**NATIONAL ADVANCED FIRE AND RESOURCE INSTITUTE**

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**INSTRUCTOR:** Frank K. Lake

**LESSON:** Traditional Knowledge -- Forgotten Fires

**UNIT:** II-D

**COURSE:** Rx510 Applied Fire Effects

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

**OBJECTIVES:**

Upon completion of this lesson, participants will be able to:

1\. Define Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Cultural Environmental
Management Practices.

2\. Describe Indian burning practices.

3\. List the documented reasons for Indian burning practices.

4\. Describe some effects of Indian burning practices on the
composition, structure, function and productivity of plant communities
and fuels associated with different habitats.

5\. Define Indigenous/Cultural fire regimes.

6\. Identify potential ways in which Indian-type fire may be used for
prescribed burning objectives and restoration of fire adapted and/or
influenced ecosystems.

7\. Provide recommendations for working with American Indian tribes and
tribal organizations.

**NARRATIVE:**

I.  **INTRODUCTION**

The purpose of this lesson is to introduce and familiarize students to
traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) related to American Indian
burning practices. Additional information related to why, when and how
American Indians used fire for general and specific reasons to
manipulate vegetation and fuels will be covered. When re-introducing
fire (for prescribe burns and fuels reduction projects) it is important
to understand the potential role that Indian burning practices played in
comparison to lightning fires as part of historical fire regimes.
Understanding the premise of Indian burning practices may facilitate
accomplishing ecological and social goals of forest restoration,
prescribed burning and fuels reduction programs. Lastly, how TEK can be
of value to fire managers dealing with issues related to tribal
consultation, public outreach/education, and emergent issues like
invasive/exotic species management and climate change will be covered.
Several case studies will be presented to illustrate the above points.
The terms American Indian, Indian, Native American, and Native,
indigenous, tribal, and aboriginal are used interchangeably.

II. **TRADITIONAL ECOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE (TEK) AND CULTURAL ENVIRONMENT
    MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (CEMP)**

    A.  Traditional Ecological Knowledge is defined as. . .

> "*A cumulative body of knowledge, practice, and belief, evolving by
> adaptive processes and handed down through generations by cultural
> transmission, about the relationship of living beings (including
> humans) with one another and with the environment...is both cumulative
> and dynamic, building on experience and adapting to changes*" (Berkes
> 1999:8 in [Sacred Ecology]{.underline}).

1.  **Traditional Ecological Knowledge** (TEK) is the driving force
    beyond the skillful application of fire for intended and specific
    reasons by indigenous people (Lewis and Anderson in Stewart 2002).
    TEK is a culmination of indigenous people's experiences with the
    natural environment transcending and unifying spiritual, cultural
    and ecological relationships (Turner 1997). TEK guides the holistic
    approach taken by indigenous people when burning and subsequent
    subsistence or land use practices (Anderson 2005). Knowledge of fire
    and fire's effects on cultural resources and ecological conditions
    are often acquired during subsistence activities and religious
    functions. For tribal practitioners TEK is rarely acquired from
    published literature, and is largely transmitted in the context of
    close relationships between individuals and their environment. There
    is increasing academic interest for TEK related to fire ecology and
    effects (Boyd 1999, Anderson 2005, Peter and Shebitz 2006, Anderson
    2007).

> "Indigenous people's detailed traditional knowledge about fire,
> although superficially referenced in various writings, has not for the
> most part been analyzed in detail or simulated by resource managers,
> wildlife biologists, and ecologists...Instead, scientists have
> developed the principles and theories of fire ecology, fire behavior
> and effects models, and concepts of conservation, wildlife management
> and ecosystem management largely independent of native examples"
> (Lewis and Anderson in Stewart 2002:4).

B.  Cultural environmental management practices (CEMP) are defined as:

> "Practices employed by Indigenous people often mimicking natural
> disturbance processes in the management and utilization of natural
> resources" (Lake, 11/2003). CEMPs are also called: Indigenous land use
> practices, Native American land management, and Traditional Land
> Management by others.

1.  **Cultural environmental management practices** are based on
    long-term experience with local environments. Through various
    experiences Indians learned to work with the "Natural" conditions of
    the local environment across many different habitats (Anderson
    1997). As experience accumulates in the community, so does
    **ecological literacy**; the ability of an individual or community
    to observe, understand, and predict ecological processes and
    phenomena. When a high degree of ecological literacy is developed
    through specialization of social roles, tribal peoples were able to
    foster biodiversity and productivity of various ecosystems or
    habitats through the application of TEK and CEMPs (Turner et al.
    2000). The refinement of TEK and CEMP by Native peoples through time
    lead to the maintenance and/or enhancement of ecosystem diversity
    and productivity (Anderson 1997, Boyd 1999, Turner 1999, Turner et
    al. 2000, Anderson 2005).

2.  The **goal of CEMPs** are to ensure predictability in securing
    ecological goods and services.

> CEMPs were developed to mimic natural physical and biological
> disturbance processes, most commonly disturbances associated with fire
> or animals (Anderson 1997, 1999, 2005). While CEMPs mimic natural
> processes, they differ in specific ways; for examples, fire use may
> differ from natural fire in frequency, seasonality and location, and
> differs from animals in the extent (spatial) and duration (temporal)
> of harvesting, i.e. specific areas of the landscape utilized for
> single or multiple resources (Bonnicksen et al. 1999). When used with
> a high degree of ecological literacy, CEMPs potentially buffer against
> extreme ranges of natural variability by distributing the harvesting
> pressure over multiple resources and not putting any single resource
> at risk.
>
> When addressing the needs of restoration today, it is important to
> recognize Native peoples as an influence in shaping the historical
> condition of many different plant communities or having modified other
> critically important habitats (Anderson 2005). In this sense, the
> effect of American Indian management could be considered part of the
> reference ecosystem, or more generally as a set of reference
> conditions for restoration (see greater discussion below). There may
> be opportunities for the application of TEK and CEMPs in contemporary
> restoration projects, especially in areas where western science may be
> lacking knowledge of ecosystem processes and species linkages, as well
> as fostering social approval (see Anderson and Barbour 2003 and
> Ruppert 2003).

III. **INDIAN BURNING PRACTICES AND INDIAN-TYPE FIRE**

     A.  Fire use varied among tribes and among environmental zones or
         ecosystems. Fire was used during different seasons and
         intervals, depending on the purpose and objectives of the
         perpetrator. Indian men and women would prescribe burn for
         different reasons, in different locations, at different seasons
         and frequencies (For examples by tribes in N.W. California and
         S.W. Oregon see Pullen 1996, Pacific Northwest Boyd 1999, or
         North America in Williams 2002 and Stewart 2002).

     B.  There are many documented reasons for Indian fire use including
         but not limited to: hunting, crop management, pest management,
         range management, fireproofing, tree felling/fuel wood,
         clearing areas for travel, clearing riparian areas, increasing
         production of basket materials \[[Fire 21-Management
         Today]{.underline} Vol. 60 No. 3 Summer 2000 Page 11 Gerald W.
         Williams USFS/WO (Modified from H. Lewis)\]. See Stewart (2002)
         [Forgotten Fires]{.underline} for a broader discussion of
         Indian burning, Bonnicksen (2000) Chapter Seven, Fire Masters
         and G. Williams' web link on comprehensive bibliography for
         fire use by Native Americans.

> *Are these reasons documented for all Indian cultures across North
> America?* No, not all accounts apply equally to all tribes in all
> ecosystems or habitats. Across North America some indigenous groups
> were more reliant in fire-induced landscape conditions than others.
> *Are such practices better documented for some places and cultures
> than for others?* Most information about uses of fire by aboriginal
> peoples have been based upon historical explorer and pioneer accounts,
> followed by anthropologists documenting subsistence activities of
> Native people in published ethnographies, then more recently oral
> history studies of tribal elders about uses of fire for land
> management (Anderson 2001, Lake 2007).
>
> 1\. Hunting
>
> Indians burned large areas to force deer, elk, antelope, rabbits, and
> other prey into small unburned and/or formally burned areas for easier
> hunting. Fire was also used to drive game over cliffs or into
> impoundments, narrow chutes, and river or lakes where the animals
> could be easily killed. Indians used fire for hunting both directly
> and indirectly (Bonnicksen 2000). Directly, when driving game,
> indirectly, by reducing, modifying or increasing habitat quantity and
> quality to influence the location of game.
>
> 2\. Crop Management
>
> Native Americans used fire to improve the harvest of crops, especially
> for collecting tarweed, fostering greens, stimulating grass seed
> production; improve yields of camas, brodiaeas, lilies, yampas, nuts,
> berries (especially raspberries, strawberries, and huckleberries)
> (Minore 1972, Bonnicksen 2000). Burning crops usually served several
> functions such as rejuvenating growth which fostered subsequent fruit
> production, or cycled nutrients and reduced competition (Anderson
> 2005)
>
> Fire was used to prevent grasslands from becoming overgrown by
> non-desired vegetation, and to clear areas for planting tobacco and
> grass seeds (Lewis 1993). Burning facilitated the gathering of acorns
> by clearing the ground of vegetation and duff/litter under oak trees
> (Anderson 2007). Often as soon as enough fuels had accumulated or
> non-desired vegetation had encroached on desired crops, the area would
> have been burned.
>
> The frequency of patch burns can be generally inferred by the length
> of time it took for fruits and berries to set, ripen, and be
> harvested, or the appropriate time to clear land for root digging or
> fiddlehead picking (Peacock and Turner 2000). Crops were maintained
> and harvested in discrete locations in which the dominant species was
> established. This approach creates an "even-aged" management condition
> of diversified mosaics (Kimmerer and Lake 2001). Access to croplands
> was provided by foot trails and/or canoes, depending on location. The
> harvest of fire induced foods was not insignificant, and productivity
> of many habitats can be increased with the appropriate frequency and
> severity of fire (Anderson 2005). "Practices such as landscape
> burning, pruning, tilling, and even picking are said to improve the
> resources, making them more bountiful and enhancing their
> quality"(Peacock and Turner 2000:134, see also Anderson 2005).

