-
Title
-
Eng
Ecological Restoration: Sustaining Diversity On the South Puget Sound Prairie Landscape
-
Date
-
2009
-
Creator
-
Eng
Trokan, Matthew J
-
Subject
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text
-
Ecological
Restoration:
Sustaining
Diversity
On
the
South
Puget
Sound
Prairie
Landscape
By
Matthew
J.
Trokan
A
Thesis
Submitted
in
partial
fulfillment
Of
the
requirements
for
the
degree
Master
of
Environmental
Study
The
Evergreen
State
College
December
2009
Page
1
©
2010
by
Matthew
J.
Trokan.
All
rights
reserved.
Page
2
This
Thesis
for
the
Master
of
Environmental
Study
Degree
By
Matthew
J.
Trokan
Has
been
approved
for
The
Evergreen
State
College
By
________________________________
Frederica
Bowcutt
Member
of
the
Faculty
of
The
Evergreen
State
College
_____________________________
Martha
Henderson
Member
of
the
Faculty
of
The
Evergreen
State
College
_____________________________
Eric
Delvin
Community
Conservation
Coordinator
The
Nature
Conservancy
Washington
_______________________
Date
Page
3
Abstract
Ecological
Restoration;
Sustaining
Diversity
on
the
South
Puget
Sound
Prairie
Landscape
Anthropogenic
climate
change
is
unequivocal
and
unavoidable;
the
average
global
temperature
has
increased
over
the
past
century
and
will
continue
to
rise
an
additional
1.1
to
6.4
degrees
Celsius
by
2100.
Climate
is
one
of
the
most
significant
factors
determining
the
geographic
distribution
of
species
and
ecological
communities.
As
the
climate
changes
species
will
persist
through
adaptation,
migration
to
new
regions,
or
go
extinct.
Unlike
animals,
plants
that
cannot
readily
migrate
to
a
new
location
will
be
particularly
challenged
by
climate
change.
Climate
change
is
causing
a
sorting
of
vegetation
into
bands
along
migration
fronts,
led
by
the
fastest
(most
invasive)
dispersers
and
trailed
by
the
slowest
(least
invasive),
which
are
perhaps
at
the
greatest
risk
of
local
extinction
(Neilson
et
al.,
2005).
Plant
communities
will
increasingly
become
composed
of
species
that
exhibit
high
phenotypic
placidity,
fecundity
and
the
ability
to
disperse
over
long
distances
(Malcom
and
Pitelka,
2000).
It
is
widely
believed
that
climate
change
will
necessitate
the
adaptation
of
restoration
and
conservation
practices,
yet
there
is
a
lack
of
research
and
data
for
practitioners
to
act
upon.
In
order
to
better
understand
the
affect
climate
change
will
have
on
restoration
practice,
I
utilized
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairies
in
western
Washington
as
a
case
study.
Conclusions
are
based
upon
the
scientific
literature
including
journal
articles
reporting
climate
change
projections
based
on
computer
models.
The
author
also
generated
original
data
through
structured
interviews
of
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
restoration
practitioners
to
determine
what
if
any
changes
they
were
making
to
their
approach.
I
also
explored
the
adaptations
practitioners
anticipate
over
the
coming
century.
The
Idaho-‐fescue
bunchgrass
prairies
of
the
south
Puget
Sound
are
one
of
the
most
imperiled
ecosystems
on
the
planet.
Prairie
plant
species
were
and
still
are
culturally
valued
by
the
Salish
tribes
who
maintained
prairies
through
fire
and
harvesting
practices
as
the
climate
changed
during
the
late
Holocene.
European
settlers
valued
the
clear
flat
prairie
landscape
for
agriculture
and
development,
which
led
to
its
degradation
through
fragmentation,
fire
suppression
and
the
introduction
of
invasive
species.
Currently,
a
myriad
of
Federal,
State,
local
and
non-‐profit
groups
which
value
diversity
have
committed
to
restoring
and
preserving
the
prairie
ecosystem.
Climate
change
is
expected
to
exacerbate
the
current
challenges
to
prairie
restoration
and
conservation
and
is
prompting
practitioners
to
redefine
historical
targets.
The
actions
of
restoration
practitioners
in
the
south
Puget
Sound
might
be
indicative
of
how
the
entire
field
of
restoration
is
responding
to
climate
change.
Page
4
Table
of
Contents
Puget
Trough
Prairies;
The
case
for
a
case
study……………………………………………………….....1
I.
Natural
History
of
Puget
Trough
Prairies;
Ice,
Fire
&
Management………………..…..4
II.
Paleo-‐ecological
history
Cultural
Landscape
Fire
Harvesting
Practices
Pestilence
on
the
Prairie
Degradation
and
Fragmentation………………………………………………………………………....17
III.
IV.
V.
Settlement
Farming,
Fire
Suppression
&
Population
Growth
Invasive
Species
Climate
Change……………………………………………………………………………………….…….……..25
General
Circulation
Modeling
Pacific
Northwest
Range
Movement
Ecological
Restoration
in
a
Warming
World……….…………………………….…………..……...35
Restoration
Techniques
Migration;
connecting
the
islands
in
a
sea
of
change
What
does
“native”
mean
anyways?
Conclusion..………………………………………………………………………………………………..............56
Tables
and
Appendixes…………………………………………………………………….…………………….………...59
Work
Cited……………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………..…...64
Page
5
Puget
Trough
Prairies:
the
case
for
a
case
study
Scientific
evidence
confirms
that
the
composition
of
the
Earth’s
atmosphere
and
climate
has
changed
over
the
last
250
years.
Amounts
of
greenhouse
gases
(GHG)
are
increasing
as
a
result
of
industrialized
human
activities—since
1750,
carbon
dioxide
has
increased
32%,
and
methane
has
increased
150%
(Climate
Impacts
Group,
2010).
The
changing
of
the
climate
system
is
unequivocal,
as
is
now
evident
from
observed
increases
in
global
average
temperatures,
widespread
melting
of
glaciers,
and
rising
global
average
sea
level
(IPCC,
2007).
In
the
absence
of
significant
changes
in
human
activities,
atmospheric
concentrations
of
GHG’s
have
continued
to
increase.
Even
if
major
global
action
reduced
emissions
significantly,
the
thermal
inertia
of
the
oceans
will
continue
to
drive
climatic
change
for
decades
and
will
require
adaptive
responses
to
maintain
biodiversity
(Heller
and
Zavaleta,
2008).
While
people
and
animals
may
be
able
to
adapt
to
climatic
changes
rather
quickly,
plant
communities
have
been
slower
to
respond
to
past
climate
changes.
As
the
climate
changes
plants
will
persist,
adapt
or
migrate
according
to
their
life
history
characteristics.
Climate
is
one
of
three
main
abiotic
factors
that
determine
the
floristic
composition
of
a
region
(Radosevich
et
al.,
2003).
The
climate
change
predicted
to
occur
over
the
next
century
will
influence
plant
populations
through
several
factors:
changes
in
range
and
means
of
temperature,
increased
disturbances,
as
well
as,
water,
carbon
dioxide
and
nitrogen
availability
(Drake
et
al.,
2003).
Anthropogenic
climate
change
may
occur
at
a
rate
greater
than
any
experienced
in
the
past
10,000
years
(Houghton
et
al.,
2001).
Ecosystem
simulations
of
future
climate
scenarios
suggest
that
the
preferred
range
of
many
species
could
shift
tens
to
hundreds
of
kilometers
over
only
50-‐100
years
(Neilson
et
al.,
2005).
Climate
change
is
Page
6
expected
to
become
the
first
or
second
greatest
driver
of
global
biodiversity
loss
(Heller
and
Zavaleta,
2008)
and
it
is
very
likely
that
20-‐30%
of
the
planet’s
flora
that
cannot
readily
adapt
to
climate
change
will
expire
(IPCC,
2007).
Restoration
and
conservation
practitioners
have
struggled
with
how
to
adapt
practices
with
on-‐going
climate
change
in
order
to
protect
the
biodiversity
and
ecosystem
functioning
which
our
society
values
(Heller
and
Zavaleta,
2008).
Over
the
last
22
years,
widespread
calls
to
action
and
recommendations
throughout
the
scientific
literature
have
been
reiterated
frequently
but
without
the
elaboration
or
specificity
necessary
to
act
on
the
site
level
(Heller
and
Zavaleta,
2008).
There
is
little
guidance
for
how
specific
communities
and
ecosystems
should
be
created,
restored
and
managed
in
a
manner
that
anticipates
the
development
of
future
species
assemblages
(Seastedt
et
al.,
2008).
Despite
uncertainties
it
would
be
fallacious
to
adhere
blindly
to
a
rigid
creed
of
historic
conditions,
and
fail
to
recognize
that
a
new
world
of
altered
climates
is
hard
upon
us
(Seastedt
et
al.,
2008).
Indeed,
practicing
restoration
in
a
warming
world
involves
a
paradigm
shift
as
restoration
and
conservation
practitioners
re-‐examine
historical
targets
in
light
of
a
deepening
ecological
understanding
of
the
relationship
between
the
climate
and
ecosystem
composition.
In
order
to
further
understand
how
the
field
of
restoration
will
be
affected
by
climate
change,
I
examined
on-‐going
restoration
efforts
of
bunchgrass
prairie
and
oak
woodland
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
landscape.
South
Puget
Sound
prairies
once
extended
over
150,000
acres
on
shallow,
sandy,
and
gravelly
loam
soils
from
south
of
Tacoma
to
Oakville
(Crawford
and
Hall,
1997).
Prairie
and
oak
woodland
habitat
has
been
reduced
by
90%,
with
only
3%,
or
less
than
5,000
acres
preserved
(Crawford
and
Hall,
1997).
Original
vegetation
cover
varies
from
80%
in
the
least
impacted
areas
to
less
than
10%
in
heavily
grazed,
plowed
and
replanted
areas
Page
7
(Purcell,
1987).
The
prairies
are
a
seral
grassland
community
which
if
not
maintained
would
become
invaded
by
non-‐indigenous
species
and
overshadowed
by
coniferous
forest.
There
are
numerous
State
and
Federally
endangered,
rare
or
threatened
plants,
insects,
birds,
reptiles,
and
mammals,
several
known
extinctions,
and
most
likely
numerous
unknown
extinctions,
indicating
that
it
is
not
just
certain
species
which
are
endangered
but
the
entire
bunchgrass
prairie
and
oak
woodland
ecosystem.
There
are
several
on-‐going
challenges
to
preservation
including
fire
suppression,
invasive
species,
habitat
fragmentation
and
continued
development,
which
may
be
exacerbated
under
future
climatic
scenarios.
In
order
to
understand
current
restoration
practices,
I
explore
the
ecological
and
cultural
forces
that
created
today’s
prairie
landscape.
I
examine
general
circulation
models
which
project
possible
future
climate
scenarios.
Finally
I
interviewed
14
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
practitioners
about
how
they
will
adapt
their
practices
to
a
changing
climate.
My
analysis
will
demonstrate
that
climate
change
is
already
affecting
restoration
practices
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape.
Due
to
the
lack
of
connectivity,
practitioners
are
beginning
to
source
restoration
material
regionally
and
adopt
practices
to
facilitate
the
reintroduction
of
species.
As
restoration
targets
which
focus
on
recreating
a
pre-‐settlement
landscape
become
less
and
less
realistic,
the
field
of
restoration
is
utilizing
an
ecological
perspective
to
guide
restoration
practice.
While
the
challenges
of
climate
change
are
great
the
current
network
of
professionals,
agencies
and
organizations
are
collaborating
in
order
to
increase
diversity,
which
is
perhaps
the
best
way
to
prevent
disastrous
ecosystem
failures
in
an
increasingly
disturbed
warming
world.
Page
8
I.
Natural
History
of
Puget
Trough
Prairies;
Ice,
Fire
and
Management
The
south
Puget
Sound
Prairie
and
oak
woodland
landscape
evolved
at
a
time
when
the
climate
was
much
different
than
it
is
today.
During
the
Pleistocene
epoch,
110,000
years
ago
the
planet
began
a
cycle
of
cooling
and
warming
as
large
ice
sheets
advanced
from
polar
regions
and
mountain
tops
to
cover
immense
expanses
of
the
northern
hemisphere.
Around
70,000
yrs.
B.P.
the
Cordilleran
ice
sheet
covered
the
majority
of
western
North
America,
and
stretched
from
northern
Oregon
all
the
way
to
the
Alaskan
panhandle.
The
Fraser
Glaciations
refer
to
three
periods
or
stades
of
advance
and
retreat
between
20,000
and
10,000
yrs.
B.P.
(Kruckeberg,
1991).
During
the
last
period,
or
Vashon
Stade,
ice
covered
the
Puget
Trough
as
far
south
as
Tenino,
Washington
(Kruckeberg,
1991).
These
immense
continental
ice
sheets
transported
massive
amounts
of
rock,
transformed
waterways
and
had
a
significant
impact
on
the
ecosystems
of
western
Washington.
Climate
is
one
of
the
main
abiotic
factors
which
influences
plant
distribution
patterns.
By
studying
vegetational
communities
that
occurred
in
the
past,
scientists
are
able
to
understand
how
plant
species
might
react
to
current
anthropogenic
climate
change.
By
utilizing
pollen
grains
trapped
in
wetland
sediments
and
plant
remains
from
packrat
(Neotoma)
middens,
scientists
are
able
to
reconstruct
changes
in
the
climate
since
the
end
of
the
Frasier
glaciations.
In
general,
plant
population
responses
to
climatic
changes
include
persistence,
range
shifts,
adaptation,
or
extinction
(Davis
et
al.,
2005).
Indeed,
the
best
evidence
that
plant
ranges
shift
with
climate
comes
from
paleontological
studies
from
the
Holocene
epoch
11,000
yrs.
B.P.
(Iverson
and
Passard,
2001).
However,
paleoclimate
reconstruction
from
the
pollen
record
depends
upon
the
assumption
that
species
tolerance
limits
have
remained
stable
Page
9
throughout
time
(Davis
et
al.,
2005).
Certainly
species
tolerance
limits
(degree
growing
days,
mean
temperature
of
the
coldest
month)
have
evolved
over
the
past
11,000
years.
Empirical
modeling
has
shown
that
detectable
adaptive
divergence
evolves
on
a
time
scale
comparable
to
past
climatic
changes,
within
decades
for
herbaceous
species
and
within
centuries
or
millennia
for
longer
lived
trees
(Davis
et
al.,
2005).
What
the
pollen
record
demonstrates
in
western
Washington
is
that
individual
plant
species
were
present
at
specific
locations,
during
a
certain
time
frame,
and
within
a
probable
climatic
envelope.
Paleo-‐ecological
History
Between
18,000
and
15,000
yrs.
B.P.
the
lowlands
of
western
Washington
were
covered
by
glacier
ice.
Tundra
like
plant
communities
existed
in
mountain
refugia
and
other
areas
that
were
not
covered,
such
as
parts
of
the
Olympic
Peninsula.
Vegetation
may
have
resembled
modern
high
altitude
communities
east
of
the
Cascades
with
abundant
grasses (Graminoids),
snakeweed
(Polygonum
bistortoides),
corn
salad
(Valerianella),
and
Sitka
berry
(Sanguisorba)
along
with
tree
species;
lodgepole
pine
(Pinus
contorta),
Engelmann
spruce
(Picea
engelmanii),
Sitka
spruce
(Picea
sitchensis),
Pacific
silver
fir
(Abies
amabilis),
and
Grand
fir
(Abies
grandis)
(Leopold
and
Boyd,
1999,
Barnosky,
1985).
Around
15,000
yrs.
B.P.
glacier
ice
in
the
lowlands
of
western
Washington
began
to
melt.
The
ice
sheet
of
the
Vashon
Stade
melted
in
3,000
to
4,000
years,
which
is
fairly
quick
compared
to
other
ice
sheets
of
the
Pleistocene
epoch.
As
the
ice
sheets
wasted,
temperatures
warmed,
precipitation
increased
and
species
adjusted
their
ranges
and
abundance
according
to
environmental
tolerances
(Whitlock
and
Knox,
2002).
Between
15,000
Page
10
yrs.
B.P.
and
11,200
yrs.
B.P.
much
of
the
Puget
Trough
was
open,
flat,
gravelly
terraces
of
glacial
outwash.
Lodgepole
pine
(P.
contorta)
appears
to
have
initially
colonized
the
outwash
throughout
the
de-‐glaciated
zone,
and
was
soon
followed
by
Mountain
hemlock
(Tsuga
mertensiana)
and
Sitka
alder
(Alnus
sinuata)
indicating
a
cooler
wetter
climate
compared
to
the
present
(Barnosky,
1985).
The
climate
of
western
Washington
continued
to
change
and
eventually
temperatures
exceeded
present
day
values.
In
western
Washington
the
observation
of
western
hemlock
(Tsuga
heterophylla)
pollen
grains
at
Nisqually
Lake
as
early
as
12,700
yrs.
B.P.
provides
the
first
floristic
evidence
of
post
glacial
warming
(Barnosky,
1985).
By
11,000
yrs.
B.P.
temperate
taxa
are
registered
at
other
sites
as
well
indicating
a
transition
from
tundra
parkland
to
open
forest
parkland
with
patches
of
prairie
intermixed
(Barnosky,
1985,
Leopold
and
Boyd,
1999).
The
pollen
data
suggest
an
expansion
of
Willamette
Valley
vegetation
northward
into
southwestern
Washington
(Barnosky,
1985).
Between
11,000
and
10,000
yrs
B.P
Douglas-‐fir
(Pseudotsuga
menziesii)
invaded,
most
likely
from
the
Willamette
Valley,
and
quickly
established
itself
replacing
lodgepole
pine
(P.
contorta)
as
the
dominate
species
of
the
lowlands
(Barnosky,
1985).
The
expansion
of
western
hemlock
(T.
heterophylla)
occurred
at
a
much
slower
rate
than
Douglas-‐fir
(P.
menziesii)
and
was
not
a
climax
species
until
after
4,500
yrs.
B.P.
when
the
climate
changed
again
becoming
colder
and
wetter
(Hansen,
1947).
Fire
regimes
were
also
altered
during
the
Holocene
epoch,
and
it
was
likely
that
increased
fire
due
to
the
warmer
drier
climate
(11,000-‐7,800
yrs.
B.P)
was
the
proximal
disturbance
which
affected
vegetation
shifts
(Whitlock
and
Knox,
2002).
The
composition
of
vegetation
in
the
lowlands
of
western
Washington
was
savanna
like;
prairies
were
not
early
Page
11
successional
stages
but
persistent
features
of
a
landscape
shaped
by
frequent
fire
disturbance
(Barnosky,
1985).
The
pollen
evidence
clearly
indicates
that
the
peak
abundance
of
prairie
elements
like
grasses
(Graminoids),
hazel
(Corylus),
and
oak
(Quercus)
occurred
in
the
early
Holocene,
before
6,800
yrs.
B.P.
(Leopold
and
Boyd,
1999).
