**NATIONAL ADVANCED FIRE AND RESOURCE INSTITUTE**

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

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

**INSTRUCTOR:** Frank 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
induced 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 Indian burning
practices. Additional information related to why, when and how 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
fire 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 is of value to fire managers dealing
with issues related to tribal consultation, public outreach/education,
and emergent issues like invasive species management and climate change.

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 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. 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.

> "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 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 other authors.

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, Turner 1999, Turner et. al. 2000).

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). 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. In this sense, the effect of Indian
> management should be considered part of the reference ecosystem, or
> more generally as a set of reference conditions for restoration (see
> greater discussion below). There should 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 or North America in Lewis et. al.
         (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 Lewis et.
         al. (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. *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 elders about tribal uses of
> fire for land management (Anderson 2001).

1.  Hunting

> Indians burned large areas to force deer, elk, antelope, rabbits, and
> other prey into small unburned and/or formally burnt 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, greens, grass seed; improve yields of camas,
> brodiaeas, lilies, yampas, seeds, berries (especially raspberries,
> strawberries, and huckleberries) (Bonnicksen 2000).
>
> Fire was used to prevent grasslands from growing over by non-desired
> vegetation, and to clear areas for planting tobacco and grass seeds.
> Burning facilitated the gathering of acorns by clearing the ground of
> vegetation and duff/litter under oak trees. Often as soon as enough
> fuels had accumulated or non-desired vegetation had encroached on
> desired crops, the area would have been burned.
>
> The timing 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. "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).

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).
>
> 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 anmials bedded (Strike 1994:164, Anderson 1999).

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 (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). 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 Indian burnt areas functioned as \"refuges\" for
> threatened wildlife species. Even in severe, stand-replacing 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 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 burnt in the yearly
> processing huckleberries. 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
> (Bonnicksen 2000). \[See Indian Burning Practices in Section III. C.
> for more details.\]

7.  Clearing travel-ways

> Indians used fire to clear overgrown trails for 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 up into large scale patches that could be burnt as fuels
> and weather conditions permitted (Bonnicksen 2000). 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.

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 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) region.

    1.  Table 1 (below) (Lake and Zybach, In prep) 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 direct and indirect goods and
        services. Indian fires were employed and maintained 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
        2002).

Table 1.0 Coastal Pacific Northwest Indian burning practices, pre-1849 .

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

  Firewood         1-2 purposes: heat, light,      Daily: concentrated
  gathering and    cooking, boiling, cleaning,     near homes, trails,
  burning          fuel stores, celebration,       settlements and
                   ceremony, security.             campgrounds.

  Patch burning    1-2 purposes: hunting, berry    Seasonal and
                   patch maintenance, root         situational.
                   fields/harvesting, pest         
                   control, weaving materials,     
                   trail maintenance, and habitat  
                   conversion.                     

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

> []{.mark}

2.  Descriptions of Indian burning practices for the coastal Pacific
    Northwest:

    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 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. Principal locations were located
> along the shores of estuaries and at the mouths of major tributaries.
> Low gradient riverbank floodplains were also likely locations of home
> sites and campgrounds. In addition to smaller fuels, other larger wood
> products, mostly cedars (*Thuja plicata,* and *Chamaecyparis
> lawsoniana* in the south) would be specifically harvested. Indian
> people used large wood products throughout the coastal PNW over long
> periods of time. A single large house may have required as much as
> 70,000 board feet of lumber: One such structure near Portland, Oregon,
> was used continuously for 400 years and would have required between
> 500,000 and 1 million board feet of lumber during that period for
> maintenance and repair. And that is just one house, 55 feet wide and
> 120 feet long, home to forty-five to sixty people. (Suttles and Ames
> 1997:273).
>
> Springs, peaks, waterfalls, meadows, berry patches, root fields,
> filbert orchards, oat fields, camas patches, pea fields, and other
> favored locations were also the likely sites of seasonal camping and
> food processing activities that required intensive, localized firewood
> gathering activities. The likelihood of most bonfires, campfires, oven
> 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 escapements. 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, waterfalls, and other
> favored subsistence and ceremonial locations. 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, filbert orchards, and
> other travel corridor segments or croplands (Wray and Anderson 2003).
> The escapement 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).

c.  Broadcast

> Broadcast fires were used to regularly burn vast areas of oak
> savannah, grassy prairies, and berry grounds contained within the
> coastal PNW; mostly in the eastern and southeastern portions of the
> Range. 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 (Wray and Anderson 2003, Williams 2000, Lewis 1993).
> Escapement likelihood of these actions was, like patch burning,
> probably moderate. The application of broadcast burning by Indians was
> viewed essential 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 occur primarily during
> two potential fire seasons: late winter/early spring \"fern burning\"
> and late summer/early fall \"field burning\" (Zybach 2003). 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 August
> or September, after vegetation had been dried by summer drought.