3.  Pest Management

> Burning was used to reduce pest populations, including rodents,
> poisonous snakes, ticks, black flies, mosquitoes, seed/nut weevils,
> baskets plant parasites, forest beetle infestations, etc., and to kill
> mistletoe in mesquite and oak trees, tree lichens and mosses, and
> invasive native species (Bonnicksen 2000, Anderson 2005).
>
> Many tribes prescribed fire to patches of vegetation when insect
> infestation was observed. Fire was commonly used to reduce seed
> weevils in important nut crops, stem borers in or gall on basketry
> plants, and to reduce tick densities in leaf litter and forest duff
> where animals bedded (Strike 1994:164, Anderson 1999, Stewart 2002).

4.  Range Management

> Fire was used to keep prairies and meadows open from encroaching
> shrubs and trees and to improve browse for deer, elk, antelope,
> horses, and waterfowl, and to increase the quality of vegetation
> structure, forage, palatability, and nutrition (Boyd 1999, Bonnicksen
> 2000).
>
> Many of the plants and wildlife species used and managed by people
> were also important to other plants and animals for habitat, cover, or
> forage (Norton et al. 1984, Hagar 2007). Thus burning changed the
> value of vegetation patterns to other species (often desired species)
> that used the same foods, or took advantage of bettered conditions of
> mobility, visibility, and cover.
>
> 5\. Fireproofing
>
> Some Indians used fire to clear vegetation from areas around
> settlements and near special medicinal plants to protect them from
> wildland fires. Indians used frequent low intensity fires to alter the
> structure of different forest/plant communities to reduce the buildup
> of fuels decreasing catastrophic wildland fires. During wildfire
> occurrences, these formerly Indian burnt areas functioned as low-fuel
> \"refuges\" for threatened wildlife species. Even in severe,
> stand-replacing forest or brushland fire events, fields of grasses,
> berry patches, riparian meadows, and fern prairies often remained
> unburned, or only slightly singed. Many "patches" or areas that
> required frequent burning also served as fuel breaks against
> unintended or undesired effects of wildfire (Bonnicksen 2000, Lewis
> and Anderson in Stewart 2002:15).
>
> 6\. Tree Felling/Fuel Wood
>
> Indians used fire in different ways to fell trees. After fire swept
> through chaparral or woodland areas, branches or stems were broken off
> for firewood. Target species of fuel was dependent on location and
> cultural activity. In the Pacific Northwest Cascade Mountains, large
> amounts of smaller diameter conifer logs would be burned to create
> radiant heat which dehydrated huckleberries (Minore 1972, Mack and
> McClure 2002). In Northwestern California, and other mountainous
> regions of the Pacific west, hardwood logs and branches would be
> utilized for the smoking and preservation of meats and for personal
> heating (Bonnicksen 2000). \[See Indian Burning Practices in Section
> III. C-2. for more details.\]
>
> 7\. Clearing travel-ways
>
> Indians used fire to clear overgrown trails for easier travel. In
> forests and brushlands burning improved visibility for hunting,
> reduced attacks by predators and enemies, and assisted in warfare.
> Ignition locations and fuels breaks were located along or near trails.
> Trail systems divided the landscape and watersheds into large scale
> compartments that could be burnt as fuels and weather conditions
> permitted (Bonnicksen 2000, Lake 2007). Many important resource
> patches were in close geographic proximity to trails. Trails were
> about two feet wide, worn down to bare mineral soil, and would have
> served as fire lines in many cases (Skinner et al. 2005) (see case
> study below Section V.G).
>
> 8\. Clearing Riparian Areas
>
> Indians commonly used fire to clear brush and other debris from
> riparian areas and marshes to stimulate new grass, plant growth, and
> shrub and tree sprouts. Target species: cottonwoods, willows, tules,
> and cattails, sedges and grasses.
>
> Low gradient, lower elevation sites near the confluence of major
> stream and river systems were the locations of villages. Riparian
> areas around villages were one of the most fire intensively managed
> areas on the landscape (Bonnicksen 2000, Vale 2002). Fire often served
> a similar role to flooding as a disturbance agent (Anderson 1999).
> Riparian areas were also a source of firewood.
>
> 9\. Basket Materials
>
> High quality and quantities of materials for baskets were needed to
> support the material culture of Indian people. The majority of
> materials needed to support the cultures of American Indians required
> fire for maintenance and to increase quality. Examples of target
> species and objectives for burning: Willows, to increase straight
> shoots and reduce pests; Bear grass, to reduce thatch and increase
> leaf pliability; Deer grass, to reduce thatch and increase stem
> pliability; Hazel, to reduce deformed growth and increase the number
> of straight shoots (see Anderson 1999).
>
> C. Indian burning practices: Examples from the coastal Pacific
> Northwest (PNW) and northwestern California-Klamath-Siskiyou regions.

1.  Table 1 (below) (Pullen 1996, Lake and Zybach, In prep, incorporated
    into Lake 2007) describes three major types of Indian burning
    practices that affected landscape patterns of vegetation and
    provided definition to local wildlife habitat conditions. Each type
    of use had differing implications on the habitats supporting many
    diverse plants and animals, as well as providing or procuring
    directly and indirectly goods and services. Indian fires were
    generally used in regular and constant patterns across the
    landscape, in predictable locations, and within definite
    topographical and political boundaries (Turner 1999). A productive
    and diverse landscape reflected a wealthy and healthy social
    community. Fire was a ubiquitous tool used by Indian people to
    perpetuate ecological goods and services necessary for survival
    (Kimmerer and Lake 2001).

> Table 1.0 Coastal Pacific Northwest and northwestern California Indian
> burning practices, pre-1849.

  ---------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------
  **Type of        **Products and purposes**       **Timing**
  burning**                                        

  Firewood         heat, light, cooking, boiling,  Daily: concentrated
  gathering and    cleaning, fuel stores,          near homes, trails,
  burning          celebration, ceremony,          settlements and
                   security.                       campgrounds.

  Patch burning    hunting, berry patch            Seasonal and
                   maintenance, root               situational.
                   fields/harvesting, pest         
                   control, weaving materials,     
                   trail maintenance, and habitat  
                   conversion.                     

  Broadcast        stable wildlife habitat and     Seasonal: late summer,
  burning          conversion; curing seeds;       early fall for
                   hunting; viewing;               grasslands; late
                   transportation; weaving         winter, early spring
                   materials; acorn harvest.       for bracken fern.
  ---------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------

2.  Descriptions of Indian burning practices for the coastal Pacific
    Northwest and Klamath-Siskiyou regions:

    a.  Firewood

> Firewood gathering and burning fires were primarily intensified
> through cooking and heating fires that were started and maintained
> constantly in and near homes, in camping spots, campgrounds, and other
> gathering places. These fires were concentrated within permanent
> settlements and communities near the mouths of rivers and streams, and
> at other key locations along the Pacific coastline and principal
> riverbanks. Seasonal cooking and heating fires were located in favored
> hunting and gathering spots, dependent on social, food gathering, and
> processing activities. These fires depended on the systematic
> gathering, storage, and use of firewood, which was also used for other
> purposes, such as constructing bonfires and heating sweat lodges.
>
> Firewood gathering and use was likely a daily process for most
> families, hunters, gatherers, and travelers for hundreds and thousands
> of years throughout the coastal PNW and Klamath mountains. Principal
> locations were located along the shores of estuaries and at the mouths
> of major tributaries, river banks and near ridge-line trails. Low
> gradient riverbank floodplains and up-slope flats near springs were
> also likely locations of home sites and campgrounds.
>
> Springs, peaks, waterfalls, meadows, berry patches, root fields, hazel
> filbert orchards, wild oat fields, camas patches, pea/legume fields,
> oak groves and other favored locations were also the likely sites of
> seasonal camping and food processing activities that required
> intensive, localized firewood gathering activities (Mack and McClure
> 2002). The likelihood of most bonfires, campfires, oven fires,
> drying/smoking fires and sweathouse fires resulting in catastrophic
> wildfire events was probably very low. Fires left unattended for the
> purpose or desire of spreading were probably fairly common, but such
> fires were intended to spread when possible and cannot be considered
> escapes. The cumulative results of widespread and systematic firewood
> gathering over time undoubtedly had a major impact on the location,
> distribution, and quantity of fuels consumed during wildfire, field
> clearing, or crop management processes.

b.  Patches

> Patches and fields bisected by trails were typically adjacent to
> rivers and streams, the coast, and along ridgelines, directly
> connecting communities, peaks, campgrounds, rapids/waterfalls, and
> other favored subsistence and ceremonial locations (Lake 2007). Fires
> were also used to clear and maintain trails; rejuvenate berry patches,
> pea fields, root and bulb fields, and orchards; for hunting; for weed
> control; and to cure large fields of tarweed and grass seeds (\"Indian
> oats\"). Daily and seasonal trail clearing activities, combined with
> seasonal and occasional brush clearing, hunting, seed curing, and
> sprout-inducing burns were nearly year-around activities. Areas most
> likely to be burned in this manner included ridgeline trail segments,
> hilltop balds, bracken fern prairies, berry patches, hazel filbert
> orchards, and other travel corridor segments or croplands (Boyd 1999,
> Wray and Anderson 2003, Lake 2007). The escape potential of such fires
> was probably moderate, depending on weather, the fuels being burned,
> and the condition of burn boundaries.
>
> Many areas (specific habitats or patches) across the landscape within
> different ecosystems were nationally, family or individual owned.
> Ownership of productive areas across the landscape was viewed as a
> care-taking socio-ecological responsibility (Peacock and Turner
> 2000:158). Indians managed many of the most productive hunting and
> gathering areas with fire. Parcels of land that could provide
> productive, abundant, and predictable natural resources provided
> foods, materials and medicines for Indian people (Wray and Anderson
> 2003:296-97, Lake 2007).

