ࡱ> %` w[bjbj"x"x 7@@R%...8<.D.MZ28/N/"p/p/p/p/p/p/YYYYYYY$[h]ZY5p/p/55Yp/p/Y88885p/p/Y85Y88(UWp/,/ gP.V6U~YZHMZVA^6A^4WW:A^Xp/D1N82 3p/p/p/YYx7 p/p/p/MZ5555D`! `! 2008 Efroymson Rally CAP and US Government Agencies Panel Input The panel members for this session have all engaged in numerous partnerships with more than one federal agency. Below is some quick summary information from their most recent engagements. Commonalities Among Federal Partnerships Purpose of partnerships most often based on informing federal planning documents All partnerships built upon past relationships between TNC and the federal agency Greatest General Success Brought clarity to process (e.g., federal planning) and how decisions made (e.g., prioritizing actions, developing strategies, etc) Benefit of CAP Provides transparent, science based approach that can bring together resource specialists from a variety of disciplines. Potential to directly inform key land use planning elements that agencies must address, such as desired conditions and objectives. General Challenge Agency resistance to change Agency resource limitations (staff and money) Challenge of CAP Viewed as extra work Fully integrating CAP with agency planning Language barriers (TNC-centric doesnt translate to agency) Can be difficult to teach CAP principles to overworked agency staff Keys to Success Relationships Relationships Relationships (support for CAP from agency staff at all levels support from TNC staff also critical) Understanding what parts of CAP can be most helpful to particular agency and their information needs Patience, persistence, flexibility Detailed Panel Input Bureau of Land Management Megan Kram Colorado Chapter Goal of Partnership: To inform the joint BLM/FS San Juan Land Management Plan (LMP). This was a two-part project, both parts of which involved CAP. (1) In 2004-2006 we completed a wide variety of deliverables including a monitoring framework for which we used CAP - for the BLM-managed lands. (2) In 2007-2008 the San Juan Public Lands (SJPL) expanded the project to develop a monitoring framework for the FS lands also using CAP. Although BLM/FSs stated interest was on developing a monitoring framework, TNC also encouraged the use of CAP results to inform other plan components such as desired conditions and objectives. Duration of Project: 2 years with BLM2004-2006; follow-on work withUS Forest Service in 2007-2008. Is Partnership Based on Previous Work? The partnership built on work at the nationallevel of BLM. Is Partnership focused on federal planning document? Yes, that was the purpose of the effort. If so, are any next steps planned after federal planning is complete?The SJPL is interested in having us involved in ecological restoration efforts related primarily to invasives and fire. What is the greatest (general) success you've had so far? Having the San Juan National Forest form an agreement with us (and fund us), post BLM San Juan work, to use the same process to develop a monitoring framework for the BLM lands. We were also pleased to see the results of the BLM monitoring effort evident in the Draft Land Management Plan for the BLM/FS lands. We expect the FS work to also appear in the Final plan, due to be released in 1-2 years. How has CAP specifically made this project successful (e.g., CAP related success)? The CAP wasone of the more successful aspects of the project. BLM incorporated portions of the CAP into its Draft LMP - monitoring section. The project helps BLM and Forest Service meet their monitoring requirements within RMPs.It was the one aspect of the project that the San Juan Planning Team wanted us to replicate for the Forest Service lands. In addition, the SJPL told us that the BLM and FS efforts influenced SJPLs thought process, and led to tweaks of desired conditions and objectives. TNC would have liked to see BLM place more emphasis on using the CAP to inform desired conditions and objectives. The agencies really saw it as a tool to establish monitoring priorities, despite TNCs best efforts to encourage its broader applications. The SJPL mentioned that starting this CAP process sooner, pre-scoping, would have increased its potential to inform other plan aspects. What has been the greatest (general) challenge (e.g., this can be about the agency, TNC, etc.)