Decision-Making Framework (DMF)
This section provides a general overview of the main components of a DMF that could be used to improve the management and conservation of shorebird habitats

 Red-capped Plover

Grey-tailed Tattlers 

The DMF outlines a simple planning process that enables management stakeholder groups to identify at their shorebird site:

• Threats, their source and impacts to shorebirds/shorebird habitat.
• Potential strategies, actions and information/skills/resources needed to manage threats, including a prioritisation of strategies and actions.
• Organisations with management responsibility.
• Potential measures to monitor and evaluate the success of management strategies and actions.

The section has a broad focus and is aimed at organisations and individuals with a basic understanding of shorebird ecology, threatening processes, land use planning and management.

Throughout this section reference is made to the subject site, which in this context is the site where the DMF is being applied. The subject site can be a single roost or feeding area, an estuary or a stretch of coastline with many estuaries and embayments.

Components of the DMF
Components of a DMF can be divided into five stages

• Project definition
• Background information
• Threat identification and assessment
• Management options and responsibility
• Monitoring and evaluation

The DMF proposed in this section is similar to a typical risk management framework (after Carey et al. 2006) which includes:

• Formulating the problem;
• Identifying the ecological values/assets perceived to be at risk;
• Identifying the hazards (threats) likely to adversely impact upon these values;
• Analyzing the likelihood and consequences;
• Characterising and ranking the risks;
• Developing a risk management plan to minimise these risks;
• Implementing this plan; and
• Monitoring the system to ensure the management plan is indeed reducing the impact of the priority risks.

Background Information
Critical background information includes:

• Knowledge of the type and status of species and the number of individuals present at a site.
• Knowledge of important (diurnal & nocturnal) habitats and how these habitats are used (i.e. roosting, foraging, nesting)
• Knowledge of the local, state and national importance of the site.

There is a reasonable amount of published information on the distribution of shorebirds, important shorebird sites and population estimates at both National and State levels (e.g. Lane 1987; Smith 1990; Watkins 1993; Driscoll 1997; AWSG database), although there is a clear need for improved data collection methods.

State and Federal legislation provide lists of threatened species, endangered ecological communities and threatening processes. This information should form the basis of initial investigations into the shorebird community at a site.

Site-specific detail on the location of roosts, feeding areas and nest sites is generally more difficult to access and so are data on species and population estimates for smaller sites. Potential sources of ‘local’ information include local councils, local and state bird groups, Australasian Wader Studies Group, local consultants, universities, State and Australian Government agencies responsible for biodiversity conservation, local, state and national non-government organisations. In some cases targeted on-ground surveys may be required to obtain the necessary background information.

OUTPUT - The background research will provide the opportunity to collate data on the subject site. These data can be used to: Prioritise sites in order of conservation value; Identify data gaps; and Provide a necessary baseline to identify potential threats.

Threat Identification
Carey et al. (2004) discuss eight aids that can be used to assist with threat identification, including the use of a hazard matrix (threat type x threat attribute analysis) and brainstorming.
They also recommend group assessments to avoid personal biases.

The response of shorebirds to a threat should also be considered as there can be complex interrelationships between different threats, the distribution of threats and the response of birds.

Information required to identify and substantiate a threat

Potential or actual threats
The first step in threat identification is to determine if a threat is actually occurring. Ideally research on potential threats should be conducted to quantify their impact/s; however, this option is rarely feasible and threats often need to be identified by using qualitative means and reference to published information.

For example, repeated observation of disturbance of roosting migratory shorebirds by unleashed dogs at a spring tide roost is sufficient to conclude that a potential threat exists. Review of migratory shorebird ecology tells us that these birds must be able to rest undisturbed at high tide and that spring-tide roosts are important, which suggests that the threat is actual. The ease with which a threat can be identified may also depend on whether it is direct (i.e. disturbance) or indirect (i.e. pollution), frequent or rare.

Type and source of threats

Threats can be divided into seven broad categories:

• Habitat loss – removal of habitat through reclamation, sand extraction and erosion.
• Habitat modification – changes in the characteristics of habitat that reduce its utility for shorebirds. This may occur through erosion, subsidence, vegetation growth, drainage etc.
• Habitat disturbance – Generally human-related activities that result in disturbance to roosting, foraging and nesting shorebirds i.e. pleasure craft, humans walking and jogging, recreational and commercial fishers, domestic dogs and off-road vehicles.
• Habitat pollution – accumulation of pollutants in body fat that reduces life span and potentially reproductive ability and/or the abundance of prey.
• Mortality – death of individuals through hunting by humans for food, recreation or site protection, predation by introduced species or mortality due to development.
• Competition for food – harvesting of shellfish by commercial and recreational fishers represents direct competition with some species of shorebird.
• Climate change - considered to be a potentially significant threat to shorebird habitat. The impact of climate change is likely to vary considerably between sites, although it is expected to lead to a combination of habitat loss and modification. In some instances it may also result in habitat creation or expansion.
• Natural Disasters – floods and drought can have a profound impact on shorebird habitat, particularly inland wetlands.
• Intrinsic factors – limited dispersal, juvenile recruitment and juvenile mortality are examples of intrinsic factors that can affect shorebird populations.