c.  Broadcast

> Broadcast fires were used to regularly burn vast areas of oak
> savannah, grassy prairies, and berry grounds contained within the
> coastal PNW and northwestern California; mostly in the eastern and
> southeastern portions. Broadcast fires were also used to drive game,
> and establish and maintain burning in areas where lightning fire was
> largely absent. Seasonal broadcast burning activities differed from
> firewood and patch burning actions in two important ways: fire
> boundaries were not so clearly defined, and there were multiple
> objectives for burning. Large grass or fern prairies and extensive oak
> savannahs were maintained by seasonal broadcast burns for a wide
> variety of purposes; land clearing, hunting, seed processing, weeding,
> insect harvesting, and enjoyment (Lewis 1993, Williams 2000, Wray and
> Anderson 2003, Lake 2007). Likelihood of fire escaping from these
> actions was, like patch burning, probably moderate. The application of
> broadcast burning by Indians was to maintain diversity and
> productivity of the landscape. Broadcast burning was a type of
> vegetation succession management. The scale of such broadcast burning
> varied but could result in much larger expanses of land base if
> climate or weather intensified fire behavior. Most historical accounts
> of Indian broadcast burning activities in the coastal PNW/northwestern
> California occur primarily during two potential fire seasons: late
> winter/early spring \"fern burning\" (which usually burned lighter
> fuels and thatch and extinguished in riparian zones or northern
> aspects or damper forested areas and late summer/early fall \"field or
> oak burning\" or "high country", which tended to be more expansive per
> fire event, and extinguishing as the result of fall rains or snow,
> wetter topography or aspects, and natural fuel breaks (Zybach 2003,
> Lake 2007). In this manner, seasonally desiccated ridgeline brakes and
> bald peaks could be burned whenever a drying east wind came up for a
> few days anytime from late February to early May. Valley grasslands,
> coastal headlands, oak woodlands, and tarweed fields were more likely
> to be burned in September or October, after vegetation had been dried
> by summer drought. High elevation meadows, grassy ridges, and montane
> forests were generally burned after returning from hunting or berry
> processing camping trips (Lake 2007).

IV. **INDIAN-TYPE FIRE DIFFERS FROM FIRE REGIMES EXPECTED WITHOUT HUMAN
    INFLUENCES**

    A.  Indian-type fire is defined by Williams (2000:40) as:

> ".*..is intensive land management, where not every area is treated at
> the same time in the same way. The idea is to create a mosaic of
> forests and grasslands, not monocultures. The result is a combination
> of open prairie or savanna, shrubland, young trees, mature stands, and
> old-growth forest.*"

B.  Indian-type fire regimes in the coastal Pacific Northwest and
    Northwestern California differ from catastrophic fire regimes.

> Lightning has been most commonly assumed as the source of historical
> fire on the coast range landscape in the Pacific Northwest and
> northern California (Agee 1993, Stuart and Stephens 2006). The role of
> lightning fire versus Indian burning in shaping fire regimes that
> produced varying vegetation patterns of the coastal in Oregon and
> California has only been generally described (Keeley 1982, Bicknell et
> al. 1992, Lewis 1993, Boyd 1999, Keeley 2002, Stuart and Stephens
> 2006, Stephens et al. 2007). The role of Indian burning is most
> commonly attributed to valleys and lowland areas, and little evidence
> has been put forward to as to when, why or how Natives used fire in
> mountainous areas (Agee 1993:56, Frost and Sweeney 2000). Table 2
> compares patterns of pre-contact Indian burning practices with
> post-European settlement patterns of catastrophic forest wildfires in
> the coastal Pacific Northwest and Northwestern California:
>
> Table 2. Comparison of Indian burning and catastrophic fire patterns
> in the coastal Pacific Northwest and Northwestern California (modified
> from Zybach 2003, Lake 2007).

  ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------
  **Fire Characteristics** **Indian Burning**       **Catastrophic Fires**

  **Causes**               People (gender and age   People and Lightning
                           differences)             

  **Location of            Travel corridors and     Travel corridors and
  Ignitions**              specific destinations.   destinations, Ridge
                           Low to mid elevation at  tops, higher
                           specific intervals       elevations

  **Wind directions**      Variable                 East-Foehn (Chinook)

  **Seasons**              All year when fuels and  Summer/early fall
                           weather conditions       
                           permit. Mostly, Late     
                           summer/early fall and    
                           late winter/early spring 

  **Frequency**            Daily, and seasonally.   Years or centuries

  **Extent**               Many smaller, but more   A few larger fire
                           numerous ignitions       events occurring more
                           resulting in amount of   wide spread across
                           area burnt.              vegetation types or
                                                    watersheds

  **Boundaries**           Trails, ridgelines,      Ridgelines, riparian
                           riparian areas, forested areas, unforested
                           areas/north aspects,     areas, fog belt
                           bodies of water, and     forests, North
                           ocean                    aspects, bodies of
                                                    water and ocean.

  **Wildlife Habitat**     Stable, sunny, high      Sudden changes in
                           protein mosaic of        wildlife demographics
                           grasslands and forests   and habitat patterns
  ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------

> The lack of understanding by many scholars or managers of the specific
> uses and application of fire by Indians in particular vegetation
> assemblages altering the fire regime has contributed to the dismissal
> of Indian burning as an important factor in shaping the composition,
> structure, diversity, and productivity of coastal forests and prairies
> (Vale 2002). Climate is a significant driver in potential vegetation
> assemblages related to fire regimes at long time scales (hundreds to
> thousands of years) (Whitlock 1992, Whitlock et al. 2004, Weisberg and
> Swanson 2003, Briles et al 2005). Potential ignition of fires by
> lightning is guided at a broad level by climate and weather events,
> and locally less likely to strike and ignite fuels in those areas
> (prairies, riparian zones, wetlands, and other mid to low elevation
> habitats) burned by Native peoples (Bonnicksen et al. 1999, Keeley
> 1982, Keeley 2002, Busam 2005, Lake 2007). Indian burning practices
> which adapted to and considered the greater influence of climate and
> seasonal influence of weather, has been overlooked as a significant
> driver in shaping vegetation assemblages and the rate of forest
> succession (Frost and Sweeney 2000, Whitlock and Knox 2002, Whitlock
> et al. 2002, Briles et al 2005). Indian burning practices were
> selective and specific to habitats across the landscape, valleys to
> mountains, capable of arresting forest secession that affected
> vegetation assemblages at shorter time scales (decades to centuries)
> resulting in altered fire regimes (Anderson and Barbour 2003:273 &
> 275, Bonnicksen et al. 1999:444-445). "The intentional setting of
> fires at preferred times, in selected places, and under optimal
> conditions added considerable degrees of predictability to adaptations
> that depended upon a range of habitats at various stages of ecological
> succession" (Lewis in Stewart 2002:33). Indian burning practices
> across the landscape influencing the continuity, structure, and
> availability of fuels potentially reduced negative effects of
> catastrophic wildland fire (Williams 2000). The specific application
> of fire by indigenous people for various cultural and ecological
> reasons created mosaics of vegetation differing in structure and fuel
> loading which affected the potential intensity of wildfire and
> resulting severity on vegetation or soils. "We have yet to understand
> fully the ecological differences resulting from the introduction of
> culturally based fire regimes, undoubtedly changes in seasonality,
> frequency, intensity, and selectivity of burning resulted in changes
> for natural environments" (Bonnicksen et al. 1999:445).

C.  The landscape patterns reminiscent of Indian burning practice are a
    cultural legacy.

> Due to their origin and appearance, cultural landscape patterns are
> landscape-scale designs created and maintained by systematic human
> burning and/or by other land management processes (Winkler and Bailey
> 2002). Landscape patterns, for purposes of this narrative, are
> considered at regional (hundreds of thousands or millions of acres),
> basin (thousands or tens of thousands of acres), and local (dozens or
> hundreds of acres) scales. These patterns have been shown to vary
> between northern, eastern, western, and southern parts of the coastal
> PNW and Klamath Mountain physiographic provinces due to differences in
> national and tribal traditions, topography, climate, vegetation, and
> distance from the ocean (Zybach 2003, Lake 2007).
>
> The landscape patterns reminiscent of Indian burning practice are a
> **cultural legacy** (Lake and Zybach, in prep, Lake 2007**)**. The
> cultural legacy is defined as evidence of trails, savannah, prairies,
> fields, berry patches, brakes, balds and other environmental
> indications of human land uses that persist through time observed in
> all scales with patterns of managed vegetation from pre-European times
> to the present (for Allegheny Plateau and NE US see DelCourt and
> DelCourt 1997, Black et al. 2006). Evidence of the cultural legacy of
> Indian burning may be present as remnants in the **transitional
> landscape** (Kimmerer and Lake 2001). Transitional landscapes are a
> landscape which reflects change in the distribution and abundance of
> different habitats at various scales as a result of changes in the
> composition, structure, and function of vegetation assemblages
> resulting from the cessation of Indian land-use practices to that
> under the governance and management of European Americans (Johnson
> 1999:434, Lake 2007). The densification of various forest types, loss
> of grasslands and meadows, and increase in fuel types associated with
> advanced successional development of a variety of habitats has lead to
> the degradation of tribal culturally significant habitats (Skinner
> 1995, Taylor and Skinner 2003, Hann and Strohm 2003, Skinner et al.
> 2006, example of Landfire regional Fire Regime Condition Class
> interpretations see Lake 2007). The transitional landscape has also
> become more prone to catastrophic wildfire as a result of the change
> in the occurrence and frequency of burning (DellaSala et al. 2004,
> Kauffman 2004, Noss et al. 2006). Patterns of Indian burning and
> wildfire include similarities and differences in sources and locations
> of ignition; locations and extent of fire boundaries; timing,
> frequency, seasonality, intensity and specificity of occurrence of
> fires; and effects of fire on local human and wildlife populations
> (Walstad et al. 1990, Agee 1993, Purcell and Stephens 2005, Hager
> 2007).
>
> "Every ecosystem in North America has been affected in some way by a
> fire regime ... manipulated by indigenous people. Much forest science,
> including ecological classifications of vegetation types, arose from
> observation of forest that were essentially in transition from
> conditions of indigenous fire management to post-colonial fire
> suppression. Our understanding of forest processes may thus be based
> on an anomalous, transitional landscape" (Kimmerer and Lake 2001:37).

