climas - core

Fire in Indian Country

Two Case Studies in the

Southwestern United States

CLIMAS• Institute for the Study of Planet Earth

Climate Assessment for the Southwest

Diane Austin & Barbara Wolf

CLIMAS Report Series CL1-01

brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by ASU Digital Repository

https://core.ac.uk/display/79563322?utm_source=pdf&utm_medium=banner&utm_campaign=pdf-decoration-v1

Diane AustinBureau of Applied Research in Anthropology

Barbara WolfBureau of Applied Research in Anthropology

Published byThe Climate Assessment Project for the Southwest (CLIMAS)Institute for the Study of Planet EarthThe University of ArizonaTucson, Arizona

CLIMAS Report Series CL 1-01October 2001


Two Case Studies in the

Southwestern United States

ii

CLIMAS

Foreword

As long-time residents of North America, NativeAmericans1 have much experience with both climaticvariation and strategies for coping with change. NativeAmerican tribes and tribal organizations are uniqueand important partners to those doing climate-relatedresearch and outreach, especially in the Southwest.Through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Ad-ministration Climate Assessment for the Southwest(CLIMAS)2 project, climate-related issues of concernto Native Americans are being addressed. An initial re-port, “Building Partnerships with Native Americans inClimate Related Research and Outreach” (Austin et al.2000), established a framework for carrying out cli-mate impacts research with tribes.

The research presented here documents institutionaland organizational factors affecting fire managementon tribal lands. Two case studies of fires occurring ontribal lands in Arizona provide insights into how thesefactors converged to influence the course of events.These case studies provide a foundation for consider-ing more broadly the implications of climatic condi-tions and use (or potential use) of climate informationfor managing fire on tribal lands.

In this light, this study considers historic as well as cur-rent conditions and events because these affect whetheror not people are receptive to information, to plan-ning, and to working together. This report is intendedfor a broad audience, including tribal, federal, and lo-cal policy makers, natural resource managers, and cli-mate information specialists. Though it focuses on de-cision making within tribes and agencies responsiblefor tribal lands, its findings are relevant for other loca-tions as well.

This study was funded by the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration’s Office of Global Pro-grams (NOAA-OGP) under Grant No. NA87GP0061.

1


Table of Contents

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Ecology and Policy: Fire on Southwestern Tribal Lands .............................................. 3

Ecological Change ........................................................................................................................................ 3Indigenous Fire Management ........................................................................................................................ 4Science in Fire Management ......................................................................................................................... 5

U.S. and Tribal Policy: The Framework Within Which Decisions are Made ....... 6

Integrated Resource, Forest, and Wildland Fire Management on Tribal Lands in the 21st Century ............... 7U.S. Wildland Fire Management in the 1990s .............................................................................................. 8Summary ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

The Cases ........................................................................................................................................... 10

The Moccasin Mountain Fire on the Kaibab Paiute Reservation ................................................................. 10Ecological Change on the Arizona Strip ................................................................................................ 11Kaibab Fire Management ..................................................................................................................... 12BIA Fire Management .......................................................................................................................... 13The Moccasin Mountain Fire ............................................................................................................... 14After the Fire ........................................................................................................................................ 15Factors Influencing Fire Management ................................................................................................... 16

Fires on the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation ............................................................................................... 17Ecological Change along the Lower Colorado River ............................................................................. 19Mojave Fire Management ..................................................................................................................... 21BIA Fire Management .......................................................................................................................... 21The Ice House Fire ............................................................................................................................... 22Reorganization ..................................................................................................................................... 22The Walters Burn ................................................................................................................................. 23After the Fires ....................................................................................................................................... 23Factors Influencing Fire Management ................................................................................................... 24

Summary and Recommendations .......................................................................................... 25

Resource Management and Information for Planning ................................................................................. 25Broader Implications ................................................................................................................................... 26

Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................ 26

References Cited ............................................................................................................................ 27

2

CLIMAS

Introduction

The topic of fire has gained considerable attention,particularly following recent events that have causedsignificant environmental damage and loss of humanlife (e.g., Storm King Mountain, Colorado in 1994;Cerro Grande, New Mexico in 2000). In the year2000, for example, 92,250 fires, affecting 7,393,493acres, were reported to the National Interagency FireCenter (NIFC website; www.nifc.gov/fireinfo/nfnmap.html). Especially in the arid West, where wa-ter for extinguishing fires is often scarce, fire manage-ment requires careful planning. Factors that must beconsidered include biological and physical conditionssuch as vegetation cover or climate and weather pat-terns, and sociocultural and political conditions suchas perceptions about the role of fire or jurisdiction.These require attention to land and resource manage-ment as well as to the fire itself. This report examinesfire management in the context of two case studies offire in Indian Country3 in the southwestern UnitedStates. This focus provides an opportunity to explorethe linkages among physical, sociocultural, and politi-cal factors and to offer recommendations for fire andresource managers and those who might provide cli-mate information to them.

Links between climate and fire range from the obvious– fires burn hotter and drier during droughts – to theless direct – precipitation and temperature influencethe type and density of vegetation, some of which actsas a particularly effective fuel. In the Southwest, theepisodic occurrence of years with high fire activity hasbeen correlated with El Niño and La Niña events4

(Swetnam and Betancourt 1990). Conditions in theSouthwest make this region “particularly prone tothunderstorms and lightning discharges” (Komarek1969, p. 4). At the same time, recent increases in hu-man population have resulted in more human-causedfires. For example, in 2000, of 25 large fires in Ari-zona, 13 were caused by humans and 15 by lightning(NIFC website; www.nifc.gov/fireinfo/firemap.html).Still, climatologists argue that the pattern of synchro-nous fire years, which are related to climate patterns,has occurred for at least the past 300 years and holdseven in the latter half of the 20th century (Swetnam2001). The relationships between climate and fire al-low for some predictability; however, effective use ofsuch information requires that appropriate manage-

ment and planning tools and structures be in place.This study is an effort to explore management in thecontext of actual events and decisions.

The study takes a political ecology5 approach that inte-grates ecology, political processes and policy analysis,historic physical and sociocultural conditions, and lo-cal and scientific knowledge and culture. This ap-proach recognizes that, historically as well as in thepresent, not only local but also scientific knowledge re-flects particular cultural assumptions; it is especiallyrelevant for a study of fire and its role in ecosystems,about which dramatic shifts in scientific and policyperspectives have taken place. Research methods in-clude site visits, document reviews, and in-depth inter-views with people involved in resource management,the fires, and their aftermath. The study considersthree periods: natural resource management before thefire, during the fire, and after the fire. Climate infor-mation was expected to be important before and afterthe fire and weather information to be critical duringthe fire. Still, those who respond to fire may be able touse climate information to help predict the type of fireseason they might expect and the resources they willneed to respond effectively. Therefore, this study looksat all three periods to identify potential informationusers and their needs. The study explores both the di-versity and complexity of fire and resource manage-ment in Indian Country today and the origins of thepresent circumstances. Its components include:

• a review of documented historic tribal fire andresource management practices

• a review of land cover and use change sincethe reservations were established

• a review of federal and tribal policies and prac-tices regarding fire management

• a close look at what led up to recent fires, thefires themselves, and activitiesafter the fires.

The report is organized in four sections, beginningwith an overview of the ecology and policy environ-ment of southwestern tribal lands. The first section

3


Ecology and Policy:

Fire on Southwestern Tribal Lands

also includes a discussion of his-toric and recent climate patternsand indigenous and scientificperspectives on fire in the South-west. The second section is a casestudy of the summer 2000 fireon the Kaibab Paiute Reserva-tion in northern Arizona,dubbed the “Moccasin Moun-tain Fire” (see Figure 1). That isfollowed by a case study of twofires on and near the FortMojave Reservation at the Cali-fornia-Arizona-Nevada border.The report concludes with asummary and recommendationsfor future management of fireson tribal lands and roles forthose who generate and provideclimate information.

Figure 1. Location of Kaibab and Fort Mojave Indian ReservationsSource: Center for Applied Spatial Analysis, University of Arizona

Southwestern landscapes and ecosystems are very di-verse, owing to topographic complexity, climatic vari-ability, and numerous particular environmental histo-ries (see Allen, Betancourt, and Swetnam 1998 foroverview). For example, lightning fires over millenniacreated a diverse environment of plants and animalsadapted to living with fire, “an ideal mechanism for re-generation and continuity” (Komarek 1969 p.7). In anenvironment defined by meager precipitation, how-ever, the organisms were particularly susceptible tochanges wrought by human activities. The followingsections offer a brief review of human influences onsouthwestern ecosystems focusing on fire and fire man-agement practices.

Ecological ChangeThere is increasing recognition that the idea of a pris-tine North American wilderness, untouched by hu-mans prior to European settlement, is a false one(Boyd 1999; Farris 2000; Kay 1994; Komarek 1969).People lived on this continent and actively modified

their environments in many ways—by cutting trees forfuel, structures, and manufacturing; gathering usefulplants, and sometimes manipulating the environmentto foster their growth; clearing land for gardens or agri-culture; and hunting animals. Early explorers attrib-uted the landscapes they saw to “natural” conditions,never conceiving, unless they happened to observe orhear first hand, that the native people were in part re-sponsible for creating those landscapes (Boyd 1999).

In the Southwest, humans have been altering ecosys-tems for thousands of years. Yet, despite the long hu-man history in which change has been a central fea-ture, Europeans and Euroamericans dramaticallyaccelerated the pace of that change. Most documentedvegetation changes occurred after the arrival of Anglo-American settlers in the 1870s (Bahre 1995). Damswere built, forests were logged, and cattle, sheep andexotic plants were introduced. On a massive scale, ma-nipulation of the region’s rivers affected plant and ani-mal communities and the interactions between Native

4

CLIMAS

Americans and those communities. For example, priorto development, the Colorado River flowed unim-peded some 1,700 miles with a vertical elevation dropof more than 14,000 feet between the southern RockyMountains and the Gulf of California (Ohmart et al.1988); today, four major dams control the volume andtiming of water flowing in the river channel.

Though lightning fires have occurred in the Southwestfor millennia and humans have started fires since theyfirst came to the region, Anglo-American settlerscaused dramatic changes to both the fire regime andthe vegetation structure, especially impacting the grass-lands and Ponderosa pine forests (Bahre 1995). Openforests have been replaced by dense forest and thicketstructures, and suppression policies have reduced thenumber and increased the intensity of fires.

The links between human activities, climate patterns,and fire are less direct. The Southwest climate is com-plex and demonstrates high temporal and spatial vari-ability, and links between human activities and climateare only beginning to be understood. For example,Southwestern temperatures have been climbing for atleast the past thirty years (Sheppard et al. 1999), butthe causes and effects of that change are widely de-bated.

Significantly, human migration to the Southwest con-tinues at a rapid pace. In 2000, Nevada and Arizonawere the fastest growing states in the United States (seeFigure 2). The large influx of newcomers has implica-

tions for natural resource and fire managers every-where, including those responsible for tribal lands.

Indigenous Fire ManagementFire was among the primary methods Native Ameri-cans used to alter their environments, although prac-tices varied from tribe to tribe and according to localenvironmental characteristics. Native people observedthe consequences of lightning-caused fires and usedthat knowledge for their own purposes. For instance,observing that grazing animals liked to browse the newgreen growth of burned over areas, Indians would setfires to attract game (Komarek 1969). Such activityalso kept woody growth to a minimum and promotedthe regeneration of native grasses.

Geographer Carl Sauer was the first to attribute majorenvironmental characteristics to anthropogenic (hu-man-created) use of fire; he has since been followed byother geographers, anthropologists, fire ecologists andother researchers (Boyd 1999; Farris 2000). It is nowreadily accepted that Indians well understood the ef-fects of fire and used it intentionally, creating a signifi-cant impact on landscapes, although to what degree iscontroversial (Boyd 1999; Kay 1994; Komarek 1969).Some researchers credit the vast fertile grasslands thatEuropeans found on the American prairie to suchburning (Boyd 1999; Komarek 1969; Pyne 1983; Wil-liams 1994). In the West and Northwest, early explor-ers wrote of the “natural parklands” of tall trees widelyspaced through open, grassy glades or “lawns,” remi-niscent of European parks. Researchers now recognizethat these areas were “actively manipulated and man-aged, if not actually ‘created,’ by their Native inhabit-ants” (Boyd 1999; Pyne 1995).

Distinguishing between the effects of prehistoricallylightning-caused and human-caused fires is indeed dif-ficult, but a number of inferences have been madebased on archaeological, dendrochronological (tree-ring), ethnographic, and ecological data (Farris 2000;Kay 1994). Large changes from forest to grassland mayhave resulted from the cumulative effect of fire andwarm climate episodes, but these ecosystems were thenmaintained in grassland by burning even when the cli-mate cooled (Pyne 1984). Patterns of Indian burningalso changed the biological timing of fire. Natural(lightning-caused) fires came in the summer storm sea-son, while Indian fires followed the grass life cycle andburned in early spring and late fall (Pyne 1984) whenconditions were moist and produced low-intensityburns (Kay 1994).

