ABSTRACT

Understanding the historic tire regime isessential hefore restoring fire to an ecosystem.1 listoricnl ecology provides a means to usebuth quantitative and qualitative data fromJifterenr disciplines to address que.stions abouthow tbe traditional ecological management(TEM) practices oi indigenous peoples influ-enced pmirie and savanna ecosystems in thepast. In this article, we evaluated paleoccolog-icai. archaeological, ethnographic, and eth-nohotanical information about the Upper(.'hchalis River hasin prairies of southwesternWashington to hetter understand the extent(o which TEM influenced prairie distribution,i.umposition. and availability of wild planttooJ resources. We also surveyed areas thathad been humed at differing frequencies torest whether frequent fires increase camas{Camassia Ljuan\ash) productivity. Preliminaryresults support the hypothesis that camas pro-Juttivity increases with fire-return intervals of•.me to two yt'Hrs.

Keywords: prairie restoration, historical ecol-•.igy, traditional ecological management(TEM), fire, camas, Ctmiossici quamash. CoastSiilisb subsistence

Evaluating the Purpose,Extent, and EcologicalRestoration Applicationsof Indigenous BurningPractices in SouthwesternWashingtonby Linda Storm and Daniela Shebitz

Anumber of anthropologists, ethno-bcitanists, and ecologists now believe

that indigenous peoples contributed to thelong-term maintenance and distribution ofprairie and savanna ecosystems in pre-European western Wa.shington throtightraditional management techniques, suchas burning (Norton 1979a, 1979b; Krucke-berg 1991; Agee 1993; Dunn and Ewing1997; Boyd 1999a; Leopold and Boyd1999; Wray and Anderson 2003). Fol-lowing the declitie o( indigenous culturesand the subsequent absence of low-inten-sity, high-frequency fires, areas in westernWashington that were once prairies andsavannas have naturally succeeded toconifer-dominated forests (Lang 1961).Today, there are efforts underway to re.storethe fire-dependent prairies and savannas ofwestern Washington and the many nuwrare, threatened, and endangered speciesthat continue to exist in those degradedecosystems (Dunn and Ewing 1997,Chappell and others 2001, Peter andShehitz 2006).

In this paper, we use a historical ecol-ogy tnethodology to evaluate botli tbe rea-sons why indigenous peoples in the UpperChebalis River basin managed prairie andsavanna ecosystems and the extent ofthose practices through time and space.

We believe it is important to understandthe motivations of the people who usedfire in order to reconstruct tbe ecologicalpatterns and effects of such practices. Keyquestions to understand past indigenousburning include:• When did indigenous people first start

to use burning on a regular basis to man-age the land.'

• What were their purposes and reastms tobum?

• What were the ecological effects of suchburning practices on the spatial extentof vegetation communities and plantcompo.sition?

• What are the implications of these pmc-tices for present and future ecologicalrestoration projects.'

Background: Ecologicaland Cultural History ofthe Pacific NorthwestThe climatic history of the PacificNorthwest can be reconstructed by usingpollen data (Tsukada and others 1981,Bamoski 1985, Brubaker 1991), glacialgeology (Porter and Swanson 1998), den-drochronology (Agee 1993), global cli-mate model predictions (Hehda and

EcolofiicaiRestoratim,VQl. 24, No. 4, 2006 ISSN 1522-4740 E-iSSN I54V4O79©2006 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System.

256 EcoujuiCAL RESTORATION 24:4 2006

Whitlock 1997), and charcoal evidence(Clark and Royall 1995, Hallett andWalker 2000. Pellatt and others 2001).From these sources, scienrists have con-tinned that the Pacific Northwest experi-enced an "early post-glacial" periodhetween 16,000-11,300 years ago. Theydescrihe this period as cool and moistwith a characteristic vegetation of grassesand sed^ies along with some borealconifers {Picea spp. and Pinus spp.). Awarmer and drier period, from 11,200-9,500 years ago, led to an open forest v̂ /ithan increase in spruce and pine pollen andthe first occurrence of Douglas fir{Pmcdosiufia mcnsdzu)- The maximumwarming period from 10,000-6,000 yearsago, which is estimated to have heenabout 3.6°F (2''C) warmer than modemciimate conditions, produced a vegeta-tion complex of Douglas fir, Garry oak{Quercus garryana), and alder (Ainusrnhra). Spruce, pine, and boreal speciesdeclined in this period and fire, as indi-cated hy increases in charcoal remains,became more prevalent (Bruhaker 1982).From 6,000-5,000 years ago, western hem-lock (Tauga heterophylia), western redcedar {Thuja plicata) and Pacific yew(Taxw,s brevifolia) increased (Tsukada andStigita 1982, Hehda and Mathewes 1984),and charctial inputs decreased (Brubaker1991), reflecting a transition to a wetter,cooler time period. However, scientistsalso confirm that prairie and .savannaecosystems persisted in southwesternWashington frt)m the maximum warmingperiod until the time of European contactand that they coincide with evidence of ashort fire-retum interval (Leopold andBoyd 1999).

The human history ot westernWashington extends hack at least 10,000years (Ames and Maschner 1999) withsedentary village life beginning after 3,800years ago. Human populations increased asplank house village sites were established,salmon harvest intensified, and winterstorage developed in some locales afterthis period. Some researchers postulatethat during this period inland, up-rivergroups of indigenotis peoples in southwest-em Washington began using fire to main-tain praitie and savanna habitats andsubsequently increased their production

corridtirs, reduced therisk of wildfire, and im-proved grazing for gameand (later) horses(Lewis 1993, Anderson1996, Boyd 1999a).Robin Kimmerer andFrank Lake (2001:38)contend chat for indige-nous peoples "[mjain-taining a diversity othabitats buffers theimpact of natural fluctu-ation in a single foodspecies and increasesoverall productivity,"

By using fire formillenia, indigenouspeople developed a set

Figure 1. The Glacial Heritage Preserve (identified by the number of TEM practices that2 on the map) was the site of experiments to determine the most were grounded in aneffective fire-return interval for maximizing camas production. The understanding of howsite is located south of Olympia, the capitol of the Washington fire travels across a land-State, in the Black River Drainage of the Upper Chehalis River scape or slope, how toBasin, which drains westward into the Pacific Ocean. use fire to maintain trails

that in turn serve as Hre-hreaks, how to set backfires, and how towet conifer boughs to control fires (Turner1999). They used seasonal cues—plantphenologies (Lantz and Turner 2003),local climate, weather conditions, nu»is-ture levels of soils and tuels—to determinethe time to hum.

Patterns of burning by indigenouspeoples varied both hetween and within agiven region, the effects of which wt)ulddiffer depending on soil type, moistureregime, and plant assemhiages present.The effects oi such practices have heenwell described for other western grasslandand oak woodland savannas (Blackburnand Anderson 1993), hut have only beenpartially described for western Washing-ton (White 1975; Norton 1979a, 1979h;Leopold and Boyd 1999; Norton and oth-ers 1999).

Westem Washington ecosystems thatwere indigenously maintained by frequentburning include open hunchgniss prairies,asstxiated oak wtxxllands, oak/ash iQuer-cus garnanalfraximis latifolia) riparian cor-ridors, beargrass {Xemphylium spp.)savannas, and low (600-800 ft, 183-244 m)to mid-elevation (1000-2500 ft, 305-762m) patches of open grasslands and herr\'

and storage of important plant foodresources (Ames 2005, Storm dissertationin progress).

