1B. Viability Assessment and Goals

1B. Viability Assessment and Goals

Copyright and Use Terms
© Foundations of Success, 2013 FOS strongly recommends that this presentation is given by experts familiar with the adaptive management process presented by the Conservation Measures Partnership’s Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License. To view a copy of this license, visit or send a letter to Creative Commons, 171 Second Street, Suite 300, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA. Under this license, you are free to share this presentation and adapt it for your use under the following conditions: You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). You may not use this work for commercial purposes. If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you must remove the FOS logo, and you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.

CMP Open Standards

Step 1 Conceptualize

Our Example – Sacramento River Basin
Throughout our presentations, we use example outputs from the Wetland Watch project from WWF Australia that we have modified slightly to reflect the structure and products of the CMP Open Standards. The intent is to give a real-world example of how the Standards have been applied.

Conceptualize: Define Conservation Targets
Step 1B Rivers and streams Riparian habitat Salmon Vernal pool grasslands Oak woodlands This region supports significant breeding numbers of the near threatened Blue-billed Duck.

Viability Assessment What Is It?
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment What Is It? 28 April 2018 Step 1B A process that helps conservation project teams explicitly and clearly define healthy targets TNC & Foundations of Success 7

Viability Assessment Why Is It Important?
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment Why Is It Important? 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 TNC & Foundations of Success 8

Viability Assessment Step 1B
Step 3 - Viability Analysis 28 April 2018 Step 1B Viability Assessment Viability assessment helps teams answer important questions: Bog frog 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) TNC & Foundations of Success 9

Viability Analysis What Did TNC Do Before?
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Analysis What Did TNC Do Before? 28 April 2018 Step 1B No clear and consistent definition of rankings Optional documentation “Mouse-based” decision making TNC & Foundations of Success 10

Viability Assessment: The Basics
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment: The Basics 28 April 2018 Step 1B Define key characteristics (“key ecological attributes” or KEAs) of your target. Identify indicator(s) for each KEA Develop a rating scale for each indicator, using the categories of Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor. Define the current status and the desired future status for your target TNC & Foundations of Success 11

Viability Analysis What Did TNC Do Before?
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Analysis What Did TNC Do Before? 28 April 2018 Step 1B Three Categories for Rating Targets: 1. Size – Abundance and/or demographics of the population/ community 2. Condition – Composition, structure, & biotic interactions 3. Landscape Context – Landscape-scale ecological processes, adjacency and connectivity All Rated as Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor TNC & Foundations of Success 12

Viability Assessment The Details Step 1B
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment The Details 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 TNC & Foundations of Success 13

Three Categories for Rating Targets
Viability Analysis: The Details Step 1B Three Categories for Rating Targets

Viability Assessment: The Details
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment: The Details 28 April 2018 Step 1B 1) Define “key ecological attributes” of your target. Target Category KEA Indicator Vernal pool grasslands Size Size of vernal pool complexes # adult birds of reproductive age TNC & Foundations of Success 15

Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment The Details 28 April 2018 Step 1B Identify an indicator(s) for your KEA Target Category KEA Indicator Vernal pool grasslands 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 TNC & Foundations of Success 16

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.

Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment The Details 28 April 2018 Step 1B Develop a rating scale for the indicator, using the categories of Very Good, Good, Fair, or Poor. Indicator Ratings Target Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Vernal pool grasslands Size Size of vernal pool complex # of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes TNC & Foundations of Success 18

Viability Assessment The Details Step 1B Fair:
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment The Details 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Vernal pool grasslands Size Size of vernal pool complex # of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes Threshold line TNC & Foundations of Success 19

Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment The Details 28 April 2018 Step 1B What is an “acceptable range of variation?” MENTION IT’S CHALLENGING TO FIGURE OUT THE BOUNDS OF NATURAL RANGE OF VARIATION, TAKE YOUR BEST GUESS, REFINE OVER TIME TNC & Foundations of Success 20

Viability Assessment The Details Step 1B Poor:
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment The Details 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Vernal pool grasslands Size Size of vernal pool complex # of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes 10,000 – 19,999 20,000 – 30,000 Threshold line TNC & Foundations of Success 21

Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment The Details 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Vernal pool grasslands Size Size of vernal pool complex # of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes 10,000 – 19,999 20,000 – 30,000 > 30,000 Threshold line TNC & Foundations of Success 22

Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment The Details 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Vernal pool grasslands Size Size of vernal pool complex # of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes < 10,000 10,000 – 19,999 20,000 – 30,000 > 30,000 Threshold line TNC & Foundations of Success 23

Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment The Details 28 April 2018 Step 1B Define your current state and your desired future state for your target Indicator Ratings Target Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Vernal pool grasslands Size Size of vernal pool complex # of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes < 10,000 10,000 – 19,999 20,000 – 30,000 > 30,000 Current Status 15,000 Desired Future Status 25,000 TNC & Foundations of Success 24

Viability Assessment More Examples Step 1B Poor:
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment More Examples 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 Target Category KEA Vernal pool grasslands Condition Community architecture MIRADI OR TABLE? TNC & Foundations of Success 25

Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment More Examples 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 Target Category KEA Indicator Vernal pool grasslands Condition Community architecture Native plant species cover MIRADI OR TABLE? TNC & Foundations of Success 26

Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment More Examples 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Vernal pool grasslands Condition Community architecture Native plant species cover Mostly native vegetation Native vegetation only MIRADI OR TABLE? TNC & Foundations of Success 27

Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment More Examples 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Vernal pool grasslands Condition Community architecture Native plant species cover Predom- inantly invasive exotics Some invasives Mostly native vegetation Native vegetation only MIRADI OR TABLE? TNC & Foundations of Success 28

Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment More Examples 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Vernal pool grasslands Condition Community architecture Native plant species cover Predom- inantly invasive exotics Some invasives Mostly native vegetation Native vegetation only Current Status Desired Future Status Mostly native MIRADI OR TABLE? TNC & Foundations of Success 29

Viability Assessment More Examples Step 1B
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment More Examples 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 Goal: By mid-2025, the vernal pools in the Sacramento Basin are composed of at least 95% native species. Very Good: Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance Indicator Ratings Target Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Vernal pool grasslands Condition Community architecture Native plant species cover Predom- inantly invasive exotics Some invasives Mostly native vegetation Native vegetation only Current Status Desired Future Status Mostly native MIRADI OR TABLE? TNC & Foundations of Success 30

Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment More Examples 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Vernal pool grasslands Landscape context Water level fluctuations Hydro- period (weeks of inundation) No seasonal flooding < .5m of seasonal fluctu- ation m seasonal fluctu- ation m seasonal fluctu- ation MIRADI OR TABLE? TNC & Foundations of Success 31

Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Assessment More Examples 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Vernal pool grasslands Landscape context Water level fluctuations Hydro- period (weeks of inundation) <8 weeks 8-11 weeks weeks >15 weeks Current Status 16 Desired Future Status MIRADI OR TABLE? TNC & Foundations of Success 32

Be Prepared to Accept Uncertainty!!
Step 3 - Viability Analysis 28 April 2018 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) This next series of slides provides some general guidance to avoid getting mired in the viability assessment procedure. TNC & Foundations of Success 33

1st Pass Table Target Category KEA Indicator grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime fire frequency Grassland target identified Fire regime = Key Attribute (Landscape Context) Fire frequency = Indicator Dense woody cover suggests not enough fire This may be all that is known at Time A

1st Pass Table Indicator Ratings Target Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime fire frequency 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” This is simply the information from the previous table captured within the Indicator Rating table format of the Excel workbook tool.

2nd Pass Table Indicator Ratings Target Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime fire frequency not enough fire > 10 years 5-10 years This represents a refinement of the “not enough fire” description. Phone call to local grassland expert indicates natural fire frequency of 5-10 years

3rd Pass Table Indicator Ratings Target Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good grassland - Type X Landscape Context fire regime fire frequency not enough fire > 10 years 5-10 years % grassland w/ 5-10 yr fire return <25% 25-50% 51-75% >75% As the team considered the importance of fires at a frequency of 5-10 years, they also realized that regular fires that burned only a small area of the grassland would not meet the ecological needs of the grassland community. They changed the indicator to reflect the proportion of the grassland with the desirable fire frequency. % area burned at acceptable frequency is key

