Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report
Prepared by: Vicki Adkison Section 106 Compliance Archaeologist And Gerald R. Gates Heritage Resource Program Manager
for: Warner Mountain Ranger District Modoc National Forest
February 2016
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
Lassen 15 Restoration Project
Heritage Resources Specialist Report
Introduction
This report identifies the background information necessary for considering the effects of a proposed undertaking on Heritage Resources. Such resources are prehistoric and historic archaeological sites and features, collectively called “historic properties” if determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or if unevaluated, assumed to be eligible and managed as such. This report is prepared in compliance with the Section 106 provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended).
This report focuses on the Heritage Resources within the Lassen 15 Restoration Project area and discusses the existing and desired conditions, and addresses the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of the proposed alternatives to the archaeological properties and cultural resources within the project area.
The Lassen 15 Restoration Project area is located in the northern portion of the Warner Mountain Ranger District. The analysis area lies within portions of T46N, R14E and R15E; T45N, R14E and R15E; and T44N, R15E, MDM. These locations may be found on the USGS Sugar Hill and Davis Creek 7.5’ topographic maps. The overall analysis area is approximately 25,000 acres. Please refer to the primary Environmental Analysis document for more specific environmental setting and background information.
Methodology for Analysis
The methodology used for this Heritage Resource section includes utilizing existing information on Native American tribal territory; historical background information from the overview prepared by William S. Brown Sr. (1945), and the Forests’ Heritage Resource Inventory Base Maps containing both previous acceptable archaeological coverage and recorded archaeological and historic site locations. Some previous archaeological surveys undertaken in the 1970s have not been entered into our base maps due to problems with the adequacy of the transect spacing and today’s standards. The archaeological sites recorded at that time are represented here, but not the unacceptable survey acres.
According to the Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (1991) the following standards (S) and guidelines (G) are designed to facilitate proper identification and management of the Forests’ cultural resources:
1. (S) Inventory to identify cultural resource properties prior to any project, activity or license which may affect significant cultural resources consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) and other pertinent laws and regulations. Adjustments will be made to projects to comply with cultural resource laws.
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 1
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
2. (S) Evaluate cultural resources to determine National Register of Historic Places eligibility.
3. (S) Conserve properties that have been designated on, or are eligible for designation to, the National Register of Historic Places. (Eligibility is assumed if evaluation is incomplete.)
4. (G) Provide for the use and enhancement of cultural resources for educational, scientific, recreational, and other public purposes to the extent consistent with management requirements.
A. Interpret significant cultural resources through signing, brochures, displays, self-guided tours, and programs. Treat and interpret significant cultural resources appropriate to their assessed value and associated level of public interest.
B. Continue cooperative efforts with local groups such as the Modoc County Historical Society.
5. (S) Protect access and use of sites and locations important to traditional Native American religious and cultural practices consistent with the American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978.
6. (G) Protect cultural resources largely by directing activities or use away from sensitive areas, by maintaining confidentiality, and by informing Forest users of cultural resource protection requirements.
Since 1976, 31 surveys for prehistoric and historic archaeological resources have been conducted within the current project area. These 31 surveys satisfy the Forest Plan standard to “identify cultural resource properties prior to any project, activity or license,” meeting the guidelines for complete and intensive coverage. They are considered likely to have discovered any archaeological properties that exist in the area surveyed, which covers 67% of the analysis area, and all of the proposed treatment units. The land remaining unsurveyed is located in the southern portion of the analysis area and consists of steep slopes, where intensive survey is not undertaken due to the extremely low sensitivity for archaeological sites. This part of the analysis area does not contain any of the proposed treatment units. Table 1 summarizes the previous surveys, which collectively total about 16,907 acres within the project analysis area.
The most recent surveys, undertaken specifically for the Lassen 15 Restoration Project, took place in six fiscal years: FY-2006, FY-2008, FY-2012, FY-2013, FY-2014 and FY-2015.
Intensive reconnaissance was first completed on surveyable ground within the analysis area, using compass-based parallel transects. Subsequently, field verification of the previous surveys was undertaken using the same methods in sample areas where survey could be completed safely. Transect spacing did not exceed 20 meters (66 feet) in any of the survey areas. New survey for this project totaled about 6,647 acres.
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 2
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
Table 1. Previous Archaeological Surveys in the proposed Project Area.
HRSR NO. REPORT NAME DATE 05-09-0041 Cold Creek Timber Stand Improvement 1976 05-09-0046 Shartell Site Prep 1976 05-09-0073 Cottonwood Flat Site Preparation 1977 05-09-0115 Bear Valley Site Prep 1978 05-09-0136 Fender Flat & Milk Spring Precommercial Thin 1978 05-09-0138 Sugar Hill Thin 1978 05-09-0075 Crane Timber Sale (Field Checks) 1984/1985 05-09-0471 Lassen Creek/Cold Creek Stream Improvement 1986 05-09-0485 Spring Development 1987 05-09-0495 Wildlife Habitat Improvement Prescribed Burn 1987 05-09-0544 Sugar Hill Rx Burn 1988 05-09-0708 Lassen Timber Sale 1978 05-09-0723 Sugar Hill Thin V 1991 05-09-0723 Sup. Sugar Hill TSI 1993 05-09-0781 Obsidian Mining 1992 05-09-0788 Crane Timber Stand Improvement #1 1992 05-09-0789 Crane Timber Stand Improvement #2 1992 05-09-0958 Davis Creek C&H Allotment 1994 05-09-0963 Sugar Hill Timber Stand Improvement 1994 05-09-0964 North Warners Forest Health 1994 05-09-0991 Lassen Creek Range Improvement 1995 05-09-0992 Bear Valley Forest Health Plan 1995 05-09-0997 Modoc Tribe Ride 1997 1997 05-09-1340 Sugar Hill Gap Survey 2003 05-09-1419 Sugar Hill Forest Health 2005 05-09-1423 Horizon/Zilkha Wind Energy 2006 05-09-1437 OHV Corridors 2006 05-09-1468 Lassen Creek Watershed 2006/08 05-09-1645 Lassen Creek Watershed Phase I 2012 05-09-1663 Lassen Creek Ecological Restoration 2012 2013 05-09-1684 Lassen Creek Ecological Restoration 2015 2015
There were 302 archaeological/heritage resource properties identified within the current project analysis area. Fourteen (14) of the previously recorded sites could not be relocated. Four sites not included in the total were determined to be “non-cultural obsidian” deposits. All of the sites are summarized in Appendix A.
The majority of these sites have not been assessed for their eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The mitigation measures proposed below will meet the Forest Plan guideline to protect such properties by following the approved treatment options found within the current Regional Programmatic Agreement (PA) with the California State Historic Preservation Office (USDA FS, 2013).
