A Collaborative Method is the Best Method: Let Me Tell You Why

from Michigan Trout - Spring 2021

A Pilgrimage of Trout

by Kristin Thomas, Michigan TU Aquatic Ecologist

I’ve written a couple of articles about the collaborative partnership which Michigan TU facilitates on the Upper Manistee River: an introduction to the method and an introduction to the first in-stream restoration project we have planned. Now I’d like to lay out my case for collaboration, convince you that this process leads to the selection of the best projects and that, in the end, it is the easiest method. That’s right, easiest overall; some hard work up-front helps lay the path for smooth sailing later. To layout my case, I need to start at the beginning and take you through the whole process.

The Upper Manistee Collaborative Partnership was created to bring together Upper Manistee River stakeholders to improve fish habitat. A simple goal, not such a simple process – review data, identify opportunities to improve habitat, identify data gaps, identify priorities among partners, and develop plans to address high priority projects. The process began with a rough implementation plan, which laid out the steps we would take to identify the projects most needed to improve and preserve fish habitat in the Upper Manistee River. This plan was provided to all 19+ partners for review and comment. When all were relatively happy with a plan, we moved on to phase 1—identifying and summarizing existing Upper Manistee data.

Data were identified and reviewed and then summarized into a report, “The Upper Manistee River Watershed: A summary of existing data.” In addition, all of the data points were put on an interactive map to allow stakeholders to visualize where and what type of data was available. The map can be viewed at https://arcg.is/18TO4L. We asked collaborative partners to review the data summary report to determine their organization’s priorities in the watershed. We then had a meeting of the minds to determine the direction of the collaborative group.

How do you find some consensus among over 19 partners, all with varying priorities and missions? I won’t claim to be a magician or an expert here, but I will tell you what has worked for us so far. Giving everyone a seat at the table. After a presentation and summary of the information, we gave each group a chance to voice their priorities. We wrote down those priorities and looked for commonality.

In this case, one project stood out as a priority for most partners – the lack of habitat diversity between Yellow Trees Landing and CCC Bridge. As a group, we decided to focus in-stream work on the highest priority project to the highest number of partners while also collecting data to help solidify additional priorities. Our focus on the Yellow Trees to CCC Bridge area would first collect missing data to identify the problem better, and thus potential solutions, followed by project design and fundraising.

Interns spent a summer collecting data in the target area. They surveyed the river’s shape, the amount and quality of woody habitat, the bottom substrate composition (sand, gravel, boulder), temperature, aquatic vegetation, and deep water. Data was collected from wide shallow areas with

minimal habitat and from “reference” areas with deep water and abundant habitat. We also floated the target area as a collaborative group and discussed ideas along the way. All of this information was synthesized and presented to the group, along with some ideas for improvement work. The primary focus was to increase habitat diversity through the addition of woody habitat. The final design plans look a lot different from those first presented, which is a testament to the power of collaboration. They absolutely improved through the addition of ideas and adjustments from a variety of partners.

This is the point where collaboration starts to pay off. We had what the group felt was a factor limiting the fishery, and we had a plan to address that factor. Now we needed funding and permits to get the work done. We sought funding from the DNR Fisheries Habitat Grant Program and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Sustain Our Great Lakes Program. We presented a project with extensive justification, refined plans, and a large number of engaged partners.

The data drive justification for this project, along with the collaborative partnership from which it originated, made it highly desirable for funding, as did the cash donations we received from several partners to start the process and implement the project. Both grant applications were successful, and we were able to leverage our start-up donations four times over. Will it always be this easy to get money for projects derived from a scientifically-backed collaborative process? I would guess not. But it certainly doesn’t hurt the chances either.

The collaborative process was also critical for permits. By the time we submitted permit applications, we had modified our designs many times over. We had incorporated comments and ideas from partners, talked through plans, adjusted, and readjusted. We were fortunate to do this work with our agency partners as well as others. This helped in permitting. The regulators were familiar with the project. They had seen previous iterations, and we had incorporated criteria we knew they might require, such as a monitoring plan. All of this combined for a relatively easy permitting process. I won’t go so far as to say seamless or simple. I’m not sure that is possible, but it certainly could have been more difficult.

As we work towards implementation on project number one, we have begun to identify and plan the next projects. We are planning to continue using this data-driven, collaborative process to get work done. At the end of the day, data-driven collaboration can be difficult, but it is so very worthwhile.

Why is it worthwhile? The reasons are many but high on the list is justification. Scientific and social justification make fundraising and permitting easier. There are objective facts to point to supporting your project. The other key is the willingness to listen to other people’s ideas and critiques. Open minds open doors; often, genuine conversations about differing ideas lead to the best work. Diversity of thought is a plus; embrace it.

Perhaps this collaborative paradigm sounds intriguing but overwhelming to you or your chapter. Good news, you have a Michigan TU staff person who genuinely enjoys this work. I am here to help your chapter navigate through this process should you so choose. Not only do I enjoy facilitating collaboration, but I also love piecing together data to determine limiting factors in a watershed. I enjoy solving puzzles – logic, jigsaw, aquatic ecology – all of them. So don’t hesitate to reach out if you are interested but unsure. I am here to help. Kristin Thomas (kthomas@michigantu.org 616-460-0477).