Threats can be either direct or indirect and occur on-site or off-site. The ability to identify the source of threats varies between types.

There are several papers that provide an overview of threatening processes (Buick & Paton 1989; Lane & Davies 1990; Lawler 1996; Melville 1997; Priest et al. 2002; Saintilan 2003). These articles provide an initial point of reference for site managers seeking to define threats at their site and in many instances the absence of site-specific data means that the general literature must be used.

Threat attributes – understanding threats
The threat regime can be defined as:

• Type – what type of threat is it?
• Frequency – how often does a threatening process occur?
• Intensity – how many individuals are involved or how much pollution occurs?
• Duration – how long does the impact last?
• Proximity – does the impact occur on-site or off-site and is it direct or indirect?
• Timing – when does it occur?

An understanding of the threat regime will be valuable to prioritise between different threatening processes within a site and identify the urgency of management actions.

Determining the implications of a threatening process to the shorebird population should be assessed at:

• Temporal scales (immediate, medium term and long term)
• Spatial scales (part of a site, entire site, all habitat used by a population etc)

Various combinations of the above scales could be used to determine the implications of a threat.

Threats, such as predation or hunting, that result in direct mortality will have a direct and obvious impact (i.e. mortality), whilst others, such as frequent human-related disturbance of roosting birds, may be subtle and initially appear minor. In the case of human recreational disturbance the effects may not become obvious for several years but could manifest as a slight annual decline in population size. Other examples of subtle, but detrimental, impacts include pollution of aquatic habitats and the encroachment of woody vegetation over roosts.

Regardless of the subtlety of a threat the end result, in many cases, will be a decrease in population size, although this may take some years to become evident. The inherent variability in shorebird populations and the non-systematic nature of population surveys greatly reduce the ability to identify subtle changes in population size and thus determine that a threat is occurring. Nevertheless, in instances of human disturbance there is sufficient published data to accept that frequent disturbance is detrimental.

OUTPUT: The threat identification process will enable potential threats to be identified; actual threats prioritised in order of significance; highly threatened sites or habitats to be identified; and research requirements identified.

Management
Management Strategies
The following section provides a broad overview of some standard approaches to management. These approaches may need to be altered to suite site specific situations but should provide stakeholders with a starting point. Broadly speaking, management actions can be divided into seven strategic areas:

• Environmental Planning and Regulation.
• Communication and Education.
• Conservation.
• Research.
• Habitat and Site based Actions.
• Species Based Actions.
• Monitoring and Evaluation.

For further information see Seven strategic areas for improved shorebird site management.

Key issues to consider in developing management actions are:

• The land tenure (or tenures) upon which the subject site occurs.
• Management actions must be specific and targeted towards the threat.
• Management aim and objectives.
• Broad-scale or sweeping management actions will be difficult to implement and will detract from funding applications.

The preparation of a Plan of Management (PoM) that identifies and prioritises threats, lists and evaluates management actions, sets a timeframe for the implementation of actions, identifies resource requirements, sources of financial support and a process for monitoring and evaluation of actions should be considered for any management project.

A PoM need not be overly complicated and it can be focused at a variety of scales, from single roost sites to estuaries to coastlines. The value of a PoM is that it formalises the management process providing clear steps that can be followed through time.Sources of information on threats and the management of threats can be obtained from:

• Priest et al. (2002) – Shorebird Conservation in Australia.
• Straw (2003) - Status and Management of Migratory Shorebirds in Sydney.
• Watkins (1993) - A National Plan for Shorebird Conservation in Australia.
• Lane (1987) - Shorebirds in Australia.
• Straw (1997) - Shorebird Conservation in the Asia Pacific Region.
• EPA (2005) - Shorebird Management Strategy for Moreton Bay.
• DEH (2006) - Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds.
• Wetlands International (2001) - Action Plan for the conservation of migratory shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian flyway 2001-2005.
• Smith (1990) - The Biology and Management of waders in NSW.

