CASE STUDIES
It’s time to put into practice what you’ve learned. Review the following two case studies to see how adaptive management works.
Case Study one: large scale CAM Project, GLFC Joint Strategic plan for management of great lakes fisheries
Large-scale collaborative adaptive management is a challenging process that typically requires the following:
-
-
- A large-scale, collaborative process that facilitates the setting of large-scale goals
- A process for implementing those goals on a smaller scale and then reporting them back to the large, collaborative group
-
By setting large-scale goals and then crafting small-scale goals and strategies, these large-scale goals may be more easily achieved.
The following case study explains how this process might work.
OVERVIEWSince the 1950s, the Great Lakes Fishery Commission (GLFC) has facilitated bi-national cooperation in managing the Great Lakes fishery. Today, fishery management is grounded in a Joint Strategic Plan for Management of Great Lakes Fisheries (last updated in 1997), which offers the big picture direction for fisheries management, and calls for, among other things, creating plans and strategies, implementing actions, sharing information, reporting and tracking efforts, and ensuring accountability. This joint strategic plan facilitates the collaborative adaptive management of the Great Lakes fisheries. The Council of Great Lakes Fishery Agencies, which includes high-level fishery management agency representatives and other federal agencies, oversees the joint plan, while Lake Committees implement the plan. Lake Committees comprise senior officials from state, provincial, and U.S. intertribal fishery agencies. Other stakeholders are also invited into the process at various stages. As a large-scale, basin-wide process, regional goals are set and then lake-specific goals, strategies, and assessment plans are developed in alignment with the regional goals. The regional processes also mandate that the lakes each report on their progress, and goals and strategies at all levels must be adapted and updated regularly. How this process fits into each of the CAM steps is outlined below:
1. PLAN
For large-scale processes, the planning phase generally includes setting goals and a general vision on a large-scale and then setting goals and strategies for implementation of the large-scale goals on a more local scale. After the planning step, most efforts focus on implementing and assessing the small-scale efforts within the context of the large-scale vision.
Shared
Goals
Conservation
Strategies
Training
Strategies
Assessment Plan
and Strategies
Reporting
Revision
Develop Shared Goals
The Joint Strategic Plan sets a general goal statement, based on the common elements of the relevant agencies’ goals: “To secure fish communities, based on foundations of stable self-sustaining stocks, supplemented by judicious plantings of hatchery-reared fish, and provide from these communities an optimum contribution of fish, fishing opportunities and associated benefits to meet needs identified by society for wholesome food, recreation, cultural heritage, employment and income, and a healthy aquatic ecosystem.”
This general statement helps ensure alignment across the basin, but this is too big-picture to direct actions on the ground. To that end, the Joint Strategy mandated the creation of fish management objectives for each lake. The Lake Committees set numeric and specific fish community objectives for each lake, as well as general environmental objectives when possible.
Identify and Develop Complementary or Linked Conservation Strategies
Strategies for achieving these goals were developed in two places:
- While developing the fish community objectives/goals, each Lake Committee briefly lays out their general strategy
for achieving those goals. - Each institution that is a part of the Lake Committees is then instructed to craft their implementation plans and strategies based on those goals and then submit them to the Lake Committees for review. By requiring each agency to create their own strategies that align with the lake goals, each agency is able to use their resources in the most appropriate
way to achieve progress towards lake-specific and basin-wide goals. This increases the likelihood of measurable
action being taken.
Develop Education & Outreach and Training Strategies
Neither the joint plan, nor the Lake Committees, specifically outlines an education, outreach, or training strategy. Each individual agency takes individual and coordinated education, outreach, and training actions.
Develop Assessment Plan and Strategies (i.e., indicators)
As with conservation strategy development, the agencies implementing the strategies each develop
their own assessment strategies.
Establish a Regular Cycle of Assessment and Reporting
The Lake Committees have an established timeline for agencies to report back, and also compile reports on the state of the lakes and their efforts every five years.
Establish a Regular Cycle of Planning, Goal, and Strategy Revision
The Lake Committees hold a regular schedule of meetings to review their goals and strategies.
2. Do
All agencies implement their relevant strategies through relevant programs and policies.
3. ASSESS
The Joint Strategy and the Lake Committees regularly evaluate progress and each Lake Committee shares progress by publishing a State of the Lake Report every 5 years.
4. LEARN AND SHARE
Each Lake Committee shares information internally.
5. ADAPT
Every few years, each Lake Committee updates its fish management objectives. The Lake Committees and the GLFC share any updates through their website, www.glfc.org.
6. REPEAT
For fifty years, the GLFC has been learning and adapting its fishery management. Since 1997, the structure laid out here has been in effect and regular reporting and updating continues to occur.
COLLABORATION
Within this process, collaboration occurs on a large-scale. The various agencies agreed to the joint strategy for basin-wide fisheries management, which represented the commonalities between the various agencies goals. Each relevant agency was then also able to contribute to the creation of lake specific fish community objectives and now has shared responsibility for implementing those objectives.
Case Study Two: Small scale CAM Project, Boardman Dam Removal
Collaborative adaptive management as implemented on a small scale is outlined in the case study that follows.
