Approaches to Evidence-Based Evaluation of Puget Sound Ecosystem Recovery

Leska Fore, Puget Sound Partnership Constance Sullivan, Puget Sound Institute Ken Dzinbal, Puget Sound Partnership Scott Collyard, Dept. of Ecology & Many Contributors CEER, New Orleans, LA July 29, 2014

1

Puget Sound Basin • 4.1 million people now, 5.4 million in 10 years • ~1.5 million people live in cities on shoreline

Puget Sound Basin • > 900 restoration projects, $700M cost

4

The Action Agenda A Road Map for Restoring Puget Sound

• Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP)

• Framework for action, coordination and accountability

• Establishes recovery targets • Tracks 21 indicators and >300 actions

Many Partners

How Are Our Actions Making a Difference?

1) Testing: Did the actions work? 2) Communication: Who needs to know?

Effectiveness Monitoring

Before Action After

• Meta-analysis used widely in education and medical research

• Change statistics are standardized and unitless

• Can compare different indicators across projects

• Allows us to evaluate effectiveness of different actions

Meta-analysis: Before and After Statistics

TempAfter – TempBefore

(Pooled Variance)0.5 Change = = Cohen’s d

Change statistic, “Cohen’s d”, is difference of the means divided by the standard deviation

8

* Effect size +/- 90% CI

Ban on Tributyltin (anti-fouling paint) Reduced toxics in Mussels around Puget Sound

9

Tributyltin (Mussel)

* Effect size +/- 90% CI

Ban on Tributyltin (anti-fouling paint) Reduced toxics in Mussels around Puget Sound

10

Tributyltin (Mussel)

Interpretation Large effect size >0.8 Medium 0.2 – 0.8 Small effect < 0.2

11

Same actions, different variables, one locations Samish Bay Water Quality Clean up

Not effective/ Effect Size Effective/ Worsening Improving

Farm plans, septic inspections, & BMPs reduced fecals, and reduced shellfish bed closures

12

Different actions, different variables, multiple locations Puget Sound studies

Effectiveness Monitoring & the Action Agenda

• Nearshore habitat restoration increased benthic taxa richness

B2. Protect and restore nearshore and estuary ecosystems

• Pesticide partial ban not effective; Eagle Harbor cap improved fish health; TBT ban was effective

C1. Prevent, reduce, and control the sources of toxic contaminants entering Puget Sound

• Lake treatments reduced Phosphorus A2. Protect and restore upland, freshwater, and riparian ecosystems • PIC programs in Liberty Bay reduced fecals in bays and streams

C7. Ensure abundant, healthy shellfish for ecosystem health and for commercial, subsistence, and recreational harvest consistent with ecosystem protection

Did action work?

Who needs to know?

Effectiveness Monitoring in the Adaptive Management Cycle

15

Conclusions

• Effectiveness results buried in long, technical reports

• Don’t need to measure same variable across projects, just need same measure before and after action

• Lots of data to evaluate effectiveness of actions and compare costs

• Communication from technical to policy folks is a challenge

Session Question • What aspects of your approach might be generally

applicable to other large-scale ecosystem restoration programs? – Meta-analysis provides a standard measure of

effectiveness

– Can compare results across diverse projects

– Provides a way to roll up results from individual projects

– Don’t need to wait for standardization of sampling protocols