• Commonwealth – national and marine parks, military training reserves, aboriginal land.
• State – crown reserves, national & marine parks, nature reserves, state conservation areas, aboriginal land, aquatic reserves.
• Local Council. 
• Private.
• Leasehold

If the ownership of the subject site is unclear then advice should be sought from the local council and the appropriate land manager approached.

For more information see State and Commonwealth Government Departments that play a role in environmental protection see our list .

Legislation and planning considerations
It is essential that the statutory requirements are identified at the commencement of a project. Specific statutory issues that may arise during a project include:

• Protection of threatened and migratory species, endangered ecological communities and endangered populations.
• Consistency with Recovery Plans and Threat Abatement Plans.
• Consistency with management plans such as Estuary Management Plans, Coastline Management Plans, Shorebird Management Plans and Strategies, Wildlife Conservation Plans.
• Local Government approval (permissibility within zone).
• State Government approval (permissibility under state legislation) – will vary from state to state but likely to be required for works and to justify impacts. Construction of a high-tide roost may require approval from the land manager and the agencies responsible for the protection of aquatic habitats, commercial fisheries and watercraft.
• Cultural Heritage.
• The need for appropriate community consultation.
• Companion animal legislation.
• Existing use rights.
• Access for emergency services.
• State Government Policies and Action Plans

Supporting Resources
Identifying sources of support is often one of the most difficult components of a management project regardless of whether the project is being conducted by a local interest group or a government agency.The types of resources required for most projects include:

It's advisable to use to 'Partnering Matrix' like the one below, to help identify what resources are required and the capacity of potential project partners to contribute to a project.

Partnering Matrix	Partner 1	Partner 2	Partner 3
How do they define the problem? What kind of issues does the partner focus on?
Priority How important is the issue for the partner?
Desired outcomes What results would they like to?
Data Resources What data sources do they have about the problem?
Expertise What kind of resources or funds could they potentially provide?
Networks What expertise do they bring? What training could they provide to the other members?
Add your own additional criteria?

 

Source: Robinson, L. (2005) Cocreate Manual.

Key Resources

Two key resources are:

Note: Potential sources of ‘local’ information include local councils, local and state bird groups, Australasian Wader Studies Group, local consultants, universities, State and Australian Government agencies responsible for biodiversity conservation, local, state and national non-government organisations.

Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting
Monitoring provides the opportunity to assess the response of shorebirds and shorebird habitat to management actions and to evaluate which actions have provided the greatest benefit. Monitoring and evaluation should be followed by reporting of results.

Some basic types of monitoring include:

Some of the important components of monitoring include:

Advice may be required from specialists or agency staff to develop a suitable monitoring program. The design of the monitoring program will depend on the subject to be monitored. The Shorebird Assessment Tool developed for the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network - be used to monitor the success of management when applied over time.

Prioritisation
Prioritisation is necessary to ensure that systematic and strategic methods are used to identify the most important sites and threats (Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002). A prioritisation facilitates priority setting, resource allocation and decision making.

There are various ways to undertake a threat prioritisation, although typically a set of assessment criteria are required. These criteria should include biological, social and financial attributes and can be applied using either qualitative or quantitative approaches (Carey et al. 2006). Both van Dam et al. (2006) and Wayte et al. (2004) suggest a hierarchical approach that moves from qualitative to quantitative assessment. Quantitative methods can range from simple desktop studies to full predictive modeling (Carey et al. 2006). In some cases quite complex scoring systems can be developed with scores allocated to each threat based on its attributes (see Werren 2001 for various weed prioritisation methods).

Prioritising Shorebird Sites

A simplistic prioritisation process involves assigning a numerical value to specific biological and physical attributes of each site. The site attributes included in the prioritisation should reflect the range of criteria that influence the importance of a site for the local shorebird population. The weighting system adopted can introduce bias into the prioritisation process and it is therefore important that the criteria be developed or reviewed by various stakeholders with knowledge of the site and shorebird ecology and that a consensus position is developed.

Basic site prioritisation criteria developed to prioritise shorebird habitat in the Clarence River Estuary, NSW are included in the table below (after Sandpiper Environmental 2004).

