Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:59:53 -0700 (PDT)

Contents
1. Last chance for your input on Meeting #4 date
2. Assessing focal target viability

--------------------------------------- 

1. Last chance for your input on Meeting #4 date
From: Barry Rice (bamrice(at)ucdavis.edu)

It is your last chance to give us suggestions on when you would like
meeting #4 to occur. This will be in central Florida. It will probably
occur during the second week of January, or thereabouts. Any comments?
Preferences? Send them to John Randall (jarandall(at)ucdavis.edu)
pronto---I'm reserving the facility on 1 or 2 July.

--------------------------------------- 

2. Assessing focal target viability
From: Doria Gordon (dgordon(at)tnc.org)

After our third network meeting (in Maryland), the Measures and Audit Team
met and discussed what we will propose as the minimum information needed
for the first iteration of the viability assessments. You'll recall that I
suggested we were thinking that conservation area planning teams "go deep"
on a couple of the targets rather than "shallow" across all the targets.
Turns out that our recommendation is to address all the targets:

Our conclusion is that all the focal targets identified by a project must
be assessed for viability, given the intended purpose of the CAP targets
to capture all biodiversity at the site, and to represent all ecoregional
targets. Your conservation project and our mission would be compromised if
we fail to consider any particular elements of biodiversity for prolonged
periods. However, we recognize that there are valid reasons for applying
different levels of detail to different targets, including data
availability, resources, and capacity. The M & A Team recommends:

1. Minimum assessment requirements for every target:

---Specify at least one indicator for one attribute with measurable (but
not necessarily numerical) rating criteria. For example, consider upstream
and downstream connectivity as a key ecological attribute for a specific
aquatic system. An indicator for this attribute could be the number of
dams that serve as barriers to biota movement. In deciding on a rating
scheme, setting the extremes is often the best place to start. At one
extreme, all would agree that no barriers to movement of biota would be
considered very good status for a given river system. At the other
extreme, many barrier dams would be considered poor status. Only one dam
on a single tributary might still lead to a good assessment, and a few
dams might define fair. In this way, the rating scheme is easily
measurable. We do not really know how the number of dams translates to
target viability and we would replace these broad categories with more
specific and quantitative ones as we learn more.

---If project teams are unable to identify criteria for each rating (poor
through very good) of an indicator, define the category that indicator
that is currently in with sufficient justification that someone else would
be able to identify a change in the status of that indicator. Document how
the current status was determined and include a strategy to improve
understanding of how to rate status of that target in the CAP.

Note: this recommendation represents a substantial modification from the
original guidance that a) all targets had to have attributes and
indicators for size, condition, and landscape context, and that b) all
rating categories for all indicators needed to be numerically described.

2. Where the data that would clearly establish criteria for viability are
not available, document the best guesses of experts and consider the
indicator ratings as hypotheses that we hope to refine over time.

3. Project teams should increase the level of detail above the recommended
minimum (i.e., one attribute and indicator per target) over time. Project
teams should periodically reevaluate whether the addition of a more
comprehensive list of key attributes and further indicators is necessary.
Several important conditions to consider that influence the urgency of
developing additional indicators are:

---The viability of the target is clearly threatened over the short-term
as indicated by the threats analysis. Sufficient attributes / indicators
will be necessary to ensure that threats are being abated by strategies.

The team has developed strategies, objectives, and/or actions designed to
improve the status of a target. For every action taken designed to improve
target viability, the project team needs to have identified the attributes
and indicators with ratings that will respond to that action (and link
those to the workplan and monitoring page).

The project team is concerned about risk incurred if the assumptions of
target viability are incorrect. These risks may be to the target (i.e.,
extinction, collateral damage from conservation action directed to abate
threats (like non-target herbicide effects), or to the program (i.e.,
public relations or political damage, legal or financial liability). If
risk is high, project teams need to think more comprehensively about
multiple attributes across size, condition, landscape context and their
indicators.

4. The Team recommends that project planning/measures teams always
identify the minimum number of attributes and indicators that allow
viability to be assessed, not an exhaustive list.

Further, the Team will pursue the development of a system on
ConserveOnline that lists target, ecoregion, location, attributes,
indicators, and ratings from other planning efforts so that project teams
can see if other teams have already made progress on shared or related
targets or attributes.