Presenter/Author Information

Ken Dzinbal, Puget Sound PartnershipFollow

Type of Presentation

Oral

Session Title

Softening Borders through Information Exchange: Monitoring and Indicator- Efforts Within and Across Boundaries in the Salish Sea

Description

We present the most important monitoring gaps identified by the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) based on an assessment initially conducted over the period 2012-2014, and then refreshed in late 2015 and early 2016. The assessment was led by PSEMP technical workgroups and individual Vital Sign Indicator Leads, and involved over 200 subject experts, regional monitoring program leaders, scientists and data users across Puget Sound. Our results are based on detailed inventories of current monitoring, followed by an evaluation of monitoring gaps and information needs critical to tracking the condition and recovery of Puget Sound. We initially identified over 50 high priority monitoring gaps and funding needs across more than 12 topic areas. Gaps were classified as one of three types: 1) new monitoring programs needed to collect and report data where none currently exist, 2) expanding current monitoring where coverage is incomplete or not representative, and, 3) gaps related to data management, analysis, or reporting. Although we evaluated gaps based primarily on their importance to tracking ecosystem conditions and trends, to improve management relevance we subsequently grouped those gaps into several recommended categories, including: a) Gaps limiting our ability to track or report the Puget Sound Vital Signs; b) Gaps related to the three Strategic Initiatives described in the Puget Sound Action Agenda (stormwater, shellfish, habitat); and c) Gaps related to other critical science or management priorities.

This document is currently not available here.

Share

COinS
 

Monitoring Gaps and Priorities identified by the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program

2016SSEC

We present the most important monitoring gaps identified by the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program (PSEMP) based on an assessment initially conducted over the period 2012-2014, and then refreshed in late 2015 and early 2016. The assessment was led by PSEMP technical workgroups and individual Vital Sign Indicator Leads, and involved over 200 subject experts, regional monitoring program leaders, scientists and data users across Puget Sound. Our results are based on detailed inventories of current monitoring, followed by an evaluation of monitoring gaps and information needs critical to tracking the condition and recovery of Puget Sound. We initially identified over 50 high priority monitoring gaps and funding needs across more than 12 topic areas. Gaps were classified as one of three types: 1) new monitoring programs needed to collect and report data where none currently exist, 2) expanding current monitoring where coverage is incomplete or not representative, and, 3) gaps related to data management, analysis, or reporting. Although we evaluated gaps based primarily on their importance to tracking ecosystem conditions and trends, to improve management relevance we subsequently grouped those gaps into several recommended categories, including: a) Gaps limiting our ability to track or report the Puget Sound Vital Signs; b) Gaps related to the three Strategic Initiatives described in the Puget Sound Action Agenda (stormwater, shellfish, habitat); and c) Gaps related to other critical science or management priorities.