land in exchange for $108,750 and a chance to retain their allotments, approximately 110,000 acres. In 1906-07, the Tribes reluctantly accepted the deal. The timberland tract of 87,000 was then sold to the Long Bell Lumber Company in 1918 (O’Callaghan 1952:24-25; Cothran 2014:126-127).

Figure 3. Yamsay Fire Guard Station in August 2016.

Fire became a real threat to maintaining the valuable timber commodity. In response, the Indian Service, through the CCC-ID, and the Forest Service developed an administrative infrastructure. Sites such as the Yamsay Fire Guard Station (35KL645), the Sycan Fire Guard Station, the Black Hills Fire Guard Station (35KL522) and the Riverbed Butte Lookout, all located within the East Hills Project, were established. The Yamsey Fire Guard Station is the only one of these structures that still stands (Figure 3).

In 1954, Congress terminated the Klamath Tribe’s federal status under the Federal Termination Act. Private entities bought some of the old reservation land, but the majority of it became the Winema National Forest in 1961 (Zucker et al. 1983:110). The Fremont National Forest received large, scattered bocks of the former reservation land totaling 96,000 acres, one of which was the Bly Ranger District portion of the East Hills Project analysis area (Bach, 1981:14-15).

Despite termination, the Klamath Tribes retained their treaty hunting, fishing and trapping rights within the boundaries of the former Klamath Reservation as it existed in 1954 (Kimball (tribal members) v. Callahan (Oregon State Game Commission members, 493 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1974) (Kimball I) and Kimball v. Callahan, 590 F.2d 768 (9th Cir. 1979) (Kimball II)). These rights were recognized in a 1985 memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Klamath Tribes, Winema National Forest and the US Fish and Wildlife Service; and again in the 2005 (as amended) memorandum of agreement (MOA) between the Klamath Tribes and the Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6) of the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Only tribal members on the current tribal roles can exercise these rights. Federal Recognition of the Klamath Tribes was restored in 1986, but the former reservation land remained as part of the Winema National Forest.

Although the East Hills Project analysis area is no longer reservation, the area continues to be important to the Klamath Tribes. Tribal members continue to practice their treaty rights within the area. The Tribes are concerned about land use decisions made by the Forest Service, which have the potential to impact archaeological sites and landscapes of cultural significance. Efforts have and continue to be conducted to keep the Klamath Tribes informed about potential actions and associated impacts.

In the early 1960s, real estate developer Arthur Carlsberg, began buying ranch and timber land in Klamath County. He formed the Carsel Development Co. through which he developed several rural residential subdivisions called the Klamath Forest Estates. One of these subdivisions is the Sycan Unit which was plotted in 1963. The East Hills Project analysis area shares several property lines with the Sycan Unit. Prior to becoming a residential subdivision, the Unit was owned by the Klamath Lumber and Box Co. Mr. Carlsberg died in 1978, but his legacy in the form of subdivisions across Klamath County continues on (Kepple 2007:114-115).

In 2002, the East Hills Project analysis area became part of the Fremont-Winema National Forest. The two forests became administratively one to reduce administrative costs. Prior to the Forests’ administrative merger, in 1988, the Fremont National Forest designated the Sycan River as a Wild and Scenic River, under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. The river was designated for its outstandingly remarkable geology, scenery, fisheries and wildlife values.

Project Area Current Conditions The East Hills Project analysis area falls within the administration of the Chiloquin and Bly Ranger Districts of the Fremont-Winema National Forest. Data collection for the analysis began with a literature review, a review of existing documents, such as General Land Office records,

ethnographies, historic overviews and Forest cultural resource records. Project specific reviews of existing information must be accomplished prior to in-field pedestrian inventories (or survey) following the Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines for Identification and Forest Service Manual 2361. The existing information is used to determine the types of known (previously recorded) cultural resources present within a project area. It is also used to determine where previous cultural resource survey has occurred and where cultural resource site locations are presently known within the project area.

Consultation with the Klamath Tribes began on April 13, 2015 when the project was introduced. The pre-scoping letter was sent July 26, 2016. Consultation with the Klamath Tribes’ Culture and Heritage Department first occurred on April 14, 2016. The meeting with the Tribe’s Culture and Heritage Department was followed up by a letter dated August 4, 2016. Since then, the project has been discussed at several SOPA and Government-to-Government meetings, including meetings that occurred on September 13, 2016, November 15, 2016 and December 13, 2016. In addition, Dennis Fleming, the Klamath Tribes Cultural Resource Protection Specialist, has participated in the East Hills Project Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meetings. Comments on the project proposal have been actively sought.

The literature review found that a total of 76 cultural surveys have been conducted within the analysis area in preparation for past Forest management activities. Of this total, 35 past surveys were conducted on the Bly Ranger District (Table 1) and 41 were conducted on the Chiloquin Ranger District (Table 2).

Table 1. Previous survey conducted on the Bly Ranger District within the East Hills Project analysis area.

FS Report # Survey Name Author Adequate R1977060201001 Proposed Sycan Marsh Land Exchange H. Bunten N R1980060201001 5-Mile Timber Sale K. Steward N R1980060201002 Dicks Timber Sale K. Steward N R1980060201004 Elde Timber Sale K. Steward N R1981060201004 Pel Timber Sale K. Steward N R1982060201004 Forest Road 3462 Reconstruction K. Steward N R1982060201330 Pack Timber Sale M. Jesperson N R1983060201001 Buck Timber Sale M. Jesperson N R1983060201002 WEYCO II Land Exchange D. Pedersen Y R1984060201004 Chic HFR Timber Sale R. Bennett N R1984060201006 Scab Timber Sale NOT IN FILE R1984060201168 Godowa Timber Sale D. Gray N R1984060201326 River/Thick Timber Sale D. Gray Y R1985060201001 Hills Magnum Timber Sale G. Prouty N R1986060201002 Bed II Timber Sale R. Bennett N R1988060201169 Blue Ford Timber Sale D. Joe Y R1990060201002 Buck Bugproof Timber Sale D. Hunter Y R1990060201006 Horsesack Timber Sale NOT IN FILE

FS Report # Survey Name Author Adequate R1990060201010 Cord/Sycan Timber Sale D. Joe N R1992060201002 South Fork Sprague River T. Ozburn, J. Markos A R1993060201007 Sycan Marsh Archaeological District Resurvey J. Markos et.al. Y R1995060201002 Huckleberry Salvage Sale D. Gress, R. Townsend N R1999060201003 Five Mile Riparian Pasture D. Gress Y R2004060201315 Black Hills Fence, Cattle Guard and Corral W. Ray/S. Foster Y R2005060201002 PGE 500 Transmission Line Maintenance J. Hood Y R2005060201003 Black Hills Fence & Corral Construction Amendment No author Y R2005060201562 Addendum/PGE 500 Transmission Line Maintenance D. Spoon Y R2006060201003 Horse Glades Meadow Enhancement S. Foster Y R2006060201007 Black Hills Bitterbrush W. Ray/S. Foster N R2007060201003 Five Mile Cattle Allotment Water Improvement F. Kent Y R2007060201014 Archaeological Evaluation of Region 4, Oregon State Knowles et.al. Y Parks, 2007 Surveys R2007060201570 Black Timber Sale &Fuels Reduction D. Spoon Y R2008060201020 Horse Glades Meadow Enhancement Addendum M. Durant/N. Crabtree Y R2008060203001 Red Zone Safety K. McKenzie Y R2010060201017 Horse Glades Allotment A. Fuselier Y

Table 2. Previous survey conducted on the Chiloquin Ranger District within the East Hills Project analysis area.