? Resource limitations. BLM has fewer staff and dollars per acre managed than any of the other federalland management agencies. It is allBLM staff can do to meet their requirements, let alone do what they perceive as "above and beyond" the bare minimum necessary. The key for us is to get them to internalize the idea that CAP can help them achieve the bare minimum and more in an efficient manner, and that it's not a "luxury" process. Another challengeis theapparent view of staff thatmonitoring across the entire planning area isnot as important as project-level monitoring. The staff is very focused on project level decisions and possibly monitoring at this level. The public is concerned about not only this local level, but very concerned about the whole. What has been the greatest CAP challenge related to this project? For example, is there a limitation to our CAP method or tools that limited your success? This is more of a general statement than a statement specific to the San Juan CAP project: CAP can be a tedious process and requires significant time from participants.The viability and threats analyses can be difficult to understand and pretty painful to complete. Therefore, it is very important to ensure that facilitators and participants know how the agencies want to use the results, and to reduce or increase emphasis on certain sections of the process accordingly. What are the 1-2 keys to success with this federal partner in your mind? Patience, persistence,and flexibility.And finding at least one influentialchampion within the agency for any project on which you're working Bureau of Land Management Terri Schulz and Joni Ward Colorado Chapter and Conservation Strategies Division Goal of Partnership: Our (TNC) goal with the BLM Learning Network is to influence Resource Management Plan development such thatthe analysis is more science based; in practice this means using CAP in the RMP (Resource Management Plan) process. Duration of Project: The BLM Learning Network Pilot lasted 2 years. The pilot effort was successful, resulting in the BLM taking ownership of the planning course, we have been working with BLM staff to develop the course and the first class will receive on-site training in late October, 2008. Is Partnership Based on Previous Work? Our current effort, the course design is based on the success of the BLM Learning Network. The BLM Learning Network was based on the development of relationships primarily at the national level of TNC and the DC BLM staff. Is Partnership focused on federal planning document? The course is designed to inform the biological resource assessment, alternative analyses and desired conditions sections of BLM RMPs. If so, are any next steps planned after federal planning is complete?This effort is focused entirely on influencing RMPs and so implementation follow up is not a goal of this partnership, but is a goal of the various State Chapters who have been participating (e.g., Colorado) the course development. What is the greatest (general) success you've had so far? The greatest success was having the BLM endorse the pilot effort and take over the training so that CAP became subsumed within BLM training, rather than being a one-off stand alone training. The course is available to all DOI staff, and portions of it can be viewed on line through the BLMs National Training Center (HYPERLINK http://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/201/LUP_SpecVeg_01.html http://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/201/LUP_SpecVeg_01.html). The BLM committed $100,000 to fund course development and allowed staff time to develop the class. The core BLM team working on this effort has been incredibly diligent in making sure that WO BLM is informed and supportive of theeffort. How has CAP specifically made this project successful (e.g., CAP related success)? CAP principles form the foundation for the class. We replaced TNC language in the workbook with language that made sense to the BLM; and we modified the workbook to assess alternative scenarios. What has been the greatest (general) challenge (e.g., this can be about the agency, TNC, etc.)? Maintaining momentum through various staffing changes (both TNC and BLM). Without continued support at all levels (local, state, national) from both the BLM and TNC, this project is in jeopardy of failing. What has been the greatest CAP challenge related to this project? For example, is there a limitation to our CAP method or tools that limited your success? Not a limitation in the methodology. We have modified the workbook ourselves and are using it in a creative fashion to help assess the impacts of alternatives. We have not done the alternative assessment spatially and so the comparison is somewhat limited, but perhaps appropriate for the scale of an RMP. What are the 1-2 keys to success with this federal partner in your mind? Flexibility by everyone involved. Selecting a team (from both TNC and the BLM) that is willing to be creative and adaptive. Finding champions within BLM who really understand what they need from TNC, who want to work with us, and are champions within their agency for the project. At least some of the agency staff must be influencers, in order to keep momentum. US Army Corps of Engineers Paula Gagnon Former TNC Staff, now Independent Consultant Goal of Partnership: TNC has not officially partnered with the USACE in this effort. The USACE