Figure 2. Percent Change in Resident Population, byState, 1990-2000Source: U.S. Census Bureau

GainU.S. Change

is 13.2 percentNo Change

Loss

25.0 to 66.3

13.2 to 24.9

0.0 to 13.1

-5.7 (DC)

5


Accounts of Indian burning indicate that practicesranged from careless and unintentional, such as failureto extinguish campfires and signal fires when peopleleft an area (Lutz 1959; Pyne et al. 1996), to demon-stration of a sophisticated understanding of the use offire to modify the environment. Williams (1994) sum-marized eleven reasons for Indian burning:

• Hunting: burn large areas to drive game intosmaller areas or to open up for browsers (deer,elk, bison); game birds such as geese andducks were also attracted to fresh grass sprouts

• Wildlife habitat management: clear riparianareas to improve habitat for grasses, trees, andsprouts that would benefit game animals suchas muskrat, beaver, moose and waterfowl

• Crop management: burn to harvest certainplants and grass seeds; clear for planting andpreventing re-growth in abandoned fields; andfacilitate acorn gathering

• Improved growth and yield: improve grass forgrazers and encourage reproduction of camas6,seed plants, berry plants, and tobacco

• Fire protection: clear areas around medicinalplants and settlements to protect from wildfiredamage and to avoid encroachment by treesand shrubs on prairies

• Insect collection: use a “fire surround” in pineforests to collect and roast edible insects, and todrive away bees and collect honey from hives

• Pest management: reduce rodents and nui-sance insects like mosquitoes and blackflies,and kill plant parasites such as mistletoe thatthreaten valuable trees like mesquite and oak

• Warfare: expose enemy hiding places in tallgrass and underbrush, or use fire as an offen-sive weapon

• Economic extortion: “scorched earth policy”to prevent settlers or other tribes access togame resources and take advantage of middle-man position

• Travel: clear trails through overgrown areas andprovide better visibility in dense forest and brush

• Fell trees

Among other benefits, Indian burning added to the ef-fects of natural fires to keep forest floors clear of fuel ac-cumulation that could lead to catastrophic forest de-struction; keep environments free of woody growth andfoster lush growth of grasses that fed wild game and laterdomesticated livestock; foster the abundance of plantsused by people for food, medicine and craft; and main-tain and increase biodiversity along edges of burned ar-eas. European-influenced forestry practices and empha-sis on commercial forest values led to land managementpolicies designed around fire suppression with unfore-seen negative consequences, as discussed below.

Science in Fire ManagementNon-indigenous perspectives on fire in the UnitedStates derived from a European perspective formed un-der conditions of extensive land cultivation and per-manent settlements (NPS 1996). For most of thetwentieth century, into the 1960s, control of fire wasthe overarching goal of land managers, and technolo-gies for fire suppression improved to a point that fewfires burned uncontrollably. With the advent of the sci-ence of ecology and attention to ecosystem dynamicscame the scientific study of agents of change, includingfire. As fires largely disappeared from many ecosys-tems, the effects of absence of fire were observed andstimulated greater study.

The negative economic consequences of habitats thatwere diminished by the lack of fire and the high costsof putting out all fires captured attention. Gradually,private and public managers began experimenting withreintroducing fire to the land, and fire suppressionevolved to be only one aspect of fire management. Asearly examples:

“The U.S. Forest Service began intentionallyburning some southern forests in the 1940s tocreate new, even-age growth of greater com-mercial value. In the 1950s and 1960s, theNational Park Service experimented with con-trolled burns in Everglades and Sequoia-KingsCanyon national parks, and by the late 1970s,a dozen national parks, including YellowstoneNational Park, were allowing some fires toburn. In parks and forests preserved for theirwilderness values, where the processes of wil-derness are the only products, flames were nolonger seen as good or bad but in the natureof change” (NPS 1996).

6

CLIMAS

The vindication of indigenous fire management tech-niques has become a somewhat unusual example of theconvergence of traditional and scientific knowledgeand has led to further studies of indigenous fire prac-tices. Also, political and social acceptance of fire’s im-portance has opened up avenues for new scientificstudies of the effects of fires on ecosystems. Questionsbeing posed include the effect of burning on rangeproductivity, groundwater recharge, large mammal

1789. Though the Secretary of War created the Bureauof Indian Affairs (BIA) in 1824, Congress did not au-thorize that bureau until 1834. The BIA remainedwithin the War Department until 1849 when it passedto civilian control under the newly-established HomeDepartment of the Interior. During the 1800s, theBIA was organized with superintendents responsiblefor territories and agents concerned with the affairs ofone or more tribes. Under civilian authority, its rolechanged to paying attention to specialized activitiessuch as forestry, construction, employment, health,and education. Following WWII, the BIA was reorga-nized into a three-tier system composed of a Washing-ton, D.C. office under an assistant secretary for landand water resources within the Department of the In-terior, area offices, and agencies. In 1977, Indian con-cerns were elevated within the Department of the Inte-rior with the creation of the office of AssistantSecretary for Indian Affairs.

Of the many laws and policies that have affected tribalgovernance (see Austin, Gerlak, and Smith 2000 forreview), the 1975 Indian Self Determination and Edu-cation Assistance Act (Self-Determination Act, PL 93-638) has been particularly significant for redefining theroles of tribes and federal agencies in resource manage-ment on tribal trust land. The Act transferred author-ity and funding for many programs from the federalgovernment to tribes while maintaining the U.S.government’s legal and moral responsibility for thoseservices. Similar in concept to block granting, this pro-cess, manifest as “638 compacting” or “638 contract-ing,” enables tribes to tailor the federal programs andredistribute funds to meet their specific needs (SenateCommittee on Indian Affairs 1999)7. Through the“638” processes authorized by the Act, tribes may as-sume responsibility for health, housing, education, and

U.S. and Tribal Policy:

The Framework Within Which Decisions are Made

“The Executive’s environmental and naturalresources policy under statutory law mayemerge as the most critical policy area to tribesas they move into the twenty-first century, be-cause it will substantially determine the futureecological viability of their separate nativeland base” (Wood 1995: 740).

The determined and rapid influx of European settlersonto the North American continent disrupted thelifeways and cultures of vast numbers of indigenouspeoples (see, for example, Spicer 1962/1997, Kiple andBeck 1997). Native populations were decimated bydisease, their access to resources was reduced or elimi-nated, and their movement was restricted by settlers,towns, and transportation corridors. Males were oftenforced to become laborers on farms and in mines. Poli-cies of extermination and relocation removed manypeople from their homelands and sent others into hid-ing. Many groups were extinguished, but others be-came recognized as tribes and struggled to have theirexistence and rights respected. In all cases, opportuni-ties for exercising active resource management dimin-ished (see Austin, Gerlak, and Smith 2000).

Through treaties, Acts of Congress, executive orders,and other administrative actions, American Indiantribes achieved unique trust status that established theU.S. government as trustee for the tribes. Within thefederal government, responsibility for federal interac-tions with tribes has rested with several different agen-cies. First, in 1775, the Continental Congress created aCommittee on Indian Affairs (BIA 2000:www.doi.gov/bia/shorthist.html). In August 1786, the Secretary ofWar assumed responsibility for Indian affairs, and ad-ministration of Indian affairs remained within the WarDepartment when that department was established in

movement and foraging patterns, and erosion andstream siltation. Yet, through both scientists andpolicymakers now recognize that fire is an importantmanagement tool, suppression remains the primary re-sponse to fire on many public and tribal lands (ArizonaStrip Field Office 2000; personal communication,BLM Fuels Specialist, 2/8/01). As the following sec-tions illustrate, translating knowledge into policy is acomplex process.

7


natural resource management programs once operatedby the BIA. As a result of that process and other require-ments for interacting with tribes on a government-to-government basis, tribes interact directly with agenciesunder all branches of the federal government. Conse-quently, all federal agencies are expected to help the U.S.government fulfill its trust responsibility to tribes.

Interagency collaboration has become imperative for allparties engaged in resource management.8 The BIA’s rolevaries from tribe to tribe according to the extent towhich the tribe has assumed responsibility for bothtribal programs and participation in federal policymaking.This report will explore the relationships among tribes,the BIA, and other federal and state agencies by focusingon interactions between and among tribes, the BIA, theU.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management,and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Integrated Resource, Forest, and Wildland FireManagement on Tribal Lands in the 21st CenturyLand and natural resource management are significantconcerns of both tribes and the BIA. Wildfire manage-ment has only recently been recognized as a separatemanagement issue. Under federal policies and actions,resource management has been driven primarily by in-strumental values and economic motives. For example,in the latter part of the 19th century, the BIA began ad-dressing issues such as irrigation and forestry (BIA2000: www.doi.gov/bia/shorthist.html). After nearly acentury of fragmented, if any, environment manage-ment, attention was turned toward integrated resourcemanagement (IRM). According to the BIA:

“Tribes have always pushed for the integratedmanagement of Indian lands and have accom-plished much in the way of ecosystem man-agement long before the concept was recog-nized by the scientific community. TheBureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) views Inte-grated Resource Management Planning as thedelivery mechanism for the expansion of eco-system management to every reservation, vil-lage, rancheria, and individual Indian allot-ment throughout the United States. NativeAmerican ecosystem management is a proventradition” (CNIE 1994).

Across the United States, resource management ontribal lands has been uneven. Early IRM efforts wereunsuccessful, primarily because the BIA was (and stillis) organized into separate programs according to func-

tion (e.g., timber, fish, wildlife, range, water) andfunds were limited (CNIE 1994). The 1975 IndianSelf-Determination and Education Assistance Act be-gan the process of transferring authority and fundingfor tribal programs from the BIA to tribal govern-ments, and tribes became eligible to receive, either di-rectly or through contracts, resources for planning, co-operative agreements, or grants (25CFR163.10). Bythe mid-1990s, the federal government had revivedIRM as a broad policy objective. IRM planning iscalled for in the National Indian Forest ResourcesManagement Act (P.L. 101-630), and the AmericanIndian Agricultural Resources Management Act (P.L.103-177).

Yet, still today, few reservations have IRM plans.Where no such plan exists, tribes may have separategrazing or forest plans. Fire management is usuallyhandled through a forest management plan, if one is inplace. For the purposes of forest management, forestland is defined as an ecosystem at least one acre in sizewhich is characterized by a more or less dense and ex-tensive tree cover; contains, or once contained, at leastten percent tree crown cover, and is not developed orplanned for exclusive non-forest resource use. Forestland management activities include: (a) program ad-ministration; (b) development, preparation and revi-sion of forest inventory and management plans; (c)forest land development such as thinning and refores-tation, (d) protection against losses from wildfire, in-cluding acquisition and maintenance of fire fightingequipment and fire detection systems, construction offire breaks, hazard reduction, prescribed burning, andthe development of cooperative wildfire managementagreements; (e) protection against insects and disease;(f ) assessment of damage caused by forest trespass, in-festation or fire; (g) timber sale contracting; (h) sup-port for the education of Indian and Native Alaskanforesters; (i) participation in the development andimplementation of tribal integrated resource manage-ment plans; (j) improvement and maintenance of ex-tended season primary and secondary Indian forestland road systems; and (k) research activities targetedat improving forest management (25CFR163.1).Where there is no forest management plan, a fire man-agement plan must be developed as a separate docu-ment.

Responsibility for fire management includes obtainingand maintaining facilities, equipment, and staff in “anadequate level of readiness to meet normal wildfireprotection needs and extinguish forest or range fires on

8

CLIMAS

Indian land” and on non-Indian land when “the firethreatens Indian land or… the expenses are incurredpursuant to an approved cooperative agreement withanother protection agency” (25CFR163.28). It alsocovers wildfire prevention programs, emergency reha-bilitation measures, and the use of fire as a manage-ment tool. The responsible party may enter into recip-rocal agreements with any fire organizationmaintaining protection facilities in the vicinity of In-dian land for mutual aid in wildfire protection.

In general, years of external decision making regardingresources and resource use, including long-term leasesand agreements, have constrained the ready transfer ofnatural resource management responsibility from theBIA to the tribes. The transfer of authority to tribalgovernments has proceeded fairly rapidly in areas suchas health and housing, but it is still in its infancy withrespect to natural resource programs. For example,within the BIA’s Western Region, only two tribes, the

Salt River Pima Maricopa and the Shoshone-PaiuteTribes of the Duck Valley Reservation, compact outunder the 638 process their fire management programs(personal communication, BIA Western Region offi-cial, 10/19/00). Two additional tribes, the TohonoO’odham Nation and the San Carlos Apache Tribe,have 638 contracts to provide support for fire manage-ment.

