fire & fuels management

Returning Fire to the Land: CelebratingTraditional Knowledge and FireFrank K. Lake, Vita Wright, Penelope Morgan, Mary McFadzen,Dave McWethy, and Camille Stevens-Rumann

Indigenous peoples’ detailed traditional knowledge about fire, although superficially referenced in variouswritings, has not for the most part been analyzed in detail or simulated by resource managers, wildlifebiologists, and ecologists…. Instead, scientists have developed the principles and theories of fire ecology, firebehavior and effects models, and concepts of conservation, wildlife management and ecosystem managementlargely independent of native examples.

(Lewis and Anderson 2002, p. 4)

North American tribes have traditional knowledge about fire effects on ecosystems, habitats, and resources. Formillennia, tribes have used fire to promote valued resources. Sharing our collective understanding of fire, derivedfrom traditional and western knowledge systems, can benefit landscapes and people. We organized twoworkshops to investigate how traditional and western knowledge can be used to enhance wildland fire and fuelsmanagement and research. We engaged tribal members, managers, and researchers to formulate solutionsregarding the main topics identified as important to tribal and other land managers: cross-jurisdictional work,fuels reduction strategies, and wildland fire management and research involving traditional knowledge. A keyconclusion from the workshops is that successful management of wildland fire and fuels requires collaborativepartnerships that share traditional and western fire knowledge through culturally sensitive consultation,coordination, and communication for building trust. We present a framework for developing these partnershipsbased on workshop discussions.

Keywords: wildland fire, fuels reduction, American Indians, cross-jurisdiction, communication

F ire is a key ecological process influ-encing the distribution, structure,and function of many biomes world-

wide (Bond and Keely 2005, Bowman et al.2009). In North America, landscape fire ef-fects are critical to many tribal cultures.Most tribes have traditional knowledge(TK) about how fire affects ecosystems, hab-itats, and resources (Lewis 1993, Bowmanet al. 2009, 2011, Trosper et al. 2012,Welch 2012, Huffman 2013). Many tribesused fire to improve the quantity, quality,and functionality of valued resources and

habitats, but the extent of fire use variedacross North America (Stewart 2002). Sometribes used fire extensively and purposively,as American Indian men and women care-fully planned and conducted burns (pre-scribed) for different reasons, at different lo-cations, in different seasons, and at differentfrequencies (Stewart 2002, Williams 2002,Eriksen and Hankins 2014). Tribes used fireassociated with hunting, crop improvement,pest control, habitat diversity, range man-agement, fireproofing, fuelwood, travelroute maintenance, riparian area clearing,

growth of basket materials, communication,and ceremonies (Stewart 2002, Williams2002, Trauernicht et al. 2015). Huffman(2013) found that TK included fire effectson fungi, plants, and animals; timing of firerelative to plant phenology and season; fuelmoisture; time since previous fire (and sever-ity); and control of fire behavior and spread.

To promote desired resources, tribes in-fluenced fire regimes by affecting when,where, and how fires burned. These culturalfire regimes (Bonnicksen et al. 1999, Lewisand Anderson 2002) reflected the composi-tion, structure, fuel loading, and character-istics of habitats and cultural resources(Timmons et al. 2012, Welch 2012). Cul-tural fire regimes, associated with human ig-nitions and management of fuels, often dif-fered from natural fire regimes in (1)seasonality of burning, (2) frequency of fire,(3) fire intensity and effects, (4) sites burnedor protected, and (5) strategic application ofignitions given conditions that promoteddesired fire behavior and effects (Bonnicksenet al. 1999, Lake 2007). Whereas manytribal communities desire to apply TK andcultural burning with contemporary wild-land fire and resource management, a num-ber of factors limit application of this knowl-edge today (Rasmussen et al. 2007, Eriksenand Hankins 2014, Norgaard 2014). Wesummarize themes that emerged during twoworkshops within the context of published

Received August 11, 2016; accepted March 16, 2017; published online April 20, 2017.

Affiliations: Frank K. Lake (franklake@fs.fed.us), Pacific Southwest Research Station, Fire and Fuels Program, USDA Forest Service, Redding, CA. Vita Wright(vwright@fs.fed.us), Rocky Mountain Research Station, USDA Forest Service. Penelope Morgan (pmorgan@uidaho.edu), University of Idaho. Mary McFadzen(mmcfadzen@montana.edu), Great Northern Landscape Conservation Cooperative, Montana Institute on Ecosystems - MSU. Dave McWethy(dmcwethy@montana.edu), Montana State University. Camille Stevens-Rumann (csrumann@uidaho.edu), University of Idaho and Colorado State University.

REVIEW ARTICLE

Journal of Forestry • September 2017 343

J. For. 115(5):343–353https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.2016-043R2

literature to highlight challenges and solu-tions for using TK and western knowledge(WK) approaches to wildland fire, fuels, andnatural and cultural resource management.We conclude with a framework for applyingTK to fire management and research.

Methods

Understanding Challenges to the Useof TK with Fire Management andResearch

We held two workshops to engage a di-verse community of tribal and nontribalmanagers, scientists, and students. The firstworkshop, held in Polson, Montana in2012, was organized with the ConfederatedSalish and Kootenai Tribes Forestry Depart-ment following the recommendations byMason et al. (2012, p. 192), to “bring keep-ers of TK together with representatives ofmanagement entities, practitioners, and ac-ademic and research institutions.” Tribal el-ders welcomed and spoke to workshop par-ticipants during a field trip. Sixty-threepeople participated in workshop activities.During breakout sessions, participants dis-cussed challenges to using TK regarding keytopics: (1) cross-jurisdictional management,(2) fuels reduction strategies, (3) wildfiremanagement, and (4) research (Figure 1).We organized a second workshop, in con-junction with the Large Wildland Fires con-ference in Missoula, Montana in 2014, tovalidate and deepen our understanding ofworkshop themes. The co-leaders of the sec-ond workshop, a subset of the first work-shop’s leaders, organized discussion topicsand questions around themes documentedduring the first workshop into the followingtopics: communication, understanding, andtrust; fuels reduction and prescribed fire;and wildfire. Thirty people affiliated withtribes, universities, agencies, and forestry orfire-associated organizations from aroundthe world participated, about 10 of whomhad participated in the first workshop. Al-though there was some overlap in partici-pants, the second workshop had a greaterdiversity of participants as part of an inter-national conference. Each topic session inboth workshops was facilitated by one ortwo leaders, and key points were capturedwith flip charts and hand-written and com-puter-typed notes. Although we did notconduct a formal analysis, we report on re-curring and salient (Buetow 2010) discus-sion topics raised across workshops andacross discussion groups within each work-

shop. Workshop details and related re-sources are available.1 Unless otherwisenoted, we report results for the two work-shops combined as the first workshop in-formed the second. In reporting thesethemes, we also draw on findings from theliterature broadly and use examples from theNorthern Rockies and Pacific West regionsof the United States.

Applications of TK and WK in FireManagement

TK is differentiated from traditionalecological knowledge (Mason et al. 2012,Huffman 2013) in that it is more inclusive

of tribal beliefs, philosophies, and practicesthat integrate metaphysical and biophysicalways of knowing (Eriksen and Hankins2014, Norgaard 2014). TK is the cumula-tive collective understanding derived fromindividuals and communities about ecolog-ical processes, natural resources, and socio-cultural adaptive responses to the environ-ment. As local and place-based knowledge,TK guides the holistic approach of tribalpeople when burning and performing subse-quent subsistence or stewardship practices(Anderson 2006). TK informs purposefulapplication of fire for specific reasons by

Management and Policy Implications

Many tribes across North America used fire as a tool to perpetuate habitats and resources that sustainedtheir cultures, economies, traditions, and livelihoods. Tribal uses and knowledge of wildland fire havedecreased as a result of fire suppression policy and management decisions that have limited the use offire to manage landscapes. The federal government has a trust responsibility to American Indian tribes.This trust responsibility extends to federal agency and tribal governance for management of natural andcultural resources. Many tribes seek to use traditional burning in a modern context to achieve multipleresource objectives including reducing hazardous fuels and reintroducing fire into fire-adapted ecosystemsto protect life, property, and valued resources. Scientists and managers can learn about fire ecology andeffects from tribal Traditional Knowledge. We provide a framework for improving fire management andresearch based on traditional and Western Knowledge systems. This includes strategies for hazardous fuelreduction and the reintroduction of fire in the context of tribal community values, cultural revitalization,and collaborative landscape restoration efforts. The objectives of this framework are to strengthencommunication, developing trust and partnerships among managers, scientists, and tribal members.