D.  Definitions of Indigenous and cultural fire regimes

> The concept of **indigenous fire-regimes** put forward by Lewis and
> Anderson (2002:6) is generally described as fire-regimes specific to
> certain ecosystems and plant communities created and maintain
> primarily by the specific and intended application of fire by
> indigenous people which may or may not have been in conjunction with
> natural wildland fires ignited by lightning. Similar to the above
> definition is: Cultural fire regimes which historically affected the
> "composition and characteristics of particular habitats, and
> especially the culturally defined resources therein, the
> distinguishing features and properties of **cultural fire regimes
> include**: 1. alternate seasons of burning for different kinds of
> habitats (seasonality), 2. frequencies with which fires are applied
> and reapplied over varying periods of time (frequency), 3.
> corresponding intensities with which fuels can be burned affecting
> severity (intensity/severity), 4. the specific selection of sites
> fired and, alternately, those that are not (specificity), 5. a range
> of natural and artificial controls that humans employ in limiting the
> spread of human-set fire, such as times of day, winds, fuels, slope,
> relative humidities, and natural fire breaks that affect the
> distribution and connectivity of fuels (topography/fuels) (Bonnicksen
> et al. 2002:444), and 6. ignition patterns to promote desired fire
> behavior and associated intensities (ignition) (Lake 2007).

# TEK AND ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 

E.  Traditional Ecological Knowledge complements contemporary knowledge
    of fire ecology by providing information about historical and
    contemporary applications of fire on the land by indigenous people
    or effects on wildfire. TEK can include knowledge about fire's
    effects and ecosystem responses and about how physical and
    biological processes respond to fire over time (i.e. hydrology and
    forest succession) (Lewis and Anderson in Stewart 2002).

F.  Restoring Plant Communities or Habitats:

> *What is significant in a plant community?* The significance of any
> plant or animal associated with a particular plant community, in the
> view of some Native Americans, will depend largely on how that
> organism is culturally used or valued and how it responds to fire
> (USFS-FEIS lists). Further more, the significance depends on what
> **fire-induced** ecological goods and services Native people may want
> from that location (Lake 2007). Many plants can serve multiple roles
> as food, medicine or material, in addition to playing a key component
> in a habitat or ecosystem (for western oaks see: Anderson 2007).

G.  *How have habitats been altered as a consequence of fire suppression
    and/or the cessation indigenous land use practices?* Consider the
    effects of fire suppression and changes in the composition,
    structure, function, and productivity of habitats that many
    indigenous people rely upon for food, medicine, materials and
    spiritual-cultural survival (Anderson 2005, Lake 2007). In many
    regions of North America, Native Americans were reliant on **fire
    induced conditions** of the environment (Anderson and Barbour 2003).

H.  *Are we addressing the broader ecological role of "fuels"?* Fire and
    land management would benefit by viewing vegetation as more than
    just "fuels". The ecological and cultural significance of a plant
    will vary, but may be considered in light of its role as food,
    medicine, material, or habitat in relationship to the "danger" it
    posses as fuel in it's present setting. Many fuels reduction
    prescriptions do not account for the differences in ecological or
    cultural function of a plant. Example, many understory plant species
    may be "dangerous" ladder fuels, but complete removal of any
    particular species from the project location may be ecologically or
    cultural undesirable. How a plant, shrub or tree responds to fire
    and the ecological and cultural services it can provide could be
    considered at a broader level with project prescriptions, and a
    specific level with the project implementation for a given site
    (Example, Lomakatsi Restoration projects in Northwestern California
    and Southwestern Oregon, Senos et al. 2006:404). Course woody
    material, e.g. hardwood snags and hollow logs, could also be valued
    for wildlife habitat and potential contribution to soil formation
    (Purcell and Stephens 2005, Lehmkuhl et al. 2007).

## What is missing? Are there remnants of a once healthier more diverse and productive ecosystem? Many areas today, often viewed as natural or "wilderness" were intensively managed by Indigenous peoples for various purposes (Peacock and Turner 2000:171, Anderson 2005). Agencies may want to work with local tribal governments or communities to document historical landscape changes resulting from fire suppression and/or the removal of indigenous land use and occupancy (see Anderson and Barbour 2003, Lake 2007). A better understanding of indigenous fire regimes associated with specific plant communities or habitats is needed to address landscape level fire management issues today (Lewis 1993, Gottesfeld 1994, Biswell 1999, Kay 2000, Keeley 2002, Williams 2002, Wray and Anderson 2003, Peter and Shebitz 2006, Stephens et al. 2007).

## What is our **reference condition**? The classification of ecosystems or habitats as being "out of the historical range of variability" in the amount of fuels or missed fire intervals is often based on lines of evidence that do not account for Native American uses of fire. What do we compare our present condition to? Often, our present environmental condition is compared to an ill-conceived or mis-understood past condition (Kay 2000, Williams 2002). Is how it was what we want now? The ecological conditions and ecological goods and services provided in the past as a result of aboriginal burning may not be necessarily valued or desired by society or land managers today. Do we value what it was like and the services it provided? Even if many fire-induced vegetation conditions once favored by Native Americans for foods, medicines, or materials are not socially valued today, there may be ecological values attributable in reinstating Indian-type burning practices (For the American Southwest see Raish et al. 2005). Are there things that we want now that were not desired in the past? The increased value in timber production or other land uses (recreation or rural residences) may warrant the exclusion of fire, or managing for longer fire frequencies in locations once formally burned in shorter frequencies by Native Americans. For example, low elevation oaks woodlands or savannas versus Douglas fir plantations or WUI zones and community safety.

> Defining the **reference condition** of a location may not necessarily
> exclude the historical influence of Native Americans (Engstrom et al.
> 1999:319, Anderson 2001). To historically recognize Indians as users
> and managers of the landscape, provides increased opportunities for
> tribal governments and community organizations to become involved in
> natural resource/fire management and restoration activities today
> (Anderson and Barbour 2003, Peter and Shebitz 2006).

I.  Historical landscape photographs, vegetation survey and map data can
    be used to document the composition, structure, and distribution of
    vegetation as fuels (Wieslander 1961, Kay 2003, Lake 2007). *Are
    remnants of Indian burning practices still present on the landscape?
    If so, how do those remnants affect fire behavior and relate to
    observed changes in the composition, structure, function, and
    productivity of habitats?* Certain stands of trees or habitats
    classified as "biological legacies" (Franklin et al. 2002) may more
    accurately be defined as "**eco-cultural legacies**". An
    understanding of the purpose and application of burning of those
    areas by Native Americans historically may provide us with a frame
    of reference for the potential trajectory of vegetation conditions
    resulting from the application of Indian-type fire practices
    (Anderson 1996). *What are the effects of fire suppression and
    industrial forest management in obscuring the traces of Indian
    burning practices?* A clear understanding of historical land use
    practices is needed to evaluate the significance of historical
    Indian burning in a given locale (Anderson 2001, Peter and Shebitz
    2006, Lake 2007). For a case study of the mid-lower Klamath River,
    within Karuk tribal territory, using repeat photography, historical
    vegetation and map data, traditional ecological knowledge,
    ethnographic material on tribal land use practices, (e.g. burning,
    subsistence activities and travel routes) to reconstruct historical
    cultural fire regimes that can assist contemporary fuels and fire
    management see Lake (2007) and references therein.

### TEK, FIRE, AND VEGETATION MANAGEMENT

J.  Fuels Reduction: Prescribed fire. Many fuels reduction projects take
    intermediate treatment steps to reduce the danger, intensity and
    severity of fire on physical and biological processes, and socially
    valued components. For example, as a first treatment step,
    mechanical thinning may reduce the connectivity and bulk density of
    surface and ladder fuels in selected areas. Thinning may be followed
    by pile burning in the winter or spring, or a spring burn may be
    prescribed with the rationale that the residual fuel loading after
    thinning would pose a hazard of a higher level of intensity and
    result in higher severity on vegetation or soils if burned in the
    fall (Schmoldt et al. 1999, Agee and Skinner 2005). Maybe the
    treatment area historically, pre-fire suppression, experienced
    frequent low-intensity fire and the biological community was more
    adapted to fall burning versus spring burning. Integrating multiple
    knowledge systems (TEK and Western science) of the effects of fire
    on the remaining post-treatment vegetation or soils could facilitate
    a greater accomplishment of treatment objectives. Thinning and pile
    and/or spring burning may be intermediate steps that accomplished
    preparing the site for the reintroduction of fall low-intensity
    burns that emulate Indian-type fire. Ethnographic information and/or
    TEK may be of value along each of the treatment steps (Senos et al.
    2006).

K.  Community-based Fuels Reduction: Fire Safe Councils, Tribes, and
    USFS: Fuel Reduction Projects, Wildland-Urban Interface zones, and
    Fuel Breaks. In Northwestern California, the Orleans-Somes Bar Fire
    Safe council has been working with the USFS, Karuk Tribe, local
    Native basket weavers, and private land owners on implementing fuels
    reduction projects that achieve the objectives of reducing fuel
    loading but also consider the importance of culturally significant
    native plants (Senos et al. 2006, OSB-FSC/USFS). Similar work is
    being conducted with adjacent USFS Ranger districts and tribes
    (Salberg 2005). Vegetation is not viewed simply as "fuels". During
    the planning phase and implementation of treatments vegetation is
    judged from the perspective of fire danger, ecological and cultural
    importance (Brown et al. 2004, Agee and Skinner 2005, Salberg 2005).

L.  Working with local communities*.* Perspectives as to the importance
    or functional role a tree, shrub, forb, and grass may differ between
    local tribal members, the land owner, and current scientific
    findings (see Raish et al. 2005 for the American Southwest).
    Differences in social or cultural perspectives are reflected
    ecologically in the prescription treatment (Brown et al. 2004,
    Dombeck et al. 2004, Raish et al. 2005). For example, local Native
    basket weavers and tribal members may prefer a combination of plant
    species being retained and/or removed, as well as spring burning
    and/or fall burning at a site (Lake 2007).

