Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process Annual Meeting Global Conservation Partnership May 2 & 3, 2005 Harper’s Ferry, WV Mark Carabetta Director of Conservation Science The Nature Conservancy - Connecticut Chapter

TNC’s Integration of Planning and Measures –Conservation Action Planning –Selection of Conservation Targets –Defining Conservation Landscapes –Status of Conservation Targets –Characterizing Threats –Objectives & Conservation Actions –Measuring Effectiveness of Actions –Learning, Adapting, and Sharing Results Lessons Learned, Next Steps Topics

5S Framework 2000

5S Excel Tool

Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process

“Who will design the project?” “Who will ensure that the plan goes forward?” “Who can give us advice?” “Who will help us through this process?” Identify core project team members and assign roles Identify process leader Project People

Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process

SINGLE AREA Priority Conservation Areas Coarse-Scale Systems Wide-Ranging Species Pervasive or Far- Reaching Threats Natural Processes MULTIPLE AREA Conservation Projects

Proposed Nature Reserve China Laojunshan Project – Yunnan Scope Condor Bioreserve, Ecuador Usually, but not always, focused on a defined geographic project area

Scope Identified as important during ecoregional planning Appropriate scale to address whole-basin threats, i.e., hydrology, dams, invasives Includes 5 focus areas where more localized conservation action is taking place

Goal or Vision Statement: Scope The long term conservation vision for the San Miguel/Lower Dolores River conservation area is to conserve and restore functional aquatic and riparian systems. The upland systems should support a stable population of Gunnison sage grouse and Gunnison prairie dogs. This vision includes working in partnership with local communities and public entities to incorporate compatible economic and cultural interests within these watersheds into the long-term conservation of their biodiversity.

Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process

Targets - Informed by ecoregional planning - Species - Communities - Ecological Systems - Represent and encompass the full biodiversity of the area for which you are planning - The basis for setting goals, carry out actions, measuring effectiveness - Course-scale/fine-scale approach Beckley Bog, Norfolk, CT puritan tiger beetle

1) Diadromous Fish (including Atlantic Salmon and Sturgeon and is a proxy for connectivity) 2) Native Fish Assemblages (includes migratory resident species and is a proxy for connectivity) 3) Mainstem (with 3-4 nested reaches and including unique patch communities such as ledges, cobble islands, free flowing reaches) 4) Tributary Systems (nest groups by order, gradient geomorphology and includes inland waters) 5) Floodplain and Alluvial Systems (freshwater wetlands and tiger beetle, milk vetch) 6) Riparian Zones (wood turtle) 7) Estuary and Tidal Wetlands (submerged aquatic vegetation) 8) Mussel Assemblages (especially Dwarf Wedge mussel, Brook Floater, Margaritifera, and Yellow Lamp mussel)

Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process

Key Attributes Key Ecological Attributes –Critical component of target’s life history, physical or biological processes, composition, structure –Determines target’s temporal/spatial distribution Vary within an “acceptable range of variability” Assigned to categories of: –Size –Condition –Landscape Context

Freshwater

Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute IndicatorPoorFairGood Very Good Target name - Size - Condition - Landscape Context Key Attribute A Indicator 1 Criteria for Poor Criteria for Fair Criteria for Good Criteria for Very Good Ratings Very Good: Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance Fair: Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention Poor: Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation Good: Indicator w/in acceptable range of variation; Some intervention required for maintenance

General Guidance View main purpose as 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) Accept uncertainty!

Focal Target CategoryKey AttributeIndicator Current Status Example - 1 st Pass 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” Fair Grassland Target Landscape Context Fire regime Fire frequency

Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target CategoryKey AttributeIndicatorPoorFairGood Very Good grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime fire frequency not enough fire 1 st Pass - table 1 st pass results within Indicator Rating table

Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target CategoryKey AttributeIndicatorPoorFairGood Very Good grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime fire frequency not enough fire grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime fire frequency > 10 years 5-10 years Phone call to local grassland expert indicates natural fire frequency of 5-10 years 2 nd Pass

Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target CategoryKey AttributeIndicatorPoorFairGood Very Good grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime fire frequency not enough fire grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime fire frequency > 10 years 5-10 years grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime % grassland with 5-10 yr fire return <25% % % >75% % area burned at acceptable frequency deemed important Decision made > 50% area = viable key attribute = “Good” 3 rd Pass

Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target CategoryKey AttributeIndicatorPoorFairGood Very Good grassland - Type X Size Size/extent of characteristic communities / ecosystems aerial extent in acres > 100,000 acres How important is it to fill out all ratings in this case where Current & Desired status is Very Good? Probably Not Important! -Unless grassland area is threatened by large-scale habitat destruction. -In this case, determining the Fair rating might guide efforts to determine how much to save Incomplete is OK!