FS Report # Survey Name Author Adequate Not Yet Assigned Pre-commercial Thinning (1984) B. Banek Y Not Yet Assigned Bear LP Timber Sale (1988) B. Banek Y Not Yet Assigned Sycan River CR Survey F. Philipek N Not Yet Assigned Lone Pine Fire Recovery(1993) G. Knight Y Not Yet Assigned Lone Pine Fire Recovery Monitoring E. Dubruiel Y Not Yet Assigned Sycan River Riparian Planting (1998) F. Wilkins Y Not Yet Assigned 2003 Range Improvement; Yamsay and Dice Crane Ray Jr. Y R1979060212003 Sycan Grazing Allotment Unknown N R1979060212004 Teddy Powers Meadow Grazing Allotment Unknown N R1981060212022 Wildhorse Timber Sale Churchill/Rager Y R1982060212013 Teddy Timber Sale Philpeck/Ray Jr Y R1982060212016 Spear Point Thinning S. McDonald Y R1982060212016 Spear Point 1982 TSI Project Philipeck N R1983060212014 Taylor Timber Sale T. Churchill Y R1983060212017 Taylor Thinning Unit 83-2 J. Sciarrino Y R1990060212010 Silver Analysis Area G. Knight Y R1991060212011 Lone Analysis Area E. Budy Y

FS Report # Survey Name Author Adequate R1991060212269 Calimus Timber Sale Knight/Budy Y R1991060212281 Rosie Timber Sale J. Orr/Budy Y R1991060212283 Bill Timber Sale Knight/Budy Y R1992060212012 Pail/Teddy Powers Site Assessments Flennikan/Ozburn Y R1993060212020 Head of River Road 4648 Reroute E. Budy Y R1993060212287 Rosie Timber Sale Monitoring J. Orr Y R1994060212012 Eastside PCT E. Dubreuil Y R1994060212014 Other Pre-commercial Thinning (PCT) E. Dubreuil Y R1994060212015 Sycan Site Damage J. Jones Y R1995060212009 Taylor Butte Salvage Timber Sale L. Watah Y R1995060212010 Yamsay Range Allotment Analysis E. Dubreuil Y R1995060212016 Contract Camps IV D. Childers Y R1995060212017 Deep Meadow Salvage A. Gowan Y R1996060212001 4648 Reconstruction A. Gowan Y R1996060212002 1996b TSI E. Dubreuil Y R1996060212751 Silver Fire Monitoring and Fire Salvage J. Jones Y R1997060212004 Dime Fire Project Area L. Whittier Y R1997060212008 Deep Meadow Timber Sale J. Jones Y R1998060212001 North Fuego Bugkill Timber Salvage Sale L. Whittier Y R1998060212002 Resource Inventory of 32 PCT Units J. Wolf Y R2005060212005 Airstrip Riparian and Meadow Restoration S. Foster Y R2006060212018 Silver Dollar Fence Maintenance & Construction Ray Jr. Y R2010060212015 Yamsay Range Allotment Permit Renewal Foster/Ray Jr. Y R2012060212010 Yamsay Range Allotment Permit Renewal Foster/Ray Jr. Y Addendum Surveys conducted between 1984 and 2009 on the Bly Ranger District side of the East Hills Project analysis area follow a statistical sampling research design outlined in the 1984 Fremont National Forest Cultural Resource Inventory Plan (Kaiser 1984). To implement the design, a project area is stratified into three probability zones: high, medium and low based on a predictive model for site distribution. The predictive model uses environmental data and previously known cultural site data to determine where the highest concentration of cultural sites may be found. This statistical sampling method is considered the equivalent of a 100% survey.

Cultural Survey conducted on the Chiloquin Ranger District side of the East Hills Project analysis area have followed a number of site prediction models since 1979. The last model before the adoption of the 2009 Fremont-Winema National Forest Cultural Inventory Plan was a strategy developed in 2000 by the former Winema National Forest Archaeologist Jorie Clark. Clark’s model was based on ecological and economic constraints (Clark 2000).

In 2009, the Fremont-Winema National Forest Archaeologist, John Kaiser, sought to unite the heritage shops of the old Winema (west side) and the old Fremont (east side), and promote consistency across the Fremont-Winema National Forests by developing the Fremont-Winema National Forest Cultural Inventory Plan. The 2009 plan continues to be used today. Like past

efforts, the 2009 plan is a model for predicting cultural sites by considering environmental zones or geography characteristics to divide a project area into high and low probability areas (Tonsfeldt and Gray 2009).

In addition to areas previously surveyed for cultural resources, the literature review found that 349 heritage sites have been documented within the East Hills Project analysis area. Cultural resources (heritage resources) in this report means any property as defined in the Introduction of this document that are greater than 50 years old, whether previously evaluated or not yet evaluated for listing or eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.

Of the total number of known heritage sites, 106 sites are located on Bly Ranger District (Table 3) and 243 sites are located on the Chiloquin Ranger District (Table 4). The overwhelming site type within the project area is the prehistoric lithic scatter. Other prehistoric site types that exist within the project area include rock features and cambium peeled trees. Common historic (post 1825-50 years ago) site types are features associated with stock management and the timber industry (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Line Chart Showing the Distribution of Site Types within the East Hills Project analysis area

It is the practice of the Fremont-Winema National Forest to treat all sites as eligible. Lithic scatters in particular, according to the 1988 Lithic Scatter Programmatic Memorandum of Agreement, are assumed to have potential for the data they contain and thus are treated as eligible for inclusion to the Register.