Existing Condition
Archaeology. This portion of northeastern California has been occupied and used by Native American populations for at least 10,000 years. Native peoples continue to live in and use the
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 3
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
area today. The prehistoric past, prior to 1826, has been divided into several time periods based upon the types and styles of tools used by the Native peoples. The earliest known period is called the Early Holocene and dates between 10,000 – 5,000 BC. It is followed by the Early Archaic from 5,000 – 1500 BC, and the Middle Archaic from 1500 BC to AD 700, and the Late Archaic from AD 700 – 1350. The Terminal Prehistoric period goes from AD 1350 to the early 1800s. After nearly 40 years of systematic archaeological surveys for Historic Preservation compliance there have been about 8,200 archaeological sites located and recorded to date.
Ethnographic Information
The Achomawi groups claiming this portion of the Warner Mountains were the Hewisedawi and Kosalektawi bands of the larger Hokan speaking Achomawi of the Pit River region. The Hewisedawi territory claimed was that area south of Lassen Creek/Willow Creek and west of the crest of the Warner’s to a point just south of Joseph Creek and up to Cedar Mountain. The Kosalektawi occupied the western flank of the Warner’s from below Joseph Creek south to Warren Peak, beyond Cedar Pass. The Hammawi occupied and utilized the remaining area of the western slope on southward and into the Madeline Plains area. There is some question regarding the validity of these boundaries; however, they do seem to be aligned with the exploitation areas of the inhabitants of the principle villages from which the bands of the Achomawi have been named. There are some identified locations of importance to the Pit River Tribe present (Roybal and Haller, 1982). The eastern slopes up to the crest of the Warner’s are claimed by the Gidu'tikadu of Surprise Valley. There appears to have been a summer village located east of Cedar Pass that was primarily used by occupants of Surprise Valley based upon the types of obsidian present (Gates 2006).
The distinction of Paiute sites or use areas from those of the Achomawi bands will not be confidently assignable in the majority of cases. Site types in the higher elevations tend to be restricted to those of temporary camps and lithic scatters, with limited artifact inventories. Additionally, the "territories" described above were not static but tended to fluctuate over time.
Archaeological Sensitivity
The current project area lies within the “Fandango Valley to Cedar Pass” zone in the Warner Mountains. The zones were created in 2015 as a means of organizing over 40 years of cultural resource surveys on the Forest. The thirteen zones Forest-wide are classified by relative sensitivity for the presence of cultural resources, based on surveys conducted within them. In its entirety the Fandango Valley to Cedar Pass zone contains 81,280 acres or about 127 square miles (see Map 1). The project area represents about 30% of this zone.
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 4
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
Map 1: The Warner Mountain Range – Fandango Valley to Cedar Pass.
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 5
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
This zone contains numerous natural sources of obsidian and dacite (or rhyodacite); due to this the overall prehistoric site sensitivity for this area is quite “High.” Geochemically distinct obsidian sources (Hughes 1986) include Rainbow Mine, Blue Spring, Sugar Hill and Buck Mountain. More recently, the “Logo” source has been added by Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory (2006). Unnamed dacite sources/quarries also exist in the area. All small valley margins, drainage terraces, side hill terraces and mountain and ridge tops are likely locations for sites to occur. Rock stacks/cairns may also be present along lava rims (especially on the west side of the zone) and associated with rocky peaks and outcrops. With the exception of steeper slopes and areas in impenetrable brush, all areas should be surveyed utilizing the usual 20 meter transect spacing. Pre-field research will identify specific locations where “less-than- complete” survey strategies may be used. These areas will be identified to the SHPO as per the Regional PA for concurrence.
More than 665 archaeological sites have been recorded in the zone over the last 40 years. This zone covers roughly 127 square miles (81,280 acres) and is predicted to have an overall site density of 1 site per 55 acres. Therefore, it is predicted that this zone may yield about 1,475 total archaeological sites.
The narrative below is from Gates (2015a), Predicted Cultural Resource Sensitivity Zones and Forest Investigation Strategy, and covers the proposed project area:
History
In 1846 the Applegate Trail was blazed from west to east, from the Willamette Valley, Oregon Territory to Fort Hall, Idaho Territory, as a safer alternate route for settlers going to Oregon. The trail crossed the Warner Mountains through Fandango Valley, over Fandango Pass. In 1848 Peter Lassen followed the Applegate route through the pass and the valley, but turned southward at the end of Goose Lake and followed a Pit River route westward to the Sacramento Valley and California goldfields. Numerous wagon trains utilized these routes. In 1867, the military out of Fort Bidwell, blazed the “Fort Crook to Fort Bidwell Military Road” to facilitate getting supplies. This road was better engineered than the Lassen/Applegate and eliminated most of the very steep inclines and descents. Settlement in the Goose Lake and Fandango Valleys began in the early 1870s with homesteads located primarily in the two valleys and some of the upland creeks and large valley/meadows. Numerous “Timber & Stone” patents were also filed for throughout this subdivision.
Prior to the establishment of the Warner Mountain Forest Reserve in 1904, several small saw mills were established in the area and one major mill in Fandango Valley. The early Modoc National Forest maps show many of these mill locations. The first commercial timber sale on the Modoc National Forest was sold to the Fandango Valley Mill and consisted of 100 million board feet of pine. Logging activities date as early as the 1870s for local building materials and the early GLO maps will show “Logging Road” locations to facilitate removal of timber. A short- lived logging railroad was even constructed up Lassen Creek as far as the Lower Bear Valley area.
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 6
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
The railroad was destroyed by the 1929 Sugar Hill Fire, as was the Fandango Valley Mill. The 1940 Sugar Hill Fire devastated more acres of pine forest. These fires prompted massive reforestation efforts by the Forest Service. In the 1930s Civilian Conservation Corps crews planted thousands of acres of trees, followed in the 1940s by Civilian Public Service (Conscientious Objector) crews (Pitts 1994). The location known as “Planter’s Camp” was the main camp for these crews. Much of the current pine forest in the Sugar Hill/Lassen Creek areas is the result of these efforts.
In 1870, the “Bonner Road” was constructed through Cedar Pass to connect Cedarville with Alturas and points west. This was when the area was still part of a vast Siskiyou County. Modoc County proper was established in 1874. Background research will identify any known land patents, mining claims/patents, and early timber sales. Gates’ (1983) Cultural Resource Overview also contains more information on this area.
Desired Condition
The desired condition for most archaeological and historic resources is to limit or reduce site disturbance from project activities so that archaeological and tribal values are not adversely affected. The sites should show little evidence of activities that may lead to site degradation and loss or reduction of archaeological and tribal values.
As per the Modoc National Forest LRMP archaeological sites should be evaluated for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places. The determination of eligibility is a necessary step in developing reasonable management options and opportunities to facilitate other resource needs. Monitoring for effects and NRHP eligibility determinations are long-term goals that may take place over the next 20 years, or more. Both require an adequate level of funding to be successfully implemented.
Proposed Action
See Proposed Action, 17 October 2016.