Consequently, for most tribes, forest and fire manage-ment responsibility rests with the Secretary of the Inte-rior and is carried out by the BIA. That responsibilityincludes creating and carrying out an appropriate, andadaptive, forest management plan for all Indian forest-lands. The BIA distinguishes forestlands, from whichtrees are harvested for sale, from woodlands and fromareas with other vegetation types. Woodlands supporttrees that are not harvested, whatever their type. Nospecial resource management planning process is re-quired for woodlands. Beyond the forestlands, typi-cally only grazing lands have received attention. Untilrecently, therefore, fire management on much reserva-tion land was haphazard at best.

U.S. Wildland Fire Management in the 1990s

“The challenge of managing wildland fire inthe United States is increasing in complexityand magnitude. Catastrophic wildfire nowthreatens millions of wildland acres, particu-larly where vegetation patterns have been al-tered by past land-use practices and a centuryof fire suppression” (USDI and USDA1995:1).

Wildland fire management is a complex and highlypolitical process. U.S. fire management is carried outby a special interagency institutional and organiza-tional structure that includes agencies within the U.S.Department of Interior (the Bureau of Land Manage-ment, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Ser-vice, National Park Service), Department of Agricul-ture (U.S. Forest Service), the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, the Office of AircraftServices, and the National Association of State Forest-ers (see National Interagency Fire Center,www.nifc.gov). From a tribal perspective, this structurereflects pre-638 federal-tribal relations; tribes are repre-sented only through the BIA.

Interagency fire management begins at the local levelwithin Fire Zones (see Figures 3 and 4). Each zone is

Cedar Dispatch Center

Rocky Basin Fire Center Moab Interagency Fire Center

Uintah Basin Interagency Fire Center Salt Lake Center

Southern Idaho Interagency Fire Center

Eastern Idaho Interagency Fire Center Boise Dispatch Cente r

Central Idaho Center

UTAH

ARIZONA*Kaibab

Figure 4. Southwest Fire Zones.Source: Southwest Area Wildland Operations

**

Kaibab

Fort Mojave

Figure 3. Eastern Great Basin Fire Zones. Note that theColor Country Zone, managed out of the Cedar DispatchCenter, extends into northern Arizona.Source: Eastern Great Basin Coordination Center

9


managed by a unique configuration of personnel repre-senting the agencies with jurisdiction within the zone.Within the zone, any dispatchers who receive word ofa fire are expected to notify a central office from whichan Incident Commander and other fire personnel aredispatched. The agencies within those fire zones arelinked to Geographic Area Coordination Centers andthen to the National Interagency Fire Center for assis-tance when fires exceed local capacities and resources(see http://www.nifc.gov/fireinfo/geomap.html).

During the 1990s, large fires and the consequent lossof human life called attention to the problems of pastfire management practices. Spurred by the 1994 StormKing Fire in Colorado which claimed the lives of 14firefighters (http://www.aip.org/inside_science/html/21.html) and by the increasing costs of fire suppressionpolicies, the U.S. Secretaries of Agriculture and Inte-rior chartered a Federal Wildland Fire ManagementPolicy and Program Review (USDI and USDA 1995).In 1996, the Implementation Action Team Report wascompleted and required federal agencies to develop firemanagement plans for all areas subject to wildfires(Rosenkrance et al. 1996).

In 1997-1998, the BIA’s Western Region began imple-menting the new wildland fire policy. Where no IRMplans or Forest Management plans existed, Fire Man-agement planning began. Agency offices and field of-fices were assigned the responsibility for developingplans for the reservations under their jurisdictions.Each agency and field office decided whether to write aplan for each reservation or to write plans that coveredtwo or more reservations. Offices without the internal

capacity to write the plans contracted out the task. In afew cases, BIA staff worked with their counterparts atother federal agencies. Across agencies, though alterna-tives to fire management are discussed, written policiescontinue to privilege suppression.

Woodlands and other non-forestlands have presented achallenge to planners and resource managers. For theselands, fire management plans incorporate modelsbased upon the dominant tree type, such as pinyon-ju-niper. However, areas such as the wetlands along thelower Colorado River that support willows, mesquites,and tamarisks (salt cedars) belong to no special cat-egory. Fire models for such vegetation types are rare(personal communication, fire manager, 2/02/01).

SummaryContemporary responses to fire on tribal land arepredicated on both the complex ideologies and policiesabout fire that have evolved over decades and percep-tions about particular ecological consequences of prioractions. Fire has been perceived variously as a manifes-tation of evil, a sign of irresponsibility and carelessness,and a tool for environmental management. Manipula-tion has occurred through both starting and suppress-ing fires, and, because fire is an irregular—though cer-tain—occurrence, it is difficult to separate naturalfrom human impacts of fire. It is possible, however, toidentify patterns that may assist fire managers, such asthe co-occurrence of certain climate conditions andfire. The following two case studies examine recentfires in Indian Country to evaluate fire managementthere and identify if and when climate information hasbeen or might be useful.

10

CLIMAS

The Moccasin Mountain Fire on the

Kaibab Paiute Reservation

On July 21, 2000, a fire began on Moccasin Mountainon the Kaibab Paiute Indian Reservation in northernArizona when a truck malfunction led to an engine firethat caused the gas tank to explode and spread to ex-tremely dry roadside vegetation. That fire was finallyextinguished after seven days during which it burned1,618 acres of pinyon-juniper woodland. This case de-scribes the reservation environment and history, tradi-tional Kaibab Paiute fire practices, a century of wood-land and resource management at Kaibab, the fire, andpost-fire response.

The Kaibab Paiute Indian Reservation, located on120,798 acres on the Colorado Plateau north of theGrand Canyon, is the remnant heritage land of theKaivavits band of Southern Paiutes. It is spatially andjurisdictionally isolated on the Arizona Strip. Its north-ern boundary is defined by the Arizona-Utah border(Figure 5). In addition to four communities and a Na-tional Monument that are in direct contact with theReservation, the Reservation lies within both Mohave(107,426 acres) and Coconino (13,300 acres) countiesin Arizona and borders lands under the jurisdiction of

the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Man-agement.

Anthropologists agree that Southern Paiute occupationof the Colorado Plateau extends back at least as far as1150 AD (Euler 1964, Fowler, Madsen, and Hattori1973), but Paiutes place themselves within thesehomelands from the beginning of time. The lands nowdefined as the Reservation range from a high point atEd Lamb Point (7,058 feet) near the central northernreservation border to a low point (4,400 feet) on thesouthern reservation boundary. The reservation hasmany natural springs, and many of these continue torun off onto the land, forming tributaries flowing tointermittent streams that in turn converge and eventu-ally feed into the Colorado River. The largest surfacewater source is Kanab Creek, which joins the ColoradoRiver about 30 miles south of the reservation.

The Southern Paiutes practiced a transhumantlifestyle, moving seasonally among living and campingareas (Euler 1964, Stoffle and Evans 1976). Influencedby Ute and Navajo neighbors and Spanish explorers tothe area, the Southern Paiutes nevertheless controlledthe land and resources within their territory until the1860s when Brigham Young sent members of the

Church of Jesus Christ of LatterDay Saints (Mormons) to establishmissions throughout the region. Atthat time, major changes began tooccur in Kaibab Paiute territory(Kelly 1964, Stoffle and Evans1976). Within two years of theirarrival, Mormon settlers took con-trol of all regularly flowing watersources in the territory. From thetown of Kanab, the Mormonswithdrew water from Kanab Creekfor irrigation purposes and reducedthe flow in the creek to a meretrickle. Then they established thetown of Fredonia, several milessouth of Kanab, to gain access tomore land and water for farming.By 1865, they had claimed Pipeand Moccasin Springs, two majorsprings within Kaibab territory.

The Cases

Figure 5. Kaibab Paiute Indian Reservation.Source: Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians file

11


From the late 1860s until 1879, Pipe Spring and thenearby community of Moccasin were used by the Mor-mon Church as a base for cattle operations (Bleak 1928,Cook 1949). A Mormon Stake9 was established at Moc-casin Spring in 1875. In 1879, when the natural vegeta-tion had become denuded and cattle ranching was notlonger profitable, the church sold two-thirds of Mocca-sin Spring and all of Pipe Spring to a local stock-raisingcooperative, the Mormon United Order.

The Mormon United Order recruited Paiutes to assistin farming the lands around Moccasin. The church “al-lowed” the Paiutes to receive water from MoccasinSpring for their own gardens as well. The Order wasdissolved and the land at Moccasin was abandonedand split up among the five Heaton brothers who wereworking the ranch at the time. The Mormon Church“gave” one-third of Moccasin Spring flow to thePaiutes, which some argue was an attempt to lure thePaiutes away from the Mormon towns along KanabCreek (Knack 1993).

The Paiutes continued to garden a few acres near Moc-casin Spring and camped there during parts of the year.However, they became cut off from traditional huntingand gathering practices as lands in their territory werededicated to ranching and forest preserves. The cattle in-dustry flourished on the Arizona Strip in the late 1800s,but the Paiutes were not part of that economy and grewpoorer. Historical records indicate that the Kaibabpopulation living in the vicinity of the present-dayreservation was at its lowest at the turn of the century.

During 1907, agents of the Federal Indian Service metwith a delegation of Kaibab Paiutes and businessmenfrom the nearby towns of Fredonia, Arizona andKanab, Utah to discuss the establishment of a reserva-tion for the Paiutes. Though the people of Kanab ad-vocated for another location, the Paiute preference forthe Moccasin area prevailed. The Kaibab Paiute Reser-vation was established on October 16, 1907 by an or-der of the U.S. Department of the Interior. SouthernPaiutes from the Kaibab, Kaiparowits, and Uinkaritsterritories settled on the Reservation. Persistent Mor-mon resistance to the Reservation led to the with-drawal of land on the eastern edge of the Reservationfor the town of Fredonia, Arizona; in the center of theReservation around Pipe Spring for the Pipe SpringNational Monument, under the jurisdiction of the Na-tional Park Service; and in the center of the Reserva-tion around Moccasin Spring for the community ofMoccasin, Arizona. Once established, the reservation

came under the trust responsibility of the U.S. govern-ment and its Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). However,lack of will and resources to protect Southern Paiute in-terests meant that Mormon ranchers continued to runtheir cattle on reservation lands into the middle of the20th century (see Knack 1993)10. Tribal members movedon and off the reservation as necessary for survival.

Under the provision of the Indian Reorganization Actof 1934, in 1954 the Kaibab Paiutes organized a TribalCouncil. The Council is composed of six individualselected by tribal members over the age of twenty-one.In the 1950s and 1960s, the BIA became more activein working with the Southern Paiutes. The agency pro-moted activities designed to make the tribes economi-cally self-sufficient. At Kaibab, cattle were introduced,a hay farm was started, and an orchard was planted.

More generally, the BIA began a pattern of short-terminvestments and reactive decision making that wouldpersist until the end of the century. At the same time,the tribal government responded favorably to U.S. self-determination policies. For example, in 1976, the Tribereceived a planning assistance grant from the U.S. De-partment of Housing and Urban Development to createa holistic plan for land and water use, housing, healthdelivery and employment (Turner 1985). In response toopportunities to establish special programs, during the1980s and 1990s, the Tribal government expanded toinclude ten departments. Today, funding continues tocome to programs associated with specific federal agen-cies, and this inhibits comprehensive resource manage-ment. Land and resource issues are managed by theTribal Natural Resources Department, which consists ofthe Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks, Environmental, andCultural Resources programs.

Ecological Change on the Arizona StripEarly Euroamerican arrivals to the Arizona Strip wereattracted by lush vegetation and tall grasses (Cook1949, McKown 1960, Winsor 1959). As describedabove, they quickly took control of water sources fortheir settlements and livestock operations. They wereunfamiliar with the native flora and fauna and took ag-gressive steps to shape the environment in ways famil-iar to them; they removed pinyon trees (Pinus sp.),grazed cattle in fields of rice grass (Orozopsishymenoides), and tried to eliminate rabbits and prairiedogs, all important food sources for the Paiutes.

Settlers also found marshy areas dominated by willows(Salix sp.); Kanab Creek, the major surface water

12

CLIMAS

source in the area derives its name from the Paiuteword for willow, kanav. Would-be farmers set about todig channels through these areas to drain them andplant crops. During heavy rains, their canals erodedquickly until they cut down to bedrock (Webb, Smith,and McCord 1982).