Table 3. Known sites within the Bly Ranger District portion of the East Hills Project analysis area. CD =Can Dump; LS=Lithic Scatter; RF=Rock Feature; CPT=Cambium Peeled Tree; RR=Railroad Forest Service # Fre-Win Site # Smithsonian # Site Type 6020100123 32-13-04-01P 35LK942 LS 6020100688 32-13-04-02P 35LK943 LS 6020100689 32-13-04-03P 35LK939 LS 6020100131 32-13-04-P04 35LK928 LS 6020100132 32-13-09-01P 35LK926 LS 6020100006 32-13-09-02P 35LK927 LS 6020100272 32-13-09-03P 35LK936 LS 6020100124 32-13-09-04P 35LK940 RF 6020100008 32-13-16-01P 35LK929 LS 6020100127 32-13-16-02P 35LK935 LS 6020100125 32-13-16-03P 35LK938 LS 6020100128 32-13-21-01P 35LK933 LS 6020100126 32-13-28-01P 35LK937 LS 6020100130 32-13-33-01P 35LK931 LS 6020100122 32-13-33-02P 35LK944 LS 6020100121 32-13-33-03P 35LK945 LS 6020100129 32-13-33-04P 35LK932 RF 6020100690 32-13-33-05P 35LK931 LS 6020100691 32-13-33-06P Shake Splinter 6020101213 32-14-34-01H Stock Driveway 6020100306 33-12-23-01P 35KL529 Quarry 6020100302 33-12-24-02P 35KL533 LS 6020100303 33-12-25-01P 35KL532 LS 6020100692 33-12-25-02P LS 6020100693 33-12-25-03P LS 6020100308 33-12-27-02P 35KL201 LS 6020100310 33-12-34-01P 35KL536 LS 6020100311 33-12-34-02P 35KL535 LS 6020100305 33-12-36-01P 35KL518 LS 6020100695 33-12-36-02P RF 6020100696 33-12-36-03P LS 6020100697 33-12-36-04P LS 6020100698 33-12-36-05P LS 6020100307 33-13-17-03P 35KL530 LS 6020100120 33-14-19-01P 35KL387 LS 6020100270 33-14-27-01H Arborglyph 6020100301 33-14-27-01P 35KL380 LS

Forest Service # Fre-Win Site # Smithsonian # Site Type 6020100705 33-14-28-01H Arborglyph 6020100112 33-14-28-01M 35KL388 LS 6020100113 33-14-28-01P 35KL381 LS 6020100706 33-14-28-02H Arborglyph 6020100114 33-14-28-02P 35KL384 LS 6020100707 33-14-28-03H Arborglyph 6020100708 33-14-28-04H Arborglyph 6020100709 33-14-29-01H Arborglyph 6020100115 33-14-29-01P 35KL382 LS 6020100117 33-14-29-02P 35KL385 LS 6020100118 33-14-29-03P 35KL386 LS 6020100116 33-14-29-04P 35KL383 LS 6020100800 33-14-30-01H Arborglyph 6020100801 33-14-32-01H RR 6020101261 33-14-32-01P 35KL3142 LS 6020100168 34-12-01-01M 35KL522 Black Hills Guard Station/CD/LS 6020100193 34-12-01-01P 35KL520 LS 6020100300 34-12-01-03P 35KL524 LS 6020100173 34-12-13-01P 35KL282 Quarry 6020100620 34-12-19-08P LS/RF 6020100669 34-13-02-01M Trough/CD/LS 6020100178 34-13-05-01P 35KL513 LS 6020100176 34-13-05-02P 35KL514 LS 6020100015 34-13-05-03P 35KL515 LS 6020100907 34-13-06-01P LS 6020100298 34-13-10-01P 35KL509B LS 6020100021 34-13-10-02P 35KL510 LS 6020100181 34-13-10-03P 35KL511 LS 6020100180 34-13-10-04P 35KL512 LS 6020100179 34-13-10-05P 35KL516 LS 6020100562 34-13-10-06P RF/LS 6020100563 34-13-10-07P LS 6020100299 34-13-11-01M 35KL376 LS/Logging 6020100670 34-13-11-02P LS 6020100671 34-13-11-03P LS 6020100908 34-13-12-01H Fire lookout/ Telephone 6020100186 34-13-15-01P LS 6020100672 34-13-15-02P LS 6020100673 34-13-17-01P LS 6020100564 34-13-27-01P LS

Forest Service # Fre-Win Site # Smithsonian # Site Type 6020101019 34-13-28-01P RF 6020100189 34-14-05-01P 35KL379 LS 6020101001 34-14-05-02P RF 6020100190 34-14-08-01P 35KL374 LS 6020100318 34-14-17/20-1H Grazing Projects 6020100028 34-14-17-01M 35KL377 Homestead/LS 6020100296 34-14-17-01P 35KL378 LS 6020100192 34-14-17-02P LS 6020101003 34-14-17-03P CPT 6020101262 34-14-17-04P 35KL3141 LS 6020100653 34-14-20-01H Corral 6020100027 34-14-20-01M 35KL375 RR/CD/LS 6020100319 34-14-20-01P 35KL371 LS 6020101195 34-14-20-02H CD 6020101004 34-14-20-02P RF/LS 6020101005 34-14-20-03P LS 6020101006 34-14-20-04P LS 6020100910 34-14-20-06P LS 6020101009 34-14-21-01H Telephone Wire 6020100909 34-14-21-01H LS 6020101000 34-14-21-02H Not on File 6020101013 35-13-10-01H Vehicle 6020100674 35-13-12-01P LS 6020101014 35-13-13-01P 35KL3139 LS 6020100675 35-13-13-02P LS 6020101017 35-13-23-01H Logging 6020100676 35-13-23-01P LS 6020101018 35-13-23-02H Arborglyph 6020101208 35-14-24-01H 35KL2335 RR

Table 4. Known sites within the Chiloquin Ranger District portion of the East Hills Project analysis area. CD =Can Dump; LS=Lithic Scatter; RF=Rock Feature; CPT=Cambium Peeled Tree; RR=Railroad Forest Service # Fre-Win Site # Smithsonian # Site Type 6021202286 13-13-16-07P LS 6021200643 32-11-17-HAB RR 6021200273 33-10-34-01P 35KL245 RF 6021200672 33-11-01- RR 01HAB 6021200601 33-11-02-01H RR 6021202319 33-11-04-04P 35KL769 LS