M.  Integrating local tribal knowledge on the importance of plants for
    habitat and fire response. Because cultural burning was a
    historically important agent in influencing the composition,
    structure, function, and productivity of low to mid elevation areas
    along the mid-lower Klamath River corridor, many members of the
    local community, Indian and non-Indian, feel it is appropriate to
    reinstate similar cultural burning practices (Lake 2007). *Restoring
    and maintaining biocultural diversity.* It is the opinion of the
    author (Lake) that fuels reduction projects that incorporate TEK and
    Indian-type fire will have higher levels of success in restoring and
    maintaining biodiversity, which in turn will and can support
    cultural diversity because many tribal communities were reliant upon
    fire induced landscape changes (Anderson 2005, Charnley et al.
    2007). This premise may hold true especially with those Native
    cultures that were and are dependant upon fire and the resulting
    effects of fire for the majority of their sustenance (Lake 2007).
    *First, Second and Third Order Fire Effects*. Sequential order of
    fire effects on environmental conditions can be described as: first
    order fire effects are physical, second order fire effects are
    biological, and third order fire effects are socio-cultural. First
    order fire effects refer to the degree to which biotic (individual
    organism or community) and abiotic components of a site or habitat
    are changed directly by a fire, second order fire effects are those
    effects that can be directly linked to the fire but which are
    mediated by other ecological processes in the post fire environment
    (Ryan 2006 un published), and third order fire effects are
    socio-cultural responses to environmental conditions modified by
    first and second order fire effects (Lake 2007). Prescriptions and
    ignition patterns could be developed to create desired first order
    fire effects during the prescribed fire event. Second order and
    "third order" fire effects within a treatment area (habitat type or
    across the landscape) can result in the production of foods,
    medicines, materials, water, or habitats necessary to sustain
    spiritual-cultural survival. Example: Oak woodlands where bulbs are
    dug, acorns gathered, herbs picked, shrub shoots harvested and deer
    are hunted in the several years following a burn which are utilized
    for food, medicines or materials (Anderson 2007), and Douglas
    fir/Pine forest with bear grass understory where lightning and or
    prescribed fire reduced understory vegetation, course fuels, litter
    and duff, consumed bear grass thatch and stimulated regrowth.

N.  *Can vegetation be modified to achieve multiple objectives? How
    vegetation is treated (thinned or burned) affects the ecological as
    well as the social services it can provide.* Fire induced changes in
    the abundance, form, or productivity of vegetation can provide
    multiple services, such as palatable young nutritious shoots for
    wildlife forage that may also be ideal for basketry material
    (Underwood et al. 2003 Example; Hazel, Northwestern California,
    Redwood National Park/California Indian Basketweavers Association).

O.  Plant Phenology and Disturbance: *Why and when would Indians set
    fire to a particular plant community or habitat?* A better
    understanding of the specific objectives behind Indian burning
    practices may help guide our rationale for prescribe burning today
    (Williams 2000, Williams 2002). Fire managers, in the appropriate
    locations, may consider the seasonality and specificity of
    Indian-type burning to create conditions for ecological and cultural
    goods and services. The specific application of fire by Indians
    during a specific time of year in a particular plant community or
    habitat was often to facilitate harvesting of certain foods or
    materials later. For example, in Northwestern California
    historically lightning ignited fires or Indian burning would burn
    patches of bear grass in late summer. Bear grass is an understory
    forest floor species found in mixed conifer forest at mid to high
    elevations in the Pacific Northwest. Native people would harvest
    bear grass for basketry material one year after it had been burned,
    because the second year after burning it flowered and would not be
    as useable (O'Neale 1995). The best bear grass for basket material
    came from plants that had been burnt one year before and had grown
    under filtered light conditions under conifers. In one case, US
    Forest Service fire management have worked with local Native basket
    weavers to thin out young understory trees and shrubs in preparation
    for patch burning of the bear grass. Fire restrictions prevented the
    burning of bear grass at the culturally desired time of August or
    September. The bear grass was burned in November, which resulted in
    shortened singed pliable leaves, almost too short for preferred
    basketry use. Had the prescribe burn for bear grass been conducted
    earlier, the bear grass would have grown to full length and been
    better basketry material. Pliable regrowth of bear grass is also
    browsed on by elk and prescribed burn-fuels treatment areas may
    consider competitive use of post-burned plant materials by humans
    and animals. Turner et al. (2000:1276-77) relates the following:
    "Management of plant resources is manifested in at least three
    levels: ***populations***, as in having and maintaining individual
    stands or patches of a plant species; ***habitats**,* as with the
    use of fire to create and maintain particular successional stages
    conductive to the productivity of a complex of plant species; and
    ***landscape*,** in which a host of strategies, including seasonal
    rounds leading to variable harvesting regimes" (italicized original,
    bold added for emphasis). Culturally prescribed fire was an
    effective tool in creating individual, group, and population level
    morphological and phenological changes in plants that were other
    wise not produced in sufficient quantity by natural fires necessary
    to support the welfare of indigenous cultures (Anderson 2005). Fire
    may be employed to created morphological characteristics of
    individual plants, a patch of plants, or larger population of plants
    needed for by Native peoples for food (berries) and materials
    (baskets) (Anderson 1997, Anderson 1999, Turner et al. 2000,
    Anderson 2005, Lake 2007).

P.  Traditional Ecological Knowledge and a Contemporary Context: Fire
    Management and Invasive/exotic species or pathogens: Exotic/Invasive
    plants can affect fire regimes (Brooks et al. 2004). Fire management
    and exotic/invasive weeds or pathogens can have interactive effects
    (Dibble and Rees 2005, Moritz and Odion 2005, Keeley 2007), which
    can impact wildlife (Vavra et al. 2007) and tribal communities.
    Because many First Nations/American Indians groups rely on multiple
    habitats or ecosystems within their aboriginal territory for
    ceremonial/spiritual, subsistence and commercial purposes, they are
    often the first to recognize the colonization, establishment,
    presence, rates of spread, and reaction to disturbance of
    invasive/exotic species. Just as each native species was observed
    and evaluated as to its potential habitat contribution as a food,
    medicine or material or wildlife habitat, this same criterion was
    and is applied to exotic species. Example, some exotic plants were
    adopted for use by First Nation/American Indian groups as medicines,
    foods, and materials (Moerman 1998). Exotic species observed
    exhibiting invasive traits were evaluated as to how they affect
    natural communities or fire regimes. In northern California, tribes
    and tribal organizations working with fuels reduction, prescribe
    fire, and forest restoration projects often prefer non-herbicide
    methods of invasive species control (Senos et al. 2006). Traditional
    Ecological Knowledge of how different invasive native and exotic
    species respond to disturbance, the rates and methods of spread, and
    non-herbicide methods of control have been employed to control
    invasive species (Weed Working Group/Salmon River Restoration
    Council). American Indian tribes and tribal organizations should be
    consulted regarding management and control of invasive species
    particularly if it includes herbicides application prior to fuels
    treatments or prescribed burning.

> Climate Change: Predicted Vegetation Community Changes, Altered Fire
> Regimes, Plant-Animal Habitat Relationships, Vegetation Responses to
> Disturbance/Stress, Adaptive Social-Ecological Responses.
>
> Given recent scientific understandings of potential global climate
> change, risks and subsequent environmental changes in the Pacific West
> to fire regimes (Rapp/USFS 2004, Beckage et al. 2005, Millar 2007,
> Kerns and Ager 2007, Millar et al. 2007), TEK may be effective in
> understanding local or finer scale ecological changes. As vegetation
> communities migrate in response to climate changes, i.e. the
> distributions of trees and shrub migrating and changing fire regimes,
> TEK of southern American Indian groups can be exchanged to the north.
> Research conducted on American Indian tribes whose aboriginal
> territory encompass the boundaries of several ecosystems or
> physiographic provinces, described as cultural transitional areas,
> have a greater breath of knowledge and inherent social-ecological
> resiliency regarding those species whose ranges converge (Turner et
> al. 2003). Western scientific modeling and system understanding
> coupled with TEK can provide a scaled, local to regional to global,
> approach to defining the future desired conditions and design of
> restoration treatments. Additionally, there may be opportunities for
> applying TEK in contemporary restoration projects, both in areas where
> western science practitioners may be lacking knowledge of ecosystem
> dynamics and species linkages, and where fostering social approval and
> participation is important (Anderson and Barbour 2003, Ruppert 2003,
> Senos et al. 2006).

Q.  Working with tribes and Native American organizations: Giving your
    personal "word" that a project will be done can be more significant
    to a tribe or Native organization than a formal Memorandum of
    Understanding (MOU) or other formal cooperative agreement. Native
    people will be patient with some bureaucracy, i.e. completion of
    NEPA and Burn Plans that delay important cultural burns. Managers
    need to clearly explain to the tribal or Native American
    organization representatives the steps of a prescribed burn project,
    start to finish. Describe the steps: first the project
    plan/proposal, then the NEPA, next the burn plan, site preparations
    (fire line and burn clearance), and finally the implementation of
    the burn. Be clear as to the expected time frames for each action
    and what may likely prevent the project from being implemented, i.e.
    air quality or burn restrictions, fire crews called off to other
    wildfires, limitations in staff time or funding for an unfunded
    "cultural burn" that is a lower priority than other management unit
    burn projects. Lastly, fire managers might wish to utilize volunteer
    agreements that can get them and tribal community members in a
    vehicle and out to the project area or areas that have questions
    about concerns with cultural burning. Ruppert (2003) addresses the
    issue of building partnerships between tribes and the National Park
    Service, which can serve as a template for working with tribes on
    other federal/public lands. Also, contact and utilize "Native
    American liaisons" working in most federal and state organizations.
    Utilize formal government to government consultation processes. Many
    Native American organizations involved in cultural land use
    practices (i.e. basket weavers) have regional or annual meetings
    open to the public. These "gatherings" are good places to meet and
    discuss your fire management/research interests with Native peoples
    in an unobtrusive manner. (Indians expect non-Indian people to ask
    questions at public gatherings, versus just showing up at their
    house some day -- a situation that could be intrusive or awkward for
    both parties). Also, when presenting at such events one will want to
    be careful not to patronize Native people when talking about fire or
    fire related ecological issues. When working on wildland fires on or
    adjacent to reservations or tribal communities utilize heritage
    resource advisors. Some on the job training or additional education
    of the Incident Command system and fire suppression activities may
    be needed. Tribal heritage resource advisors can increase protection
    of cultural resources. Tribes and tribal communities consider a much
    broader definition of cultural resources than federal or state
    policies and agencies. Many natural resources are culturally
    significant resources. Fire managers need to consider how fire
    suppression activities affect archeological or sacred sites. The
    adoption and implementation of these mitigation methods with minimum
    impact suppression techniques (M.I.S.T. Guidelines) may be
    accomplished without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the
    resistance of control, fire fighter safety, or impeding safe and
    efficient use of travel or escape routes. Mitigation of fire
    suppression activities can be developed in to M.I.S.T guidelines.
    Positive cross-cultural fire management experiences can be achieved
    by working together to protect life (fire fighter and public),
    property, and natural and cultural resources.

