Transcript FOS Step 1B Defining Viability and Goals

1B. Viability Assessment
and Goals
Step 1 Conceptualize
Our Example – Sacramento River Basin
Conceptualize:
Step 1B
Define Conservation Targets
•
•
•
•
•
Rivers and streams
Riparian habitat
Salmon
Vernal pool grasslands
Oak woodlands
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
What Is It?
A process that helps conservation project
teams explicitly and clearly define healthy
targets
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
Why Is It Important?
Viability assessment helps teams:
• Define the most important ecological
requirements of a healthy target
• Identify the current health of a target
• Set appropriate and measurable goals for
desired future health of target
• Develop monitoring plans
Step 1B
Viability Assessment
Viability assessment helps
teams answer important
questions:
•
What key characteristics define a
healthy target?
•
How do we physically measure
those characteristics? (indicators)
•
How is our target doing now?
•
What do we want to achieve?
(ultimate, measurable goals)
Bog frog
Bog frog
Viability
Assessment:
Step 1B
The Basics
1. Define key characteristics (“key
ecological attributes” or KEAs) of your
target.
2. Identify indicator(s) for each KEA
3. Develop a rating scale for each indicator,
using the categories of
or
.
4. Define the current status and the
desired future status for your target
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
The Details
1) Define “key ecological attributes” (KEAs) of
your target.
KEA: Aspects of a target’s biology or ecology that
- If present, define a healthy target
- If missing or altered, would lead to the loss or
extreme degradation of that target over time.
Examples:
 Tropical hardwood forest target: size, connectivity among systems,
presence of key species
 Migratory fish target: population status, access to spawning habitat,
quality of spawning habitat
Viability
Analysis:
Step 1B
The Details
Three
Categories for
Rating
Targets
Viability
Assessment:
Step 1B
The Details
1) Define “key ecological attributes” of your
target.
Target
Vernal
pool
grasslands
Category
KEA
Indicator
Size
Size of
vernal pool
complexes
# adult
birds of
reproductive
age
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
The Details
2) Identify an indicator(s) for your KEA
Target
Vernal
pool
grasslands
Category
KEA
Indicator
Size
Size of
vernal pool
complex
# of acres of
ecol. viable*
vernal pool
complexes
* ecologically viable vernal pool complexes have more than 95% native
vegetation and contain key species (defined by other indicators in viability
assessment
Viability: KEA Indicators
Criteria for a Good Indicator
Indicators should meet the following criteria:
• Measurable – Able to be recorded and analyzed
in quantitative and qualitative terms
• Precise – Defined the same way by all people
• Consistent – Not changing over time so that it
always measures the same thing
• Sensitive – Changes proportionately in
response to the actual changes in the condition
being measured
In addition, the best indicators will be technically and
financially feasible and of interest to partners, donors,
and other stakeholders.
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
The Details
2) Develop a rating scale for the indicator, using
the categories of
or
.
Indicator Ratings
Target
Vernal
pool
grasslands
Category
KEA
Indicator
Size
Size of
vernal pool
complex
# of acres of
ecol. viable
vernal pool
complexes
Poor
Fair
Good
Very
Good
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
The Details
Fair:
Outside acceptable
range of variation;
Requires human
intervention
Good:
Indicator w/in
acceptable range of
variation; Some
intervention required
for maintenance
Indicator Ratings
Target
Vernal
pool
grasslands
Category
KEA
Indicator
Size
Size of
vernal pool
complex
# of acres of
ecol. viable
vernal pool
complexes
Poor
Fair
Good
Threshold
line
Very
Good
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
The Details
What is an “acceptable range of variation?”