Forest Service # Fre-Win Site # Smithsonian # Site Type 6021200606 33-11-04-05H CD 6021200007 33-11-09-01H 35KL645 Yamsey Guard Station 6021200607 33-11-12-01P 35KL644 LS 6021200274 33-11-16-01P RF 6021201283 33-11-17-01P 35KL645 RF 6021200276 33-11-18-01P 35KL646 RF 6021200277 33-11-19-01P RF 6021200278 33-11-19-02P 35KL647 RF 6021200610 33-11-23-01P 35KL648 LS 6021200612 33-11-24-01P 35KL649 LS 6021200613 33-11-24-02P 35KL650 LS 6021200614 33-11-24-03P 35KL866 LS 6021200616 33-11-26-01P 35KL768 LS 6021200279 33-11-27-01P 35KL320 RF 6021200617 33-11-27-02P 35KL651 LS 6021200619 33-11-29-01P 35KL243 LS 6021200621 33-11-35-01P 35KL319 LS 6021202291 33-11-35-02P 35KL1020 LS 6021200623 33-11-35-03P 35KL1021 LS 6021200280 33-11-35-04P 34KL1143 LS/RF 6021200535 33-11-36-01P 35KL1022 LS 6021200627 33-11-36-02P 35KL1023 LS 6021200628 33-11-36-03P 35KL1024 LS 6021200629 33-11-36-04P 35KL1025 LS 6021200281 33-11-36-05P 35KL1026 VQ 6021200630 33-11-36-06P 35KL1027 LS/RF 6021200631 33-11-36-07P 35KL1144 LS 6021200632 33-11-36-08P 35KL1145 CPT 6021200635 33-12-03-01H LS 6021200635 33-12-03-01H RR 6021200644 33-12-06-01P LS 6021200282 33-12-08-02P 35KL345 RF 6021200283 33-12-11-01P 35KL998 RF 331201102 33-12-11-02P Not on file 6021200653 33-12-12-01P 35KL999 LS 6021200656 33-12-15-01P 35KL346 Quarry 6021200660 33-12-16-01P 35KL346 LS 6021200661 33-12-16-02P LS 6021200662 33-12-16-03P 35KL1000 LS 6021200663 33-12-16-04P 35KL1001 LS

Forest Service # Fre-Win Site # Smithsonian # Site Type 6021200664 33-12-16-05P 35KL1002 LS 6021200665 33-12-16-06P LS 6021200669 33-12-17-01H Vehicle 6021200670 33-12-17-02H CD 6021200643 33-12-18- RR 01HAB 6021200673 33-12-18-02P 35KL347 LS 6021200674 33-12-18-03P 35KL348 LS 6021200675 33-12-18-04P 35KL349 LS 6021200676 33-12-18-05H Not on File 6021200677 33-12-18-06H Not on File 6021200678 33-12-18-07H Not on File 6021200679 33-12-18-08H Not on File 6021200680 33-12-18-09P 35KL868 Not on File 6021200682 33-12-18-10H RR 6021200685 33-12-19-01H 35KL2819 Logging 6021200686 33-12-19-02H Wood Debris 6021200687 33-12-19-03H CD/Wood Debris 6021200688 33-12-19-04H Wood Debris 6021200689 33-12-19-05H 35KL1028 Not in File 6021200690 33-12-19-06H 35KL2827 RR 6021200695 33-12-21-01P 35KL350 LS 6021200696 33-12-21-02P 35KL1003 LS 33-12-21-04P Not on File 6021200700 33-12-22-01P LS 6021200284 33-12-22-02P 35KL1004 RF 6021200285 33-12-22-03P 35KL1005 LS/RF 6021200701 33-12-22-04P 35KL1006 LS 6021200286 33-12-23-01P 35KL1007 RF 6021200287 33-12-23-02P 35KL1008 RF 6021200288 33-12-23-03P 35KL1009 LS/RF 6021200704 33-12-23-04P 35KL1010 LS 6021200289 33-12-23-05P 35KL1011 LS/RF 6021200705 33-12-23-06P 35KL1889 LS 6021200706 33-12-24-01P 35KL35 LS 6021200290 33-12-24-02P LS/RF 6021200291 33-12-26-01P 35KL1013 LS/RF 6011200709 33-12-27-01P 35KL200 LS 6021200710 33-12-27-02P 35KL201 LS 6021200711 33-12-28-01P 35KL351 LS 6021200712 33-12-28-02P 35KL352 LS

Forest Service # Fre-Win Site # Smithsonian # Site Type 6021200713 33-12-28-03P 35KL353 LS 6021200714 33-12-28-04P 35KL354 LS 6021200715 33-12-28-05P 35KL1888 LS 6021200717 33-12-29-01P 35KL355 LS 6021200718 33-12-29-02P 35KL1014 LS 6021200292 33-12-29-03P 35KL1029 RF 6021200293 33-12-29-04P 35KL1030 RF 6021200294 33-12-29-05P 35KL1031 RF 6021200719 33-12-29-06P RF 6021200295 33-12-30-01P 35KL1032 RF 6021200296 33-12-30-02P 35KL1033 RF 6021200297 33-12-30-03P 35KL1034 RF 6021200722 33-12-31-01P 35KL204 LS 6021200723 33-12-31-02P 35KL318 LS 6021200298 33-12-31-03P 35KL1035 RF 6021200725 33-12-31-04P 35KL1146 LS 6021200726 33-12-32-01P 35KL356 LS/RF 6021200299 33-12-32-02P 35KL1015 RF 6021200300 33-12-32-03P 35KL1016 RF 6021200724 33-12-32-04P 35KL1036 LS/RF 6021200727 33-12-33-01P 35KL357 LS 6021200728 33-12-33-02P 35KL358 LS 6021200729 33-12-33-03P 35KL202 LS 6021200730 33-12-33-04P 35KL203 LS 6021200301 33-12-33-05P 35KL1017 LS/RF 6021202290 33-12-33-06P 35KL1018 RF 6021202289 33-13-05-01H Wood Debris 6021200732 33-13-07-01P 35KL470 LS 6021200735 33-13-08-01P 35KL475 LS 6021200736 33-13-09-01P 35KL183 LS 6021200737 33-13-09-02P 35KL476 RF 6021200738 33-13-10-01P 35KL473 LS 6021200739 33-13-10-02P 35KL474 LS 6021200740 33-13-10-03H Logging/RR 6021200741 33-13-10-04P 35KL178 LS 33-13-10-05P Not on File 6021200743 33-13-10-06H Sycan Guard Station 6021200305 33-13-16-01P 35KL180 RF 6021200745 33-13-16-02P 35KL181 RF 6021200746 33-13-16-03P 35KL182 RF/LS

