ࡱ> bda%` #4bjbj"x"x .P@@#,JJJJJJJ^<,^:hx:z:z:z:z:z:z:$a<h>:J""":JJ:###"vJJx:#"x:##8JJ9 km]#R8x::0:8i?#.i?(9i?J9# c!::#:""""^^^  ^^^^^^JJJJJJ  WORKSHOP SUMMARY TAILORING CAP TO MEET THE NEEDS OF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS Facilitated by Rich Reiner and Jim Gaither Efroymson Coaches Network Rally September 9-11 2008 Sunriver, Oregon Workshop Purpose: The intention of this workshop was to bring CAP coaches together to share the ways they are adapting CAP to service their own unique working situations while maintaining CAP best practices. Comments on the needs of projects and programs for CAP in different Operating Units: It is clear that CAP teams across most operating units are actively adapting CAP methodology to fit their project and program needs. The following summarizes unique situations presented by workshop participants: Eastern US State (single state) We have only 2 trained in CAP for entire OU. All CAPS being produced are Rapid CAPs. We have a fear of dumbing down best practices. Western US States (7 states) Our OU has a goal of 16 site caps. However, all are still in progress and unfinished. We need more capacity to finish them. CAP is beginning to be used by regional managers in our OU to focus on new geography. We are also starting to assemble KEAs for common targets in our OU. CAP is used to re-visit old projects. Our OU has every low science capacity. We primarily work with government agency partners. Because the CAP process can be cumbersome we need to find ways to streamline it. Presently we drop the workbook in many cases. We have 3 mature CAPs and 3 more upcoming. CAPs are used to influence agency partners. The CAP process helps partners such as the USFS to describe and set firm thresholds for KEAs in their management plans. Our OU is held up because it requires a lot of science time to go deep enough into defining KEAs to be defendable. Institutional support for CAP is improving. Our OU uses CAP primarily to promote alignment with agency partners. We get great benefit by CAP thinking. We must be able to complete the diagnostic steps of CAP quickly. Our CAPs are primarily with agency partners. Needs ways to crosswalk tnc think to agency think. We also need techniques to streamline CAPs for agency partners. We are a large chapter with a big science staff. There is resistance to CAP planning. There is a perception that CAP exercises take a huge effort but do not produce something useful on the ground. We need techniques to show that CAP works and has value. We are chronically under staffed for CAP. We use CAP methods to influence Agency management plans, and we adjust CAP to meet the needs of agency partners. We need a new CAP vocabulary for agency partners. Challenge is to move CAP methods into agency plans. Partner NGOs (2 NGOs) Our upper management needs convincing that investment in CAP is cost effective. CAPs seem overly complex, we need simple ways to engage. It would be useful to find ways of ensuring that CAP is not viewed as a burden to practitioners. Also, we need to apply CAP to big spatial scales and under short time-frames. Our NGO has little capacity and CAPs are time intensive. CAP is used in a minimalistic manner with a shallow depth of detail. South America (Single region) We are using CAP mostly at very large scales (10 ecoregions with only 2 science staff). However, our upper managers are not supportive of CAP in part because they dont like the CAP excel workbook spreadsheets. CAP concepts are most important and it seems that MIRADI is helping because managers can relate to results chain thinking. China (Single regional) CAPs are driven by sociological issues because all land belongs to the government or to communities. All CAPs are with government and community partners. We need user-friendly techniques for CAP such as non-biodiversity targets. CAP can not take too long and must be tailored to people of the communities. We need ways to explain the complicated process to the community. Meso America (Single county) We find that using CAP for sociological targets is very effective. For one National Park we have completed both a biodiversity CAP and a cultural CAP. We have 8 CAPs scheduled this fiscal year and only 3 staff. We need moral support for adapting and tailoring CAP. We need ideas to streamline