The activities of the newcomers dramatically changedthe local ecology and topography. Within twenty yearsof settlement, marshes had been replaced by deep gul-lies, pinyon pines and other trees had been removed,and large cattle herds had transformed grasslands tobarren landscapes characterized by sagebrush and cacti(Fox 1994, Stoffle and Evans 1976, Webb, Smith, andMcCord 1992). By the time the Kaibab Paiute Reser-vation was established, its land and resources werevastly different from pre-contact days.

Kaibab Fire ManagementIn the Southern Paiute worldview, elements of the en-vironment, such as plants, animals, and natural phe-nomena, are perceived more as kinsmen than as “re-sources.” The following, for example, summarizes thePaiute view of water:

“The protection of water sources is assured inPaiute society when humans acknowledge thatwater is alive and that our relationship withwater is governed by respect of that life and ofits power to give and take human life. InPaiute tradition, the environment is not per-ceived as a resource to be turned to profit. Thenatural setting of the people is valued becauseit sustains life, and humans are only one ele-ment in a harmonious complex of livingthings” (Austin and Jake 1998: 3).

All land on the Kaibab Paiute Reservation is owned bythe entire tribe and held in trust for tribal members bythe U.S. government. Cattlemen are allotted pastures,and families return to favorite areas to hunt and gatherfirewood. Though the BIA holds responsibility forland and resource management on the Reservation,tribal members continue to prune vegetation, cut deadtrees for wood, burn their gardens to prepare for plant-ing, and clear and maintain reservation springs. Muchof the activity occurs in and around the villages wheretheir homes are clustered.

Prior to the arrival of the Mormons, Kaibab Paiutesmoved seasonally among the mountains, plateaus, andColorado River canyons. Vegetation management in-

cluded planting gardens and small farms aroundsprings and water sources, pruning plants such as wil-low to ensure continued growth, and scattering ricegrass seeds to encourage growth. As early as 1776,Paiutes were observed using fire to control vegetationon the North Rim of what was to be named the GrandCanyon (Warner 1976). In discussions related to thisand previous studies of traditional fire practices, Paiuteelders described using fires to clear undergrowth onMoccasin Mountain within the reservation boundaries.

By the time the Reservation was established, Paiutelifestyles had altered in response to changes in their en-vironment. As more people moved into their territory,settled on and around the best water sources and de-stroyed major food sources, the Paiutes were forced tooccupy marginal lands. Hunting and gathering areaswere designated as national parks and monuments,and access to and use of these lands was restricted. Forexample, the Grand Canyon Forest Reserve was cre-ated in 1893, followed by the Grand Canyon NationalMonument in 1908, and the Grand Canyon NationalPark in 1919. With each successive designation,Southern Paiute use of the area was restricted (Stoffle,Halmo, Evans, and Austin 1994). Many Paiute malestook work as wage laborers for ranches and mines onthe Arizona Strip.

Despite the changes, Paiutes retained some of theirearly practices, such as small-scale farming in the low-lands and hunting and gathering firewood and pinenuts in the mountains and nearby forests. Theyadapted to government initiatives such as the introduc-tion of hay farming, fruit orchards, and cattle ranching.

Once established, the Tribal Council became officiallyresponsible for all decisions, but actual decision mak-ing continued to be carried out in traditional fashion,based on achieving consensus first within and thenamong families (Turner 1985). As the Tribe began totake greater responsibility for administering programs,it established separate offices staffed by one or two em-ployees. The first tribal natural resources program wasa Wildlife Department, established in 1994. That pro-gram was created to manage the tribal hunt and wild-life concerns.

An early concern of the Wildlife Department was thedense growth of sage in the pinyon-juniper woodlandon Moccasin Mountain that had blocked the growthof new grasses and other foliage. The Tribe began dis-cussions with the BIA about how to address this prob-

13


lem. In 1997, when a new tribal Wild-life Director took office, this issue wasplaced high on his agenda. At that time,hunters complained that the sagebrushwithin the forest had become so thickthat it impeded walking and preventedthem from spotting deer. Several mem-bers of the Tribe’s hunting task force (re-named the wildlife committee) had be-gun to talk about using prescribedburning to thin some of the old sage-brush from the woodland. The WildlifeDirector worked with hunters to iden-tify areas to be burned. The Tribal Coun-cil supported the idea but wanted a care-ful plan prepared.

In 1998, faculty and students fromNorthern Arizona University’s (NAU)Forestry Department were implement-ing a restoration burn on MountTrumbull, south of the Reservation. Because MountTrumball lies within the traditional lands of theKaibab Paiutes, Bureau of Land Management officialsresponsible for the project made a presentation to theTribe about the project. At the time the Tribal Councilrequested that they be kept apprised of the activity onthe mountain.

Also that year, the BIA-Western Regional Officefunded a Woodlands Inventory Project on the KaibabIndian Reservation. The purpose of the study was tocount the trees on the reservation to provide data forfuture management decisions. The Tribe sought to hirea team leader from the Fort Apache Tribe’s forestry di-vision, but the Fort Apache crew was too busy to re-lease anyone to undertake the project. RememberingNAU’s role in the Mount Trumbull project, tribal offi-cials contacted the Forestry Department and requestedassistance with the woodlands inventory. NAU facultyprovided technical assistance to the project, and theTribe hired an NAU student as project leader. This ini-tial interaction between the Tribe and the NAU for-estry department led to discussions about using fire asa management tool on the reservation. Because theTribe had not assumed authority for fire managementunder the Self-Determination Act, any burns had to beplanned, approved, and implemented by the BIA.

BIA Fire ManagementThe BIA Southern Paiute Field Office is responsiblefor five federally recognized Southern Paiute tribes,

one of which is a composite tribe of five bands withlands spread across southwestern Utah (see Figure 6).The federal government failed to recognize the South-ern Paiutes until nearly half a century after their home-lands were taken by Mormons and their populationdecimated by disease (Stoffle, Jones, and Dobyns1995). Tribal members were living in small clustersand refused, on several occasions, federal efforts to re-locate them to reservations with other tribes. Of the 15Southern Paiute bands recorded by an anthropologistin the early 1930s (Kelly 1934, 1964), nine are feder-ally recognized today, and they are spread across fourstates. The other six bands either persist as state-recog-nized tribes or have been split up and their membersabsorbed into neighboring bands.

Despite the large area over which Southern Paiute res-ervations are located, their populations are relativelysmall, so the Field Office has responsibility for all ofthem within the states of Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.The Field Office has eight full-time employees, one ofwhich, the natural resource specialist, is responsible forrange management and other natural resource manage-ment concerns. In 2000, the individual assigned tothat position was also assigned collateral duty as theFire Management Officer (FMO). The SouthernPaiute tribal lands under the Field Office’s jurisdictionare located within five Fire Zones (see Figure 4 forzones.) Annual Operating Plans for each zone are ap-proved at yearly meetings, and the BIA FMO attendsall five meetings.

Figure 6. Location of Southern Paiute Tribal Lands .Source: Center for Applied Spatial Analysis, University of Arizona

14

CLIMAS

Interagency agreements exist within some of the zonesto facilitate management and response to fires. TheField Office is party to the Richfield Interagency FireAgreement, the Color Country Interagency Fire Pro-tection Agreement, the Interagency Agreement be-tween the BIA-Western Regional Office and the BLM-Nevada State Office, and the Interagency Agreementfor the Northern Arizona Zone. The Kaibab PaiuteReservation lies within the Color Country Zone andthe Northern Arizona Zone (see Figures 3 and 4) butis governed under the Color Country Agreement. Ac-cording to that agreement, any dispatchers who re-ceive notice of a fire are to notify the Cedar City,Utah Dispatch Center, and the BLM-Arizona Stripoffice out of St. George will dispatch an IncidentCommander to the scene of the fire. Fires within theNorthern Arizona Zone are handled out of Williams,Arizona.

At the time of this study, the Field Office’s FMO wasnot in a position to gather and bring new informationto the fire management meetings. She relied on the de-cisions made by the others within each group. TheField Office had contracted in 1998 with a privatefirm to create a single Fire Management Plan to coverall reservation lands under its jurisdiction. The FireManagement Plan was to address prescribed burns tominimize the risk of large wildfires (personal commu-

nication, fire manager, 11/28/00). The Plan was notfinished at the time of this study.

After coming to an agreement on the use of fire onthe Kaibab Indian Reservation, the Tribe’s WildlifeDirector and NAU faculty began discussions withBIA representatives about implementing a programof prescribed burning on the Reservation and theprocess through which they could gain approval forthe project. After several attempts, the Tribe, NAUand BIA participants came to agree on a plan for arestoration burn. Some delay occurred because theirwork preceded development of the Fire ManagementPlan.

In the summer of 1999, the NAU-Kaibab team beganconducting the woodlands inventory by counting thetrees on Moccasin Mountain and calculating densityand fuel load. The BIA representative sought and re-ceived funding for the Prescribed Burn Plan. However,the process was stalled because no one at the Field Of-fice or within the Tribe was qualified to write the offi-cial Burn Plan. The Field Office’s FMO sought assis-tance from the BIA Regional Office and, when nonewas available, from outside the Bureau.

The Moccasin Mountain FireIn the summer of 2000, while still awaiting the Burn

plan, students from NAU returned tothe reservation to cut trees in one ofthe areas targeted for burning. Condi-tions across the Reservation and theArizona Strip were dry (see PDSI, Fig-ure 7). Figure 8 shows monthly rain-fall for 1998-2000 when comparedwith a ten year average. Because theywould be using chain saws that emitsparks, the students and Wildlife Di-rector agreed that they needed water atthe work site. The Director arranged todrive the Tribe’s water truck up themountain to the site. Due to dry con-ditions, the access road to the moun-tain was in poor shape. Thick sand wasparticularly troublesome where theroad crossed dry washes and climbedhills. The Tribe receives BIA funds forroad maintenance but has never pavedor otherwise improved the road; the in-tent is to discourage unauthorizedpeople from entering the reservationand driving onto the mountain.

Figure 7. Palmer Drought Severity Index for Arizona Division 2, whichincludes the Kaibab Paiute Reservation.Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

15


Struggling to get up the road, the Tribe’s water truckoverheated and caught fire. The fire reached the gastank, caused the tank to explode, and quickly spread tovegetation bordering the road. The Wildlife Directorradioed the tribal office for assistance. Two members ofthe tribe’s firefighting crew met at the Tribe’s fire sta-tion and drove the brush truck to the scene of the fire.The brush truck was equipped with radios that allowcommunication with the tribal office.

The tribal secretary contacted the dispatch office. En-gines from the neighboring Colorado City Fire Depart-ment and BLM Office in Kanab, Utah responded assoon as they saw smoke coming from the mountain.The Colorado City fire fighters were unaware of the ex-tent of the fire until they arrived, and they lacked thenecessary equipment for wildland fire fighting. TheBLM truck drove across dirt roads to reach the northgate onto the Reservation and stopped there to get per-mission from the BIA to cut the lock on the gate, result-ing in a delay of more than an hour. The BIA Fire Man-agement Officer was contacted at the Southern PaiuteField Office. She left immediately to get her equipmentand travel the 75 miles to Moccasin Mountain.

Several people from nearby towns arrived hoping tohelp, but they lacked training in fighting wildlandfires, so the Wildlife Director contacted the BIA LawEnforcement Officer to close the road to everyone ex-cept fire crews. A fire marshall with the Utah StateForester saw the smoke and responded. He was givencommand of the fire until the BIA representative ar-rived. He contacted the dispatcher in Cedar City.

On the mountain, because theycame from opposite directions andwere unable to use the road, thegroup was split. Lack of communi-cation hampered firefighting ef-forts. Technical problems with theBIA radios prevented their opera-tion when helicopters or planeswere overhead. Incompatibilityamong the tribal, Colorado City,and Forest Service radios furtherexacerbated the communicationproblems.

By the time the BIA FMO arrivedon the scene, it was clear that thefire was too big for her to handle.She transferred authority back tothe Utah State Forester’s Fire

Marshall. He later transferred Incident Command tothe National Forest Service officer from the NorthernArizona Zone, who was dispatched from Williams,Arizona.

Progress in fighting the fire was hampered by the dry,sandy roads. There was no source of water near the lo-cation of the fire, so attempts were made to bring wa-ter up the roads. The Tribe operates two watercatchments on Moccasin Mountain for wildlife andcattle. Because of the drought, there was little wateravailable, and what was there was inadequate for fight-ing the fire. Water was obtained from a private con-tractor in Kanab, but heavy equipment had damagedboth roads and culverts and exacerbated the situation.The fire fighters were unable to get a water tender upthe roads, so they relied upon a temporary reservoirthat was set up north of the reservation boundary onUtah state park lands and supplied by the private con-tractor. Helicopters flew in and out with water fromthe reservoir.

The fire was contained four days after it began andcompletely extinguished three days later. According toestimates drawn from aerial photos, 1,618 acres wereburned. It was one of several thousand fires thatburned on tribal trust land in 2000.