Forest Service # Fre-Win Site # Smithsonian # Site Type 6021200747 33-13-16-04P 35KL184 LS 6021200748 33-13-16-05P 35KL185 LS 6021202287 33-13-16-06P 35KL186 LS 6021202286 33-13-16-07P LS 6021200749 33-13-17-01P 35KL187 LS 6021202363 33-13-17-02P CPT 6021202272 33-13-17-03H Vehicle/CD/CPT 6021202271 33-13-17-04P RF 6021200750 33-13-18-01P 35KL471 LS 6021200751 33-13-18-02P 35KL472 LS 6021202288 33-13-18-03P LS 6021200754 33-13-19-01P 35KL192 LS 6021200755 33-13-19-02P 35KL193 LS 6021200756 33-13-19-03P 35KL194 LS 6021200757 33-13-19-04P 35KL196 LS 6021200758 33-13-19-05P 35KL197 LS 6021200759 33-13-19-06P 35KL198 LS 6021202274 33-13-19-07P LS 6021200761 33-13-20-01P 35KL188 LS 6021200762 33-13-20-02P 35KL189 LS 6021200763 33-13-20-03P 35KL190 LS 6021200764 33-13-20-04P 35KL191 LS 6021200765 33-13-20-05P 35KL195 LS 6021202273 33-13-20-06P RF 6021201215 34-10-03-01H Not on File 6021200491 34-10-13-01P 35KL1053 RF 6021200492 34-10-13-02P 35KL1054 RF 6021200493 34-10-14-01P 35KL1199 RF 6021201224 34-10-23-01P 35KL1206 LS 34-10-23-02P Not on File 6021201226 34-10-24-01P 35KL469 LS 6021201227 34-10-25-01P 35KL1208 RF 6021201228 34-10-25-02P 35KL1209 RF 6021201229 34-10-26-01P 35KL1210 RF 34-10-26-02H Not on File 6021201255 34-10-36-03P 35KL1230 RF 6021201256 34-10-36-04P 35KL1231 RF 6021201257 34-11-01-01P 35KL657 LS 6021201258 34-11-01-02P LS 6021201259 34-11-01-03P RF

Forest Service # Fre-Win Site # Smithsonian # Site Type 6021201260 34-11-01-04P 35KL1831 RF 6021201262 34-11-02-01P LS 6021201263 34-11-02-02P 35KL317 LS 6021201264 34-11-02-03P 35KL321 LS 6021201265 34-11-02-04P 35KL120 LS/RF 6021201266 34-11-02-05P 35KL653 LS 6021201267 34-11-02-06P 35KL654 LS 6021201268 34-11-02-07P 35KL819 LS 6021201271 34-11-08-01P 35KL467 RF 6021201274 34-11-11-01P 35KL655 LS 6021201273 34-11-11-02P LS 6021201279 34-11-12-01H Cabin/CD 6021201275 34-11-12-03M 35KL205 LS 34-11-12-04P Not on File 6021201276 34-11-12-05P 35KL206 LS 6021201280 34-11-13-01P 35KL116 LS 6021201281 34-11-13-02P 35KL498 LS 6021201284 34-11-17-01P 35KL652 RF 6021201285 34-11-17-02P Not on file 6021201286 34-11-17-03P Not on file 6021201289 34-11-20-01P 35KL597 RF 6021201288 34-11-20-02P RF 6021201290 34-11-20-03P RF 6021201291 34-11-23-01P 35KL658 LS 6021201292 34-11-23-02P 35KL659 CPT 6021201294 34-11-24-01P 35KL115 LS 6021201296 34-11-28-01P 35KL668 LS 6021201297 34-11-28-02P 35KL669 LS 6021201298 34-11-28-03P LS 6021201299 34-11-29-01P 35KL1232 RF 6021201300 34-11-29-02P 35KL1233 RF/LS 6021201301 34-11-29-03P 35KL1234 LS 6021201304 34-11-30-01P 35KL1235 LS 6021201303 34-11-30-02P 35KL1236 LS 6021201302 34-11-30-03P 35KL1237 LS 6021201305 34-11-31-01P 35KL1238 LS 6021201306 34-11-31-02P 35KL1239 RF 6021201307 34-11-31-03P 35KL1240 RF 6021201308 34-11-31-04P 35KL1241 RF 6021201309 34-11-31-04P 35KL1242 RF

Forest Service # Fre-Win Site # Smithsonian # Site Type 6021201311 34-11-32-01P 35KL468 LS 6021201313 34-11-32-02P 35KL670 LS 6021201314 34-11-32-03P LS 6021201316 34-11-34-01P 35KL665 LS 6021201317 34-11-34-02P 35KL666 LS 6021201318 34-11-34-03P 35KL667 LS 6021201319 34-11-34-04H Logging 6021201320 34-11-34-05P 35KL244 RF 6021201324 34-12-05-01P 35KL1037 RF 6021201325 34-12-05-02P 35KL1038 LS 6021201326 34-12-05-03P 35KL1039 LS 6021201327 34-12-06-01P 35KL1040 RF 6021201328 34-12-06-02P 35KL1041 LS/RF 6021201329 34-12-30-01P 35KL660 LS 6021201330 34-12-31-01P 35KL661 LS 6021201331 34-12-31-02P 35KL662 LS 6021201332 34-12-31-03P 35KL663 LS 6021202295 35-10-03- RR 01HAB 6021201631 35-11-04-01P 35KL36 LS 6021201640 35-11-06-03P 35KL1292 RF 6021201645 35-11-07-02P 35KL1297 RF 6021201646 35-11-07-03P 35KL1298 RF 6021201649 35-11-07-06P 35KL1301 RF 6021201652 35-11-07-09P 35KL1304 RF 6021201653 35-11-08-01P 35KL1305 LS 6021201654 35-11-08-02P 35KL1306 RF 6021201655 35-11-08-03P 356KL107 RF 6021201656 35-11-09-01P 35KL270 LS 6021201657 35-11-09-02P 35KL1308 LS 6021201658 35-11-09-03P 35KL1309 LS 6021201659 35-11-09-04P 35KL1310 LS 6021201660 35-11-09-05P 35KL1311 LS 6021201661 35-11-09-06P 35KL1312 LS 6021201662 35-11-09-07P 35KL1313 LS 6021201663 35-11-09-08P 35KL1314 LS 6021201664 35-11-09-09P 35KL1315 LS 6021201665 35-11-09-10P 35KL1316 LS

Environmental Consequences Methodology Data continues to be collected via in-field pedestrian inventories (or survey) for the East Hills Project analysis. Due to the size of the analysis area, the decision was made to conduct phased cultural survey through high probability areas to help determine current conditions as defined under 36 CFR Part 800.4. 36 CFR Part 800.4 states that “where alternatives under consideration consist of …. large land areas …., the agency official may use a phased process to conduct identification and evaluation efforts”. The methodology of the inventory follows the 2009 Fremont-Winema National Forests Cultural Resource Plan (Tondfeldt and Gray 2009). This plan stratifies a project area into two probability zones; high and low based on a predictive model for site distribution. The predictive model uses environmental data, such as distance from water and proximity to distinct ecotone changes, and previously known cultural site data to determine where the highest concentration of cultural sites may be found. A total of 13,858 acres of high probability areas or cultural survey units were determined. It is anticipated that all of the 13,858 acres will be surveyed either prior to or within a year from the signing the Notice of Decision document for the East Hills Project through the phased cultural survey process as described in the previous paragraph. Portions of the high probability areas consist of locations that have been previously surveyed for cultural resources. These areas would be resurveyed because the past cultural survey was considered inadequate due to lack of documentation or age, whether or not the survey followed a written research design, and/or whether or not the survey transect width equates to current standards. Of the 76 previous surveys, 15 were considered inadequate.