> A resource guide about tribal wildfire management is available from
> Resource Innovations (2006).

R.  Arson fires or un-authorized cultural burning?: Many Native
    communities still have individuals who practice cultural burning,
    although not legally approved by local fire management agencies. In
    areas around Native communities on or off reservations in the
    Pacific west wildfires classified as "arson" maybe the result of
    un-authorized cultural burning practices. The allocation of
    suppression dollars that go towards "arson" on many Indian
    reservations to support the containment of these un-authorized
    cultural burns can be significant. The federal classification system
    of types of "fire" could be expanded to include un-approved cultural
    burns that resulted in improved ecological conditions and cultural
    goods and services. Fire managers and staff could address within
    their fire programs more effective methods to address such acts of
    "**unauthorized cultural burning**", legally considered arson. Cross
    training and educational outreach about fire ecology and fire
    effects related to changes in ecological conditions and cultural
    good and services as a result of fire could improve working
    relationships between fire management programs and those Native
    communities desiring more areas to be burnt. Younger Native people
    may have set the fires because they heard it should be done from
    elders or older family members (Lake 2007). Some of these young
    Native adults may not have an appropriate level of understanding or
    training of fire behavior, effects, and ecology. Therefore, good
    intentions can result in serious consequences to life, property, and
    the environment. Like wise, fire managers and personnel may benefit
    from an increased understanding of the reasons behind the desired
    fire-effected conditions by Native American communities. Many Native
    people feel that it is their "care-taking" responsibility to burn
    the land, regardless of the federal, state, or tribal laws over such
    practices. (This information is based on my experiences in Native
    communities in Northwestern California and the Pacific Northwest,
    fkl.)

S.  Reference materials on aboriginal burning for your area or region:
    Locating references on aboriginal burning practices can be
    difficult. In the last ten years, historians, environmental
    scientists and restoration ecologists have complied literature,
    ethnographic interviews/oral histories for different regions or by
    tribe in North America on aboriginal burning (Williams on-line,
    Williams 2002, see references below). Most of literature available
    was complied from explorer and pioneer accounts, anthropological
    ethnographies, and recent Native American scholars writing of their
    own research and work (White-Fire on the Land project, Lake 2007).
    Suggested routes to find more data on aboriginal burning are:
    internet searches under various titles (aboriginal burning, Native
    American fire, etc.), academic journals (Ethnobiology, Restoration
    Ecology, and Human Ecology), and contacting the cultural committee
    of tribes or Native organizations affiliated with natural resource
    management (basket weavers or medicinal herb guilds). Many federal
    agencies have compiled data bases on aboriginal burning or
    ethnobotany (USFS and NRCS).

*"..a considerable number of publications now exist-and original
research on traditional ecological knowledge of fire can still be
carried out in a few areas of North America-there has been an absence of
studies in the biological sciences that have used historic and
anthropological examples (ethnographic analogues) in any substantive way
as a significant component of environmental restoration efforts. At the
most, indigenous practices are noted but not considered as part of
restoration programs" (Lewis in Stewart 2002:28).*

**CONCLUSIONS:**

> Now it's up to you to make the difference for reinstating Indian-type
> fire, if appropriate for your area.
>
> Do you see value of TEK and CEMP for restoration and conservation of
> biodiversity in fire adapted ecosystems or in understanding fire
> effects?
>
> What opportunities are there in fire management today for integrating
> Indigenous people's burning practices in the restoration of fire
> adapted ecosystems?
>
> How might cultural fire-regimes of Indigenous people be reinstated
> using western fire science and modern understandings of fire ecology?
>
> Should we consider emulating Indigenous people's burning practices in
> fire adapted ecosystems? And if so, what is our ecological or social
> rationale?