Drought
and
disturbance
adapted
species;
Red
alder
(Alnus
rubra)
and
bracken
fern
(Pteridium
aquilinum)
were
much
more
abundant
occurring
as
successional
species
(Leopold
and
Boyd,
1999).
Douglas-‐fir
(P.
menziesii)
and
Garry
Oak
(Quercus
garryana)
were
the
main
trees
associated
with
grasses
(Graminoids)
and
forbs
from
the
Apiaceae,
Agavaceae,
Saxifragaceae,
and
Polygonaceae
families,
which
flourished
periodically
after
local
fires
(Leopold
and
Boyd,
1999).
Before
6,800
yrs.
B.P.
the
growth
of
western
hemlock
(T.
heterophylla)
and
western
red
cedar
(Thuja
plicata)
populations
was
delayed
probably
as
a
result
of
drought
conditions
and
a
regular
fire
regime
(Barnosky,
1985).
After
4,500
yrs.
B.P.,
the
pollen
record
indicates
the
formation
of
closed
forests
of
Douglas-‐fir
(P.
menziesii),
western
hemlock
(T.
heterophylla)
and
western
red
cedar
(Thuja
plicata)
throughout
the
Puget
trough
marking
the
temperate
humid
climate
of
today.
The
story
of
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
ecosystem
would
have
ended
with
this
shift
in
climate
if
it
was
not
for
the
actions
of
another
species.
Cultural
Landscape
Just
as
plants
and
animals
followed
the
retreat
of
the
glaciers,
so
too
did
humans.
Some
of
the
earliest
archeological
evidence
from
Washington
dates
back
to
13,000
yrs.
B.P.
Evidence
suggests
that
these
people
were
hunters
who
crossed
a
land
bridge
from
Siberia.
In
a
few
generations
their
population
dramatically
increased
at
the
expense
of
mega
fauna
like
mastodons,
whose
extinction
they
may
have
caused
(Martin,
1967).
Across
most
of
North
Page
12
America,
by
7,000
yrs.
B.P,
hunting
cultures
adapted
to
vanishing
game
by
foraging
on
the
nutritious
parts
of
plants
(Kruckeberg,
1991). Eventually
a
complex
culture
developed
in
the
lowlands
of
western
Washington.
The
Salish
people,
as
they
would
later
be
called,
occupied
the
lands
west
of
the
Cascade
Range
throughout
British
Columbia,
Washington,
and
Oregon
(Underhill,
1945).
The
economy
of
the
Salish
was
based
upon
a
wide
range
of
wild
foods,
including
fin
and
shellfish,
game
(deer,
elk,
small
mammals,
and
fowl),
roots,
seeds,
and
berries
(Underhill,
1945)
While
salmon
was
a
prominent
food
staple
and
significant
cultural
icon
of
the
Salish,
food
crops
from
lowland
prairies
such
as
camas
(Camassia
quamash)
,
salmonberry
(Rubus
spectabilis),
and
bracken
fern
(Pteridium
aquilinum)
were
also
of
great
importance
(Underhill
1945,
White
1980,
Leopold
and
Boyd,
1999).
Historical
and
scientific
evidence
clearly
demonstrate
that
the
Salish
maintained
prairies
throughout
the
Puget
Trough
as
a
result
of
climatic
changes
in
the
late
Holocene.
The
warm
and
dry
period
of
the
middle
Holocene
(9,500
-‐4,500
yrs.
B.P)
created
a
climate
suitable
for
a
cohort
of
prairie
and
savanna
species
to
develop
under
a
frequent
fire
and
drought
regime
(Barnosky,
1985,
Leopold
and
Boyd,
1999,
and
Hansen,
1947).
From
4,500
years
B.P
to
the
present
a
climatic
cooling
enabled
conifers
forest
to
expand
at
the
expense
of
prairie
and
savannah
grasslands
(Leopold
and
Boyd,
1999).
Within
a
few
generations
the
lack
of
frequent
disturbance
should
have
led
to
the
establishment
of
the
Douglas-‐fir/western
hemlock
ecotone.
Yet
the
Salish
culture
adapted
to
climate
change
by
restoring
ecological
process
through
the
use
of
fire
and
frequent
disturbance.
Isolated
prairie
fragments
remained
throughout
the
Puget
Trough
from
Oregon
to
British
Columbia
because
they
had
a
cultural,
economic
and
ecological
value
for
the
people
of
Page
13
the
Pacific
Northwest.
On
the
glacial
outwash
and
bottom
lands
of
the
Puget
Trough,
the
Salish
maintained
an
oak
savannah/
grassland
mosaic
comprised
of
many
food
and
medicine
producing
plants.
Of
the
157
inventoried
prairie
plant
species,
35%
are
edible
and
over
85%
have
some
documented
ethnobotanical
use
(Storm,
2004,
Norton
et
al.,
1999).
The
Salish
were
dependent
upon
the
diversity
and
density
of
prairie
species
for
food,
medicine
and
tools
(Norton
et
al.,
1999).
The
table
(Fig.
1)
lists
some
of
the
plants
associated
with
prairies
that
had
cultural,
nutritional
and
medicinal
values.
Rather
than
being
major
Indian
food
sources
because
they
dominated
the
prairies,
bracken,
nettles
and
camas
more
likely
dominated
the
prairies
because
they
were
major
Indian
food
sources.
(White,
1980)
Salish
tribes
developed
sophisticated
methods
for
maintaining
the
functional
value
of
the
landscape,
which
enable
the
persistence,
adaptation
and
dispersal
of
prairie
species
through
fire
and
harvesting
practices
(Agee,
1993,
Storm,
2004,
Anderson,
2005).
Fire
Fire
was
commonly
used
across
North
America
as
a
multi-‐purpose
management
tool
in
many
Native
cultures
(Vale,
2002).
On
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
fire
was
primarily
used
to
create
open
spaces
for
prairie
species
and
maintain
oak
stands.
Anthropogenic
fires
occurred
later
in
the
season
and
at
shorter
intervals
than
natural
fires.
In
July
and
August
burning
was
sporadic,
most
likely
occurring
after
the
harvesting
of
seasonally
and
locally
available
wild
foods
in
limited
areas
(Boyd,
1999).
In
late
August
and
early
September
large
fires
were
set
on
prairies
when
most
species
were
dormant
and
climatic
conditions
were
appropriate
(Boyd,
1999).
Salish
tribes
likely
managed
the
prairies
on
a
landscape
scale
coordinating
cross-‐tribal
burning
practices
and
rotating
burns
every
couple
of
Page
14
years
(South
Sound
Prairies,
2009,
Storm,
2004).
Without
routine
burning
the
prairie
species
would
not
have
clear
spaces
and
disturbed
habitat
to
grow.
Fire
is
a
strong
mortality
factor
for
small
woody
species
including
Douglas-‐fir
(P.
menziesii)
under
5
feet
tall
and
has
the
positive
effect
of
releasing
nutrients
and
creating
bare
soil
for
prairie
species
(Dunn,
1998).
With
the
absence
of
fire
from
the
landscape
Douglas-‐
fir
(P.
menziesii)
and
eventually
western
hemlock
(T.
heterophylla) replaced
the
prairie
and
oak
woodland
ecotones.
As
was
evident
to
James
Cooper
in
1859,
after
several
decades
of
fire
suppression
by
settlers;
I
conclude
that
these
are
the
remains
of
a
much
more
extensive
prairie,
which,
within
a
comparatively
recent
period,
occupied
all
the
lower
and
dryer
parts
of
the
valleys,
and
which
the
forest
have
been
gradually
spreading
over
in
their
downward
progress
from
the
mountains.
(Storm,
2004)
Anthropogenic
fire
not
only
removed
competition
but
over
millenniums
increased
the
productivity
associated
with
the
prairies.
Camas
(C.
quamash)
and
other
geophytes
directly
benefited
from
annual
burning
in
the
fall.
A
seven
year
study
comparing
fall
burning
to
summer
burning
on
Mima
Mounds
Natural
Area
Preserve
found
that
the
ecological
effect
of
burning
in
the
fall
increased
camas
(C.
quamash)
populations
and
decreased
cover
by
Idaho
Fescue
(Festuca
idahoensis)
(Schuller,
1997).
I
The
oak
woodlands
associated
with
the
prairies
benefited
from
regular
low
intensity
burning
which
created
standardized
well
groomed
oak
groves
that
resembled
European
fruit
and
nut
orchards
(Boyd,
1999).
Early
descriptions
of
oak
woodlands
reinforced
the
idea
that
these
were
even
aged
and
well
spaced
stands
ideal
for
harvesting.
Our
route
has
been
through
what
might
be
called
a
hilly
prairie
country,
the
grass
mostly
burned
off
by
recent
fires,
and
the
whole
country
sprinkled
with
oaks,
so
regularly
dispersed
as
to
have
the
appearance
of
a
continued
orchard
of
oak
trees
Page
15
(Henry
Eld
Wilkes
Expedition
1841).
(U.S.F.S.,
2007)
Fire
increased
productivity
by
reducing
competition
from
conifers,
smaller
oaks,
and
shrubs.
Prescribed
burning
also
had
the
effect
of
removing
bio-‐litter,
which
aided
in
the
harvest
of
acorns
(Anderson,
2005).
Fire
was
utilized
by
the
Salish
to
create
open
spaces
for
prairie
species
and
maintain
oak
stands.
Fire
has
a
positive
ecological
effect
on
prairie
species
through
the
mortality
of
competing
trees
and
shrubs
along
with
promoting
nutrient
cycling.
While
fire
was
an
important
management
practice
of
the
Salish,
harvesting
practices
also
had
a
profound
impact
on
the
landscape,
and
is
worthy
of
more
research.
Harvesting
Practices
The
Salish
significantly
modified
the
composition,
structure
and
genetic
diversity
of
the
prairie
landscape
through
harvesting.
Over
time
the
Salish
selected
geophytes
that
were
adapted
to
herbivore
and
developed
harvesting
practices
that
enhanced
the
population
of
certain
prairie
species.
Over
millennia
of
animal
and
human
selection,
protection
and
replanting
of
offshoots,
these
species
most
likely
underwent
genetic
changes.
Research
in
northern
California
and
British
Columbia
has
demonstrated
that
the
recurring
excavation
of
plants
selected
for
specific
genotypes
that
thrived
under
frequent
disturbance
regimes
(Anderson,
2005,
Beckwith,
2004).
In
fact
the
growth
of
bulblets
and
cormlets
in
some
geophytic
species
is
slow
or
suppressed
until
they
are
detached
from
the
parent
(Anderson,
2005).
Geophytic
plants
of
the
prairies
were
reliant
upon
people
and
animals
to
spread
their
seed,
while
people
and
animals
were
reliant
upon
the
harvest
of
these
plants
for
their
survival.
Page
16
In
particular,
the
density
and
variety
of
camas
(C.
quamash)
that
once
existed
on
the
prairie
landscape
was
not
fortuitous
but
correlated
to
general
harvesting
practices,
individual
stewardship
of
prairie
plots
and
probable
trade
amongst
the
Salish.
Traditional
cultures
conveyed
knowledge
through
an
oral
tradition,
that
kept
management
practices
relatively
consistent
from
generation
to
generation
(Nabhan,
1989).
Amongst
the
Salish,
sustainable
camas
harvesting
practices
were
developed
as
part
of
a
tradition
which
valued
production,
to
ensure
that
cormlets
and
bulblets
would
have
a
greater
chance
at
germination
and
growth
(Beckwith,
2004).
The
practice
of
harvesting
with
a
digging
stick
divided
the
bulbs
and
created
bare
aerated
soil,
conditions
ideal
for
germination,
not
just
for
geophytes,
but
also
for
annual
prairie
species
(Anderson,
2005).
While
little
research
has
been
conducted,
harvesting
camas
on
a
scale
to
support
the
estimated
40,000
Salish
of
the
interior
Puget
Trough
valleys
would
undoubtedly
have
created
a
significant
disturbance
from
which
certain
annual
species
most
likely
benefited.
Extensive
ethnobotanical
research
in
northern
California
revealed
that
some
Native
harvesting
practices
were
to;
spare
some
individual
plants
weed
around
favored
plants
harvest
after
seed-‐set
burn
areas
in
which
the
plants
grow
to
replant
cormlets
and
bulblets
decrease
plant
competition
and
recycle
leave
a
lower
section
of
the
tubers
nutrients
(Anderson,
2005)
By
utilizing
these
tactics
harvesters
increased
the
densities
of
populations
ensuring
that
these
important
food
crops
would
return
year
after
year.
Secondly,
individual
stewardship
of
the
land
would
have
increased
genetic
diversity
through
the
practice
of
seed
selection.
The
Salish
managed
food
crops
on
the
prairies
through
cultivation
or
tending
of
plants
similar
to
a
garden
or
orchard
(Storm,
2004).
Amongst
the
Salish
in
Victoria
B.C.
access
and
use
of
inherited
resource
sites
were
controlled
by
their
respective
Page
17
owners
or
"skilled
specialists"
within
the
family
(Beckwith,
2004).
Extensive
and
more
productive
harvesting
grounds
were
likely
associated
with
families
of
higher
status
(Beckwith,
2004).
As
Mary
George
of
the
Straits
Salish
of
Victoria,
B.C.
explained
to
anthropologist
W.
Suttles
in
2003;
[T'
Sou-‐ke
people]
had
lots
(plots).
They
didn't
just
dig
anywhere.
Stakes
marked
them.
Women
owned
them,
and
they
would
fight
for
their
claims.
If
someone
came
on
to
a
woman's
plot,
she
would
quarrel.
If
the
owner
died,
a
near
relative
got
the
plot.
(Beckwith,
2004)
Most
land-‐based
cultures
have
practices
that
guide
plant
selection
and
seed
saving
(Nabhan,
1998).
Each
individual
might
develop
their
own
variations
based
on
site
conditions
but
the
general
scheme
is
passed
on
from
generation
to
generation
(Nabhan,
1998).
Amongst
the
Salish,
camas
gathering
sites
in
particular
were
the
responsibility
of
a
family
unit
and
gatherers
were
careful
about
the
management
of
their
sites
(Storm,
2004).
Once
natural
selection
sets
a
course
in
Native
fields,
cultural
selection
and
replanting
of
the
biggest
or
best
tasting
varieties
is
reinforcing
(Nabhan,
1989).
With
a
food
crop
as
significant
as
camas
(C.
quamash),
it
is
possible
that,
specific
designations
and
local
distinctions
for
camas
variants
have
disappeared
over
time
as
the
management
of
these
populations
declined
(Beckwith,
2004).
Finally,
the
Salish
most
likely
distributed
seeds
and
bulbs
through
harvesting
and
trade.
While
there
is
a
lack
of
direct
historical
evidence
demonstrating
the
extent
to
which
the
Salish
distributed
plants,
tending
and
trading
of
food
crops
was
a
common
practice
among
many
Native
cultures.
For
example,
when
the
potato
was
introduced
all
Salish
tribes
moved
easily
and
rapidly
to
the
cultivation
of
that
crop
without
any
direct
instruction
from
whites
(White,
1980).
Bulblets
and
cormlets
were
moved
into
fresh
areas,
at
first
unwittingly,
but
later
with
zeal
and
care
(White,
1980).
A
common
practice
of
many
tribes
was
to
disperse
plants
along
trading
and
Page
18
seasonal
migration
routes.
In
1853
James
Cooper
catalogued
the
plants
along
the
Kilikitat
trail,
which
connects
the
Columbian
Basin
with
northern
California.
Of
the
sixty-‐five
plants
observed,
fifty
eight
had
nutritional
or
medicinal
uses
(Norton
et
al,
1999).
In
Victoria
B.C.,
Salish
maintained
populations
of
camas
and
berries
near
their
camps,
although
there
is
little
evidence
to
determine
whether
they
planted
or
just
enhanced
these
populations
(Beckwith,
2004).
It
is
well
established
that
the
Salish
used
fire
and
harvesting
practices
to
increase
population
densities
of
important
food
crops.
It
is
a
fair
assumption
that
they
most
probably
dispersed
seeds,
cormlets
and
bulblets
into
new
areas
that
were
easily
accessible
to
them
during
travel
and
at
seasonal
camps.
Pestilence
on
the
Prairie
When
the
first
settlers
arrived
in
the
Puget
Trough,
most
viewed
the
prairie
landscape
as
natural
or
wild,
waiting
to
be
tamed
and
cultivated.
This
perspective
overlooked
the
millennia
of
labor
that
the
Salish
people
expended
to
create
the
breadth,
beauty
and
bounty
of
the
prairie
landscape.
Adding
to
cultural
misperceptions
of
an
untamed
wilderness,
was
that
the
Salish
population,
which
maintained
the
prairie
landscape
was
decimated
by
disease,
before
many
of
the
settlers
arrived.
Vancouver
was
one
of
the
first
Europeans
to
explore
the
Puget
Sound
in
1770
and
noted
in
his
journals
the
lack
of
inhabitants
and
presence
of
human
remains;
It
was
a
fact
not
less
singular
than
worthy
of
observation,
that
on
the
whole
extensive
coast
of
New
Albion,
and
more
particularly
in
the
vicinity
of
those
fertile
and
delightful
shores
we
had
lately
passed
we
had
not
seen
any
inhabitants,
or
met
with
any
circumstances
that,
in
indicated
a
probability
of
the
country
being
inhabited
…
In
our
different
excursions,
the
skull,
limb,
ribs,
and
back-‐bones,
or
some
vestiges
of
the
human
body,
were
found
in
many
places
promiscuously
scattered
about
the
beaches
in
great
numbers.
(Vancouver
as
in
Gibbs,
1877)
Some
scholars
estimate
that
up
to
95%
of
the
interior
valley
population
was
expired
by
1850
Page
19
when
the
homestead
and
donation
land
claim
acts
began
to
fuel
settlement
in
the
Puget
Trough
(Boyd,
1999).
The
high
mortality
of
the
Salish
population
to
disease
can
be
attributed
to
the
lack
of
immunity
and
social
responses
to
illness.
These
epidemics
are
termed
virgin
soil
diseases,
referring
to
the
fact
that
they
were
introduced
into
a
population
that
had
never
previously
experienced
them
(Boyd,
1999).
There
were
several
such
epidemics
in
the
early
recorded
history
of
the
Pacific
Northwest:
1770’s
smallpox,
1830’s
malaria,
1838
influenza,
1844
dysentery,
and
1848
measles.
In
the
Puget
Trough
the
defining
disease
was
malaria.
All
Pacific
Northwest
tribes
also
experienced
early
small
pox,
and
most
suffered
from
dysentery
and
measles
as
well
(Boyd,
1999).
The
data
shows
that
small
pox
traveled
through
the
population
at
widely
spread
intervals,
about
once
per
generation
(Boyd,
1999).
Malaria
however,
once
established,
had
a
chronic
debilitating
effect
on
the
Salish,
taking
a
yearly
toll
of
newborns
and
infants
(Boyd,
1999).
Population
estimates
of
the
Salish
have
increased
as
technology
and
mindsets
have
changed
over
time.
