Talk:River Delta Adaptive Management Strategy

General Comments -- Phicks (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2013 (PDT)

1. Define upfront (in the overview, introduction and exec summary) the scale of adaptive management that ESRP and partners are hoping to achieve with this framework. Namely that this does not address common site specific adaptive management concerns, such as how to control invasive species, but learning and adaptive management at the watershed or Puget Sound Scale, such as how do we learn from individual and collective projects already implemented.

I also recommend developing a clear concise one to two line goal statement for this effort and put it in bold right up front. For example “The goal of the framework is to become more strategic with the limited funds available for monitoring. To that end we are proposing the establishment of a common core monitoring system to document if the structure of restored habitats are evolving proposed and a competitive process for implementing rigorous investigations that answer key uncertainties about the effectiveness of these restoration actions.” This clarity will help everyone read through the wiki with a common understanding.

2. Below are my comments for editing/restructuring to help provide clarity.
a. Rename section 4 to be “Organized Learning”. As the first line, restate the goal of learning projects. Make the Critical Dynamics the first section and move “Importance of Defining Working Postulates” to be the second section. As it currently reads the first section is big picture, the next three sections are process followed by two more big picture sections and then three process sections. Keep the big picture sections together and the process sections together.
b. Move the Barriers to Adaptive Management (found in Organized Learning) to the introduction section. This is most useful in defining the problem that this framework hopes to address.
c. Restate the goal of Core Monitoring at the beginning of that section.
d. Under Core Monitoring, there is a lot of discussion around Dynamics Reserved for Learning and High Risk Projects. I would condense that and move those into the “Organized Learning” as that is the section that really addresses these. I am unclear if this was intentional in that you assume some will not read section 4 first.

3. What is the distinction between high risk projects and learning projects? Some of the high risk elements mentioned under Core Monitoring are related to specific uncertainties listed in the Critical Elements table in Section 4. While they do not have a specific postulate associated with them, they still are critical uncertainties related to the six delta dynamic and may affect our ability to successfully implement delta restoration action (as stated). Some of these may be able to be addressed as a learning project and others as additional core monitoring metrics. As currently described it is unclear how they fit within the framework – are they a core metric are they a potential learning project are they both? I recommend putting these in their own section of the framework and discuss how they may be addressed with the learning or core monitoring actions.

4. In the Executive Summary you outlined nicely the three elements of the framework:

    1.	a core monitoring strategy for consistently assessing every project site for problems,
    2.	an approach for implementing learning projects to support decision making, and
    3.	an approach for synthesizing evidence that brings refined postulates and theories into decision making.''

A clear proposal for how to accomplish number three was lacking. This arguably may be one of our toughest challenges – effectively changing practice and priorities as new information is gained. I recommend creating a section devoted to this topic and encouraging participants of the wiki to propose ideas for improved communications, feedback loops and systematic ways to change decision making.

Along these lines, is ESRP proposing to review and synthesize the results of core monitoring from various projects? I like the framework to have CORE monitoring at all projects in order to 1. verify accomplishments in a systematic way to allow for tracking progress to larger stated goals (7080 acres restored) and 2. check that the structure desired is being generated and flag when it is not to generate learning projects. However, the methods for accomplishing 1 and 2 were not clear. Whose role will this be, someone on the wiki, ESRP, others?