After the FireSeveral weeks after the fire was put out, a Burned AreaEmergency Rehabilitation (BAER) team was as-sembled to plan for restoration and reseeding on Moc-casin Mountain. The team sent the Tribe a list of seeds

Precipitation at Pipe Springs Station

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May. Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Pre

cip

ita

tio

n (

inc

he

s)

10 yr. avg.2000

Figure 8. Precipitation at Pipe Springs Station.Source: based on data from the Western Regional Climate Center;http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?azpipe

16

CLIMAS

they intended to drop from a helicopter, but none ofthe tribal officials who saw the list had the expertisenecessary for evaluating the efficacy of the mix. Dryconditions continued, and several people both insideand outside of the tribe expressed concern that seedswould not germinate. Several tribal members suggestedsending people over the burned area in small off-roadvehicles to disperse the seed and stir up the groundenough to ensure the seed would not blow or washaway. The BIA opted to fly over with a helicopter andscatter the seeds from the air. No special measures weretaken to prevent erosion from the site.

The BIA contracted with a private firm for an archaeo-logical survey of the burned area. The Tribe receivedthe BIA contract to build a fence around the burnedarea to keep cattle out of it. Delays from both the BIAand the Tribe meant that the fence was not yet begunsix months after the fire. By the summer of 2001, thereseeding had had only limited success and the teamfrom NAU and the Tribe was establishing experimentalplots to test whether adding microbes to the soil withthe seeds would enhance growth and erosion protection.

The BIA reimbursed the Tribe for damages to thefence, roads, and culverts that occurred during the firesuppression efforts. The Tribe’s grader was repaired.The Roads Department purchased new culverts to re-place those broken by fire trucks in their attempt tonavigate the dry, sandy roads.

As a result of the fire, the Field Office’s FMO orga-nized a meeting with the Western Region FMO, theFMO of the Truxton Canyon Agency, tribal represen-tatives, and the BLM’s FMO in St. George to discussways to improve fire management capability. TheWestern Region approved the creation of a position fora full time FMO at the Field Office, but that position

has not been filled. High fire activity and federal mon-ies that have allowed agencies to increase their person-nel have resulted in a shortage of qualified fire manage-ment personnel and given those with the necessaryqualifications many options. The collateral duty FMOhas left the Field Office for a position elsewhere in theBIA.

Factors Influencing Fire ManagementDrought conditions on the Arizona Strip affect thecondition of the vegetation and can increase the speedand severity of fires there. In addition, they negativelyimpact unpaved roads and the availability of waterneeded to respond effectively to fires. When coupledwith a lack of active woodlands management and theextensive overgrowth of sagebrush, these conditionscreate a major fire hazard. Human inhabitants increasethe potential for fires to become disasters.

Fire fighters from federal, state, local, and tribal agen-cies responded to the Moccasin Mountain fire. The in-teragency fire structure that establishes Fire Zones wasdesigned to improve organization and fire manage-ment, and within that structure is the potential for theincorporation of data, including climate information.However, tribes are represented in that structure onlyby the BIA. The location of the Kaibab Indian Reser-vation led to confusion about the Fire Zone in whichthe Reservation is located, and this uncertainty per-sisted even after the fire was over. On the ArizonaStrip, the Northern Arizona Zone includes the KaibabNational Forest, which borders the eastern end of thereservation. Kaibab tribal leaders have positive workingrelationships with the personnel at the Ranger Stationin Fredonia, and both tribal and Forest Service em-ployees expressed the belief that it was the ForestService’s responsibility to respond to fires on the Reser-vation. Upon close examination, however, the partici-pation of the Southern Paiute Field Office in theNorthern Arizona Zone is on behalf of the San JuanSouthern Paiute Tribe rather than the Kaibab Band ofPaiute Indians. The Kaibab Indian Reservation is in-cluded within the Color Country Zone which includesthe BLM and the Dixie National Forest, but not theKaibab National Forest.

From a tribal perspective, a major flaw in the existingstructure is that tribal interests are represented by BIApersonnel rather than people working directly for theinvolved tribes. As a consequence, on only a few iso-lated occasions have tribal representatives been invitedto and attended meetings to develop the Annual Oper-

Figure 9. After the Moccasin Mountain Fire.

17


ating Plans. This structure allows confusion to persistand makes it difficult for the people who will have towork together to plan for and respond to fires to cometo know and trust one another. Even if climate infor-mation were incorporated into the planning process,until the tribes are more active participants in the pro-cess they are likely to see little benefit.

Within the BIA, there is recognition that inadequateresources and personnel have hindered natural resourcemanagement planning, and particularly fire manage-ment. Ironically, widespread public attention to andfederal financial support for fire management have im-proved options for trained personnel and exacerbatedthe difficulties that offices such as the Southern PaiuteField Office face in finding the staff they need.

During the study, the firefighters and decision makersat all agencies participating in this study expressed adesire for better communication and coordination. Ef-forts to coordinate radio communication and provideadequate radios to all parties are sorely needed. In ad-dition, participants reported that interaction amongfederal agencies and between the agencies and the firefighters is lacking. Cooperation among federal agencieswill make it possible for improved interaction with lo-cal units and is likely to facilitate the use of climate in-formation by all involved.

The Tribe has begun working with NAU’s ForestryDepartment to improve ecosystem management on thereservation. As that process develops, climate informa-tion may be need for decision making on the reserva-tion.

Fires on the Fort Mojave Indian

Reservation

Two recent fires are described here. The first, the IceHouse Fire, was started by arson in the Havasu Wild-life Refuge in May 1995. It spread onto tribal, Bureauof Land Management (BLM), and Fish and WildlifeService (FWS) land. The second, Walters Burn, beganin 1999 on land leased from the tribe on the Califor-nia side of the Fort Mojave Reservation. This fire es-caped and moved onto tribal land before it was extin-guished.

The Fort Mojave Indian Reservation is located on bothsides of the Colorado River, comprising land in Cali-fornia (12,633 acres), Nevada (5,582 acres), and Ari-

zona (23,669 acres). Reservation land borders towns,wildlife refuges, and other federal and private land,and lies within the larger region of Mojave ancestrallands. The checkerboard pattern illustrates how privateand tribal land are interspersed.

The Mojave people call themselves Pipa Ahamakav(People by the River). Their ancestral lands stretchalong the Colorado River from Black Canyon nearpresent-day Hoover Dam, to an area south of Blythe,California. The core area extended twenty to fiftymiles east and west of the Colorado River, but Mojavesalso had a presence in the east to within 50 miles ofpresent day Phoenix. They also frequented transporta-tion corridors west of the core area to southern andnorthern California, Baja, and Guaymas on the Sea ofCortez, and east as far as Zuni in New Mexico.

Spirit Mountain, northwest of the present reservation,overlooks these ancestral lands. The Mojave considerthe mountain to be the site of their earthly origins. Ac-cording to their origin story, the Great SpiritMatavilya, born from the union of Earth and sky, waskilled before he could teach his people all they neededto know of their world. His son, Mastamho, then tookupon himself the responsibility of shaping the landand teaching the people how to cultivate it. Mastamhocreated for his people AviKwame (Spirit Mountain),the spiritual center of Mojave life. He drove a willowstick into the Earth and drew out the Colorado River,which he gave to his people along with all that grewalongside it. The river was thus at the heart of Mojavecivilization (Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, 1993).

According to some anthropological accounts, ancestorsof the modern Mojave originally settled in the MohaveValley in the 12th century (Sturtevant 1978); theMojave themselves consider this date incorrect andtrace their presence in the homeland to tens of thou-sands of years earlier (personal communication,Ahamakav Cultural Society, 2/28/01). Under all ac-counts, the Mojave have a demonstrably long historyof occupancy and land use in their present locationand deep cultural and economic links to the landthrough time (Klasky 1997). Such dominion and cul-tural ties to the land are considered the criteria for de-fining aboriginal territory and rights to land.

Mojaves were successful agriculturalists, depending onthe silt deposits of the yearly Colorado River floods tofertilize the land. Floodplains were planted with maize,tepary beans, pumpkins and melons; fish and game

18

CLIMAS

supplemented the crops; and mesquite beans weregathered in the wild. If floods did not occur, theMojave could rely on mesquite beans and beaver(Dutton 1976). The Mojave traditionally visitedpeople at great distances (Kroeber 1951); their pros-perity allowed them to travel as far as the Pacific Coastin trade networks with other tribes (Fort Mojave In-dian Tribe 1993).

Prior to Euroamerican contact, Mojave society was apatrilineal society comprising at least three bands—northern, central and southern divisions (Stewart1983), and 22 clans (now 18) (http://www.nps.gov/moja/mojahtm2.htm). Families lived in sprawlingsettlements and people moved freely through Mojaveterritory. Leadership was assumed by individuals recog-nized for their moral strength rather than through aformal political process (Economic Development Ad-ministration 2000, www.doc.gov/eda/html/lg3_4_indianres.htm). By the 16th century, the Mojavehad the largest concentration of people per square milein the Southwest United States (Sherer 1994). TheSpanish expedition of Juan de Oñate encounteredthem in 1604 (Stewart 1983). The arrival of trappersand settlers in the 1820s threatened their flourishingcivilization. The United States annexed territory in-cluding Arizona in 1850, and sent expeditions outalong the Colorado River to find a site for a fort. TheU.S. government learned of the Tribe’s existencethrough encounters with the Mojaves at that time.

Later expeditions surveyed for wagon routes and rail-roads, and soon settlers and steamboats made their wayinto Mojave country. The railroad and the people itbrought reduced game and food plants available forMojave use. Conflict ensued between the tribe andnewcomers. In 1859 the U.S. War Department built afort outside present day Needles, California to protectthe river crossing. That same year the soldiers withtheir rifle power overwhelmed the Mojaves in battle(Sherer 1994) and ended their military resistance(Stewart 1983).

Mojave chieftains sued for peace. In 1859, someMojaves were induced to migrate south to the Colo-rado River Valley (Sturtevant 1978). They were joinedby others in 1865 when the U.S. government createdthe Colorado River Indian Tribe Reservation. The in-centive to migrate included 75,000 acres of land andpromises of farming and irrigation projects. The migra-tion brought about the two groups that comprise thepresent tribes: the Fort Mojaves and the Colorado River

Mojaves. A former Great Chief resumed his leadershipof the conservative group of Mojaves who remained intheir ancestral homeland in the Mohave Valley.

Disease and poverty decimated Mojave populationfrom 1870 to 1890 when a Department of War gen-eral order first established the Fort Mojave Reserva-tion. A boarding school was established in the oldfort and Mojave children were forced to attend andlearn English language and American culture, and toreject their own. Older Mojaves were taughtEuroamerican farming methods, but most turned towage work for railroads and mining operations(Klasky 1997). Nonetheless, Mojaves continuedfloodwater farming well into the twentieth centuryuntil dams along the Colorado River dictated thechange to irrigated agriculture.

In 1911, half a century after the Colorado River Reser-vation was established, an executive order confirmed thereservation for the Mojaves in Mohave Valley. The FortMojave Indian Reservation eventually came to encom-pass more than 41,000 acres, including the old militaryoutpost, reserves on the California and Nevada side ofthe Colorado, and checkerboarded11 farmland on theArizona side. The distance between the two groups ofthe Mojave did not prevent a large amount of visitingand intermarriage; travel between the two reservationsbecame essential to preserving Mojave culture.

The construction of major dams in the twentieth cen-tury wrought dramatic changes to the landscape andall the peoples along the lower Colorado (see Table 1).Beginning with Hoover (originally Boulder) Dam in1936, followed in 1938 by Parker Dam and DavisDam in 1953, management of the river occurred out-side the Tribe. Decisions affecting water use were takenout of the hands of local users, and regulations were es-tablished to ensure that the water would reach usersalong its entire length. The regulated river forcedchanges or abandonment of the traditional livelihoodsthat had depended on the river’s natural course and pe-riodic flooding. The Colorado River Compact of 1922had established allocations of river water among thestates and Mexico; the dams began the era of fulfillingthose commitments.

Their long occupancy along the Colorado River, how-ever, gives the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe senior priorityon water allocation, a right finally won in the 1963 U.S.Supreme Court case of Arizona v. California12. The caseasserted, among other things, the reserved rights of the

19


Fort Mojave, Cocopah, Yuma, Chemehuevi, and Colo-rado River Indian Tribes (Checchio and Colby 1993).

The Fort Mojave Tribal Constitution was approved in1957. The Fort Mojave tribal government consists of aTribal Council with five members, a chair, and a vicechair, who are elected into office by the community(Fort Mojave Indian Tribe 1993). There are no indi-vidual allotments of land in the Fort Mojave Reserva-tion. Rather, the seven-member Council controls theallocation and use of tribal resources on the reserva-tion. The tribal government has grown to include 48departments. The Physical Resources Department isresponsible for all land and resource management. In1997, the population of enrolled tribal members wasestimated to be just over 1,000; of these, 890 residedon the reservation in 1998. (Arizona Department ofCommerce: 1999).