Powell
in
1877
estimated
a
population
of
8,000
for
the
tribes
within
the
Straits
of
Juan
de
Fuca
and
26,800
for
the
entire
population
in
western
Washington.
Early
approximations
like
Powell’s
were
often
biased
and
erroneous,
asserting
that
the
epidemics
that
ravaged
the
Salish
were
natural,
ignoring
historical
accounts;
too
great
stress
is
not
to
be
laid
upon
the
assertion
of
the
Indians
themselves
that
they
were
once
a
great
many,
for
their
ideas
of
numbers
are
vague
at
best,
and
the
recollection
of
any
former
mortality
would
probably
be
greatly
exaggerated.
(Gibbs,
1877)
Most
recently
in
1996,
Boyd
using
computational
analysis
based
upon
the
earliest
reliable
censuses,
estimates
a
population
of
183,661
for
the
coastal
area
of
Washington
and
northern
Page
20
Oregon,
and
approximately
40,000
for
the
interior
valleys
of
the
Puget
Trough
(Fig.
B).
Boyd’s
estimates
are
five
times
greater
than
Powell’s
estimate.
By
1850,
when
the
Donation
Land
Claim
Act
spurred
settlement
in
the
territory,
the
release
of
invasive
diseases
had
diminished
the
population
of
Interior
Valley
tribes
to
roughly
2,000,
a
shadow
of
pre-‐epidemic
densities.
As
the
population
of
the
Salish
declined
so
too
did
the
traditional
maintenance
practices
of
prescribed
burning
and
harvesting.
Salish
culture
possessed
ecological
knowledge
and
exhibited
management
practices
which
increased
the
fecundity
and
diversity
of
certain
prairie
species
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
landscape.
The
utilization
of
fire
and
harvesting
practices
preserved
a
seral
grassland
ecosystem
that
contained
value
in
both
form
and
function.
The
traditional
knowledge
of
the
Salish
culture
was
diluted
by
debilitating
epidemics.
By
the
time
settlers
began
to
arrive
in
western
Washington,
Douglas-‐fir
(P.
menziesii)
was
already
encroaching
on
to
the
prairie
landscape.
Page
21
II.
Development
and
Fragmentation
An
American
explorer
said
of
the
Cowlitz
and
Chehalis
prairies,
“here
the
ground
is
ready
for
the
plough
and
nature
seems
as
it
were
to
invite
the
husbandman
to
his
labor”
(Leopold
and
Boyd,
1999).
However,
the
husbandman’s
land
management
practices
were
vastly
different
from
the
Salish
and
overtime
have
proved
to
be
unsustainable.
Even
though
settlers
and
the
Salish
shared
a
similar
diet
of
salmon,
game,
and
root
crops,
the
ecological
effect
of
their
labor
was
stark
(White,
1980).
After
the
1850’s
the
landscape
was
“so
cataclysmically
altered
and
with
such
unanimity
of
purpose
that
no
single
voice
of
conscience
could
have
effectively
stemmed
the
onslaught
on
the
land”
(Kruckeberg,
1991).
Western
style
agriculture
required
the
destruction
of
native
flora,
suppression
of
fire
and
the
introduction
of
non-‐
indigenous
species,
which
changed
the
composition,
structure
and
connectivity
of
the
prairie
landscape.
Today
the
prairies
which
survive
are
islands
amongst
a
sea
of
development,
and
the
composition
of
the
vegetational
community
will
forever
remain
a
mixture
of
original
and
introduced
species
(Purcell,
1987).
Settlement
The
United
States
government
enacted
policies
to
encourage
settlement
which
led
to
the
development
and
fragmentation
of
the
South
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape.
In
1841,
the
Preemption
Act
gave
the
opportunity
to
purchase
property
rights
to
squatters
on
government
land
not
to
exceed
160
acres
(Hibbard,
1939).
Nine
years
later,
the
Donation
Land
Claim
Act
was
passed
into
law
by
Congress
to
promote
the
settlement
of
the
Oregon
Territory,
which
included
Oregon,
Washington
and
Idaho
(Hibbard,
1939).
The
act
granted
160
acres
to
every
Page
22
white
male
18
or
older
and
320
acres
to
every
married
couple
who
arrived
in
the
territory
before
December
1,
1850.
Settlers
arriving
between
1851
and
1854
were
eligible
for
half
the
amount
of
land.
In
order
to
claim
land
under
the
Donation
Land
Claim
Act
settlers
had
to
live
on
and
cultivate
the
land
for
at
least
four
years.
Similarly,
the
1862
Homestead
Act
required
that
applicants
live
on
the
land,
build
a
12
x
14
dwelling
and
grow
food
crops.
Both
the
1850
Donation
Land
Claim
and
the
1862
Homestead
Acts
required
settlers
to
cultivate
the
land
they
intended
to
claim,
presumably
with
western
style
agriculture
techniques
including
plowing
and
row
cropping.
The
people
who
moved
to
Washington
during
the
1850’s
and
60’s
settled
prairie
and
wetlands
first
because
they
were
relatively
free
of
trees
and
appeared
to
be
very
productive
(White,
1980).
Even
though
past
attempts
of
row
cropping
at
Fort
Nisqually
had
proved
unsuccessful,
farmers
continued
to
settle
on
the
prairies.
Perhaps
they
were
motivated
by
exaggerated
claims
of
fertility;
The
fine
fertile,
plains
and
prairies
offer
far
greater
inducements
(than
the
forested
lands).
Fruit
of
various
kinds,
particularly
apples,
can
be
cultivated
very
readily,
and
in
the
greatest
perfection…wheat,
barley,
oats,
and
potatoes
yield
the
most
abundant
crops,
of
the
finest
quality.
(James
Swan,
1859
as
in
White,
1980)
In
reality
the
Puget
Sound
prairie
soils
were
too
droughty
and
nutrient
deficient
for
European
row
cropping.
The
best
land
for
growing
European
crops
was
actually
the
woodlands
surrounding
the
prairies
where
loamy
soils
existed
(U.S.F.S.,
2007),
The
best
land
occurs
where
prairies
are
intersected
or
broken
by
belts
of
woods,
that
have
dense
undergrowth,
consisting
of
hazel,
Spiraea,
Cornus,
and
Prunus.
(Charles
Wilkes,
1841
as
in
U.S.F.S.,
2007)
Regardless
of
the
fertility,
settlers
had
to
make
improvements
and
cultivate
their
potential
property
within
a
short
time
frame
in
order
to
qualify
for
the
Donation
Land
and
Homestead
Page
23
Acts
and
prairies
were
much
easier
to
clear
than
forested
lands.
While
the
soil
types
of
the
South
Sound
prairies
proved
to
be
unsuitable
for
farming
they
were
adequate
for
grazing
(White,
1980).
7,437
households
alone
were
registered
under
the
Donation
Land
Claim
Act
between
1850
and
1855.
Many
of
these
households
claimed
prairie
land
for
agricultural
and
grazing
purposes.
The
ecological
destruction
of
the
prairies
was
inherent
in
the
policies
of
the
U.S.
government
between
1841
and
1862.
Policies
that
encouraged
migration
to
western
territories
essentially
ecologically
and
culturally
transformed
the
prairie
landscape.
Farmers
replaced
the
rich
and
diverse
prairie
ecosystem
with
monoculture
fields
and
permanent
pastures
(White,
1980).
This
European
style
of
agriculture
required
the
suppression
of
fire
and
released
invasive
species
which
were
detrimental
to
the
prairie
ecosystem
functioning
(Kruckeberg,
1991).
Farming,
Fire
Suppression,
and
Population
Growth
As
farming
and
animal
husbandry
practices
were
established
fires
were
discouraged,
and
the
use
of
the
prairies
by
the
Salish
was
largely
ended
(South
Sound
Prairies,
2009).
Domestic
livestock,
road
and
rail
construction,
grassland
conversion
to
agriculture,
urbanization
and
rural
development
all
contributed
to
the
direct
or
indirect
exclusion
of
fires
(Hesberg
et
al.,
2005).
As
stated
fire
was
an
important
ecological
process
of
the
Puget
Trough
prairies
and
to
the
extent
that
settlers
were
successful
in
excluding
fire
from
the
prairies,
so
too
were
they
at
degrading
the
prairie
soils
(Purcell,
1987).
Settlers
were
quick
to
realize
the
destructive
power
of
fire,
but
were
slow
to
understand
its
power
to
restore
and
renew
the
landscape
(Purcell,
1987).
In
1913,
it
was
apparent
that
the
forest
was
encroaching
upon
the
prairies;
Page
24
In
retracing
surveyor’s
lines
run
50
years
ago,
the
limits
of
forest
growth
were
found
to
have
advanced
on
the
prairies…Many
Gnarled
skeletons
of
the
broad
spreading
prairie
oaks
are
found
moldering
in
a
dense
growth
of
young
fir
which
has
killed
them
in
the
last
half
of
the
century.
(Kruckeberg
1991)
Due
to
the
lack
of
fire,
prairies
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
landscape
may
have
been
lost
at
a
rate
of
approximately
100
acres
per
year
since
the
1850’s
due
to
the
conversion
to
Douglas-‐fir
(P.
menziesii)
forest
(Kruckeberg,
1991).
Settlers
and
Salish
shared
a
functional
value
for
the
landscape:
sustenance,
but
the
methods
that
they
utilized
had
radically
different
ecological
effects.
While
the
prairies
seemed
rich
and
fertile,
given
the
density
and
diversity
of
species,
these
soils
were
typically
low
in
nitrogen,
highly
acidic,
prone
to
drought
and
were
generally
unsuitable
for
western
style
agriculture
(Crawford
and
Hall,
1997).
The
first
several
centimeters
of
these
soils
have
a
thin
layer
of
organic
material,
followed
by
approximately
a
foot
of
strongly
acidic
gravelly
sandy
loam
with
high
organic
content,
until
eventually
a
layer
of
coarse
sand
and
gravel
(Crawford
and
Hall,
1997).
Plowing
was
necessary
for
introduced
European
row
crops
such
as
wheat,
oats,
barley,
peas,
corn,
cabbage,
carrots,
turnips,
beets,
tomatoes,
melons
and
squash
but
it
destroyed
the
native
cover
of
the
prairie
increasing
evaporation
rates,
especially
during
the
dry
summer
months
(White,
1980).
The
raising
of
animals
also
had
a
drastic
ecological
impact.
Cattle
and
sheep
grazed
upon
prairie
grasses
and
pigs
were
set
free
to
forage
upon
bulbs,
in
particular
pigs
ate
an
inordinate
amount
of
camas
(C.
quamash)
(White,
1980,
Beckwith,
2004).
Despite
poor
soils,
farming
continued
on
the
prairies
for
centuries.
In
practice
these
small
subsistence
farms
were
synonymous
with
poverty
and
produced
neither
adequate
food
nor
shelter
for
their
owners
(White,
1980).
Strawberry
production
is
a
great
example
of
how
European
row
cropping
agriculture
Page
25
was
not
sustainable
on
the
South
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape.
After
World
War
I
up
to
3,000
acres
of
Grand
Mound
prairie
were
converted
to
commercial
strawberry
production
(Purcell,
1987).
Interestingly
enough
berries
were
a
predominate
Salish
food
source
and
as
Upper
Chehalis
elder
Mary
Heck
testified,
were
abundant
on
the
prairie
landscape;
We
had
kinikinik
berries,
black
berries,
wild
raspberries,
and
crab
apples,
salmon
berries,
sala
berries,
and
another
berry
called
Kamotlk…They
had
june
berries,
wild
currents,
black
cap
raspberries
and
lots
of
blueberries,
and
thimble
berries
grow
along
the
edge
of
the
prairies.
(Storm,
2004)
When
asked
if
they
has
strawberries
she
says
“there
was
so
much
strawberries
you
can
smell
it
from
a
distance”
(Storm
2004).
While
the
native
strawberry
(Fragaria
virginiana)
was
well
adapted
to
the
prairie
landscape,
commercial
strawberries
were
not.
Given
high
production
cost,
low
soil
fertility,
and
erratic
strawberry
prices,
production
on
Grand
Mound
prairie
proved
to
be
unsustainable
and
the
endeavor
was
abandoned
by
the
1940’s
(Purcell,
1987).
While
berries
were
a
main
food
crop
produced
under
the
Salish
system,
their
production
was
not
sustainable
utilizing
western
agriculture
methods.
Development
and
fragmentation
of
the
prairie
landscape
did
not
stop
in
the
19th
century
in
fact
it
continues
to
this
day.
In
the
south
Puget
Sound
region,
prairie
soils
primarily
exist
in
five
counties
Grays
Harbor,
Thurston,
Lewis,
Mason
and
Pierce
(Crawford
and
Hall,
1997).
Figure
(C.)
illustrates
the
population
growth
of
these
five
counties
since
1900.
Between
1900
and
1920
population
in
Pierce,
Thurston,
Lewis
and
Grays
Harbor
more
than
doubled
from
roughly
100,000
to
250,000.
During
this
time
much
of
the
prairie
landscape
was
transformed
by
the
plow
and
tractor
for
small
subsistence
farms
(Purcell,
1987).
Another
population
boom
was
experienced
between
1960
and
1980
as
the
populations
of
these
counties
increased
by
another
300,000.
Housing
development
intensified
as
developers
were
once
again
seeking
Page
26
relatively
cheap,
flat
and
clear
land
to
develop
(Purcell,
1987).
While
development
and
fragmentation
have
contributed
to
the
loss
of
habitat
and
connectivity
between
prairie
landscapes,
they
are
not
the
only
threat
to
biodiversity
and
may
not
even
be
the
greatest.
Invasive
Species
Today,
hundreds
to
thousands
of
non-‐indigenous
species
including
invertebrates,
vertebrates,
plants,
bacteria
and
fungi
have
become
established
in
all
but
the
most
remote
areas
of
the
planet
(Ricciardi
et
al.,
2000).
The
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
is
no
exception.
As
a
result
of
European
settlement,
thousands
of
non-‐indigenous
species
were
introduced
on
the
prairie
landscape.
The
purposeful
and
inadvertent
introduction
of
non-‐
indigenous
species
has
been
detrimental
to
the
bunch
grass
prairie
ecosystem
(South
Sound
Prairies,
2010).
Purposefully,
settlers
planted
non-‐indigenous
plants
mainly
for
ornamental
and
agricultural
purposes.
Inadvertently,
non-‐indigenous
species
were
transported
along
road
and
railways,
through
farm
fields
and
even
the
ballast
of
ships
(White,
1980).
Agriculture
was
perhaps
the
greatest
source
of
non-‐indigenous
species.
Beside
the
plants
that
farmers
were
intending
to
grow
they
often
grew
weedy
species
as
well.
For
example;
In
1865,
Granville
Haller,
who
owned
a
farm
near
Oak
Harbor,
examined
391
lbs
of
seed
wheat.
He
estimated
it
to
be
one-‐third
waste,
“barley,
oats,
buckwheat,
and
peas
besides
an
abundance
of
cheet
and
smut”
(White,
1980).
Weeds
are
an
inevitable
result
of
trying
to
restrict
the
landscape
to
a
single
species.
While
some
of
these
non-‐indigenous
species
failed
to
colonize
or
have
maintained
relatively
small
and
benign
populations,
other
species
possess
traits
that
cause
us
to
label
them
as
weedy,
noxious
Page
27
or
invasive.
In
general,
only
about
1%
of
all
introduced
species
become
invasive
(Mooney
et
al.,
2001).
Yet
this
1%
causes
severe
economic
and
environmental
harm.
The
difference
between
a
non-‐indigenous
or
introduced
species
and
an
invasive
species
is
the
value
to
humans.
The
earth
supports
a
massive
array
of
ecosystems,
which
are
critical
for
sustaining
life
and
provide
direct
value
to
humans
through
the
goods
and
services
they
provide
(Malcom
and
Pitelka,
2000).
Invasive
species
degrade
this
value.
The
National
Invasive
Species
Information
Center
(NISIC)
defines
an
invasive
species
as;
a
species
that
is
1)
non-‐native
(or
alien)
to
the
ecosystem
under
consideration
and
2)
whose
introduction
causes
or
is
likely
to
cause
economic
or
environmental
harm
or
harm
to
human
health
(Executive
Order
13112,
1999).
(NISIC,
2010)
Invasive
species
threaten
national
economies,
human
health,
and
global
biodiversity
(Simberloff
et
al.,
2005).
In
2000,
the
economic
impact
of
invasive
species
was
estimated
to
exceed
$138
billion
a
year
(Rossman,
2001).
In
the
agriculture
sector
alone
25%
of
the
gross
product
is
lost
to
a
growing
variety
of
invasive
species
(Ricciardi,
2000).
Across
the
globe
invasive
species
are
recognized
as
a
considerable
threat
to
biodiversity
and
can
profoundly
alter
ecosystem
structure
and
function
(Longsdale,
1999).
On
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
invasive
species
are
the
greatest
threat
to
biodiversity
and
have
drastically
altered
the
composition
and
functioning
of
the
ecosystem
(South
Sound
Prairies,
2010).
By
definition,
an
invasive
species
has
competitive
traits
that
enable
the
invader
to
displace
native
species
(Radosevich
et
al.,
2003).
Invasive
species
flourished
on
the
prairies
due
to
the
massive
disturbances
of
grazing,
plowing
and
the
repression
of
fire
(Purcell,
1987).
Invasive
species
were
able
to
colonize
and
persist
on
the
prairies
because
they
possess
characteristics
that
enable
them
to
out-‐compete
native
flora.
Invasive
species
often
display
Page
28
phenotypic
plasticity,
or
the
ability
of
an
organism
to
change
its
phenotype
in
response
to
the
environment
(Sakai
et
al.,
2001).
Another
important
feature
of
many
invasive
species
on
the
prairies
is
that
they
are
effective
dispersers
and
have
high
reproductive
rates
(Malcolm
and
Pitelka,
2000).
In
particular,
Scotch
broom
(Cytisus
scoparius),
has
displayed
an
enormous
ability
to
dominate
the
prairie
landscape
and
reduce
the
diversity
and
density
of
native
species.
Scotch
broom
(C.
scoparius)
is
one
of
the
prominent
invasive
species
that
threatens
biodiversity
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape.
Scotch
broom
(C.
scoparius)
is
naturalized
in
lowland
areas
throughout
western
Washington
(Washington
State
Noxious
Weed
Control
Board,
2010).
It
is
a
long-‐lived,
bushy
shrub
with
stiff,
slender
branches
that
can
grow
to
be
up
to
12
feet
tall
(USDA
Forest
Service,
2009).
In
its
European
range,
it
is
considered
a
minor
weed
(Sheppard
et
al.,
2002),
however,
in
North
America
it
is
one
of
the
most
common
and
widespread
invasive
species
impacting
several
plant
communities
throughout
the
Puget
Trough
(USDA
Forest
Service,
2009)
.
The
first
recorded
specimen
of
scotch
broom
(C.
scoparius)
was
collected
from
a
Seattle
garden
in
1888,
and
has
been
regarded
as
a
noxious
pest
in
rangelands
and
natural
areas
since
(Parker,
1997).
