Transcript Conservation Targets

Viability
Reduce, Reuse, Recycle
Key points to introduce this step






Key Ecological Attributes
Reduce, reuse, recycle (3-5 per target)
Indicators
Ranking (esp. Good versus Fair)
Iterative nature
If in doubt, just try it...
Critical questions




Is each key ecological attribute key?
Do you see any targets with questionable
viability?
Do you see any similar/nested targets with
identical viability ranks that can be lumped?
Do the rating thresholds look right?
Common Issues & Recommendations

Key attributes framed in terms of stress


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”


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
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...




Work into viability slowly -- it’s complex
Start with one target – do 1 - 3 Key Ecological Attributes & their
associated Indicators
Add benchmarks (indicator ratings) to the degree feasible – at
least for the current status and that which represents a viable
target (e.g. good) if that differs from current status
OK to use qualitative benchmarks when we can’t make an informed
approximation about the numbers (becomes a research need)
–
e.g. Poor = “Lots of instream barriers”

Use informed expert opinion

Urge the teams to document the sources and thinking
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” as a key attribute without considering
“connectivity 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 may also provide insights into key attributes