Native American Burningin the Pre'European PacificNorthwest and WesternWashingtonHistoric fire return intervals in pre-European Pacific Northwest were a func-tion of both natural and anthropogenicfires (Boyd 1999a). Prescribed burningenabled the management of large land-scapes and promoted greater abundance ofuseful species and hahitats. For example,fire was used to create forest openings andmaintain expansive prairies, keeping plantcommunities in early to mid-seral stages,and enhancing the diversity and yield ofuseful plants and game (Norton 1979a,1979b; Connelly and others 1997,Leopold and Boyd 1999; Connelly 2000;Storm 2002, 2004). Beyond those pur-poses, indigenous buming reduced insectpests, improved basketry materials, helpedclear areas for home sites and safe travel

ECOLOGICAL RESTORAT[ON 24:4 2006 257

grounds {Lang 1961, Giles 1970, Agee1993. French 1999, Peter and Shebit:2006). There is also some evidence forburning peat-dominated wetlands, such asbogs and fens (Shebit: 2005).

Until recently, little has been writtenabout the extent and effects of TEM onUpper Chehalis River basin prairie andoak woodlands (Storm 2004). Despite thispaucity of literature, evidence of indige-nous land tnanagement Is apparent in thepresence and diversity of culturally signif-icant, shade-intolerant plants of remnantprairies and savannas.

Case Study: Evidence forLong-term IndigenousPeoples* Management of theUpper Chehalis PrairiesWhile it is clear from archival recordsthat the Upper Chehalis prairies weremaintained by indigenous burning(Cooper 1859, Gibbs 1877, Tolmie1963), it is unclear to what extent indige-nous fire management influenced the dis-tribution and availability of wild plantfood resources—in both space and time.To address this question, one must con-sider both ecological and anthropologicalevidence.

MethodsTo reconstruct long-term indigenousburning practices in Upper ChehalisRiver basin prairies, we evaluated paleoe-cological, archaeological, ethnographic,ethnohistoric, ethnobotanic, and ecolog-ical data. From these sources, we used sev-eral questions and types of evidence toreconstruct the historic patterns and pur-poses of indigenous burning (Table 1).Taking a historical ecological approach(Crumley 1994, Swetland and others1999, Anderson 2001, Egan and Howell2001) allowed us to better understand thepre-European landscapes of southwesternWashington at a number of temporal andspatial scales.

A field experiment was used to testthe hypothesis that fire increases the pro-ductivity of camas. This experiment ttwkplace at the Glacial Heritage Preserve—aThurston County owned property that ismanaged by The Nature Conservancy(TNC)— located about 15 miles (24 km)south of Olympia, Washington (Figure 1).TNC staff bum the prairies at the preserveas part of their regular management efforts.In terms of this experiment, each bumtreatment was conceptualized as repre-senting a different length of "time sincebum" (that is, the number of years sincethe area was burned: 0-control, 1 year, 2years, and 3 years since burned).

Camas productivity was defined as thenumber of mature (harvestable) camasplants. Camas abundance was measuredboth in space (the number of mature catnasplants within n patch) and in time (thelength of time that plants were floweringand fruiting within a growing season).

In May 2004, the primary authorsampled three transects within each ofthree bum treatment areas and a controlsite along a mound-intermound gradient.The gradient represented by each transectwas divided into five strata—south inter-mound = SI, south flank = SF, top = T,north flank = NF, and north intermound= Nl, Samples were collected at 0.5-mintervals using a 1.0-m x 0.5-m quadrat.Transects were oriented on a southwest-northeast axis (Figure 2). All maturecamas plants were counted and the domi-nant phenological stage of each plant(budding, flowering, fruiting) wasrecorded. The average number of maturecamas plants from each bum treatmentarea and the no-burn control were thencompared.

The primary author created a matu-rity index (MI) to describe the phenolog-ical state of each sample. The index wa.scomputed by assigning each mature plantin a sample a dominant phenologicalstage (bud, flower, fruit). Each stage wasnumerically weighted (1 for buds, 2 forflowers, and 3 for fruits) according to its

Table 1. Methods for reconstructing indigenous prairie management

Form of evidence Questions addressed Methods used

A Paleoecology and archaeology: Fire

history reconstruction

Ecology, history, and ethnohistory: Physical

extent of historic prairie

C Ethnography and ethnobotany: Traditionaluses of fire to manage plant and animalspecies

D Field experiment: Fire effects on camasproductivity

How long into the past were prairies burned?Is there paleoecological or paleoethno-botanical evidence for prairie management?

What were the historical extent and types ofprairie prior to Euro-American settlement?How has the landscape changed since Euro-American settlement?

How frequent were prairies burned?What was the timing of burns?What were the reasons for burns?What/where were the ethnobotanically signifi-cant plants and culturally significant places?

Does camas productivity increase withburning as reported in the archival andethnographic records?

Review paleoecological and archaeological dataUse analog for antiquity of burning in UpperChehalis prairies

Review ethnohistorical data, includinghistorical and archival records/observations ofIndian burning practices

Review native testimony, place names,

linguistics, and stories

Evaluate ethnohistoric, ethnographic, and

ethnobotanical data

Perform burn treatment experiment at GlacialHeritage Preserve, Thurston County,Washington

258 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24:4 • DECEMBER 2006

relative maturity. The weighted sum wasnormalized in each sample by dividing hythe total number oi plants in the sampleas follows:

MI =buds + 2 (/lowers ) + 3{ fruits )

buds + flowers + fruits

Tlie mean Ml per stratum per mound (tran-sect) within each bum treatment area wasthen calculated and the stratum meanswere compared across hum areas using athree-factor mixed-effects ANOVA (stra-tum, time since bum, stratum x bum areainteraction iis fixed effects, mound as a ran-dom effect within bum area). When a fac-tor was significant, post hoc Tukey testswere used to determine which treatmentlevels were different. Analyses were all runin SPSS, version U.5.

ResultsMultiple lines of evidence support theoverall hypothesis that indigenous burningcontributed to the maintenance of prairiesLn the Upper Chehalis River hasin. Theyinclude 1) paleoecology and fire historyreconstruction, 2) Contact Period condi-tions, 3) ethnohistoric and ethnographicevidence of prairie buming, 4) ethnologi-cal evidence of the cultural significance ofpraities and woodland edges, and 5) resultsof the field experiment.

Paleoecology and Fire HistoryReconstruction: When DidIndigenous People First Start toUse Buming on a RegularBasis to Manage the Land inSoutKw;estem Washington?Recent high-resolution vegetation histo-ries and charcoal accumulation rate analy-ses In British Columbia support thehypothesis that indigenous burning andfactors other than climate were responsiblefor the persistence of oak savanna and asso-ciated grassland environments during tbepast 2,000 to 3.800 years (Pellatt and oth-ers 2001, Brown and Hebda 2002). Thesedata provide a strong analog for tbe persis-tence of ethnobotanically rich prairie andoak ecosystems in southwestern Washing-ton. However, no similar long term, high-resolution fire history studies exist for

Figure 2. Sam Terpstra sampling camas along mound-intermound gradient on a southwest-

northeast axis at the Glacial Heritage Preserve. Photo by Linda Storm

southwestem Washington. While we doknow that fite frequencies were higher dur-ing the early Holocene (between 10,000and 6,000 years ago) when prairie and oaksavannas became dominant in southwest-em Washington (Bmhaker 1991), we donot have explicit evidence in the form ofKigb resolution charcoal analysis tied toprairie pollen signatures to explain tbe per-sistence of prairies after 6,000 years agowhen climate shifted to a cooler andmoistet periixl. On the other hand, thoughpaleoethnobotanical records from archaeo-logical sites in westem Washington aresparse, there is evidence—charred bulbsfrom a hearth feature—that camas wasprocessed 3,800 years ago in the UpperCbehalis River basin (Schalk and others2005). High-resolution fire history studiesare needed for southwestern Washingtonto truly test the hypothesis that frequent,localized human-ignited fires were respon-sible for maintaining open prairies andsavannas during the cooler, moisterneoglacial period. Without such regionallyspecific paleoecological analyses, one mustcompare prairie extent and distributions atthe time of Euro-American contact toestablish a baseline tor the extent to whichindigenous peoples managed these systemswith fire.