### WORK CITED AND SUGGESTED READINGS

> **\*Bold indicates these readings are included on 2008 Rx510 Course
> CD**
>
> Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island
> Press, Washington D.C. 493 Pages.
>
> Agee, J.K. and Skinner, C.N. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel
> reduction treatment. Forest Ecology and Management, Vol. 211, Pages:
> 83-96.
>
> Anderson, M. K. 1993. Native Californian as Ancient and Contemporary
> Cultivators. In Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by
> Native Californians, edited and complied by T.C. Blackburn and M.K.
> Anderson. Ballena Press. Menlo Park, Cal. Pages: 151-174.
>
> Anderson, M. K. 1996. Tending the wilderness. Restoration & Management
> Notes Vol. 14, No. 2, Pages: 154-166.
>
> Anderson, M. K. 1997. From Tillage to Table: The Indigenous
> Cultivation of Geophytes for Food in California. Journal of
> Ethnobiology Vol. 17, No. 2, Pages: 149-169.
>
> Anderson, M. K. 1999. The fire, pruning, and coppice management of
> temperate ecosystems for basketry material by California Indian
> tribes. Human Ecology Vol. 27 No.1, Pages: 79-113.
>
> Anderson, M. K. 2001. The Contribution of Ethnobiology to the
> Reconstruction and Restoration of Historic Ecosystems in The
> Historical Ecology Handbook, A Restorationist's Guide to Reference
> Ecosystems, edited by D. Egan and E.A. Howell. Society for Ecological
> Restoration, Island Press, Washington, Covelo, London. Pages: 55-72.
>
> Anderson, M. K. 2005. Tending the Wild: Native American Knowledge and
> the Management of California's Natural Resources. University of
> California Press. Berkeley. 526 Pages.
>
> Anderson, M. K. 2007. Indigenous Uses, Management and Restoration of
> Oaks of the Far Western United States. USDA-NRCS, National Plant Data
> Center. Technical Note, No. 2.
>
> Anderson, M. K. and Barbour, M.G. 2003. Simulated Indigenous
> Management: A New Model for Ecological Restoration in National Parks.
> Ecological Restoration Vol. 21, No. 4, Pages: 269-277.
>
> Barrett, S.W. 1980. Indians and Fire. Western Wildlands Vol. 6, Pages:
> 17-21.
>
> Barrett, S.W. and Arno, S.F. 1982. Indian fires as an ecological
> influence in the northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry Vol. 80, Pages:
> 647-50.
>
> Beckage, B., Platt, W.J., and Planko, B. 2005. A Climate-Based
> Approach to the Restoration of Fire-Dependent Ecosystems. Restoration
> Ecology, Vol. 13, No. 3, Pages: 429-431.
>
> Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and
> Resource Management, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, Pa. 209 Pages.
>
> **\*Black, B.A., Ruffner, C.M., and Abrams, M.D. 2006**. Native
> American influences on the forest composition of the Allegheny
> Plateau, northwest Pennsylvania. Canadian Journal of Forest Research.
> Vol. 36, Pages: 1266-1275.
>
> Blackburn, T. and Anderson, K. M. 1993 (editors). Before the
> Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians . Ballena
> Press. Menlo Park, Cal. 476 Pages.
>
> Bicknell, S.H., Austin, A.T., Bigg, D.J. and Parker Godar, R. 1992.
> Late Prehistoric vegetation patterns at six sites in coastal
> California. Supplement to Bulletin of the Ecological Society of
> America (Program Abstracts) Vol. 73, No. 2, Page: 112.
>
> Biswell, H. 1999 (1989). Prescribe Burning in California Wildlands
> Vegetation Management. University of California Press. 255 Pages.
>
> Bonnicksen, T., Anderson, M. K. Lewis, H. T., Kay, C. E. and Knudson,
> R. 1999. Native American Influences on the Development of Forest
> Ecosystem. In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem
> Management, Vol. 2.
>
> Pages: 439-469.
>
> Bonnicksen, T. 2000. American's Ancient Forests: From the Ice Age to
> the Age of Discovery. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. See Chapter Seven: Fire
> Masters.
>
>  Pages: 143-216.
>
> Boyd, M. 2002. Identification of Anthropogenic Burning in the
> Paleoecological Record of the Northern Prairies: A New Approach.
> Annals of the Association of American Geographer. Vol. 92, Issue 3,
> Pages: 471-488.
>
> Boyd, R. 1999 (editor). Indians, Fire and the Land in the Pacific
> Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Or. 313 Pages.
>
> Briles, C.E., Whitlock, C., and Bartlein, P.J. 2005. Postglacial
> vegetation, fire, and climate history of the Siskiyou Mountains,
> Oregon, USA. Quaternary Research, Vol. 64, Pages: 44-56.
>
> Brooks, M.L., D'Antonio, C.M, Richarson, D.M, Grace, J.B., Keeley,
> J.E., DiTomaso, J.M, Hobbs, R.J., Pellant, M., and Pyke, D. 2004.
> Effects of Invasive Alien Plants on Fire Regimes. BioScience Vol. 54,
> No. 7 Pages: 677-688.
>
> Brown, R.T., Agee, J.K., and Franklin, J.F. 2004. Forest Restoration
> and Fire: Principles in the Context of Place. Conservation Biology,
> Vol. 18, No. 4, Pages: 903-912.
>
> Bunting, R. 1997. The Native American Landscape, chapter one In The
> Pacific Rain coast: Environment and Culture in an American Eden,
> 1778-1900.
>
>  See pages 12-15.
>
> Busam, H. 2006. Characteristics and Implications of Traditional Native
> American Fire Management on the Orleans Ranger District, Six Rivers
> National Forest. M.A. California State University, Sacramento.
> Department of Anthropology.
>
> Charnley, S., Fischer, A.P., and Jones, E.T. 2007. Integrating
> traditional and local ecological knowledge into forest biodiversity
> conservation in the Pacific Northwest. Forest Ecology and Management.
> Vol. 246, Pages: 14-28.
>
> Day, G.M. 1947. The Indian as an Ecological Factor in the Northeastern
> Forest. Ecology, Vol. 34, No.2. Pages: 329-346.
>
> Delcourt, H.R. and P.A. Delcourt. 1997. Pre-Columbian Native American
> use of fire on southern Appalachin landscapes. Conservation Biology
> Vol. 11, Pages: 1010-14.
>
> DellaSala, D.A, Williams, J.E., Williams, C.D., and Franklin, J.F.
> 2004. Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: a Synthesis of Fire Policy and
> Science. Conservation Biology. Vol. 18, No. 4, Pages: 976-986.
>
> Dibble, A.C. and Rees, C.A. 2005. Does the Lack of Reference
> Ecosystems Limit Our Science? A Case Study in Nonnative Invasive
> Plants as Forest Fuels. Journal of Forestry. October/November 2005.
> Pages: 329-338.
>
> Dombeck, M.P., Williams, J.E. and Wood, C.A. 2004. Wildfire policy and
> public lands: Integrating scientific understanding with social
> concerns across landscapes. Conservation Biology. Vol. 18, No. 4,
> Pages: 83-89.
>
> Engstrom, R.T., Gilbert, S., Hunter, Jr. M.L., Merriwether, D.,
> Nowacki, G.J. and Spencer, P. 1999. Practical Applications of
> Disturbance Ecology to Natural Resource Management in Ecological
> Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management, Vol. II.
> Edited by Szaro, Johnson, Sexton, and Malk. Elsevier Science Press.
> Pages: 313-330.
>
> Franklin, J. F., Spies, T.A., Van Pelt, R., Carey, A.B., Thornburgh,
> D.A., Berg, D.R., Lindenmayer, D.B., Harmon, M.E., Keeton, W.S., Shaw,
> D.C., Bible, K., and Chen, J. 2002. Disturbance and Structural
> Development of Natural Forest Ecosystems with Silvicultural
> Implications, Using Douglas-fir Forests as an Example. Forest Ecology
> and Management. Vol. 155 No. 2 Pages: 399-423.
>
> Frost, E. and Sweeney, R. 2000. Fire Regimes, Fire History and Forest
> Conditions in the Klamath-Siskiyou Region: An Overview and Synthesis
> of Knowledge. Prepared for the World Wildlife Fund, Klamath-Siskiyou
> Ecoregion Program, Ashland OR. December 2000.
>
> Gordon, M.D. 1953. The Indian as an Ecological Factor in the
> Northeastern Forest. Ecology, Vol. 34, No. 2. Pages: 329-346.
>
> Gottesfeld, L.M J. 1994. Aboriginal Burning for Vegetation Management
> in Northwest British Columbia. Human Ecology Vol. 22, No. 2, Pages:
> 171-188.
>
> Hagar, J.C. 2007. Wildlife species associated with non-coniferous
> vegetation in Pacific Northwest conifer forests: A review. Forest
> Ecology and Management. Vol. 246, Pages: 108-122.
>
> Hann, W.J. and Strohm, D.J. 2003. Fire Regime Condition Class and
> Associated Data for Fire and Fuels Planning: Methods and Applications.
> USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29.
>
> Johnson, N.C. 1999. Humans as Agents of Ecological Change-Overview. In
> Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management,
> Vol. II. Pages: 433-437.
>
> Kauffman, J.B. 2004. Death Rides the Forest: Perceptions of Fire, Land
> Use and Ecological Restoration of Western Forests. Conservation
> Biology. Vol. 18, No. 4, Pages: 878-882.
>
> \***Kay, C. E. 2000**. Native Burning in Western North America:
> Implications for Hardwood Forest Management. Proceedings: Workshop on
> Fire, People, and the Central Hardwoods Landscape, USDA-Forest
> Service, Northeastern Research Station, GTR-NE-274. Pages: 19-27.
>
> Kay, Charles E. 2003. Long-Term Vegetation Change on Utah's Fishlake
> National Forest: A Study in Repeat Photography. Department of
> Political Science, Utah State University. Logan UT. 84322-0725August
> 2003. 175 Pages.
>
> Keeley, J.E., 1982. Distributions of lightning and man-caused wildfire
> in California. In: Conrad, C.E., Oechel, W.C. (Eds.), Proceedings of
> the Symposium on Dynamics and Management of Mediterranean-Type
> Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service. General Technical Report PSW-58,
> Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA,
> Pages: 431--437.
>
> \***Keeley, J.E., 2002**. Native American impacts on fire regimes of
> the California coastal ranges. Journal of Biogeography. Vol. 29,
> Pages: 303--320.
>
> Kerns, B.K. and Ager, A. 2007. Risk assessment for biodiversity
> conservation planning in Pacific Northwest forest. Forest Ecology and
> Management. Vol. 246, 
>
> Pages: 38-44.
>
> **\*Kimmerer, R.W. and F.K. Lake 2001**. Maintaining the Mosaic: The
> Role of Indigenous Burning in Land Management. Journal of Forestry.
> 99(11):36-41.
>
> Lake, F. 2007. Traditional Ecological Knowledge to Develop and
> Maintain Fir Regimes in Northwestern California, Klamath-Siskiyou
> Bioregion: Management and Restoration of Culturally Significant
> Habitats. Ph.D. Dissertation, Environmental Sciences Graduate Program,
> Oregon State University, Corvallis, Or.
> <http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/dspace/handle/1957/6222>
>
> Lake, F. and B. Zybach (In Prep). Historical Indian Burning Practices,
> Oregon Coast Range.
>
> Landfire: Fire Regime Condition Class: Region by Region and rapid
> assessment maps.
> <http://www.landfire.gov/NationalProductDescriptions11.php>
>
> Lehmkuhl, J.F., Kennedy, M., Ford, E.D., Singleton, P.H., Gaines,
> W.L., and Lind, R.L. 2007. Seeing the forest for the fuel: Integrating
> ecological values and fuels management. Forest Ecology and Management
> Vol. 246, Pages: 73-80.
>
> Lewis, H. 1985. Why Indians burned: Specific versus general reasons.
> In Proceedings: Symposium and workshop on wilderness fire, tech.
> Cords. J.E. Lotan et al. Pages: 75-80. General Technical Report
> INT-182, Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and
> Range Experiment Station.
>
> Lewis, H. 1993. Patterns of Indian Burning in California: Ecology and
> Ethnohistory In Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by
> Native Californians, edited and complied by T.C. Blackburn and M.K.
> Anderson. Ballena Press. Menlo Park, Cal. Pages: 55-116.
>
> Lewis, H. 2002. An Anthropological Critique. In Forgotten Fires:
> Native Americans and the Transient Wilderness. University of Oklahoma
> Press. Stewart, O.C, and editors Lewis and Anderson.
>
> Lewis, H. and Ferguson, T. 1988. Yards, Corridors, and Mosaics: How to
> Burn a Boreal Forest. Human Ecology Vol. 19, No. 1, Pages: 57-77.
>
> Lewis, H., and Anderson, M.K. (eds.) 2002. Introduction. In Stewart,
> O.C, Forgotten Fires: Native Americans and the Transient Wilderness.
> University of Oklahoma Press. 364 Pages.
>
> Mack, C. A. and McClure, R.H. 2002. Vaccinium Processing in the
> Washington Cascades. Journal of Ethnobiology. Vol. 22, No. 1, Pages:
> 35-60.
>
> Millar, C.I. 2007. ReThinking Forest Management in the West.
