Making Plans Relevant and Used by Agencies and Partners

Discussion Leaders: Karen Terwilliger, Anna Smith

How and when do state Wildlife Action Plans have “traction” within the host fish and wildlife agency and their partners?

How can states help each other raise the profile of action plans?

What is the role for AFWA in raising the profile of action plans?

Perspective: Action Plan Relevance to our Agency and Key Partners

State Wildlife Action Plan KEEPS our AGENCY relevant

to the core and scope of its authority/mission

to its full responsibility to the resource- all wildlife

to its broader constituency- the public

=The opportunity to be the relevant state agency in wildlife conservation

Relevance of Plan for Agency and Partners

The Plan can be: The united blueprint for a full service State Fish and

Wildlife Agency

Vehicle to deliver holistic wildlife conservation – overabundant to rare- and show all the connections and interrelationships

The bridge, the glue between consumptive and non consumptive management and constituency

The Plan makes the agency relevant- documents its commitment to its responsibility, authority and constituency

The transformation to a broader constituency and holistic conservation/landscape science

History and Context of Wildlife Conservation

Era of Abundance - 1500 to 1849

Era of Over-exploitation - 1850 to 1899

Era of Protection - 1900 to 1929

Era of Game Management - 1930 to 1965

Era of Environmental Management - 1966 to 1979

Era of Conservation Biology - 1980 to present

Have our State Agencies adapted and evolved to meet

the need and authority for Wildlife Conservation?

Gaps were filled by other programs/agencies, NGOS, partners- e.g. NHP-NatureServe, environmental review, etc.

A Conservation Institution for the 21st Century: Implications for State Wildlife Agencies-JWM- Jacobson et al.

“The wildlife conservation institution needs to reform to maintain legitimacy and relevancy in the 21st century”

Principles for a State Agency Institution (N AM Model):

Public Trust Doctrine-all species and publicly owned

Broad Based funding

Trustee based governance- politics, accountability

Multidisciplinary Science as basis

Diverse stakeholder involvement

Is the State Wildlife Action Plan this Opportunity?

Agency Investment in Wildlife Diversity and the Wildlife Action Plan

Agency Resources

Resource authorityResource responsibil-ityBroad constituencyPublic and partner support

Objective: Plan Used by Agency and PartnersUse is correlated with:

1- Need or demand- ($, incentive)-fills a need

Provides data, criteria, support

2- Investment- participation/engagement

Confirms need to involve agency & partner programs

The more it supplies a demand, fills a need, supports a program, the more relevant and used it will be

The more the agency has invested in it the more it will be used

What do they give to or get from it? Our message should target this

What do our agencies have to loose- vs gain by not being inclusive and involving them- constituency and authority?

Elements 1-5 offer sound Conservation Planning Approach (6-8 interwoven into process) Simple Format for Plan- Element= Chapter

• ID conservation targets that can represent ALL species (harvested to endangered)

• Package inclusively into key habitats for all species not just SGCN (group by habitat or functional units)

• ID Threats and Actions that affect all species not just SGCN and highlight inclusive priorities

Keep it simple, user friendly and in their language

State Wildlife Action Plan Relevance:

How it can be Used and Relevant to State Agency Traction for Inreach

Habitat- data can be used by all agency programs NE geospatial condition analysis,

Conservation assessment- regional habitat data

CC resiliency, connectivity, etc.

Information on habitat, condition and trends, etc.

All programs can use for proposals, competitive advantage- use support of habitat and broader suite of species with more information and support from broader constituency

NE- Regional Best Practices- lexicon Elements 1-8 www.rcngrants.org synthesis of 50 RCN projects

How it can be used by Partners

Recognize: Too much for Agency to do alone!

Partners have already been filling the gaps/roles that the agency couldn’t provide. Strengthen those partnerships!

Include them and their common programs- development and implementation- gives them credibility and visibility. RI Liaison to towns partnership.

They offer their valuable strengths- they can do/lobby more and enhance outreach to their broader constituency- give them info they need for mutual benefit- win-win!

They have to write plans too: e.g. AL TNC and other state agencies want to develop joint plan- use SWAP for theirs. Incorporate each others’ plans for mutual support and visibility.

More Traction Together

States help states- coordination - e.g. Northeast e.g.- Monthly calls, newsletter and website, synthesis, lexicon- consistency and regional context 50 RCNs

Federal agency support incorporating them into their plans/programs

NRCS ranking criteria, NWRs CCPs, USFS Plans, State Forest Plans- incorporate the Plan Actions

AFWA guidance, coordination- more?

All PLANS add the action about State Wildlife Conservation Agency transformation for increased capacity and resources?