1. Overview& Users’ Guide Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network WHSRN Executive Office Manomet, Massachusetts USA

2. What is the Site Assessment Tool ? Created by WHSRN, a way to measure threats to shorebirds—now and over time—at any site in the Hemisphere Qualitative and quantitative assessment Format: A 5-part Excel workbook A way to also capture knowledge about a site in general

3. Foundations of the Tool Global IBA Monitoring Framework Framework for Evaluating Protected Areas Management Pressure-State-Response Framework Threats and Conservation Actions Authority Files

4. Foundations (cont’d) Status of Mediterranean Wetlands Questionnaire (MedWet) Tracking Tool for Management Effectiveness in Ramsar Sites Methodology for Rapid-Assessment of Protected Area Management The Five-S Framework for Site Conservation

5. Take stock of the “state of the site,” from land managers/owners’ and stakeholders’ perspective Match conservation actions to major threats, and measure success of those actions over time Establish baseline for adaptive management Discover threats or conditions in common among sites in Network; work together, “lessons learned” Conduct Network-wide analyses based on standardized information from each site Serve as consensus-based needs assessment; strengthen justification to funding sources Purpose of the Tool

6. © Karl Kaufmann © Charles Duncan

7. Supported by strong partnerships with USFWS, Canadian Wildlife Service, BirdLife International partners, and more Helps to advance IBA monitoring and Ramsar wetlands status assessments Gives managers a comprehensive snapshot of their site; applies to more than “just” shorebird conservation Brings together or re-engages diverse partners and/or stakeholders; gives each a voice within a structured forum Results/Scores comparable across time and space; most meaningful when carried out every # years Based on existing data only; no new data-gathering needed Key Features and Benefits of the Tool

8. Microsoft Excel workbook with 5 “scorecard” worksheets and 3 informational worksheets: IntroductionIntroduction Scoring GuidanceScoring Guidance Management EffectivenessManagement Effectiveness StateState ThreatsThreats Conservation ActionsConservation Actions Basic InformationBasic Information (no score) GlossaryGlossary Structure of the Tool

9. Scoring In “Management Effectiveness” worksheet, choose one of several pre-defined scores/answers Receive “Plus Points” for activities that enhance management or conservation

10. All others, use drop-down menu to select score: 0-3, N/A, or Unknown Explain/qualify choice under Comments

11. Worksheets: IntroductionIntroduction Scoring GuidanceScoring Guidance Management EffectivenessManagement Effectiveness StateState ThreatsThreats Conservation ActionsConservation Actions Basic InformationBasic Information GlossaryGlossary MinimumAssessment Completing the Tool 37 questions in Mgt. Effectiveness All answers weigh equally

12. Worksheets: IntroductionIntroduction Scoring GuidanceScoring Guidance Management EffectivenessManagement Effectiveness StateState ThreatsThreats Conservation ActionsConservation Actions Basic InformationBasic Information GlossaryGlossary FullAssessment Completing the Tool All scores relative to the max. score possible for each worksheet

13. Methods of Participation A. 1-day workshop (with facilitator), all partners and stakeholders complete Tool together. B. Select partners and stakeholders complete Tool as small group or individually, and coordinator compiles; Results validated during larger workshop. C. Coordinator completes Tool individually; results validated by partners and stakeholders during workshop. (Least participatory/desirable) * Workshops can be replaced by electronic means if needed

14. Users’Guide

15. Tips for Navigating the Tool Verify Excel settings: choose “Enable Macros” Black boxes with green text contain instructions: Click “+/-” to show or hide ‘tree’ of questions beneath a topic

16. Tips (cont’d) Expand or close categories and questions by clicking “+/-” in box next to row number

17. Move between worksheets using hyperlinks above or tabs below Underlined words are in the Glossary worksheet; click on word to view definition/clarification

18. Cells with red tab in corner contain a pop-up note with scoring or other info; click on red tab to view

20. The Worksheets Step by Step Introduction Scoring Guidance Management Effectiveness State Threats Conservation Actions Basic Information Glossary Introduction: explains the roots and purposes of the Tool Scoring Guidance: explains how to assign scores within each worksheet (varies) Glossary: defines/clarifies terms used; neutral reference point for variations in a term’s meaning among countries, regions, or participants