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 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 (Agee
> 1993:54-55). The role of lightning fire vs. Indian burning in shaping
> fire regimes that produced varying vegetation patterns of the coastal
> in Oregon and Northwestern California has only been generally
> described (Bicknell et. al. 1992, Boyd 1999, Weisberg and Swanson
> 2003). 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, Weisberg and Swanson 2003). Table 2 compares patterns of
> precontact Indian burning practices with post European settlement
> patterns of catastrophic forest wildfires in the coastal Pacific
> Northwest:
>
> Table 2. Comparison of Indian burning and catastrophic fire patterns
> in the coastal Pacific Northwest (modified from Zybach 2003).

  ------------------------ ------------------------ ----------------------
  **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**               100,000s of accumulative 100,000s of acres per
                           acres annually           occurrence

  **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) (Weisberg and Swanson 2003). 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). 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 sucession (Whitlock and Knox 2002).
> 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 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 physiographic province due to differences in national and tribal
> traditions, topography, climate, vegetation, and distance from the
> ocean (Zybach 2003).
>
> The landscape patterns reminiscent of Indian burning practice are a
> **cultural legacy** (Lake and Zybach, in prep**)**. 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.
> Evidence of the cultural legacy of Indian burning may be present as
> remnants in the **transitional landscape** (Kimmerer and Lake 2001).
> The landscape level vegetative record of the cultural legacy of
> American Indians began to "transition" and became replaced by that of
> the European Americans. 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). The
> transitional landscape has become more prone to catastrophic wildfire
> as a result of the change in the occurrence and frequency of burning.
> 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, Radosevich, and Sandberg 1990, Agee
> 1993).
>
> "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).

# 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 of fire ecology includes, but is not
    limited to, variations in fire frequency, intensity, severity, and
    specificity of areas burned in different ecosystems or plant
    communities by indigenous people and/or lightning. 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 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 responds to fire. Further more, the significance depends on
> what **fire-induced** ecological goods and services Native people may
> want from that location. Many plants can serve multiple roles as food,
> medicine or material, in addition to playing a key component in a
> habitat or ecosytem.

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 the resulting changes in the
    composition, structure, function, and productivity of habitats that
    many indigenous people rely upon for food, medicine, materials and
    spiritual-cultural survival. 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 managers should not view vegetation merely as just "fuels". The
    ecological and cultural significance of a plant will vary, but
    generally should 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 if complete removal from the
    project location may be ecologically or cultural undesirable. How a
    plant, shrub or tree respond to fire and the ecological and cultural
    services it can provide should to be considered in a broad level
    with project prescriptions, and a specific level with the project
    implementation at a given site (Example, Lomakatsi Restoration
    projects in Northwestern California and Southwestern Oregon, Senos
    et. al. 2006:404).

## 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). Agencies should work closely 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). A better understanding of indigenous fire regimes associated with specific plant communities or habitats is needed to address landscape level fire management issues today. 

## 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. 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. Are there things that we want now that were not desired in the past? The increased value in timber production or other land uses may warrant the exclusion of fire, or managing for longer fire frequencies in locations once formally burned in shorter frequencies by Native Americans (Willamette Valley, OR.; White Oaks savannas versus Douglas fir plantations or tree farming). 

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

I.  Historical landscape photos can be used to document the composition,
    structure, and distribution of vegetation as fuels. *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).

### 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. Example, as a first treatment step, mechanical
    thinning may reduce the connectivity and bulk density of 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
    higher level of intensity and result in higher severity on
    vegetation or soils if burned in the fall. Maybe this 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.

K.  Fire Safe Councils: Fuel Reduction Projects, WUI's, and Fuel Breaks.
    In Northwestern California, the Orleans-Somes Bar Fire Safe council
    has been working with the Karuk Tribe, local Native basket weavers,
    and private land owners on implementing fuels reduction projects
    that achieve the objectives of reducing fuel loading but consider
    the importance of culturally significant native plants (Senos et.
    al. 2006). Vegetation is not viewed simply as "fuels". During the
    planning phase and implementation of treatments vegetation judged
    from the perspective of fire danger, ecological and cultural
    importance. *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. Differences in perspective socially, are
    reflected ecologically in the prescription treatment. 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
    fall burning at a site. *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
    unpublished research). *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.
    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. *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. Prescriptions and ignition patterns should 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. 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.