Mitigation
If monitoring reveals on-going negative or adverse effects on archaeological sites, then the nature of the offending action needs to be identified and modified or eliminated. This may require a DOE of the affected site and consultation with the SHPO and the associated tribal entity to develop a management plan for the site. At present the proposed mitigation is to protect these archaeological and historic properties through “flag & avoid” and/or “flag & treat” options under the Pacific Southwest Region’s Programmatic Agreement (2013). Site-by-site treatment prescriptions will be made as the various components of the overarching project are implemented over the next several years. Each component to be implemented will have the specific archaeological/heritage properties identified with their specific protection and/or treatment options spelled out as per the Programmatic Agreement (PA ). The relevant portion of the project PA that includes the range of approved “flag & treat” management options is presented below:
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 7
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
APPROVED STANDARD PROTECTION MEASURES
Heritage Program Managers (HPMs), or delegated Heritage Program staff (DHPS), shall ensure that Standard Protection Measures are implemented as appropriate for all subject undertakings managed under this PA. When these protection measures are effectively applied, Forests will have taken into account the effects of undertakings on historic properties.
Forests shall provide the funding and staff time necessary to perform all post-project activity necessitated by historic property treatments and protections, monitoring, effects assessments, and documentation recommended by HPM/DHPS as a condition of project approval, or when identified during post-activity assessments. All such work shall be completed within one year of final project activities. If recommended work is not completed within this period of time, Forests shall notify Region 5 and consult with the SHPO on appropriate actions needed to complete the work within agreed upon time periods, or failing to do so, shall comply with 36 CFR part 800.
1.0 Class I: Avoidance
HPM/DHPS shall exclude historic properties from areas where activities associated with undertakings will occur, except where authorized below.
1.1 Proposed undertakings shall avoid historic properties. Avoidance means that no activities associated with undertakings that may affect historic properties, unless specifically identified in this PA, shall occur within historic property boundaries, including any defined buffer zones (see clause 1.1(a), below). Portions of undertakings may need to be modified, redesigned, or eliminated to properly avoid historic properties.
(a) Buffer zones may be established to ensure added protection where HPM/DHPS determine that they are necessary. The use of buffer zones in avoidance measures may be applicable where setting contributes to property eligibility under 36 CFR 60.4, or where setting may be an important attribute of some types of historic properties (e.g., historic buildings or structures with associated historic landscapes, or traditional cultural properties important to Indians), or where heavy equipment is used in proximity to historic properties.
(1) The size of buffer zones must be determined by HPMs or qualified Heritage Program staff on case-by-case bases.
(2) Landscape architects and qualified Heritage Program staff may be consulted to determine appropriate view sheds for historic resources.
(3) Indian tribes, or their designated representatives, and/or Native American Traditional Practitioners shall be consulted when the use or size of protective buffers for Indian traditional cultural properties needs to be determined.
1.2 Activities within historic property boundaries will be prohibited with the exception of using developed Forest transportation systems when the HPM or qualified heritage professional recommends that such use is consistent with the terms and purposes of this agreement, where
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 8
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016 limited activities approved by the HPM or qualified heritage professional will not have an adverse effect on historic properties, or except as specified below in sections 2.0 and 3.0 of Appendix E.
1.3 All historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), i.e. the treatment units and access roads to them shall be clearly delineated prior to implementing any associated activities that have the potential to affect historic properties.
(1) Historic property boundaries shall be delineated with coded flagging and/or other effective marking.
(2) Historic property location and boundary marking information shall be conveyed to appropriate Forest Service administrators or employees responsible for project implementation so that pertinent information can be incorporated into planning and implementation documents, contracts, and permits (e.g., clauses or stipulations in permits or contracts as needed).
1.4 When any changes in proposed activities are necessary to avoid historic properties (e.g., project modifications, redesign, or elimination; removing old or confusing project markings or engineering stakes within site boundaries; or revising maps or changing specifications), these changes shall be completed prior to initiating any project activities.
1.5 Monitoring by heritage program specialists may be used to enhance the effectiveness of protection measures. The results of any monitoring inspections shall be documented in cultural resources reports and the Infra database.
2.0 Class II: On-Site Historic Property Protection Measures
HPM/DHPS may provide written approval for an undertaking’s activities within or adjacent to the boundaries of historic properties based on professional judgment that such activities will not have an adverse effect on historic properties, or under carefully controlled conditions such as those specified below. All activities performed under Section 2.0 (Standard Protection Measures) must be documented in inventory or other Heritage Program Reports (HPMs), or other compliance reports prepared pursuant to this PA.
2.1 The following historic property protection measures may be approved for undertakings under the conditions detailed below:
(a) Linear sites (e.g., historic trails, roads, railroad grades, ditches) may be crossed or breached by equipment in areas where their features or characteristics clearly lack historic integrity (i.e., where those portions do not contribute to site eligibility or values).
(1) Crossings are not to be made at the points of origin, intersection, or terminus of linear site features.
(2) Crossings are to be made perpendicular to linear site features.
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 9
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
(3) The number of crossings is to be minimized by project and amongst multiple projects in the same general location.
(4) The remainder of the linear site is to be avoided, and traffic is to be clearly routed through designated crossings.
(b) Accumulation of sufficient snow over archaeological deposits or historic features to prevent surface and subsurface impacts. Undertaking activities may be implemented over snow cover on historic properties under the following conditions:
(1) The cover must have at least 12 inches depth of compacted snow or ice throughout the duration of undertaking activities on sites.
(2) All concentrated work areas (e.g., landings, skid trails, turnarounds, and processing equipment sites) shall be located prior to snow accumulation and outside historic property boundaries.
(c) Placement of foreign, non-archaeological material (e.g., padding or filter cloth) within transportation corridors (e.g., designated roads or trails, campground loops, boat ramps, etc.) over archaeological deposits or historic features to prevent surface and subsurface impacts caused by vehicles or equipment. Such foreign material may be utilized on historic properties under the following conditions:
(1) Engineering will design the foreign material depth to acceptable professional standards;
(2) Engineering will design the foreign material use to assure that there will be no surface or subsurface impacts to archaeological deposits or historic features;
(3) The foreign material must be easily distinguished from underlying archaeological deposits or historic features;
(4) The remainder of the archaeological site or historic feature is to be avoided, and traffic is to be clearly routed across the foreign fill material;
(5) The foreign material must be removable should research or other heritage need require access to the archaeological deposit or historic feature at a later date; and
(6) Indian tribe or other public concerns about the use of the foreign material will be addressed prior to use.
(d) Placement of barriers within or adjacent to site boundaries to prevent access to or disturbance of deposits or historic features, or for protection of other sensitive resources on-site, when such barriers do not disturb subsurface deposits or lead to other effects to the site.
(1) Non-intrusive barriers: wooden and other barriers anchored with rebar; rocks/boulders or other items placed on the surface; weed-free straw bales or straw bales
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 10
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
anchored with rebar; or other nonintrusive barriers approved by HPMs or qualified Heritage Program staff.