During 1 st pass through viability assessment –Focus on key attribute identification, & –Overall status of key attribute only Conduct successive viability passes to add some indicator detail during threats, objective-setting and/or measures of success steps Prioritize filling gaps for key attributes based on: –Level of concern (poor status and/or link to high rank threats), or –Link to conservation actions General guidance

Success Monitoring Plan Analyze & Communicate Summary Measures Implement & Monitor Adapt & Learn Stresses & Sources Critical Threats Situation Analysis Strategies Objectives & Actions Action Plan Overall Viability Summary East Molokai - Hawaii Conservation Targets Landscape Context ConditionSize Viability Rank 1 North Shore Forests & Cliffs FairGoodFair 2 Montane Wet ForestFair Very Good FairGood 3 South Slope Mesic Forest & Shrubland PoorGoodPoorFair Overall Biodiversity Health Rank Fair Overall summary

Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process

Stresses: The impairment or degradation of key ecological attributes (criteria: severity, scope) Examples: Altered Vegetation Condition Ecosystem Fragmentation Stresses

Sources: Factors that cause stress (criteria: contribution, irreversibility) Examples: Established non-native ungulates Established habitat-modifying weeds New invasive plants and animals Wildfires Sources

Sources: Factors that cause stress (criteria: contribution, irreversibility) Examples: Established non-native ungulates Established habitat-modifying weeds New invasive plants and animals Wildfires Sources

Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process

A good objective meets the criteria of being: Impact Oriented  Represents desired changes in ecological attributes or critical threat factors Measurable  Definable in relation to some standard scale (numbers, percentage, fractions, or all/nothing states) Time Limited  Achievable within a specific period of time Objectives

Criteria for good objectives (continued): Specific  Clearly defined so that all people involved in the project have the same understanding of what the terms mean Practical  Achievable and appropriate within the context of the project site Credible – Representing our best scientific judgment as to what is necessary for conservation success Objectives

After: By 2008, reduce the mean percent cover of invasive species to less than 5% across over at least 9,000 acres of invaded forest. Before: “Reduce invasive species” Objectives Examples – before and after applying criteria

After: Between 2005 and 2010, maintain cattle-free conditions within 100 ft of 75 miles of Willow River. Before: Reduce impacts from cattle grazing Objectives Examples – before and after applying criteria

At a minimum, objectives are designed to –Abate a critical threat (Very High or High) and/or…. –Enhance the viability of a conservation target Therefore… objectives are linked to a Red or Yellow cell, or cells, in the Excel workbook –Threat objectives should describe what is required to reduce the stress and/or source to at least a “Medium” threat ranking –Viability objectives should typically describe the “Good” rating for a key ecological attribute Objectives

Objective: No new addition of bulkheads or docks Strategic Action: Pass legislation outlawing new bulkheads or docks Peconic Estuary Threat Summary Objective & Strategic Actions for Critical Threat

Objective: Increase landings of scallop to at least 30,000 lbs per year by 2005 Peconic Estuary Viability Summary Objective for Restoration

Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process

Measures A list of the indicators your project will measure to track the effectiveness of each conservation action. If necessary, a list of the indicators that your project will measure to assess the status of selected targets and threats that you are not currently working on. Develop methods to track each indicator.