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
The Details
Poor:
Restoration
increasingly difficult;
May result in
extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable
range of variation;
Requires human
intervention
Good:
Indicator w/in
acceptable range of
variation; Some
intervention required
for maintenance
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable
status; Requires little
intervention for
maintenance
Indicator Ratings
Target
Vernal
pool
grasslands
Category
KEA
Indicator
Size
Size of
vernal pool
complex
# of acres of
ecol. viable
vernal pool
complexes
Poor
Fair
Good
10,000 – 20,000 –
19,999
30,000
Threshold
line
Very
Good
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
The Details
Poor:
Restoration
increasingly difficult;
May result in
extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable
range of variation;
Requires human
intervention
Good:
Indicator w/in
acceptable range of
variation; Some
intervention required
for maintenance
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable
status; Requires little
intervention for
maintenance
Indicator Ratings
Target
Vernal
pool
grasslands
Category
KEA
Indicator
Size
Size of
vernal pool
complex
# of acres of
ecol. viable
vernal pool
complexes
Poor
Fair
Good
Very
Good
10,000 – 20,000 –
> 30,000
19,999
30,000
Threshold
line
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
The Details
Poor:
Restoration
increasingly difficult;
May result in
extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable
range of variation;
Requires human
intervention
Good:
Indicator w/in
acceptable range of
variation; Some
intervention required
for maintenance
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable
status; Requires little
intervention for
maintenance
Indicator Ratings
Target
Vernal
pool
grasslands
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Size
Size of
vernal pool
complex
# of acres of
ecol. viable
vernal pool
complexes
<
10,000
Fair
Good
Very
Good
10,000 – 20,000 –
> 30,000
19,999
30,000
Threshold
line
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
The Details
3) Define your current state and your desired
future state for your target
Indicator Ratings
Target
Vernal
pool
grasslands
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Size
Size of
vernal pool
complex
# of acres of
ecol. viable
vernal pool
complexes
<
10,000
Current Status
Desired Future Status
Fair
Good
Very
Good
10,000 – 20,000 –
> 30,000
19,999
30,000
15,000
25,000
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
More Examples
Poor:
Restoration
increasingly difficult;
May result in
extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable
range of variation;
Requires human
intervention
Target
Category
KEA
Vernal pool
grasslands
Condition
Community
architecture
Good:
Indicator w/in
acceptable range of
variation; Some
intervention required
for maintenance
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable
status; Requires little
intervention for
maintenance
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
More Examples
Poor:
Restoration
increasingly difficult;
May result in
extirpation
Target
Vernal pool
grasslands
Fair:
Outside acceptable
range of variation;
Requires human
intervention
Good:
Indicator w/in
acceptable range of
variation; Some
intervention required
for maintenance
Category
KEA
Indicator
Condition
Community
architecture
Native plant
species
cover
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable
status; Requires little
intervention for
maintenance
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
More Examples
Poor:
Restoration
increasingly difficult;
May result in
extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable
range of variation;
Requires human
intervention
Good:
Indicator w/in
acceptable range of
variation; Some
intervention required
for maintenance
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable
status; Requires little
intervention for
maintenance
Indicator Ratings
Target
Vernal pool
grasslands
Category
Condition
KEA
Indicator
Community
architecture
Native plant
species
cover
Poor
Fair
Good
Very
Good
Mostly
native
vegetation
Native
vegetation only
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
More Examples
Poor:
Restoration
increasingly difficult;
May result in
extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable
range of variation;
Requires human
intervention
Good:
Indicator w/in
acceptable range of
variation; Some
intervention required
for maintenance
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable
status; Requires little
intervention for
maintenance
Indicator Ratings
Target
Vernal pool
grasslands
Category
Condition
KEA
Community
architecture
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
PredomMostly
Native plant
inantly
Some
native
species
invasive invasives vegetatcover
exotics
ion
Very
Good
Native
vegetation only
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
More Examples
Poor:
Restoration
increasingly difficult;
May result in
extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable
range of variation;
Requires human
intervention
Good:
Indicator w/in
acceptable range of
variation; Some
intervention required
for maintenance
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable
status; Requires little
intervention for
maintenance
Indicator Ratings
Target
Vernal pool
grasslands
Category
Condition
KEA
Indicator
Community
architecture
Poor
Fair
Good
PredomMostly
Native plant
inantly
Some
native
species
invasive invasives vegetatcover
exotics
ion
Current Status
Desired Future Status
Some
invasives
Mostly
native
Very
Good
Native
vegetation only
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
More Examples
Poor:
Restoration
increasingly difficult;
May result in
extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable
range of variation;
Requires human
intervention
Good:
Very Good:
Goal: By mid-2025,
the
Indicator w/in
Ecologically desirable
pools
in thelittle
acceptable range ofvernal
status;
Requires
Basin are
variation; SomeSacramento
intervention
for
intervention required
composedmaintenance
of at least
for maintenance
95% native species.