(2) Fencing: “T”-post fencing; snow fencing; orange highway-type fencing; or other fencing approved by HPMs or qualified Heritage Program staff.
(e) Placement of temporary structural support to stabilize and protect historic properties during undertakings where vibrations or stress from equipment use can be effectively abated or to stabilize historic properties at risk of imminent collapse. Engineering staff will be consulted as appropriate to design supports.
(f) Installation or placement of erosion control devices, ditches, features or other treatments within site boundaries when such measures are reviewed by the HPM/DHPS and hydrologist or soil scientist, and HPM approves their use as unlikely to affect the integrity of a historic property.
2.2 The following activity-specific standard protection measures may be approved by HPM/DHPS under the conditions specified below:
(a) Felling and removal of hazard, salvage, and other trees within historic properties under the following conditions:
(1) Trees may be limbed or topped to prevent soil gouging during felling;
(3) Felled trees may be removed using only the following techniques: hand bucking, including use of chain saws, and hand carrying, rubber tired loader, crane/self- loader, helicopter, or other non-disturbing, HPM-approved methods;
(4) Equipment operators shall be briefed on the need to reduce ground disturbances (e.g., minimizing turns);
(5) No skidding nor tracked equipment shall be allowed within historic property boundaries; and
(6) Where monitoring is a condition of approval, its requirements or scheduling procedures should be included in the written approval.
(b) For fire, and hazardous fuels and vegetation management projects, HPM/DHPS , in conjunction with fuels, vegetation management, or fire specialists as necessary, shall develop treatment measures for at risk historic properties (as defined in SHPO approved Region 5 modules and agreements) designed to eliminate or reduce potential adverse effects to the extent practicable by utilizing methods that minimize surface disturbance, and/or by planning project activities in previously disturbed areas or areas lacking cultural features.
(1) The following standard protection measures apply to fire, hazardous fuels, and vegetation management projects:
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 11
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
(A) Fire crews may monitor sites to provide protection as needed.
(B) Fire lines or breaks may be constructed off sites to protect at risk historic properties.
(C) Vegetation may be removed and fire lines or breaks may be constructed within sites using hand tools, so long as ground disturbance is minimized, and features are avoided, as specified by HPMs or qualified Heritage Program staff during fire emergencies (see Stipulation 7.11).
(D) Fire shelter fabric or other protective materials or equipment (e.g., sprinkler systems) may be utilized to protect at risk historic properties.
(E) Fire retardant foam and other wetting agents may be utilized to protect at risk historic properties and in the construction and use of fire lines.
(F) Surface fuels (e.g., stumps or partially buried logs) on at risk historic properties may be covered with dirt, fire shelter fabric, foam or other wetting agents, or other protective materials to prevent fire from burning into subsurface components and to reduce the duration of heating underneath or near heavy fuels.
(G) Trees that may impact at risk historic properties should they fall on site features and smolder can be directionally felled away from properties prior to ignition, or prevented from burning by wrapping in fire shelter fabric or treating with fire retardant or wetting agents.
(H) Vegetation to be burned shall not be piled within the boundaries of historic properties unless locations (e.g., a previously disturbed area) have been specifically approved by HPMs or qualified Heritage Program staff.
(I) Mechanically treated (crushed/cut) brush or downed woody material may be removed from historic properties by hand, through the use of off-site equipment, or by rubber- tired equipment approved by HPMs or qualified Heritage Program staff. Ground disturbance shall be minimized to the extent practicable during such removals.
(J) Woody material may be chipped within the boundaries of historic properties so long as the staging of chipping equipment on-site does not affect historic properties and staging areas are specifically approved by HPMs or qualified Heritage Program staff.
(K) HPMs shall approve the use of tracked equipment to remove brush or woody material from within specifically identified areas of site boundaries under prescribed measures designed to prevent or minimize effects. Vegetative or other protective padding may be used in conjunction with HPM authorization of certain equipment types within site boundaries.
(2) HPMs or qualified Heritage Program staff shall determine whether fire, prescribed fire, or mechanical equipment treatments within site boundaries shall be monitored, and how such monitoring shall occur.
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 12
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
(3) Use of any standard protection measures on historic properties for fire, hazardous fuels, and vegetation experimental mechanical treatments shall be documented in heritage program reports, detailing equipment type, extraction techniques, conditions of use, environmental conditions, project results, effectiveness of protection measures, need for changes, and recommendations for future use. (c) For motorized recreation projects, HPMs or qualified Heritage Program staff, in conjunction with motorized recreation specialists and engineers as necessary, shall develop treatment measures for at risk historic properties designed to eliminate or reduce potential adverse effects to the extent practicable by utilizing methods that minimize surface disturbance, and/or by planning project activities in previously disturbed areas or areas lacking cultural features. The following standard protection measures apply to motorized recreation projects:
(1) Adoption or implementation of use controls: (A) Temporary (e.g., during wet season) or long-term closures; (B) Signage (use restrictions, informational, etc.); (C) Access exclusions via installation of gates when placed where HPMs or qualified Heritage Program staff determine there will be no effect or no adverse effect, such as placement in disturbed contexts, in road prisms, or at site boundaries; (D) Adaptive management (protocol that proceeds through stages managed to reduce or eliminate any effect) that includes monitoring, education, signage, and closure in a sequential process. (2) Use of vegetative screening or surface treatments: broadcast seeding; broadcast slash or straw, etc.; or planting of vegetation to promote screening and natural fencing. (d) Routine maintenance of roads or trails over 50 years old may be approved by the HPM/DHPS in order to maintain current uses provided work is confined to the existing alignment/prism and previously maintained surfaces, and proposed work or methods are unlikely to affect historic integrity (e.g., brush clearing, cleaning culverts, maintaining ditches and erosion control features, etc.).
2.3 Any specified activities within the boundaries of historic properties shall be reviewed in heritage program reports to assess continuation of or need for changes in the protection measures. 2.4 If standard protection measures cannot provide appropriate protection, undertakings shall be subject to the provisions of 36 CFR part 800.
As the individual projects on-the-ground are designed the Heritage shop will identify all historic properties that may be potentially affected by the project. At that time the specific treatment options will be selected and applied for site management and protection. By implementing these procedures there should be no effect on these properties as a result of project implementation.
Monitoring
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 13
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
A reasonable monitoring program to document site condition and whether or not project activities are affecting archaeological sites should be initiated during project implementation. If unacceptable effects are documented, then corrective measures may be designed to reduce or mitigate the effects. Post-project monitoring should be completed once the project is closed to assess the final effectiveness of the mitigation measures. At that time, boundary-marking flagging around the sites will be removed.
Environmental Consequences
Alternative 1 - Proposed Action
Direct Effects
Provided the proposed “flag and avoid” and/or “flag & treat” options and road use mitigation measures are implemented and maintained throughout the project activities, the project components should have no direct effects upon the prehistoric or historic archaeological resources.