Contact Period Conditions:What Were the Historic Extentand Types of Prairie at the Timeof Euro'American Contact?

"The Indians, in order to preserve theiropen grounds for game, and for the pro-duction of their important TOiM, the camas,soon found tbe advantage of buming."(Cwper 1859:23)

Early explorer accounts describe tbe openlandscape of the lowland Puget Troughprairie region (Douglas 1840:3-11, Wilkes1845, Cooper 1859, Gibbs 1877, Tolmie1963). In 1840, James Douglas drew a map(Leopold and Boyd 1999:149) depicting a"string of prairies" along tbe route fromCowlitz Landing through Grand Moundthat led to the Nisqually Plains atSteitacoom. This route was an Indian trail,which was later adopted as the best inlandroute between the Columbia River andPuget Sound region (Douglas 1840).Douglas notes two distinct types of prairiesoils in this "string of prairies": deep, wetsoils with "rivulets" running tbrougbthem, and the "shingly plains" of glacial,gravel outwash prairies.

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24.4 • DECEMBER 2006 259

The deep-soil prairies were quicklyctjnverted to agriculture following Euro-American settlement. For instance,NewaukutTi, Fords, Jackson, Lincoln,Liicamas, and Boistort prairies were settledearly by Euro-Americans and these praitiesInter became the tt)wns of Centralia,Chebalis, and Boisfort (Smith 1942).Each prairie has a native place name(Kinknde 1991:329-335) and was part oftliL- inhabited landscape that was managedfor subsistence by Cowlitr and UpperChehalis descendants (Matr and others2001). Very little wetland and deep-soilprairies remain today.

The dry, gravel outwash prairies ofPierce and Thurston ct)unties are themost familiar to ecologists (Dunn andEwing 1997). They are what remain ofhistorically more extensive and diversetypes of prairie including the rich, sltt-loam soil wetland prairies (Caplow andMiller 2004, Easterly and others 2005).More than 97 percent of native prairies inTTiutston and Pierce and 99 percent ofprairie.s in Clark, Cowlit:, and Lewiscounties have heen lost (Chappell andothers 2001, Caplow and Miller 2004).The Washington State Natural HeritageProgram (WNHP) estimates that the his-toric extent of South Puget Sound graveloutwash prairies was 150,000 acres(60,000 ha) at the time of Euro-Americansettlement (Chappell and others 2001).About 23.000 acres (9,200 ha) remaintoday, with only 3,000 acres {1,200 ha)comprised of native prairie plants (Chap-pell and others 2001). Tlie extant graveloutwash prairies persist because they werenot easily converted to agriculture, excepttor grazing.

One of the largest gravel outwash soilprairies was Grand Prairie (al.w calledMound Prairie) at Grand Mound, justnorth of where the Chehfilis River hendswestward to make its way to the PacificOcean (Figure 3). North of Grand Mound,in the Black River drainage, MimaMounds and Glacial Heritage Preserves(now only 500 acres or 250 ha are prairie)are all that remain of the once contiguous3,200-acre (1,280-hii) "Mima Prairie,"which was mapped during the 1855 cadas-tral land surveys (Figure 4). Mima Prairieand Grand Mound Prairie were two of sev-

eral tiiounded prairies, representing a frac-tion of the hi.storic extent of prairies at thetime of Euro-American contact. Recently,these prairies have been the subject ofextensive ecological restoration efforts.

EthnohistoriCf Ethnographicand Ethnohotaniccd Evidencefor the Frequency, Timing andPurposes of Prairie BurningTlie process a{ forest encroachment wasalready underway in the 1850s (Cot_)per1859), reflecting 60 or more yeats ofdecline in indigenous populations due tointroduced diseases and the subsequentdecline of their TEM (Boyd 1999b).Fortunately, ethnohistoric and archivalrecords provide itiipt.)rtaiit aiid useful qual-itative evidence for the purposes, timing,and frequeticy of indigenous burning. Forexample, Cecelia Carpenter (1986:17-18),a Nisqually tribal member and historian,describes prairie burning by the Nisquallypeople:

The information has been passed doumto us /ry OUT Nisqually ancestors thatfiyras many years as they could rememberthat during the fall of each year the vastprairie areas that lay on hoth sides of thelower segment of the Nisquidly Riveru^a-e /Turned. B}i burning in the fall ofthe year at a time wl\en the fall I'aiiis hadbegun, the likelihood of the fire gettingout of hand ai\d moving into the forestswas minima/.

The iruiin purpose I sic} of burningthe thick layer of rich Irrairie grass wastwofold. These prairies . . . , u'ereeach fall covered with a thick carpet ofjyrairiegrass, that, ifleftduring the win-ter, would lay as a heavy carpet overthe land prohibiting the spring crop ofcamas plants from pushing up to thesunlight. . . . The camas bulbs, as wellas the tender ihoots of the brackenferns, which also thrived on the burried-over land, were two main sources offood of the tradidorml Nisqually people.

This account reflects both on the season-ality and purposes of burning. Early fallburning also corresponded with the acornharvest (Gibbs 1877:168-170, 194;

Haeberlin and Guntber 1930:21-22),facilitating acom collection, while .simul-taneously stimulating the following sea-.son's rtKit food and berr\' production.

The organized practice of prairie land-scape burning at the end of berry harvestseason (and beginning of actirn harvestseason) is described in derail in an unpub-lished oral account recorded by theanthropologist. Fran: Boas (1927). Thisethnographic account describes how theUpper Chehalis people (ql-waya'elq) "hadhouse.s everywhere along the banks o( theChebalis River" and how they hunted,gathered, and prepared food for winterstorage. Most importantly, it states thatthe people collectively organized "to bumdry grass everywhere on all the prairies"iifter the berry picking season:

They always humed the whole prairIsic] tJTid aho the mountains. Theybunied the heather to make berrypatches just like niaking gardens forblackberries. The [sic] always humedthe piairies to plant eamas and straw-berries. The chiefs said, 'When theearth bums it hums uH the badness ofthe earth and after it has humed itbegins to he good.' Before they humedthe land all t/ie q'.waya'elq assembled.Everyone prepared to watch all thehouses . . . The young rnen and thechiltiren and tlie gfrls went and scatteredall cdong the ChehaUs RiVei' doum riverand up to the head of the ChehalisRiver. Then they burt\ed all the prairiesand some moimtains. After ihey fin-ished burning the larul they assemhledand had a great feast which lasted manydays. They and the Nisqualli werehappy . . . Everywhere they did ihisafter they finished picking berries.When the grass was over all the prairiesthen they first humed the land of theq'.waya'clq.

