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

2. 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:

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

4. “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JV technical team (“MERT”) in place Several staff in place (but new), including biologists and GIS Existing I-Plan, but outdated (1994), lacking science- based population and habitat objectives, and waterfowl-only emphasis Master Plan recently developed; describes general planning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”:

5. 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

6. Timetable: Early 2001New coordinator hired Early 2002Biological staff hired Late 2002Master Plan completed Early 2003Partner consultations, organized planning teams, began work Early 2004GIS staffer hired Mid 2004Planning meetings held in all 6 states Late 2004Finished I-Plan v.2 (major revision but little promotion) 2005-2006Additional I-Plan revisions (minor; Adaptive Management loop, etc.) Late 2006Finished I-Plan v.2.1

7. 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:

8. 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.:

9. 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:

10. 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:

11. 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:

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

13. 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):

14. 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:

15. 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.:

16. 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:

17. 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:

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

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

20. 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:

21. 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:

22. www.pljv.org