Indicator Ratings
Target
Vernal pool
grasslands
Category
Condition
KEA
Indicator
Community
architecture
Poor
Fair
Good
PredomMostly
Native plant
inantly
Some
native
species
invasive invasives vegetatcover
exotics
ion
Current Status
Desired Future Status
Some
invasives
Mostly
native
Very
Good
Native
vegetation only
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
More Examples
Poor:
Restoration
increasingly difficult;
May result in
extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable
range of variation;
Requires human
intervention
Good:
Indicator w/in
acceptable range of
variation; Some
intervention required
for maintenance
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable
status; Requires little
intervention for
maintenance
Indicator Ratings
Target
Vernal pool
grasslands
Category
Landscape
context
KEA
Water level
fluctuations
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very
Good
Hydro< .5m of .5 - .9 m 1- 1.3 m
No
period
seasonal seasonal seasonal
seasonal
(weeks of
fluctufluctufluctuflooding
inundation)
ation
ation
ation
Viability
Assessment
Step 1B
More Examples
Poor:
Restoration
increasingly difficult;
May result in
extirpation
Fair:
Outside acceptable
range of variation;
Requires human
intervention
Good:
Indicator w/in
acceptable range of
variation; Some
intervention required
for maintenance
Very Good:
Ecologically desirable
status; Requires little
intervention for
maintenance
Indicator Ratings
Target
Vernal pool
grasslands
Category
Landscape
context
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
Very
Good
Water level
fluctuations
Hydroperiod
(weeks of
inundation)
<8
weeks
8-11
weeks
12-15
weeks
>15
weeks
Current Status
16
Desired Future Status
16
Be Prepared to Accept Uncertainty!!
• The main purpose of viability assessment
•
•
•
is capturing the current state of knowledge
Don’t worry about information gaps
Don’t focus on filling out all indicator
ratings!
Can return during later planning stages to
add more detail (if necessary)
Be Prepared to Accept Uncertainty!!
1st Pass Table
Target
grassland Type X
•
•
•
•
Category
KEA
Landscape
fire regime
Context
Indicator
fire
frequency
Grassland target identified
Fire regime = Key Attribute (Landscape Context)
Fire frequency = Indicator
Dense woody cover suggests not enough fire
Be Prepared to Accept Uncertainty!!
1st Pass Table
Target
grassland Type X
•
•
•
•
•
Category
Indicator Ratings
KEA
Landscape
fire regime
Context
Indicator
fire
frequency
Poor
Fair
Good
Very
Good
not
enough
fire
Grassland focal target identified
Fire regime = Key Attribute (Landscape Context)
Fire frequency = Indicator
Dense woody cover suggests not enough fire
Current status deemed not viable - assigned
“Fair”
Be Prepared to Accept Uncertainty!!
2nd Pass Table
Target
Category
Indicator Ratings
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
grassland Type X
Landscape
fire regime
Context
fire
frequency
not
enough
fire
grassland Type X
Landscape
fire regime
Context
fire
frequency
> 10
years
Phone call to local grassland expert
indicates natural fire frequency of 510 years
Good
5-10
years
Very
Good
Be Prepared to Accept Uncertainty!!