Cultural asstxiations between prairies,the plants they host, and the role of fire formaintaining them are fitrther illustrated bythe diversity of terms used to describeprairies, fire, and plant communities burned.As examples, the Upper Chehalis word fiirpr̂ iirie is mdipn (camas place). The wordfor camas is qd-um'. Tbere are tenns for

260 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24:4 • DECEMBER 2006

Figure 3. A map of South Puget Sound prairies with mima mounds. From Wasfiburn ^9%% after J, Harian Bretz 1913

"prairie fire" (s?axdIti^Tn), "bumed land" or"land on fire" {q'w?t'dytmS) and fot "placehumed over for berries" ( shx). Almost anentire page of words or terms in The UpperChehalis Dictionary is devoted to fire(Kinkade 1991:194,221), and more than 20words specifically relate to parts or aspects ofptxiirie (Kinkade 1991:273), and each plantspecies used is specifically named (see Table2 for examples).

Forty three (27 percent) of the 157Upper Chehalis place names recorded byKinkade (1991) are prairies. NdiViMj ^m isthe name of several prairies in UpperChehalis territory. Tlie word means "bigprairie." One of these lies at the conflu-ence of the Newaukum and Chehalisrivers, and is where both camas and wildcarrots (likely yampah, Peridendia gaird-ncri) were harvested (Kinkade 1991:332).Another Is located farther up-river in theBi.iisfort Valley. Unfortunately, none of theoriginal vegetation of either "big prairie"remains, but the natnes and stories tied tothem record critical ecological and cul-tural knowledge about these importantgathering sites and indigenous villagelocations (Adamson 1934).

For southwestern Washington prairies,about 83 percent of 153 nati\'e prairie plantspecies have cultural uses. At least 35 per-cent of these are food plants (Norton 1979a,Leopold and Boyd 1999, Stonn 2004). The

Hwnship IfBUStrik JUm 1^'SmstJnUa.nutie Meridian''^

Figure 4. Mima Prairie, which is situated just to the southeast of the mountainous area in thenorthwest sector of this 1855 General Land Office Survey map. The surveyor wrote about thisprairie, "Rolling, gravelly prairie soil, second rate." The area to the east is wooded or brushywith hazel, ferns, maple, fir, and cedar.

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24:4 • DECEMBER 2QQ6 261

Table 2. Edible prairie and prairie woodland edge species with Upper Chehalisnames

Common name Scientific name Upper Chehalis name

Shoots/Greenssalmonberry leaveswild celeries:

Indian celery, wild parsnipwild parsnipcow parsnipwater parsley

Rootscommon camascommon camascooked camas, partly cooked,

and dried and stored for wintergiant camasprairie sunflowerbutton camas, biscuitroottiger lily, tiger lily rootwild carrot, yampahsmall sweet carrotwild onions & false wild onionsbracken fernbracken fern root to make bread

Fruits & BerriesJuneberry, serviceberry, saskatoonprairie huckleberrybearberry (kinnikinnick)blue elderberry, blue

elderberry bushIndian plum, Indian plum bushwild blackberryblackberry vineseat blackberrieswild raspberry/blackcapsalmonberry

thimbleberry, thimbleberry patchcrabapple, crabapple bushwild strawberrywild strawberry patch

Nuts & Seedsoak tree

acorns or "oak berry"hazelnut, hazelprairie sunflower

Rubus spectabi7is

Lomatfum nudicauie,Lomatium tnternatumHeraculum lanatumOenanthe sarmentosa

Camassia quamash ssp. azureaCamassia quamash ssp. maxima

Camassia leichtfiniiBalsamorhiza dekoideaLomatium utriculatumLilium columbianumPerideridia gairdneri

Ailium spp. and Brodiaea spp.Pteridium aquilinum

Amelanchier alnHoHaVaccinium caespitosumArctostaphyhs uva-ursiSambucus cerulea

Osmaronia cerasiformisRubus ursinus

Rubus leucodermisRubus spectabiiisRubus parviflorumMa/us fuscaFragaria virginiana

Quercus garryana

Corylus cornutaBalsamorhiza dehoidea

Yan-c

Qw&l. m ts

qa-wm'qawm'qe?q, sxic'awqt, ts'v x

?ukwtla {oqulia)p'ali'w'tS'/snd-'masilc'l, c'aqwe?sxak'wmsa'wtmaxal'u?, qiwalqspatakwn'ls?aq or x&qc

cass, q'walastmK'ap&nt (?)sq'iwan', kaya'nlc'kwikw, c'kwikwnl

c'axwa?, c'axwan'lSxwassxwasnl, xwasnl?iissxwastnmackwyatwa?q'wa?xw. q'wa?xwn Iscum', scum'n7Catsa?c'atisar\i, c'atisa?nl

swisi, Lu .kSwisk'ap'uxw, k'ap''uxwnilp'aiiw' stalx

restinrmnies oi Upper Chehalis elders fur-ther illustrate the erhnobotanical Impor-tance of prairies (Duwamish and others v.United States of America 1933). In 1927Arthur E. Griffin took oral testimonies todocument the traditional use areas of west-cm Washington non-treaty tribes. MaryHeck, then 92 years old and an UpperChehalis Tribal member, identified theUpper Chehalis territory as a land of plenty

(Duwamish and others 193.3:529-541).When asked what kind of food the prairiessupplied, she replied "we get the sunflowerroots, for one kind. They take that up andhake it and use it for food." She goes on "akind of wild onion, and lacamas le.g., com-mon hlue camas, Camassia quamash] wasthe chief food they had, like bread or some-thing like that. Then they had other rotxsthat were three or four times bigger in site

than rhe lacamas, but they were jusr thesame, the same shape, same form, only theygot another name to it. They called it,?quilUi" [this is giant camas, Camassialeichilinii] (see Figure 5 for the two camasspecies). Other foods produced on theprairie included "lots of wild rhubarb andspinach," (wild spinach refers to wildgreens, most likely in the ChenopodiaceaeFamily) and "all kinds of herries." She said"they had kinikinik berries, black berries,wild raspberries, and crabapples, salmonberries, salal berries, and another kind ofberry they call kamodk . . . They hadJuneberries, wild currents, blackcap rasp-berries and lots of blueberries," and "thim-ble berries grow along the edge of theprairies." When asked if they had strawber-ries, she said "there was so much strawber-ries you can smell it from a distance."

Marion Davis, a 76-year-old UpperChehalis man in 1927, remembered"Berries; was just full of berries all over,strawberries on every prairie" and that theprairies were "sttxked fiill of game" at thetime of the treaties (Mary Heck and MarionDavis testimonies from Duwamish and oth-ers 1933:530-533, 544 respectively; seeTable 2 tor scientific and Upper Chehalisnames oi these plants).

Roots of wild sunflower {Balsamorhizadekoidea), tiger lily {Liiium columbianum),wild carrots or yampah, camas {Camassiaquamash and C. leichdinii), Indian rice-root or chocolate lily {Fridlaria affinis syn.F. lanceolata)i and false onions {Bradiaeaspp.) were gathered from the prairies nearRochester and Grand Mound (Adamson1926-1927, Miller 1999). Wild sunflowerroots were mashed to make a root beer-like beverage. Strawberries (Fragaria vir-giniana), serviceberries or Juneberries{Amelanchier alnifolia) and other berrieswere gathered in June, and eaten fresh ordried and stored for winter, Acorns andhazelnuts were harvested in the fall.Acorns were either placed in mud banksfor the winter to leach out the tannins orcooked overnight on hot rocks in a pit(Duwamish and others 1933:531, Miller1999:20). Bracken fern {Pteridium aquii-inum) rhizomes were also harvested,roasted in ashes and pounded into flour tomake hread (Haeberlin and Gunther1930, Norton 1979b). Large quantities of

262 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24:4 • DECEMBER 2006

roots, berries, and acoms were processedand stored for winter along with smokedsalmon and other meats, including deer,elk, bear, and small mammals.