Viability: KEA Indicator Ratings
Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Grassland Size Size of ecosystem Acres of grassland < 10,000 10,000- 20,000 20,000-30,000 >30,000 Condition Species composition % of system in weed patches > 5% of system 3-5% of system 1-3 % of system <1% of system; Landscape Context Compatible land uses % natural surrounding vegetation developed or tilled > 50% 25 - 50% < 25% < 5%

“Representative & Encompass”
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Analysis: Key Words for This Process 28 April 2018 Step 1B “Representative & Encompass” Indicators → Key Attributes → Conservation Targets → Biodiversity at Site TNC & Foundations of Success 39

Viability Analysis in Miradi

Viability: Key Ecological Attributes

Viability: KEA Indicators

Viability: KEA Indicator Ratings
Rating scales

Viability: KEA Current/Desired Status
Current status of indicator Current status of KEA Desired future status

Viability Analysis in Miradi

Viability Analysis 1) Key Ecological Attributes (KEAs)
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Analysis 1) Key Ecological Attributes (KEAs) 28 April 2018 Step 1B Focal Target Category Key Attribute Target name Size Condition Landscape Context Key Attribute A We identify targets, select key ecological attributes within the categories of size, condition, and landscape context, then select Indicators that are the Measurable entities used to assess the status of key ecological attributes ·Indicator Rating Categories are described based on Critieria that objectively define an indicator into 1 of 4 categories corresponding to Poor, Fair, Good, and Very Good viability status The guidance for defining different indicator ratings is centered on the concept of acceptable ranges of variability. Indicators in a “Good” status are within an acceptable range of variation; Some intervention is required for their maintenance Very Good is an Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance Fair status indicates a key attribute that is Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention Poor status represents a situation where Restoration increasingly difficult and the current conditions may lead to the extirpation of the target TNC & Foundations of Success 48

KEA for Mangrove Forest
Step 3 - Viability Analysis 28 April 2018 Step 1B KEA for Mangrove Forest Focal Target Category Key Attribute Mangrove Forest Size Habitat Size TNC & Foundations of Success 49

Presence of Invasive species
Step 3 - Viability Analysis 28 April 2018 Step 1B KEA for Coral Reef Focal Target Category Key Attribute Coral Reef Condition Presence of Invasive species TNC & Foundations of Success 50

Viability Analysis ii) Indicators
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Analysis ii) Indicators 28 April 2018 Step 1B Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Target name Size Condition Landscape Context Key Attribute A Indicator 1 We identify targets, select key ecological attributes within the categories of size, condition, and landscape context, then select Indicators that are the Measurable entities used to assess the status of key ecological attributes ·Indicator Rating Categories are described based on Critieria that objectively define an indicator into 1 of 4 categories corresponding to Poor, Fair, Good, and Very Good viability status The guidance for defining different indicator ratings is centered on the concept of acceptable ranges of variability. Indicators in a “Good” status are within an acceptable range of variation; Some intervention is required for their maintenance Very Good is an Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance Fair status indicates a key attribute that is Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention Poor status represents a situation where Restoration increasingly difficult and the current conditions may lead to the extirpation of the target TNC & Foundations of Success 51

Indicator for Mangrove Forest
Step 3 - Viability Analysis 28 April 2018 Step 1B Indicator for Mangrove Forest Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Mangrove Forest Size Habitat Size % of original forest TNC & Foundations of Success 52

Presence of Invasive species
Step 3 - Viability Analysis 28 April 2018 Step 1B Indicator for Coral Reef Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Coral Reef Condition Presence of Invasive species Crown of thorns on reef TNC & Foundations of Success 53

Viability Analysis iii) Indicator Ratings
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Analysis iii) Indicator Ratings 28 April 2018 Step 1B 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 Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good 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 We identify targets, select key ecological attributes within the categories of size, condition, and landscape context, then select Indicators that are the Measurable entities used to assess the status of key ecological attributes ·Indicator Rating Categories are described based on Critieria that objectively define an indicator into 1 of 4 categories corresponding to Poor, Fair, Good, and Very Good viability status The guidance for defining different indicator ratings is centered on the concept of acceptable ranges of variability. Indicators in a “Good” status are within an acceptable range of variation; Some intervention is required for their maintenance Very Good is an Ecologically desirable status; Requires little intervention for maintenance Fair status indicates a key attribute that is Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention Poor status represents a situation where Restoration increasingly difficult and the current conditions may lead to the extirpation of the target Poor: Restoration increasingly difficult; May result in extirpation Fair: Outside acceptable range of variation; Requires human intervention TNC & Foundations of Success 54