Figure 1. Celebrating Traditional Knowledge and Fire Workshop 2012. Small groups oftribal elders, community members, tribal forest managers, and agency managers discusschallenges and solutions to cross-jurisdictional management of cultural and ecologicalresources. (Courtesy of Vita Wright, USDA Forest Service.)

344 Journal of Forestry • September 2017

tribes (Lewis and Anderson 2002).Knowledge of fire behavior and effects onvalued habitats and natural and cultural re-sources is often acquired during subsistenceactivities, stewardship practices, and reli-gious functions. There is increasing aca-demic interest in TK related to fire ecologyand effects (Boyd 1999, Anderson 2006,Mason et al. 2012, Huffman 2013).

In contrast, WK is collective under-standing and documentation of natural phe-nomena that result from observation, exper-imental manipulations, or modeling. WKstrives to be objective, to discriminateamong or between variables, to test hypoth-eses, to minimize assumptions, to identifycausal factors, and to consider fire as a phys-ical phenomenon affecting biological andsocioeconomic relationships (Conederaet al. 2009). TK and WK perspectives on fireregimes and fire effects on resources are of-ten congruent and complementary on abroad scale (Stewart 2002), but when ap-plied locally can lead to different objectivesand sometimes conflicting approaches tomanaging fire (Conedera et al. 2009, Whit-lock et al. 2010, Lake 2013, Crawford et al.2015). TK and WK of fire regimes and ef-fects are learned, experienced, understood,and transmitted with different methods, in-stitutions, and educational systems (Masonet al. 2012, Trosper et al. 2012, Huffman2013, Bussey et al. 2016). Tribal communitiesare pursuing complementary applications ofboth TK and WK into their wildland fire andlandscape restoration management and re-search efforts (Charnley et al. 2007, Ray et al.2012, Gordon et al. 2013, Tripp 2015, Busseyet al. 2016).

TK and WK are two different yet com-plementary ways of knowing (Mason et al.2012, Bussey et al. 2016). Using TK withWK can more fully inform fire managementto reduce fire risk and hazard, reintroducefire, and maintain cultural landscapes (Ma-son et al. 2012, Huffman 2013). Resourcemanagers and local communities are cur-rently grappling with how to successfullyimplement hazardous fuel treatments tolessen the degree to which large wildfiresthreaten life, property, and valued resources(Watson et al. 2009, Collins et al. 2010, Mc-Caffrey et al. 2013, Hessburg et al. 2015).Emphasis has been on the wildland-urbaninterface (WUI), but culturally valued re-sources beyond the WUI are also affected byfires, particularly those where vegetationcomposition and structure have greatlychanged because of the altered fire regimes

and other land uses (Timmons et al. 2012).Whereas vegetation biomass is fuel for fires,plants are also food, medicine, material, andhabitat for animals and people. Many pre-scribed burning and fuels reduction assess-ments do not account for the cultural role ofplants. For example, the Fire Effects Infor-mation System (FEIS)2 synthesizes WKabout how plants respond to fire. TK aboutuse of fire to promote or inhibit plants is stillpredominantly in the minds of tribal elders;however, efforts to capture this knowledgeare growing. For example, the Fire on theLand fire history project documents elderknowledge about the use of fire as a landmanagement tool.3

There are many reasons why land man-agers may want to work with tribal govern-ments and communities to document his-torical landscape changes resulting from firesuppression and/or the removal of indige-nous land use and occupancy (Kimmererand Lake 2001, Anderson and Barbour2003, Lake 2013). Many areas today, oftenviewed by the public as natural or unman-aged, including designated protected areas,were historically burned or used by tribalpeoples (Moon-Stumpff 2000, Ratner andHolen 2007, Watson et al. 2011). Landwithin and beyond current tribal reservationboundaries is still used for tribal subsistenceactivities and possesses other cultural values.A better understanding of cultural fire re-gimes and TK associated with specific plantcommunities is advised for landscape-levelfire management (Ray et al. 2012, Huffman2013, Lake and Long 2014, Long et al.2015). Restoring heterogeneity and foster-ing resilience across landscapes can supportecocultural revitalization (Hessburg et al.2015, Trauernicht et al. 2015, Tripp 2015)as well as reduce fire hazard, reintroduce firefor ecological benefits, and achieve sociocul-tural objectives (McCaffrey et al. 2013).Increased value in resources (e.g., timber,recreation, rural residences, and wildlifehabitat) may also warrant the exclusion offire or managing for longer fire frequenciesin locations formally burned frequently bytribes (Rasmussen et al. 2007, Watson et al.2009, Abt et al. 2015, Long et al. 2015).

Results and DiscussionOur workshops provided opportunities

for cross-cultural dialogue on the challengesof and potential solutions for using TK andWK. Challenges are not limited to theNorthern Rockies and Pacific West regionsof the United States (Bowman et al. 2009,

Trosper et al. 2012, Huffman 2013, Mc-Caffrey et al. 2013). However, TK of firewas historically strong here, and there is mo-mentum for applying it to modern wildlandfire and resource management (Gilles 2017,Rasmussen et al. 2007). Through self-deter-mination and interactions with governmentfire managers, tribes in these regions are ac-tively engaged in natural resource manage-ment on reservations and adjacent lands(Gordon et al. 2013). This tribal involve-ment is being scaled up to landscape collab-orative restoration projects in several regionsof the western United States (Donoghueet al. 2010, Goldstein et al. 2010, Tripp2015). Use of TK within existing landscaperestoration programs and projects is needed.We describe the main topics around whichworkshops were organized and highlightcross-cutting themes evident across discus-sion topics and workshops.

Cross-Jurisdictional Work and CulturalResources

Cross-jurisdictional work is definedhere as fuels reduction and wildland fireplanning and implementation across multi-ple land ownerships in a culturally sensitivemanner that achieves cultural and ecologicalobjectives at meaningful scales. Cross-juris-dictional planning is essential to the protec-tion of both living and nonliving culturalresources during fuels reduction and wild-land fire activities (Timmons et al. 2012,Welch 2012). Jurisdictions may includetribal, federal, state, and local managemententities with various missions and responsi-bilities. Jurisdiction within organizations isoften allotted across departments (e.g.,forestry, fire, natural resources, heritage, andculture). In addition to coordination bymanagers within and across agencies, plan-ning efforts benefit from input from tribalcommunities both on and off reservations(Jurney et al. 2017). Workshop participantsfocused on cultural resources as a main com-ponent of cross-jurisdictional work.

Cultural resources are legally protectedby a suite of treaties, laws, executive orders,and regulations (Welch 2012). However,the resources culturally important tomany tribes often include living resources:habitats, plants, animals, and fungi. Theseliving cultural resources can be inadver-tently disturbed by field personnel, firecrews, and recreationists. Workshop par-ticipants discussed the benefits and draw-backs of disclosing the location of culturalresources to protect them.

Journal of Forestry • September 2017 345

During our workshops, participantsdiscussed the tradeoffs of informing fire per-sonnel of cultural resource locations. Sacredsites, gathering areas, rock art, scarred trees,traditional travel routes, and other culturalresources can be damaged by wildland fireand fuels activities (Welch 2012). Suchdamage is often irreparable, making it im-perative that potential impacts are assessedbefore fire or fuels treatments. Workshopparticipants recommended involving tribesin the development of collaborative manage-ment plans (Watson et al. 2009). For exam-ple, participatory geographic informationsystems (GIS) can be used to facilitate col-laboration without disclosing resource loca-tions (McBride et al. 2017). Participantsnoted that both interdepartmental coopera-tion and interagency cooperation are criticalto protecting cultural resources in workingacross jurisdictions to assess and avoid, min-imize, or mitigate impacts. Partnerships canpromote synergy, and more work can be

completed by combining financial and intel-lectual resources.

For all topics, workshop participantsconcluded that building and improvingcommunication and relationships betweentribes and federal agencies, between disci-plines within agencies, and between triballand managers and tribal members are criti-cal issues that need to be addressed for suc-cessful cross-jurisdictional fire and fuelsmanagement (Jurney et al. 2017). Experi-ences of tribal and fire managers highlightthat effective communication depends onactive listening, transparency, accountabil-ity, and trust and requires an understandingof the culture and goals of those affected bymanagement decisions and actions (Whiteand McDowell 2009, Abt et al. 2015) (Ta-ble 1). Workshop participants emphasizedthat consulting with tribal elders and otherkey community members during planningand implementation of land managementactivities and fire use is essential to effective

cross-jurisdictional management (Masonet al. 2012, Jurney et al. 2017). Managerscan increase their effectiveness in identifyingand understanding cultural resources andtribal values relevant to shared goals (Welch2012, Lake and Long 2014). Likewise, tribalmembers can increase understanding bycommunicating their needs and desires totribal and agency managers. Improved com-munication in consultation and projectplanning can lead to strategies for minimiz-ing or mitigating impacts on tribally valuedresources before fuel treatments and wild-fires occur (Rasmussen et al. 2007, Lake2011, Timmons et al. 2012, Welch 2012,Norgaard 2014).

Fuels Reduction StrategiesFuel treatments can facilitate prescribed

fire and future management of wildfires forresource benefits (Resource Innovations2006, Watson et al. 2009, Collins et al.2010, Timmons et al. 2012, Welch 2012,

Table 1. Framework for applying TK and WK in wildland fire and fuels management and research.

Key elements

Wildland fire and fuels

Management Research

1. Sources of TKLiterature based or communication with tribesand tribal organizations.

Publications and presentations of fire effects oncultural resources, traditional fireknowledge, and practices.

Conduct literature review. Ethnographic materialsat universities, agencies, or tribal archives.

2. Tribal outreachRequest of tribal government, culturalcommittee, or members for incorporation ofapplicable TK.

Contact tribes about planning andmanagement strategies, short- and long-termproject objectives.

Contact tribes and tribal organizations forresearchable questions of interest and sciencesupport needs.

3. Tribal consultationGovernment-to-government—identifymanagement or research issues and actions ofinterest.

Consult with tribal government, departments,or committees for proposed actions(emergency or NEPA).

Request input from tribal councils, departments,and committees to develop preliminary researchquestions and methods.

4. Building trustTribal identification, transfer, andauthorization of TK use.

Develop or renew agency-tribe firemanagement agreement. Identify designatedtribal representatives and heritage advisors.

Obtain formal agreements, permission orauthorization of TK use: IRB, OMB, and tribalapproval.

5. Active learning for TK and WKCross-cultural appreciation of TK used withmanagement actions and research methods.

Workforce education of management effectson heritage/cultural resources and tribalvalues. TK informs NEPA and WFDSSplanning.

Researcher and student education on tribal TK,fire use, and fire effects through academiccourses, workshops and field trips.

6. Tribal oversightCoordination and communication with tribeson planning and implementation of projects.

Tribes review proposed managementtreatments or incident objectives andidentify missing values or issues.

Tribes approve research methods, metrics used,and analysis planned, identifying specific valuesor addressing issues of concern.

7. Active listening and sharingTK informs workforce, treatmentimplementation, mitigation activities orresearch practices.

Interdisciplinary or Incident Command Teamworks with tribal staff to identify values atrisk and develop mitigation actions.

Tribal members/youth assist researchers. Collectdata with tribal members. Conduct newinterviews if needed.

8. Applying TK with WKTribal participation and stewardship activities.

Tribal partnerships using TK to guide fuelstreatments, fire operations and mitigationstrategies.

TK collaboratively guides experimental methods,study sites, treatments, indicators, or variablesof research interest developed.

9. Tribal reviewTribal approval and oversight of projectimplementation and results.

Tribes review project implementation or firemanagement and modify actions foradaptive management.

Tribes review analysis results, discussion, andrecommendations for management oradditional research. Clarify TK and dataownership.

10. ReportingShare and celebrate accomplishments andlessons learned from TK and WK.

Identify postfire actions: BAER practices,share/reflect on lessons learned from AfterAction Review.

Best available science is developed. Publicationsand presentations co-authored with tribes andtribal organizations.

BAER, burned area emergency response; IRB, institutional review board; NEPA, National Environmental Protection Act; OMB, Office of Management and Budget; TK, traditional knowledge;WFDSS, Wildland Fire Decision Support System; WK, western knowledge.

346 Journal of Forestry • September 2017

Tripp 2015). Fuel treatments are often fo-cused around residential areas (WUI), ig-noring the important ecological role thatfires have in promoting culturally importantplants, habitats, and tribal traditions acrossthe broader landscape (Stewart 2002, Erik-sen and Hankins 2014, Lake and Long2014). Workshop participants emphasizedthat it is important to think beyond hazard-ous fuels reduction and expand use of suchtreatments to meet ecological and culturalobjectives (Lake and Long 2014, McCaffreyet al. 2013). Workshop participants con-cluded that it is important to clarify howfuels reduction strategies can be used to pro-mote cultural resources while also meetinggoals for reducing the undesirable impacts oflarge, intense wildfires.

Wildland Fire Management (Plannedand Unplanned Ignitions)

Prescribed fire plays an important rolein maintaining traditional lifeways (Lakeand Long 2014, Tripp 2015), while increas-ing landscape resilience and heterogeneity(Yapp et al. 2010, Moritz et al. 2011, Hess-burg et al. 2015). Prescribed fire is defined as“any fire intentionally ignited by manage-ment actions in accordance with applicablelaws, policies, and regulations to meet spe-cific objectives” (National Wildfire Coordi-nation Group [NWCG] 2015). Workshopparticipants and session facilitators notedthat many prescribed fires are designed with-out addressing the need to maintain cultur-ally important species, habitats, places, andtraditions, even when these outcomes couldbe complementary with other resource ob-jectives. Workshop participants, reiteratingfindings in the literature, identified obstaclesto the use of prescribed fire to meet culturaland land management goals. These includelack of funding to support prescribed fire forpurposes other than fuels management, ad-ministrative and jurisdictional challenges tousing prescribed fire across landscapes withmixed land management (e.g., WUI; fed-eral, state, private, and tribal lands; and fed-eral and tribal wilderness), conflict with pol-icies (e.g., Clean Air Act, EndangeredSpecies Act, and fire restrictions and burnbans), loss of knowledge regarding tradi-tional uses of fire, concerns related to tribalintellectual property rights and compensa-tion (CTWK 2014), and the use of fire toaddress climate change (Armatas et al. 2016,Gilles 2017).

Ultimately, tribal communities, man-agers, and scientists must learn from each

other to move forward collaboratively tobetter apply prescribed fires in ways thatmeet multiple objectives (Gilles 2017).Tribal practitioners and fire managers canexplore why, when, how, where, and whichignition strategies to use (Huffman 2013) toaccomplish fire use objectives given socio-cultural values and resource conditions(Timmons et al. 2012, Lake and Long2014). Thoughtful consideration of howtraditional fire use can be employed on thelandscape promises to provide new strategiesfor meeting both specific cultural and broadland-use goals (Watson et al. 2009, Tripp2015). With proper use, prescribed fires canpromote culturally important species, habi-tats, and traditions and enhance ecosystemfunction while also reducing wildland firerisk and hazard (Huffman 2013, Lake andLong 2014, Gilles 2017).

Many tribes desire burning for culturalpurposes, but workshop participants ex-plained that this is often restricted because ofland tenure, competing internal and exter-nal societal values (e.g., fear of wildfire, airquality, and urbanization), and capacity.Some tribal members, like the general pub-lic, may also have an aversion to wildlandfires. Younger generations have been influ-enced by societal fear of fire, leading to aculture of fire suppression and unease aboutusing fire (Carroll et al. 2010, Norgaard2014, Abt et al. 2015). However, some pub-lic and tribal land managers have a renewedinterest in using prescribed fire to reducehazardous fuels and mitigate the impact ofclimate change and longer fire seasons(Westerling et al. 2006, Littell et al. 2009,Stavros et al. 2014, Gilles 2017). WK andTK can be integrated during planning to ad-dress climate change and other challenges.For example, in the Pacific Northwest andCalifornia, many tribes place higher valueon culturally significant trees (e.g., pines andoaks) that are fire-adapted and drought-tol-erant, promoting these species in landscaperestoration strategies (see Voggesser et al.2013). Fire and fuels management decisionsthat favor fire-adapted species can increasethe resilience of valued habitats and associ-ated resources to fires.

Wildfire is defined as “an unplanned,unwanted wildland fire including unauthor-ized human-caused fires, escaped wildlandfire use events, escaped prescribed fire proj-ects and all other wildland fires where theobjective is to put the fire out” (NWCG2015). This is in contrast to “managementby objectives,” which includes intentionally

identifying multiple objectives for un-planned fires and selecting appropriatestrategies and tactics to achieve objectives(NWCG 2015). On American Indian reser-vations and in the ancestral territories oftribes, the objectives and desired manage-ment strategies of a wildfire may be to man-age for resources or other cultural benefitswhile using point protection strategies toprotect areas of concern rather than aggres-sively suppressing wildfire (Abt et al. 2015).

Workshop participants identified theirkey topics regarding wildfires and fires man-aged to meet objectives on tribal lands: com-munication, planning, education, and fund-ing to support wildland fire management.An overarching workshop theme was thatthe main challenges regarding wildfires ontribal lands stem from the lack of communi-cation or miscommunication betweenmanagers and local communities, betweenagencies, and between agencies and tribes(White and McDowell 2009, Ray et al.2012, Bussey et al. 2016). Participants notedthat using technical jargon when discussingwildfire suppression tactics with tribal com-munity members can often lead to misun-derstanding and a shutdown in communica-tion. Communities may view the value of awildfire versus risk trade-off differently fromthe managers on teams charged with manag-ing fires. Participants suggested developingstrategies and approaches that improve linesof communication between wildfire inci-dent managers, agency decisionmakers, andtribes (White and McDowell 2009).

Misunderstanding can arise duringmanagement of fires when the cultural im-portance of a particular value or threatenedat-risk resource is conveyed (White and Mc-Dowell 2009, Watson et al. 2009). This maybe best addressed in advance through thegovernment-to-government consultationprocesses and identification of site-specificsensitive data pertaining to the fire. Tribesmay not want to share all the informationabout the importance of an area threatenedby wildfire. Efforts are needed to prevent ormitigate adverse impacts to tribal culturalresources, such as sacred sites, where firesuppression tactics may have undesirableimpacts (Welch 2012). Allowing wildfire toburn through these areas or assigning localtribal staff to work on point protection ormitigation treatments are options to con-sider (Lake 2011). Further, allowing light-ning-caused fires to spread within tribal an-cestral territorial or within reservationboundaries, even if other agencies are engag-

Journal of Forestry • September 2017 347

ing in fire suppression tactics, may be desir-able and should be considered by decision-makers (Watson et al. 2009, White andMcDowell 2009).

Planning efforts such as formal consul-tation with tribes on projects are an oppor-tunity to convey managers’ intent and toavoid undesirable outcomes from wildlandfire management. In addition, participantsrecommended conducting workshops withfire managers and tribes before each fireseason to clarify issues that may arise whenfires occur. Workshops could include infor-mation used in the Wildland Fire DecisionSupport System (WFDSS) (Noonan-Wright et al. 2011) for formulating strategicobjectives and identification of values at riskfor different geographical areas, based onlandowner jurisdiction. Participants and ses-sion facilitators of both workshops empha-sized that identifying values at risk and man-agement objectives, preseason planning, andcontingency management actions are betterthan emergency consultation and rushedcommunication during fires. Finalizingagency-tribal-organization fire managementagreements before the beginning of each fireseason could prevent negative impacts ontribally valued resources and relationshipsduring a wildfire event.

Education and training can improveunderstanding of how TK and WK can in-form fire management (Mason et al. 2012,Bussey et al. 2016). Workshop participantshighlighted the need for targeted educationto reduce common misconceptions and im-prove cultural awareness across all agencies,organizations, and contractors that work onwildfires within culturally sensitive areas.They brainstormed ways for elders to shareTK with tribal youths and to nurture theseyouths into professional natural resourcespositions (Mason et al. 2012, Bussey et al.2016). Infusing TK into workforce trainingand education as “Active learning for TKand WK” (Table 1) could increase commu-nity and tribal capacity for wildland firemanagement and use (Gilles 2017). This ap-proach is an aspect of fire adapted commu-nities, within The National Strategy (2014),fostering cultural and ecological resilience tofire. Education can promote fire as an im-portant management tool, enhancing cul-tural practices and traditions as well as func-tioning ecosystems (Timmons et al. 2012,Welch 2012, Abt et al. 2015, Bussey et al.2016).

Education for a variety of culturally ap-propriate fire suppression tactics and discus-

sions on strategically placed fuel reductiontreatments that facilitate the use of wildlandfire around culturally sensitive areas or com-munities (Taber et al. 2013) could fostercommunication among agencies with adja-cent jurisdictions. This could improve com-munication effectiveness when fire manag-ers are on a wildfire within American Indianlands or within a tribe’s ancestral territory(White and McDowell 2009).

Funding was identified as a fire man-agement limitation. Workshop participantsconcluded that more funding is needed tosupport culturally prescribed fire for tradi-tional purposes or cultural resources en-hancement. Currently, funding for hazard-ous fuels and prescribed fire for triballyimportant lands (via Department of InteriorBureau of Indian Affairs [DOI-BIA]) pri-marily is associated with congressional allo-cations to federal agency budgets. Further-more, federal fire policies influence theappropriation of funding to specific hazard-ous fuels reduction, geographic regions, andparticular goals (e.g., National Fire Plan2000, Healthy Forest Restoration Act 2005for Wildland-Urban Interface, and The Na-tional Strategy 2014) for landscapes, com-munities, and wildfire response. The cost ofwildfire suppression and management hasincreased, requiring more expenditures fromfederal budgets (e.g., Federal Land Assis-tance, Management, and Enhancement Act2009, amended 2012). Recently, federalagencies have pursued ways to fund inte-grated fuels, wildland fire, and landscape res-toration efforts (Title IV of the OmnibusPublic Land Management Act of 2009).Federal funding to tribal programs, such asthe DOI-BIA’s Reserved Treaty RightsLands Program, are intended to supporttribal engagement for wildland fire manage-ment in ancestral lands across all jurisdic-tions.4 However, strategies are needed tohelp tribes apply for funding and encouragefire management entities to invest in pre-scribed fire for tribal cultural resources.

Use of TK and WK in ResearchExploring and exchanging information

from TK and WK can be challenging, butwhen achieved, extremely rewarding. Work-shop participants and session facilitatorsidentified several issues that pose difficultiesfor successful exchange and sharing of TKand WK to occur. First are communicationchallenges between researchers and thetribes, including sharing of TK from tribalelders with managers and researchers while

protecting sensitive information and formu-lating data sharing and ownership agree-ments (White and McDowell 2009, Beattyand Leighton 2012). Where incorporationof TK and WK is a shared goal, the synergycan be effective (Huffman 2013), but, asworkshop participants explained, only ifthere is mutual trust and respect built onopen communication (Kimmerer and Lake2001, Mason et al. 2012, Bussey et al.2016). Second, best practices for investigat-ing and sharing TK are clearly needed(Charnley et al. 2007). Inclusion of all rele-vant stakeholders and disclosure on the po-tential implications of the research and dataownership and access can facilitate more re-spectful and appropriate methods. Third,research inquisitiveness can harm relation-ships if researchers inadvertently offendtribal members with their questions and as-sumptions. Addressing these and other con-cerns will require effective communication,including shared and open discussion aboutthe mutual goals and concerns (Beatty andLeighton 2012).

Despite challenges, fostering use ofboth TK and WK in fire research is criticallyimportant (Wells 2014). Workshop partici-pants recommended that funding for fire re-search be focused on addressing challengesin the application of TK outlined above(Charnley et al. 2007, McCaffrey et al.2013). For such efforts to be effective, ques-tions of importance to the tribes can be dis-cussed in ways that are relevant while alsobeing respectful and sensitive to TK andtribal cultures. These efforts will fosterknowledge sharing, collaborative research,and the production of science useful to allpartners (Beatty and Leighton 2012, Busseyet al. 2016).

One of the greatest challenges to draw-ing research conclusions is that knowledge islocal, holding it is a responsibility, and itmust reflect the history and sustainability ofplace and culture (Ratner and Holen 2007).Learning sessions for managers have beenmost successful when tribal members lead-ing the sessions have established working re-lationships and some level of trust with theparticipants (Mason et al. 2012). Manytribal elders are eager to share their TK, es-pecially to mentor future tribal generations,but this requires some commitment of therecipients to respect this information(Bussey et al. 2016). Likewise, researchersare often motivated to share knowledgethrough publications and presentations tosupport management and inform policy de-

348 Journal of Forestry • September 2017

velopment. Workshop participants recom-mended that researchers should be aware oftribal intellectual property rights, and datasharing and ownership agreements for theuse of TK are needed (Climate and Tradi-tional Knowledges Workgroup 2014).Agencies, organizations, and academic insti-tutions working with tribes could developand formalize data ownership agreementsfor use and protection of TK and place-based sensitive data (Environmental Protec-tion Agency–Tribal Science Council 2011).

Trust and Understanding Leads toEffective Management and Research

As noted formerly in the literature andby workshop participants, it is imperativethat managers and researchers understandand use formal and culturally sensitive ap-proaches for contacting tribal governmentand community members. Strong workingrelationships are built around common un-derstanding and forming trust among indi-viduals who represent or work in tribal,agency, academic, organization, and otherprofessional and community roles (Dono-ghue et al. 2010). Participants described theimportance of accountability after meetings.Session facilitators and participants empha-sized that it is important for managers andresearchers to understand broad versus spe-cific tribal fire-related issues and values andthat prescriptions and treatment should re-flect local and general public values for proj-ects and programs. Hence, managers and re-searchers should aim to understand thetraditional reasons for fire use to achievemultiple objectives in a modern context(Rasmussen et al. 2007, Tripp 2015).

Several federally funded programs aresupporting tribal work to apply TK andWK. The Joint Fire Science Program recog-nizes the need for methods and tools thatapply tribal knowledge with fuels and firemanagement strategies (Wells 2014). TheNational Science Foundation is expandingresearch opportunities for tribes. Researchwith tribes is also supported by the US De-partment of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Ser-vice Research and Development branch(Farley et al. 2015) and by the Departmentof Interior Landscape Conservation Coop-erative Network.

Many tribes are developing researchpartnerships with federal agencies and aca-demic institutions, including tribal and statecolleges and universities. Having researchersthat are respectful and sensitive to TK, tribalvalues, and culture is important because this

allows for successful application and furtherexchange. Research partnerships that incor-porate tribal knowledge and values can fos-ter the development of the best available sci-ence to guide management and for theformation of meaningful policy that servesthe needs of tribal communities and thepublic (Trosper et al. 2012, McCaffrey et al.2013).

Implications andRecommendations

A Framework for Incorporating TKand WK into Management andResearch

We present a framework for supportingthe application of tribal TK and WK inwildland fire and fuels management and re-search (Table 1). We incorporate key ele-ments from both workshops and the litera-ture to highlight the barriers and challengesto respectful sharing and use of TK and WK(Mason et al. 2012, Bussey et al. 2016). Theframework is informed by “lessons learned”from working with tribes regarding chal-lenges with wildland fires and fuels manage-ment and research using TK and WK (Tim-mons et al. 2012). Frameworks are useful ifthey facilitate building trust and support ef-fective consultation, coordination, andcommunication with tribes (Watson et al.2009, Mason et al. 2012, Timmons et al.2012, Bussey et al. 2016). We hope thisframework can build trust, support commu-nication, and assist with identification oftradeoffs in wildland fire and fuels manage-ment and research projects.

TK Informs Effective Fire ManagementTK can effectively inform managers, re-

searchers, and the public about how wild-land fire affects the tangible and intangiblevalues associated with natural and culturalresources (Kimmerer and Lake 2001, Welch2012). Both TK and WK can enhance un-derstanding of fire effects and associated cul-tural practices using fire-influenced land-scapes for different ecosystems, habitats, anda range of fungi, plant, and animal species(Kimmerer and Lake 2001, Trosper et al.2012, Lake and Long 2014). For example,effective fire management can promote tra-ditional foods (Norton 1979, Johnson2000) and basketry materials (Anderson1999, Hummel and Lake 2015) and protectlandscape heritage and cultural resources(Timmons et al. 2012). When one considersTK, it is important to understand tribal fire

use, both historically and currently as a so-ciocultural phenomenon (Eriksen and Han-kins 2014). This requires managers and re-searchers to learn about the traditional rolesand responsibilities of tribal communitymembers (Huffman 2013).

Consultation, Coordination, andCommunication PromotesCollaboration

Building relationships and trust isrequired to successfully address fire manage-ment challenges across jurisdictional bound-aries (Mason et al. 2012). The communica-tion needed to build trust and respect acrosscultures takes time, dedication, and an at-tempt to understand challenges fromdifferent perspectives (Donoghue et al.2010). Effective communication may re-quire methods different from those usedcommonly within and among governmentagencies, nontribal organizations, and aca-demic institutions (Bussey et al. 2016).Consultation policies and directives forworking with federally recognized AmericanIndian tribes are meant to increase effectivecoordination and meaningful communica-tion while building trust, gaining respect,and fostering collaboration (e.g., ExecutiveOrder 13175, Master Cooperative WildlandFire Management and Stafford Act Re-sponse Agreement).

Meaningful communication goes be-yond the government-to-government con-sultation (per Executive Order 13175)required for federally planned and fundedprojects and with the development or revi-sion of land and resource managementplans. In-person communication among or-ganizational leaders, practitioners, and tribalmembers is needed to build trust and facili-tate communication (Bussey et al. 2016).Federal agencies may separate and not viewcausal linkages between disciplinary special-ties, but the tribes often do. Greater commu-nication on this effect is needed. Initiatingvarious methods of communication acrosscultural and jurisdictional boundaries willimprove dissemination of information re-garding the use of TK and WK to informeffective fire management and research(Donoghue et al. 2010, Jurney et al. 2017).Sharing knowledge on field trips is highlyvaluable to tribes. One workshop partici-pant noted the value of “walking the land”together. Personal phone calls or in-personvisits are better than e-mail for fostering ef-fective communication.

Tribal consultation provides an oppor-

Journal of Forestry • September 2017 349

tunity for tribes to confidentially express andshare sensitive information about culturaluses of valued habitats and resources, sacredsites, and fulfillment by federal agencies oftrust responsibilities. Effective federal agen-cy-tribal government consultation improvescoordination for cross-jurisdictional man-agement and can lead to collaborative proj-ects (Watson et al. 2009, Donoghue et al.2010, Butler et al. 2015). Tribes may be re-luctant to disclose sensitive information atcollaborative meetings where members ofthe public, other tribes, or agency specialistsare present. Facilitation by a neutral thirdparty at collaborative meetings can promoteinclusivity of participants and assists inbuilding trust and transparency (Goldsteinet al. 2010), as well as clarifying ownershipand protection of sensitive information. Thegoals of collaboration must be clear to allparties involved, including what are memberroles and responsibilities, who is contribut-ing what, who retains the final decision au-thority for the course of action (Donoghueet al. 2010, Butler et al. 2015), and who willsteward, own, and protect sensitive informa-tion. Communities and tribes can work to-gether to understand who has the final deci-sionmaking power for the implementationof a project on lands managed by federalagencies, within a tribe’s ancestral territory,as well as available means of conflict resolu-tion or mediation.

Multiple models for such collaborationexist, including the Fire Learning Networksled by The Nature Conservancy (Goldsteinand Butler 2010, Goldstein et al. 2010,Huffman 2013) and the federal Collabora-tive Forest Landscape Restoration Program(Butler et al. 2015). Several opportunitiesfor mutual training for prescribed burningand wildfire management exist (e.g., Pre-scribed Fire Training Exchanges led by TheNature Conservancy and DOI-BIA Re-served Treaty Rights Lands Program) andare examples for applying tribal TK with tra-ditional burning in a modern context forachieving multiple resource objectives (Fig-ure 2) (Gilles 2017).

ConclusionsIntegrating knowledge systems about

fire will be especially important in this era ofrapid increases in area burned and environ-mental disturbances (Huffman 2013, Arma-tas et al. 2016). The active engagement wehad in both workshops shows a growing in-terest in how best to collaborate based onshared TK and WK across jurisdictions andcultures. Although consultation with tribesis required for federal land management, ap-proaches are often inadequate to fully ad-dress tribal values, interest, and concernsacross jurisdictions. Effective collaborationdepends on building mutual respect andtrust through personal contact and local ex-

periences (Donoghue et al. 2010, Busseyet al. 2016). Collaboration can support shar-ing information, improve communication,and facilitate coordination with combiningTK with WK about fire and managementeffects. Such integrated approaches will beimportant in the face of ongoing environ-mental change.

The following key findings emergedduring the workshops and were reiterated inthe literature review:

1. Communication is critical to effectivecollaboration across tribal and nontribalmanagement and research entities(Bussey et al. 2016).

2. Communication about TK should bedone in a culturally sensitive and respect-ful way that honors tribal traditions, cul-tures, and the sensitivity for the types ofknowledge shared.

3. In addition to identifying culturally sen-sitive resources and values, TK can in-form and guide fuels and fire manage-ment so as to perpetuate living andnonliving resources culturally importantto tribes.

4. Collaboration will be most effective iftime is spent to build relationships, gaintrust, share knowledge, and recognizedifferent perspectives on the outcomesand implications of fire and resourcemanagement (Jurney et al. 2017).