OVERVIEW In 2005, the owners of four aging dams on the Boardman River in Michigan recognized that they needed to take action to address concerns about safety. The City of Traverse City and Grand Traverse County needed to decide whether to retain, modify, or remove the four dams. The process by which a decision was reached to remove three dams and modify one, and the subsequent and ongoing efforts to implement this decision reflect the collaborative adaptive management process. This project also represents the largest dam removal in Michigan history and is one of the largest wetland restorations in the Great Lakes Basin. This project is ongoing.
1. PLAN
Shared
Goals
Conservation
Strategies
Training
Strategies
Assessment Plan
and Strategies
Reporting
Revision
Develop Shared Goals
This part of the adaptive management process corresponds with the first stage of the project: Preliminary Decisions, which occurred from 2005 to 2009.
Through an open, transparent process that invited comment from the public and relevant agencies and stakeholders, the leading city/county reached a decision about what to do about the dams. This planning process was run by the collaborative Implementation Team, a group including the dam owners and key agency stakeholder representatives that oversees the project. The process involved over 180 meetings and over 1,000 people, and the consideration of over 90 various alternatives. This process resulted in the following general goal: “remove unsafe dams and restore habitat and connectivity within the Boardman River and the Great Lakes through the removal of Sabin, Boardman, and Brown Bridge dams, and the modification of Union Street Dam.”
The team also laid out the specific environmental, economic, and social benefits (basically goals), associated with the project. Two of the environmental goals: Restore over 3.4 miles and reconnect 160 miles of high-quality river habitat; Restore more than 250 acres of wetlands and nearly 60 acres of upland habitat. One of the economic goals: Impact the local economy by stimulating increased recreation and tourism.
Identify and Develop Complementary or Linked Conservation Strategies
After setting their primary goals, the Implementation Team had to decide how to meet that goal. During the Engineering/Planning stage in 2010, and as needed throughout the life of the project, the Implementation Team has developed a “road map” for removal and modification.
Develop Education & Outreach and Training Strategies
The project set a specific educational strategy: “Create an on-the-ground laboratory for local schools. Support a variety of scientific research initiatives to assess the impacts of dam removal.”
A specific training strategy was not set, but this is not necessarily a point of concern as the group did not identify any clear training needs when developing their goal.
Outreach and stakeholder engagement has been a key tenant of this project from the beginning. The public and key stakeholders were invited to contribute to the initial determination about what to do with the dams and what to prioritize. Moreover, the project specifically designed a website to share information and invite people to get involved and provide input.
Develop Assessment Plan and Strategies (i.e., indicators)
Both pre and post-monitoring have been a part of this project. A huge initial analysis happened before any action was taken and monitoring and assessment was/is set to follow each dam removal.
Establish a Regular Cycle of Assessment and Reporting
The Implementation Team is regularly assessing the state of the project. They also developed a website to regularly report on the project's progress.
Establish a Regular Cycle of Planning, Goal, and Strategy Revision
Updates to the project are regularly posted on the project’s website.
Developing this project required conducting an extensive public process to decide whether to remove the dams and collaboratively deciding how to remove three of the dams and modify one. Project stages:
o Preliminary Decisions (2005-2009)
o Engineering/Planning Stage (2010)
o Deconstruction/Modification (2011-2018)
o Restoration (2013-2018)
2. Do
The Implementation Team is overseeing the dam removal. In 2012, the Brown Bridge Dam removal was complete and restoration began. By 2017, the Boardman Dam will be removed and in 2018-2019, Sabin Dam will be removed and Union Street Dam modified. Following the removal and modification of each dam, habitat restoration efforts are also occurring.
2. ASSESS
Both pre and post-monitoring of projects sites has occurred/is occurring.
3. LEARN AND SHARE
This project process and status has been documented and shared through a website set up specifically for this project. Moreover, the project facilitated a process for community involvement at the state, regional, and national level that the project leaders hope will be replicated elsewhere.
4. ADAPT
Throughout the project’s lifespan, strategies for removal and funding have been updated and adjusted as needed, based on, for example, how each dam removal process went. Adaption also happened in a larger way during this project: The transparent, public process for deciding what to do about the dams and the resulting decision to remove three dams and update a fourth spawned a new set of goals focused on prosperity. A leadership team comprised of 12 Grand Traverse/Kalkaska county regional organizations is now working to develop a new approach to natural resource planning in light of the forthcoming river connectivity. In 2013, they released a draft master plan that set prosperity goals and strategies for the region.
Updates about this project have regularly been posted on the project’s website.
5. REPEAT
This is a long-term project that began in 2005 with a projected end date of 2019. Over the past ten years, the project has regularly reevaluated and updated its goals, strategies, and progress, as reported on their website.
COLLABORATION
The dam removal project is based on community collaboration. The project is being run by the Implementation Team, a collaborative group that includes the two dam owners and key agency stakeholder representatives and was formed in 2005 to provide project oversight. The dam owners, the City of Traverse City and Grand Traverse County, are ultimately responsible and accountable for the dam removal project. In 2009, however, the City and County passed resolutions to allow the Implementation Team to make recommendations and decisions concerning overall planning and direction of the dam removal process. The project is being run by a collaborative group, but it is also engaging key constituencies and stakeholders by involving the public extensively in the first decision about what to do with the dams and by allowing the public to attend any Implementation Team meetings.
Select Test Your Knowledge to continue.
Photo credits: © Mark Godfrey (first and fourth), © Alex Bramwell, © John Russelll (third and fifth)