CAP and do them fast and well. Techniques and Ideas to adapt CAP to your unique situation, while maintaining best practices of CAP: Project scoping CAP teams are recognizing that they need to ask managers upfront and within the project scoping phase what decisions they want CAP products to inform. For example, a CAP to generate community-based consensus may be very different than using a CAP to inform a government agency in the process of developing a management plan. Workshop participants emphasized the need to assign the right people to the right tasks in the diagnostic steps of CAP. For example, scientists are often well suited to viability analysis, while managers may get frustrated with the technical detail associated with viability analysis. In contrast, managers are essential to strategy development. Planning Tools Workshop participants pointed out that there are many tools which are available to help further CAP best practices; the most common of which are software packages. They felt a team should feel free to choose the tool which best moves their plan along. It was suggested that a guidance document with a matrix that illuminates a variety of common project scopes and associated useful tools would be helpful. The group advocated using the right tool for the each unique situation, and if necessary to create your own tool. The CAP excel workbook may be a good in some situations, but not all. The group pointed out that it is often distracting and confusing to stakeholders, and to some managers. It was pointed out that the visual conceptual models and the results chain of the MIRADI program helped some groups focus on relationships between CAP components, and thus MIRADI may be a useful tool when the CAP excel workbook is not well received by participants. Target Selection Be creative when it comes to naming targets. If necessary, use targets that best help the implementers of the plan to become engaged. In Indonesia they define targets as things that are important to you. Do not let ecoregional assessments dictate your focal targets for a CAP exercise. Explore other targets that are important to partners and the community. The group felt that a team should let the geographic area required to maintain viable targets define the planning area. One should not be tempted to let large scale threats expand the planning area. It is OK to let situational factors such as funding opportunities elevate certain targets. For example, the Upper Lassen CAP in California is using an easily-funded species (salmon) to act as an umbrella to protect other less charismatic and fundable native fish. In Australia it was pointed out thatthey did not use threatened and endangered species as CAP targets because the government was already devoting so much money and effort toward their conservation. Instead, they selected CAP targets that are declining but not yet threatened or endangered. Use an iterative process to shape your CAP target list. The target list can and should change during the CAP process. Also, the CAP process can identify research needs that will help build our understanding of targets, their viability and threats. Viability Analysis Many of the group felt that CAP teams can easily get bogged down in the viability tables. They found it helpful to use existing viability tables for identical targets, by finding find completed CAPs with similar targets and threats on the ConPro database. We do not need to re-invent KEA tables for consistent targets between CAPs. The group felt that a critical way to improve the efficiency of CAP was to identify and select only the KEY ecological attributes. Never use a long laundry list of all ecological attributes for a target. It is possible to identify dozens upon dozens of ecological attributes for any species or natural community target. One of the great challenges in CAP is having the discipline and judgment to identify the subset of ecological attributes that are essential to the viability and persistence of the target in the near term. The CAP facilitator or the team members should select the optimal tools to stimulate thinking and discussion during viability analysis. The CAP excel workbook which uses size, condition, and landscape context to describe viability presents one way of thinking. These categories evolved