Viability

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

Conservation Coaches Network Coach Training

Key points to introduce this step

• Key Ecological Attributes – the important characteristics

• Indicators – the thing that you can measure• Reduce, reuse, recycle*• 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?• Have they “claimed” to know more than they

really do?*

Common Issues & Recommendations

• Key attributes framed in terms of “stress” – Generally, key attributes should be framed in terms of

natural characteristics and dynamics - they should be the inverse of stresses, e.g. miles of free flowing river, not presence of dams

• 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

Common Issues & Recommendations

• 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– “Good” should persist for a century

– Probe “poor” ratings – poor means “about to be lost”

• 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 more precise information over time.

Helpful Hints...

• Work into viability slowly -- it’s complex

• Start with one target – do 1 - 3 Key Ecological Attributes & their associated Indicator

• Sometimes talking about KEA’s using medical metaphors - can really help teams to “get it.”

Helpful Hints...

• Add benchmarks (indicator ratings) to the degree feasible – for the current status and that which represents a viable target (e.g. good) if that differs from current status. This is all they really need.

• Best to use qualitative descriptive language for rating benchmarks when we can’t make an informed approximation about the numbers (becomes a research need)

– e.g. Poor = “Lots of in-stream barriers”– Use informed expert opinion

• Urge the teams to document their 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…”

Helpful Hints...

• While historical information can provide a useful benchmark, don’t get hung up on the system’s historical condition (e.g. pre-settlement) -- 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 or indicators

Helpful Hints….

• Make sure teams have the decision support tool in their groups and encourage them to follow the basic logic

• Encourage free thinking and general discussion about viability in the workshop. Don’t worry about getting words or details right. Just capture some of the big ideas and observations.

• Do some of this work with a smaller “science” subgroup before the whole team meets when possible and/or limit the amount of time for this step in the workshop itself. You will lose the less scientific members of the team if you don’t.

• Assign the targets to more scientific members of the teams to follow-up after the workshop by interviewing experts or reviewing the literature to gain more precision

Don’t forget you have ConPro available – search for similar targets for ideas and information here!!