Strategy effectiveness indicators # Objectives and Indicators Objective:New invasives: Prevent the establishment of new invasive plant or animal species on the island. Indicator:Number of priority incipient invasive species kept off the island Indicator:Number of discovered or reported incipient invasive species eradicated Objective:Ungulates: By 2014, reduce the frequency of ungulate activity to less than 10% in areas with active ungulate control programs. Indicator:Frequency of ungulate sign Objective:Weeds: By 2014, reduce or contain (as appropriate to specific species) the range and/or density of habitat-modifying weeds within selected management units. Indicator:Acres and density of specific weeds Indicator:Percentage of native canopy cover # Objectives and Indicators Objective:New invasives: Prevent the establishment of new invasive plant or animal species on the island. Indicator:Number of priority incipient invasive species kept off the island Indicator:Number of discovered or reported incipient invasive species eradicated Objective:Ungulates: By 2014, reduce the frequency of ungulate activity to less than 10% in areas with active ungulate control programs. Indicator:Frequency of ungulate sign

Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process

Work Plan List of major action steps and monitoring tasks Assignment of steps and tasks to specific individuals and rough timeline Rough project budget Brief summary of project capacity

Project Resources

Implementation …ready to go to work

Launch of Efroymson Coaches Network Completed 49 pilot projects in 2004 – report due by end of April Improved information system to access all information – generate reports More training, new guidance materials Expand application of measures throughout TNC Conservation Measures Partnership website – Next steps – TNC Measures of Success

Lessons Learned Concepts have outpaced applications – in many cases we have done rapid assessments (CT example) – need more examples of applied deep assessment

Common monitoring pitfalls Lack of a clearly stated purpose Inefficient/ineffective indicators are tracked Poor study design or inefficient/ineffective methods Data gathered but never summarized Data summarized but not interpreted relative to objectives Data summarized and interpreted but not relayed to managers Data proves useful at the project level but the lessons learned are never shared with broader audiences. Lessons learned

Software tool a critical link – automates & facilitates the process Efroymson workshops – high marks for strategies; not so high for measures Engagement of partners has generated high demand, adoption outside of TNC High comfort with threats analyses, struggles with viability assessments Excel tool had grown too complicated for new users (new version has an alternative “Basic” interface”) Process & Tool are critical for tapping existing knowledge and capturing institutional memory Lessons learned

Several hundred first iteration CAP plans Bolivia and Peru have identified TNC’s CAP as one of the official planning methodologies for protected areas. Every funder of the national park programs in Madagascar (ANGAP) requires the CAP/5S planning process for eligibility of funding. Broadscale application inside & outside TNC

General Overall we found the revised CAP process highly valuable. The ten or so half day workshops with the local partner resulted in an almost totally new strategic plan for their next three years, along with new monitoring strategies and lot more confidence in our work. All together, the revised/additional processes - rigorous viability/key attributes, situational diagram and related development of strategies/work plan and monitoring indicators/methods - led to a rethinking of our key partners strategies and the addition of several new objectives/strategies into their new three year work plan Pohnpei, Micronesia Positive testimonials

Monitoring Plan “We loved this. We clearly saw the link between what we had defined as key ecological attributes, our strategy and hitting a properly defined objective. The monitoring page is very well designed, and easy to navigate. We felt, in the conservation target that we worked fully through, that the new monitoring plan was much better quality than the old one, but also cheap and easy to implement.” Serra do Divisor, Brazil “It forces the team to become more results oriented and facilitates adaptive management of the project…” Cockpit Country, Jamaica Positive testimonials

“Make it easier for the uninitiated participant to understand the jargon or lexicon. As it stands, even with the guide, it's tough slugging.“ “Is there a way to negotiate the terminology in a less intimidating way?" Crown of the Continent Efroymson, Montana “…(instructions clear), but they are very general. They were not useful for thinking about frequency, methods, or cost…and are not enough to develop a good science-based monitoring program. It would be good to have some more information on how to determine frequency, how to develop methods (or a reference on where to consult on methods). Condor Bioreserve, Ecuador Room for improvement

Summary results from 49 pilot projects nearly complete and a synthesis report will be available in May 2005 TNC has launched a new web information system to access CAP information and provide a central library of completed plans More training, new guidance materials coming Network of Efroymson coaches being launched in May 2005 Expand application of measures throughout TNC Next steps – TNC Measures of Success

Conservation Action Planning (CAP) Process Annual Meeting Global Conservation Partnership May 2 & 3, 2005 Harper’s Ferry, WV Mark Carabetta Director of Conservation Science The Nature Conservancy - Connecticut Chapter