Indirect Effects
Under the proposed action alternative, there would be few indirect effects upon the Heritage resources. There is a slight possibility that mitigation for the proposed activities would have an effect; because the site boundaries will be flagged for avoidance and/or prescribed treatments under the Regional Programmatic Agreement, these sites would be made temporarily more visible to contractors and to the general public. This added visibility may allow for “pot hunters” to easily see surface artifacts and subject them to illegal collection.
Project activities could be beneficial to the archaeological sites by reducing the chances of wide- ranging catastrophic wildfire through treatments designed to reduce vegetative fuel loading. A personal observation by the former Forest Archaeologist (Gates 2015b) notes that through natural processes, overall surface vegetation has increased dramatically on archaeological sites recorded in the late 1970s and 1980s. Many archaeological sites that had good surface visibility at that time now are much obscured by denser surface vegetation. This density of fuels has increased the likelihood of wildfire within the site limits. In that case, the fire effects noted in the “No Action” alternative would be possible.
Cumulative Effects
Overall, the project activities, in combination with other activities, may contribute to long-term issues for archaeological sites. If the “flag and avoid” method is chosen, site acres will remain untreated. Through natural processes, vegetation may gradually become denser in the sites. This may have the effect of making site locations easier to identify in comparison with treated areas, though at the same time site ground surfaces may be more difficult to see. The “flag and treat”
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 14
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
methods would ameliorate this issue to some extent, by rendering vegetation more evenly distributed within and outside of the archaeological sites.
Additionally, if project activities do not take place within the sites, increasing fuel loading may lead to increased danger of fire there. While less threating to small sites surrounded by treated ground, on some large sites the accumulating vegetation could create a viable fuel source for a high intensity lightning-caused wildfire, even while surrounding treated territory is less susceptible to fire. Wildfire has the potential to damage surface and immediately subsurface obsidian, causing the hydration layer used in dating this material to evaporate.
Livestock grazing and large hooved or footed animals have and continue to affect archaeological sites across the Forest by various means depending upon soil conditions, site types, and various other factors. Large hooved or footed native mammals and rodents/burrowing animals, have affected sites in one way or another “since time immemorial” and will continue to do so to the end of time. Generally, too, the more people out and about the land as contractors for various undertakings, Forest Service employees, fire suppression crews, recreationists and hunters, will result in continuing artifact loss through illegal removal of visible surface artifacts and a lessening of archaeological research potentials.
Alternative 2 - No Action
Direct Effects
Under a no action alternative, there would be no direct effects upon the prehistoric or historic archaeological resources in the project area.
Indirect Effects
Under a no action alternative, there would be few indirect effects upon the Heritage resources. The long term increasing density of vegetation and the likelihood of wildfire could have a potential effect if the prehistoric archaeological sites were subjected to burning in this manner. As previously noted, high fire temperatures have the potential to affect obsidian artifacts by altering or destroying the obsidian hydration rind that is useful in dating the age of archaeological sites.
However, it is also possible that an increase in surface vegetation, primarily impenetrable brush, may result in the reduction of both ground surface visibility and ease of access, making the identification of surface archaeological remains more difficult. This reduction may increase site protection from “pot hunters” because they can no longer easily see surface artifacts. In the absence of wildfire the natural processes would continue to operate; cultural obsidian would continue to hydrate, reflecting the advancing aging of these materials. Additionally, slow but steady natural deterioration of the historic properties would continue; items in the historic dumps and associated mill sites would continue to rust and decay.
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 15
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
Cumulative Effects
Under the No Action alternative, the grazing of native hooved mammals such as deer and elk, along with the actions of burrowing animals, will continue to affect sites as part of their natural lifecycle. Livestock grazing, such as soil trampling and the creation of livestock travel paths, may also continue to be an effect. Past and future wild fires maintain the potential to adversely affect obsidian hydration values of artifacts. Generally, too, artifact loss through illegal removal of visible surface artifacts may continue, resulting in a gradual lessening of archaeological research potentials.
Compliance with the Forest Plan and Other Regulatory Direction
Each alternative (other than “No Action”) would be subject to the same Forest LRMP standards and guidelines, which are designed to comply with existing Historic Preservation laws (e.g., National Historic Preservation Act), rules and regulations and as subject to the provisions of the Regional Programmatic Agreement (2013).
References (Heritage)
Adkison, Vicki 2003 ASR 05-09-1320: Sugar Hill Prescribed Burn. Report on file at Modoc National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Alturas, CA.
2003 ASR 05-09-1340: Sugar Hill Gap. Report on file at Modoc National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Alturas, CA.
2005 ASR 05-09-1419: Sugar Hill Forest Health. Report on file at Modoc National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Alturas, CA.
2008 ASR 05-09-1468: Lassen Creek Watershed. Report on file at Modoc National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Alturas, CA.
2012 ASR 05-09-1645: Lassen Creek Watershed Phase I. Report on file at Modoc National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Alturas, CA.
2013 ASR 05-09-1663: Lassen Creek Ecological Restoration 2012. Report on file at Modoc National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Alturas, CA.
2015 ASR 05-09-1684: Lassen Creek Ecological Restoration 2015. Report on file at Modoc National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Alturas, CA.
Brown, William S., Sr. 1945 History of the Modoc National Forest, United States Forest Service, California Region. USDA-Forest Service, Region 5, San Francisco, CA. Gates, Gerald R.
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 16
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
1983 Cultural Resource Overview: Modoc National Forest. USDA-Forest Service. Report on file at Modoc National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Alturas, CA.
2006 Archaeological Damage Assessment of Two Upland Camps in the Warner Mountains of Northeastern California. USDA-Forest Service. Report on file at Modoc National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Alturas, CA.
2015a Predicted Cultural Resource Sensitivity Zones and Forest Investigation Strategy. USDA-Forest Service. Report on file at Modoc National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Alturas, CA.
2015b Personal observation.
Hughes, Richard 1986 Diachronic Variability in Obsidian Procurement Patterns in Northeastern California and Southcentral Oregon. University of California Publications in Anthropology Vol. 17.
King, Jerome, et al. 2004 Class I Cultural Resources Overview and Research Design for the Alturas, Eagle Lake, and Surprise Resource Areas. Submitted to USDI-Bureau of Land Management, Surprise, Eagle Lake, and Alturas Field Offices. Far Western Anthropological Research Group, Inc. Davis, CA.
Loyd, Janine M., Thomas M. Origer and David A. Fredrickson 2002 The Effects of Fire and Heat on Obsidian. Cultural Resources Publication, Anthropology-Fire History, US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, California State Office. Pease, Robert W. 1965 Modoc County: A Geographic Time Continuum on the California Volcanic Tableland. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Pitts, Kathy 1994 The Diary of Jim Clark, A Conscientious Objector. The Journal of the Modoc County Historical Society, No. 16 (1994). Alturas, CA
Northwest Research Obsidian Studies Laboratory 2006 Report 2006-80, Results of X-Ray Fluorescence and Obsidian Hydration Analysis. Corvallis, OR.