from the approach used to categorize species in the Heritage Program, as developed by Bob Jenkins many years ago. Other ways of looking at viability might be conceived to better fit the situation. For example, several CAPs in California used viability categories of earth, water, systems-level dynamics, and species-level dynamics. Remember the primary goal of KEA categories is to stimulate your thinking so as to capture all potential key ecological attributes. In California, CAP participants found that on river and freshwater systems it was very helpful to think about geology and fluvial geomorphology (earth); hydrologic flow regimes and water quality (water); Spatial area and native species dominance (system level); and predation and competition (species level). Threat Analysis The group felt that it is useful to define a Stress as an ALTERED Key Ecological Attribute. In addition, using the simple threat assessment option in workbook V.5 and V.6 is helpful and can be much faster than the full assessment offered. One may also use a hybrid of the stress/source analysis and the simple analysis. To do so, use the simple threats analysis and then go deep on the threats ranked VERY HIGH and HIGH by conducting stress/source analyses. Working with Partners The group felt it is useful to adjust your vocabulary and terminology to suit the perspectives and sensitivities of your partners. For example, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power will not use the word threat when discussing stresses and sources operating on targets! The CAP excel workbook will operate using other languages and will also operate using the terminology of the Bureau of Land Management. Hit CTRL-Shift-B to switch the workbook to Bureau of Land Management terminology. Measures Beware of the vortex! Be simple and realistic. One way to develop a measures program is to focus on Key Ecological Attributes that are ranked POOR or FAIR, and to focus on Threats ranked VERY HIGH and HIGH. The reason for this is that such extreme rankings indicate that these KEAs and Threats have the capacity to reduce the viability of the target and drive it to extirpation within the planning area. This idea speaks to the importance of effective viability analyses. If there are dozens of KEAs for each target it becomes nearly impossible to identify a reasonable measures program. The group felt that it is difficult and can take a lot of science staff time to define thresholds for KEAs, but the rewards can be great if thresholds can be quantified. It is sometimes useful to use proximal factors because they may be easier to measure. MNy@ H N R  # I o q r   7 L g Ƽưưƥxplhhhh2ch6l|hh"6hh6l|6hh2c6h39 hy(jhAcyhy(jhy(j>*hz"h|5>* h|5>*hy(jhAcyhy(jhQ.>*hy(jhy(j5>*hQ.hQ.h"6hQ.hQ.6hAcyh"CJaJhlh"CJaJhlh"5CJaJh"(MNy k l ^gd] & Fgd"gdQ.@&gd$a$gdQ. $@&a$gd#4g h i j k l m } ~  a n ' Ha")?Vj1suvwuhQVhh=IhdHh.Yh39hvhSh ]%hh6l|6hhAcy6hh2c6h]h2ch]c h6l|hAcyGl v{|UVtVWgd}P & FgdQVhgdQVh & F ^gd|gd.Y & F 8^gd|gd]c  & Fgd ]% & FgdS & Fgd"gd2cCwxy{| RSUVertGH|}~3ļؼĸ𸰫hhy(j6hhQVh6h6l|h6l|6 hS6h6l|h.Y6hShh.Y6h.YhdHh}Ph39h]hh6l|6hh]c 6h]c hh6l|h|h ]%hQVh93BSVWerst  '8HI"#$%&'78eqN`m|}ɿɿɺhh#+hy(jhz"hHx5hz"h#+56hz"hHxhy(jh"5hy(jhy(j5 hy(j5hy(jhy(j5>* hz"5>*h.YhdHhh}P6hhy(j6hhQVh6h}Ph6l|hQVhh=I4Wt%&'8~ ;!------..hBShz"hHx56hz"h;hhg3(hYhu}hhHxS.).\.].^.......////00000o23393B3G3K3k33"4#4h%h+hhz"hHx56hz"hBShHx0033"4#4gdHx@&gd,1h/ =!"#$% @@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DAD Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No ListHH S Balloon TextCJOJQJ^JaJZY@Z  Document Map-D M CJOJQJ^JaJ#,PMNyklv { | U V t VWt%&'8~;<67123F $$$$%%&&&&''((((++",%,00000000N0N0N0N0N0000000000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 000 000 000 00000000'0'0'0'0'0000000000000000000000303030303030300$0$0$0$0$00&0&0&0&0&00(0(0(0(MNyklv { | U V t VWt%&'8~;<67123F $$$$%%&&&&''((((++",%,0000000000000000000000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 000 000 000 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000g 3}%.#4 !#%&l W"0#4"$'#48@0(  B S  ?k9 kܓ kܓ kdݓ kd#k$ݓ k8 kݓ k8 k$9 kؓ kdܓ  kl k< kt# kd9  k?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPRSTUVWXZ[\]^_`cRoot Entry FmeData )1Table1?WordDocument.PSummaryInformation(QDocumentSummaryInformation8YCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q