Leases of reservation land to large-scale farming opera-tions, issued by the BIA on behalf of the Tribe, beganin 1974. Over a period of several years, 16,000 acres ofthe Fort Mojave Indian Reservation were leased, and amajority of tribal income was derived from thoseleases. The 25-year leases have begun to expire, and by2001 the Tribe had regained control of 9,000 acres.The Tribe operates a commercial farm on this acreage,producing crops of hay and cotton. An additional20,544 acres of reservation land that are currently fal-low could be irrigated with Colorado River water (per-sonal communication, tribal employee, 5/9/01; Eco-nomic Development Administration 2000,www.doc.gov/eda/html/lg3_4_indianres.htm).

The tribe owns and operates two casinos, an RV parkand its own telephone, electricity, and water and sewer

utilities. The tribal water and sewer plant is expandingto provide services to customers both off and on thereservation (personal communication, tribal employee,2/2/01). A new natural gas-fired power plant thatcame on line in early 2001 was built on land leasedfrom the Tribe, which also supplies its water. Althoughthe tribe has an increasingly diverse business and eco-nomic base, agriculture is still an important source ofrevenue. The casinos alone provide more jobs thanthere are tribal members to fill them; firefighting, withits physically demanding, irregular and risky nature, isnot an appealing job option for tribal members (per-sonal communication, tribal leader, 2/5/01).

Ecological Change along the Lower Colorado RiverThe Colorado River has always been regarded as an in-tegral part of Mojave life. The Mojaves believe thatthey have been in this territory since “time immemo-rial;” consequently, their environment plays a key rolein mythology, folklore, and traditional subsistence ac-tivities. According to Mojave mythic stories, the landsurrounding the Colorado River was given to them bythe deity, Masthamo, and, as result, that land is theirresponsibility and their right.

Before Euroamerican settlement and development, thelower Colorado River formed an alluvial delta contain-ing vast marshes, riparian forests and backwaters. Theriparian belt extended away from the river for up toseveral miles where the water table remained relativelyshallow. Cane (probably Phragmites sp.), arrowweed(Tesseria sericea), cottonwood (Populus fremontii), andwillow (Salix gooddingii) grew in the river bottoms. Be-hind them in less marshy areas were mesquite (Prosopisspp.) stands, and beyond those grew only xerophyticdesert vegetation (Stewart 1983).

noitacoL/maD raeY esopruPyramirP tnemdnuopmI devreSsaerA

/maD)redluoB(revooHneewtebnoynaCkcalB

anozirAdnaadaveN

6391 ;noitalugerrevir;lortnocdoolFnoitamalcerrofegarotsretaw

”;sesulaicifenebrehtodna“rewopcirtceleordyh

daeMekaL ,anozirA,ainrofilaC

adaveN

/maDrekraPZA,rekraP

8391 odaroloCrofegarotsriovreseRanozirAlartneCdnareviR

stcejorP

usavaHekaL ,anozirAainrofilaC

/maDsivaDZA,ytiCdaehlluB

3591 maDrevooHetaluger-eRmaertsnwodrofsesaeler

yticirtceleordyh;sdeen

evahoMekaL ,anozirAocixeM

Table 1. Dams along the Lower Colorado

20

CLIMAS

Mesquite was—and remains—a most important plantin Mojave culture. Mesquite beans were a food sourcein earlier times, and mesquite wood was required foruse in funeral ceremonies, a practice which continuestoday. Reduction in numbers of mesquite trees anddamage to mesquite habitat is thus of considerableconcern to the Tribe.

The twentieth century dams that altered the river flowvolume and seasonal flooding patterns affected the ri-

parian communities downstream, particularly the cot-tonwood and willow that depended on the floods tore-establish themselves. Ecologists now characterize thelower Colorado River ecosystem as “highly perturbed”(Busch 1992). In addition, the Colorado River watershave become more saline due to the many impound-ments and run-off from the associated agricultural ac-tivity (DOI 1995).

Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima), or salt cedar, appearedalong the main stem of the Colorado River in the1920s (http://www.lc.usbr.gov/~g2000/assess/chapter3.htm#E3E4); the Mojaves began to notice thischange in the mid 1930s, shortly after damming began(personal communication, tribal leader, 2/5/01). Thesesalt-tolerant and fire-adapted trees were introduced bythe Bureau of Reclamation for erosion control and aswindbreaks (personal communication, tribal leader 7/13/01) but rapidly spread in riparian areas, crowdingout native vegetation, contributing to the desiccationof watercourses, and increasing the frequency of distur-bance from fire (Busch 1992, DOI 1995). Fire appearsto have been relatively infrequent in riparian ecosys-tems prior to tamarisk invasion and to have played arelatively minor role in structuring plant communi-ties dominated by cottonwood, willow, and mesquite.Tamarisk, with its propensity for episodic burning,has thus produced a novel distribution in low-eleva-tion southwestern floodplain ecosystems such asthose that occur along the lower Colorado River(Busch 1992). Culturally important mesquite nowstruggles for a foothold in the shade of salt cedar(Figure 12).

During the 20 years from 1963 to 1983, while theColorado River filled Lake Powell behind Glen Can-yon Dam, only enough water was released to meetdownstream requirements. This dropped the watertable, and wetlands began to dry out. After LakePowell was filled in 1983, high snowmelt, a result ofthat year’s El Niño event, raised the water level in thelake to the point where the dam was threatened. Largereleases to save the dam resulted in flooding down-stream. (A building on the Fort Mojave reservationwas seriously damaged in this flood.) When the floodperiod was over and releases returned to pre-flood lev-els, the river bottom had been scoured to a depth ofabout five feet. The river’s volume was returned towhat it had been prior to the flooding, but the deeperchannel further reduced the extent of remaining wet-lands (personal communication, tribal employee,2/2/01).

Figure 10. Entrance to Fort Mojave Tribal Farm.

Figure 11. Tamarisk (and arrowweed) in Havasu WildlifeRefuge.

Figure 12. Mesquite regrowth.

21


Mojave Fire ManagementAccording to a Mojave tribal leader (personal commu-nication, 2/5/01), the Mojave people used fire prima-rily for agricultural purposes. Each spring they wouldclear land for planting along the Colorado River, cut-ting down the native vegetation and piling it in themiddle of the cleared field prior to burning to mini-mize the risk of the fire jumping to surrounding areas.Such “old methods” ceased by the 1940s; the DavisDam regulated the flow of water and led to final aban-donment of traditional floodwater farming methods asthe Mojave adopted irrigated agriculture (personalcommunication, tribal elder, 2/5/01). Today, bothMojave and non-Indian farmers burn the stubble left infields after harvest in late June and early July, and burnoff Bermuda grass during the winter dormant period(personal communication, tribal employee, 2/2/01). Forthese long-time farmers, the damming of the ColoradoRiver caused significant changes, with consequences forfire management. Construction of farm roads and irri-gation canals on the reservation (Figure 13) also affectedboth the occurrence and management of fire.

The Mojave also have always used fire in their mortu-ary practices. Upon death, a person was burned in hishouse and the site permanently abandoned (personalcommunication, tribal elder, 2/5/01; Kroeber 1925).Today, cremation with a fire of mesquite wood, whichoccurs in a public space, remains an important practicein Mojave religion and culture. Such cultural practicesmust be recognized as factors in tribal natural resourcesmanagement and planning processes.

Mojaves remain concerned about appropriate land usein their traditional territory as well as on reservationland itself. For example, in the 1990s, the Tribe par-ticipated in opposing the siting of a nuclear wastedump in Ward Valley, California, for which a transportroute would have passed directly through Fort Mojaveand the traditional tribal homeland. The Tribe’s re-source management options will continue to be af-fected by external decisions such as those governingthe flow of the Colorado River, as well as by activitieson the lands bordering their reservation. As noted inthe first section, tribes such as Fort Mojave that do notopt under PL-638 to assume responsibility for firemanagement leave that responsibility to the BIA, andthe extent of their participation in meetings and policyprocesses varies. When, as in Fort Mojave’s case, reser-vation land does not contain forests for which there aremanagement plants, the roles and interactions can be-come quite complex.

BIA Fire ManagementThe Fort Mojave Reservation is one of three reserva-tions under the jurisdiction of the BIA’s ColoradoRiver Agency. That agency is responsible for the Colo-rado River Indian Tribe and Fort Mojave reservations,as well as Chemehuevi, the southernmost SouthernPaiute tribe. When a new superintendent arrived at theColorado River Agency in 1993, he was surprised anddismayed to learn there was no fire organization there.The three tribes were in two different Fire Zones inArizona (see Figure 4) and one in California. The su-perintendent was concerned about the lack of trainingand resources to fight wildland fires in his agencyarea; with a fire management budget of only$15,000, he was responsible for all three reservations.Fire incidence, fortunately, was not high, but occur-rences had rarely been reported. Because federal firemanagement funding is based on a formula that allo-cates money in accordance with the number of inci-dents reported, the superintendent faced a consider-able challenge.

Fortunately, “[t]he River was ripe for cooperation”(personal communication, BIA official, 2/2/01), andthe BIA superintendent could look beyond his agencyfor assistance. There were no large fire operations inthe lower Colorado River area encompassing two BIAagencies, five wildlife refuges, and two BLM field of-fices. The recent deaths of 14 firefighters in the StormKing fire in Colorado had raised awareness of safety is-sues throughout the western United States; this stimu-lated the organizations along the River to pool their ef-forts. Working together, economies of scale couldjustify a larger and more effective fire organizationthan any one unit could afford alone.

Figure 13. Road through Mojave Tribal farmland withportion of Walters Burn area in foreground.

22

CLIMAS

The effort to create such a cooperative venture was un-derway when the Ice House Fire occurred in 1995.The following sections describe that fire and the result-ing fire management reorganization.

The Ice House FireIn the early stages of development of the InteragencyAgreement, on May 2, 1995, two young boys started afire in the Havasu Wildlife Refuge along the ColoradoRiver. Conditions were dry (see Figure 14), and thefire spread quickly. The Mohave Valley Fire Depart-ment responded to the fire and notified the FWS andthe BLM. When the fire spread onto the Fort MojaveReservation, the BIA was contacted and authorizedother area fire fighters to enter tribal land. The BIA su-perintendent contacted the tribal chairperson and re-quested a representative from the Tribe be dispatchedto the fire camp being set up near the fire. On May 3,the BLM’s FMO, who had assumed responsibility forthe fire, arrived from Yuma and requested a Type II fireteam. Fort Mojave was at that time within the GrandCanyon Zone (a subunit of the Northern ArizonaZone; see Figure 4), so a U.S. Forest Service Type IIteam was dispatched out of its Williams, Arizona of-fice. The Type II team deployed heavy equipment in-cluding bulldozers and helicopter tankers, whichscooped water directly out of the Colorado. The teamincluded a micrometeorologist and burn specialists in

addition to firefighters. At the peak ofthe effort, 225 firefighters from bothfederal and local agencies were present(DOI 1995).

Fort Mojave’s Physical Resources Di-rector was designated to represent theTribe at the fire camp and authorizedby the Tribal Chair to provide what-ever tribal resources the effort re-quired, such as access to water in theirirrigation ditches. Irrigation pumpson the reservation took water fromthe Colorado River and out of TopockMarsh. Fish and Wildlife Servicepumps in the refuge were also con-verted for firefighting.

The Ice House Fire burned 3,407acres of land. It was brought undercontrol on May 7, and declared outon May 22 (DOI 1995). Subsequentinvestigation determined the fire hadbeen deliberately set by the boys, us-

ing a “childproof” lighter. The fire burned 1,661 acresof tribal land, including 360 acres of prime mesquitehabitat (of particular concern to the Tribe because ofmesquite’s cultural significance); 1,235 acres of BLMland; 236 U.S. Forest Service acres; and 255 acres onstate and private land (DOI 1995). The north end ofthe Havasu Wildlife Refuge burned to its border withcropland, and the fire threatened a residential develop-ment. Although all structures were saved and no onewas injured (personal communication, fire manager, 2/2/01), the fire had an impact on fire managementpolicy along the Colorado, stimulating the develop-ment of the Interagency Agreement.