USDA Forest Service 1991 Modoc National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA-Forest Service, Modoc National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Alturas, CA USDA Forest Service 2013 Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 17
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region. USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 18
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK.
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 19
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
Lassen 15 Restoration Project
APPENDIX A:
Listing of Archaeological Sites
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 20
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK.
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 21
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
Listing of Archaeological Sites Within/Adjacent to Treatment Units or Roads [216]
TRINOMIAL FS NUMBER SITE TYPE SIZE POINT TYPES NRHP Historic – Applegate/- CA-Mod-2323H FS-05-09-53-0001Hb 20.00 ac. n/a Eligible Lassen Trail CA-Mod-4434 FS-05-09-53-0043 Lithic Scatter/Quarry 4.40 ac. Humboldt, Elko Eared Unevaluated CA-Mod-0311 FS-05-09-53-0048 Lithic Scatter 13.5 ac. Elko Eared Unevaluated CA-Mod-0931 FS-05-09-53-0053 Lithic Scatter 9.80 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-1593/H FS-05-09-53-0063/H Lithic Scatter 26.10 ac. None Unevaluated Humboldt, Northern Side Notched, Elko Side Notched, CA-Mod-0446 FS-05-09-53-0065 Lithic Scatter 32.80 ac. Unevaluated Elko Eared, Eastgate Expanding Stem CA-Mod-0451 FS-05-09-53-0071 Lithic Scatter 2.50 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-0452 FS-05-09-53-0072 Lithic Scatter 1.17 ac. Gatecliff Unevaluated CA-Mod-0454 FS-05-09-53-0074 Lithic Scatter 7.80 ac. Cascade, Elko Eared (3) Unevaluated Gatecliff, Humboldt, Bare Creek Square Shoulder, Elko Eared (3), CA-Mod-0457 FS-05-09-53-0077 Lithic Scatter 39.40 ac. Unevaluated Rose Spring/Guntheroid, Cottonwood Leaf Shape CA-Mod-1101 FS-05-09-53-0141 Lithic Scatter 17.00 ac. Elko Corner Notched Unevaluated CA-Mod-5479 FS-05-09-53-0143 Lithic Scatter 6.0 ac. Elko Eared, Leaf Shaped Unevaluated CA-Mod-5478/H FS-05-09-53-0144/H Lithic Scatter/Road 5.78 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-1592/H FS-05-09-53-0145/H Lithic Scatter/Road 1.50 ac. None Unevaluated Lithic Scatter/Historic CA-Mod-1595/H FS-05-09-53-0146/H 85.38 ac. Bare Creek, Elko Unevaluated Trash Lithic Scatter/Historic CA-Mod-1599/H FS-05-09-53-0150/H 92.98 ac. Bare Creek Unevaluated Trash CA-Mod-1659 FS-05-09-53-0155 Lithic Scatter 3.12 ac. None Unevaluated Lithic Scatter/Historic CA-Mod-5438/H FS-05-09-53-0158/H 15.6 ac. Elko Unevaluated Trash Lithic Scatter/Historic CA-Mod-1662/H FS-05-09-53-0159/H 13.4 ac. Elko Unevaluated Trash CA-Mod-1663 FS-05-09-53-0160 Lithic Scatter 2.37 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5439 FS-05-09-53-0161 Lithic Scatter 22.0 ac. None Unevaluated Lithic Scatter/Historic CA-Mod-1666/H FS-05-09-53-0164/H 41.3 ac. Great Basin Stemmed Unevaluated Trash CA-Mod-5440 FS-05-09-53-0165 Lithic Scatter 9.85 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5516 FS-05-09-53-0166 Lithic Scatter 0.30 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-1680 FS-05-09-53-0167 Lithic Scatter 4.5 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5442 FS-05-09-53-0168 Lithic Scatter 0.92 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-1681 FS-05-09-53-0169 Lithic Scatter 5.25 ac. None Unevaluated Northern Side Notched, CA-Mod-5443 FS-05-09-53-0170 Lithic Scatter 68.67 ac. Humboldt, Elko, Rose Spring, Unevaluated Cottonwood Northern Side Notched, Lithic Scatter/Historic Humboldt, Bare Creek, Elko, CA-Mod-1668/H FS-05-09-53-0173/H 344.72 ac. Unevaluated Trash Surprise Valley Split Stem, Rose Spring, Gunther Barbed CA-Mod-5445 FS-05-09-53-0176 Lithic Scatter 17.05 ac. Rose Spring Unevaluated
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 22
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
TRINOMIAL FS NUMBER SITE TYPE SIZE POINT TYPES NRHP Elko, Rose Spring, Alkali CA-Mod-5446/H FS-05-09-53-0177/H Lithic Scatter 43.4 ac. Unevaluated Stemmed CA-Mod-5447 FS-05-09-53-0178 Lithic Scatter 15.66 ac. Humboldt, Elko, Cottonwood Unevaluated CA-Mod-5448 FS-05-09-53-0179 Lithic Scatter 19.97 ac. None Unevaluated Bare Creek, Elko, Surprise Valley CA-Mod-5514/H FS-05-09-53-0181/H Lithic Scatter 36.0 ac. Unevaluated Split Stem CA-Mod-4286 FS-05-09-53-0185 Lithic Scatter 0.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5654 FS-05-09-53-0186 Lithic Scatter 1.76 ac. Humboldt, Elko Unevaluated CA-Mod-5529 FS-05-09-53-0191 Lithic Scatter 0.70 ac. Elko or Rose Spring Series Unevaluated CA-Mod-5530 FS-05-09-53-0192 Lithic Scatter 3.60 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5532 CA-Mod-5535 FS-05-09-53-0197 Lithic Scatter 2.60 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5537 FS-05-09-53-0199 Lithic Scatter 0.40 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5540 FS-05-09-53-0205 Lithic Scatter 0.17 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5542 FS-05-09-53-0207 Lithic Scatter 0.68 ac. Rose Spring Series (?) Unevaluated CA-Mod-5477 FS-05-09-53-0208 Lithic Scatter 1.26 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-1675 FS-05-09-53-0211 Lithic Scatter 0.20 ac. Elko Eared Unevaluated CA-Mod-5450 FS-05-09-53-0213 Lithic Scatter 0.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5451 FS-05-09-53-0214 Lithic Scatter 0.08 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5452 FS-05-09-53-0215 Lithic Scatter 0.90 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5453 FS-05-09-53-0216 Lithic Scatter 0.03 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-1683 FS-05-09-53-0217 Lithic Scatter 0.09 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-1679 FS-05-09-53-0224 Lithic Scatter 0.50 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-1564 FS-05-09-53-0226 Lithic Quarry 1.93 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-1565 FS-05-09-53-0227 Lithic Scatter 27.4 ac. Desert Side Notched Unevaluated CA-Mod-1567 FS-05-09-53-0228 Lithic Scatter 1.90 ac. Northern Side Notched Unevaluated CA-Mod-1687 FS-05-09-53-0229 Lithic Scatter 1.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-1569 FS-05-09-53-0230 Lithic Scatter 4.37 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-1689 FS-05-09-53-0232 Lithic Quarry 1.35 ac. None Unevaluated Elko Series, Surprise Valley Split CA-Mod-5454 FS-05-09-53-0248 Lithic Scatter 81.0 ac. Unevaluated Stem Lithic Scatter Hunting CA-Mod-5455 FS-05-09-53-0249 7.60 ac. None Unevaluated Blind (?) CA-Mod-1672 FS-05-09-53-0251 Lithic Scatter 15.5 ac. Elko Unevaluated Northern Side Notched, Elko CA-Mod-1673 FS-05-09-53-0252 Lithic Scatter +/-80 ac. Eared (2), Elko Corner Notched, Unevaluated Elko Series CA-Mod-3158 FS-05-09-53-0254 Lithic Scatter 2.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5234 FS-05-09-53-0257 Lithic Scatter 0.14 ac. Elko Eared (?) Unevaluated CA-Mod-5456 FS-05-09-53-0258 Lithic Scatter 0.07 ac. Elko Eared Unevaluated CA-Mod-5457 FS-05-09-53-0259 Lithic Scatter 0.27 ac. Northern Side Notched (?) Unevaluated Bare Creek (?), Bare Creek CA-Mod-5544 FS-05-09-53-0262b Lithic Scatter 2.20 ac. Square Shoulder, Surprise Valley Unevaluated Split Stem CA-Mod-5545 FS-05-09-53-0263 Lithic Scatter 0.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5546 FS-05-09-53-0264 Lithic Scatter 4.60 ac. Elko Series Unevaluated CA-Mod-1691 FS-05-09-53-0265 Lithic Scatter 1.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-1692 FS-05-09-53-0266 Lithic Scatter 0.91 ac. Humboldt Basal Notched Unevaluated CA-Mod-1650 FS-05-09-53-0267 Lithic Scatter 0.74 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-1573 FS-05-09-53-0268 Lithic Scatter 0.20 ac. Elko Eared Unevaluated CA-Mod-5547 FS-05-09-53-0269 Lithic Scatter 0.90 ac. None Unevaluated
