2005-69
Wildland Fire Use
Heritage Implementation
by
Calla McNamee
Archaeologist
Abstract
With the increased emphasis on vegetation restoration and fire management on the National
Forests, Wildland Fire Use (WFU) has become a management tool for reducing fuels and the risk
of catastrophic wildfires on the landscape. WFU is a management term for allowing naturally
caused fires to burn with minimal management. Typically management of these fires is
restricted to monitoring and containing the fire within a pre-established boundary. The use of
Wildland Fire is often limited to remote areas, where there is little threat to the urban interface.
Prior to determining whether a naturally caused fire is suppressed or managed for WFU, the
Forest Service considers the impacts of the natural fire to forest resources. This document
addresses how the Kaibab National Forest proposes to manage the threat to heritage resources
with the increasing implementation of WFU. It draws for example on the management actions
taken with the recent Java WFU.
Introduction
The Forest Service is increasingly implementing Wildland Fire Use (WFU) as a means of
vegetation restoration and fire management. Prior to determining whether a naturally caused fire
is suppressed or managed for WFU, the Forest Service must consider the impacts of the natural
fire to heritage resources. For heritage resources, considerations include how much of the area
has been previously surveyed, if there are any known fire sensitive sites, and/or the probability of
the area containing fire sensitive sites. To address these issues, archaeologists on the Kaibab
National Forest have provided a GIS shape file of the previously surveyed areas and the known
fire sensitive sites to fire managers. This allows fire managers to evaluate the threats to heritage
resources prior to making a decision to manage a natural fire for WFU. Fire managers also
consult with archaeologists to determine any particular heritage concerns. In areas with known
fire sensitive sites, measures, such as hand lining, are taken to protect these resources. If the
natural fire is in an area with minimal archaeological survey and/or an area with a high
probability for fire-sensitive sites, fire managers consult with archaeologists. The Java Fire is an
example of a Wildland Fire Use in an area with minimal previous survey and a high likelihood
for fire sensitive sites.
The Java Fire
The Java Fire is located approximately 6 miles south of the town of Tusayan. Very little
previous survey has been conducted in the area (Allen 1982, Hanson 1996, and Zamora 1989).
Large blocks of previous survey conducted for Grand Canyon Burn (Weintraub 1999a) and
Tusayan Post and Pole (Weintraub 1999b), approximately 3 miles north of the Java fire, indicate
a high likelihood for fire sensitive sites in the area, particularly sweat lodges, brush shelters, and
hogans.
When the Java Fire started, fire managers provided a proposed boundary for the WFU and
contacted archaeologists to assess the threat to heritage resources. Archaeologists had several
concerns including the size of the perimeter for the WFU, the lack of archaeological survey in
the area, and the high likelihood for fire sensitive sites. To mitigate these concerns, fire
managers and archaeologists agreed to reduce the allowable fire boundary, identify fire growth
as a trigger point, and develop a plan to survey for fire sensitive heritage resources in advance of
fire spread.
The perimeter of the Java WFU was reduced from approximately 3680 acres to approximately
720 acres. The smaller perimeter made mitigation measures manageable. An allowable fire
growth of 10 – 15 acres/day was determined to be acceptable. Growth above this rate was
identified as a trigger point, indicating a need for suppression or management actions to reduce
intensity. Restricting the fire’s rate of spread allowed for informal heritage survey ahead of the
fire and protection of historic properties. With a limited number of archaeologists available to
conduct survey, fire managers and archaeologists agreed it was necessary to train members of the
fire crew to conduct systematic survey and to recognize fire-sensitive historic properties.
On June 21, 2005, archaeologist Calla McNamee went out in the field with fire managers Dave
Mills, Holly Kleindienst, Heather Neeley, prevention officer Bob Blasi, and engine crew Cary
Stock, Mike Uebel, Dee Dee Fogg, and Brian Schexnayder. The training involved a discussion
of archaeological survey methods, a discussion of archaeological site types and how to identify
them (with particular emphasis on fire-sensitive sites), and a discussion on how to document any
archaeological sites located. An informal survey was then conducted, during which the group
followed compass oriented transects, identified several lithic scatters and one brush shelter, and
documented the brush shelter. As the survey and site recording were informal, they will not be
added to the forest’s official records. Unfortunately, budgetary and time constraints restrict the
ability of archaeologists to adequately record these sites. The GPS location of the sites and the
minimal documentation will be stored with other known sites that ‘need to be recorded’.
Fire crews will continue to conduct informal surveys ahead of the Java fire. Any fire sensitive
sites identified will be protected. The slow rate of fire spread will provide adequate time for
informal survey and protective measures as needed.
Conclusion
The handling of the Java Fire provided a test for a method to manage possible impacts to
heritage resources from Wildland Fire Use. The approach to WFU as employed by the Kaibab
is as follows:
1: Fire managers examine maps of fire sensitive sites and survey coverage.
2: Fire managers consult with archaeologists about heritage concerns.
3: Known fire sensitive sites are protected.
4: In areas with minimal survey and/or a high probability for fire sensitive sites, additional
mitigation measures may be necessary including:
a: Reduction in acceptable fire boundary
b. Establishment of trigger points
c. Informal survey ahead of the spread of fire.
d. Identification and informal recording of new sites.
e. Protection of newly identified fire sensitive sites.
This method should help to ensure that there will be no adverse effect to historic properties
during WFU. The Java Fire will be monitored to determine the effectiveness of this method to
protect fire sensitive historic properties. At present, it is recommended that this method be
employed in any areas with minimal survey and a high likelihood of fire sensitive sites.
References
Allen.
1982
Reconstruction of Indian and java Tank Roads, A Cultural Resource Survey. Ms.
on file Kaibab National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Williams, Arizona (Project
82017).
Hanson, Lisa.
1996
XB Prescribed Burn, A Cultural Resource Survey. Ms. on file Kaibab National
Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Williams, Arizona (Project 96126).
Weintraub, Neil.
1999a Grand Canyon Airport Burn, A Cultural Resource Survey. Ms. on file Kaibab
National Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Williams, Arizona (Project 99012).
1999b Tusayan Post and Pole, A Cultural Resource Survey. Ms. on file Kaibab National
Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Williams, Arizona (Project 99089).
Zamora, Elaine.
1989
Tusayan Fires FY 89, A Cultural Resource Survey. Ms. on file Kaibab National
Forest, Supervisor’s Office, Williams, Arizona (Project 89055).