Quantitative Field Experiment:Ho\v Does Burning InfluenceCamas Productivity?C'amas was one ai the most abundant andculturally important prairie plants(Gunther 1974:24)- Its role as a staple tothe inland, up-river Salish people is welldocumented in archival and ethnographicrecords (Cooper 1859; Gibbs 1877:170,193; Adamson 1926-27; Haeberlin andGunther 1930; Smitb 1940). The antiq-uity of camas processing from the UpperChehalis River basin is in the form of twocharTed camas hulbs tbat date to .3,870 ''̂ Cyears ago (Schalk and others 2005). Thesecharred bulbs were recovered from anintact hearth located at the historic prairieand Upper Chehalis village site namedtd- ?n'c'Sr\' (Ford's Prairie) at the site oi thecontemporary Centralia sewage treatmentplant. This paleoethnobotanical evidencesuggests that prairie ecosystems were pre-sent and likely being managed with firemore than 3,000 years ago. Ethnograph-ically, large quantities of camas were har-vested, proces.sed in pit or earth ovens, andstored for winter (Hajda 1990:507).Surplus camas was traded from westernWashington to groups east of tbe moun-tains (Gibbs 1877:170). Native elder testi-mony confirms the diverse and abundantprairie resources were managed and main-tained by frequent, low intensity fires:

"In this tribe here, the chiefs in monthof August compeU [sicj the Indiam tobum the {nairies, to make the grassgrow well, the strawberries plentiful,and black berries." —Jonas Secena,Chehaiis (Adamson 1926-1927:348)

The results of our experiment indi-cate tbat time since bum (between 1, 2, 3years) bad a significant effect (p < 0.001)on the overall abundance of camas (Tahle3). Areas that were burned annually orbiannualiy had significantly more above-ground mature camas plants, than didareas bumed every three years (Tukey

Figure 5. Left, common blue camas {Camassia quamash) and right, giant camas {Camassia

leichttiniii. Upper Chehalis names for these plants are qa-wm' and Tukwlla, respectively.

test). The results also indicate a signifi-cant difterencL' (p < 0.001) between burntreatment areas in terms of the average MIof plants (Table 4). The combination ofthese test results supports the hypothesisthat frequent buming increases camasproductivity by increasing 1) the overallnumber oi mature catnas plants availablefor harvest and 2) che season of harvest byextending the effective flowering-fruitingperiod. These results lend credibility tothe historically and ethnographicallyreported one- to two-year fire returninterval tor prairie burning. Results aregenerally consistent with expectationsexcept that the area bumed every otheryear showed greater camas abundance butlower average maturity. This result may beexplained by other variables, such asgreater moisture at that particular bumsite or it may indicate that two years arerequired for full recovery from burning.Longer-term burn treatments should beperformed to ascertain whether camaswould continue to be productive with

repeat burning at this return intervalwithin the same patch (Dunwiddie 2002).

Findings andRecommendations

Implications of ReconstructingIndigenous Fire Regimes forPacific Northwest EcologicalRestorationists

"If land managers, ecologists, and archae-ologists understand the intricacies andmechanics of how and why native peopleshaped ecosystems, this will enrich theirinventory of managemetit methods, andthey will be in a beiter pt>sition to makeinformed, historically based decisions."(Anderson and Barbour 2003:276)

A question that ecological restorationistsmust contemplate is whether to consider

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24:4 • DECEMBER 2006 263

Table 3. Post-hoc Tukey test results at the 95-percent confidence interval showingaverage camas per sample for each burn treatment (time since burn = 1 year, 2 years,3 years) and control (burn = 0 year}. Significantly different averages are placed in sep-arate columns (subsets). Mean camas abundance was significantly greater in plots inthe 2-years since burn area (subset 3 with an average of 26 camas/sample) than in the1-year since burn area (subset 2 with average 14 plants/sample), the 3-years sinceburn area (average 7 plants/sample), or the control (average 6 plants/sample). Theaverage number of camas was not different in the control and 3-year burn areas.

Years since burn Sample size Subset 1 Subset 2 Subset 3

0312

1391.06137118

67

1426

Table 4 . Post-hoc Tukey test results at the 95-percent confidence interval showingaverage Matur i ty Index (Ml) per sample fo r each burn t rea tment (t ime since burn =1 year, 2 years, 3 years). Significantly di f ferent averages are placed In separatecolumns (subsets). The results of this test show a signif icant dif ference betweeneach burn t reatment site and camas M l . Mean MI was signif icantly greater in plotsin the 1-year since burn area (subset 3 wi th an average Ml of 2.52/sample) than inthe 3-years since burn area (subset 2 w i th average Ml of 2.37/sampte) or the 2-yearssince burn area (average Ml of 1.52/sample).

Years since burn Sample size Subset 1 Subset 2 Subset 311697

124

1.522.37

2.52

indigenous fire frequency as "natural" orseek to mimic historic fire regimes byunderstanding and incorporating indige-nous TEM practices. Andenwm (2005:335)iiffjLies that restoring landscapes and ecosys-tems to a condition that is self-sustainingmay be imptissible if that "natural" condi-riim has not existed in the last ten to twelvethousand years. Therefore, understandingthe practices, patterns and effects of indige-nous fire management is critical Co restoringhistoric fire regimes. To do so requires aninterdisciplinary and integrative approachthat addresses issues of scale (in time andspace) and acknowledges the importantrole of indigenous peoples' TEM (Andersonand Barbour 2003, Anderstin 2005).

In this paper, we compiled multiplelines of evidence (Table 1) that were usedto gain an understanding for the formertiming, purposes, extent, and effects ofindigenous burning practices of south-western Washington prairies. We foundthat: 1) tlie distribution and locations ofhistoric prairies were extensive, includingprairies with both wet and dry soils and

different plnnt assemblages, 2) eachprairie place is named in the UpperChehalis language and many are men-tioned in oral history and traditions(embedding indigenous histories into thelandscapes they managed and maintainedfor thousands of years), 3) the prairieswere predominantly bumed in the falland were burned for a variety of reasons,includitig the production of roots, berries,nuts, and as habitats for hunted mammals,4) fire frequencies at the prairie landscapescale likely occurred on one to two yearreturn-intervals, 5) camas productivityincreases with burning on one and twoyear retum-intervals, 6) the camas flower-ing-fruiting season is extended in prairieswith Mima mounds, which would haveextended the camas harvest season, and7) camas processing (and likely prairieTEM) dates back 3,800 years ago in theUpper Chehalis River basin.

Because most western Washingtonprairie restoration is driven by habitat con-servation and species recovery objectives(Pendergrass and others 1999, Dimwiddie

and others 2001, Kaye and others 2001,Schuitz 2001), very few restoration pro-jects or recovery plans explicitly addresscultural objectives or deliberately simulateindigenous management practices (hut seeShebitz 2005). We recommend thatrestorarionists seek to understand past cul-tural practices and incorporate them intorestoration planning because of the effectsthat indigenous buming had on popula-tions, community and landscape scales ofecological organization in the past(Beckwith 2004. Detir and Turner 2005,Anderson 2005).

