About the Puget Sound Institute

Recommendations

Info

2015 Puget Sound Factbook Book | v3.0 How is this assessment expected to make a difference? The stated purpose of the PSPA is to help members of the Puget Sound science community and decision makers better understand the potential impact and relative intensity of stressors in the Puget Sound region, and to inform decisions about recovery strategies and priorities. It was not intended to replace existing local pressure assessments, or those that consider finer-scale data. However, it may complement or provide a starting point for locally focused efforts, where none currently exist. More specifically, the authors suggest how Potential Impact (PI) scores can be used in conjunction with Intrinsic Vulnerability (IV) scores to guide decisions and action in four contrasting scenarios (Fig. 7). The PSPA is already beginning to influence recovery in several ways: PSP staff have discussed how results may be used by local implementers (LIOs), as supporting information for groups developing Implementation Strategies, in steelhead recovery planning, and in the next phases of Chinook monitoring and adaptive management (S. Redman, personal communication). Assessment results will also help sponsors prioritize decisions about recovery support. This list of early applications is instructive in illustrating how the PSPA will make an impact: not by causing everyone to fall into lockstep with a single ranking, but by guiding many separate, independent and measured applications of results at appropriate scales. Propagation of that process over time and space will result in convergence of recovery effort and direction that would otherwise be hard to achieve. The assessment provides a good example of how to proceed towards recovery under pervasive uncertainty. The team that performed this analysis deserves recognition as steely-eyed ecosystem recovery scientists. And the experts who contributed should feel rewarded for participating in a worthwhile effort. The work was funded by EPA. Work well done. Figure 8. Suggestions as to how combinations of IV and PI scores may help to guide decision making (Fig. 13 in ref. 4). 102
Threats References Knauer, J., Neuman, E., St. John, D. 2009. Identification, Definition and Rating of Threats to the Recovery of Puget Sound. Technical Memorandum, Puget Sound Partnership. The 2014/2015 Action Agenda for Puget Sound. 2014. Puget Sound Partnership. Puget Sound Partnership. 2011. Priority Science for Restoring and Protecting Puget Sound: A Biennial Science Work Plan for 2011-2013.McManus, E., K. Jenni, M. Clancy, K. Ghalambor, I. Logan, J. Langdon, S. Redman, B. Labiosa, K. Currens, T. Quinn, J. Burke. 2014. The 2014 Puget Sound Pressures Assessment. Puget Sound Partnership Publication # _. Tacoma, WA Puget Sound Partnership. 2014. The 2014 Puget Sound Pressures Assessment: Appendices. Puget Sound Partnership Publication # _. Tacoma, WA. Labiosa, W., Landis, W, Quinn, T, Johnston, R., Currens, K, Redman, S., and Anderson, R. 2014. Puget Sound Pressures Assessment Methodology. Puget Sound Partnership Technical Report 2014-02. 103
Page 2 and 3:
2015 Puget Sound Factbook Book | v
Page 4 and 5:
2015 Puget Sound Factbook Book | v3
Page 6 and 7:
Page 8 and 9:
Page 10 and 11:
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53: 2015 Puget Sound Factbook Book | v3
Page 124: 2015 Puget Sound Factbook Book | v3
show all

About the Puget Sound Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?