L.  *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/CIBA).

M.  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. Fire managers, in the appropriate locations, should
> 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
> burnt, because the second year it flowered and would not be as
> useable. 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. Recently, US Forest Service fire management
> has worked with local Native basket weavers to thin out understory
> young 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
> burnt in November, which resulted in shorted 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 foraged on by elk and prescribed burn/ fuels
> treatment areas should 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 would other wise was not
> attended reliably and in sufficient quantity by natural fires
> necessary to support the welfare of indigenous cultures. 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, 1999, Turner et. al. 2000).

N.  Traditional Ecological Knowledge and a Contemporary Context:

> Invasive/exotic species: 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. 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
> 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.
>
> 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 and subsequent environmental changes in the Pacific West
> (Rapp/USFS 2004), TEK will likely be more effective in understanding
> local or finer scale ecological changes. As vegetation communities
> migrate in response to climate changes, i.e. trees and shrub migrating
> north 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/global, approach to defining the future desired conditions
> and design of restoration treatments. Additionally, there should be
> good 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).

O.  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 should
> clearly explain the steps of the project by the agency, start to
> finish, for a prescribe burn to the tribal or Native American
> organization representatives. 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 should utilized 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 utilized "Native American
> liaisons" working in most federal 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 that could
> be intrusive or awkward for bother parties). Also, when presenting at
> such events one should be careful not to patronize Native people when
> talking about fire or fire related ecological issues. When working on
> wildland fire 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. There are more issues
> to consider that can be impacted by fire suppression activities than
> archeological or sacred sites. **The adoption and implementation of
> these mitigation methods with minimum impact suppression techniques
> (M.I.S.T. Guidelines) can 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.

P.  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" should 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 handle such acts of
> "**Eco-cultural friendly 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. Some of these
> young Native adults may not have an appropriate level of understanding
> or training of fire behavior, effects, and ecology, resulting in good
> intentions with 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.)

Q.  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. 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. 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 complied 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 2002:28).

