State Oral Presentation Problem

TO: Missouri Envirothon Teams

Date: April 30, 2009

Subject: State Oral Presentation Problem

Greetings:

Here is the Oral Presentation Component of the 2009 Missouri State Envirothon.

The "Biodiversity In A Changing World" oral component will account for 16.6% of the total score for the 2009 event. It is required that all teams participate in the oral component.

A reminder: Oral presentation materials will be turned in at the Registration area and will be taken to the oral presentation area for the teams.

We're looking forward to seeing you at the state competition and wish your team great luck!

	Bobwhite Quail	Wild Turkey
	Eastern Bluebird	Whitetail Deer
	Great Horned Owl	Cottontail Rabbit

Missouri Envirothon 2009

Biodiversity In A Changing World: Oral presentation guidelines

Each team has ten (10) minutes to present their "solution" to the problem statement.
The judging panel has five (5) minutes to question the team on aspects of their presentation.
All team members must participate in the presentation and verbally deliver some portion of the discourse.
Note cards are acceptable, however, must be turned in with other presentation materials at registration.
Teams are limited to: Two (2) separate regular 22" x 28" posters (any other type of poster board such as foam board, etc. will not be allowed), photos, charts, text with graphics, etc. may be included to supplement their presentation.
Each team is allowed the option to include a one page written summary to complement their presentation (one side of 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper; single spaced; 12 pt. type or larger).

Oral Judges Score Sheet	Coach Directions
Judges Sheet Clarification	Student Directions
State Competition Agenda	Photo Release Form
Hotel Information and Directions	Parental Consent Form

Task: WOW! Your team (made up of experts in different natural resources disciplines) did such a great job on the radio program you developed that there is great public interest in the biodiversity of Missouri and grass-roots organizations are forming across the state to support biodiversity initiatives. Your team has been asked to prepare a formal presentation for the Missouri State House of Representative and Senate that describes how Missouri should proceed.

(hint: most of these elected officials are unaware of the State Comprehensive Wildlife Strategy)

Congress created the State Wildlife Grants Program, which is funded annually through the appropriations process. The State Wildlife Grants Program has allowed states to make great progress in on-the-ground conservation of all species of wildlife. Since 2002 it has been the nation’s core program to keep wildlife from becoming endangered.

In order to receive future federal funds through the State Wildlife Grants Program, each state must develop a Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. These strategies, developed by each state’s fish and wildlife agency, serve as a blueprint for wildlife conservation in the state and contain science-based information on priority species and habitats, the conservation issues that need to be addressed, and recommendations for addressing those issues.

While the state fish and wildlife agencies took the lead in developing the strategies, it was envisioned that both the development process and the implementation would involve input from various partners, including other government agencies, private landowners, conservation groups, and others. These strategies will allow states to use non-regulatory, preventive approaches to conserving wildlife, rather than simply reacting to crises. The state wildlife strategies focus on the species in greatest need of conservation while addressing the needs of the “full array of wildlife” in each state. They are developed according to requirements laid out by Congress for the WCRP and criteria developed by FWS for the State Wildlife Grants program, but each state is developing its own approach based on local issues and management needs. The eight required elements for the strategies include: information on the distribution and abundance of species of wildlife, descriptions of locations and relative conditions of key habitat and community types, descriptions of problems that may affect wildlife and necessary research to address them, descriptions of proposed conservation actions, proposed plans for monitoring, procedures to review the strategy at least every 10 years, plans for coordination with federal, state, and local agencies and Indian tribes, and provisions for broad public participation.

Though all strategies must contain these elements, state wildlife agencies have taken different approaches in developing and formatting the strategies based on their own resources, local issues, and management needs. For example, Missouri’s strategy is structured on eco-regions within the state, while other strategies are based on species of greatest conservation need. The agencies have also set up a variety of systems for identifying the species of greatest conservation and representative of each state’s wildlife. While North Dakota is building its strategy on the basis of 100 priority low-and-declining species, Virginia’s strategy started from an assessment of more than 900 species broken into several tiers of imperilment. Within the core planning elements, the state wildlife agencies have developed structures that will work in each state and translate into on-the-ground results for wildlife.

For more information about Missouri’s strategy and the contact information for the state coordinator, go to:

There are still opportunities to contribute and much work will need to be done as the strategies are completed. Public and professional input will be needed as the strategies are implemented, updated, and improved, and on components such as the status of species of greatest conservation need and performance monitoring. The next step is implementation of the strategies, where states will translate them into on-the-ground conservation successes. These strategies are meant to be dynamic and adaptive in order to change with increased knowledge and changing conditions. The strategies should identify any current information gaps, and as they are implemented, states will move forward with research and inventory and monitoring to complete the picture of the status of wildlife in the states, focusing on species identified as being in greatest need of conservation. Implementation of the strategies will involve a broad array of conservation partners. Land conservation, land management, environmental, education, research, and surveys are just some of the conservation actions identified. These tasks will not be accomplished solely by state fish and wildlife agencies. Every conservation interest should find a role in these strategies, which is why it is important for natural resource professionals to become engaged in their state’s strategy. A crucial ingredient for implementation will be adequate and reliable funding. A key component of the State Wildlife Grants program is the requirement that states match the grants they receive from the federal government. The completion of the state wildlife strategies and the shift into implementation should only elevate the importance of natural resource professionals in this effort.