Draft attributes to prioritise estuarine bird habitat 

Attribute	Method of Assessment
Number of Species	Score of 0.1 for each species recorded at a site over the period of the survey.
Number of migratory species	Score of 0.1 for each migratory species recorded at a site over the period of the survey. Migratory species are those listed on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.
Threatened Species listed on the	Score of 2 points for each Threatened Species recorded at a site over the period of the survey.Threatened species are those listed on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and/or relevant state legislation such as the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.
Breeding Records	Score of 1 point for each species recorded breeding at a site over the period of the survey.
Function	Utility of roosts – Score of 1 for neap tide roost; 3 for low spring tide roost; 5 for spring tide roost. Utility of feeding grounds – Score of 1 for a predominantly spring tide feeding ground and 2 for a spring and neap tide feeding ground.
Frequency of Occurrence of threatened species.	Score of 0.1 for each time (survey) that a threatened species was recorded at a site over the period of the survey. Threatened species are those listed on the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 and/or relevant state legislation such as the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995.
Importance to the local shorebird population.	Score of 1 for every 10% of the total local shorebird population present at a site.
Importance to the local population of each species.	Score of 1 for every 10% of the total local population of each species present at a site.

Prioritising Threats
Risk assessment has become a standard component in assessing the likelihood and consequences of human actions on biological systems (Carey et al 2006; van Dam et al. 2006).

The Australian Standard (AS4360) represents a simplified semi-quantitative risk assessment procedure that is widely used to assess environmental risk (Fletcher et al. 2001). This process involves the subjective use of a matrix that defines the risk of a hazard as a product of its consequence and likelihood (Carey et al. 2006). In this process both the consequences and likelihood of each threat are rated from 1 to 5 (see the table below). Threats can then be divided into high, moderate and low depending on their score.

Categories of risk for a semi-quantitative assessment using the Australian Standard after Carey et al. 2006. Risk ratings: 15-25 High; 5-15 Moderate; 1-4 Low.

Likelihood	Consequence
	Insignificant (1)	Minor (2)	Moderate (3)	Major (4)	Catastrophic (5)
Almost Certain (5)	5	10	15	20	25
Likely (4)	4	8	12	16	20
Moderately likely (3)	3	6	9	12	15
Unlikely (2)	2	4	6	8	10
Rare (1)	1	2	3	4	5

To ensure that a robust and systematic approach is adopted a set of criteria should be developed to assist in determining consequences and likelihood of a threat that enable the assessment process to be repeated and evaluated. Each criterion should be assigned a rating based on its importance (Stoklosa undated). The attributes of a threat and the implications of a threat discussed in Information required to identify and substantiate a threat should be considered during the risk assessment process.

Recommendations for applying ecological risk assessment include:

An alternative to the risk assessment process described above is to develop a threat type by threat attribute matrix (Simpson et al. 2002). The threat assessment component of the WHSRN SAT provides a good example of a threat type by threat attribute matrix (Valencia 2006). The SAT lists 216 individual threats within 12 threat categories and users are asked to assign a value (scaled from 0-3) to each of five threat attributes (Timing, Scope, Severity, Location and Trend) for each threat type present at a site. These values are then added together and the cumulative score can be used to rank threat types. In the SAT scores of 8-9 are high, 6-7 medium, 2-5 low and 0-1 negligible. For more information see WHSRN SAT Threat Assessment Worksheet.

Although the risk assessment process enables threats to be ranked for an entire subject site it may be worthwhile completing a threat by site value matrix to further determine which sites experience the highest levels of threat. In cases where there are numerous sites and threat types this matrix can become quite large although it is useful for cases where targeted management is proposed. Such a matrix compares each of the habitats or sites within a subject site to each threat type and enables combinations of high values and high threats and overall threats to each value to be identified (Carey et al. 2004).This process enables sites with high threats to be identified.

Prioritising Management Actions

Management actions should be prioritised according to their ability to address the identified threats (Department of Natural Resources and Environment 2002). To enable management actions to be prioritised it is necessary to make sure that each action has a specific aim.

Several factors will constrain the viability of management actions and it is therefore important to undertake a prioritisation process that includes consideration of constraints and benefits. The prioritisation process could involve a value-weighted process where points are assigned depending on the potential value of an action and deducted for each limitation.

