Commonwealth Long-Term Intervention Monitoring Project: Stage 1 Mid-Term Review and Evaluation

6Some considerations for LTIM Phase 2

6.1Evaluation LTIM Project Phase 1

An independent reviewer (or review team) should be contracted to undertake an end-of-Project evaluation of LTIM Project Phase 1. This will not be a fast process and may take several months. CEWO will also need to give consideration to having an interim plan for the 2019-2020 watering year to ensure monitoring data continues to be captured. This may require a 12-month extension for some elements of LTIM Phase 1.

6.2Update Program Logic and structure for LTIM Phase 2

The LTIM Phase 1 evaluation should also provide comment on the possible structure, governance, logic and rationale of LTIM Phase 2. Our review has identified four key issues that will need to be addressed in settling the form of LTIM Phase 2

The first issue will be to review the overall objectives of the Project so that they are more closely aligned with the updated BEWS (to be done in 2019) and also with major programs such as the MDB EWKR. Additionally, there is a need to better manage expectations about what can (and cannot) be achieved with Commonwealth environmental water. For example, in many catchment it is not possible to use environmental water to reconnect floodplains either because of a lack of water to achieve the high flows needed, or of policy or political constraint on over-bank flows.

The second issue will be to review the advantages and disadvantages of the current structure with separate Area-scale and Basin-scale evaluations. Our view is that the current structure is perhaps overly emphasising the area-scale projects over the Basin-scale evaluations. This may have occurred as a result of the Project governance, where with the Selected Area teams are contracted to and managed by the Water Delivery Teams, who have a largely site or local focus. However, it should be remembered that the main reason LTIM was established was to address the CEWO’s requirements under the Basin Plan, and these are Basin-scale.

The third issue will be to map the monitoring efforts being undertaken by the MDBA and the Basin states to look for sources of complementary data, identify knowledge gaps and to help prioritise selection of areas and indicators to be included in LTIM 2. Monitoring of the Long Term Watering Plans will come on line post 2019, and should greatly increase the potential data sources.

The fourth issue will be to achieve better alignment between LTIM 2 and other environmental watering monitoring programs, particularly those being undertaken by MDBA and the state agencies.

There are also two other concepts that those planning LTIM Phase 2 might consider:

• 
  Emerging new concepts in flow restoration – Thomson et al. (2017) have reviewed recent papers on responses to flow restoration in the Murray–Darling Basin and complemented this with inferences from the global literature. They found that ecological responses to flow restoration are often inconsistent, site and taxon specific and difficult to detect. They have proposed a conceptual model for understanding responses to flow restoration that incorporates key factors influencing the size of ecological responses to restoration, including: existing ecological condition, legacy impacts of past change, interactions with other variables, life-history traits of taxa and broad-scale and long-term trends due to climate or land-use change.
  
• 
  Assessment of rivers as social-ecological systems – Parsons and Thoms (2017) and Parsons et al. (2016) have suggested that the assessment of river health in Australia should go beyond the current bioassessment, and monitoring the resilience of rivers as social-ecological systems.
  

7Summary of recommendations and management response required

A summary of the recommendations arising from out review are presented in Table along with some suggested responses and timeframe in which action is required.

Table . Summary of recommendations and suggested management response/actions and timing

