Read Me

1. 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 gschuler@tnc.org

2. Approach viability assessment as an iterative process Project-level planning & measures within The Nature Conservancy

3. 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!

4. Why Assess Viability? • Toclearly define targets (esp. ecological systems) • Science-based foundation for establishing current status of a target and setting clear desired future condition(goals) linked to target ecology, • A framework to identify specific stressesto the ecological integrity of each target and evaluate how these threats disrupt specific ecological attributes, • Assist in developing and implementing focused strategies at the right magnitude to meet conservation goals • Guide the design of effective monitoring(abatement) and measures of success(viability/integrity), and the identification of critical research needs.

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Example - 1st 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 LandscapeContext Fire frequency Fire regime

9. 1st Pass - table • 1st pass results within Indicator Rating table

10. 2nd Pass • Phone call to local grassland expert indicates natural fire frequency of 5-10 years

11. 3rd Pass • % area burned at acceptable frequency deemed important • Decision made > 50% area = viable key attribute = “Good”

12. Flexible level of detail • The project team could have settled on any one of these 3 alternatives as part of their initial 5S plan

13. Incomplete is OK! 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

14. From Viability assessment in Indonesian village Population size Fish catch per day X Size • 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)

15. From Viability assessment in Indonesian village 31-100 strings of fish > 100 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

16. 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

17. 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.

18. 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

19. Key Ecological Attributes (KEA) Key Ecological Attributes: What Are They? • 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

20. Selecting Key Ecological Attributes What drives a targets composition, structure, and function over time and space? Habitat Area and Connectivity Biotic Processes Habitat Quality Focal Target Viability • Tools: • Scientific Literature • Ecological Models • Integrity Diagrams • Expert Consultations • Community Consultations Population Size and Demographics Abiotic Processes

21. Soil Moisture Regime Surface Inundation Regime Groundwater Regime Surface Flow Regime Hydrologic Regime Competition & Predation Disease & Parasitism Salinity, Alkalinity, Hardness pH, ORP Mutualism Temperature Dissolved Minerals Feeding Biotic Interactions Chemical Regime Reproduction Dissolved Gases FRESHWATER TARGET INTEGRITY Radioactivity 1o & 2o Production Turbidity Organic Compounds Target Structure & Composition Woody Debris Riparian Canopy Sunlight Up/Down-Gradient Continuity Energy Regime Physical Habitat Water-Wetland-Land Connectivity Organic Matter Inputs Sediment/Soil Regime Natural Thermal Discharges Geomorphology * (modified from Karr et al. 1986) Five Principal Factors in Freshwater Conservation Target “Viability”*

22. Examples: Key Ecological Attributes TNC’s freshwater work has some of The Conservancy’s most refined examples of this approach.

23. Attribute Categories Attribute Category: • Climate • Fire • Hydrology • Water Chemistry • Geomorphology, Sediment & Soils • Connectivity • Energy Flux • Biological Composition & Structure • Biological Interaction

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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

27. 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

28. Indicators: What ARE Indicators? Indicators are measurable attributes that inform us of the status of a key ecological factor • 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 Why Work With “Indicators”?

29. 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).

30. Example

31. 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 %

32. Breakout Group Instructions: Selecting Indicators Task 2 • Identify one indicator for each key ecological attribute from previous exercise • A good indicator is… • Ecologically relevant • Sensitive to change • Sensitive to human-caused stress • Anticipatory and long term • Measurable • Socially relevant • Cost-effective Time: 30 Minutes

33. 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

34. Viability Assessment: Thresholds and Ratings

35. Minimum Integrity Thresholds Thresholds and Ratings Note:The line between “good” and “fair”

36. 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

37. Example: Ecological Integrity Assessment

38. 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

39. 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

40. Viability Recommendations Remember:Focus on a credible first iteration • At least oneKey Ecological Attribute and oneIndicator 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

41. Viability Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

42. 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) Homework