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 23
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
TRINOMIAL FS NUMBER SITE TYPE SIZE POINT TYPES NRHP Humboldt (?), Bare Creek Barbed, Bare Creek Square CA-Mod-5460 FS-05-09-53-0273 Lithic Scatter 81.0 ac. Shoulder (2), Elko Eared (4), Unevaluated Elko Corner Notched, Elko Side Notched, Rose Spring Series (3) CA-Mod-5461 FS-05-09-53-0274 Lithic Scatter 0.50 ac. Stemmed Bipoint, Elko Eared (4) Unevaluated CA-Mod-5462 FS-05-09-53-0275 Lithic Scatter 0.72 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5464 FS-05-09-53-0277 Lithic Scatter 0.90 ac. Cottonwood Triangular Unevaluated CA-Mod-1575 FS-05-09-53-0278 Lithic Scatter 0.30 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5465 FS-05-09-53-0279 Lithic Scatter 0.04 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5516 FS-05-09-53-0383 Lithic Scatter 1.70 ac. Elko Eared Unevaluated Northern Side Notched, Elko CA-Mod-5518 FS-05-09-53-0385 Lithic Scatter 2.90 ac. Unevaluated Eared, Elko Corner Notched CA-Mod-5433 FS-05-09-53-0420 Lithic Scatter 2.60 ac. Elko Eared Unevaluated CA-Mod-5468 FS-05-09-53-0422 Lithic Scatter 2.59 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-2372 FS-05-09-53-0427 Lithic Quarry 36.4 ac. Elko Corner Notched Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-0440 Lithic Scatter 0.30 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5495/H FS-05-09-53-0468/H Lithic Scatter 42.98 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5508 FS-05-09-53-0469 Temporary Camp 0.66 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5509 FS-05-09-53-0470 Lithic Scatter 2.36 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-3515 FS-05-09-53-0502 Lithic Scatter 0.65 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-2298H FS-05-09-53-0503H Planter’s Camp 5.90 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5512 FS-05-09-53-0537 Lithic Scatter 4.50 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5510 FS-05-09-53-0538 Lithic Scatter 2.79 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5505 FS-05-09-53-0596 Lithic Scatter 1.33 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5493 FS-05-09-53-0666 Lithic Scatter 0.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5494 FS-05-09-53-0667 Lithic Scatter 0.90 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-0756 Lithic Scatter 0.60 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-0757 Lithic Scatter 0.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-0758 Lithic Scatter 0.70 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-0761 Lithic Scatter 2.50 ac. Humboldt, Elko Eared (?) Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-0763 Lithic Scatter 1.00 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5523 FS-05-09-53-0764 Lithic Scatter 32.0 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5474 FS-05-09-53-0765 Lithic Scatter 1.00 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5475 FS-05-09-53-0766 Lithic Scatter 0.60 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5476 FS-05-09-53-0767 Lithic Scatter 2.01 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5657 FS-05-09-53-0768 Lithic Scatter 4.70 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-0769 Lithic Scatter 1.00 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5658 FS-05-09-53-0770 Lithic Scatter 7.42 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5656 FS-05-09-53-0771 Lithic Scatter 1.57 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5655 FS-05-09-53-0772 Lithic Scatter 5.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5645 FS-05-09-53-0773 Lithic Scatter 4.00 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5647 FS-05-09-53-0776 Lithic Scatter Quarry 5.00 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5648 FS-05-09-53-0777 Lithic Quarry 0.03 ac None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-0781 Lithic Scatter 10.90 ac. None Unevaluated Gatecliff, Elko Corner Notched, CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-0786 Lithic Scatter 7.70 ac. Unevaluated Elko Eared (?) CA-Mod-5663 FS-05-09-53-0802 Lithic Scatter 1.40 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5653 FS-05-09-53-0805 Lithic Scatter 5.70 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5620 FS-05-09-53-0806 Lithic Scatter 11.11 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5618 FS-05-09-53-0812 Lithic Scatter 0.98 ac. None Unevaluated
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 24
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
TRINOMIAL FS NUMBER SITE TYPE SIZE POINT TYPES NRHP CA-Mod-5619 FS-05-09-53-0813H Historic Trash 0.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5622 FS-05-09-53-0814 Lithic Scatter 0.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5623 FS-05-09-53-0815 Lithic Scatter 0.95 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5624 FS-05-09-53-0816 Lithic Scatter 0.21 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5626 FS-05-09-53-0818 Lithic Scatter 1.93 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5633 FS-05-09-53-0820 Lithic Scatter 2.09 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5634 FS-05-09-53-0821 Lithic Scatter 1.79 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-0850 Lithic Scatter 24.89 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5664 FS-05-09-53-0854 Lithic Scatter 68.0 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5665 FS-05-09-53-0855 Lithic Scatter 0.30 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5666 FS-05-09-53-0890 Lithic Scatter 0.30 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5667 FS-05-09-53-0905 Lithic Scatter 1.10 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5668 FS-05-09-53-0908 Lithic Scatter 0.17 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5669 FS-05-09-53-0909 Lithic Scatter 6.10 ac. None Unevaluated Elko Corner Notched, Rose CA-Mod-5670 FS-05-09-53-0911 Lithic Scatter 5.40 ac. Unevaluated Spring Series (?) CA-Mod-7250H FS-05-09-53-0917H Historic Trash 0.54 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-0918 Lithic Scatter 0.68 ac. Northern Side Notched Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-0929 Lithic Scatter Quarry 0.41 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5671 FS-05-09-53-0933 Lithic Scatter 10.74 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5671 FS-05-09-53-0936 Lithic Scatter 13.