V.  **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 would be our ecological or
> social rationale?

### WORK CITED AND SUGGESTED READINGS 

> Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island
> Press, Washington D.C.
>
> Anderson, M. Kat 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. pp. 151-174.
>
> Anderson, M. Kat 1996. Tending the wilderness. Restoration &
> Management Notes 14(2):154-166.
>
> Anderson, M. Kat 1997. From Tillage to Table: The Indigenous
> Cultivation of Geophytes for Food in California. Journal of
> Ethnobiology 17(2): 149-169
>
> Anderson, M. Kat 1999. The fire, pruning, and coppice management of
> temperate ecosystems for basketry material by California Indian
> tribes. Human Ecology 27(1):79-113.
>
> Anderson, M. Kat 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. and M.G. Barbour 2003. Simulated Indigenous
> Management: A New Model for Ecological Restoration in National Parks.
> Ecological Restoration 21(4):269-277
>
> Barrett, S.W. 1980. Indians and Fire. Western Wildlands 6:17-21.
>
> Barrett, S.W. and S.F. Arno. 1982. Indian fires as an ecological
> influence in the northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry 80:647-50.
>
> Berkes, F. 1999. Sacred Ecology: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and
> Resource Management, Taylor and Francis, Philadelphia, Pa.
>
> Blackburn, T. and Anderson, K. M. 1993 (editors). Before the
> Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians . Ballena
> Press. Menlo Park, Cal.
>
> Bicknell, S.H., A.T. Austin, D.J. Bigg, and R. Parker Godar. 1992.
> Late Prehistoric vegetation patterns at six sites in coastal
> California. Supplement to Bulletin of the Ecological Society of
> America (Program Abstracts) 73(2):112.
>
> Biswell, H. 1999 (1989). Prescribe Burning in California Wildlands
> Vegetation Management. University of California Press.
>
> Bonnicksen, T., M. K. Anderson, H. T. Lewis, C. E. Kay, and R.
> Knudson. 1999. Native American Influences on the Development of Forest
> Ecosystem. In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem
> Management, Vol. 2. pp. 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. pp. 143-216.
>
> Boyd, R. 1999 (editor). Indians, Fire and the Land in the Pacific
> Northwest. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Or.
>
> 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.
>
> Delcourt, H.R. and P.A. Delcourt. 1997. Pre-Columbian Native American
> use of fire on southern Appalachin landscapes. Conservation Biology
> 11:1010-14.
>
> Engstrom, R.T., S. Gilbert, M.L. Hunter, Jr., D. Merriwether, G.J.
> Nowacki, and P. Spencer. 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. pp. 313-330
>
> Franklin, Jerry F., Thomas A. Spies, Robert Van Pelt, Andrew B. Carey,
> Dale A. Thornburgh, Dean Rae Berg, David B. Lindenmayer, Mark E.
> Harmon, William S. Keeton, David C. Shaw, Ken Bible, Joquan Chen 2002.
> \"Disturbance and Structural Development of Natural Forest Ecosystems
> with Silvicultural Implications, Using Douglas-fir Forests as an
> Example,\" [Forest Ecology and Management]{.underline}. 155 (2002):
> 399-423.
>
> Johnson, N.C. 1999. Humans as Agents of Ecological Change-Overview. In
> Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management,
> Vol. II. pp. 433-437
>
> 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. and B. Zybach (In Prep). Historical Indian Burning Practices,
> Oregon Coast Range. Submitted to the Western Journal of Applied
> Forestry.
>
> 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. 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. pp. 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 T. Ferguson. 1988. Yards, Corridors, and Mosaics: How to
> Burn a Boreal Forest. Human Ecology 19(1):57-77.
>
> Lewis, H., and M.K. Anderson. 2002. Introduction. In Forgotten Fires:
> Native Americans and the Transient Wilderness. University of Oklahoma
> Press. Stewart, O.C, and editors Lewis and Anderson.
>
> Norton, H. H. 1979. The Association Between Anthropogenic Prairies and
> Important Food Plants in Western Washington. Northwest Anthropologist
> Research Notes: 13(2):175-200.
>
> Norton, H. H., E. S. Hunn, C.S. Martinsen, and P.B. Keely 1984.
> Vegetable Food Products of the Foraging Economies of the Pacific
> Northwest. Ecology of Food and Nutrition 14, pp. 219-228.
>
> Peacock, S., and N.J. Turner 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, pp.
> 133-179.
>
> 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.
>
> Ruppert, D. 2003. Building Partnerships Between American Indian Tribes
> and the National Park Service. Ecological Restoration 21(4):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.
>
> Senos, R., F.K. Lake, N. Turner, and D. Martinez. 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
>
> Stewart, O.C. Forgotten Fires: Native Americans and the Transient
> Wilderness, edited by Lewis and Anderson. University of Oklahoma
> Press: Norman.
>
> Strike, S.S. 1994. Ethnobotany of the California Indians. Vol. 2:
> Aboriginal uses of California's indigenous plants. Koeltz Scientific
> Books.
>
> Suttles, W., and K. Ames 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. pp. 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. pp.
> 275-98. Covelo, Ca. and Washington D.C.: 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, pp. 185-218. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, Or.
>
> Turner, N., M. B. Ignace, and R. Ignace. 2000. Traditional Ecological
> Knowledge and Wisdom of Aboriginal Peoples in British Columbia.
> Ecological Applications 10(5):1275-1287.
>
> Turner, Nancy J., Iain J. Davidson-Hunt, and Michael O'Flaherty 2003.
> Living on the Edge: Ecological and Cultural Edges as Sources of
> Diversity for Social-Ecological Resilience. Human Ecology, Vol. 31.
> No. 3.
>
> Underwood, S., L. Argueelo and N. Siefkin 2003. Restoring Ethnographic
> Landscapes and Natural Elements in Redwood National Park. Ecological
> Restoration. 21(4):278-283.
>
> Vale, T. 2002. Fire, Native People and The Natural Landscape. Island
> Press. Washington D.C.
>
> Walstad, J.D., S.R. Radosevich, and D.V. Sandberg 1990 (editors).
> Natural and Prescribed Fire in Pacific Northwest Forests. Oregon State
> University Press. Corvallis, Or.
>
> Weisberg, P.J. and F.J. Swanson 2003. Regional synchroneity in fire
> regimes of western Oregon and Washington, USA. Forest Ecology and
> Management 172:17-28.
>
> Whitlock, C. and M.A. Knox 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. pp. 195-231
>
> 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, 60(3). Summer
> 2000.
>
> Wray, J. and M.K. Anderson 2003. Restoring Indian-Set Fires to Prairie
> Ecosystems on the Olympic Peninsula. Ecological Restoration
> 21(4):296-301.
>
> Winkler, C. and T. Bailey 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 pp.
>
> 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:
> 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 pp.
>
> 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)