3rd Pass Table
Target
Category
Indicator Ratings
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Good
grassland Type X
Landscape
fire regime
Context
fire
frequency
not
enough
fire
grassland Type X
Landscape
fire regime
Context
fire
frequency
> 10
years
5-10
years
Landscape
fire regime
Context
%
grassland
w/ 5-10 yr
fire return
25-50%
51-75%
grassland Type X
% area burned at acceptable
frequency is key
<25%
Very
Good
>75%
Viability: KEA Indicator Ratings
Indicator Ratings
Target
Category
Key
Attribute
Indicator
Grassland
Size
Size of
ecosystem
Grassland
Condition
Species
% of system
composition in weed
patches
Grassland
Landscape
Context
Compatible
land uses
Acres of
grassland
% natural
surrounding
vegetation
developed or
tilled
Poor
Fair
Good
< 10,000
10,00020,000
> 5% of
system
%
3-5% of 1-3
system of
system
<1% of
system;
> 50%
25 50%
< 5%
Very
Good
20,000- >30,000
30,000
< 25%
Viability
Analysis:
Step 1B
Key Words for This Process
“Representative & Encompass”
Indicators → Key Attributes →
Conservation Targets →
Biodiversity at Site
Viability Analysis in Miradi
Viability Analysis in Miradi
Viability: Key Ecological Attributes
Viability: KEA Indicators
Indicators
Viability: KEA Indicator Ratings
Rating
scales
Viability: KEA Current/Desired Status
Current
status of
indicator
Current status of
KEA
Desired future
status
Where to get more info…
Conserve Online (The Nature Conservancy)
– Guidance:
http://conserveonline.org/workspaces/cbdgateway/cap/resources/index_
html
– Examples:
TNC Conpro database - http://conpro.tnc.org
Develop Your Goals
Goal: A formal statement detailing a desired
impact of a project, such as the desired future
status of a target.
Develop Your Goals
A Good Goal Meets the Criteria:
Linked to targets: Directly associated with one or
more of your conservation targets.
Should be phrased in terms of the Key Ecological
Attribute(s) of the target that you are trying to
conserve
Size – Geographic extent (ecosystem or habitat);
Abundance &/or demographics of the
population/community (species)
Condition – Composition, structure, & biotic interactions
Landscape Context – Landscape-scale ecological
processes, adjacency and connectivity
Develop Your Goals
Impact oriented: Represents the desired
future status of the conservation target
over the long-term.
A preview of Results Chains:
Develop Your Goals
Time Limited: Achievable within a specific
period of time, generally 10 or more years.
Measurable: Definable in relation to some
standard scale (numbers, percentage,
fractions, or all/nothing states).
Specific: Clearly defined so that all people
involved in the project have the same
understanding of what the terms in the
goal mean.
How to Develop a Goal
1. Choose a conservation target
2. Select key ecological attributes of the
target to represent in the goal
3. Write a draft description of the future
desired condition of the target
4. Apply criteria
5. Modify the goal as needed
1. Choose a Conservation Target
Vernal pool grasslands
Source: www.conserveca.org
2. Select Key Ecological Attributes of
the Target to Represent in the Goal
From the Viability Assessment…
Indicator Ratings
Target
Vernal
pool
grasslands
Category
KEA
Indicator
Poor
Size
Size of
vernal pool
complex
# of acres of
ecol. viable
vernal pool
complexes
<
10,000
Current Status
Desired Future Status
Fair
Good
Very
Good
10,000 – 20,000 –
> 30,000
19,999
30,000
15,000
25,000
2. Select Key Ecological Attributes of
the Target to Represent in the Goal
• Target: Vernal pool grasslands
• Key Ecological Attributes:
– Size of vernal pool complexes
– Connectivity of vernal pool complexes
– Species composition
3. Write a Draft Goal
• Target: Vernal pool grasslands
• Key Ecological Attributes:
– Size of vernal pool complexes
– Connectivity of vernal pool complexes
– Species composition
• Draft Goal: By 2025, the size, connectivity and
species composition of vernal pools are restored
to historic levels.
4. Appy Criteria
•
•
Target: Vernal pool
grasslands
Key Ecological
Attributes:
– Size
– Connectivity
– Species composition
•
Draft Goal: By 2025, the
size, connectivity and
species composition of
vernal pools are restored to
historic levels.
•
Criteria:
–
–
–
–
–
•
Linked to target?
Impact-oriented?
Time-bound?
Specific?
Measurable?
Modified Goal: By 2025,
there will be at least 30,000
acres of ecologically viable
vernal pool grasslands.
5. Modify the Goal as Needed
•
•
Target: Vernal pool
grasslands
Key Ecological
Attributes:
– Size
– Connectivity
– Species composition
•
Draft Goal: By 2025,
there will be at least
30,000 acres of
ecologically viable vernal
pool grasslands.
•
Criteria:
–
–
–
–
–
•
Linked to target?
Impact-oriented?
Time-bound?
Specific?
Measurable?
Modified Goal: By 2025,
there will be at least 30,000
acres of vernal pool grasslands
with >90% native species cover
and >50% connectivity.