initially approached TNC about using CAP methods in an adaptive management/ecosystem restoration/NEPA planning exercise. It was decided that technical support for using the CAP methodology should be provided by independent consultants so that TNC would not be perceived as having undue influence in the content of the plan. Although TNC is supportive of the process, the organization is not a partner in the planning process yet; it will contribute when the planning effort formally launches in January 2009. Duration of Project: ongoing; scheduled to take until 2012 Is Partnership Based on Previous Work? The USACE approached us about using CAP methods after basin stakeholders participated in, and valued the experience of a TNC-sponsored CAP/Efroymson for the Lower Missouri River. Is Partnership focused on federal planning document? If so, are any next steps planned after federal planning is complete? Yes, it is a combined management and restoration plan for the entire Missouri River, from Montana to Missouri. What is the greatest (general) success you've had so far? The core planning team (including contractors, staff) related to the planning exercise have embraced the use of the CAP methods and are eager to integrate them into the planning framework. How has CAP specifically made this project successful (e.g., CAP related success)? That has yet to be determined, but I think its greatest success thus far has been to bring a scientifically sound, transparent adaptive management and restoration planning process to a river that has strong federal funding (50-85 million annually for restoration/recovery activities), but very divisive politics. CAP has also offered the USACE, a mammoth organization with enormous funding and influence over most US rivers and streams, an enhanced approach to resource planning. What has been the greatest (general) challenge (e.g., this can be about the agency, TNC, etc.)? Communicating the CAP approach it is complex and quite lingo-laden (terminology is not intuitive to folks outside of TNC) What has been the greatest CAP challenge related to this project? For example, is there a limitation to our CAP method or tools that limited your success? Thus far, models for integrating CAP into NEPA planning have been lacking (but weve worked out a proposed model). Another challenge is adapting the CAP workbook to suit NEPA planning needs. What are the 1-2 keys to success with this federal partner in your mind? For us, the key to success was the many voices of support that came out of TNCs Lower Missouri River CAP Efroymson. The success of that effort and the strength of the planning methodologies impressed resource management staff from the USACE as well as numerous state and federal agencies. This success was what led the USACE to contact TNC about the methods and continues to be a source of much support for this effort. The demonstrated success of a pilot planning project was critical to the USACEs interest in using the methodology. US Fish and Wildlife Service Betsy Bloomfield Washington Chapter Goal of Partnership: As stated in USFWS/TNC MOU dated December 12, 2005: This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is entered into between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services Pacific Region (Service) of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) and The Nature Conservancy (Conservancy) for the purpose of collaborating on the collection and use of conservation data and the application of state-of-the-art conservation science technology. The goal of applying the data and technology is to aid in the development of credible, measurable, science-based conservation and habitat management plans at the refuge scale, in the states of Hawaii, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington, and the Pacific Island Territories of the United States, that will achieve conservation goals defined at larger ecological scales and meet agency policy when implemented. Duration of Project: Ongoing. Tied to the timetable driving completion of the National wildlife Refuge Systems Comprehensive Conservation Planning (CCP) mandate by 2012 Is Partnership Based on Previous Work? This was built on previous work. The OU had been engaged in at a portfolio site/national monument designation effort. We wanted to work with the Refuge to ensure the CCP for this priority area was organized around the CAP framework Is Partnership focused on federal planning document? If so, are any next steps planned after federal planning is complete? Work is ongoing with the Refuge Planning division to use ERA and CAP framework elements to inform and implement CCPs for additional refuges. What is the greatest (general) success you've had so far? The regional Refuge staff really understands the value of the CAP framework in leading refuge teams to clear strategies. How has CAP specifically made this project successful (e.g., CAP related success)? The concept of starting with targets and working through viability and proximate threats has demonstrated to some teams how to work from the ground up to strategies, rather than defaulting to justifying strategies they wanted to continue to pursue. What has been the greatest (general) challenge (e.g., this can be about the agency, TNC, etc.)