Viability Ratings for Coral Reef
Step 3 - Viability Analysis 28 April 2018 Step 1B Viability Ratings for Coral Reef Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Coral Reef Condition Presence of Invasive species Crown of thorns on reef Lots Few None TNC & Foundations of Success 55

Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired
Step 3 - Viability Analysis Viability Ratings for Mangrove Forest 28 April 2018 Step 1B Indicator Ratings Bold=Current Italics=Desired Focal Target Category Key Attribute Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Mangrove Forest Size Habitat Size % of original forest < 25 25-50 51-75 > 75 TNC & Foundations of Success 56

Where to get more info… Conserve Online (The Nature Conservancy)
Guidance: Examples: TNC Conpro database -

Develop Your Goals Goal: A formal statement detailing a desired impact of a project, such as the desired future status of a target. 58

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 59

Develop Your Goals Impact oriented: Represents the desired future status of the conservation target over the long-term. A preview of Results Chains: 60

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. 61

How to Develop a Goal Choose a conservation target
Select key ecological attributes of the target to represent in the goal Write a draft description of the future desired condition of the target Apply criteria Modify the goal as needed

1. Choose a Conservation Target
Vernal pool grasslands Mention: Opportunities Showing uncertainty in relationships (with a ?) Source:

2. Select Key Ecological Attributes of the Target to Represent in the Goal
From the Viability Assessment… Indicator Ratings Target Category KEA Indicator Poor Fair Good Very Good Vernal pool grasslands Size Size of vernal pool complex # of acres of ecol. viable vernal pool complexes < 10,000 10,000 – 19,999 20,000 – 30,000 > 30,000 Current Status 15,000 Desired Future Status 25,000 Mention: Opportunities Showing uncertainty in relationships (with a ?)

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 Mention: Opportunities Showing uncertainty in relationships (with a ?)

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. Mention: Opportunities Showing uncertainty in relationships (with a ?)

4. Appy Criteria Target: Vernal pool grasslands Criteria:
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. Mention: Opportunities Showing uncertainty in relationships (with a ?)

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. Alternative wording. Either wording is fine – a matter of preference.

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.

Example Goal Target: Coral Reefs
Goal: By 2025, at least 80% of the coral reef habitat in the northern bioregion will have live coral coverage of at least 20% and will contain healthy populations of key species* * Healthy populations of species at the top of the food chain, such as sharks, and an abundance of other key species, such as parrot fish and spiny lobster. Whether a population is “healthy” will be based on the latest scientific understanding. See viability assessment for population numbers for different species.

Example Goal Target: Montane forest (in Eastern Arcs)
Goal: By 2017, 100% of remaining montane forest* is effectively conserved** and connectivity among major forest patches*** is created. * Based on baseline data from (total is around 2,000,529 ha) ** Effectively conserved = Intact tree canopy with full set of species including representative endemic species *** Ulugurus (Bunduki, Kitumbaku Hills), East Usambaras (Derema, Nilo-Kambai/Segoma), Udzungwa (Scarp to Matundu/Iyonde)

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
Team, Scope, Vision Conservation Targets Viability Assessment Goals Determining Strategies Results Chains Objectives and Activities Threat Rating Conceptual Model Monitoring Plan

Instructions (see handout)
Step 3 - Viability Analysis 28 April 2018 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: 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). Select indicator(s) for one KEA. Determine an acceptable range of variation and rating scale for at least one indicator Determine current and desired future status of the indicator Record any assumptions or important background information For a second conservation target: 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) TNC & Foundations of Success 77

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.

1B. Viability Assessment and Goals

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1B. Viability Assessment and Goals"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

1B. Viability Assessment and Goals

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1B. Viability Assessment and Goals"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback