Download file - Conservation Gateway

Read Me
• This is a version of my full viability assessment presentation. I break
the exercise for developing a viability assessment into three
breakout group tasks:
– Developing KEAs
– Developing Indicators
– Developing Rating Criteria
• I usually present, do a breakout exercise, have teams report
back/peer review, present pt 2, do breakout 2, have teams report
back, etc.
• This seems to help teams work through the viability assessment
without becoming overwhelmed with new concepts.
• The examples are NOT the same examples as in the Greening
Australia PowerPoint from 5/2006. Feel free to switch them. The
references to Key Attribute Categories are from the KEA Table.pdf
(or found in the slides in this presentation).
• Any questions, email me [email protected]
Approach viability assessment
as an iterative process
Project-level planning & measures
within The Nature Conservancy
Ground Rules
• Participate
• Don’t Dominate
• Tough Love… but
• “Boss-Free Zone”
• Everyone advocates; project team decides
• Cell phones off; no side conversations
• Have Fun!
Why Assess Viability?
(1) To clearly define targets (esp. ecological systems)
(2) Science-based foundation for establishing current status of a
target and setting clear desired future condition (goals) linked
to target ecology,
(3) A framework to identify specific stresses to the ecological
integrity of each target and evaluate how these threats disrupt
specific ecological attributes,
(4) Assist in developing and implementing focused strategies at
the right magnitude to meet conservation goals
(5) Guide the design of effective monitoring (abatement) and
measures of success (viability/integrity), and the identification
of critical research needs.
What is “viability”?
TNC’s definition of viability emphasizes the idea that key ecological attributes
must: “…remain intact and functioning within their natural ranges of variation.”
Viability for a conservation target means:
The target is resistant to change in its structure and
composition in the face of external stresses
The target is resilient – able to recover – upon experiencing
occasional severe stress
This results from critical processes and interactions related to
• biological composition, structure, and function
• physical environmental conditions and regimes
Viability Assessment:
Process
• Identify the “Key Ecological
Attributes”
for each conservation target
• Identify one or more “Indicators”
for each factor
• Identify critical conservation
“Thresholds” and “Conservation
Goals” for these indicators
• “Rate” target integrity using the
indicators to assess target status
Viability Assessment:
Fundamentals
• Key Ecological Attributes
– Critical component of target’s life history, physical or
biological processes, composition, structure
– Clearly define target
– Limit its distribution
– Determine its natural variation over space and time
– On a time scale of 50-100+ years
• Viability Indicators
– Measurable entities used to assess the status of Key
Ecological Attribute(s).
• Indicator Rating Categories
– Criteria to enable objective status assessments
Example - 1st Pass
Focal
Target
Category
Grassland
Target
Landscape
Context
•
•
•
•
•
Key Attribute
Fire regime
Indicator
Fire
frequency
Current
Status
Fair
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”
1st Pass - table
Indicator Ratings
Bold=Current
Italics=Desired
Focal
Target
grassland Type X
Category
Landscape
Context
Key Attribute
fire regime
Indicator
fire frequency
Poor
Fair
not
enough
fire
• 1st pass results within Indicator Rating table
Good
Very Good
2nd Pass
Indicator Ratings
Bold=Current
Italics=Desired
Focal
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Indicator
Poor
Fair
grassland Type X
Landscape
Context
fire regime
fire frequency
not
enough
fire
grassland Type X
Landscape
Context
fire regime
fire frequency
> 10
years
• Phone call to local grassland expert indicates
natural fire frequency of 5-10 years
Good
5-10
years
Very
Good
3rd Pass
Indicator Ratings
Bold=Current
Italics=Desired
Focal
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Indicator
Poor
Fair
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
25-50%
51-75%
<25%
• % area burned at acceptable frequency deemed
important
• Decision made > 50% area = viable key attribute =
“Good”
Very Good
>75%
Flexible level of detail
Indicator Ratings
Bold=Current
Italics=Desired
Focal
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Indicator
Poor
Fair
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
25-50%
51-75%
<25%
• The project team could have settled on any
one of these 3 alternatives as part of their
initial 5S plan
Very Good
>75%
Incomplete is OK!
Indicator Ratings
Bold=Current
Italics=Desired
Focal
Target
grassland Type X
Category
Size
Key Attribute
Size/extent of
characteristic
communities /
ecosystems
Indicator
aerial extent
in acres
How important is it to fill out
all ratings in this case
where Current & Desired
status is Very Good?
Poor
Fair
Good
Very Good
> 100,000
acres
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
From Viability assessment
in Indonesian village
Indicator Ratings
Bold=Current
Italics=Desired
Focal
Target
Catches
from the
Sea
Category
Size
Key Attribute
Population
size
Indicator
Fish catch
per day
Poor
Fair
X
• Catches from the Sea identified as a focal target for fish
caught for local consumption and sale
• Key attribute & indicator selected
• Current status considered not viable (Fair)
Good
Very
Good
From Viability assessment
in Indonesian village
Indicator Ratings
Bold=Current
Italics=Desired
Focal
Target
Catches
from the
Sea
Category
Size
Key Attribute
Indicator
Poor
Fair
Population size
fish catch per
day
catch =
0
1 - 30
strings of
fish
• Interviews indicate current harvest < 30 strings
of fish
• Ten years ago, harvest yielded up to 200 strings
of fish
• > 100 considered Very Good
• 31-100 considered Good
Good
Very
Good
31-100 > 100
strings strings
of fish of fish
Accept uncertainty!
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)
• 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
Common Issues &
Recommendations
• Key attributes framed in terms of stress
– Key attributes should be framed in terms of natural characteristics
and dynamics - they should be the inverse of stresses, e.g. %
native cover not % invasives
• Relating key attributes to size/condition/landscape context
– Each key attribute can be assigned to S, C, or LC, but don’t get too
bogged down in figuring out which one
• Ratings based on “the best that is left”
– Ratings should be based on “objective” standards for long-term
persistence not on feasibility or the best that is left
• Real data versus expert opinion
– Ultimately the goal is to collect actual data on each indicator and
rate it accordingly. However, most projects will use expert opinion
and will gradually phase in monitoring over time.
Helpful Hints
• “Minimum dynamic area” is typically based on two factors: severe
historic disturbance regime & home range for nested animal species
• There’s probably an inverse relationship between “Size” & “Buffer”
– e.g. a large system occurrence needs a small buffer & vice-versa
• Be wary of “Connectivity” or “Habitat” as key ecological attributes
without considering “connectivity” or “habitat” for what…
• While historical information can provide a useful benchmark, don’t get
hung up on the system’s historical condition (e.g. presettlement) -instead consider what species & communities we care about today, and
what is needed for them to persist
• Nested targets (ecoregional or locally important) may also provide
insights into key attributes
Key Ecological Attributes:
What Are They?
Key Ecological Attributes (KEA)
• Critical component of
target’s life history,
physical or biological
processes, composition,
structure
• Clearly define target
• Limit its distribution
• Determine its natural
variation over space and
time
On a time scale of
50-100+ years
Selecting Key Ecological
Attributes
What drives a targets composition, structure, and
function over time and space?
Habitat Area
and
Connectivity
Biotic
Processes
Tools:
• Scientific Literature
• Ecological Models
• Integrity Diagrams
• Expert Consultations
• Community Consultations
Habitat
Quality
Focal Target
Viability
Population Size
and
Demographics
Abiotic
Processes
Five Principal Factors in Freshwater
Conservation Target “Viability”*
Soil Moisture Regime
Groundwater
Regime
Competition Disease &
Mutualism & Predation Parasitism
Surface Inundation Regime
Surface Flow Regime
Hydrologic
Regime
Salinity, Alkalinity,
Hardness
Dissolved
Minerals
Chemical
Dissolved Gases
Regime
pH,
Temperature ORP
Feeding
Reproduction
Biotic
Interactions
1o & 2 o
Production
Target Structure & Composition
FRESHWATER
TARGET
INTEGRITY
Organic
Compounds
Radioactivity
Turbidity
Woody Debris Riparian Canopy
Sunlight
Organic
Matter
Inputs
Energy
Regime
Natural Thermal
* (modified from Karr et al. 1986) Discharges
Physical
Habitat
Geomorphology
Up/Down-Gradient
Continuity
Water-Wetland-Land
Connectivity
Sediment/Soil Regime
Examples:
Key Ecological Attributes
TNC’s freshwater work has some
of The Conservancy’s most refined
examples of this approach.
Attribute Categories
Attribute Category:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Climate
Fire
Hydrology
Water Chemistry
Geomorphology, Sediment & Soils
Connectivity
Energy Flux
Biological Composition & Structure
Biological Interaction
Attribute Categories
Water Chemistry:
•Water-Borne Nutrient Regime
•Water pH Regime
•Water Salinity Regime
•Dissolved Oxygen Regime
•Other Dissolved Gases Regime
•Water Mineralogy Regime
Geomorphology, Sediment & Soils:
•Soil/Sediment Porosity Texture
•Soil Moisture Regime
•Soil Temperature Regime
•Soil/Sediment Chemistry Regime
•Soil/Sediment Erosion-Deposition Regime
•Coarse Organic Matter Regime
•Shoreline Complexity
•Bathymetric Complexity
•Geologic Disturbance Regime
Attribute Categories
Biological Composition & Structure:
•
•
•
•
•
Species Composition/Abundance
Keystone Species
Keystone Functional Groups/Guilds
Characteristic Species
Characteristic Ecological Communities
& Seral Stages
• Horizontal Arrangement of Ecological
Communities and Seral Stages
• Vertical Structure of Ecological
Communities and Seral Stages
• Size/Age/Gender Structure of
Populations within Ecological
Communities and Seral Stages
Breakout Group Instructions:
Selecting Key Attributes
Task 1
• Select one target from your project area (stratify
the target into smaller subgroups if you think you
need to).
• Develop one key ecological attribute for each of
three different attribute categories
Time: 30 Minutes
Breakout Group Instructions:
Selecting Key Attributes
Very Briefly Report back on:
• Did you stratify your target?
• In which attribute categories did you select key
ecological attributes?
• What are the key attributes you selected?
• Why is each attribute “key” for the target?
Time: 10 Minutes/Team
Indicators: What ARE
Indicators?
Indicators are measurable attributes that inform us of the
status of a key ecological factor
Why Work With “Indicators”?
• Need to be able to say what field information you used, to
assess integrity
• Some key ecological attributes may be too complex to measure
easily (directly)
• Need to identify one or more specific “indicators” to use, to
assess the status of each key attribute
Viability Assessment:
Indicators should be…
Ecologically relevant (i.e., an accurate and direct assessment of key ecological
factor status)
Sensitive to change in the key ecological factor, either through degradation or
restoration.
Sensitive to human-caused stress to the key ecological factor and able to register
incremental changes in stress.
Anticipatory and long term (i.e., indicate degradation before serious harm has
occurred).
Measurable (i.e., capable of being defined and measured using a standard
procedure with low measurement error).
Socially relevant (i.e., of obvious value to and observable by all important
stakeholders).
Cost-effective (i.e., provides maximum information per unit effort).
Example
Indicator Ratings
Bold=Current
Italics=Desired
Focal
Target
Category
Key Attribute
Indicator
Poor
Fair
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
25-50%
51-75%
<25%
Very Good
>75%
Example:
Low Montane Forest
• Key Ecological Attribute
– Connectivity between habitat fragments
• Viability Indicators
– Fragstats connectivity index
• Indicator Ratings
– Poor: < 50%
– Fair: 51-70%
– Good: 71-90%
– Very Good: > 91 %
Breakout Group Instructions:
Selecting Indicators
Task 2
• Identify one indicator for each key
ecological attribute from previous exercise
Time: 30 Minutes
A good indicator is…
• Ecologically relevant
• Sensitive to change
• Sensitive to human-caused
stress
• Anticipatory and long term
• Measurable
• Socially relevant
• Cost-effective
Breakout Group Instructions:
Selecting Indicators
Very Briefly Report Back:
• Which key ecological attributes did you select
indicators for?
• What indicators were selected?
• Do these indicators qualify as a “good” indicators?
Time: 10 Minutes/Team
Viability Assessment:
Thresholds and Ratings
Thresholds and Ratings
Minimum
Integrity
Thresholds
Note: The line between “good” and “fair”
Example: Chinook Salmon
at Cosumnes River
• Key Ecological Attribute
–Juvenile recruitment
• Viability Indicators
–Average capture rates in rotary trap
• Indicator Ratings
– Poor: 0 - 0.1 fish caught / hour
– Fair: 0.11 - 0.25 fish caught / hour
– Good: 0.26 - 1.0 fish caught / hour
– Very Good: > 1 fish caught / hour
Example: Ecological
Integrity Assessment
Breakout Group Instructions:
Indicator Rating Criteria
Task 3
Develop indicator rating criteria for one indicator (based on
your collective expert opinion) using the categories:
– Very Good
– Good
– Fair
– Poor
•
Qualitative ratings are OK! (e.g. Poor = “Lots of instream
barriers”, “not enough fire” etc.)
•
At a minimum -- define the difference between fair and
good categories.
Time: 15 minutes
Breakout Group Instructions:
Indicator Rating Criteria
Very Briefly Report Back:
• Which indicator did you develop rating criteria for?
• What are ratings for “poor”, “fair”, “good” and “very
good”?
• Is the rating criteria based on some range of
natural variability for that indicator?
• Can you (did you) rank “current status” and/or
“goal status” (desired future condition)?
Time: 10 Minutes/Team
Viability Recommendations
Remember: Focus on a credible first iteration
• At least one Key Ecological Attribute and one Indicator
for each Focal Target (or major stratification)
• Describe current Indicator Rating in sufficient detail that
movement to another rating category is clear
• Ultimately, go deeper for Targets and Key Ecological
Attributes where:
– Significant investments are being made
– Serious threats exist with uncertain impacts
Viability
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Homework
What you need to do?
•
•
•
•
Form/re-group as teams (or, make a list who was in the team)
Revise conservation targets.
Revise viability assessment.
List participants who should be involved/invited to next workshop
Your products:
– Collect CAP plans & Ecoregional Plans for project area
– Gather plans, reports, papers, etc. which might inform future iterations of this
work (or make brief annotated bibliography)
– Map targets (sketch map is OK) & project area
– Simple Word document list of conservation targets & any stratification (w/brief
justifications – just a couple lines)
– Completed Viability Assessment:
– at least 1 key attribute w/1 indicator and rating criteria and ranking for each
target/stratification (with brief justifications for each (e.g. SWAG)).
– Simple Word document list of attributes and indicators for each target (w/brief
description for each)