Once the high probability areas were defined on a project map, they were divided up into “in- house” pedestrian survey areas to be conducted by Forest Service personnel and survey areas that would be covered under contract. Then a plan to cover all of the areas via pedestrian survey, utilizing transects spaced < 20 meter apart, over a four year period (2015-2018) was devised. Each year was represented by a title. Phase I represents efforts implemented during the 2015 field season. Phase II represents efforts implemented during the 2016 field season and so on. The number and site types that were recorded during Phase I and II, and so far under Phase III of this phased survey approach, are typical for the Fremont-Winema National Forest. Overall, thus far, the cultural resources found within the East Hills Project analysis area are in generally good condition.

To date, a total of 10,213 acres of the 13,858 acres have been surveyed. In 2015 (Phase I), during in-house survey, a total of 3,999 acres were surveyed, 15 known sites were assessed for current condition and 50 new sites were recorded. In 2016 (Phase II), a total of 1,105 acres were surveyed, 12 new sites were recorded and 29 known sites assessments were conducted during in- house survey. Phase II contract survey covered a total of 3,407 acres. The contractors assessed 24 known sites and recorded 38 new sites. In 2017 (Phase III), in-house survey covered 165 acres. As of July 30, 2017, contractors have surveyed 1,537 acres and recorded seven new sites. The rest of the acres (3,645 acres) are currently under contract to be completed by the end of 2017, one year ahead of the original plan.

Mitigation Measures Known sites can be protected by implementation of the following mitigation measures: • Prior to any proposed ground disturbing activities, always contact the zone archaeologist to determine if there is a need for additional cultural resource survey following the

process outlined in the most current Region 6 programmatic agreement (PA) with the Oregon State Prehistoric Preservation Office (SHPO). • Prior to project implementation all activity units will be reviewed to ensure that all known sites are flagged. • Notify the Forest and/or Zone Archaeologist of the proposed ground disturbing activities at least two months before proposed implementation date. • Whenever possible, through project redesign, avoid sites (historic properties) for proposed ground disturbing activities and proceed under the most current PA. • In cases where it is not possible to avoid sites (historic properties) through project redesign, proceed under the most current PA, or Stipulation III B of the 2004 PA. • “Flag-and-Avoid” known sites prior to implementation of activities using ground- disturbing machinery. Machinery will not enter the flagged boundaries of known sites. • Fall trees away from flagged boundaries of known sites. • Over-snow logging is acceptable within site boundaries, except for rock stack sites, if the snow depth is >12 inches. • Hand-felling to reduce fuel loads and reduce the “island” effect is acceptable within flagged site boundaries, if the felled material is removed offsite by hand. • Use of logging equipment with boom may be used to reach in and extract logs from within flagged site boundaries, except prehistoric rock feature, cambium or peeled tree and arborglyph sites, as long as the material is picked up and carried offsite. Dragging material from inside a flagged site boundary to an offsite location is not acceptable. • No slash piles within 25 feet of the flagged site boundary, unless a Heritage Specialist determines that a smaller distance is sufficient to protect the site. • Low intensity prescribed fire may occur on prehistoric sites, except rock stack sites, as long as measures are taken to ensure fire intensity stays low. This may include the removal by hand of heavy fuels and the use of: water, foam or gel; or removal of forest debris via a leaf blower. • During proscribed fire, exclude fire from historic sites and prehistoric rock stack sites. This may include: hand line, wet line, or mechanized equipment. Mechanized equipment requires prior consultation with zone archaeologist. • During prescribed fire, remove hazard trees and/or limb trees around historic structures to reduce ladder fuels. • During prescribed fire, protect culturally modified trees (arborglyph or cambium/peeled trees) by removing fuels from the base of the tree at a minimum distance of three feet. • No sub-surface techniques were employed during survey and known site condition assessments, as per the Memorandum of Agreement with the Klamath Tribes (2005:12). If buried materials become exposed during project activities, project work shall be suspended and the Forest and/or Zone Archaeologist shall be notified immediately to implement mitigation measures designed to prevent further disturbance.

Spatial and Temporal Context for Effects Analysis

The spatial context for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects is the extent of the East Hills Project analysis area. The temporal context is the expected duration of project activities – around ten years.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects There are no direct effects of choosing the no action alternative. Current conditions of known sites that are within project activity areas would not be changed by project activities. However, the project area would not remain static over time. Like all features on the landscape, cultural resource sites and artifacts are susceptible to the ravages of time, weather and wildfires.

Cumulative Effects Because there would be no project activities there would be no project-related cumulative effects to cultural resources.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives: 2 and 3 Both action alternatives include the same ground-disturbing activities, but to varying degrees, depending upon the alternative to constraints and/or liberties afforded by standards outlined in the Winema and the Fremont National Forest Plans. Alternative 3 would meet the purpose and need of the East Hills Project without forest plan amendment, whereas Alternative 2 would meet the purpose and need with three forest plan amendments. The first amendment, if approved, would allow for the harvesting of white fir and lodgepole pine trees >21 inched DBH. Removing some trees >21 inches DBH would help restore stands towards historic conditions by protecting old- growth trees, improving stand resiliency to fire and possibly reestablishing open meadow conditions. The second amendment would allow for the treatment of moist lodgepole pine stands on the Bly Ranger District side of the analysis area. The third amendment would allow for treatment as needed with no limits within MA 3 Scenic Areas on the Chiloquin Ranger District side of the analysis area.

Direct Effects There are 349 known cultural sites within the East Hills Project analysis area. With the required mitigation measures in place, no direct effects to heritage sites are anticipated with action Alternatives 2 or 3. Modifying the Forest Plans would not directly affect cultural resources.

Indirect Effects In reference to cultural resources, both forest plans provide direction to manage cultural resources using a combination of inventory, evaluation, protection and enhancement activities. The forest plans also direct that members of the Klamath Tribes have opportunities to exercise their Treaty rights and proposed activities be analyzed for effects on traditional food-gathering locations. Both plans also emphasizes managing cultural resources for “the scientific use and interpretation of appropriate cultural resource properties for the education and enjoyment of the general public” (Fremont National Forest Plan 1989:63).