Recommendation	Suggested management response/action	Timing
That the Basin-scale evaluation questions are reviewed to assess whether they are all still relevant, and the likelihood that they will be adequately addressed by June 2019. In light of this review to the CEWO should make any modifications that would update the expectations of the Basin-scale evaluations.	Establish working group from Selected Area and Basin Matter team to develop SMART objectives and KEQ. Seek Project Steering Committee approval of updated objectives and KEQ Working group to liaise with delivery teams to develop SMART objectives	Immediately
That for multiple-scale watering actions, CEWO ensure the full range of expected ecological outcomes are determined and communicated to the appropriate LTIM Project teams.	Project management by the CEWO water delivery teams	Annual/ongoing
That the CEWO develop expected outcomes for the ecosystem diversity Basin Matter.	CEWO in collaboration with relevant Basin Matter team members Approval by Project Steering Committee	Within 6 months
That a LTIM Project Steering Committee be established, consisting of the CEWO, CEWO Delivery Teams, Selected Area team leads and the MDFRC Director. CEWO should also consider whether the MDBA should also be invited to join this Committee.	CEWO management	Immediately
That the CEWO review the management of the LTIM Project with a view to identifying a single Program Manager and a Science Leader.	CEWO in collaboration with MDFRC Director	Immediately
That the CEWO urgently develop an Evaluation Strategy for the LTIM Project.	Outsource to independent contractor – needs to be independent from current project staff Oversight of development of Terms of Reference by Project Steering Committee	Within 6 months
That the Selected Area teams focus more attention in their annual reports on: ecological outcomes of each local-area watering action, and scaling up the area-scale assessment and evaluations to the entire selected area.	CEWO management in collaboration with Selected Area team leaders Approval by Project Steering Committee	Immediately/ongoing
That consideration be given to requiring the Selected Area teams to produce two reports annually: first, a relatively short general report suitable for water managers and other stakeholders; and second, a detailed science report containing the information currently in the Appendices.	CEWO management in collaboration with Selected Area team leaders	For next set of Annual Evaluation Reports
That the CEWO consider having a detailed independent peer review undertaken during 2018 of the quality of the science being reported by the Selected Area teams, with the focus being on the initial MEP, and the 2015-2016 and 2016-17 annual evaluation reports.	CEWO management	In the second half of 2018
That the CEWO organise a process to clarify the scope and consistency of basin-scale evaluations, the process consisting of the preparation of a discussion paper, followed by a workshop with key researchers and managers to provide a sensible outcome.	CEWO in collaboration with MDFRC	In the second half of 2018 Could be done in conjunction with the 2018 Annual Forum
That the MDFRC develop a comprehensive project modelling plan as a matter of urgency, and that this Plan be agreed to by the proposed Project Steering Committee. Additional funds or reallocation of existing funds may be required to ensure the development of the Plan, and the subsequent development and testing of the models, is achieved.	MDFRC Director and relevant Basin Matters team members Consider need for independent peer review of the modelling plan by recognised world leader(s) in the field	Immediately
That the new Project Steering Committee be tasked with resolving the continuing issues associated data QA/QC and the MDMS.	Project Steering Committee with input from Shane Brooks	One of the first tasks
That the need for improved hydrological data and information, and inundation mapping be urgently addressed	Collaborate with MDBA and other data suppliers (e.g. NSW OEH) to coordinate progress at the Basin scale – possibly via a working group	Initiate discussion and identify stakeholders within 6 months
That the proposed Project Steering Committee formally evaluates the benefits of this improved collaboration between the Selected Area and Basin Matters teams as one of its first tasks.	Project Steering Committee	One of the first tasks
That a review of the annual Basin Matters and Synthesis reports be undertaken, with a view to restructuring them to make them more accessible to a wider audience.	MDFRC Director with CEWO management	During 2018
That a common database be established to hold all relevant data relating to environmental water monitoring in the Murray-Darling Basin; this will require cooperation between CEWO, MDBA and state agencies to achieve.	Establish a working group to resolve (CEWO, MDBA, state agencies)	During 2018
That an effective science communicator(s) be engaged by CEWO or MDFRC to assist the Selected Area and Basin Matters teams to make their various reports more readable, and to assist CEWO to produce more structured and targeted information products related to the LTIM Project.	CEWO in collaboration with MDFRC Director Establish a Communications strategy for LTIM Phase 1 outcomes – to be rolled out over final two years Oversight by Project Steering Committee	During 2018
That the capture of adaptive management learning’s be improved and done more systematically, in particular with the development of a accessible and searchable database to contain the learning’s, and the production of an annual report that syntheses how this increased knowledge is changing the way in which environmental water is being delivered.	Project Steering Committee	During 2018
That an Independent Science Review Committee be established to review the quality and relevance of the science being developed by the Selected Area teams and the Basin Matters team.	CEWO management	Early in 2018