Potential constraints that should be considered during the prioritisation of management actions

Constraints	Rationale
Feasibility	Some management actions will be constrained by engineering and environmental issues. The construction of roosts in tidal areas may be severely constrained by engineering requirements, whilst the construction of roosts near airports or wind-farms may not be appropriate.
Permissibility (Planning & legislative)	Issues such as land tenure and zoning and environmental protection law can constrain some projects.
Cost (social, environmental & financial)	There are several different costs that should be considered, including: financial, social and environmental. In most cases it is hoped that the environmental benefits outweigh the costs; however, this may not always be the case. Actions with an environmental cost will most likely be constrained by permissibility issues. Social costs may be considerable where management actions involve changes in land use. The financial cost of a project is often a primary constraint and actions that cannot be funded will not be implemented regardless of there benefits.
Resources and support	The ability of the proposed action/s to link with existing Natural Resource Management (NRM) programs, utilise available resources and knowledge can have a strong bearing on their on-ground success and ability to attract funding.
Threat Implications	The implications of the particular threat will influence the prioritisation of actions. In most cases actions that ameliorate an imminent threat that is predicted to affect the local shorebird population would be given priority over actions that focus on less important threats.
Overall value	The value of different management actions to the conservation of shorebirds varies considerably and higher priority should be given to actions that provide the most effective means of ameliorating threatening processes.

 

References
Carey, J. M., Burgman, M. A. & Chee, Y. E. (2004). Risk Assessment and the Concept of Ecosystem Condition in Park Management. Parks Victoria Technical Series No. 13.Parks Victoria, Melbourne.

Carey, J., Fox, D., Burgman, M., EnChee, Y., Hart, B., Pollino, C., White, A., Grace, M., Henderson, B. and Bui, E. (2006). Guidelines for quantifying the ecological risks from contaminants in catchments. Unpublished report prepared by Water Studies Centre, Land 7 Water Australia, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, University of Melbourne and CSIRO.

Driscoll, P. (1997). The distribution of waders along the Queensland coastline. Pages 80-122 in Shorebird Conservation in the Asia Pacific, ed P. Straw, Australasian Wader Studies Group.

Fletcher, W., Sainsbury, K., Chesson, J., Hundloe, T., Fisher, M., Smith, T. Penn, J., & Bunting, J. (2001). Risk assessment process: wild capture fisheries. Report prepared by the Fisheries Research & Development Corporation.

Lane, B. & Davies , J. (1987). Shorebirds in Australia. Nelson Publishers, Melbourne.Lawler, W. (1996). Guidelines for Management of Migratory Shorebird Habitat in Southern East Coast Estuaries, Australia. Masters Thesis, University of New England, Armidale.

Melville, D. S. (1997). Threats to waders along the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. Pages 15-34 in Shorebird Conservation in the Asia Pacific, ed P. Straw, Australasian Wader Studies Group.

Priest, B., Straw, P. & Weston, M. (2002). Shorebird conservation in Australia. Supplement to Wingspan, Vol 12. Birds Australia, Melbourne.

Saintilan, N. (2003). Balancing shorebird habitat requirements with mangrove conservation. Pages 14-19 in Status and Management of Migratory Shorebirds in Sydney, ed P. Straw, NSW Wader Studies Group.

Sandpiper Environmental (2004). Clarence Estuary – Shorebird Issues Paper. Unpublished report prepared for WWF Australia.

Simpson, C. J. Colman, J. G. & Hill, A. K. (2002). A strategic framework for marine research and monitoring in the Shark Bay World heritage Property. Report prepared for the World heritage Unit, Environment Australia.

Smith, P. (1991). The biology and management of waders in NSW. NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service, Hurstville.

Stoklosa, R. T. (undated). Practical application of environmental risk management – Gorgon LNG Project case study. Unpublished report prepared by E-Systems P/L.

Straw, P. (2003). Status and Management of Migratory Shorebirds in Sydney. NSW Wader Studies Group.

Straw, P. (1997). Shorebird conservation in the Asia-Pacific Region. Australasian Wader Studies Group, Melbourne.

Valencia, I. D. (2006). Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network Site Assessment Tool. WHSRN, Monomet Centre for Conservation.

Valencia, I. D. & Duncan, C. (2006). WHSRN Sites Assessment Framework. WHSRN, Monomet Centre for Conservation.

Vande Kam, J. (Ens, B., Piersma, T. & Zwarts, L. (2004). Shorebirds: an illustrated behavioural ecology. KNNV Publishers, The Netherlands.

Watkins, D. (1993). A national plan for shorebird conservation in Australia. Australasian Wader Studies Group, Royal Australasian Ornithologists Union and World Wide Fund for Nature. RAOU Report No. 90.

Wayte, S., Hobday, A., Fulton, B., Williams, A. & Smith, T. (2004). Ecological risk assessment for effects of fishing. CSIRO Marine Research.Werren, G. (2001). Environmental weeds of the wet tropics bioregion: risk assessment and priority ranking. Report prepared for the Wet Tropics Management Authority, Cairns  



More Information
Sandpiper Ecological Surveys (2006). Shorebird Conservation Toolkit: Decision-making Framework. Unpublished report prepared for WWF Australia.