CHAPTER 45
Applying Project Management Tools and Techniques in the Ecosystem Restoration Industry
Ecosystem restoration is a rapidly emerging industry that is firmly rooted in science. The increasing threats to our ecosystems—and their ultimate destruction—make us realize that restoring these building blocks of our planet’s biological life support system has become a necessity. Introducing project management tools and techniques is essential, but before we discuss applying them in the ecosystem restoration industry, let’s have a quick look at what this industry does.
THE NATURE OF THE ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION INDUSTRY
An ecosystem is the complex community of organisms and their environment functioning as an ecological unit. Restoration is defined as the return of an ecosystem to a close approximation of its condition prior to disturbance. In restoration, ecological damage to the resource is repaired. Both the structure and the functions of the ecosystem are re-created. The goal is to emulate a natural, functioning, self-regulating system that is integrated within the ecological landscape in which it occurs.
While the world’s economic systems have enjoyed unprecedented expansion through the use of ecological resources, ecosystems themselves have often been degraded and diminished as a result. We live in a critical time in human history. The air, land, water, and wildlife resources of the planet are being decimated with astonishing speed. The science of restoration ecology is young and rapidly evolving. Looking ahead toward the future, we need to develop, test, and refine the science and methodology of restoration ecology further, for it to be capable of meeting the challenge of global repair. Ecosystem restoration is a growing industry because the relationship between human society and natural systems need a balance between economic growth and maintaining the integrity of healthy ecosystems. Humanity must find long-term solutions to losses of biodiversity, and solutions that will support the highest levels of human fulfillment with the minimal stress on natural ecosystems. How can this be done?
SIX STEPS: THE ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT LIFE CYCLE
Ecosystems are complex and dynamic. As a result, our understanding of them and our ability to predict how they will respond to management actions is limited. Ecosystem restoration projects are currently being implemented by making use of a formalized management process called adaptive management, which can be defined as an iterative approach in which the methods of achieving the desired objectives are unknown or uncertain—learning while doing, so to speak. Adaptive management was developed in the 1970s by C.S. Holling and coworkers at the University of British Columbia and by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. Since we are dealing with a “living baseline” of a project (the ecosystem) and are facing the challenges of constant changing factors and changing understanding of the processes that take place in an ecosystem, this alternative technique is used in an attempt to increase overall project success. The typical ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT life cycle shown in Figure 45-1 illustrates the six steps of the process:
• Step 1—Define the challenge: acknowledgment of the uncertainty about what policy or practice is best for the particular management issue
• Step 2—Design a concept: thoughtful selection of the policies or practices to be applied (the assessment and design stage of the cycle)
• Step 3—Implement the concept: careful implementation of a plan of action designed to reveal the critical knowledge that is currently lacking
• Step 4—Monitor results: monitoring of key response indicators
• Step 5—Evaluate results: analysis of the management outcomes in consideration of the original objectives
• Step 6—Adjust the concept: incorporation of the results into future decisions1
FIGURE 45-1. STANDARD ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT LIFE CYCLE
FIGURE 45-2. STANDARD PROJECT MANAGEMENT LIFE CYCLE
The life cycle formed by these six steps is intended to encourage a thoughtful, disciplined approach to management, without constraining the creativity that is vital to dealing effectively with uncertainty and change. How the steps are applied depends on the complexity of the problem and on the imagination of participants.
This iterative process appears to be very similar to the project management life cycle (Figure 45-2). However, whereas adaptive management provides a framework to discover what the best road to take is in reaching the desired project results, the project management life cycle provides a consistent, structured roadmap of how to reach the desired project results. In project management, we strive to meet or exceed clients’ expectations by trying to describe those expectations to the finest detail as early in the project as possible. This allows us to create the scope statement, the work breakdown structure, the network diagram, critical path calculations, and the risk response plan, to name just a few. In ecosystem restoration, the final objectives and expectations are known and clear from the beginning; it is the path to get there that is unknown and uncertain. This path has to be discovered by making use of the adaptive management approach.
Ecosystem restoration is one of the last industries converting to the project management language. It is necessary that the ecosystem restoration industry be involved in new projects that deal with finding a balance between economic growth and keeping or restoring our ecosystems as early in the project process as possible. Using the tools and techniques offered by the Project Management Institute is of critical importance, enabling this industry to communicate clearly and precisely across other industries.
Fortunately, the iterative process of the project life cycle offers enough flexibility to apply the tools and techniques in this industry without too many adjustments. Project management is based on the principle of implementing controlled change. The life cycle is constructed in such a way that if deviation of the projects baseline occurs, action (replanning, followed by implementation) can be taken. After each project phase, a “phase exit” or “stage gate” provides the opportunity to reassess the project’s health. It is during these phase exits that a project manager, in cooperation with the senior manager or client, can decide to kill (end) a project for measurable reasons. Some common reasons are that the deviation of the baseline is too high, that the product of the project changed, or that the original project expectations changed and are no longer in alignment with the project scope. In the ecosystem restoration industry, it is not very often that the project objectives change; however, the path to reach the project objectives often changes. Remember that the goal of ecosystem restoration is to emulate a natural, functioning, self-regulating system that is integrated with the ecological landscape in which it occurs. If the road for reaching this goal changes, it carries large consequences for the project setup. In order to compensate for this industry-specific characteristic, an easy adjustment to the project life cycle can be made during the controlling process. By adding a scope discovery process in the controlling process of the project life cycle, extra attention is given to not only the project’s own baseline, by studying the project status reports, but also to the results of the adaptive management process—the reevaluation of the living baseline of the ecosystem, so to speak.