We recommend a framework (Table 5)for developing restoration projects in land-scapes that were formerly managed byindigenous buming. In this framework,reconstructing historic fire regimes thatreflect indigenous peoples' managementpractices and their reasons to bum is anessential first step to restoring traditionallymanaged prairies to pre-European settle-ment conditions. Site selection andexploratory experiments to simulate indige-nous management techniqiies are other keysteps. Our framework builds ufKm recom-mendations for restoring endangeredspecies habitats and for applying indigenousmanagement practices to restoration pro-jects (Schult: 2001, Anderson 2005). ForKith sets ot objectives, it is important tounderstand what tbe distribution, geo-graphical extent, and species compositionof historic prairies and savannas were in thepast. Understanding how indigenous man-agement practices shaped the ecology ofthese habitats includes teaming what thehistoric species assemblages were, the waysindigenous people used fire and othermanagement techniques, incltiJing howethnohotanical plants were harx'esteJ(AnderM.in 2005:339-340). Whether focalspecies are culturally significant or at riskof endangerment, retuming frequent,low-intensity fires and implementing fol-low-up monitoring are essential restora-tion project elements.

We recognize that prairie restorationmust also address current conditions andlimitations, particularly the effects of largefuel accumulations, introduced speciesand their responses to fire, and otherforms of disturbance (Dunwiddie 2002,Lesica and Martin 2003). We also

264 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24:4 • DECEMBER 2006

Table 5. Recommended framework for integrating indigenous TEM into prairie restoration projects and recovery strategies inthe Pacific Northwest.

Task Potential methods Contribution to restoration

Reconstruct historical anthropogenic fireregimes by researching past ecological andcultural condition of the area (ranging inscale from regional landscape history to thesite of interest)

Ethnographic interviews

Evaluate ethnological and ethnobotanicaldata

Tree establishment dates and fire scar data

Current ecological conditions: e.g.,distribution of shade-intoterant species, treegrowth forms, fire scars

Historic maps, surveys, documents,photographs

Explorer journals and notes

Published literature

High resolution charcoal area recruitment(CHAR) analysis in association with pollencore data

Review paleoecological and archaeologicaldata

The regional past extent of anthropogenicallymanaged systems enables you to see theformer relationship between your system ofinterest and the landscape

Past species presence and distribution asaims of restoration

Past fire regimes can assist in developingmanagement strategies. Research similarrestoration projects involving fire in theecosystem of interest

Research similar restoration projects involvingfire in the ecosystem of interest

Review published literature

Contact governmental, tribal andconservation agencies

Learn from others' successes and failuresprior to initiating your own restoration

Learn about former TEM of cultural resources Review published literature

Conduct interviews with tribal members

Review previously-conducted interviews

Past management can assist currentrestoration objectives by ensuring presenceof desired species

Designate the area for restoration activity

Select a reference ecosystem if available

Work with indigenous groups, governmentalagencies, and conservation agencies todetermine sites that were formerly managedthrough anthropogenic fire that are feasiblefor current and future study

A restoration project is only successful if thesite is appropriately selected. The moreinteractions with local stakeholders you have,the more knowledge about the site will belearned

Conduct small-scale experiments tounderstand the initial and potential long-termeffects of reintroducing burning

Record pre-disturbance (i.e. firereintroduction) ecological conditions,focusing on species of interest

Work with land management groups (firecrews) to introduce disturbance

Experiments provide unparalleledopportunities to understand the effects offire, on both a species and ecosystem level

Prepare the site for larger burns if desired Thin to reduce fuel loads

Change the vegetation structure to representan early serai community

Introduce seeds of desired species

Initiating the restoration includes sitepreparation and plant installation of desiredspecies

Adaptively manage the site based onmonitoring and evaluation (ecologicalfindings) from initial and subsequent burns

Reintroduce burning at former frequenciesand intensities if feasible

If frequent fire is not practical due tobudgetary, environmental, or socialconstraints, experiment with effects ofdifferent management techniques (i.e.clearing woody vegetation manually,mechanically or with herbicides)

Restoring the site to its pre-Europeansettlement condition will likely have thebenefits of reintroducing landscapeheterogeneity and ensuring the presence ofspecies of ecological and cultural valueassociated with that successional stage

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24:4 • DLCEMBER 2006 265

acknowledge that the TEM practices thatinfluenced prairie ecology and camas pro-ductivity included much more than firemanagement^see Beckwith (2004) fordetails on traditional harvesting practicesand their effects on camas bulb size andtjffset production and Anderson (2005)for details on the many different types ofindigenous management practices thatinfluenced plant communities.

We believe that culturally significantethnobotanical plants and at-risk speciescan hoth be restored by reconstructinghistorical fire regimes that accuratelyreflect long-term, indigenous manage-ment practices. Beckwith (2004:224) saysthat a sense of roots (origins) is a necessaryIngredient of ecological restoration, espe-cially if restoration is to accurately reflectthe historical ecology and ethnoecologyof place. To do so requires understandingthe deep past, including environmentaland cultural processes that shaped theplaces that we seek to restore today.

REFERENCESAJamson, T. 1926-1927- Unarranged Sources

of Chehalis ethnology: Unpuhlished man-iLScript. University of Wiishington. SpecialCollections Archives, Melville Jacobs col-lection box 107.. 1934. Folk-tales of the Coast Salish.hAemoirs of the American FoUc'Lure Society.Vol. 27. New York.

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific North-uiestfcrrests. Washington. D.C. Island Press.

Ames, K.M. 2005. Intensification of food pro-duction on the Northwest Coast and else-where. Pages 67-101 in D. Deur and N.Turner (eds.), Keeping ii living: Traditionsot plant use and cultivation on theNorthwest Coast of North America.Scartle: University of Washington Pressand Vancouver and Toronto; UBC Press.

Ames, K.M. and H.D.G. Maschner. 1999.Peoples of the Nonhwcsc Coast: Their archac-olo^ and prehistory. London: Thames SiH Lidson.

Anderson, M. K. Tending the wilderness. Re-iunation & Management Noto 14(2): 154-166.. 2001. The contrihurion of echnobiologyto the recotis true t ion and restoration ofhistoric ecosystems. Pages 55-72 in D. Eganand E.A. Howell (eds.). The historicalecology handbook: A restorationists guideto reference ecosystems. Washington,D.C: Island Press.. 2005. Teiiding the wild: Native Americanknowledge and the miinagement ofCalifirmia'siiaturcd resources. Berkeley: University of

California Press.Anderson, M.K. and M, Barbour. 2003,

Simulared Indigenous Management: Anew model for ecological restoration innational parks. Ecoki^cd Resurration 11 (4):269-277.

Bamosky, C. W. 1985. Late Quaternary vege-tation near Battle Ground Lake, SouthernPugct Trough, Washington. Geolo^calSociety of America Buiierin. 96:263-271

Beckwith, B. 2004- "The queen root of thisclime": Ethnoeciilogical investigations ofblue camas (Caijuis.siii leichtlinii (Baker)Wats., C. quamash (Pursh) Greene; Lili-aceae) and irs landscapes on southemVancouver Island, British Columbia. Ph.D.di.ssertation, University of British Columbia,Victoria, B.C.

Blackburn, T. and M.K. Anderstin. 1993. Be/oreihe Wilderness: Eni'inmmenrai managc-n\ent bynative Califomians. Bailena Press.

Boas, F. 1927. The chief and his house.Chehalis Folklore. Unpublished Manuscript(*587). American Council on LearnedSocieties Committee on North AmericanLanguages. Philidelphia: American Philo-sophical SiKiety.

Boyd, R. (ed.). 1999a. Indians, fire and the kityiin the Pacific Northwest. Corvallis: OregonState University Press..1999b. Coming of the spirit of pestilence:Introduced diseases and population declineaimmgNorthwesiCoast Ir^ians, 1774-1874.Seattle: University of Washington Pressand Vancouver and Toronto; UBC Press.

Bretz. J.H. 1913. Glaciation of the PugetSound region. Olympic, Washington.Geological Survey Bulletin ^8.