? Resistance from refuge teams to outside interaction, including from their own regional office; challenging long-held assumptions, using new tools, and general fatigue and distaste for any planning process that adds to the workload. What has been the greatest CAP challenge related to this project? For example, is there a limitation to our CAP method or tools that limited your success? CAP is viewed as an additional step to the NEPA process, and isnt structured to directly examine impacts across alternatives. This can be done, but requires multiple workbooks or other kinds of retrofitting. What are the 1-2 keys to success with this federal partner in your mind? 1) Each USFWS region operates differently and independently. CCP planning protocols are largely left to the regional planning offices to work out on their own. There is a planning handbook that all the regions use, however, and it was suggested by Region 1 planning staff at one point that CAP framework steps should be incorporated into that source. 2) There are key relationships that need to be established at the regional level, and a champion for CAP inside the system has to functional and influential in order to successfully adapt the CAP framework to fit the Refuge Systems needs and timeline. US Fish and Wildlife Service Dale Turner Arizona Chapter Goal of Partnership: to develop a recovery plan for a listed species, the Chiricahua leopard frog Duration of Project: complete Is Partnership Based on Previous Work? Built on a long history of Chapter work. Is Partnership focused on federal planning document? If so, are any next steps planned after federal planning is complete? Recovery Plan. Next steps are to conduct a similar analysis for a listed fish, the Gila chub What is the greatest (general) success you've had so far? Provided clarity to the process of ranking threats, and thus to prioritizing recovery actions. How has CAP specifically made this project successful (e.g., CAP related success)? Gave a structure for comparing sources of stress, within and between different geographic regions. What has been the greatest (general) challenge (e.g., this can be about the agency, TNC, etc.)? Shifting process from a framework of one place with many targets, to many places with one target. What has been the greatest CAP challenge related to this project? For example, is there a limitation to our CAP method or tools that limited your success? The CAP methodology was fine. When I did this and a similar effort for Arizona Game & Fish Dept., the CAP workbook was limited in the number of stresses and sources it could address. Those limitations have been removed with Version 5. However,thistype of planning processwould be easier socially with a workbook that was modified to match the one target/many places application. What are the 1-2 keys to success with this federal partner in your mind? Understanding the results needed, and using the portions of the CAP process that produced those results. US Forest Service Susan Abele and Greg Low Nevada Chapter Goal of Partnership: Highlighted project: Conservation Action Planning in the Schell Creek Range: Developing a Watershed Assessment for the North Schell Apply CAP to a TNC priority landscape (and an area important to the Forest) to assess viability, threats and develop strategies for conservation/restoration (i.e., help the District develop a Proposed Action for restoring ecological systems in the North Schell) Duration of Project: The assessment is complete but funding was recently approved for implementation of strategies; well be working with the District on this phase as well Is Partnership Based on Previous Work? We worked with this Forest on their Forest Plan Revision (2004-2005) which jump started the relationship Is Partnership focused on federal planning document? No Are any next steps planned after federal planning is complete? Implementation of landscape-scale restoration strategies for the North Schell Were facilitating planning for another project area on the district within a TNC priority landscape (using CAP and other tools) which should start by spring of 2009 What is the greatest (general) success you've had so far? Were most excited about seeing some of the strategies from the CAP be implemented How has CAP specifically made this project successful (e.g., CAP related success)? TNC provided the District a science-based approach to help identify potential projects and prioritize actions Tested the use of Fire Regime Condition Class as a Key Ecological Attribute for the terrestrial ecological system targets; were very excited about this tool as a landscape metric and its ability to inform landscape scale restoration action Development of a Return-On-Investment evaluation tool that also informs priority setting What has been the greatest (general) challenge (e.g., this can be about the agency, TNC, etc.)