5. To gain support for using fire as a tool formultiple objectives, community aware-ness, acceptance of fire, and the tradi-tional and ecological roles of fire, includ-ing culturally important ecosystemservices, should be increased.

6. There is a need to identify and highlightexamples of successful cross-jurisdictioncollaboration for the research and man-agement of wildland fire conducted withtribes.

Our key recommendations center onincreasing tribal participation and knowl-edge in the protection of valued habitats andresources for wildland fire management andresearch (linked with key elements of Table1). Successful planning identifies potentialeffects to tribal values before the wildfire orprojects occur. Agencies, organizations, ortribes could do the following:

1. Host annual tribal government to federalgovernment consultation summits.

2. Incorporate at-risk tribal values as confi-dentially identified spatial data (e.g., cul-

Figure 2. Klamath River TREX 2015 [Oct. 10, 2015]. Karuk and Yurok ignitors prescribeburning in the wildland-urban interface (Lake property, near Orleans, CA) to reinstatetraditional burning in a modern context for fuels reductions, acorn research, and tribal foodgathering enhancement. (Courtesy of Frank K. Lake, USDA Forest Service and Karuk Tribe.)

350 Journal of Forestry • September 2017

tural resources, sacred sites) for wildfiresif tribes desire to share these with federalpartners. The information could be inte-grated into strategic objectives in theWFDSS. GIS mapping can be used as ananalysis tool to identify important areaswithout divulging specific locations (seeMcBride et al. 2017). Agency heritage,archaeological, or qualified cultural re-source staff can work with tribal advisorycouncils. This provides another avenuefor planning identifiable actions that canbe taken to protect and to avoid or miti-gate impacts to tribally valued resources,places, sites, or intangible values (Welch2012).

3. Develop memorandums of understand-ing (MOU) or other agreements regard-ing tribal participation and involvementwith wildland fire management (Lake2011, Bussey et al. 2016) and research.This will provide opportunities for tribesto be directly involved during fires andprojects having designated tribal repre-sentatives and heritage resource consul-tants who work directly with agencies,incident management teams, organiza-tions, tribes, or researchers.

4. Establish and fund tribal-agency-academic-organization research partner-ships to investigate the differences inwhy, when, how, where, and which man-agement or ignition strategies contributeto desired and actual fire effects.

5. Use post-wildland fire or project “afteraction review” findings to learn and im-prove relations in support of adaptivemanagement.

6. Use TK to inform collaborative wildlandfire and fuels management and researchprojects for further understanding oftribal intent and desire for confidentialityand protection of culturally sensitivedata. Protection measures may be in theform of management or research plans,data sharing/ownership agreements, orother legally binding agreements inwhich the signatories (collaboration part-ners) have made clear how, when, why,or for what circumstances or not tribalknowledge will be used.

Endnotes1. For more workshop information see nrfirescience.

org/event/returning-fire-land-celebrating-traditional-knowledge-and-fire.

2. For more information on FEIS see www.feis-crs.org/feis/.

3. For more information on the Fire on the Land firehistory project see www.csktribes.org/natural-resources/tribal-forestry/fire-history-project.

4. For more information on the DOI-BIA Re-served Treaty Rights Lands program see www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xnifc/documents/document/idc1-030969.pdf.

AcknowledgmentsThe Joint Fire Science Program [Proj-

ect Number 11-S-3-2], Northern RockiesFire Science Network, Salish Kootenai Col-lege, Confederated Salish and KootenaiTribes, University of Idaho, and USDA For-est Service, National Science Foundation -Coupled Natural Human Systems grant[NSF-1232319] sponsored the two work-shops. We are grateful to Louis Adams, Ig-nace Couture, Mike Durglo Sr., Pat Pierreand Stephen Smallsalmon for sharing theirtraditional knowledge of historical fire useand contemporary fire and fuel manage-ment. We thank the 2012 workshop pro-gram committee, including the authors andJim Durglo, Tony Harwood, Alan Watsonand Adrian Leighton, and leaders of the dis-cussion groups: Carl Crawford, Ira Matt,Ron Trosper, Ernesto Alvarado, Tony Har-wood, Mary Taber, and Bill Tripp. Wethank Tony Harwood for organizing the2012 field trip, Roian Matt and Rick Everettfor logistics support at the 2012 workshop,and Mikel Robinson for logistics support ofthe 2014 workshop.

Literature CitedABT, K.L., D.T. BUTRY, J.P. PRESTEMON, AND S.

SCRANTON. 2015. Effect of fire preventionprograms on accidental and incendiarywildfires on tribal lands in the United States.Int. J. Wildl. Fire 24:749–762. doi:10.1071/WF14168.

ANDERSON, M.K. 1999. The fire, pruning, andcoppice management of temperate ecosystemsfor basketry material by California Indian tribes.Hum. Ecol. 27(1):79–113. doi:10.1023/A:1018757317568.

ANDERSON, M.K. 2006. The use of fire by NativeAmericans in California. P. 417–430 in Fire inCalifornia’s ecosystems, Sugihara, N.G., J.W.van Wagtendonk, J. Fites-Kaufman, K.E.Shaffer, and A.E. Thode (eds.). University ofCalifornia Press, Berkeley, CA.

ANDERSON, M.K., AND M.G. BARBOUR. 2003.Simulated indigenous management: A newmodel for ecological restoration in nationalparks. Ecol. Restor. 21(4):269–277. doi:10.3368/er.21.4.269.

ARMATAS, C.A., T.J. VENN, B.B. MCBRIDE, A.E.WATSON, AND S.J. CARVER. 2016. Opportuni-ties to utilize traditional phenological knowl-edge to support adaptive management of so-cial-ecological systems vulnerable to changes

in climate and fire regimes. Ecol. Soc. 21(1):16.doi:10.5751/ES-07905-210116.

BEATTY, C., AND A. LEIGHTON. 2012. IntertribalTimber Council survey of tribal researchneeds. For. Chron. 88(5):565–570. doi:10.5558/tfc2012-107.

BOND, W.J., AND J.E. KEELY. 2005. Fire as aglobal ‘herbivore’: The ecology and evolutionof flammable ecosystems. Trends Ecol. Evol.20(7):387–394. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2005.04.025.

BONNICKSEN, T.M., M.K. ANDERSON, H T.LEWIS, C.E. KAY, AND R. KNUDSON. 1999. Na-tive American influences on the developmentof forested ecosystems. P. 439–469 in Ecolog-ical stewardship: A common reference for ecosys-tem management, Vol. II, Sexton, W., A. Malk,R. Szaro, and N. Johnson (eds.). Elsevier Sci-ence Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

BOWMAN, D.M.J.S., J.K. BALCH, P. ARTAXO,W.J. BOND, J.M. CARLSON, M.A. COCHRANE,C.M. D’ANTONIO, ET AL. 2009. Fire in theEarth system. Science 324(5926):481–484.doi:10.1126/science.1163886.

BOWMAN, D.M.J.S., J. BALCH, P. ARTAXO,W.J. BOND, M.A. COCHRANE, C.M.D’ANTONIO, R. DEFRIES, ET AL. 2011. Thehuman dimension of fire regimes on Earth.J. Biogeogr. 38:2223–2236. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2699.2011.02595.x.

BOYD, R. (ED.). 1999. Indians, fire, and the land inthe Pacific Northwest. Oregon State Univ.Press, Corvallis, OR. 313 p.

BUETOW, S. 2010. Thematic analysis and its re-conceptualization as ’saliency analysis.’J. Health Serv. Res. Policy 15(2):123–125. doi:10.1258/jhsrp.2009.009081.

BUSSEY, J., M.A. DAVENPORT, M.R. EMERY, AND

C. CARROLL. 2016. “A lot of it comes from theheart”: The nature and integration of ecologi-cal knowledge in tribal and nontribal forestmanagement. J. For. 114(2):97–107. doi:10.5849/jof.14-130.

BUTLER, W.H., A. MONROE, AND S. MCCAFFREY.2015. Collaborative Implementation for ecolog-ical restoration on US public lands: Implicationsfor legal context, accountability, and adaptivemanagement. Environ. Manage. 55:654–577.doi:10.1007/s00267-014-0430-8.

CARROLL, M.S., P.J. COHN, T.B. PAVEGLIO, D.R.DRADER, AND P.J. JAKES. 2010. Fire burners tofirefighters: The Nez Perce and fire. J. For.108(2):71–76. www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/2010/00000108/00000002/art00008.