Brown. K.J. and R.J. Hekla, 2002. Ancientfires on southem Vancouver I.sland, BritishColumbia, Canada: A Change in CausalMechanisms at about 2,000 ybp. Environ-mental Archaeolo^ 7:1-12.

Brubaker, L. 1991. Climate cbange and tbeoigin of old-gRJwth Dciuglas-fir forests inthe Puget Sound Lowknd. Pages 17-34 inL.F. Ruggiero, K.B. Aiibry, A.B. Carey andM.H. Huff (eds.). Wildlife and vegetationof unmanaged Douglas-fir forests. USDAForesr Service, Pacific Northwest RangerStation. Genera! Technical Report PNW-GTR-285.

Caplow, F and J. Miller. 2004. SouthwesternWashington prairies: Using GIS to find rem-nant prairies and rare plant habitat.Prepared by the Washington Natural Heri-tage Program. Department of NaturalResources for the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, Endangered Species Act Section 6fundingGrant Agreement E-2, Segment 35,

Carpenter, C.S. 1986. Fort Ni.^q:ially: A docu-mented hiswry of Indian and British interac-tions. Tacomn, WA: Tahoma ResearchPublication.

Chappell, CB., M.S. Mohn Gee, B. Stephens,R.Crawford and S. Farone. 2001. Distri-

bution and decline tif native gra.sslands andoak woodlands in the Puget LowUind ;mdWillamette Valley ecoregions, Washing-ton. Pages 123-138 in S.H. Reichard, PW,Dunwiddie, J.G, Gamon, A.R. Krukehergand D.L. Salstrom (eds.). Conservation ofWashington's rare plants and ecosystems.Seattle: Washington Native Plant Society,

Clark, J.S. and RD. Royail. 1995, UKal andregional sediment charcoal evidence forfire regimes in prcsettlement North-Eastern North America. Journal of Ecology84:365-382.

Connelly, TJ. 2000. Anthropological andarchaeological perspectives on native firemanagemeni.of(he Willamette Valley. Paperpresented at theSlst Annual Meeting of theAmerican Association for the Advancementoi Science. Pacific Division (Symposium:Fire History in the Pacific Northwest:Human and Climatic Influences). June II-14. 2000, Ashland, Oregon.

Ctmnelly, T.J., CM. Hodges, G.L. Tasa andB.L. O'Neill. 1997, Cultural chronologyand environmental history in theWillamette Valley, Oregon. Presented atthe 50th Annual Northwest Anthropo-logical Conference, April 17-19, 1997,EUensberg, Washington.

Cooper, J.G. 1859. Report on the botany ofthe route. In J.G. Cooper and Dr. G.Suckley. The natural history of Wash-ington Territory. E.\plorations and surveyfor a railroad route from the MississippiRiver to the Pacific Ocean. War Depart-ment. New York: Bailliere Brothers.

Crumley, C.L. (ed.). 1994. Historical ecology:Cultural knowledge and chanj^ing land-scapes, Sanre Fe, NM: Schtwl of AmericanResearch Press.

L")eur, D. and N.J. Turner {eds.). 2005. Keepingit living: Traditions ofplanl use and cultivationon the Northmcsi Coast of Nori/i America.University of Washington Press: Seattleand UBC Press: Vancouver and Toronto.

Douglas, J, 1840. Diary of H trip to theNorthwest Coast April 22-October 2,1840, (Source: Transcription of original.Brifish Columbia Provincial Archives. AB40,D75.2A).

Dunn. P. and K. Fwing. 1997. Ecology andconservation of the South Puget Soundprairie landscape. Seattle, Washington:The Nature Conservancy,

Ounwiddie, P.W. 2002. Management andrestoration of grasslands on Yellow Island,San Juan Islands, Washington, USA. Pages78-87 in PJ, Burton (ed.), Proceedings ofthe Third .Annual Meeting of rhe B.C.Chapter of the Society for EcologicalRestoration, April 27-28, 2002, Universityof Victoria. B.C and the British ColumbiaChapter of the Society for EcologicalRestoration.

Dunwiddie, PW., R. Davenport and P Speaks,2001. Effects ot buming on Castileja levi-

266 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24:4 • DECE-:MH[;K 2006

secta at Rocky Prairie Natural AreaPreserve, Washington; A summary of threelong-term studies. Pages 151-172 in S.H.Reichard, P.W. I'Xinwiddic, J.G. Gamon,A.R. Krukeberg and D.L. Salstrom (cds.).Conservation of Washington's rare plantsand ecosystems. Seattle: WashingtonNative Plant Society.

The Duwamish, Lummi, Wliidby Island,Skagit. Upper Skagit, SwinomLsh, Kikiallus,Snohomish, Snoqualmie, Stillaguamish,Suquamish, Samish, Puyallup, Squaxin,Skokomish, Upper Chehalis, MucklesKoot,Nooksack, Chinook, and San Juan IslandsTribes of Indians vs. The United States ofAmerica. 1933. Consolidated Petition(Docket No. F-275). Seattle: Argus Press.

Easterly, R.T., D.L. Salsttom and C.B.Chappell. 2005. Wet frrairie iwaks of iheSouth Puget Sounti, WasKington. Seattle:The Nature Conser\Tincy of Washington.

Egan, D. and E.A. Howell. 2001. The historicalecology handbook: A restorationist's guide toreference ecosystems. Washington, D.C.:Island Press.

French. D. 1999. Aboriginal conttoi of huck-leberry yield in the Northwest. Pages 31-35m R. Eioyd (ed.), Jndiarxs, fire and the land mthe Pacific Northwest. Corvallis: OregonState University Press.

Gibbs, G. 1877. Tribes of Western Washingtonand Northwestern Oregon. Pages 157-241in Qmtributions to North American eth-nology. Volume I. Department of theInterior U.S. Geographical and GeologicalSurvey of the Rocky Mountain Region. J.W,Powell, Geologist in Charge. Washington:Government Printing Office.

Giles. L.J. 1970. The ecology of the mounds onMima Prairie with special reference toDouglas fir invasion. M.S. thesis.University of Washington-Seattle.

Gunther, E. 1974. Ethnobomny of westernWashington: The knowledge and use of indige-nous plants by Native Americans. Seattle:University of Washington Press.

Haeberlin, H. and E. Gunther. 1930. TheIndiam ofPugei Souiui. University of Wash-ington Publications in Anthropology 4(1)-Seattle: University' of Washington Press.

Hajda, Y.P. 1990. Southwestern Coast Salish.In W. Suttles (ed.). Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians: Northwest coast.Volume 7. W. C. Sturevant, general editor.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute.

Hallett, D.J. and R.C. Walker. 2000.Paleoecology and its application to fire andvegetation management in KootenayNational Park, British Columbia. Journal o/PhcoUmnology 24:401-414.

Hebda, R.J, and RW. Mathewes. 1984. Holo-cene history of cedar and Native Indiancultures of the North American PaciHcCoast. Science 225:711-713.

Hebda, R. J. and C. Whitlock, 1997. Environ-mental history. Pages 227-254 in P.K.

Schoonmaker, B. von Hagen and E.C.Wolf (eds.). The rain forests of home:Profile of a North American bioregion.Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Huntington, H.P 2000 Using traditional eco-logical knowledge in science: Meth*xls andApplicatior\s. Ecological Applicaaons 10(5):1270-1274.

Kaye, T.N., K.L. Pendergrass, K. Finley andJ.B. Kauffman. 2001. The effect of fire onthe population viability of an endangeredpraitie plant. EcoIogicdJ Applications11(5):1366-138O.