> Presentation made in Arcata, Ca. US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
> Research Station web page. Accessed Jan. 23, 2008.
> http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pep/climatechange/.
>
> Millar, C.I., Stephenson, N.L., and Stephens, S.L. 2007. Climate
> Change and Forests of the Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty.
> Ecological Applications, Vol. 17, No. 8, Pages: 2145-2151.
>
> Minore, D. 1972. The Wild Huckleberries of Oregon and Washington: A
> Dwindling Resource. USFS-Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment
> Station, Portland, Or. Research Paper-143.
>
> Moerman, D.E. 1998. Native American Ethnobotany. Timber Press,
> Portland, OR. 927 Pages.
>
> Moritz, M.A. and Odion, D.C. 2005. Examining the strength of and
> possible causes of the relationship between fire history and Sudden
> Oak Death. Oecologia. DOI 10.1007/s00442-005-0028-1.
>
> Norton, H. H. 1979. The Association Between Anthropogenic Prairies and
> Important Food Plants in Western Washington. Northwest Anthropologist
> Research Notes: Vol. 13, No. 2, Pages:175-200.
>
> Norton, H. H., Hunn, E. S., Martinsen, C.S. and Keely, P.B.1984.
> Vegetable Food Products of the Foraging Economies of the Pacific
> Northwest. Ecology of Food and Nutrition Vol. 14, Pages: 219-228.
>
> Noss, R.F., Franklin, J.F., Baker, W.L., Schoennagel, T., and Moyle,
> P.B. 2006. Ecology and Management of Fire-prone Forest of the Western
> United States. Society of Conservation Biology Scientific Panel on
> Fire in Western U.S. Forests.
>
> O'Neale, 1932 (1995). Yurok-Karok Basket Weavers with introduction by
> Schevill. Originally published as University of California Press
> publications in American Archeology and Ethnology, Vol. 32, No. 1.
>
> Orleans-Somes Bar Fire Safe Council and USFS Six Rivers National
> Forest: Fuels reduction projects:
> http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/sixrivers/fire/prevention/living-with-fire/fsc/orleans-somes-bar/.
>
> Peacock, S., and Turner, N. J. 2000. "Just like a garden:" Traditional
> plant resource management and biodiversity conservation on the British
> Columbia Plateau. In Minnis, P. and Elisens, W. (eds)., Biodiversity
> and Native North America, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Pages:
> 133-179.
>
> Peter, D. and Shebitz, D. 2006. Historically Anthropogenically
> Maintained Bear Grass Savannas of the Southeastern Olympic Peninsula.
> Restoration Ecology, Vol. 14, No. 4, Pages: 605-615.
>
> Pullen, R. 1996. Overview of the Environment Native Inhabitants of
> Southwestern Oregon, Late Prehistoric Era. Contracted document
> complied for USFS, Siskiyou and Rogue River NF and BLM, Medford
> District.
>
> Purcell, K. L., and Stephens, S. L. 2005. Natural and Anthropogenic
> Fire Regimes, Vegetation Effects, and Potential Impacts on the
> Avifauna of California Oak Woodlands. USDA Forest Service, General
> Technical Report, PSW-GTR-191. Pages: 1100-1103.
>
> **\*Raish, C., Gonzalez-Caban, A., and Condie, C.J. 2005**. The
> importance of traditional fire use and management practices for
> contemporary land management in the American Southwest. Environmental
> Hazards, Vol. 6, Pages: 115-122.
>
> Resource Innovations, 2006. Tribal Wildfire Resource Guide 2006.
> Developed in Partnership with Intertribal Timber Council and
> Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation.
> Resource Innovations, University of Oregon.
> http://ri.uoregon.edu/programs/CCE/tribalwildfireguide.html.
>
> Ruppert, D. 2003. Building Partnerships Between American Indian Tribes
> and the National Park Service. Ecological Restoration Vol. 21, No. 4,
> Pages: 261-263.
>
> Ryan, K.C. 2006 unpublished. First Order/Second Order Fire Effects. Rx
> 510 Applied Fire Effects, Lesson Plan I-A. National Advanced Fire and
> Resource Institute, Tucson, Az.
>
> Salberg, T.A. 2005. Hazel Fuels Reduction Project: Integrating
> Cultural Resource Management and Hazardous Fuels Reduction. Evergreen
> Winter 2005/2006. Pages: 72-73
>
> Schmoldt, D. L.; Peterson, David L.; Keane, Robert E.; Lenihan, James
> M. McKenzie, Donald; Weise, David R.; Sandberg, David V. 1999.
> Assessing the effects of fire disturbance on ecosystems: a scientific
> agenda for research and management. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-455.
> Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific
> Northwest Research Station. 104 Pages.
>
> Senos, R., Lake, F.K., Turner, N. and Martinez D. 2006. Traditional
> Ecological Knowledge ad Restoration Practice. In Restoring the Pacific
> Northwest: The Art and Science of Ecological Restoration in Cascadia,
> D. Apostol and M. Sinclair (eds). Island Press. Pages: 393-426.
>
> Skinner, C.N. 1995. Change in spatial characteristics of forest
> openings in the Klamath Mountains of northwestern California, USA.
> Landscape Ecology Vol. 10,
>
>  Pages: 219--228.
>
> Skinner, C.N., Taylor, A.H., and Agee, J.K. 2006. Klamath Mountains
> Bioregion. In: Sugihara, N.G., Van Wagtendonk, J.W., Shaffer, K.E.,
> Fites-Kaufman, J., and Thode, A.E. (eds.) Fire in California's
> Ecosystems. University of California Press, Berkeley, Ca. Chapter 9,
> Pages: 170-194.
>
> Skinner, D. 2005. Viva La Difference: How and why tribal forestlands
> are managed differently from federal forestlands. Evergreen: Pages:
> 21-24.
>
> Stephens, S.L., Martin, R.E., and Clinton, N.E. 2007. Prehistoric fire
> area and emissions from California's forests, woodlands, shrublands,
> and grasslands. Forest Ecology and Management Vol. 251, Pages:
> 205-216.
>
> Stewart, O.C. 2002. Forgotten Fires: Native Americans and the
> Transient Wilderness, edited by Lewis and Anderson. University of
> Oklahoma Press: Norman. 364 Pages
>
> Strike, S.S. 1994. Ethnobotany of the California Indians. Vol. 2:
> Aboriginal uses of California's indigenous plants. Koeltz Scientific
> Books.
>
> Stuart, J. and Stephens, S. 2006. North Coast Bioregion. In. Sugihara,
> N.G., Van Wagtendonk, J.W., Shaffer, K.E., Fites-Kaufman, J., and
> Thode, A.E. (eds.) Fire in California's Ecosystems. University of
> California Press, Berkeley, CA. Chapter 8, Pages: 148-169.
>
> Suttles, W., and Ames, K. 1997. Pre-European History. In The Rain
> Forest of Home; Profile of a North American bioregion, P.K.
> Schoonmaker, B. von Hagen, and E.C. Wolf (eds.) Island Press,
> Washington D.C. Pages: 255-274.
>
> Turner, N. 1997. Traditional Ecological Knowledge. In The Rain Forests
> of Home: Profile of a North American Bioregion, edited by Peter K.
> Schoonmaker, Bettina Von Hagen, and Edward C. Wolf, Ecotrust. Pages:
> 275-98. Covelo, CA. and Washington DC: Island Press.
>
> Tuner, N. 1999. "Time to Burn": Traditional Use of Fire to Enhance
> Resource Production by Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia. In
> Indians, Fire and the Land in the Pacific Northwest, edited by Robert
> Boyd, Pages: 185-218. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR.
>
> Turner, N., Ignace, M. B. and Ignace, R. 2000. Traditional Ecological
> Knowledge and Wisdom of Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia.
> Ecological Applications Vol. 10, No. 5, Pages:1275-1287.
>
> Turner, N. J., Davidson-Hunt, I. J., and O'Flaherty, M. 2003. Living
> on the Edge: Ecological and Cultural Edges as Sources of Diversity for
> Social-Ecological Resilience. Human Ecology, Vol. 31. No. 3. Pages:
> 439-461.
>
> Underwood, S., Argueelo, L. and Siefkin, N. 2003. Restoring
> Ethnographic Landscapes and Natural Elements in Redwood National Park.
> Ecological Restoration. Vol. 21, No. 4, Pages:278-283.
>
> USDA Forest Service Fire Effects Information System lists for species:
> http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/.
>
> Vale, T. 2002. Fire, Native People and The Natural Landscape. Island
> Press. Washington DC.
>
> Varva, M., Parks, C.G., and Wisdom, M.J. 2007. Biodiversity, exotic
> plant species, and herbivory: The good, the bad, and the ungulate.
> Forest Ecology and Management. Vol. 246, Pages: 66-72.
>
> Walstad, J.D., Radosevich, S.R. and Sandberg, D.V. 1990 (editors).
> Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. Oregon State
> University Press. Corvallis, OR. 317 Pages.
>
> Weisberg, P.J. and Swanson, F.J. 2003. Regional synchroneity in fire
> regimes of western Oregon and Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and
> Management Vol. 172, Pages:17-28.
>
> Wieslander, A.E., 1961. California\'s vegetation maps: Recent advances
> in botany, University of Toronto Press, Toronto. See also:
> http://vtm.berkeley.edu/.
>
> White, G., Fire on the Land: Beaver Steals Fire. The Confederated
> Salish and Kootenai Tribes of Flathead Reservation. Accessed Jan. 23,
> 2008: www.cskt.org/tr/fire_firehistoryproject.htm.
>
> Whitlock, C. 1992. Vegetational and Climatic History of the Pacific
> Northwest during the Last 20,000 Years: Implications for Understanding
> Present-Day Biodiversity. The Northwest Environmental Journal, Vol. 8.
> No. 1, Pages: 5-28.
>
> Whitlock, C. and Knox, M.A. 2002. Prehistoric Burning in the Pacific
> Northwest: Human versus Climatic Influences. In Fire, Native Peoples,
> and the Natural Landscape. T.R. Vale (ed.) Island Press. Washington
> D.C. Pages: 195-231
>
> Whitlock, C., Skinner, C.N., Bartlein, P.J., Minckley, T., and Mohr,
> J.A. 2004. Comparison of charcoal and tree-ring records of recent
> fires in the eastern Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Canadian
> Journal of Forest Research, Vol. 34 Pages: 2110-2121.
>
> Williams, G. 2000. Introduction to Aboriginal Fire Use in North
> America, pages 8-12, and Reintroducing Indian-Type Fire: Implications
> for Land Managers pages 40-48. In Fire Management Today, Vol. 60, No.
> 3. Summer 2000.
>
> Williams, G. W. 2002. Aboriginal Use of Fire: Are There Any "Natural"
> Plant Communities? In. Kay and Simmons (eds.) Wilderness and Political
> Ecology: Aboriginal Land Management-Myths and Reality. Logan, UT:
> University of Utah Press. 2002. Pages: 179-214.
>
> **\*Wray, J. and Anderson, M.K. 2003**. Restoring Indian-Set Fires to
> Prairie Ecosystems on the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological Restoration
> Vol. 21, No. 4, Pages: 296-301.
>
> Winkler, C. and Bailey, T. 2002. [Restoring the Cultural Landscape at
> Jim's Creek: Challenges to Preserving a Spirit of Place]{.underline}.
> Paper presented at the 55th Annual Northwest Anthropological
> Conference, April 11-13, 2002. USDA Willamette National Forest,
> Westfir, OR: 13 Pages.
>
> Zybach, B. 2002. \"The Alseya Valley Prairie Complex, ca. 1850: Native
> Landscapes in Western GLO Surveys,\" IN: [Changing Landscapes:
> \"Sustaining Traditions]{.underline}.\" Proceedings of the 5th and 6th
> Annual Coquille Cultural Preservation Conferences, 2001 and 2002, Don
> Ivy and R. Scott Byram (eds.), Coquille Indian Tribe, North Bend, OR.
> Pages: 161-188.
>
> Zybach, Bob 2003. [The Great Fires: Indian Burning and Catastrophic
> Forest Fire Patterns of the Oregon Coast Range,
> 1491-1951]{.underline}. PhD dissertation, Oregon State University,
> Corvallis, OR: 466 Pages.
>
> Web Links:
>
> Orleans-Somes Bar Fire Safe Council/National Fire Plan:
> [www.fs.fed.us/r5/fire/nfp/NFP_success_orleans_FSC_2002_1120.pdf](http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/fire/nfp/NFP_success_orleans_FSC_2002_1120.pdf)
>
> [www.co.humboldt.ca.us/planning/fire_safe_council/local_fsc/orleans.htm](http://www.co.humboldt.ca.us/planning/fire_safe_council/local_fsc/orleans.htm)
>
> Williams, G.: A comprehensive bibliography for fire use by Native
> Americans:
>
> [www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/Bibliography/Bibliography_Indian_Use_of_Fire1.rtf](http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/Bibliography/Bibliography_Indian_Use_of_Fire1.rtf)
>
> Resource Innovations 2006. Tribal Wildfire Resource Guide 2006.
> Developed in Partnership with Intertribal Timber Council and
> Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation.
> Resource Innovations, University of Oregon
>
> http://ri.uoregon.edu/programs/CCE/tribalwildfireguide.html