On
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape,
it
displaces
and
impacts
threatened
species
such
as
golden
paintbrush
(Castilleja
levisecta)
and
Taylor’s
Checkerspot
(Euphydryas
editha
taylori)
(USDA
Forest
Service
2009).
Its
effects
are
compounded
by
its
nitrogen
(N)
fixing
abilities,
which
often
facilitate
a
new
cohort
of
vegetation.
A
study
focusing
on
three
Puget
Trough
prairies
found
that
invasion
by
Scotch
broom
(C.
scoparius)
is
associated
with
an
increase
in
total
N
and
N
availability,
an
increase
in
cover
of
other
invasive
species
and
a
decline
in
native
species
richness
(Parker,
2000).
While
eradication
of
scotch
broom
(C.
scoparius)
may
never
be
possible,
if
it
is
not
controlled
it
will
Page
29
continue
to
degrade
the
prairie
landscape.
The
U.S.
policies
to
promote
settlement
of
western
Washington
facilitated
the
destruction
of
bunchgrass
prairies.
The
land
management
techniques
of
settlers
were
incongruent
with
that
of
the
Salish,
fire
suppression,
agriculture,
and
the
introduction
of
invasive
species
decimated
the
prairie
ecosystem.
Ultimately
agriculture
proved
unsuccessful,
but
as
the
population
of
western
Washington
continues
to
grow,
development,
fire
suppression
and
the
introduction
of
invasive
species
persists.
There
is
another
threat
to
prairies,
a
silent
threat
which
exacerbates
the
current
challenge
bunchgrass
prairies
face.
The
industrialized
processes
that
fueled
western
expansionism
also
released
an
extraordinary
amount
of
carbon
dioxide
(CO2)
into
the
atmosphere,
the
effects
of
which
we
are
still
trying
to
understand
today.
Page
30
III.
Climate
Change
Gases
in
the
atmosphere
absorb
and
emit
infrared
radiation,
essentially
trapping
heat
within
the
troposphere
of
the
earth
creating
a
greenhouse
effect.
Amounts
of
greenhouse
gases
(GHG)
are
increasing
as
a
result
of
industrialized
human
activities—since
1750,
carbon
dioxide
(CO2)
has
increased
32%,
and
methane
has
increased
150%
(Climate
Impacts
Group,
2010).
The
influx
of
these
gases
is
primarily
responsible
for
a
temperature
increase
of
.74
+
or
-‐
.18
degrees
Celsius
over
the
course
of
the
20th
century.
Most
governments
have
signed
the
Kyoto
Protocol
in
hopes
to
curtail
GHG
emissions
before
levels
in
the
atmosphere
reach
catastrophic
levels.
Over
the
past
20
years
the
atmospheric
CO2
growth
rate
has
more
than
doubled.
As
global
economic
activity
increases
and
becomes
more
carbon
intensive,
significant
global
reductions
seem
a
distant
goal
at
best
(Heller
and
Zavaleta,
2008).
Anthropogenic
climate
change
is
unequivocal
and
unavoidable;
the
question
to
be
asked
then
is
how
much
change
can
be
expected
over
the
next
century.
General
Circulation
Modeling
There
is
uncertainty
in
the
forecasting
of
future
climate
scenarios.
Currently,
scientists
utilize
General
Circulation
Models
(GCM’s),
which
are
based
on
mathematical
equations
of
a
rotating
sphere
with
thermodynamic
inputs
for
various
energy
sources
(radiation,
latent
heat).
Accurate
models
must
take
into
account
a
complexity
of
interconnected
biological,
chemical,
and
fluid
dynamic
variables
(Crumpacker
et
al.,
2001).
All
GCM’s
contain
assumptions
not
just
about
the
behavior
of
the
Earth’s
atmosphere
and
oceans
but
also
in
their
forecast
of
future
anthropogenic
growth
and
land
development
(Salmun
et
al.,
2006).
GCM’s
are
evolving,
Page
31
becoming
more
precise
and
accurate—it
is
the
predicting
of
human
actions
in
which
the
onus
of
uncertainty
rests.
The
Intergovernmental
Panel
on
Climate
Change
(IPCC)
has
developed
a
number
of
scenarios
to
estimate
future
anthropogenic
Green
House
Gas
(GHG)
emissions.
The
possibility
that
any
one
scenario
will
occur
is
unlikely,
but
together
they
encompass
the
current
range
of
future
GHG
emissions
arising
from
sources
such
as
demographic,
social,
economic
and
technological
developments
(IPCC,
2007).
For
the
wide
range
of
GHG
emissions
scenarios,
the
Earth’s
mean
surface
temperature
is
projected
to
warm
by
1.4
to
5.8
degrees
Celsius
as
compared
to
1990
average
mean
global
temperatures
by
the
end
of
the
21st
century
(PEW,
2003).
The
2004
IPCC
worst
case
scenarios
projections
were
actually
surpassed
in
2007,
indicating
that
under
a
“business
as
usual”
scenario
a
1.4
degrees
Celsius
rise
is
all
but
certain
and
a
temperature
increase
of
5.8
degrees
Celsius
is
more
than
probable
by
the
year
2100
(IPCC,
2007).
Climate
change
is
not
uniform
though
and
will
occur
at
different
rates
for
different
regions.
The
most
notable
areas
of
warming
are
in
the
land
masses
of
northern
regions
(North
America
and
North/Central
Asia),
which
exceed
global
mean
warming
in
each
climate
model
by
more
than
40%
(Climate
Impacts
Group,
2010).
In
contrast,
warming
is
less
than
the
global
mean
change
in
South
and
Southeast
Asia
in
summer
and
in
southern
South
America
in
winter
(Climate
Impacts
Group,
2010).
So
what
does
climate
change
mean
for
the
Pacific
Northwest
and
more
specifically
what
affect,
if
any,
will
climate
change
have
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape?
Page
32
Pacific
Northwest
In
the
Pacific
Northwest,
the
effects
of
climate
change
over
the
last
century
have
been
fairly
uniformed
and
widespread
(Climate
Impacts
Group,
2010).
The
Pacific
Northwest
has
been
getting
warmer
and
wetter,
and
these
trends
will
continue
and
accelerate
over
the
next
century
(Climate
Impact
Groups,
2010).
Overall,
historical
trends
from
the
20th
century
of
temperature,
precipitation
and
snow
pack
demonstrate
that
the
Pacific
Northwest
is
having
longer,
drier
summers
and
shorter,
wetter
winters.
The
past
80
years
of
observation
clearly
indicate
a
general
increase
in
temperature
and
precipitation
across
the
Pacific
Northwest.
With
greater
technical
abilities
than
even
just
a
few
years
ago
projecting
multiple
GCM
simulations
or
ensembles
and
presuming
that
the
distribution
of
future
changes
is
well
represented
within
is
now
common
practice
(Mote
et
al.,
2009).
In
2008
Climate
Impacts
Group,
an
interdisciplinary
research
group
studying
the
impacts
of
global
climate
change
in
the
Pacific
Northwest
projected
temperature
and
precipitation
changes
based
upon
20
global
models
utilizing
the
B1
and
A1B1
IPCC
emission
scenarios.
The
averaging
of
these
models
projects
an
increase
in
overall
temperature
on
the
order
of
0.2°-‐1.0°F
(0.1°-‐0.6°C)
per
decade
throughout
the
21st
century
(Climate
Impacts
Group,
2010).
Small
mean
increases
in
temperature
reflect
higher
variability
in
temperature
ranges.
Temperature
increases
will
occur
across
all
seasons
with
the
largest
increases
in
summer
(Climate
Impacts
Group,
2010).
Temperature
increases
are
expected
to
accelerate
in
the
latter
half
of
the
century,
yet
there
is
higher
variability
during
this
time
frame
based
upon
which
GHG
scenario
was
modeled
(Climate
Impacts
Group,
2010).
Projected
changes
in
annual
precipitation
are
less
certain.
Some
GCM’s
show
a
decrease
of
up
to
10%
while
others
show
an
increase
of
20%
by
2080
compared
to
Page
33
1970-‐1990
(Climate
Impacts
Group,
2010).
The
majority
of
emission
scenarios
yield
decreases
in
summer
precipitation
and
increases
in
winter
precipitation,
with
a
small
net
average
increase
of
1-‐2%
in
overall
precipitation
compared
to
1970-‐1990
(Climate
Impacts
Group,
2010).
While
ensemble
models
project
a
wide
distribution
of
possible
outcomes,
in
order
to
better
understand
how
fine
scale
weather
and
land
surface
processes
will
respond
to
climate
changes,
a
more
precise
regional
model
with
higher
meso-‐scale
resolution
is
necessary
(Elsner
et
al.,
2009).
The
ECHAM5/MPI-‐OM
(European
Centre
for
Medium-‐Range
Weather
Forecast
5th
generation
and
Max
Planck
Institute
Ocean
Model)
is
one
of
the
finest
scale
(15
km
grid
spacing)
and
most
accurate
models
completed
for
Washington
state
in
2008.
The
model
assumed
the
A2
IPCC
emission
scenario,
which
is
a
relatively
aggressive
outlook
of
GHG
emissions,
and
completed
projections
for
four
decades
1990-‐1999,
2020-‐2029,
2045-‐2054,
and
2090-‐2099.
The
ECHAM5/MPI-‐OM
model
has
relatively
high
horizontal
and
vertical
resolution
and
produces
realistic
synoptic
scale
patterns
in
comparison
to
other
coarser
models
(Salathe
et
al.,
2008).
The
predictions
for
temperature
and
precipitation
change
of
the
ECHAM5/MPI-‐OM
model
contain
a
finer
level
of
detail
than
the
ensemble
of
models.
In
particular,
the
combined
effects
of
decreased
albedo
and
increased
down
welling
long
wave
radiation
amplified
temperature
increases
under
an
A2
scenario.
In
addition
to
the
domain
wide
warming
0.2°-‐
1.0°F
(0.1°-‐0.6°C)
per
decade,
the
ECHAM5/MPI-‐OM
produces
amplified
warming
along
the
flanks
of
the
Cascade
Mountain
Range,
this
pattern
is
well
established
by
2020
and
yields
to
considerable
localized
warming
by
the
2090s
(Salathe
et
al.,
2008).
As
snow
pack
diminishes
Page
34
less
radiation
is
reflected
into
the
atmosphere
and
is
absorbed
by
the
landscape.
During
the
spring
season,
enhanced
warming
will
move
upslope
following
the
snowline
and
maximum
warming
will
be
found
along
the
crest
of
the
Cascade
Range
(Salathe
et
al.,
20008).
Along
the
coastal
areas
of
the
Puget
Sound
the
regional
model
showed
considerably
less
warming
of
maximum
daytime
temperatures
but
increased
night
time
temperatures
(Salathe
et
al.,
2008).
The
greater
warming
of
the
continental
interior,
relative
to
the
oceans
will
increase
low
level
cloudiness
amplifying
the
downwelling
of
infrared
radiation
at
night,
producing
a
warming
effect
after
the
sun
goes
down
(Salathe
et
al.,
2008).
The
ECHAM/MPI-‐OM
illustrates
that
the
rate
of
warming
will
vary
throughout
the
seasons,
across
the
landscape
and
even
over
the
course
of
a
single
day.
The
global
models
indicate
a
small
increase
in
precipitation
over
the
Pacific
Northwest
during
the
months
of
November
through
January.
While
amounts
and
seasonality
are
similar,
the
ECHAM5/MPI-‐OM
provides
greater
detail
about
where
we
can
expect
increased
precipitation
(Salathe
et
al.,
2008).
The
ECHAM5/MPI-‐OM
model
captures
effects
such
as
large-‐
scale
moisture
flux,
frequency
and
intensity
of
large-‐scale
storms,
changes
in
large-‐scale
circulation
and
interactions
with
the
surface
orography
(Salathe
et
al.,
2008).
The
model
illustrates
that
regional
topography
will
have
a
significant
impact
on
where
increased
precipitation
will
fall.
The
shift
to
more
onshore
flow
increases
the
orographic
precipitation
along
the
north-‐south
ridges
of
the
Cascade
Range
(Salathe
et
al.,
2008).
Increased
precipitation
analogous
to
increased
temperature
will
occur
mainly
at
higher
altitudes
along
the
Cascade
and
Olympic
Mountain
Ranges.
In
the
Pacific
Northwest,
the
climate
is
changing.
Average
annual
temperature
and
Page
35
precipitation
has
increased
along
with
extreme
heat
and
storm
events.
Climatologists
are
confident
that
the
climate
will
continue
to
get
warmer
and
wetter.
Climate
change
will
be
accelerated
at
higher
elevations
but
this
does
not
diminish
the
effects
on
the
lowlands
of
western
Washington.
Understanding
the
effect
that
climate
change
will
have
on
vegetational
communities
is
critical
for
conservation
and
restoration
efforts
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape.
Range
Movement
Globally,
the
IPCC
evaluated
the
effect
of
climate
change
on
biological
systems
by
assessing
2,500
published
studies.
Forty-‐four
studies
met
the
following
criteria:
twenty
or
more
years
of
data,
measured
temperature
as
one
of
the
variables,
and
had
a
statistically
significant
correlation
(IPCC,
2007).
Approximately
80%
showed
differences
in
the
biological
parameter
measured
(e.g.,
start
and
end
of
breeding
season,
shifts
in
migration
patterns,
shifts
in
animal
and
plant
distributions
and
changes
in
body
size)
in
the
manner
expected
with
climate
change
(IPCC,
2007).
Climate
change
is
currently
and
has
been
for
some
time
impacting
the
distribution
of
flora
and
fauna
across
the
globe.
In
Washington,
historical
and
scientific
studies
have
shown
that
climate
change
is
leading
to
vegetaional
shifts.
Plant
migrations
due
to
climate
have
been
recorded
through
photographic
evidence
and
tree
coring
data
at
high
altitudes
in
Olympic
National
Park
and
Mount
Rainer
National
Park.
Tree
establishment
in
subalpine
meadows,
particularly
subalpine
fir
(Abies
lasiocarpa)
on
drier
slopes,
has
been
documented
in
several
studies
which;
purposely
selected
relatively
non-‐flammable
north
facing
sites
showing
no
signs
of
recent
fire,
avalanches
Page
36
or
rock
slides
(Woodward
et
al.,
1995,
Rochefort
and
Peterson,
1996).
Warmer,
drier
summers
from
1956-‐1985—which
are
now
attributed
to
climate
change—have
created
conditions
favorable
for
subalpine
fir
(A.
lasiocarpa)
to
establish
on
the
southwest
slopes
of
the
Olympics,
and
west
slopes
of
Mt.
Rainer
(Woodward
et
al.,
1995;
Rochefort
and
Peterson,
1996).
While
the
re-‐distribution
of
plants
at
high
altitudes
due
to
climate
change
is
evident,
shifts
that
may
be
occurring
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
are
less
conclusive.
Paleontological
evidence
suggests
it
is
unlikely
that
species
will
move
at
the
same
rates
and
that
the
composition
of
most
ecosystems
will
very
likely
be
significantly
altered
(IPCC,
2007).
Climate
change
scenarios
based
on
GCM’s
can
be
linked
to
biological
models
to
predict
these
plant
migrations
(Crumpacker
et
al.,
2001).
These
biological
GCM’s
are
important
guides
to
understanding
the
migration
of
plant
species
in
response
to
climate
change,
such
as
those
related
to
decreased
fertility
and
seedling
viability
of
ecologically
important
plant
species
near
their
range
limits
(Crumpacker
et
al.,
2001).
Fine
scale
predictions
of
how
ecosystems
will
change
are
difficult
to
gather
because
of
topographic
complexity,
but
most
GCM’s
show
that
changes
in
ecosystems
will
occur
as
complex
small-‐scale
movements
rather
than
broad
northward
shifts
(Malcolm
and
Pitelka,
2000).
Unfortunately,
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
is
not
well
represented
in
even
the
finest
scale
biological
models
for
two
reasons.
First
the
prairie
landscape
is
a
seral
grassland
community
maintained
through
an
anthropogenic
fire
regime
that
is
not
represented
in
the
models.
Secondly,
the
extent
of
the
existing
prairie
and
oak
woodland
preserves
is
small
relative
to
the
scale
of
even
the
most
precise
models
to
date.
Vegetation
models
do
provide
broad
projections
about
how
the
Western
Forest
Zone
surrounding
the
prairie
landscape
will
Page
37
react
under
specific
GHG
emission
scenarios
and
GCM’s.
Understand
how
the
forest
responds
to
climate
change
will
facilitate
an
appreciation
for
how
the
prairies
might
react
in
relation
to
the
forest.
The
vegetation
type
modeled
throughout
the
Puget
Trough
region
is
Maritime
Conifer
Forest,
which
is
comprised
mainly
of
Douglas-‐fir
(P.
menziesii)
and
western
hemlock
(T.
heterophylla),
yet
that
might
change
under
future
climate
scenarios
(Rogers,
2009,
Elsner
et
al.,
2009).
Depending
upon
which
GHG
and
GCM
is
utilized
the
maritime
conifer
forest
of
the
Puget
Trough
is
projected
to
undergo
large
scale
conversions
similar
to
what
the
region
experienced
between
12,000
and
3,500
yrs.
B.P.
with
the
expansion
of
xerophytic
or
grassland
taxa
(Rogers,
2009).
Key
species
within
the
lowland
forest
will
have
a
decreased
competitive
ability
due
to
loss
of
growth,
vigor
and
large-‐scale
disturbances
(Little,
2006).
By
2060,
under
a
moderate
GHG
scenario
it
is
likely
that
Douglas-‐fir
(P.
menziesii)
will
have
decreased
juvenile
survival
rates
due
to
increased
evapotranspiration
during
the
summer
months
throughout
the
Puget
Trough
(Elsner
et
al.,
2009).
The
rate
and
composition
of
forest
conversion
in
response
to
climate
change
will
be
driven
more
by
disturbance
than
by
gradual
changes
in
tree
population
and
will
likely
be
more
rapid
than
projected
models
of
future
species
range
shifts
indicate
(Elsner
et
al.,
2009).
Changes
in
the
frequency,
intensity,
extent
and
locations
of
disturbances
will
affect
the
rate
at
which
existing
ecosystems
will
be
replaced
by
new
plant
assemblages
(IPCC,
2007).
The
natural
disturbances,
which
have
the
most
significant
impact
on
forests,
include
fire,
drought,
introduced
species,
insect/pathogen
outbreaks,
hurricanes,
windstorms,
ice
storms
and
landslides
(Dale
et
al.,
2001).
In
the
Pacific
Northwest,
windstorms
and
fire
are
of
particular
Page
38
concern—in
many
cases,
large-‐scale
disturbances
such
as
fire
or
windstorms
will
remove
much
of
the
over
story
and
facilitate
a
new
cohort
of
vegetation
(Little,
2007).
The
regeneration
phase
after
a
disturbance
will
be
the
key
stage
at
which
species
will
compete
and
establish
in
a
warmer
climate,
thus
determining
the
composition
of
future
ecosystems
(Little,
2007).