Step 2A Example Goal
By 2025, there will be at
least 30,000 acres of
vernal pool grasslands
with >90% native
species cover and
>50% connectivity.
Step 2A Goals in Miradi
Step 2A Example of a Goal
Goal 2: By June 2020, 300 new private
properties encompassing 150 ha of high
conservation value* wetlands on the Swan
Coastal Plain reliably support key ecological
processes** and contain viable populations of
key native flora and fauna, as listed by the
Department of Environment and Conservation.
* High conservation value wetlands = wetlands assigned
‘Conservation’ management category by the Department of
Environment and Conservation, Western Australia.
** Ecological processes include groundwater recharge and
hydroperiod (see viability assessment)
Careful…A Goal is NOT a Threat
Reduction Objective
Conservation target: Riparian habitat
Goal: By June 2025, there is a buffer of at
least 50 feet of riparian habitat along at
least 50 miles of the Sacramento River and
its tributaries.
Threat to target: New development
Threat reduction objective: Beginning in
2015, there is no further development in
high priority riparian habitat along the
Sacramento River.
Which of the Following Comply with
the Criteria for a Good Goal?
•
•
•
•
In 10 years, eliminate mangrove harvesting in all
of Ban Don Bay, Thailand.
By 2022, more than 80 pairs of quetzales will
successfully nest and reproduce each year in the
Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve.
Within 12 years of the start of the project, Katani
Nature Preserve will serve as an effective
ecological corridor for tigers traveling between
Karimara and Sulaken National Parks.
By 2015, the population of Golden Lion Tamarins
has increased.
CMP Strategic Planning Process
1. Team, Scope, Vision
2. Conservation Targets
3. Viability Assessment
4. Threat Rating
6.
7.
8.
9.
Goals
Determining Strategies
Results Chains
Objectives and Activities
5. Conceptual Model
10. Monitoring
Plan
Instructions (see handout)
Procedure
For your project, please choose two conservation targets (one species and one ecosystem target, if
you have a mix). Conduct a viability assessment by carrying out the following steps:
For just one of your targets, complete the viability assessment:
1) Identify key ecological attributes (KEAs) for the conservation target. If applicable, try to use all
three attribute categories (size, condition, and landscape context). Record these in Miradi.
(Note: In Miradi, you will need to double click on the target and set your “viability
analysis mode” to Key Attribute. You can use the viability tab in this same dialog box to create your
KEAs and fill out your viability assessment. You can also use the Viability view within Miradi to
enter information).
2) Select indicator(s) for one KEA.
3) Determine an acceptable range of variation and rating scale for at least one indicator
4) Determine current and desired future status of the indicator
5) Record any assumptions or important background information
For a second conservation target:
6) Complete a Simple Viability Assessment in Miradi (see Box 10 in the Training Manual).
(Note: In Miradi, you will need to double click on each target and set your “viability
analysis mode” to Simple to do the simple viability assessment)
Instructions
•
•
•
For your conservation target, develop a goal.
Ensure that the goal meets all of the criteria.
Transfer the results to Miradi.
Questions that Coaches Should Ask:
Viability Assessment
• Has the team taken an iterative approach
•
•
to viability assessment – starting with a few
KEAs and simple ways to measure them –
or have they gotten bogged down in details
and spent too much time on this?
Is viability assessment based on best
available information (which, in the
absence of data, can be expert opinion)?
Is each KEA something essential to the
health of the target? (better to have fewer KEAs)
Questions that Coaches Should Ask:
Viability Assessment (cont.)
• Are KEAs stated in positive terms?
• Are the indicators for the KEAs
•
•
•
measurable things?
Do rating thresholds look right?
Is definition of VG viability based on an
objective standard of long-term persistence
(not what is feasible)?
Does the plan include any targets with
poor viability that are not favored by
changes in climate?
Questions that Coaches Should Ask:
Goals
•
•
•
•
Does the team have a well-articulated concept of
success for their project, expressed in specific,
measurable, time-bound goals?
Are the goals ambitious but achievable?
Do these goals really provide direction for the
project’s actions?
NOTE: These questions also apply to threat
reduction objectives, which are defined after
developing results chains.