Joint Venture Conservation Business Model Roundtable December 12, 2006 Austin, TX

1. Working with Work Groups: The PLJV Experience Joint Venture Conservation Business Model Roundtable December 12, 2006 Austin, TX

2. Objectives: • Describe how the PLJV used technical working groups to revise Implementation Plan (Note: Planning only; not Monitoring and/or Evaluation) • Use the PLJV case study as a springboard for discussions among JVs (comparing and contrasting approaches)

3. Approach: • Explain PLJV Technical Work Group: • Structure within PLJV • Membership • Leadership • Work methods • Products • Emphasis on lessons learned regarding partner engagement and buy-in

4. PLJV “Unique Circumstances”: • “Established” JV (formed in 1989) • Large, multi-state JV (6 states) • JV technical team (“MERT”) in place • Several staff in place (but new), including biologists and GIS • Existing I-Plan, but outdated (1994), lacking science-based population and habitat objectives, and waterfowl-only emphasis • Master Plan recently developed; describes general planning approach and how planning fits within overall PLJV business model

5. Goal: Revise the PLJV’s Implementation Plan • Integrated for all the bird initiatives • Science-based: • Population objectives stepped-down from continental objectives where possible • Habitat objectives linked to population objectives with the best possible science • 2-year timeframe • Challenge: • Determine how PLJV’s new staff will work with partners to accomplish this goal

6. Timetable:

7. Structure Development: • PLJV staff consulted with other JV staff • Prospectus with 8 options (pros, cons) for developing biological foundation: • Staff and MERT roles (mix) • State, bird initiative, or habitat-focused groups (mix) • Long discussion with MERT

8. Structure Development, cont.: • Further strategizing by staff • “The Memo” • Recommended a planning process (who, what, when, why…) • Q & A format • Attached FWS Dir. Order 146, State Comp. Plan required elements, draft PLJV state plan format • Sent hard copies to The World

9. Recommended Approach: • Phase I: Developing the Biological Foundation(bird teams determine priority species, population objectives, limiting factors, important habitats, species*habitat relationships, models for habitat objectives, etc.) • Phase II: State-specific Implementation Planning(state teams use Phase I results to develop state habitat actions) • Phase III: Overall PLJV Implementation Plan(staff rolls up state objectives)

10. Recommended Structure: Management Board Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research Team Waterfowl Planning Team Shorebird Planning Team Waterbird Planning Team Landbird Planning Team State Teams (but never formalized)

11. Planning Team Membership: • MERT members • Staff • Outside experts • Within PLJV • Some from outside PLJV • Technical partners engaged in PLJV planning grew from ~12 to ~40

12. Planning Team Leadership: • 2 co-chairs for each planning team (share the load) • 3 teams both MERT and staff • 1 team MERT only

13. Planning Team Work Methods (team interaction and decisions): • Co-chairs decide how team conducts its business • Meetings (1 team meets approx. annually) • Conference calls • Email

14. Primary Planning Products: • Area Implementation Plans • Short, plain • Components = title, background, area description, habitat recommendations, habitat acreage table (complex) • Written by staff (who developed integrated habitat objectives)

15. Primary Planning Products, cont.: • Planning Guide • Explains process and products • Written by staff • Planning Team Reports • Summarizing team’s work…priority species, population objectives, etc…. • Written by co-chairs (mostly staff) • Habitat Assessment Procedures • Written by staff

16. “Do Different” - Structure: • Add “Habitat Assessment” Team • Habitat parameters = weakest buy-in for carrying capacity models • Formalize State Teams • Role in developing integrated habitat objectives and writing state Area Implementation Plans

17. “Do Different” – Team Membership: • Review and revamp planning team membership with every I-Plan update • Seek membership recommendations from bird initiative coordinators and technical teams

18. “Do Different” – Team Leadership: • Include staff co-chair on all teams • Hire staff who are capable team leaders

19. “Do Different” – Team Work Methods: • Recommend (but don’t require) at least 1 meeting per planning cycle or annually

20. “Do Different” – Planning Products: • Team Reports - discuss content and format and develop guidelines • Area Implementation Plans • Nicer cover page • Signatures • Define audience • Recommended reading section • Simpler habitat table (estimated current acreage) • Habitat map

21. Summary: • PLJV now has 4 years experience with science-based planning • Next few weeks: • Board and team meetings • Launch of revised AIPs • Still learning and adapting…..stay tuned!

22. www.pljv.org