The proposed vegetation treatments in Alternative 2 and 3 could have positive indirect effects on cultural resources. Removing trees >21 inches DBH would help restore the visual context of some sites and possibly revitalize of ethnobotanical flora. Treatments may improve the watershed which improves sucker habitat, an important traditional food source. Road maintenance preserves access to dispersed camp sites used by Tribal members. The proposed

landscape restoration activities may help distribute cows across the landscape. Currently cattle are concentrated in more open areas due to increasing lodgepole stand densities.

During the lifespan of the East Hills Project, management is encouraged to take advantage of opportunities through interpretation to enhance public education and enjoyment of known cultural resources where appropriate. Interpretation helps strengthen the relationship between the sites, the public’s heritage, and those who live around them. On-site interpretive signs could be installed along the OC&E trail, at Yamsey Guard Station or at the Head of the River Campground. Off-site interpretation possibilities via new technologies should also be explored. Education is a form of cultural resource protection.

Cumulative Effects In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed alternative, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. The cumulative effects analysis in this specialist report is also consistent with Forest Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)) which state that the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) does not require the consideration of the individual effects of all past actions to determine the present effects of past actions. Nor do they require agencies to catalog or exhaustively list and analyze all individual past actions.

The bounds for the cumulative effects of the cultural resource analysis considered the entire East Hills Project analysis area over a time period of the next thirty years. The project area would not remain static over time. Like all features on the landscape, cultural resource sites and artifacts are susceptible to the cumulative ravages of time and weather. Known and unknown cultural sites could receive direct effects from natural events such as vegetation growth, blowdown, and wildfire. Activities such as wood gathering, hunting, cross country travel and other recreational pursuits have the potential for direct and indirect effects. Illegal artifact collecting, if conducted, would affect site inventory and integrity. In addition, there is a potential for direct effects (i.e. trampling, trailing, crushing, rubbing) caused by livestock grazing, although current grazing practices are minor compared to past practices. In general, the degree of grazing impacts decreases as the amount of space and dispersal increases and the number of cattle decreases.

Sites can be protected from ground disturbing human caused activities. The Forest Service would continue to protect cultural resources as mandated. Because direct and indirect effects are expected to be minimal, cumulative effects of the East Hills Project analysis area on cultural resources would also be minimal.

The Earth’s climate has fluctuated for 5-billion years; however, the most recent changes are now in the public eye. Climate change is not surprising to those who study Archaeology. Archaeologists have long studied the paleoenvironmental record and its influences on cultural change, such as the abrupt climate change called the Younger Dryas (also known as the Big Freeze), a cold dry period that occurred 12,800 years before present (BP), and Europe’s Little Ice Age, that occurred 400 years BP. For example, in North America, human mega-fauna hunting strategies’ were forced to adapt as mammoths became extinct at the end of the Ice Age 11,000 years ago. The fact that climate change is being addressed in the East Hills Project document is another example of humans finding ways to adapt to changing environments.

In the northern Great Basin, which includes the Klamath Basin, the end of the Ice Age (from 12,300 BP to 9,500 BP, known as the Paleoindian Period in Archaeology) saw higher temperatures and higher annual precipitation levels resulting in very large pluvial lakes, such as Upper Klamath Lake, a remnant of pluvial Lake Modoc (Grayson1993:84). Conditions in the Early Archaic Period (10,500 – 7000 BP) saw even warmer temperatures, but dryer than the end of the Ice Age. Wet conditions returned during the Middle Archaic Period (7000-2000 BP), but they never returned to conditions seen at the end of the Ice Age. The Great Basin began to dry again in the Late Archaic Period (2000-125 BP) and the trend has continued to today (Pettigrew 1985 and Musil 1995).

Since 1900, global average temperatures have increased 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit and are predicted to increase from 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit (Barr et. al. 2010:1-2). One prediction suggests that temperatures in the Great Basin will increase 3.6 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit (Chambers 2008:29). Temperatures in the Klamath Basin are predicted to increase 2.1-3.6 degrees Fahrenheit by 2045 (Barr et. al. 2010:9). If the predictions materialize, how would the warming trend effect cultural resources?

If the warming trend decreases the amount of available water and results in a regional drying trend, then this could provide excellent preservation conditions for cultural resources. Prolonged drought may also encourage populations to abandon the dry areas in favor of cool-wetter environments. A reduction in local population would reduce physical damage caused by humans. However, dry conditions could also bring severe wildfires that could destroy cultural sites and reduce populations of ethnobotanical plants important in Klamath culture.

Activities associated with the protection of the cultural resources within the East Hills Project analysis area will have no lasting impact to climate change. The carbon imprint produced from two employees driving one vehicle out to the project area to flag cultural sites, or a crew of people in a van driving out to hand thin within a cultural site using chainsaws is not significant or measurable.

Monitoring Recommendations No monitoring of cultural sites is recommended.

References Aikens, C. M., Connolly, T. J., & Jenkins, D. L. (2011). Oregon archaeology. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Bach, M. (1981). History of the Fremont National Forest. W. Tonsfeldt (Ed.), Tonsfeldt Consulting, Bend, OR. Lakeview, OR: Fremont National Forest.

Barr, B. R., Koopman, M. E., Williams, C. D., Vynne, S. J., Hamilton, R., & Doppelt, B. (2010). Preparing for climate change in the Klamath Basin. University of Oregon.

Barrett, S.A. (1910). The material culture of the Klamath Lake and Modoc Indians of Northeastern California and Southern Oregon. In F.W. Putnam & A.L. Kroeber (Eds.), University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, 5(4): 239-293. Berkeley, CA: The University Press.

Bunton, H. (1977). Cultural resource inventory report on the proposed Sycan Marsh land exchange. USDA Forest Service, Fremont National Forest. Report on file: Fremont- Winema National Forest, Bly Ranger District, Bly, OR.

Bunton, H. (1979). Sycan Marsh archaeological district report. USDA Forest Service, Fremont National Forest. Report on file: Fremont-Winema National Forest, Bly Ranger District, Bly, OR.

Chambers, J. C. (2008). Climate change and the Great Basin (Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-204). Reno, NV: USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Clark, J. (2000). Cultural resource inventory plan, Winema National Forest. USDA Forest Service, Winema National Forest. Report on file: Fremont-Winema National Forest, Bly Ranger District, Bly, OR.

Cressman, L. S. (1956). Klamath Prehistory: The prehistory of the culture of the Klamath Lake area, Oregon. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 46(4): 375-513. doi: 10.2307/1005711

Deal, K. (2002, January). Fire effects to lithic artifacts. USDA Forest Service, Eldorado National Forest. Cultural Resources Protection and Fire Planning Meeting, Tucson, AZ.