We
must
therefore
interpret
vegetation
shifts
in
the
context
of
local
factors,
such
as
seed
sources,
migration
pathways,
successional
status,
real-‐world
disturbance
history
and
potential
future
disturbances
(Rogers,
2009).
There
is
little
evidence
to
suggest
that
climate
change
will
increase
species
richness,
and
abundant
evidence
suggesting
that
species
richness
will
decrease
(IPCC,
2007).
Climate
change
is
occurring,
has
been
occurring
and
will
continue
to
occur
into
the
future.
General
circulation
models
downscaled
to
the
Pacific
Northwest
project
variations
in
temperature
and
precipitations.
Changes
in
climate
will
significantly
affect
vegetation
communities
as
species
persist,
adapt
or
migrate
to
a
more
suitable
climate.
The
Idaho-‐fescue
bunchgrass
ecosystem
persisted
when
the
climate
changed
during
the
late
Holocene,
but
that
was
only
because
people
placed
a
certain
value
upon
prairie
species
and
maintained
the
bunchgrass
community
through
fire
and
harvesting
practices.
The
fate
of
bunchgrass
prairies
will
continue
to
be
dependent
on
people,
and
the
cultural
value
we
have
for
uniqueness
and
diversity.
Page
39
IV.
Ecological
Restoration
in
a
Warming
World
The
first
prairies
were
a
result
of
climatic
conditions
following
the
last
ice
age.
As
the
climate
changed
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
was
maintained
by
a
framework
of
tribes
and
clans.
These
different
groups
were
united
by
a
common
cultural
value
for
the
land
and
shared
similar
management
techniques.
The
practices
of
the
Salish
influenced
the
composition,
structure
and
connectivity
of
the
prairie
landscape
which
enabled
the
seral
grassland
community
to
persist
even
as
climate
changes
had
altered
the
natural
fire
regime.
As
European
settlers
moved
to
the
Puget
Trough
the
prairie
landscape
was
developed
because
it
was
relatively
flat
and
clear
of
trees.
Settlement
had
a
profound
ecological
impact;
agriculture,
fire
suppression
and
the
introduction
of
invasive
species,
degraded
the
functioning
and
services
that
the
prairie
landscape
once
provided.
However,
there
is
another
chapter
to
human
management
of
the
prairie
landscape,
the
establishment
of
public
and
private
prairie
preserves
and
the
growing
community
of
prairie
practitioners
dedicated
to
conserving
the
prairies.
Beginning
in
the
1970’s
prairie
conservation
in
the
south
Puget
Sound
started
to
emerge
as
a
priority
for
a
conglomerate
of
different
non-‐profit,
state
and
federal
agencies.
Alarm
at
the
rate
of
species
and
habitat
loss
influenced
a
myriad
of
agencies
to
begin
conserving
the
prairies.
Currently
there
are
17
different
Federal,
State,
County
and
non-‐profit
agencies
collaborating
as
part
of
the
South
Puget
Sound
Prairie
Landscape
Working
Group
(South
Sound
Prairies,
2009).
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
US
Forest
Service
US
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Ft.
Lewis
McChord
Air
Force
Base
WA
Department
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
WA
Department
of
Natural
Resources
Page
40
WA
Department
of
Transportation
Washington
State
University
Vancouver
Pierce
County
Thurston
County
Parks
and
Recreation
Port
of
Olympia
The
Nature
Conservancy
of
Washington
Audubon
Society
Capitol
Land
Trust
Friends
of
Puget
Prairies
Wolf
Haven
International
While
each
agency
has
its
own
management
or
conservation
goals
this
group
works
together
to
share
expertise,
develop
resources
and
implement
future
conservation
activities
on
the
prairie
and
oak
woodlands
of
the
south
Puget
Sound
(South
Sound
Prairies,
2010).
Prairie
conservation
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
landscape
is
an
adaptive
management
scenario
as
this
group
actively
collects
and
disseminates
information
to
maximizes
resources
and
reduce
uncertainty
overtime.
These
agencies
have
been
successful
at
preserving
and
restoring
over
5,000
acres
of
prairie
and
oak
woodland
habitat.
Major
protected
areas
include:
Mima
Mounds
NAP
WA
State
-‐
Dept.
of
Natural
Resources
Rocky
Prairie
NAP
WA
State
-‐
Dept.
of
Natural
Resources
Glacial
Heritage
Thurston
County
-‐
Dept.
of
Parks
and
Recreation
Scatter
Creek
Wildlife
Area
WA
State
–
Dept.
of
Fish
and
Wildlife
13th
Division
Prairie
RNA
US
Army
-‐
Fort
Lewis
Weir
Prairie
RNA
US
Army
-‐
Fort
Lewis
Bower
Woods
Ponderosa
Pine
Forest
RNA
US
Army
-‐
Fort
Lewis
(Dunn,
1998)
Acres
445
47
1,020
1,200
234
1,096
1,739
Preservation
status
means
that
these
areas
are
protected
from
future
development,
not
necessarily
fully
restored
prairie
or
oak
woodland.
In
fact
the
idea
of
what
constitutes
a
restored
prairie
or
oak
woodland
differs
amongst
organizations
and
over
time.
The
management
of
these
areas
varies
not
only
from
agency
to
agency
but
from
site
to
site
as
well.
I
interviewed
14
practitioners
with
a
combined
187
years
of
experience
restoring
and
conserving
grassland
habitats.
Years
of
experience
range
from
2
to
30
with
the
average
being
13.5.
All
participants
are
part
of
the
South
Puget
Sound
Prairie
Landscape
Working
Group
list
serve
and
were
referred
through
the
South
Puget
Sound
Nature
Conservancy.
Participants
were
Page
41
land
managers,
restoration
ecologist,
wildlife
conservationist
and
researchers.
Collectively,
participants
represented
10
different
nonprofit,
state,
federal
and
academic
organizations.
Interviews
were
conducted
either
in
an
office,
meeting
room
or
over
the
phone.
Meetings
ranged
from
thirty
minutes
to
an
hour
with
the
average
conversation
lasting
45
minutes.
All
individuals
were
asked
the
same
13
questions
when
applicable
(Fig.
D)
but
the
sequence
of
the
questions
varied
depending
upon
the
responses
that
were
given.
The
identity
of
participants
will
be
kept
anonymous
due
to
the
sensitive
and
sometimes
contentious
nature
of
adaption
to
climate
change.
Each
participant
is
associated
with
a
corresponding
letter
value.
Statistical
analysis
of
interview
results
discussed
is
presented
in
a
table
(Fig.
E.):
Figure
E.)
Interview
results
from
questions
that
are
discussed
throughout
the
paper.
Answers
to
questions
were
coded
based
upon
the
response
provided
by
the
participants.
Percentages
are
rounded
to
the
nearest
whole
number.
What
are
your
current
restoration
goals?
manage
invasive
species
increase
diversity
restore
ecological
process
research
or
develop
tools
restore
pre-‐settlement
landscape
increase
#
of
rare
species
Is
climate
change
a
challenge
or
an
opportunity
for
prairie
restoration?
challenge
opportunity
both
What
effect
is
climate
change
having
on
the
prairie
eco-‐
system?
significant
impact
minimal
impacts
N=14
79%
79%
29%
21%
29%
36%
N=14
100%
79%
79%
N=14
50%
30%
Page
42
not
yet
occurring
What
methods
do
you
utilize
to
achieve
your
goals?
prescribed
burning
mechanical
control
planting,
seeding,
or
reintroduction
chemical
control
What
considerations,
if
any,
do
you
give
to
sourcing
restoration
materials?
site
specific
regional
mix
Do
you
think
assisted
migration
of
prairie
species
will
be
a
necessary
measure
as
the
climate
changes?
necessary
unnecessary
20%
N=12
50%
66%
84%
66%
N=11
45%
55%
N=14
57%
43%
aggressive
avoidance
constrained
Is
the
term
"native"
still
appropriate
in
this
time
of
climate
change
still
appropriate
definition
will
expand
Mentioned
invasive
species
14%
14%
72%
What
is
your
perception
of
what
has
been
lost?
biodiversity
ecological
processes
geographic
extent/connectivity
mindset
resilience
What
can
realistically
be
restored?
maintain
existing
populations
expand
N=14
100%
85%
50%
N=14
50%
21%
64%
21%
7%
N=14
57%
43%
The
restoration
goals
of
most
participants
could
be
classified
into
two
themes
controlling
invasive
species
and
increasing
diversity.
While
some
participants
were
chiefly
involved
in
researching
best
practices
and
developing
tools
for
restoration,
the
majority
of
participants
identified
these
two
interconnected
goals.
Invasive
species
are
the
single
greatest
threat
to
biodiversity
on
the
prairie
landscape
as
many
of
the
invasive
species
out-‐compete
native
species
even
on
undisturbed
sites
(Source
E,
2009).
Native
prairie
species
are
not
particularly
well
adapted
to
the
cooler
wetter
climate
present
in
western
Washington
since
4,500
yrs.
B.P.
and
invasive
species
by
nature
are
extremely
competitive
(Source
F,
2009).
Whether
practitioners
were
restoring
sites
to
a
pre-‐settlement
landscape
composition
or
to
augment
the
population
of
a
single
rare
species,
controlling
invasive
species
was
viewed
as
necessary
to
preserve
and
restore
diversity.
While
the
motivation
for
increasing
diversity
varies
amongst
agencies
and
individuals,
studies
have
shown
that
increasing
diversity
can
increase
the
resilience
of
an
ecosystem
to
disturbances
that
will
likely
be
more
common
under
climate
change.
Increasing
taxonomical
diversity
or
the
functional
redundancy
(the
replication
of
components
with
similar
functions)
Page
43
increases
the
likelihood
that
individuals
who
provided
a
specific
function
will
survive
a
disturbance
(Dunwiddie
et
al.,
2009).
Increasing
the
number
of
individuals
within
a
population
or
component
redundancy
increases
the
likelihood
that
some
individuals
will
be
able
to
adapt
to
or
survive
a
disturbance
(Dunwiddie
et
al,
2009).
Research
has
also
shown
that
intact
and
species-‐rich
communities
not
only
have
increased
production,
but
also
are
more
resistant
to
invasions
(Tilman,
1999).
While
mandates
and
targets
differ
amongst
practitioners,
controlling
invasive
species
and
increasing
diversity,
may
also
enable
prairie
species
to
persist
or
adapt
to
a
changing
climate.
While
adapting
restoration
practices
to
a
changing
climate
was
not
a
specific
goal
of
any
of
the
participants
interviewed,
all
individuals
had
given
consideration
to
how
climate
change
might
affect
their
work.
When
asked
if
climate
change
was
a
challenge
or
an
opportunity
for
restoration
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
the
majority
of
participants
(79%)
said
both.
21%
saw
climate
change
as
only
a
challenge
to
restoration
and
no
one
exclusively
viewed
climate
change
as
an
opportunity.
The
most
significant
reason
why
practitioners
saw
climate
change
as
a
challenge
was
the
uncertainty
associated
with
modeling
human
and
plant
reactions
(62%).
For
land
managers
and
conservationist,
“the
challenges
are
in
what
we
do
right
now
because
the
questions
are
so
huge
and
we
do
not
have
many
answers
for
them”
(Source
L,
2009).
While
models
provide
some
information
about
how
ecosystems
will
respond
under
a
given
scenario,
they
are
sensitive
to
the
complexity
of
interaction
amongst
species
(Hulme,
2005).
The
effect
of
climate
change
is
likely
to
be
a
very
complex
response
with
some
species
benefiting
and
some
species
declining,
the
indirect
effects
in
regards
to
competitive
relationships,
predation
and
habitat
availability
will
be
really
hard
to
predict
(Source
N,
2009).
Page
44
Climate
change
is
a
challenge
on
top
of
all
the
other
challenges
that
practitioners
have
to
overcome
(Source
C,
2009).
In
particular,
roughly
75%
of
participants
cited
concern
about
the
relationship
between
biodiversity
and
invasive
species,
“we
have
no
idea
whether
climate
change
will
make
exotic
or
natives
less
competitive
or
more
competitive”
(Source
H,
2009).
Research
is
needed
to
better
understand
what
effects
climate
change
will
have
on
vegetation
communities.
While
all
participants
viewed
climate
change
as
a
challenge
to
restoration
roughly
¾
also
saw
an
opportunity
either
from
an
organizational,
personal,
ecological
or
social
perspective.
For
some
organizations
climate
change
is
an
opportunity
to
re-‐evaluate
objectives
such
as
using
historic
conditions
as
a
restoration
target
(Source
N,
2009).
On
a
personal
level
there
is
an
opportunity
for
research,
“for
me
I
think
it
is
a
bit
of
an
opportunity
because
it
reinforces
my
emphasis”
(Source
C,
2009).
The
rate
of
climate
change
is
unprecedented
and
there
will
be
unique
opportunities
to
research
migration
and
adaptive
divergence.
Ecologically,
longer
drier
summers
should
theoretically
improve
the
current
prairie
habitat,
as
climate
conditions
become
more
suitable
for
grasslands
(Source
J,
2009).
Yet
while
climate
change
might
improve
conditions
for
some
prairie
species
it
will
also
improve
conditions
for
invasive
species,
which
are
well
adapted
to
surviving
in
new
climates
(Source
M,
2009).
Active
management
will
continue
to
be
necessary
to
maintain
the
prairie
landscape,
because
it
is
a
cultural
landscape;
We
tend
to
look
at
climate
change
as
a
bad
thing
but
there
are
going
to
be
winners
and
losers.
When
some
species
disappear
others
show
up,
whether
or
not
they
are
going
to
be
species
we
view
as
beneficial
or
whether
we
are
going
to
view
them
as
deleterious
those
are
value
judgments
(Source
K,
2009).
From
a
social
perspective,
opportunity
lies
within
enhancing
the
value
of
prairies,
“as
the
climate
becomes
warmer
and
drier
people
will
surely
learn
that
having
grasslands
is
beneficial”
Page
45
(Source
G,
2009).
In
general,
grasslands
are
well
adapted
to
disturbances
and
are
effective
at
storing
carbon,
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairies
are
no
exception
(Source
G,
2009).
Climate
change
might
hold
some
promise
for
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
if
cultural
value
expands
and
invasive
species
are
controlled.
While
all
participants
viewed
climate
change
as
a
challenge,
there
was
a
lack
of
consensus
about
the
effects
climate
change
is
having
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape.
Roughly
50%
of
participants
expressed
that
the
effects
of
climate
change
on
the
prairies
needs
to
be
addressed
or
are
already
been
addressed,
“we
should
start
laying
out
the
possibilities
and
exploring
options
to
figure
out
how
to
maintain
communities.
It
seems
like
it
is
past
time”
(Source
I,
2009).
Roughly
30%
of
participants
thought
the
impacts
of
climate
change
were
or
would
be
minimal,
and
20%
thought
that
climate
change
was
not
effecting
the
prairie
landscape
yet,
“hard
to
make
changes
for
something
that
might
happen
but
hasn't
happened
yet”
(Source
B,
2009).
An
overwhelming
majority
of
participants
expressed
a
need
for
more
research
and
funding
to
understand
exactly
what
effects
climate
change
is
having
before
adaption
can
take
place.
“As
we
think
about
anything
beyond
our
basics,
(controlling
invasive
species)
and
try
to
manipulate
the
ecosystem
we
find
we
do
not
know
enough”
(Source
C,
2009).
In
the
absence
of
more
research
practitioners
are
continuing
to
develop
more
sophisticated
and
effective
ways
to
control
invasive
species
and
increase
diversity,
which
will
enable
the
ecosystem
to
be
more
resilient
to
increased
disturbances
projected
in
the
future.
Restoration
Techniques
Page
46
Ecological
restoration
of
land
that
was
originally
prairie
or
enhancing
degraded
prairies
requires
reducing
the
abundance
of
non-‐native
species
and
woody
vegetation
and
increasing
the
abundance
of
native
plants
(Fitzpatrick
2004).
There
are
three
basic
steps
to
restoration;
site
preparation,
seeding/planting
and
post
seeding
management.
There
are
many
different
techniques
used
for
prairie
restoration
what
has
worked
best
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
is
a
combination
of
mechanical
control,
prescribed
fire,
chemical
treatment
and
replanting.
The
first
step
to
prairie
restoration
in
the
south
Puget
Sound
has
been
to
reduce
the
number
of
non-‐native
species
and
woody
vegetation.
Initial
treatments
of
sites
often
involve
the
removal
of
scotch
broom
(C.
scoparius)
through
mechanical
control,
chemical
control
or
prescribed
burning.
While
there
are
many
other
invasive
species
on
the
prairie
landscape
scotch
broom
(C.
scoparius)
is
one
of
the
more
deleterious
and
there
is
a
large
body
of
research
on
controlling
scotch
broom
populations.
Mechanical
control
includes
hand
pulling
(weed
wrenches
and
loppers),
motorized
brush
cutters
and
mowing
(Dunn,
1998).
Timing
and
selection
is
critical
for
the
success
of
mechanical
control
techniques,
as
cutting
is
most
effective
for
older
individuals
during
the
late
summer
when
they
are
stressed
(Dunn,
1998).
Mechanical
controls
can
also
require
an
extensive
amount
of
labor
to
achieve
sufficient
results.
Chemical
controls
for
scotch
broom
(C.
scoparius)
have
included
several
different
herbicides
applied
directly
to
the
plant
through
spot
spraying,
broadcast
spraying
and
hand
application
(Dunn,
2002).
Chemical
controls
can
be
costly
and
target
non-‐selected
species
but
are
also
highly
effective
at
reducing
scotch
broom
(C.
scoparius)
cover
(Dunn,
1998).
Chemical
controls,
specifically
Fusilade
have
also
been
an
effective
post
emergence
control
for
grass
weeds
such
as
Page
47
tall
oat
grass
(Source
D,
2009).
Finally,
prescribed
fire
in
a
restoration
setting
has
been
utilized
on
bunchgrass
prairies
in
western
Washington
since
the
early
80’s
(Source
J,
2009).
Fire
has
been
the
prominent
tool
used
to
manage
scotch
broom
(C.
scoparius)
at
several
south
Puget
Sound
prairies
(Dunn,
1998).
Fire
not
only
causes
the
mortality
of
Scotch
broom
(C.
scoparius)
but
it
also
volatilizes
nitrogen
and
creates
bare
ground
for
germination.
Typically
fire
will
also
flush
seeds
from
the
soil
by
stimulating
the
remaining
Scotch
broom
to
germinate
(Dunn,
2002).
While
fire
is
a
natural
part
of
the
prairie
environment,
there
are
limitations
to
using
fire
in
a
restoration
setting.
Prescribed
fires
can
burn
too
hot,
may
only
be
set
under
certain
climate
conditions
and
reduce
habitat
availability
in
the
short
term
(Source
B,
2009).
All
participants
agreed
that
the
best
way
to
manage
invasive
species
is
by
utilizing
a
combination
of
these
techniques
based
upon
a
variety
of
factors
including
labor,
funding,
overarching
goals,
site
history
and
what
is
permitted
by
the
land
manager
or
agency.
