About the Puget Sound Institute

Recommendations

Info

2015 Puget Sound Factbook Book | v3.0 Morris, R., Abbott, D., & Haderlie, E. (1980). Intertidal invertebrates of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. NOAA Fisheries. (2015). California sea lion. Office of Protected Resources. Retrieved June 22, 2015, from http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/mammals/pinnipeds/californiasealion.htm NOAA Fisheries. (2015b). The Elusive Giant Pacific Octopus. Retrieved September 25, 2015 from http://www.afsc.noaa.gov/species/octopus.php. Palsson, W., Tsou, T-S., Bargmann, G., Buckley, R., West, J., Mills, M., Cheng Y. & Pacunski, R. (2009). The biology and assessment of rockfishes in Puget Sound. Fish Management Division, Fish Program Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 208p. Pietsch and Orr, In Press. Pietsch pers. Comm. June 10th, 2015. Purcell, J. E., & Arai, M. N. (2001). Interactions of pelagic cnidarians and ctenophores with fish: a review. Hydrobiologia 451: 27-44. Rice, C., Duda, J., Greene, C. & Karr, J (2012). Geographic Patterns of Fishes and Jellyfish in Puget Sound Surface Waters, Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science, 4(1), 117-128, DOI:10.1080/19425120.2012.680403. Scheel, D. & Anderson, R. (2012). Variability in the diet specialization of Enteroctopus dofleini (Celphalopoda: Octopodidae) in the eastern Pacific examined from midden contents. American Malacological Bulletin, 30(2), 267-279. Doi: 10.4003/006.030.0206. Trainer, V.L, Eberhart, B.-T.L., Wekell J.C., Adams, N.G., Hanson, L., Cox, F., & Dowell. J. (2003). Paralytic shellfish toxins in Puget Sound, Washington State. J. Shellfish Res. 22, 213-223. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). (2015) Puget Sound forage fish. Retrieved June 23, 2015, from http://wfrc.usgs.gov/fieldstations/marrowstone/ps_forage.html. WDFW. (2015). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Squid. Retrieved June 23, 2015, from http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/squid/. 96
Threats Threats Pressures assessment Ranking injurious effects of humans on Puget Sound: A non-technical summary of the 2014 Puget Sound Pressures Assessment Essay by: Nick Georgiadis, University of Washington Puget Sound Institute A recovery strategy fashioned on expert opinion In 2007 Gov. Gregoire challenged residents of the region to make Puget Sound “fishable, diggable, and swimmable” again, and charged recovery practitioners to define a “sciencebased, unified, and prioritized” recovery plan for the ecosystem. After 150 years of environmental decline on many fronts, planning the recovery of such a large and complex region could not be completed in a single step. There was no ready-made list of the most damaging effects, no obvious way to prioritize recovery targets, and no wholly objective way to order the actions needed to achieve them. The best, indeed only way to make and rank such lists is to assemble, as systematically as possible, the informed opinions of experts. This ‘expert elicitation’ approach has been used in different ways to, for example, list and rate the human actions that are injurious to the Puget Sound ecosystem, identify suitable recovery targets and prioritize the actions needed to achieve them, design the research needed to fill gaps in understanding about ecosystem processes, gaps that raise uncertainty and hinder progress (see ref. 1-3). Such lists are not fixed for the rest of time. They must be amended as knowledge is gained, methods improve, progress is made, and priorities change. The latest addition to Box 1. A primer of recovery parlance Human actions that are injurious to the ecosystem are called ‘pressures’ (for example, conversion of natural habitat to residential, commercial, and industrial uses). The direct effects of these actions, the means by which they exact change on the ecosystem, are called ‘stressors’ (for example, habitat conversion due to development; to forestall confusion, it is noted here that despite the title of the document, the assessment was done on stressors, not pressures). ‘Endpoints’ are key ecosystem components – species and habitats – that are impacted by stressors (for example, Chinook salmon, small high-gradient streams, and urban open space). They qualify by being especially valued, those that are being managed or recovered. Finally, the geographical areas within which the assessment applies are called ‘assessment units’. In this case, the assessment was conducted at two geographic levels: within the entire Puget Sound region, and within each of 16 separate watersheds and 7 marine basins that together comprise the whole. 97
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: 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?