ReorganizationThe Ice House Fire caused authorities to recognize thatthey needed a stronger fire management program andconsequently affected funding and staffing patterns. Iteventually led to reorganizing and establishing a fieldstation on the Fort Mojave Reservation. The BIA andthe BLM signed the “Interagency Plan of Operationfor Fire Management on the Lower Colorado by theBLM and BIA” on October 17, 1996 (personal com-munication, BIA official, 4/2/01). The Fish and Wild-life Service (FWS) signed on in January 1999 after yetanother fire (South Dike in 1998) burned FWS andBLM land and threatened tribal land. The geographicarea covered by the Plan includes the Lower Colorado

Figure 14. Palmer Drought Severity Index for Arizona Division 1, whichincludes the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation.Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

23


River from the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation andNeedles, California, south to the Mexican border, in acorridor that extends approximately 10 miles on eachside of the river. Its farthest reach is to about 40 mileseast of the river, to cover the Kofa Game Refuge at thesouth end (personal communication, fire manager, 4/2/01). All units within the area encompassed by theagreement now operate within the Central West FireZone; the BLM supplies the FMO, and the FWS andBIA provide assistant FMOs. Consolidation within asingle Fire Zone has facilitated BIA participation inmanagement and the development of the Annual Op-erating Plan. As elsewhere, the tribes are represented bythe BIA in the planning process; the location of thefield station on its reservation has facilitated communi-cation with the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe.

The Walters BurnOn New Year’s Eve at the close of 1999, after the Inter-agency Agreement was in place, a fire started by an indi-vidual burning trash on leased reservation land acciden-tally spread, eventually burning 500 acres of salt cedarand mesquite habitat on the Fort Mojave Reservation.The fire was reported to the local Mohave Valley FireDepartment, which responded. The local firefighterswere joined by a task force from the San BernardinoCounty Fire Department in Yucca Valley. Authority wasturned over to the Yuma BLM, as per the InteragencyAgreement, when the FMO arrived. No permission wassought or needed for the firefighters to enter tribal land.

Burning fast and hot enough to melt glass, the firecharred tamarisk, mesquite and all other available fuelsdown to the bare soil (personal communication, firemanager, 2/2/01). The fire burned for one day. Nostructures were threatened or damaged and the fire’sspread was limited by roads and the river. The Tribe’sPhysical Resources Director was out of town duringthe fire. The Tribe’s involvement was limited to ac-knowledging that the firefighters were on the sceneand putting out the fire.

After the FiresLocated within riparian habitat that had becomedominated by tamarisk, the major impact of the twofires was to increase the success of tamarisk over nativevegetation. Within the burned areas, the tamarisk be-gan a quick recovery, soon shading out the mesquitethat started sprouting from the roots of burned trees.After the Walter’s Burn, the Tribe and BIA were slowto develop a restoration plan, and conditions wors-ened. In early 2001, the Director of Physical Resources

began an experimental restoration project with a smallgrant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.Burned tamarisk will be mechanically removed, youngmesquite pruned and planted, and cottonwood andwillow propagated, in an effort to restore the experi-mental plot to its native composition. This is the firstsuch effort at restoration attempted on Fort Mojaveland; the Physical Resources Director and the Tribe areenthusiastic about it as a project that addresses boththe ecological and cultural integrity of tribal land.

Participants in the Interagency Agreement also faceunique challenges. Lightning-caused wildfires are rela-tively infrequent in the Mohave Desert environment.Humans cause the vast majority of fires (personal com-munication, fire manager, 2/2/01). The ColoradoRiver Agency’s jurisdiction includes both urban andagricultural interfaces, but fire management models ex-ist only for urban interface situations. Neither are therefire models for the desert scrub or salt cedar and cane(Phragmites) that dominate the riparian vegetationzone. A Mohave Valley fire captain noted that Califor-nia scrub responds to fire differently than do the grassand timber for which his crews are trained. Fires in thisecosystem also exhibit unique characteristics, such asburning into the wind and under humid conditions.The most active period for fire along the lower Colo-rado, from May through August, comprises both dryand humid months, but “it burns all year round alongthe river” (personal communication, fire manager, 2/2/01). This proves critical for managers because, outsidethe regular fire season during which many seasonal

Figure 15. Site where the Walters fire consumed a largehaystack and charred the soil beneath it.

24

CLIMAS

firefighters are employed, qualified firefighting person-nel and resources are in short supply. Mohave Valleyfirefighters are cross-trained for both structure andwildland fire, but once a fire reaches Type II severity,they call in the specialized expertise of federal wildlandfirefighting crews.

Factors Influencing Fire ManagementThe signatories to the Lower Colorado agreement recog-nize that there is still much that can be done to improvetheir program. As of the time of this study, for example,separate fire management plans were being developedfor the BIA, FWS, and BLM. The goal is to consolidatethese plans and develop one budget and master plan forall entities involved in the Interagency Agreement. Inaddition, fire managers expressed the need for shiftingfrom reactive fire management to incorporating fire intooverall resource management and planning.

In contrast to the situation at Kaibab and on the Ari-zona Strip, fire has exacerbated disturbance of nativeriparian vegetation; the invasive tamarisk benefits fromfire and burns regardless of climatic conditions, per-petuating its own dominance. Nevertheless, dry condi-tions contributed to rapid spread of the 1995 IceHouse Fire. Given the tremendous care with which

restoration efforts including burning tamarisk willhave to proceed, climate information will be an impor-tant aspect of management decisions.

At the time of this study, the Fire Management Of-ficer responsible for implementing the InteragencyAgreement utilized climate data provided by weatherstations, the National Interagency Fire Center inBoise, Idaho, and federal resources such as NOAAand the National Weather Service. He had the capac-ity to process data for use in creating AnnualOperating Plans and for other resource managementpurposes.

Within the Tribe, Fort Mojave’s Physical Resources Di-rector expressed interest in receiving climate informa-tion that could be used in agricultural decision-mak-ing. This need will increase if the Tribe further expandsits agricultural program. At this time, the Tribe usesthe University of Arizona Extension Service, localweather station data (there is an Arizona Meteorologi-cal Service recording station on the reservation), andInternet resources. Drought is not a concern becauseall agriculture is irrigated; the Tribe’s senior right toColorado River water guarantees a dependable supplyfrom that source. Instead, it is excess rather than lackof water that can cause problems. Rain at the wrongtime can discolor hay and bring down the price, delaycotton harvests, result in lower quality produce, or ger-minate seed too early. Too much water disrupts the ir-rigation regime that is in place. In addition, FortMojave’s location in a valley below the 4,500 footBlack Mountains, in a rocky watershed, raises concernsabout flooding; serious rains in the mountains couldlead to problems because the runoff has nowhere to gobut across the reservation. Consequently, rain andflooding are far greater concerns for the Tribe than iseither wildland fire or drought. However, the Tribe hasno access to information from the Black Mountains.

Figure 16. Walters burn restoration site.

25


This study set out to investigate institutional factorsinfluencing fire management on southwestern Indianreservations and evaluate when and where climate in-formation could be useful to those responsible for res-ervation lands and resources. By examining case stud-ies of recent fires on two reservations, the study movesbeyond the hypothetical discussion of what might oc-cur to identify actual decision processes and whetherand where information could be incorporated. In addi-tion, it reviews historic fire and ecological practicesand past decision processes to identify beliefs and ex-periences that might generate reluctance to use fire orclimate information in resource management.

In both cases reviewed, there is documented and oralevidence of historic as well as current tribal practicesinvolving fire. Though neither tribe considered theirlands and the natural elements on them as resources tobe exploited, they have both used fire to effect changesin vegetation. However, both tribes occupy lands onwhich dramatic ecosystem changes have been causedby non-Indian decisions and practices. Their membersand leaders recognize that they can benefit from part-nerships with others who can help them restore theirlands to support the plants and animals that are im-portant to tribal members.

Resource Management and Information forPlanningAs this study demonstrates, the resources and capaci-ties of individual tribes and BIA offices vary signifi-cantly. Therefore, each reservation situation must beindividually investigated and evaluated to determinewhen and how reservation management decisions aremade, if and how climate information could be used,and the best form for delivery.

In both cases, fire management on tribal land is offi-cially the responsibility of the BIA. The BIA partici-pates in the federal interagency fire structure that be-gins locally with Fire Zones and culminates in theNational Interagency Fire Center. The BIA’s SouthernPaiute Field Office is responsible for Southern Paiutelands in three states and within five Fire Zones. Recentrestructuring within the Colorado River Agency hasleft that BIA office responsible for three tribes, all ofwhich have been brought within a single Fire Zone.

Direct tribal participation in planning meetings andother activities within the Fire Zones is minimal tononexistent. This arrangement has created problemsfor the Southern Paiute tribes, especially because theBIA personnel are spread so thin, but it has met theneeds of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe.

At Kaibab, the Tribe and reservation will benefit mostfrom resource management planning and greater in-volvement in fire resource decisions made by the agen-cies that are responsible for responding to fires on thereservation. The evolving partnership with NAU pro-vides one potential mechanism through which betterresource management might occur and climate infor-mation might be funneled.

At Fort Mojave, the Tribe benefits indirectly from firemanagement and the climate information used by theFire Management Officer responsible for implement-ing the Interagency Agreement that includes the Bu-reau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service,and Bureau of Indian Affairs on behalf of the Tribe.The Tribe’s leaders believe that the interests of theTribe are well served by the relatively new arrangementand do not seek changes in fire management practices.The Tribal Physical Resources Director could benefitdirectly from climate information related to agricul-tural issues, such as heat units and evapotranspiration.His need for climate data is therefore different fromthat which the FMO needs for fire management andplanning.

Those dedicated to improving regional capacity to re-spond appropriately and effectively to climatic eventsand climate changes face critical decisions about howto achieve their objectives in the face of obstacles likethose described in this study. Parallel to efforts to im-prove understanding of climate and how to representclimate information to the public must be efforts toidentify the institutional structures that are best able touse information. In addition, those charged with pro-viding such information must continue to refine waysto help tribes, local governments, and even federalagencies develop mechanisms that will allow them toincorporate climate information into their decisionprocesses. Otherwise, they risk privileging only thosewho, because of historical conditions or potential in-

Summary and Recommendations

26

CLIMAS

fluence, have the resources and capacity to utilize theinformation.

Broader ImplicationsIn addition to what this study has revealed about the na-ture of fire management and the potential for incorpo-rating climate information in decision-making, its find-ings have broader implications for land and resourcemanagement in Indian Country in the 21st century.

Tribes have faced significant changes; the period dur-ing which reservations were established was one of ma-jor disruption and change. Rapid non-Indian popula-tion growth occurring throughout the West threatensto cascade into another period of vast disruption andchange, especially for those tribes that previously wereat least somewhat buffered by public lands aroundtheir reservations.

1 The people whose tribes are indigenous to the United States arereferred to in this paper as Native Americans, American Indians,and Indians. The term Indian is inaccurate but has been used inthis paper because it is used in federal policies and other writing onnative peoples and also is the one many natives use when talkingabout themselves. The failure of non-Indian people to differentiateamong tribes is the cause of much misunderstanding. Tribes repre-sent distinct sociocultural groups, many of which have as little incommon with one another as they do with Europeans. U.S. law,however, has generally treated tribes as members of a single group. The word “tribe” can also be subject to misunderstanding; anthro-pologists define tribe to mean an autonomous political unit com-prising a group of people who share a common heritage, speak adistinct language, and identify with a known (but not necessarilyrigidly bounded) territory. Tribes can also be understood as nationswithin a nation-state (such as the United States).

2 CLIMAS was established in 1998 with funding from the NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to enhanceU.S. capacity to assess climate variability and longer-term climatechange with regard to the impacts on human and natural systemsin the Southwest. The project aims to foster participatory, iterativeresearch involving researchers, decision makers, resource users, edu-cators, and others who need more and better information aboutclimate and its impacts.

3 Lands held in trust by the U.S. government for Indian tribes andindividuals are collectively referred to as Indian Country. The defi-nition of Indian Country has evolved beyond restriction to geo-graphical boundaries and also represents the political relationshipof the United States to tribes (Deloria and Lytle 1983).

4 El Niño years often bring above-normal precipitation to the re-gion, while La Niña years—which often follow El Niño years—tend to be dry. Fire activity historically is greatest when wet ElNiño episodes, which play a role by contributing to a rapidbuildup of herbaceous understory vegetation, are followed by oneor more unusually dry (usually La Niña) years.

5 Political ecology expands ecological concepts to include culturaland political activity within an analysis of ecosystems that are sig-nificantly but not always entirely socially constructed (Greenbergand Park 1994).

6 Camassia esculenta, a blue-flowering plant with a bulbous root. Itwas dug and eaten raw or cooked by the Native Americans of theNorthwest Plateau, for whom it was a major food source (Encyclo-pedia Britannica Online, http://search.eb.com/bol/topic?eu=127685&sctn=4#s_top)

7 Amendments to the Act, in 1988, 1991, and 1994, attempted toexpedite the transition away from federal domination of Indianprograms and authorize tribal self-governance.