After
a
restoration
site
has
been
prepared
by
the
removal
of
invasive
species
and
woody
vegetation,
the
site
is
then
planted
or
seeded
with
desired
species.
Passive
restoration
or
allowing
natural
colonization
is
not
possible
as
the
prairies
of
the
south
Puget
Sound
owe
their
existence
to
human
management,
without
which
they
would
disappear
(Dunn,
1998).
There
are
several
methods
for
seeding
and
planting,
including
drilling,
broadcasting
and
plugging.
Drilling
requires
fewer
seeds
and
protects
them
from
wind,
water
and
predation
(Fritzpatrick,
2004).
Although
it
may
lead
to
lower
survivorship
through
competition
and
can
look
unnatural
due
to
the
“row
effect”.
Broadcast
seeding
requires
more
seed
and
may
have
a
lower
emergence
rate
but
a
higher
survivorship
rate
compared
to
drilling
(Fritzpatrick,
2004).
A
third
method
of
seeding
that
is
currently
being
researched
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
is
hydro
Page
48
seeding
where
seed
is
sprayed
with
a
mulch
mixture
(Source
L,
2009).
Seeding
is
not
effective
for
all
species,
for
example
germination
rates
in
the
wild
for
the
endangered
Golden
Paintbrush
(C.
levisecta)
can
be
less
than
1%
(Source
M,
2009).
Raising
plugs
from
seed
is
a
very
effective
technique
that
can
efficiently
use
limited
or
hard
to
seed
species.
Plugging
can
lead
to
higher
establishment
rates
than
seeding
but
is
also
more
expensive
and
labor
intensive
(Fritzpatrick,
2004).
Techniques
for
seeding
and
planting
are
continually
being
adapted
to
what
is
working
best;
They
are
constantly
changing
depending
on
people’s
opinions,
site
location
and
annual
variability
in
climate.
Our
flexibility
to
respond
has
improved.
We
understand
more
than
10-‐20
years
and
I
think
that
understand
has
brought
a
broader
approach
instead
of
just
working
on
one
prairie
we
are
working
across
a
broad
region.
(Source
L,
2009)
The
utilization
of
restoration
techniques
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairies
is
very
much
an
adaptive
management
scenario.
As
techniques
for
removing
invasive
species
and
planting
seed
become
more
efficient
and
productive,
practitioners
have
been
able
to
restore
and
maintain
a
greater
amount
of
prairie.
As
the
scale
of
restoration
increases
the
practice
of
sourcing
restoration
materials
has
become
more
significant.
Currently
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
is
fragmented
and
disconnected.
97%
of
prairie
habitat
has
been
degraded
of
the
3%
that
remains
only
1%
is
actually
protected
(Crawford
and
Hall,
1997).
The
continuous
patchwork
of
prairie
which
once
existed
is
gone
and
as
each
sub
population
comes
under
a
threat
or
issue
it
becomes
extirpated
(Source
B,
2009).
Fragmentation
can
lead
to
decreased
vigor
and
reproductive
output
of
many
of
the
plants
and
animals
due
to
inbreeding
depression
and
other
genetic
problems
associated
with
small
isolated
populations
(Fitzpatrick,
2004).
In
order
to
increase
the
resilience
of
the
prairies
to
climate
change,
preservation
and
restoration
of
areas
between
existing
populations
is
essential;
Page
49
The
trick
is
going
to
be
to
patch
what
we
have
together
so
there
is
connectivity
throughout
the
region.
We
need
to
maintain
as
much
habitat
as
possible
to
make
sure
there
is
an
area
for
species
to
move
to.
That
requires
a
lot
of
the
initial
treatments
we
do
on
low
quality
prairies.
(Source
L,
2009)
Identifying,
purchasing,
restoring
and
actively
managing
more
land
will
require
additional
resources
and
funding.
One
method
that
has
been
applied
to
wetlands
and
other
habitats
is
mitigation
banking.
Mitigation
or
conservation
banking
is
offsetting
adverse
ecological
impacts
of
development
through
the
creation,
restoration,
enhancement
or
preservation
of
similar
habitat.
Some
agencies
want
to
begin
conservation
banking
and
make
developers
pay
a
fee
for
building
on
prairie
habitat,
so
that
lands
elsewhere
can
be
purchased
to
connect
existing
prairie
preserves
(Source
M,
2009).
Beginning
in
the
early
1990's,
mitigation
banking
has
been
successfully
used
to
restore
over
3,000
acres
of
wet
prairie
in
Eugene
Oregon
(City
of
Eugene,
2010).
The
West
Eugene
Wetlands
Mitigation
bank
is
operated
by
the
City
of
Eugene
Public
Works
Department
which
implements
wet
prairie
restoration
projects
funded
by
development
impact
fees
(City
of
Eugene,
2010).
Hopefully
this
strategy
will
also
be
successful
on
the
drier
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape.
However,
even
if
connectivity
can
be
restored
the
rate
of
climate
change
and
current
state
of
the
prairies
will
necessitate
additional
methods
to
maintain
and
increase
diversity.
Migration;
Connecting
the
Islands
in
a
Sea
of
Change
Paleontological
research
clearly
demonstrates
that
during
past
climate
changes
the
geographic
distribution
of
vegetation
shifted
(Davis
et
al.,
2001).
While
vegetation
does
not
literally
move,
new
regions
are
occupied
through
seed
dispersal
and
establishment.
Page
50
Anthropogenic
climate
change
is
expected
to
be
so
rapid
that
only
a
percentage
of
plants
may
actually
migrate
fast
enough
to
keep
up
(Malcolm
and
Pitelka,
2000).
Such
threats
are
likely
to
be
most
keenly
felt
by
species
with
limited
dispersal
ability
(Hulme,
2005).
Climate
change
is
causing
a
sorting
of
vegetation
into
bands
along
migration
fronts,
led
by
the
fastest
(most
invasive)
dispersers
and
trailed
by
the
slowest
(least
invasive),
which
are
perhaps
at
the
greatest
risk
of
local
extinction
(Neilson
et
al.,
2005).
Thus
rapidly
migrating
species
will
increasingly
“invade”
new
habitat
as
more
sedentary
late
succession
or
endemic
species
will
eventually
die
out
(Neilson
et
al.,
2005).
Plant
communities
could
become
progressively
composed
of
species
that
exhibit
high
phenotypic
placidity,
fecundity
and
the
ability
to
disperse
over
long
distances
(Malcolm
and
Pitelka,
2000).
Two
primary
options
exist:
improve
the
connectivity
of
habitats
to
facilitate
natural
dispersal,
or
relocate
species
to
appropriate
habitats
(Hulme,
2005).
Researchers
are
still
seeking
to
understand
the
interconnected
relationship
between
adaptation
and
migration.
Adaptation
to
climate
change
can
occur
through
the
selection
of
more
fit
or
vigorous
genotypes
(Dunwiddie
et
al.,
2009).
Adaptation
is
dependent
upon
a
balance
between
selection
and
gene
flow.
Evolutionary
understanding
of
past
range
shifts
indicate
that
climate
change
will
select
against
phenotypes
that
are
poorly
adapted
to
local
environments
and
gene
migration
from
neighboring
populations
will
play
a
significant
role
in
the
recombination
of
genes
influencing
physiological
traits
(Davis
et
al.,
2001).
Migration
of
a
plant
species
can
occur
as
a
slow
local
process
whereby
a
species
migrates
as
a
front
in
short
steps
or
as
a
rapid
process
through
long-‐distance
jumps
(Neilson
et
al.,
2005).
As
the
climate
changes
the
leading
edge
of
the
migrating
front
may
be
enhanced
by
gene
transfer
from
the
Page
51
center
but
populations
at
the
trailing
edge
receive
no
gene
transfer
from
better
adapted
populations
because
those
beyond
that
edge
are
either
extinct
or
prevented
from
flowering
and
setting
seed
(Davis
et
al.,
2001).
Spread
from
locally
isolated
populations
can
occur
fairly
rapidly,
but
will
be
insufficient
to
keep
up
with
the
predicted
rates
of
climate
change
(Neilson
et
al.,
2005).
Long
distance
dispersal
then
is
the
only
way,
which
plant
adaptation
and
migration
will
keep
pace
with
accelerated
climate
change,
which
has
caused
some
practitioners
to
advocate
for
methods
which
facilitate
the
movement
of
species.
As
replanting
and
re-‐seeding
efforts
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
have
intensified
so
has
the
debate
about
where
to
source
materials,
“a
year
ago
we
started
a
seed
increase
program
trying
to
bulk
up
seed.
We
had
quite
a
bit
of
discussion
about
seed
source”
(Source
F,
2009).
In
general,
practitioners
want
to
increase
diversity
and
avoid
selection
of
genotypes
that
may
decrease
the
mean
fitness
of
the
genetic
pool,
such
as
seed
collection
practices,
processing,
nursery
propagation
and
out-‐planting
(Dunwiddie
and
Delvin,
2006).
For
example
within
the
past
decade
a
series
of
mistakes
led
to
the
planting
of
red
fescue
(Festuca
Rubra)
rather
than
the
intended
Rohmers
Fescue
(Festuca
roemeri)
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
Prairie
Landscape
(Dunwiddie
and
Delvin,
2006).
When
asked,
what
considerations
do
you
give
to
sourcing
restoration
materials
(seeds,
individuals,
ect.
),
response
were
generally
focused
upon
the
distance
materials
traveled
to
the
restoration
site.
The
concern
over
distance
lies
in
the
risk
of
inbreeding
or
out-‐breeding
depression,
and
may
reflect
recent
work
to
develop
a
regional
seed
mix,
“We
had
an
inter-‐agency
group
talk
about
the
area
for
collection
of
seed
annuals,
perennials
and
rare
plants”
(Source
D,
2009).
Studies
have
demonstrated
that
both
inbreeding
amongst
close
relatives
and
out-‐breeding
with
members
of
distant
populations
can
Page
52
result
in
decreased
fitness
(Lynch,
1990).
However
inbreeding
almost
always
ends
in
decreased
mean
fitness
and
out-‐breeding
often
has
positive
effects
(Lynch,
1990).
11
participants
were
involved
in
sourcing
restoration
materials
through
the
course
of
their
work.
45%
preferred
to
source
materials
on-‐site
or
as
close
to
the
site
as
possible,
with
the
belief
that
those
materials
are
well
adapted
to
the
restoration
site.
55%
mentioned
sourcing
materials
regionally
with
the
criteria
that
annuals
and
rare
plants
would
be
as
site
specific
as
possible
and
the
remaining
plants
would
be
collected
from
a
20-‐30
mile
area
(Source
D,
2009).
In
a
changing
climate
sourcing
seeds
regionally
will
help
species
adapt
and
persist
by
increasing
gene
flow
(Davis
et
al.,
2005).
Several
agencies
are
currently
utilizing
a
regional
seed
mixture
for
fescue
and
developing
a
mix
for
forbs
and
annuals
(Source
F,
2009).
Theoretically
a
regional
seed
mix
may
contain
more
genetic
diversity
increasing
the
component
redundancy
of
the
planting
or
seeding,
“the
general
consensus
is
that
the
more
mixing
genetically
the
better
chance
the
plants
will
have
to
survive”(Source
K,
2009).
On
the
fragmented
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
preserves
are
essentially
islands
amongst
asphalt
and
the
rate
of
gene
transfer
and
migration
has
been
significantly
altered.
The
creation
of
regional
seed
mixes
will
facilitate
gene
flow
and
hopefully
increase
genetic
diversity,
but
sometimes
greater
steps
are
needed
to
conserve
and
restore
diversity.
In
order
for
conservationists
to
meet
certain
targets
sometimes
the
removing
of
invasive
species,
habitat
protections
and
enhancements
are
not
effective
enough.
Two
methods
currently
utilized
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
for
maintaining
and
augmenting
rare/endangered
species
populations
are
translocation
and
reintroduction.
Translocation
refers
to
the
capture,
transport
and
release
of
an
individual
or
population
typically
from
a
Page
53
disturbed
site
to
a
preserved
area
within
the
historical
range.
There
have
been
several
translocation
projects
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape,
including
the
Mazama
pocket
gopher
(Thomomys
mazama).
The
Mazama
pocket
gopher
(T.
mazama)
with
27
known
populations
is
a
State
species
of
concern
and
a
candidate
for
protection
under
the
Federal
Endangered
Species
Act.
Over
180
individuals
have
been
relocated
to
Wolf
Haven,
a
private
prairie
preserve,
when
their
populations
were
threatened
by
development,
succession
or
agriculture
(Wolf
Haven,
2009).
While
the
Mazama
pocket
gophers
(T.
mazama)
are
reproducing
at
Wolf
Haven
initial
survival
rates
were
roughly
30%
(Wolf
Haven,
2009).
Low
survival
rates
are
indicative
of
many
translocation
projects,
“methods
still
need
to
be
developed
for
translocation
and
re-‐introduction
the
success
rates
for
birds
and
mammals
are
not
great”
(Source
D,
2009).
Translocation
is
just
one
method
that
has
been
undertaken
to
preserve
rare
and
endangered
species.
Reintroduction
also
relocates
individuals
or
populations
but
typically
the
focus
is
on
augmenting
populations
that
are
endangered
or
extirpated
at
a
certain
locality
through
the
release
of
species
raised
in
captivity
into
the
wild.
There
have
been
several
reintroduction
programs
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairies,
including
the
Taylor’s
Checkerspot
(E.
editha
taylori)
butterfly
a
federally
listed
endangered
species.
A
multi-‐agency
project
funded
by
the
Department
of
Defense,
captive
rearing
of
Taylor’s
Checkerspots
(E.
editha
taylori)
began
at
the
Oregon
Zoo
in
2003
(U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2009).
The
first
release
was
made
in
2007
at
four
locations
with
limited
success.
Adaptive
management
decisions
were
made
following
the
2007
release
to
increase
the
reproductive
success
of
introduced
populations
(U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife,
2009).
Restorationists
are
enhancing
the
habitat
for
Taylor’s
Checkerspot
(E.
editha
taylori)
Page
54
through
the
planting
of
host
plants
and
creating
a
variety
floral
arrangements
and
micro-‐
habitats
(Source
C,
2009).
Releases
in
2008
were
more
successful
as
practitioners
built
upon
the
success
of
the
2007
releases.
While
translocation
and
reintroduction
are
fairly
accepted
as
conservation
methods
and
create
some
gene
flow
amongst
endangered
populations,
climate
change
may
necessitate
new
measures
for
preserving
diversity.
One
of
the
most
contentious
issues
within
the
field
of
conservation
is
assisted
migration
or
the
practice
of
deliberately
populating
members
of
a
species
from
their
present
habitat
to
a
new
region
outside
of
their
historical
range.
Assisted
migration
is
different
from
re-‐
introduction
efforts
because
the
interaction
between
the
introduced
species
and
the
current
ecosystem
is
uncertain.
In
the
past
humans
have
introduced
species
which
significantly
altered
ecosystem
composition
and
functioning.
Yet
in
the
future
if
avoiding
climate
driven
extinctions
is
a
conservation
priority,
then
assisted
migration
must
be
considered
a
management
option
(McLachlan
et
al.,
2007).
We
want
to
first
do
no
harm,
but
there
is
also
a
realization
that
climate
change
is
something
that
is
happening…
If
we
ignore
it
we
might
miss
opportunities
to
conserve
species
and
lose
something
that
we
can
never
get
back.
(Source
N,
2009)
When
asked
if
assisted
migration
of
prairie
species
will
be
necessary
to
maintain
diversity
as
the
climate
changes
participants
were
split.
43%
of
responses
thought
assisted
migration
would
not
be
necessary
while
57%
thought
it
would
be.
As
a
simple
yes
or
no
question
it
would
appear
that
participants
were
relatively
evenly
split
over
utilization
of
assisted
migration
strategies
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape.
Yet
an
in
depth
analysis
demonstrates
that
there
is
more
consensus
than
what
appears
on
the
surface.
Attitudes
about
assisted
migration
can
be
categorized
into
three
Page
55
positions
aggressive
assisted
migration,
avoidance
of
assisted
migration
and
constrained
assisted
migration
(McLachlan
et
al.,
2007).
Advocates
for
aggressive
assisted
migration
are
motivated
by
the
imminent
threat
of
extinction
and
the
loss
of
biodiversity
due
to
accelerated
anthropogenic
climate
changes.
We
have
too
many
islands
in
this
world
and
if
we
are
putting
value
on
rare
plants
we
are
going
to
have
to
make
sure
they
persist
and
are
able
to
migrate.
Assisted
migration
is
basically
where
a
lot
of
our
plant
and
animal
conservation
is
going.
(Source
D,
2009)
Only
14%
of
participants
could
be
categorized
as
having
an
aggressive
approach.
Most
(72%)
of
participants
are
more
cautious
regarding
assisted
migration
and
have
a
constrained
approach
which
attempts
to
balance
the
benefits
and
risks.
This
perspective
ranges
broadly
between
aggressive
and
avoidance
from;
“maybe
for
certain
species”
(Source
I,
2009)
to
“seems
to
me
like
a
last
ditch
effort”
(Source
B,
2009).
Once
again
uncertainty
of
the
ecologically
impacts
and
climate
models,
along
with
a
lack
of
research,
monitoring
and
planning
were
cited
as
reasons
to
balance
the
utilization
of
assisted
migration.
Only
14%
of
participants
could
be
categorized
as
completely
rejecting
assisted
migration
as
a
conservation
option
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape;
I
do
not
think
assisted
migration
will
be
an
issue.
What
we
are
doing
is
introducing
species
into
different
parts
of
the
habitat
that
they
might
not
have
been
present
in
before,
getting
enough
population
established
so
that
they
might
survive
and
do
well.
(Source
K,
2009)
Enabling
species
to
persist
in
their
current
habitat
and
assisting
the
migration
of
species
will
both
be
dependent
upon
adaptive
divergence
and
genetic
flow
(Davis
et
al.,
2005).
In
all
likelihood
both
persistence
and
assisted
migration
strategies
will
be
necessary
to
maintain
genetic
diversity
as
the
climate
changes.
The
adaptive
management
approach
to
restoration
techniques,
seed
sourcing,
translocation
and
reintroduction
seems
to
be
indicative
of
how
Page
56
practitioners
might
adopt
assisted
migration
strategies.
In
the
past,
new
methods
were
applied
in
a
controlled
setting,
analyzed
and
adapted
to
what
worked
best
(Source
M,
2009).
Currently
scientists
are
researching
the
potential
for
Willamette
Valley
prairie
species
to
migrate
to
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairies
under
simulated
climatic
scenarios
in
a
controlled
experiment.
It
appears
as
if
the
process
of
examining
assisted
migration
strategies
for
the
south
Sound
Prairies
has
begun.
As
the
composition
of
our
local
ecosystems
become
less
and
less
familiar,
it
will
challenge
our
understanding
of
what
should
be
restored.
What
does
“native”
mean
anyway?
Typically,
we
refer
to
the
plants
that
have
existed
at
a
certain
location
for
an
extended
period
of
time
as
native
or
endemic.
