Joint Venture Conservation Business Model Roundtable

December 12, 2006

Austin, TX

Working with Work Groups:

The PLJV Experience

• 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)

Objectives:

Explain PLJV Technical Work Group:

• Structure within PLJV

• Membership

• Leadership

• Work methods

• Products

Emphasis on lessons learned regarding partner engagement and buy-in

Approach:

• “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• Existing I-Plan, but outdated (1994), lacking science-based population and habitat objectives, and waterfowl-only emphasis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

PLJV “Unique Circumstances”:

Challenge:

• Determine how PLJV’s new staff will work with partners to accomplish this goal

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

Timetable:

Early 2001 New coordinator hired

Early 2002 Biological staff hired

Late 2002 Master Plan completed

Early 2003 Partner consultations, organized planning teams, began work

Early 2004 GIS staffer hired

Mid 2004 Planning meetings held in all 6 states

Late 2004 Finished I-Plan v.2 (major revision but little promotion)

2005-2006 Additional I-Plan revisions (minor; Adaptive Management loop, etc.)

Late 2006 Finished I-Plan v.2.1

• 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

Structure Development:

• 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

Structure Development, cont.:

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)

Recommended Approach:

Management Board

Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research Team

Waterfowl Planning Team

Shorebird Planning Team

Waterbird Planning Team

Landbird Planning Team

State Teams (but never formalized)

Recommended Structure:

• MERT members

• Staff

• Outside experts

• Within PLJV

• Some from outside PLJV

• Technical partners engaged in PLJV planning grew from ~12 to ~40

Planning Team Membership:

• 2 co-chairs for each planning team (share the load)

• 3 teams both MERT and staff

• 1 team MERT only

Planning Team Leadership:

• Co-chairs decide how team conducts its business

• Meetings (1 team meets approx. annually)

• Conference calls

• Email

Planning Team Work Methods (team interaction and decisions):

• Area Implementation Plans

• Short, plain

• Components = title, background, area description, habitat recommendations, habitat acreage table (complex)

• Written by staff (who developed integrated habitat objectives)

Primary Planning Products:

• 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

Primary Planning Products, cont.:

• 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

“Do Different” - Structure:

• Review and revamp planning team membership with every I-Plan update

• Seek membership recommendations from bird initiative coordinators and technical teams

“Do Different” – Team Membership:

• Include staff co-chair on all teams

• Hire staff who are capable team leaders

“Do Different” – Team Leadership:

• Recommend (but don’t require) at least 1 meeting per planning cycle or annually

“Do Different” – Team Work Methods:

• 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

“Do Different” – Planning Products:

• 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!

Summary:

www.pljv.org