8 In July 1998, for example, 11 bureaus and agencies within theDepartments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Defense signed aMemorandum of Understanding for the Southwest Strategy ad-dressing natural resource management and conservation and com-munity issues. The BIA was among the signers.

9 A Stake is a division of the Mormon Church.

10 The continued occurrence of problems beyond reservation es-tablishment is not unique to this case. See, for example, Perry(1993).

11 The checkerboard sections resulted from 19th century awards ofalternating square mile sections of federal land to the railroads, toencourage their expansion; when the reservation was established,the federal government assigned to the tribal reservation those sec-tions which had remained in federal ownership.

12 373 U.S. 546 (1963), decreed in final form, 376 U.S. 340(1964), decree amended, 383 U.S. 268 (1966), supplemental de-cree entered, 439 U.S. 419 (1979), supplemental opinion, 460U.S. 605 (1983), second supplemental decree entered, 466 U.S.144 (1984).

Endnotes

Tribes have undergone significant changes in self-gov-ernment. Each tribe will continue to determine for it-self the appropriate degree to which it will assume au-thority for functions once provided by (or at leastassigned to) the federal government. Tribal-agency andinteragency agreements can benefit all partners whenthey are developed and implemented in a collaborativeprocess to meet the needs of all partners.

Though regional partnerships, meetings, and inter-agency decision processes consume large amounts oftime, much of what affects the reservation environ-ment occurs beyond the reservation boundaries and isdecided by private and governmental entities. Eachtribe and tribal coalition will continue to face decisionsabout which of those processes are most pertinent tothe issues facing its members and lands and how bestto participate in them.

27


References Cited

Allen, Craig D., Julio L. Betancourt, and Thomas W.Swetnam, 1998. “Landscape changes in the Southwest-ern United States: techniques, long-term data sets, andtrends.” T.D. Sisk, editor. In: Perspectives on the LandUse History of North America: A Context for Under-standing Our Changing Environment. U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Biological Resources Division, Biological Sci-ence Report USGS/BRD/BSR-1998-0003 (RevisedSeptember 1999).

Arizona Department of Commerce, 1999. Commu-nity Profile: Fort Mojave Indian Reservation. http://www.commerce.state.az.us/pdf/commasst/comm/ftmohave.pdf

Arizona Strip Field Office, 2000. Fire managementplan. Bureau of Land Management.

Austin, Diane E., Sherri Gerlak, and Carolyn Smith,2000. Building partnerships with Native Americans inclimate-related research and outreach. CLIMAS ReportSeries, CL2-00. Tucson: Institute for the Study ofPlanet Earth, University of Arizona. November.

Austin, Diane E. and Vivienne C. Jake, 1998. Waterquality and quantity assessment: baseline document forthe Kaibab Paiute Reservation. Prepared for Natural Re-sources Division, Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians, PipeSprings, Arizona. September 20.

Bahre, C., 1995. Human Impacts on the Grasslands ofSouthern Arizona. In: The Desert Grassland. M.McClaran and T. Van Davender, eds. Tucson: Univer-sity of Arizona Press

Bleak, James Godson, 1928. Annals of the SouthernUtah Mission, book A. Typescript copy of originalmanuscript covering the years 1849-1869, at BrighamYoung University.

Boyd, Robert, 1999. Indians, fire and the land in the Pa-cific Northwest. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Busch, David E., 1992. Analyses of the structure andfunction of lower Colorado River riparian plant com-munities. PhD dissertation. Department of BiologicalSciences, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. May.

Checchio, Elizabeth, and Bonnie G. Colby, 1993. In-dian water rights: negotiating the future. Water Re-sources Research Center, College of Agriculture, Uni-versity of Arizona. June.

Committee for the National Institute for the Environ-ment, 1994. Ecosystem management: federal agencyactivities. 94-339 ENR. http://www.cnie.org/nle/biodv-4d.html

Cook, Marilla, 1949. The life of Joseph F. Winsor.Written by Marilla Cook as told by Brother Winso.Autumn of 1948-Spring and Summer of 1949. Manu-script in the Winsor Family Scrapbook on file in thePipe Spring National Monument archives.

Deloria, Vine, Jr. and Clifford M. Lytle, 1983. Ameri-can Indians, American justice. Austin: University ofTexas Press.

Department of Interior (DOI), BAER Team, SouthZone, 1995. Ice House Fire burned area emergency re-habilitation (BAER) plan.

Dutton, Bertha P., 1976. The Rancheria, Ute, andSouthern Paiute Peoples. [Microform]. EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Economic Development Administration, 2000. Ameri-can Indian reservations and trust areas. Compendiumof information about the economic infrastructure ofthese areas. Prepared by the U.S. Department of Com-merce, Economic Development Administration.www.doc.gov/eda/html.lg3_4_indianres.htm. UpdatedApril 27. Accessed March 2001.

Euler, Robert C., 1964. Southern Paiute archaeology.American Antiquity 29:379-381.

Farris, Calvin , 2000. The influence of Native Ameri-can burning on pre-Columbian vegetation in theAmerican west: a review of disciplinary and method-ological approaches. Unpublished manuscript.

Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, 1993. "The People by theRiver," Pamphlet.

28

CLIMAS

Fowler, Don D., D. B. Madsen, and E.M. Hattori,1973. Prehistory of southeastern Nevada. Reno: DesertResearch Institute Publications in the Social SciencesNo. 6.

Fox, Gregory L., 1994. The Pipe Spring archaeologicalsurvey: a Section 110 planning project, Pipe Spring Na-tional Monument, Mohave County, Arizona. Report pre-pared for Rocky Mountain Region-National Park Ser-vice, United States Department of the Interior. Tucson:Western Archeological and Conservation Center, Na-tional Park Service.

Greenberg, James B., and Thomas K. Park, 1994. Po-litical ecology. Journal of Political Ecology: Case Studiesin History and Society. 1(electronic journal). http://www.library.arizona.edu/ej/jpe/vol1.htm

Kay, Charles E, 1994. Aboriginal overkill and nativeburning: implications for modern ecosystem manage-ment. Department of Anthropology, SUNY Buffalo.Available at: http://wings.buffalo.edu/academic/de-partment/anthropology/Documents/burning

Kelly, Isabel, 1934. Southern Paiute bands. AmericanAnthropologist n.s. 36:548-560.

Kelly, Isabel, 1964. Southern Paiute ethnography. SaltLake City: Anthropological Papers, Department of An-thropology, University of Utah.

Kiple, Kenneth F and Stephen V. Beck, 1997. Biologi-cal consequences of the European expansion, 1450-1800.Aldershot, Hampshire, Great Britain; Brookfield, Vt.,USA:Ashgate/Variorum.

Klasky, Phil, 1997. An Extreme and Solemn Relation-ship with the Land. (Thesis). http://www.igc.apc.org/envjustice/rep/klasky.html 10/97

Knack, Martha C., 1993. Interethnic competition atKaibab during the early twentieth century. Ethnohistory40(2):212-245.

Komarek, E.V., 1969. Fire and man in the Southwest.In: Proceedings of the symposium on fire ecology andthe control and use of fire in wild land management.R.F. Wagle, ed. Tucson: Journal of the Arizona Acad-emy of Science.

Kroeber, Alfred, 1925. Handbook of the Indians of Cali-fornia. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78.

Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office

Kroeber, Alfred, 1951. A Mohave Historical Epic. [Mi-croform]. Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of Califor-nia Press

Lutz, Harold J., 1959. Aboriginal man and white manas historical causes of fires in the boreal forest, withparticular reference to Alaska. Volume Bulletin No. 65.New Haven: Yale University Press.

McKown, James, 1960. Pipe Spring National Monu-ment historical handbook. February. Note: This hand-book was never published and distributed. A copy ison file in the Pipe Spring National Monument ar-chives.

National Park Service (NPS), 1996. Fire in the na-tional parks: understanding fire's role in natural areas.www.nps.gov/pub_aff/issues/fire.html. Last modifiedAugust 26.

Ohmart, R.D., B.W., Anderson, and W.C. Hunter,1988. The ecology of the lower Colorado River fromDavis Dam to the Mexico-United States internationalboundary: A community profile. Biological Report85(7.19) USFWS.

Perry, Richard J., 1993. Apache reservation: indigenouspeoples and the American state. Austin: University ofTexas Press.

Pyne, Stephen J., 1983. Indian fires: the fire practicesof North American Indians transformed large areasfrom forest to grassland. In: Natural History. Pp. 6-11,Vol. 92.

Pyne, Stephen J., 1984. Introduction to wildland fire:fire management in the United States. New York: Wiley.

Pyne, Stephen J., 1995. World fire: the culture of fire onearth. New York: Holt.

Pyne, Stephen J., Patricia L. Andrews, Richard D.Laven, 1996. Introduction to wildland fire. New York:Wiley.

Rosenkrance, Les, Joan Comanor, Terry Virden,Maureen Finnerty, Carolyn Bohan, Dennis Fenn, andDonald Artley, 1996. Federal wildland fire managementpolicy and program review implementation action planreport. Prepared by the U.S. Department of the Inte-

29


rior and U.S. Department of Agriculture. May 23.Available on the web at www.fs.fed.us/land/wdiap.htm.

Sheppard, Paul R., Andrew C. Comrie, Gregory D.Packin, Kurt Angersbach, and Malcolm K. Hughes,1999. The climate of the Southwest. CLIMAS ReportSeries, CLI-99. Tucson: Institute for the Study ofPlanet Earth, University of Arizona. December.

Sherer, Lorraine M., 1994. Bitterness Road : theMojave, 1604 to 1860. Menlo Park: Ballena Press.

Spicer, Edward H., 1962/1997 Cycles of conquest. Tuc-son: The University of Arizona Press.

Stern, Paul C. and William E. Easterling, Eds., 1999.Making climate forecasts matter. Committee on the Hu-man Dimensions of Global Change, Commission onBehavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Na-tional Research Council. Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademy Press.

Stewart, Kenneth M., 1983. The Mohave. In: Hand-book of North American Indians Vol. 10. A. Ortiz, ed.Pp. 55-70. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institu-tion.

Stoffle, Richard W., and Michael J. Evans, 1976. Re-source competition and population change: a KaibabPaiute ethnohistorical case. Ethnohistory 23:173-197.

Stoffle, Richard W., David B. Halmo, Michael J.Evans, and Diane E. Austin, 1994. Piapaxa ‘Uipi (BigRiver Canyon): ethnographic resource inventory and as-sessment for Colorado River corridor, Glen Canyon Na-tional Recreation Area, Utah and Arizona, and GrandCanyon National Park, Arizona. Prepared for the Na-tional Park Service. June.

Stoffle, Richard W., Kristine Jones, and HenryDobyns, 1995. Direct European immigrant transmis-sion of Old World pathogens to Numic Indians duringthe nineteenth century. American Indian Quarterly19(2):1-23.

Sturtevant, William C., ed., 1978. Handbook of NorthAmerican Indians: California. Washington D.C.: U.S.Government Printing Office

Swetnam, Thomas W., and Julio L. Betancourt, 1990.Fire-Southern Oscillation relations in the southwesternUnited States. Science 249:1017-1020.

Swetnam, Thomas W., 2001. Fire, climate and the2000 fire season in the Southwest. Presentation to theFire and Climate in the Southwest Workshop, ClimateAssessment Project for the Southwest, March 28.

Turner, Allen C., 1985. Adaptive continuity and cul-tural development among the Paiute Indians of theGrand Canyon’s North Rim. Tebiwa: The Journal Ofthe Idaho Museum of Natural History. 22:28-53.

USDI and USDA, 1995 . Federal Wildland Fire Policyand Program Review. December. Washington, D.C.http://www.fs.fed.us/land/wdfire.htm

Warner, Ted J., 1976. The Dominguez-Escalante jour-nal. Translated by Fray Angelico Chavez. Provo, Utah:Brigham Young University Press.

Webb, Robert H., Spence S. Smith, and Alexander S.McCord, 1992. Historic channel change of KanabCreek, Southern Utah and Northern Arizona. Mono-graph No. 9. Grand Canyon Natural History Associa-tion.

Williams, Gerald W., 1994. References on AmericanIndian use of fire in ecosystems. In: USDA Forest Ser-vice, Pacific Northwest Region. Portland, OR .

Winsor, Anson Perry III, 1959. Memoirs of Anson P.Winsor III. Published by Fendel’s Printing. Murray 7,Utah. September. Manuscript in the Winsor FamilyScrapbook on file in the Pipe Spring National Monu-ment archives.

Wood, Mary Christina, 1995. Symposium onClinton's new land policies: fulfilling the Executive'strust responsibility toward Native Nations in Environ-mental Issues: A Partial Critique of the ClintonAdministration's Promises and Performance. Environ-mental Law. 25: 733-800.