Many
of
the
bunchgrass
prairies
which
exist
today,
including
several
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
landscape,
are
part
of
the
Washington
Natural
Heritage
Program
(WNHP).
WNHP
was
established
in
1981
to
protect
outstanding
examples
of
native
ecosystems;
habitat
for
endangered,
threatened
and
sensitive
plants
and
animals,
along
with
scenic
landscapes.
“Originally
we
had
an
image
of
what
the
composition
and
structure
of
native
prairies
should
be
like
based
on
the
State
Natural
Heritage
Program
descriptions”
(Source
J,
2009).
As
climatic
changes
prompt
range
shifts
and
alters
community
composition
new
species
assemblages
will
emerge,
what
is
native
in
Washington
currently
might
be
more
suitable
elsewhere
and
vice
versa
(Source
G,
2009).
It
appears
as
if
prairie
restoration
is
shifting
from
a
native
or
historical
approach
to
a
more
ecological
perspective.
Historic
composition
is
becoming
less
of
a
focus
as
a
growing
drive
towards
managing
for
rarer
species
develops
(Source
F,
2009).
When
asked
“what
does
the
Page
57
word
native
mean
to
you,
and
is
it
still
appropriate
in
this
time
of
climate
change?”
all
participants
believe
that
the
word
native
will
still
have
utility,
but
to
varying
degrees.
For
some,
“It
is
totally
appropriate.
I
do
not
think
things
will
really
be
impacted,
certainly
on
the
prairies
whatever
is
native
now
will
still
be
native
in
the
future”
(Source
K,
2009).
Yet
others
believe
that,
“In
a
couple
of
generations
people
are
not
even
going
to
remember
what
was
native
or
non-‐native.
This
is
the
attitude
in
Europe
and
the
old
world
where
they
see
function
and
service”
(Source
E,
2009).
The
reality
is
that
the
ranges
of
populations
are
constantly
in
flux,
and
society
defines
what
is
native;
This
was
not
a
big
issue
five,
ten
years
ago.
I
think
there
are
no
clear
cut
answers
out
there.
The
whole
aspect
of
defining
what
we
were
going
to
restore
was
a
lot
simpler
before
climate
change.
The
fact
that
communities
might
change
is
a
new
concept
to
most
restorationist.
If
we
do
not
start
thinking
proactively
about
what
these
natural
areas
should
look
like
in
the
future
we
may
fairly
quickly
start
losing
species.
(Source
J,
2009)
An
85%
majority
of
practitioners
expressed
that
the
meaning
of
the
word
native
will
broaden
to
encompass
a
wider
range
of
species.
A
broader
definition
will
enable
restoration
to
still
be
native
without
the
impracticality
of
recreating
a
historic
pre-‐settlement
landscape
in
a
warmer
invaded
world,
“we
are
trying
to
be
open
minded
about
that.
We
need
to
recognize
that
the
earth
is
a
dynamic
system
and
sometimes
we
need
to
recognize
that
we
should
not
force
old
restoration
targets
into
this
dynamic
system”
(Source
C,
2009).
If
the
primary
objective
of
restoration
is
no
longer
to
re-‐create
a
historic
species
composition,
then
how
do
practitioners
define
what
to
restore
or
conserve?
Roughly
50%
of
participants
maintained
that
native
will
still
have
utility
in
terms
of
limiting
the
negative
ecological
consequences
of
the
plethora
of
invasive
species.
Invasive
Page
58
species
are
currently
one
of
the
significant
threats
to
prairie
conservation
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
landscape
“In
an
ecological
sense
we
found
that
when
there
is
a
site
dominated
by
pasture
grasses
that
is
really
all
that
you
have
out
there.
Invasive
species
will
dominate
ecosystems
and
make
them
less
resilient”
(Source
M,
2009).
Ecologically,
invasive
species
have
particular
fitness
traits
that
enable
rapid
colonization
and
establishment
(Radosevich
et
al.,
2003).
Evolutionary
theory,
paleontological
data
and
observed
migrations
infer
that
without
management
the
composition
of
prairie
ecosystems
will
increasingly
become
composed
of
species
which
exhibit
phenotypic
plasticity,
high
fecundity
and
high
dispersal
rates.
Prairie
researchers
in
Minnesota
found
that
one
method
of
increasing
resilience
to
invasion
and
perturbations
was
to
increase
the
abundance
and
richness
of
native
species
(Tilman,
1998).
"Native"
no
longer
refers
just
to
a
species
that
existed
on
a
landscape
during
a
specific
historical
period
there
is
also
an
underlying
ecological
meaning.
The
term
implies
that
these
species
are
beneficial
to
eco-‐system
functioning,
provide
ecosystem
service
and
will
enhance
the
overall
resilience
of
the
ecosystem.
While
predicting
exactly
what
species
composition
will
look
like
over
the
coming
years
is
difficult,
the
end
result
will
inevitably
be
ecosystems
with
very
different
species
assemblages.
In
order
to
preserve
diversity,
practitioners
are
attempting
to
sustain
the
functioning
of
the
ecosystem
as
a
whole.
Selecting
species
according
to
function
places
an
emphasis
on
the
traits
or
services
a
species
provides,
now
there
are
a
lot
of
native
species
that
have
turned
to
non-‐native
species
to
fill
certain
functional
roles.
Native
plants
will
always
be
preferred
in
restoration
but
when
we
value
a
function
we
will
turn
to
non-‐native
species.
(Source
D,
2009)
Page
59
One
common
example
of
a
non-‐native
species
that
is
providing
a
functional
role
as
a
host
plant
is
English
plantain
(Plantago
lanceolata).
The
federally
endangered
Taylor’s
Checkerspot
(E.
editha
taylori)
utilizes
a
rare
annual,
short
spur
sea
blush
(Plectritis
congesta),
as
a
larva
host
plant,
in
the
absence
of
which
some
populations
of
Taylor’s
Checkerspot
(E.
editha
taylori)
will
turn
to
plantain
(P.
lanceolata).
It
is
easy
for
conservationist
to
source
plantain
(P.
lanceolata)
which
is
a
relatively
common
weed
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairies;
in
contrast
it
is
difficult
to
grow
the
limited
amount
of
seablush
(P.
congesta)
seed.
In
lieu
of
seablush
(P.
congesta),
conservationists
have
turned
to
utilizing
English
plantain
(P.
lanceolata)
to
enhance
habitat
for
the
Taylor’s
Checkerspot
(E.
editha
taylori)
(Source
B,
2009).
Plantain
(P.
lanceolata)
is
just
one
example
of
an
introduced
species
which
is
filling
an
important
functional
role
as
historical
species
disappear
from
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape.
Many
people
assign
values
to
plants,
e.g.
natives
are
good
and
invasive
are
bad.
As
the
climate
changes
which
plants
we
value
and
choose
to
maintain
will
also
change.
Ecologically
speaking,
“species
move,
evolve
and
disappear.
If
extinction
or
migration
is
not
a
man
caused
issue,
is
it
ok?”
(Source
I,
2009).
The
reality
is
that
it
is
impossible
to
separate
people
from
the
landscape;
we
will
always
have
an
impact
however
minute.
Invasive
species
are
often
deleterious
to
diversity,
but
a
historical
mindset
about
what
is
native
may
also
decrease
diversity
in
a
warming
world.
As
species
become
less
competitive
in
their
historical
range
it
is
imperative
that
new
species
are
introduced
which
provide
similar
functioning
and
services.
If
practitioners
adhere
to
a
strict
historical
native
mindset
then
resources
or
opportunities
to
enhance
species
that
are
ecologically
beneficial
could
be
squandered.
The
original
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
was
never
catalogued
or
studied
in
Page
60
depth
before
being
altered
by
development,
fragmentation
and
invasive
species.
How
many
plant,
invertebrate,
and
vertebrate
species
were
extirpated
as
the
plow
turned
the
prairies
into
farms?
We
may
never
know
the
extent
to
which
the
composition,
structure
and
size
of
the
prairie
landscape
was
altered.
Participants
reflected
upon
the
loss
of
diversity,
spatial
scale
and
social
value.
A
majority
of
participants
acknowledged
that
the
original
species
composition
and
size
of
the
prairies
will
never
be
restored.
“Even
the
highest
quality
prairie
left
is
still
invaded
and
there
really
is
no
way
to
go
back”
(Source
F,
2009).
The
hope
of
many
participants
was
that
they
could
maintain
the
prairies
for
“no
net
loss
of
diversity”
(Source
J,
2009)
and
possible
expand
the
size
of
the
existing
prairies
by
“10%
or
so”
(Source
M,
2009).
While
we
can
never
get
back
what
was
once
lost,
we
can
hold
on
to
most
of
what
is
left,
and
with
climate
change
maybe
create
something
new
in
the
process.
Page
61
Conclusion
While
past
research
has
focused
upon
what
actions
practitioners
should
take
to
adapt
to
climate
change.
This
research
focused
upon
the
actions
practitioners
have
taken
and
the
attitude
they
posses
for
future
change.
While
the
sample
size
was
relatively
small,
participants
represented
10
different
nonprofit,
state,
federal
and
academic
organizations.
Furthermore
the
significant
ecological
challenges
posed
by
fragmentation
and
invasive
species
to
Puget
Prairie
restoration
commonly
confront
the
field
of
restoration
as
a
whole.
All
participants
had
considered
the
affects
of
climate
change,
in
part
due
to
the
high
availability
of
climate
projections
downscaled
to
western
Washington.
These
factors
indicate
that
these
results
while
descriptive
for
the
population
of
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
practitioners
may
also
be
indicative
of
truths
in
other
regions
and
ecosystems.
The
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
is
fragmented.
Due
to
the
lack
of
connectivity
practitioners
are
beginning
to
look
abroad
for
restoration
material
in
order
to
maintain
and
increase
diversity.
The
utilization
of
regional
seed
mixtures
theoretically
will
increase
the
genetic
diversity
of
populations
making
the
prairie
ecosystem
more
resilient
as
there
is
a
greater
chance
of
specific
genotypes
adapting
to
climate
changes.
Translocation
and
reintroduction
are
currently
being
utilized
to
enhance
or
maintain
populations
of
endangered
species.
Finally,
assisted
migration
or
facilitating
the
movement
of
species
to
new
areas
is
being
explored
and
researched.
A
majority
of
practitioners
had
a
constrained
perspective
regarding
assisted
migration
strategies
which
attempts
to
balance
the
benefits
and
risks
of
introducing
species
to
an
eco-‐system.
As
the
practice
of
restoration
adapts
to
climate
change
current
historical
targets
are
being
challenged
and
a
new
mindset
which
values
function
and
Page
62
service
is
being
cultivated.
While
the
main
goal
of
prairie
restoration
has
been
and
will
continue
to
be
increasing
diversity
in
the
hopes
of
preserving
a
suite
of
species,
the
composition
of
the
species
that
are
restored
is
changing.
The
field
of
restoration
is
undergoing
a
paradigm
shift
from
a
historical
to
an
ecological
perspective.
Restoration
targets
that
focus
on
recreating
a
pre-‐settlement
landscape
are
becoming
less
and
less
realistic.
Even
the
highest
quality
prairie
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
landscape
is
comprised
of
20%
introduced
species.
Evolutionary
theory,
paleontological
data
and
observed
migrations
infer
that
the
composition
of
prairie
ecosystems
will
increasingly
become
composed
of
species
which
exhibit
phenotypic
plasticity,
high
fecundity
and
high
dispersal
rates.
Practitioners
are
beginning
to
redefine
restoration
according
to
the
functional
roles
species
provide
in
hopes
of
preserving
the
important
aspects
of
the
prairie
ecosystem.
The
concept
of
native
still
has
utility
in
an
ecological
sense
that
some
species
are
beneficial
and
enhance
the
resilience
of
the
ecosystem.
Most
practitioners
expressed
that
the
meaning
of
native
will
broaden
to
encompass
a
wider
range
of
species.
The
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape
will
always
need
maintenance
to
control
invasive
species,
restore
ecological
process
and
increase
diversity.
In
order
for
prairies
to
persist
the
desire
to
maintain
them
must
also
remain.
Currently
there
is
a
strong
commitment
from
Federal,
State,
County
and
non-‐profit
agencies
to
preserve
and
enhance
the
prairie
ecosystem.
These
agencies
collaborate
with
one
another,
which
has
lead
to
a
growing
understand
of
how
to
restore
bunchgrass
prairies
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
landscape;
Early
on
we
were
trying
to
see
what
works
more
in
a
demonstration
fashion
and
now
we
are
doing
things
in
a
much
more
valid,
scientifically
supported
way.
We
are
learning
as
we
go
and
a
lot
more
people
are
focusing
on
prairies
and
grasslands.
That
collective
of
science
and
scientist
makes
for
faster
information
processing,
more
collaboration
and
Page
63
better
restoration.
(Source
M,
2009)
While
the
practice
of
prairie
restoration
has
become
more
effective,
significant
challenges
remain.
While
all
participants
viewed
climate
change
as
a
challenge
to
restoration,
there
was
less
consensus
regarding
what
affect
climate
change
is
having
on
the
prairie
landscape
and
how
the
practice
of
restoration
will
adapt
to
the
vegetation
shifts
projected
over
the
next
century.
This
case
study
demonstrates
that
climate
change
is
affecting
restoration
practices
on
the
south
Puget
Sound
Prairie
landscape.
There
is
much
consensus
amongst
practitioners
as
they
begin
to
research
new
methods
and
consider
options.
All
practitioners
desire
to
know
more
about
the
effects
climate
change
will
have
on
the
prairies
so
they
can
make
more
informed
decisions.
While
the
challenge
is
great
the
current
network
of
professionals,
agencies
and
organizations
are
collaborating
in
order
to
manage
the
prairies
more
efficiently
and
effectively.
As
new
research,
techniques
and
methods
become
available
these
same
networks
will
be
able
to
disseminate
best
practices
regarding
climate
change.
People
have
maintained
the
bunchgrass
prairie
landscape
for
millennium,
and
will
continue
to
do
so
into
the
future.
Page
64
Tables
and
Appendices
Figure
1).
The
table
below
lists
some
of
the
common
prairie
species
that
were
utilized
by
the
Salish
for
food,
medicine
and
tools.
The
prairie
landscape
was
vitally
important
to
the
Salish
culture
as
is
evident
by
the
multitude
of
plant
species
which
were
utilized.
Common
Name
Forbs
Bracken,
bracken
fern
Chocolate
lily
Columbine
Common
camas
Common
vetch
Crown
brodiaea
Death
Camas
Fine-‐leaved
lomatium
Fireweed
Giant
camas
Scientific
Name
Pteridium
aquilinum
Fritillaria
lanceolata
Aquilegia
Camassia
quamash
Vica
sativa
Brodiaea
coronaria
Zigadenus
venenosus
Lomatium
utriculatum
Epilobium
angustifolium
Camassia
leichtlinii
Dodecatheon
Henderson's
Shooting
Star
hendersonii
Hieracium
Houndstounge
hawkweed
cynoglossoides
Kinnikinnick
Arctostaphylos
uva-‐ursi
Lupine
Lupinus
albicaulis
Narrow
leafed
onion
Allium
amplectens
Nuttall’s
peavine
Lathyrus
nevadensis
Oregon
Iris
Iris
tenax
Prairie
Violet
Viola
adunca
Fine-‐leaved
lomatium
Lomatium
utriculatum
Puget
balsamroot
Balsamorhiza
deltoidea
Small
camas
Camassia
quamash
Stinging
nettle
Urtica
dioica
Sword
fern
Polystichum
munitum
Wild
strawberry
Fragaria
Virginiana
Yarrow
Achillea
millefolium
Shrubs
Blackcap
raspberry
Rubus
leucodermis
Cascara
sagrada
Rhamnus
purshianus
Chokecherry
Prunus
virginiana
Gooseberries
Ribes
divaricatum
Page
65
Family
Dennstaedtiaceae
Liliaceae
Ranunculaceae
Liliaceae
Fabaceae
Liliaceae
Liliaceae
Apiaceae
Onagraceae
Liliaceae
Use
Food
Food
Food
Food
Food
Food
Medicine
Food
Food,
Blankets
Food
Primulaceae
Food
Asteraceae
Ericaceae
Fabaceae
Alliaceae
Fabaceae
Iridaceae
Violaceae
Apiaceae
Asteraceae
Liliaceae
Urticaceae
Dryopteridaceae
Rosaceae
Asteraceae
Rosaceae
Rhamnaceae
Rosaceae
Grossulariaceae
Medicine
Smoking/Food
Food
Food
Forage
Food
cordage
Food
Food
Food/Clothing
Food
food,
cordage,
medicine
Food
Food
Medicine/Soap
Food
Medicine
Food
Food
Oceanspray
Pacific
dogwood
Red
flowering
currant
Red
huckleberry
Salal
Salmonberry
Service
berries
Snowberry
Tall
oregon
grape
Trailing
blackberry
Western
beaked
hazel,
Hazelnut
Trees
Garry
oak
Holodiscus
discolor
Corylus
nuttallii
Ribes
sanguineum
Vaccinium
parvifolium
Gaultheria
shallon
Rubus
spectabilis
Amelanchier
alnifolia
Symphoricarpos
albus
Mahonia
aquifolium
Rubus
ursinus
Rosaceae
Cornaceae
Grossulariaceae
Ericaceae
Ericaceae
Rosaceae
Rosaceae
Caprifoliaceae
Berberidaceae
Rosaceae
Medicine/Tools
Medicine
Food
Food
Food/Fuel
Food
Food
Medicine/Soap
Food/medicine
Food
Corylus
cornuta
Quercus
garryana
Betulaceae
Fagaceae
Food
Food
Sources:
(Norton,
1979),
(Storm,
2004),
(Leopold
and
Boyd,
1999)
Page
66
Figure
B).
Boyd’s
1996
computational
analysis
demonstrating
the
population
of
interior
valley
Salish
tribes
is
more
objective
than
past
population
estimates.
The
anchor
number
or
earliest
reliable
census
data
was
utilized
to
determine
population
in
1770
and
1850.
Interior
Valley
Population
1770-‐1850
Group
Upper
Chehalis
Cowlitz
Kwalhioqua
Clatskine
Cathlamet,
Wappato,
Clackamas,
Cascades
Kalapuyans
Takelma/Interior
Athapascans
Interior
valleys
epidemic
Totals
Anchor
No
1600
2400
1350
1770
pre
Epidemic
1850
post
Epidemic
#
#
2880
216
4320
165
2430
21
6660
8200
3000
23210
11988
14760
4500
40,878
300
560
797
2,059
Figure
C).
This
graph
displays
population
growth
in
the
five
counties
that
contain
significant
prairie
remnants.
The
population
has
grown
exponentially
since
the
1900’s
based
upon
census
data
from
Washington
State.
Page
67
Figure
D).
Interview
Questions
1.)
How
long
have
you
been
working
with
prairies
and
in
what
capacity?
2.)
What
are
your
current
restoration
and
conservation
goals
and
how
have
they
changed
over
time?