21. Management Effectiveness Introduction Scoring Guidance Management Effectiveness State Threats Conservation Actions Basic Information Glossary Core for “Minimum Assessment” 37 questions with pre-defined answers/scores; add comments as needed Basic but comprehensive (status, mgt., threats, needs, support)

22. Site: Copper River Delta, Alaska Question 5: Legal Status – how much of WHSRN Site is protected area? Score: 2 was most appropriate (50-90%) Management Effectiveness: Example Comments: ownership and area were qualified Note: Glossary useful for clarifying term “Protected Area”

23. State Introduction Scoring Guidance Management Effectiveness State Threats Conservation Actions Basic Information Glossary Assess ecological integrity of site from perspective of “conservation targets” (shorebird species) Key Ecological Attributes: a way of answering the question, “what is it about our site that makes it good or critical to one/several/all shorebird species?” Attributes are specific and measurable

24. Site: Fraser River Estuary, Canada Conservation Targets: Western Sandpiper, Dunlin Justification: Significant portion of Pacific Flyway population uses this site State: Example

25. Attributes that are key to sustaining WESA, DUNL: Existence of (1) expansive habitat, (2) abundance of food resources, (3) influx of sediments to sustain mudflats, and (4) a mosaic of habitats. State: Example (cont’d) Note: Both species treated as one “target,” due to similar needs

26. “Mosaic” (last indicator): Current State is “Fair” despite Current value = Desired value; Comments explain habitat ultimately in decline due to conversion State: Example (cont’d)

27. Threats Introduction Scoring Guidance Management Effectiveness State Threats Conservation Actions Basic Information Glossary 12 categories; each contains multiple levels of subcategories Focus on direct threats; score only those that apply – skip others Assess each threat according to Timing, Scope, Severity, Location ; select score from drop-down menu (0-3, Inside/Outside/Both) “Impact” score per category and overall is automatically totaled

28. Threats: Example Site: Fraser River Estuary, Canada Agro-industry: farmlands  greenhouses Scores: Timing = 3 (happening now); Scope = 1 (some,10-49% of area); Severity = 1 (slow but significant); Location = O (Outside of site) Impact: 6 (medium)

29. Conservation Actions Introduction Scoring Guidance Management Effectiveness State Threats Conservation Actions Basic Information Glossary In other words, responses to threats Two-fold purpose of worksheet: 1. Rate effectiveness (success) of actions already taken or currently underway 2. Prioritize what needs to be done within next 5 years Score Effectiveness and set Priorities using drop-down menu (0-3, x = unknown/undefined)

30. Conservation Actions: Example Site: Fraser River Estuary, Canada Protected Areas: Public (2 = some good effects/partial success) Priorities: Managing for ecosystem quality, and minimizing impact of port expansion (3 = highest)

31. Conservation Actions: Example (cont’d) Effectiveness (avg.): 1.86 on scale of 0 (nil) to 3 (high) 1 = Some limited conservation initiatives and management actions are in place; 2 = Substantive…but not comprehensive

32. Basic Information Introduction Scoring Guidance Management Effectiveness State Threats Conservation Actions Basic Information Glossary Core for “Minimum Assessment” Fill in basic info on where, when, by whom, and how the Tool was completed Also give general feedback, flag any sensitive or confidential answers, provide list of participants, and/or give sources of info referenced

33. Basic Information: Example

34. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences Iván Darío Valencia National Fish & Wildlife Foundation BirdLife Secretariat, National Audubon Society, BSC Nature Canada, Panama Audubon, Aves Argentinas USFWS, USFS, Canadian Wildlife Service, CONANP (Mexico), CEMAVE (Brazil), Secretariat of Environment – Argentina, Suriname Nature Conservation Division, ANAM (Panama) WWF, Ramsar, Wetlands International Partners in Upper Bay of Panama, Copper River Delta, and Fraser River Estuary WHSRN Sites