CHARNLEY, S., A.P. FISCHER, AND E.T. JONES.2007. Integrating traditional and local ecolog-ical knowledge into forest biodiversity conserva-tion in the Pacific Northwest. For. Ecol. Manage.246(1):14 –28. doi:10.1016/j.foreco.2007.03.047.

CLIMATE AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGES

WORKGROUP. 2014. Guidelines for consideringtraditional knowledges (TKs) in climate changeinitiatives. Available online at climatetkw.wordpress.com; last accessed Feb. 15, 2016.

COLLINS, B.M., S.L. STEPHENS, J.J. MOGHADDAS,AND J. BATTLES. 2010. Challenges and ap-proaches in planning fuels treatments across fire-

Journal of Forestry • September 2017 351

excluded forested landscapes. J. For. 108(1):24–31. www.ingentaconnect.com/content/saf/jof/2010/00000108/00000001/art00007.

CONEDERA, M., W. TINNER, C. NEFF, M.MEURER, AND A.F. DICKENS. 2009. Recon-structing past fire regimes: Methods, applica-tions, and relevance to fire management andconservation. Quat. Sci. Rev. 28:555–576. doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2008.11.005.

CRAWFORD, J.N., S.A. MENSING, F.K. LAKE, AND

S.R.H. ZIMMERMAN. 2015. Late Holocene fireand vegetation reconstruction from the west-ern Klamath Mountains, California, USA: Amulti-disciplinary approach for examining po-tential human land-use impacts. Holocene25(8):1341–1357. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683615584205.

DONOGHUE, E.M., S.A. THOMPSON, AND J.C.BLISS. 2010. Tribal-Federal collaboration inresource management. J. Ecol. Anthropol.14(1):22–38. doi:10.5038/2162-4593.14.1.2.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY–TRIBAL

SCIENCE COUNCIL. 2011. Integration of tradi-tional ecological knowledge (TEK) in environ-mental science, policy and decision-making.Available online at archive.epa.gov/region9/tribal/web/pdf/tribal-ecological-knowledge-env-sci-policy-dm.pdf; last accessed Feb. 20,2016.

ERIKSEN, C., AND D.L. HANKINS. 2014. Indige-nous fire knowledge retention: Spatial, tempo-ral, gendered, P. 86–104 in Gender and wild-fire: Landscapes of uncertainty, Eriksen, C.(ed.). Routledge, New York.

FARLEY, C., T. ELLERSICK, AND C. JASPER. (EDS.).2015. The Forest Service research and develop-ment tribal engagement roadmap. Available on-line at www.fs.fed.us/research/docs/tribal-engagement/consultation/roadmap.pdf; lastaccessed Feb. 18, 2016.

GILLES, N. 2017. Catching fire. Yes! Mag. Issue81(Spring):40–43.

GOLDSTEIN, B.E., W.H. BUTLER, AND R.B. HULL.2010. The fire learning network: A promisingconservation strategy for forestry. J. For. 108:120 –125. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1�tka&value1�The�fire�learning�network%3a�A�promising�conservation�strategy�for�forestry&pageSize�10&index�1.

GOLDSTEIN, B.E., AND W.H. BUTLER. 2010. Ex-panding the scope and impact of collaborativeplanning. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 76:238–249. doi:01944361003646463.

GORDON, J., J. SESSIONS, J. BAILEY, D. CLEAVES,V. CORRAO, A. LEIGHTON, L. MASON, M. RAS-MUSSEN, H. SALWASSER, AND M. STERNER.2013. Indian Forest Management AssessmentTeam, Intertribal Timber Council. Availableonline at www.itcnet.org/file_download/4f8e541e-f355-4da6-92d3-131e0013828d; lastaccessed Sept. 16, 2015.

HESSBURG, P.F., D.J. CHURCHILL, A.J. LARSON,R.D. HAUGO, C. MILLER, T.A. SPIES, M.P.NORTH, ET AL. 2015. Restoring fire-prone In-land Pacific landscapes: Seven core principles.Landsc. Ecol. 30(10):1805–1835. doi:10.1007/s10980-015-0218-0.

HUFFMAN MR. 2013. The many elements of tra-ditional fire knowledge: Synthesis, classifica-tion, and aids to cross-cultural problem solvingin fire-dependent systems around the world.Ecol. Soc. 18(4):3. doi:10.5751/ES-05843-180403.

HUMMEL, S., AND F.K. LAKE. 2015. Forest siteclassification for cultural plant harvest by tribalweavers can inform management. J. For.113(1):30–39. doi:10.5849/jof.13-082.

JOHNSON, L.M. 2000. “A place that’s good”Gitksan landscape perception and ethnoecol-ogy. Hum. Ecol. 28(2):301–325. doi:10.1023/A:1007076221799.

JURNEY, D.H., D.C. BRAGG, R.E. COLEMAN, AND

B. GONZALEZ. 2017. Lessons from a program-matic agreement and heritage-based consulta-tions between tribes and the national forests ofArkansas and Oklahoma. J. For. 115(5):458–467. doi:10.5849/jof.16-040.

KIMMERER, R.W., AND F.K. LAKE. 2001. The role ofindigenous burning in land management. J. For.99(11):36–41. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/search/article?option1�tka&value1�The�role�of�indigenous�burning�in�land�management&pageSize�10&index�1.

LAKE, F.K. 2007. Traditional ecological knowledgeto develop and maintain fire regimes in north-western California, Klamath-Siskiyou bioregion:Management and restoration of culturally signif-icant habitats. PhD dissertation, Oregon StateUniv., Corvallis, OR. 732 p.

LAKE, F.K. 2011. Working with American Indiantribes on wildland fires: Protecting culturalheritage sites in northwestern California. FireManage. Today 71(3):14–21. http://www.fs.fed.us/fire/fmt/fmt_pdfs/FMT71-3.pdf.

LAKE, F.K. 2013. Historical and cultural fires,tribal management and research issues innorthern California: Trails, fires, and tribula-tions. Occasion: Interdisc. Stud. Humanit. 5:22 p.http://arcade.stanford.edu/occasion/historical-and-cultural-fires-tribal-management-and-research-issue-northern-california.

LAKE, F.K., AND J. LONG. 2014. Fire and tribalcultural resources. P. 173–186 in Science syn-thesis to support socioecological resilience in theSierra Nevada and southern Cascade Range,Long J.W., L. Quinn-Davidson, and C.N.Skinner (eds.). USDA Forest Service, Gen.Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-247, Pacific SouthwestResearch Station, Albany, CA.

LEWIS, H.T. 1993. Patterns of Indian burning inCalifornia: Ecology and ethnohistory. P. 55–116 in Before the wilderness: Native Califor-nians as environmental managers, Blackburn,T.C. and K. Anderson (eds.). Ballena Press,Menlo Park, CA.

LEWIS, H.T., AND M.K. ANDERSON (EDS.). 2002.Introduction. P. 3–16 in Stewart, O.C. Forgot-ten fires: Native Americans and the transient wil-derness. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman,OK.

LITTELL, J.S., D. MCKENZIE, D.L. PETERSON,AND A.L. WESTERLING. 2009. Climate andwildfire area burned in western US ecoprov-inces, 1916–2003. Ecol. Applic. 19:1003–1021. https://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/34676/.

LONG, J.W., L. QUINN-DAVIDSON, R.W.GOODE, F.K. LAKE, AND C.N. SKINNER. 2015.Restoring California black oak to supporttribal values and wildlife. P. 113–122 in Proc.of Conference on Seventh California oak sympo-sium: Managing oak woodlands in a dynamicworld, Standiford, R.B., and K.L. Purcell(tech. coords.). USDA Forest Service, Gen.Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-251.

MASON, L., G. WHITE, G. MORISHIMA, E. AL-VARADO, L. ANDREW, F. CLARK, M. DURGLO, J.DURGLO, J. ENEAS, AND J. ERICKSON. 2012.Listening and learning from traditional knowl-edge and Western science: A dialogue on con-temporary challenges of forest health and wild-fire. J. For. 110:187–193. doi:10.5849/jof.11-006.

MCBRIDE, B.B., F. SANCHEZ-TRIGUEROS, S.J.CARVER, A.E. WATSON, L.M. STUMPFF, R.MATT, AND W.T. BORRIE. 2017. Participatorygeographic information systems as an organi-zational platform for the integration of tradi-tional and scientific knowledge in contempo-rary fire and fuels management. J. For. 115(1):43–50. doi:10.5849/jof.11-006.