3.)
What
methods
are
you
using
to
achieve
your
restoration
goals
(introduction,
reintroduction,
augmentation,
fire,
herbicide,
invasive
removal)?
How
have
these
methods
changed
over
time?
4.)
In
your
experience
what
is
the
best
way
to
manage
invasive
species?
5.)
What
considerations
do
you
give
to
sourcing
restoration
materials,
seeds,
individuals?
6.)
What
considerations
if
any
do
you
give
to
affecting
ecosystem
resilience?
7.)
How
would
you
describe
the
redundancy
of
the
prairie
ecosystem,
are
there
many
species
that
provide
similar
ecologically
functions?
B.)
How
do
you
classify
species
when
performing
restoration?
Do
you
look
at
functional
groupings,
taxonomically
groupings,
or
both?
Given
your
experience
is
it
safe
to
introduce
non-‐native
species
which
provide
similar
functional
roles
as
natives?
8).
Is
climate
change
a
challenge
or
an
opportunity
for
prairie
conservation?
9.)
When
is
the
appropriate
time
to
change
restoration
practices
in
light
of
climate
change?
10.)
It
seems
as
if
conservation
has
shifted
from
a
“native”
approach
to
a
more
ecological
community
perspective.
What
does
the
word
native
mean
to
you,
and
is
it
still
appropriate
in
this
time
of
climate
change?
11.)
Do
you
think
assisted
migration
of
prairie
species
will
be
necessary
to
maintain
populations
as
the
climate
changes?
12.)
What
is
your
perception
of
what
has
been
lost
and
what
can
we
realistically
hope
to
restore?
13.)
One
of
the
important
original
functions
of
the
prairies
was
food
and
medicine.
Given
the
current
state
of
the
prairies,
do
you
think
it
is
feasible
to
harvest
food
from
them
again?
If
so
what
effect
might
harvest
have
on
restoration
efforts?
Page
68
Page
69
Works
Cited
Agee
J.
(1993).
Fire
ecology
of
Pacific
Northwest
forest.
Island
Press,
Washington
D.C.
Anderson
K.
(2005).
Tending
the
Wild;
Native
American
knowledge
and
the
management
of
California’s
resources.
University
of
California
press,
Berkeley.
Barnosky
C.
(1985).
Late
Quaternary
vegetation
near
Battle
Ground
Lake,
southern
Puget
Trough,
Washington.
The
Geological
Society
of
America
Bulletin
96
(2),
263-‐271.
Beckwith
B.
(2004).
The
queen
root
of
this
clime:
ethnoecological
investigations
of
blue
camas
and
its
landscapes
on
southern
Vancouver
Island,
British
Columbia.
University
of
Victoria,
Dissertation.
Boyd
R.
(1999).
The
coming
of
the
spirit
of
pestilence.
University
of
Washington
Press,
Seattle
WA.
Crawford
R.
and
Hall
H.
(1997).
Changes
in
the
South
Puget
Prairie
Landscape.
Ecology
and
Conservation
of
the
South
Puget
Sound
Prairie
Landscape,
Patrick
Dunn
and
Kern
Ewing
(eds.),
17-‐28.
The
Nature
Conservancy
of
Washington,
Seattle.
Climate
Impacts
Group
(2009).
The
Washington
climate
change
impacts
assessment,
M.
McGuire
Elsner,
J.Littell,
and
L
Whitely
Binder
(eds).
Center
for
Science
in
the
Earth
System,
Joint
Institute
for
the
Study
of
the
Atmosphere
and
Oceans,
University
of
Washington,
Seattle,
WA.
Crumpacker
D.,
Box
E.,
Hardin
E.
(2001).
Implications
of
climatic
warming
for
conservation
of
native
trees
and
shrubs
in
Florida.
Conservation
Biology
15
(4),
1008-‐1020.
Dale
V.,
Joyce
L.,
McNulty
S.,
Neilson
R.,
Ayres
M.,
Flannigan
M.,
Hanson
P.,
Irland
L.,
Lugo
A.,
Peterson
C.,
Simberloff
D.,
Swanson
F.,
Stocks
B.,
Wotton
M.
(2001).
Climate
change
and
forest
ecosystems:
climate
change
and
forest
disturbances.
Bioscience
51
(9),
723-‐734.
Davis
M.,
Shaw
R.
(2001).
Range
shifts
and
adaptive
responses
to
Quaternary
climate
change.
American
Association
for
the
Advancement
of
Science
5517
(292),
673-‐679.
Davis
M.,
Shaw
R.,
and
Etterson
J.
(2005).
Evolutionary
responses
to
a
changing
climate.
Ecological
Society
of
America
86
(7),
1704-‐1714.
Drake
S.,
Weltzin
J.,
and
Parr
P.
(2003).
Assessment
of
non-‐native
invasive
plant
species
on
the
United
States
Department
of
Energy
Oak
Ridge
National
Environmental
Research
Park.
Castanea
68
(1),
15-‐30.
Page
70
Dunn
P.
(1998).
Prairie
Habitat
Restoration
and
Maintenance
on
Fort
Lewis
and
within
the
South
Puget
Sound
Prairie
Landscape.
(Prepared
for
the
United
States
Army
by
The
Nature
Conservancy
of
Washington).
Dunn,
P
.
(2002).
Integrated
Control
of
Scotch
Broom:
Techniques
and
Strategies.
The
Nature
Conservancy.
Dunwiddie
P.
and
Delvin
E.
(2006).
Inadvertent
selection
in
the
propagation
of
native
plants.
Native
Plants
Journal
7
(2),
121-‐124.
Dunwiddie
P.,
Hall
S.,
Ingraham
M.,
Bakker
J.,
Nelson
K.,
Fuller
R.,
Gray
E.
(2009).
Rethinking
Conservation
practice
in
Light
of
Climate
Change.
Ecological
Restoration
27
(3),
320-‐329.
Falk,
D.A.,
Palmer,
M.A.,
and
Zedler,
J.B.
(2009).
Foundations
of
Restoration
Ecology.
Island
Press,
Washington
D.C.
Fritzpatrick
G.
(2004).
Techniques
for
restoring
native
plant
communities
in
upland
and
wetland
prairies
in
the
Midwest
and
west
coast
regions
of
North
America.
White
Paper,
prepared
for
City
of
Eugene-‐Parks
and
Open
Space.
Gibbs
G.
(1877).
Tribes
of
western
Washington
and
northwest
Oregon.
Department
of
the
interior,
U.S.
Geographical
and
geological
survey
of
the
Rocky
Mountain
Region.
Hansen,
Henry
P.
(1947).
Climate
versus
fire
and
soil
as
factors
in
the
Puget
Lowland
of
Washington.
American
J.
of
Science
245
(5),
265-‐286.
Heller
N.,
Zavaleta
E.
(2008).
Biodiversity
management
in
the
face
of
climate
change:
A
review
of
22
years
of
recommendations.
Biological
Conservation
142
(2009),
14-‐32.
Hessburg
P.,
Agee
J.,
Franklin
J.
(2005).
Dry
forest
and
wildland
fires
of
the
inland
Northwest
USA:
contrasting
the
landscape
ecology
of
the
pre-‐settlement
and
modern
eras.
Forest
Ecology
and
Management
211,
117-‐139.
Hibbard
B.
(1939).
A
history
of
the
public
land
policies.
P.
Smith,
New
York,
NY.
Hulme
P.
(2005).
Adapting
to
climate
change:
is
there
scope
for
ecological
management
in
the
face
of
a
global
threat?
Journal
of
Applied
Ecology
42
784-‐794.
Iverson
L.
and
Prasad
A.
(2001).
Potential
Changes
in
Tree
Species
Richness
and
forest
community
types
following
climate
change.
Ecosystem
4
(3),
186-‐199.
IPCC
(2007):
Summary
for
Policymakers.
Climate
Change
2007:
Mitigation.
Contribution
of
Working
Group
III
to
the
Fourth
Assessment
Report
of
the
Intergovernmental
Panel
on
Climate
Change.
B.
Metz,
O.R.
Davidson,
P.R.
Bosch,
R.
Dave,
l.A.
Meyer,
Cambridge
University
Press,
Page
71
Cambridge,
United
Kingdom
and
New
York,
NY,
USA.
Kruckeberg
A
(1991).
The
Natural
History
of
Puget
Sound
Country.
University
of
Washington
Press,
Seattle,
WA.
Leopold
E.
and
Boyd
R.
(1999).
An
ecological
history
of
old
prairie
areas
in
southwestern
Washington,
pp.
139-‐163
in
Boyd
R.,
(ed.).
Indians,
fire,
and
the
land
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
Oregon
State
University
Press,
Corvallis
OR.
Littell
J.
(2006).
Climate
Impacts
to
Forest
Ecosystem
Processes:
Douglas-‐fir
Growth
in
Northwestern
U.S.
Mountain
Landscapes
and
Area
Burned
by
Wildfire
in
Western
U.S.
Ecoprovinces.
University
of
Washington.
Littell
J.,
Peterson
D.,
and
O’Halloran
K.
(2007).
Adaption
to
Climate
Change
in
Olympic
National
Forest.
USDA
Forest
Service,
Olympic
National
Forest,
SAP
4.4
Case
Study
Section.
Littell,
J.S.,
M.
McGuire
Elsner,
L.C.
Whitely
Binder,
and
A.K.
Snover
(eds).
(2009).
The
Washington
climate
change
impacts
assessment:
evaluating
Washington's
future
in
a
changing
climate
-‐
executive
summary.
In
the
Washington
climate
change
impacts
assessment:
evaluating
Washington's
future
in
a
changing
climate.
Climate
Impacts
Group,
University
of
Washington,
Seattle,
WA.
Lonsdale
W.
(1999).
Global
patterns
of
plant
invasions
and
the
concept
of
invisibility.
Ecology,
80
(5),
1522-‐1536.
Loreau,
M.,
Naeem
S.,
Inchausti
P.,
Bengtsson
J.,
Grime
J.P.,
Hector
A.,
Hopper
D.U.,
Huston
M.A.,
Raffaellii
D.,
Schmid
B.,
Tilman
D.,
Wardle
D.A.
(2001).
Biodiversity
and
ecosystem
functioning:
current
knowledge
and
future
challenges.
Science
294
(5543),
804-‐808.
Lynch
M.
(1991).
The
genetic
interpretation
of
inbreeding
depression
and
outbreedng
depression.
Evolution
45,
(3),
622-‐629.
Malcom
J.,
Pitelka
L.
(2002).
Ecosystems
and
Global
Climate
Change:
A
Review
of
Potential
Impacts
on
U.S.
Terrestrial
Ecosystems
and
Biodiversity.
Pew
Center
on
Global
Climate
Change
Mack
R.,
Simberloff
D.,
Lonsdale
W.,
Evans
H.,
Clout
M.,
and
Bazzaz
F.
(2000).
Biotic
Invasions:
Causes,
Epidemiology,
Global
Consequences,
and
Control.
Ecological
applications
10
(3),
689-‐
710.
Martin
P.,
(1967).
Prehistoric
overkill.
Pgs.
354-‐404
in
Martin
P.
and
Wright
H.
Pleistocene
extinctions:
the
search
for
a
cause.
Yale
University
Press,
New
Haven,
CT.
McLachlan
J.,
Hellmann
J.,
and
Schwartz
M.
(2007).
A
framework
for
Debate
of
Assisted
Migration
in
an
Era
of
Climate
Change.
Conservation
Biology
21
(2),
297-‐302.
Page
72
Mooney
H.,
Cleland
E.
(2001).
The
Evolutionary
Impact
of
Invasive
Species.
Proceedings
of
the
National
Academy
of
Sciences
of
the
United
States
of
America
98(10),
5446-‐5451.
Mote,
P.
and
Salathé
E.
(2009).
Future
climate
in
the
Pacific
Northwest.
Chapter
1
in
The
Washington
Climate
Change
Impacts
Assessment:
Evaluating
Washington's
Future
in
a
Changing
Climate.
Climate
Impacts
Group,
University
of
Washington,
Seattle,
WA.
Nabhan
G.
(1989).
Enduring
seeds:
Native
American
agriculture
and
wild
plant
conservation.
North
Point
Press,
New
York,
NY.
Naeem
S.
(1998).
Species
redundancy
and
ecosystem
reliability.
Conservation
Biology
12
(1),
39-‐45.
Neilson
R.,
Pitelka
L.,
Solomon
A.,
Nathan
R.,
Midgley
G.,
Fragoso
J.,
Lischke
H.,
Thompson
K.
(2005).
Forecasting
regional
to
global
plant
migration
in
response
to
climate
change.
Bioscience
55
(9),
749-‐758.
Noss
R.
(2001).
Beyond
Kyoto:
Forest
Management
in
a
Time
of
Rapid
Climate
Change.
Conservation
Biology
15
(3),
578-‐590
Norton
H.
(1979).
The
association
between
anthropogenic
prairies
and
important
food
plants
in
western
Washington.
The
Northwest
anthropological
research
notes
13
(2),
175-‐200.
Norton
H.,
Boyd
R.,
Hunn
E.
(1999).
The
Klikitat
Trail
of
South
central
Washington,
pgs
65-‐94
in
Boyd
R.
(ed),
Indians,
Fire
and
The
Land
in
The
Pacific
Northwest.
Oregon
State
University
Press,
Corvallis
OR.
Parker
I.
(1997).
Pollinator
Limitation
of
Cytisus
scoparius
(Scotch
Broom),
an
Invasive
Exotic
Shrub.
Ecology
78
(5),
1457-‐1470.
Parker
I.,
Harpole
W.,
Dionne
D.
(1997).
Plant
community
diversity
and
the
invasion
of
the
exotic
shrub
Cytisus
scoparius
testing
hypotheses
of
invisibility
and
impact.
Ecology
and
Conservation
of
the
south
Puget
Sound
prairie
landscape,
Patrick
Dunn
and
Kern
Ewing
(eds.),
17-‐28.
The
Nature
Conservancy
of
Washington,
Seattle,
WA.
Purcell
A.
(1987).
Shaping
the
mounded
landscape
of
Thurston
County,
Washington.
Evergreen
State
College,
Graduate
Program
in
Environmental
Study.
Radosevich
S.,
Stubbs
M.,
and
Ghersa
C.
(2003).
Plant
invasions:
process
and
patterns.
Weed
Science
51(2),
254-‐259.
Riccardi
A.,
Steiner
W.,
Mack
R.,
Simberloff
D.
(2000).
Toward
a
Global
Information
System
for
Invasive
Species.
Bioscience
50
(3),
239-‐242.
Page
73
Rochefort
R.,
and
Peterson
D.
(1996).
Temporal
and
Spatial
Distribution
of
Trees
in
Subalpine
Meadows
of
Mount
Rainer
National
Park,
Washington,
U.S.A.
Arctic
and
Alpine
Research,
28
(1),
52-‐59.
Rogers
Brendan
(2009).
Potential
impacts
of
climate
change
on
Vegetation
distributions,
carbon
stocks,
and
fire
regimes
in
the
U.S.
Pacific
Northwest.
A
master
of
Science
thesis
for
Oregon
State
University.
Rossman
A.
(2001).
Global
Movement
of
Invasive
plants
and
Fungi.
Bioscience
51
(2),
93-‐94.
Sakai
A.,
Allendorf
F.,
Holt
J.,
Lodge
D.,
Molofsky
J.
(2001).
The
Population
Biology
of
Invasive
Species.
Annual
Review
of
Ecology
and
Systematics
32,
305-‐332.
Salmun
H.,
Molod
A.
(2006).
Progress
in
modeling
the
impact
of
land
cover
change
on
the
global
climate.
Progress
in
Physical
Geography,
30
(6),
737.
Salathe
E.,
Steed
R.,
Mass
C.,
Zahn
P.
(2008).
A
high
resolution
climate
model
for
the
United
States
pacific
Northwest:
mesoscale
feedbacks
and
local
responses
to
climate
change.
Journal
of
Climate,
(in
press),
Draft.
Schuller
R.
(1997).
Vegetation
response
to
fall
prescribed
burning
within
Festuca
idahoensis
dominated
prairie,
Mima
Mounds
Natural
Area
Preserve,
Washington
1985-‐1992.
Ecology
and
Conservation
of
the
South
Puget
Sound
Prairie
Landscape,
Patrick
Dunn
and
Kern
Ewing
(eds.),
17-‐28.
The
Nature
Conservancy
of
Washington,
Seattle,
WA.
Sheppard
A.,
Hodge
P.,
Paynter
Q.,
Rees
M.
(2002).
Factors
affecting
invasion
and
persistence
of
broom
Cytisus
scoparius
in
Australia.
Journal
of
Applied
Ecology
39
(2002),
721-‐734.
Solomon
A.M.,
and
Kirlenko.
(1997).
Climate
Change
and
Terrestrial
Biomass:
What
if
Trees
do
not
migrate?.
Global
Ecology
and
Biogeography
Letters
6
(2),
139-‐148.
Storm
L.
(2004).
Prairie
fires
&
earth
mounds:
the
ethnoecology
of
Upper
Chehalis
Prairies.
Douglasia
28
(3),
6-‐9.
Tilman,
D.
(July
1999).
The
ecological
consequences
of
changes
in
Biodiversity:
a
search
for
general
principles.
Ecology
80
(5)
1455-‐1474.
Vale
T.
(2002).
The
Pre-‐European
landscape
of
the
United
States:
pristine
or
humanized,
pgs.
1-‐
40
in
Vale
T.
(ed),
Fire,
Native
Peoples
and
the
natural
landscape.
Island
Press,
Washington
D.C.
White
R.
(1980).
Land
use,
Environment,
and
Social
Change:
The
shaping
of
Island
Country
Washington.
University
of
Washington
Press,
Seattle,
WA.
Page
74
Whitlock
C.,
Knox
M.
(2002).
Prehistoric
burning
in
the
pacific
Northwest:
Human
versus
climatic
influences,
pp.195-‐231
in
Vale
T.
(ed.).
Fire
Native
Peoples
and
the
natural
landscape.
Island
Press,
Washington
DC.
Woodward
A.,
Schreiner
E.,
Silsbee
D.
(1995).
Movement
in
subalpine
areas
Climate,
Geography,
and
Tree
Establishment
in
Subalpine
Meadows
of
the
Olympic
Mountains,
Washington
U.S.A.
Arctic
and
Alpine
Research
27
(3),
217-‐225.
Websites
Accessed
2008-‐2010
USDA
Forest
Service,
http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/shrub/cytspp/all.html
Climate
Impacts
Group:
http://cses.washington.edu/cig/
National
Invasive
Species
Information
Center
(NISIC):
http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/whatis.shtml
Washington
State
Noxious
Weed
Control
Board
http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/INDEX.htm
Wolf
Haven
International
http://www.wolfhaven.org/gopher.php
U.S.
Fish
and
Wildlife,
Washington
http://www.fws.gov/wafwo/
South
Puget
Sound
Prairie
Landscape
Working
Group
http://www.southsoundprairies.org/
City of Eugene
http://www.eugene-or.gov
Page
75