Kimmeter, R.W. and F.K. Lake. 2001. The roleof indigenous burning in land manage-ment. Journal of F(̂ res£r̂ 99( 11 ):36-41.

Kinkade, M.D, 1991. Upper Chehalis dictio-nary. University of Montana OccasionalPapers in Linguistics, No. 7. Missoula: Uni-versity of Montana.

Kruckeberg, A.R. 1991. The natural history ofPuget Sound country. Seattle and London:University of Washington Press.

Lang, F. 1961. A study of vegetation change onthe gravelly prairies of Pierce and Thurstoncounties. Western Washington. M.S. thesis.University of Washington, Seattle.

Lantz, TC. and N.J, Turner. 2003. Traditionalphenological knowledge of aboriginal peo-ples in British Columbia. Journal of Ethno'biology 23(2):263-286,

Leopold, E.B. and R. Boyd, 1999. An ecologi-cal history of old prairie areas in southwest-em Washington. Pages 139-163 in R. Boyd(ed.), Indians, fire and the land in thePacific Northwest. Corvallis: Oregon StateUniversity Press.

Lesica. P. and B. Martin. 2003. Effects of pre-scribed fire and season of bum on recruit-ment of the invasive exotic plant, PoiemiUarecta, in a semiarid grassland. RestoraaonEcology ll(4):516-523.

Lewis, HT. 1993, Patterns of Indian bumingin Califomia: Ecology and ethnohistory.Pages 55-116 in TC. Blackburn and M,K,Anderson (eds,). Before the wilderness:Environmental management by NativeCalifomians. Menlo Park: Ballena Press.

Marr, C , D. Hicks and K. Francis. 2001 (orig-inal 1989). The Chehdis people, Third edi-tion revised for the Cbehalis tribe byRichard Bellon and funded hy theConfederated Tribes of the ChehalisReservation. Oakville, Washington

Miller. J. 1999. Chebalis area traditions: A sum-mary of TTielma Adamson's 1927 ethno-graphic notes. Northwest AnthropologicalResearch Notes 33:1-72.

Norton, H.H.1979a. Tbe asstxiation betweenanthropogenic prairies and impi:trtant ioodplants in westem Washington. NorthwestAntfiropoiogica/ Research Notes 13(2):175-200..1979b. Evidence for bracken fem as a fotid

for aboriginal peoples of westem Wash-ington. Economic Botany 33(4):384-396.

Norton, H.H,, R. Boyd and E. Hunn, 1999, TbeKlickitat Trail of south central Washington:A reconstruction of seasonally used resourcessites. Pages 65-93 in R. Boyd (ed.), Indians,fire and die land in the Pacific Northwest.C^orvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Pellatt, M.G., R.J. Helxla, and R.W. Mathewes.2001. High-resolution Holoccne vegetationhistory and climate trotn Hole 1034B, ODPleg 169S, Saanich Inlet, Canada. MarineGeohgy 174:211-226.

Pendergrass, K.L., P.M. Miller, J.B. Kauffman.andTN.Kaye. 1999. Tbe role of prescribedburning in maintenance of an endangeredplant species, Lomatium hradihauiii. Eco-logical Applications 9{^)-M20-l^29.

Peter, D, and D.J, Sbebitz, In Press. Historicanthropogenically-maintained beargrasssavannas of the southeastern OlympicPeninsula. Restoration Ecology.

Porter. S.C. and TW, Swanson. 1998. Radio-carbon age constraints on rates of ad\'anceand retreat of the Puget Lobe of the Girdil-leran Ice Sheet during the Last Giaciation.Quaternary Research 50:205-2 H.

Ruppert. D, 2003. Building partnerships be-tween American Indian tribes and theNational Park Service. Ecological Re.stijrn-(ion 21(4)^261-263.

Schalk. R,. M. Breidenthal. N. Stenholm andM, Woiverton. 2005. Archaeological mon-itoring and evaluation for tbe Centraliaw;istewater .system itnprovements project,Cascadia Archaeology, Seattle, Wash-ington. Report prepared for CH2M HILL,Bellevut, Washington. Purcha.se OrderNo.: 60026

Schult:, C.B, 2001. Restoring resources for anendangered butterfly. Journal of AppliedEcobgy. 38:1007-1019,

Shebit;, D, J. 2005, Weaving traditional eco-logical knowledge into the restoration otbasketry plants, jounid of Ecological Antdro-|x)bg^ 9:51-68,

Smith. H. 1942. CeniraUa: The first fifty years1845-1900: The donation and homesteadperiod. Centralia. Washington: The DailyChnmicle and F,H. Cole Printing Co.

Smith. M.W. 1940. The Puyallup-Nisqually.New York: Columbia University Press.

Storm. L.E, 2002. Patterns anJ processes otindigenous burning: How to read landscapesignatures of past buman practices. Pages496-510 in J.R. Stepp, ES. Wyndham andR. K. Zarger (eds.), Ethnobiology and bio-cultural diversity, Athens: University ofGeorgia Press..̂ 2004. Prairie fires & earth mounds: Tlie

ethnoecology of Upper Chehalis Prairies.Douglasia 28(3):6-9.

Swetnam, T.W., C D . Allen and J,L,Betancourt. 1999. Applied historical ecol-ogy: Using the pa.st to manage the future.Ecological Applicatiuns 9(4):1189-1206.

Tolmie. W. 1963, The journals of William EraserToimic—Ph5i.sician and fur trader. Vancouver.

ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24:4 • DECEMIIER 2006 267

BC: Mitchell Press Limited,Tsukada, M., S- Siigita and D.M. Huhbert. I9K1,

Paleoecology of the Pacific Northwest. 1.Late Quaternary' vegetation and climate.Va"/K.irui/Hn̂ 'L'7i der inummtioruiL'n VWuingiin^fiir theirretisclie wul angewundte Umnologie.21:730-737.

Tsukada, M. and S. Sugita. 1^82. Late Quatem-ary dynamics of pollen influx at MineralLake, Wiishington, Bottin^ Miigazine (Japan)95:401-418.

Turner. N,j. I'̂ 99, Time to burn: Traditionaluse iif fire to enhance resource productionby aboriginal peoples in Briclsb Columbia.Pages 185-218 m R, Boyd (ed.). Indians,fire and the land in the Pacific Northwest.

Cor\^allis; Oregon State University Press.White, R. 1975. Indian land use and environ-

mental change: Island County, Washing-ton: A case study. Ari;onci aiul the West17:^27-V?8.

Wilkes, C. 1845. Narratii'e of the UniiedStateiExlAoring Expedition during the years iS38,IS39. iS40, 1841. 1842. Volume 4, Phila-delphia: Lea and Blanchard.

Wray, J, and M.K. Anderson, 2003. RestoringIndian-set fires to prairie ecosystems on theOlympic Peninsula. Ecolo^cal Restoration21(4):296-301.

U^^da Suwtn h CL Ph.D. cwuklate in ethnchot£a\yleihnoecoh^' in the Eiwironmenuil .\mhropolof;yProgram. AiWiruJxiiij '̂ UeSxinvwJU, Unk'enUy ofWashmgum. Box 35ilOO. Seattle. WA 98/95;206/769-5638, lstorm@u.umhingiun.edu. Uurnnbl®cu^.cum.

Danieki Shehitz, Ph.D.. is an assistant professor inthe Bioloiry Department. College of Natural.AfipUed and Health Sciences, Kean University.1000 Morris Avenue. Union. N} 07083.

268 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION 24:4 • DHCKMBER 2006