Dicken, S. N. & Dicken, E. F. (1985). The legacy of ancient Lake Modoc: A historical geography of the Klamath Lakes Basin. Eugene, Oregon: University of Oregon.

Durant, M. A. (2006). The CCC on the Klamath Reservation: An Introduction. In Journal of the Shaw Historical Library; We can take it: The Civilian Conservation Corps in the Land of the Lakes, Vol. 20. Klamath Falls, OR: Oregon Institute of Technology.

Flenniken, J. J., Warburton, M., & Gilreath, A. (1980). A preliminary lithic technological examination of 20 archaeological sites in the Sycan Archaeological District. Fremont National Forest. Report on file: Fremont-Winema National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Lakeview, OR.

Flenniken, J. J., Ozbun, T. L., & Markos, J. A. (1990). Archaeological testing and evaluation of the Sycan Marsh Site, 35LK2336. Lithic Analysts Research Report No. 19, Pullman, WA.

Fremont, J.C. (1845) Report of the exploring expedition to the Rocky Mountains in the year 1842, and to Oregon and North California in the years 1843-1844. S. Exec. Doc. 174, 28th Congress, 2d Session, Washington. Washington, DC: Gales & Seaton.

Fowler, C. (2008). The effects of prescribed burning on cultural resources. Forest Encyclopedia Network, (ID: p832). Retrieved from http://www.forestencyclopedia.net/p/p832.

Grayson, D. K. (1993). The desert’s past: A natural prehistory of the Great Basin. Washington & London: Smithsonian Institute Press.

Green, D. F., Bordwell, K., Hall, R., & Goheen, A. (1997). Effects of prescribed fire on obsidian hydration rates. Report on file: USDA Forest Service, Modoc National Forest, Warner Mountain Ranger District.

Helfrich, D. (1974). Sprague River Valley – Bly. Klamath Echoes, Vol. 12. Klamath Falls, OR: Klamath County Historical Society.

Hughes, R. E. (1983). Exploring diachronic variability in obsidian procurement patterns in Northeast California and Southcentral Oregon: Geochemical characterization of obsidian sources and projectile points by energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation). Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, CA.

Hughes, R. E. (1985). X-ray fluorescence analysis of obsidian from five localities along the Sycan and Sprague Rivers, Winema National Forest, Klamath County, Oregon. Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis, and Cultural Resources Facility Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University Academic Foundation, Inc. Report prepared for USDA, Forest Service, Winema National Forest, Klamath Falls, OR (Contract No. 53-04U3-4-00069).

Hughes, R. E. (1986). Diachronic variability in obsidian procurement patterns in Northeastern California and Southcentral Oregon. University of California Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 17. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Kaiser, J. (1984) Fremont National Forest cultural resources inventory plan. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), Fremont National Forest, Bly Ranger District, Bly, OR.

Kenny, J.P. (1950). Indian Forest and Range: A History of the Administration and Conservation of the Redman’s Heritage. Washington, D.C.: Forest Enterprises.

Kepple, T. (2007). Freeway to fortune: Rural subdivisions in Oregon and California. In Journal of the Shaw Historical Library; Where fortune calls: Dreamers and schemers in the Land of the Lakes, Vol. 21. Klamath Falls, OR: Oregon Institute of Technology.

Mack, J. M. (2011). On the role of Siskiyou utility ware as a social network marker in late prehistoric Northern California and Southern Oregon. In R. E. Hughes (Ed.), Perspectives

on prehistoric trade and exchange in California and the Great Basin (pp. 114-134). Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press.

McArthur, L. A. (1974). Oregon geographical names (4th ed.). Portland, OR: Oregon Historical Society.

Minor, R., Beckham S. D., & Toepel K. A. (1979). Cultural resource overview of the BLM Lakeview District, South-Central Oregon: Archeology, ethnography, history. University of Oregon anthropological papers (No. 16). Eugene, OR: Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon.

Musil, R. R. (1995). Adaptive transitions and environmental changes in the Northern Great Basin: A view from Diamond Swamp. University of Oregon anthropological papers (No. 51). Eugene, OR: Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon.

O’Callaghan, J. A. (1952). Klamath Indians and the Oregon Wagon Road Grant, 1864-1938. In Oregon Historical Quarterly, 53(1): 23-28.

Pettigrew, R. M. (1985). Archaeological investigations on the east shore of Lake Abert, Lake County, Oregon, (Vol. 1). University of Oregon Anthropological Papers (No. 32). Eugene, OR: Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon.

Pierce, C. G. (1957). Klamath Indian Reservation: Cut by fiscal years. Unpublished map on file, USDA Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, Chiloquin & Bly Ranger Districts.

Silvermoon, J.M. (1985). Cultural resources overview, Fremont National Forest. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), Fremont National Forest, Bly Ranger District, Bly, OR.

Spier, L. (1930). Klamath Ethnography. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology, Vol. 30. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Stern, T. (1966). The Klamath Tribe: A people and their reservation. In The American Ethnological Society, Monograph 41. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.

Thatcher, J. J. (2001). The distribution of geologic and artifact obsidian from the Silver Lake/Sycan Marsh geochemical source group, South-Central Oregon (Unpublished master’s thesis). Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR.

Tonsfeldt, W. (1987a). An industrial frontier: Railroad logging on the Fremont National Forest 1928-1946 (Contract #53-04U3-6-007). USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), Winema National Forest.

Tonsfeldt, W. (1987b). Mills along the lakeshore: The lumber industry on the Winema Lands 1910-1936 (Contract #53-04U3-6-0007). USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), Winema National Forest.

Tonsfeldt, W. (2002). Selling Klamath Reservation timber 1910-1935. In Journal of the Shaw Historical Library; And then we logged: The timber industry in the Klamath Basin, Vol. 16. Klamath Falls, OR: Oregon Institute of Technology.

Tonsfeldt, W. & Gray, D. (2009). Cultural resource inventory plan, Fremont-Winema National Forests. Report on file: USDA, Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Lakeview, OR.

USDA Forest Service (1992). Environmental Assessment & River Management Plan Sycan Wild & Scenic River. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), Fremont National Forest and Winema National Forests, Bly Ranger District & Chiloquin Ranger District.

USDA Forest Service (2004). Programmatic agreement among the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historical Preservation Officer regarding cultural resources management in the State of Oregon by the USDA Forest Service. Report on file: Forest Service, Fremont-Winema National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Lakeview, OR.

USDA Forest Service (2005). Lower Sycan watershed analysis. Report on file: Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region (Region 6), Fremont–Winema National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Lakeview, OR. Retrieved from: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5319615.pdf

Zucker, J., Hummel, K., & Hogfoss, B. (1983). Oregon Indians: Culture, history & current affairs, an atlas & introduction. Portland, OR: Western Imprints, the Press of the Oregon Historical Society.