It is important that during the scope discovery process the project managers, the client, and possibly other stakeholders investigate both baselines. The scope discovery process can either be done through a meeting or through clearly written status reports. Specific attention should be given to the living baseline. Information about this baseline can be found in the adaptive management process. It is especially important that the living baseline investigation be performed during the evaluation stage of the adaptive management cycle. In case the road for reaching the project objectives needs to be changed, the project must be replanned as indicated in the project life cycle. After replanning your project, implementing the plan, and controlling your project according to your new project baseline, it again is time for implementing the scope discovery process. In this way, you allow controlled scope drift, letting your project grow and evolve, which is a necessary process in order to find the best possible solution for ecosystem restoration while maintaining good communication and management terms with other industries.
By adding this extra iterative step to the project management life cycle, it is possible to apply the project management tools and techniques to the ecosystem restoration industry. Fortunately, there are currently ecosystem restoration companies applying project management to their field of expertise, raising the industry management standards by developing a more professional and more widely recognized level of management.
An additional benefit is that the project management profession is very keen on documenting lessons learned from implemented projects. By letting our latest scientific discoveries and new technologies assist us in ecosystem restoration, and by documenting the lessons we learn from this process, it will be possible to find the lowest possible price for the maximum desired results.
If we adapt ourselves to incorporate the extra step of taking two different baselines into consideration by implementing the scope discovery process during the controlling process in the project life cycle, we can create a working symbiosis between adaptive management (currently used extensively in the ecosystem restoration field) and project management—a technique new to this industry but promising great potential. It is this symbiotic process that allows implementation of the ecosystem restoration projects, carrying, expending, and changing scope due to the living baseline, while maintaining control over the management process. This reduces risk and improves cross-industry communications by standardizing project management tools, techniques, and methodologies.
CASE STUDY: MITIGATING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THROUGH A MITIGATION BANK
The Boran Ranch Mitigation Bank in DeSoto County, Florida, provides proven, advanced wetland mitigation for public and private projects within the Peace River Basin. In general, mitigation banks are awarded “credits” as they reach milestones of improvement to wetlands they permanently protect, and these credits are later transferred to other projects as compensation for wetland losses. At Boran Ranch, land managers earn mitigation credits by restoring natural hydrology to wetlands that have been historically drained for cattle pasturing, and by establishing natural plant communities to replace the nonnative pasture grasses.
This case study involves a forty-acre wetland at the Boran Ranch Mitigation Bank, informally called “the bowl” because of its obvious concavity on an otherwise flat landscape. The wetland had been drained in the 1950s and planted in pasture grasses, the most dominant of which was Hemarthria altissima. By studying persistent natural indicators of historic seasonal flooding, land managers had established the height and shape of the water control structure needed to reverse the drainage effects of the ditching. Before installing the structure, however, they faced decisions about the nature and intensity of measures they would take to eradicate Hemarthria and the other exotic pasture grasses.
Research on Hemarthria revealed that it was intolerant of prolonged inundation and favorably competed with other plants in a nutrient-rich environment. Since installation of the water control structures and cessation of cattle grazing would cause prolonged inundation and a gradual depletion of nutrients, land managers had to decide whether these measures alone would eradicate Hemarthria, or whether they need to eradicate the pasture grasses before installing the water control structure. Effective herbicides were available, but various costs were an issue. Aside from the inherent cost of herbicide application, land managers faced a regulatory requirement that success milestones (and credit release) could only be achieved after a year without herbicide treatment. Since wetland mitigation banks have highly negative cash flows in their permit approval and establishment years, land managers were reluctant to extend the establishment period by another year as a price for using herbicide. They decided to “drown” the Hemarthria and installed the water control structure without first eradicating the pasture grasses with herbicide.
As with many outcomes in ecosystem restoration, the bowl was both a huge success and a disappointment. Hydrology is the dominant factor in any wetland, and restoring a more natural period of inundation had immediate and profound beneficial effects. Wetland plants sprung up from the soil seed bank in response to the “just add water” prescription, but Hemarthria proved to be a tenacious survivor. With its roots established in the old pasture soils, it responded to inundation by sending a stem up through the water column and sprouting leaves on the water’s surface. While it was less persistent in the deeper areas, it was prevalent for three years in the shallow perimeter, which was the greater land area. As its persistence became the major obstacle to reaching the success milestone, land managers decided to revisit the decision not to use herbicide.
Armed with specific experience about the use of glyphosate to eradicate Hemarthria and condition other sites for native vegetation, land managers were prepared to change course. Their previous experience with glyphosate provided a basis for discussions with the regulatory authorities, who not only approved of its use but also waived the one-year waiting period. The problem then became how to effectively apply the herbicide in an area with prolonged inundation.
Sometimes the vagaries of nature work in favor of the land manager. In this case, the entire state of Florida was in the second of two back-to-back years of drought, and water tables were at historic lows. Land managers waited until late in the normal annual dry cycle and were able to apply the herbicide to the shallow perimeter areas using standard land application equipment. Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide that kills roots as well as the above-ground portion of the plant. It does not, however, affect seed. Following the glyphosate treatment, the dead material was burned to complete the eradication of any plant material that may have eluded herbicide application in the heavy biomass. With the resumption of wet season rains later in the year, native wetland plants sprouted from the soil seed bank, but Hemarthria was absent.
The replanning of the project based on new scientific information represents an example of using adaptive management, while still applying project management tools to issues of communications, procurement, and integration.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
How would you go about handling and simplifying the complexity of this project, while being able to stay in control of the desired outcome?
For a project with which you are familiar, how might the scope discovery step be of benefit?
REFERENCE
1 C.L. Halbert, “How adaptive is adaptive management? Implementing adaptive management in Washington State and British Columbia,” reviews in Fisheries Science 1 (1993), pp. 261–283. See also the explanation of the adaptive management model archived on the British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range website at http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/amhome/Amdefs.htm.