MCCAFFREY, S., E. TOMAN, M. STIDHAM, AND B.SHINDLER. 2013. Social science research re-lated to wildfire management: An overview ofrecent findings and future research needs. Int.J. Wildl. Fire 22:15–24. doi:10.1071/WF11115.

MOON-STUMPFF, L. 2000. In wilderness there is alife: An American Indian perspective on theoryand action for wildlands. P. 98–102 in Per-sonal, societal, and ecological values of wilderness:Sixth World Wilderness Congress proceedings onresearch, management, and allocation, Vol. II,998 October 24–29, Bangalore, India, Wat-son, A.E., G.H. Aplet, and J.C. Hendee(comps.). USDA Forest Service, Proc. RMRS-P-14, Rocky Mountain Research Station,Ogden, UT.

MORITZ, M.A., P.F. HESSBURG, AND N.A. PO-VAK. 2011. Native fire regimes and landscaperesilience. P. 51–86 in The landscape ecology offire, McKenzie D., C. Miller, and D.A. Falk(eds.). Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

NATIONAL WILDFIRE COORDINATING GROUP.2015. Glossary of wildland fire terminology.Available online at www.nwcg.gov/glossary-of-wildland-fire-terminology; last accessed onMar. 4, 2016.

NOONAN-WRIGHT, E.K., T.S. OPPERMAN, M.A.FINNEY, G.T. ZIMMERMAN, R.C. SELI, L.M.ELENZ, D.E. CALKIN, AND J. R FIEDLER. 2011.Developing the US wildland fire decision sup-port system. J. Combust. 2011:Article ID168473, 14 p. doi:10.1155/2011/168473.

NORGAARD, K.M. 2014. The politics of fire andthe social impacts of fire exclusion on the Klam-ath. Humboldt J. Soc. Relat. 36:77–101. http://www.jstor.org/stable/humjsocrel.36.77.

NORTON, H.H. 1979. The association betweenanthropogenic prairies and important foodplants in western Washington. J. Northw. An-thropol. 13(2):175–200.

RASMUSSEN, K., M. HIBBARD, AND K. LYNN.2007. Wildland fire management as conserva-tion-based development: An opportunity for

352 Journal of Forestry • September 2017

reservation communities? Soc. Nat. Resour.20(6):497–510. doi:10.1080/08941920701337952.

RATNER, N.C., AND D.L. HOLEN. 2007. Tradi-tional ecological knowledge: Applying princi-ples of sustainability to wilderness resourcemanagement. P. 45–50 in Science and steward-ship to protect and sustain wilderness values:Eighth World Wilderness Congress sympo-sium,2005 September 30–October 6, Anchor-age, AK. Watson, A., J. Sproull, and L. Dean(comps.). USDA Forest Service, Proc. RMRS-P-49. Rocky Mountain Research Station, FortCollins, CO.

RAY, L.A., C.A. KOLDEN, AND F.S. CHAPIN, III.2012. A case for developing place-based firemanagement strategies from traditional eco-logical knowledge. Ecol. Soc. 17(3):37. doi:10.5751/ES-05070-170337.

RESOURCE INNOVATIONS. 2006. Tribal WildfireResource Guide. Intertribal Timber Council,Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of theFlathead Nation. Univ. of Oregon, Corvallis,OR. 146 p.

STAVROS, E.N., J.T. ABATZOGLOU, D. MCKENZIE,AND N.K. LARKIN. 2014 Regional projections ofthe likelihood of very large wildland fires under achanging climate in the contiguous WesternUnited States. Climatic Change 126(3–4):455–468. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1229-6.

STEWART, O.C. 2002. Forgotten fires: NativeAmericans and the transient wilderness. Univ. ofOklahoma Press, Norman, OK. 364 p.

TABER, M.A., L.M. ELENZ, AND P.G. LAN-GOWSKI. 2013. Decision making for wildfires: Aguide for applying a risk management process atthe incident level. USDA Forest Service, Gen.Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-298, Rocky Moun-tain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 59 p.

THE NATIONAL STRATEGY. 2014. The final phasein the development of the national cohesive strat-egy for wildland fire management. Availableonline at www.forestsandrangelands.gov/strategy/thestrategy.shtml; last accessed onFeb. 18, 2016.

TIMMONS, R.S., L. DEBANO, AND K.C. RYAN.2012. Implications of fire management on cul-tural resources. P. 171–191 in Wildland fire inecosystems: Effects of fire on cultural resources andarchaeology, Ryan, K.C., A.T. Jones, C.L. Ko-erner, and K.M. Lee (eds.). USDA Forest Ser-vice, Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 3,Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins,CO.

TRIPP, B. 2015. Burning together and learning to-gether. Fire Adaptive Communities-LearningNetwork Newsletter. Available online atfireadaptednetwork.org/burning-together-and-learning-together; last accessed Jan. 27,2016.

TRAUERNICHT, C., B.W. BROOK, B.P. MURPHY,G.J. WILLIAMSON, AND D.M.J.S. BOWMAN.2015. Local and global pyrogeographic evi-dence that indigenous fire management createspyrodiversity. Ecol. Evol. 5:1908 –1918.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ece3.1494/abstract.

TROSPER, R.L., F. CLARK, P. GEREZ-FERNANDEZ,F. LAKE, D. MCGREGOR, C.M. PETERS, S. PU-RATA, ET AL. 2012. North America. P. 157–201in Traditional forest-related knowledge: Sustain-ing communities, ecosystems and biocultural di-versity, Parrotta J.A., and R.L. Trosper (eds.).World Forest Series, Vol. 12. Springer, Dor-drecht, The Netherlands.

VOGGESSER, G., K. LYNN, J. DAIGLE, J., F.K.LAKE, AND D. RANCO. 2013. Cultural impactsto tribes from climate change influences onforests. Climatic Change 120(3):615–626. doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0733-4.

WATSON, A., R. MATT, T. WATERS, K. GUNDER-SON, S. CARVER, AND B. DAVIS. 2009. Map-ping tradeoffs in values at risk at the interfacebetween wilderness and non-wilderness lands.P. 375–395 In Proc. of the Third InternationalSymposium on fire economics, planning, and pol-icy: Common problems and approaches, Gonza-lez-Caban, A. (tech. coords.). USDA ForestService, Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-227, Pa-cific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

WATSON, A., R. MATT, K. KNOTEK, D. WIL-LIAMS, AND L. YUNG. 2011. Traditional wis-dom: Protecting relationships with wildernessas a cultural landscape. Ecol. Soc. 16(1):36.http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol16/iss1/art36/.

WELCH, J.R. 2012. Effects of fire on intangible cul-tural resources: Moving toward a landscape ap-proach. P. 157–170 in Wildland fire in ecosystems:Effects of fire on cultural resources and archaeology,Ryan, K.C., A.T. Jones, C.L. Koerner, and K.M.Lee. (eds.). USDA Forest Service, Gen. Tech.Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 3, Rocky MountainResearch Station, Fort Collins, CO.

WELLS, G. 2014. Traditional ecological knowl-edge: A model for modern fire management.Joint Fire Science Program. Fire Sci. Dig. Issue20(November). https://www.firescience.gov/Digest/FSdigest20.pdf.

WESTERLING, A.L., H.G. HIDALGO, D.R. CAYAN,AND T.W. SWETNAM. 2006. Warming and ear-lier spring increase western US forest wildfireactivity. Science 313:940–943. doi:10.1098/rstb.2015.0178.

WHITE, G., AND P. MCDOWELL. 2009. Commu-nicating about fire with tribal organizations.Fire Manage. Today 69(1):21–23. https://www.bia.gov/cs/groups/xnifc/documents/text/idc015906.pdf.

WHITLOCK, C., P.E. HIGUERA, D.B. MCWETHY,AND C.E. BRILES. 2010. Paleecological per-spectives of fire ecology: Revisiting the fire-re-gime concept. Open Ecol. J. 3:6–23. doi:10.2174/1874213001003020006.

WILLIAMS, G.W. 2002. Aboriginal use of fire: Arethere any “natural” plant communities? P.179–214 in Wilderness and political ecology:Aboriginal land management—Myths and real-ity, Kay C.E., and T.S. Randy (eds.). Univ. ofUtah Press, Logan, UT.

YAPP, G., J. WALKER, AND R. THACKWAY. 2010.Linking vegetation type and condition to eco-system goods and services. Ecol. Compl. 7(3):292–301. doi:10.1016/j.ecocom.2010.04.008.

Journal of Forestry • September 2017 353

Copyright of Journal of Forestry is the property of Society of American Foresters and itscontent may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without thecopyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or emailarticles for individual use.