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5675 FS-05-09-53-0950 Lithic Scatter 1.10 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5676 FS-05-09-53-0951 Lithic Scatter 23.0 ac. Elko Eared Unevaluated CA-Mod-5659 FS-05-09-53-0952 Lithic Scatter 9.90 ac. Elko Eared, Elko Series, Rosegate Unevaluated CA-Mod-5660 FS-05-09-53-0958 Lithic Scatter 0.18 ac. None Unevaluated Gatecliff, Parman, Northern Side CA-Mod-5661 FS-05-09-53-0959 Lithic Scatter 12.00 ac. Unevaluated Notched, Elko Eared CA-Mod-5662 FS-05-09-53-0962 Lithic Scatter 0.59 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5636 FS-05-09-53-0963 Lithic Scatter 0.22 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5637 FS-05-09-53-0964 Lithic Scatter 1.60 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5638 FS-05-09-53-0970 Lithic Scatter 7.50 ac. None Unevaluated Humboldt Basal Notched (2), CA-Mod-5639 FS-05-09-53-0971 Lithic Scatter 11.80 ac. Unevaluated Elko Eared (3) CA-Mod-5640 FS-05-09-53-0972 Lithic Scatter 2.80 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5641 FS-05-09-53-0973 Lithic Scatter 1.28 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5642 FS-05-09-53-0976 Lithic Scatter 1.30 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5643 FS-05-09-53-0977 Lithic Scatter 0.95 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-3162 FS-05-09-53-1000 Lithic Scatter 4.00 ac. Elko Eared (?) Unevaluated CA-Mod-3163 FS-05-09-53-1001 Lithic Scatter 0.60 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-3164 FS-05-09-53-1002 Lithic Scatter 0.90 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-5522H FS-05-09-53-1013H Historic Trash 0.60 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1015 Lithic Scatter 3.71 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1019 Lithic Scatter 1.13 ac. None Unevaluated Humboldt Basal Notched, CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1022 Lithic Scatter 10.30 ac. Unevaluated Northern Side Notched CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1023 Lithic Scatter 1.74 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1024 Lithic Scatter 3.80 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1025 Lithic Scatter 1.13 ac. Northern Side Notched Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1026H Trash Locus 0.25 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1162 Lithic Scatter 1.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1163 Lithic Scatter 0.59 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1374 Lithic Scatter 0.48 ac. None Unevaluated
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 25
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
TRINOMIAL FS NUMBER SITE TYPE SIZE POINT TYPES NRHP CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1375 Lithic Scatter 5.00 ac. Humboldt Series, Elko Series Unevaluated Petroglyph & Wagon CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1376/H 0.36 ac. None Unevaluated Road CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1377 Lithic Scatter 0.60 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-7039 FS-05-09-53-1459 Lithic Scatter 1.43 ac. Elko Unevaluated CA-Mod-7040 FS-05-09-53-1460 Lithic Scatter 0.64 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-7735 FS-05-09-53-1493 Lithic Scatter 0.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-7736 FS-05-09-53-1496 Lithic Scatter 1.01 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-7737 FS-05-09-53-1497 Lithic Scatter 0.93 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-7738 FS-05-09-53-1501 Lithic Scatter 3.29 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-7739 FS-05-09-53-1502 Lithic Scatter 1.51 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-8006 FS-05-09-53-1507 Lithic Scatter 0.50 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1509 Lithic Scatter 0.15 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1510 Lithic Scatter 0.22 ac. None Unevaluated Lithic Scatter/Historic CA-Mod-7743/H FS-05-09-53-1513/H 5.05 ac. None Unevaluated Trash Lithic Scatter/Historic CA-Mod-7744/H FS-05-09-53-1514/H 0.70 ac. None Unevaluated Phone Line CA-Mod-7745 FS-05-09-53-1515 Lithic Scatter 0.03 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-8025 FS-05-09-53-1536 Lithic Scatter 1.4 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-8026 FS-05-09-53-1537 Lithic Scatter 0.70 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-8027 FS-05-09-53-1538 Lithic Scatter 0.70 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-8028 FS-05-09-53-1539 Lithic Scatter 1.7 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod-8029H FS-05-09-53-1540H Historic Trash 0.74 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1552 Lithic Scatter 0.70 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1553 Lithic Scatter 1.29 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1554H Trash Scatter None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1560 Lithic Scatter 0.23 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1568 Lithic Scatter 0.30 ac. None Unevaluated Elko Corner Notched (?), Elko Side Notched (?), Surprise Valley CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1570 Lithic Scatter 5.97 ac. Unevaluated Split Stem (?), Rose Spring Expanding Stem CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1571 Lithic Scatter 0.90 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1572 Lithic Scatter 0.25 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1573 Lithic Scatter 0.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1574 Lithic Scatter 8.30 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1575 Lithic Scatter 0.20 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1579 Lithic Scatter 0.40 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1580 Lithic Scatter 0.70 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1585 Lithic Scatter 3.80 ac. Bare Creek Barbed or Elko Eared Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1586 Lithic Scatter 0.81 ac. Elko Corner Notched (?) Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1589H Historic Trash 0.03 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1590H Historic Trash 0.40 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1591H Historic Trash 0.06 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1592 Lithic Scatter 0.17 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1593 Lithic Scatter 0.14 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1594 Lithic Scatter 0.60 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1595 Lithic Scatter 0.08 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1599 Lithic Scatter 0.60 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1602 Lithic Scatter 0.10 ac. None Unevaluated
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 26
Lassen 15 Restoration Project Heritage Resources Specialist Report, 2016
TRINOMIAL FS NUMBER SITE TYPE SIZE POINT TYPES NRHP CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1603 Lithic Scatter 0.50 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1604 Lithic Scatter 0.10 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1607 Lithic Scatter 0.40 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1609 Lithic Scatter 0.40 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1619H Lumber Mill 6.22 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1621 Lithic Scatter 0.10 ac. None Unevaluated CA-Mod- FS-05-09-53-1625H Historic Trash 0.10 ac. None Unevaluated
HeritageLassen15EASpecReport_0212162.docx 27