Conservation Targets the building blocks

Key points to introduce this step Importance of step SCALE – spatial? biological? Where do you actions need to “land?” Coarse-filter (nested targets) and fine-filter approach Iterative nature Project boundary based on targets Linkage with Ecoregional Assessment Targets will end up dictating strategies Scale always a play between spatial extent of teams “mandate” e.g. Protected area management unit vs. the scale at which the targets and the processes that sustain them and the threats acting upon them really operate.

Critical questions to ask team Do they have the common ecological systems? Do the species targets warrant target status or are they indicators of system health? Do you see any targets that are not of critical importance? To lump or to split, that is the question.

“To lump or to split? That is the question” If you save the system, do you save the species? Do the different species co-occur in the same locale? Do they require similar processes? Are they likely being affected by similar threats? Species of the same general “type” but with very different habitat requirement and/or threats should not be “lumped” (e.g. wading birds and song birds)

Common Issues & Recommendations Very large project area... or more than 8 targets Try defining the large project using just the major system types Consider doing a separate process for finer scale components (e.g. rare species) Consider breaking the area into logical units and go through the process quickly for each of these (e.g. plan for each of the large tributaries of a major river system) and then look for shared threats where an over-arching strategy could benefit the system) Identify a wide ranging species or species guild that might provide for some contiguity across the vast area and/or may use a broad range of habitats across the area (e.g. bear species that travels river corridors, feeds in multiple habitats in different seasons, dens in upland hardwoods)

Common Issues & Recommendations (Continued…..) What about non-biological targets like groundwater, open space, rural lifestyle, archeological sites, etc.? Basic logic of the process works for anything that the group values …..natural or cultural “target” Up to the team whether to include a diversity of types of targets… but very important that everyone is clear on the plan’s purpose Does process work for socio-economic targets as well (e.g. “profitable family ranches”)? Critically important to add a shared vision statement to help unify process May need a final step to resolve conflicting strategies between biodiversity targets and other types of targets if these emerge

Common Issues & Recommendations (Continued…..) Team wants to include a wide-ranging species as a target in their project area when the area is only part of its range If the project has an important nesting beach, feeding grounds, staging area, etc for this species... Ok, recognizing that the “target” is not going to be “protected” at your site but you are planning for your project being able to service this one aspect of the target’s life cycle OR Consider a larger effort with other teams where the wide ranging species needs can be met if you work together. In this case the “targets” may become critical areas for each stage in the life cycle (e.g. wintering grounds, migration path, nesting grounds)

Helpful Hints... Map your target occurrences! Even a “cartoon” map adds value. Enter a target twice as two distinct occurrences if viability, land use history and threats are dramatically different e.g. Longleaf pine (public lands) & Longleaf pine (private lands) Probe “Corridors” as targets – need to understand--corridor for what? The answer to this will greatly influence size, shape, location, threats, etc.