? Funding for implementation of large scale restoration (fortunately, the District was able to access a funding source to implement some large-scale restoration actions identified in the CAP) Making strategies spatially explicit Determining where to spend limited dollars What has been the greatest CAP challenge related to this project? For example, is there a limitation to our CAP method or tools that limited your success? Many challenges overcome by using FRCC and ROI tools Would liked to have used predictive ecological models to predict success of strategies and compare alternative management scenarios (didnt have budget) What are the 1-2 keys to success with this federal partner in your mind? Local level involvement and buy-in: the #1 key to success is having buy-in from the District Ranger and involvement by Forest staff at the local scale; we believe this is what will result in on-the-ground action Its also important to have buy-in from the upper management at the Forest level (i.e., Supervisors Office); ultimately, theyre providing approval and funding for the work with us so we need them to be on board  Betsy Bloomfield, Susan Abele, Paula Gagnon, Megan Kram, Greg Low, Terri Schulz, Dale Turner, Joni Ward  Based upon information provided by panelists about their experience with federal partners.     PAGE  PAGE 2 45:@ABST   + , - F ~ p  } ~ = g  C ѻѴ{{oh h 5CJaJh Xh}h}56h h}h}h}0Jjh 0J5U\ h 0J h}0J5 hZ0J5hZ0J56jh 0J6U\h![hb0J56h}hZ0JCJaJh![hb0Jh}hb0JCJaJ*45AB  - .  I & F Eƀr2gd}gd}$a$gd}gdbgdo_$$a$gdb ZQ[v[ o p  fI & F Eƀr2gd}gd}I & F Eƀr2gd} } ~ kffgd}I & F EƀA<gd}I & F EƀA<gd} kffgd}I & F Eƀr2gd}I & F Eƀr2gd}  , h k!I & F Eƀr2 gd}I & F Eƀr2 gd}I & F Eƀr2gd}h D fI & F Eƀr2 gd}gd}I & F Eƀr2 gd}D kff^YQQQ$a$gdhfgd $a$gd gd}I & F Eƀr2gd}I & F Eƀr2 gd}  /2jp+GXqxy#%&X_c  gk  2RU 67Q`žžﾲžﾪţžžﾲﾲž h~hhfhJNh85hd h\ ^hX hjhhfhjhhf56h![hhf0J5 hhf0J5h![hhf0J hhf0Jhhfh h}5CJaJ@bcSU./KL7gdhf HWYo$A_-./ % JL5xAT^_i  '(^_hhfB*phfh![hhf0J5 hhf0J5h![hhf0J hhf0Jhjhhf0J5hKm h\ ^56 h\ ^hhfhJN hjh\ ^hjhhf56 h\ ^h\ ^h\ ^hhf hjhhf9 (^_V W !!""K#L#{$|$p'r''(()))++O-P-Q-`gdhfgdhf$a$gdhf_ru1 L W k m @!L!!!!!""""H#I#J###z$|$$$%%?&@&A&{&|&&&&&&&&&r'''''k(((())ĬҘ&hhf>*B*CJOJQJ^JaJph/jhRhhfCJOJQJU^JaJhhfCJOJQJ^JaJ#jhhfCJOJQJU^JaJ h~hhfhhf hjhhfhjhhf569)))[*\*++++s,,K-L-O-P-R-S-m-n-z-{----0 0 00 0E0F0G0m0o0!1"1#1111 222H2K233 3\3]3>5?5@5556666̸⸱⪣⪱⪣⪱⪣⪱ hA hhf hfohhf hhf56 hHhhf h![hhfh![hhf56h![hhf0J5 hhf0J5h![hhf0J hhf0Jhhfhjhhf56 hjhhfhjhhf0J:Q-R-n-{---- 0 0F0G0"1#1223 3?5@566|7}7~799::&:$a$gdhfgdhf66{7|7}7~779999:&:':::U;o=r== >F>3??>@w@@GAEBBCCbCC*DEJEGGGGGGGGGGGHKHMHaHcHkHmHHHHHH:I;I >2?3?<@>@@@CBEBCCDEJEFFGGGGGGLHMH$a$gdhfgdhfMHlHmHHHII6J8JJJJKKKMMNNNNNNNgd"q$a$gd\gdhfI6J8JJJJJOKQKKKPLQLRLVLZL`LeLMNNNNNNNNNNNNNN O OO%O]O^OePyP|PQQ;Q=Q@QXQQQQQQ h"qh"q h"q56 hh"qh"q h![h"qh![h"q56 h"q0J5h![h\0J5 h\0J5h![h\0J h\0J hhf0Jhhf hhf56h![hhf56 h![hhf hbhhf4N^OdPeP|Pkffgd"qI & FEƀr2gd"qI & FEƀr2gd"q|PQQ>QQQQQ!RfI & FEƀr2gd"qgd"qI & FEƀr2gd"qQQR R"R3RORRRSSOSTSSSSSUUUVV%W&WWWXXXZZZZZZP[Q[R[T[U[W[X[Z[[[][^[d[e[f[h[i[o[p[q[r[s[u[v[w[ļļļļIJȲh{1l0JmHnHu h X0Jjh X0JUjh" VUh" Vh Xjh X0JU hj56 h"q56 hh"q h![h"qh![h"q56h"q:!RoRSSSSSSSkfffffgd"qI & FEƀr2gd"qI & FEƀr2gd"qSiTZUUk!I & FEƀr2gd"qI & FEƀr2gd"qI & FEƀr2gd"qUUVVVfI & FEƀr2gd"qI & FEƀr2gd"qgd"qV%W&WWWfI & FEƀr2gd"qgd"qI & FEƀr2gd"qWXXXXYfI & F Eƀr2gd"qgd"qI & FEƀr2gd"qYZZZP[Q[S[T[V[W[Y[Z[\[][f[g[h[s[t[ &`#$gdsgd"qI & F Eƀr2gd"qt[u[v[w[gd"q5 01h:p![/ =!"#$% DyK yK http://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/201/LUP_SpecVeg_01.htmlyX;H,]ą'c@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH DA@D Default Paragraph FontRiR  Table Normal4 l4a (k(No List*W@* o_$Strong5\.X. o_$Emphasis6]4 @4 ![Footer  !.)@!. ![ Page Number>@2>  Footnote TextCJaJ@&@A@  Footnote ReferenceH*S+wSjwS45AB-.op}~,hD b c S U ./KL7 (^_VWKL{|pr !!!##O%P%Q%R%n%{%%%% ( (F(G(")#)**+ +?-@-..|/}/~/1122&2'2q5r56 62737<8>888C:E:;;<=J=>>??????L@M@l@m@@@AA6B8BBBBCCCEEFFFFFFF^GdHeH|HII>IIIII!JoJKKSKKKKiLZMMMNNN%O&OOOPPPPQRRRPSQSSSVSYS\SfSgShSsStSuSxS000000000 0 000 000 0 000 0 000 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 00000@0@0@0@0000@00@0@0@00@00@0@00@000000@0@00@00@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0000000 0 000 000 00000 0 000000 0 0 000 0 0 000 0 0000 0 00@0@0 00@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0 00-.op}b S U KL{|pr !!!##O%P%Q%R% ( (F(G(")#)*+ +?-..|/}/~/11q5<8>888C:E:;<=J=?6B8BBBCCCEEFISKKNPPRRQSSSTSVSWSYSZS\S]SfSsSxSX00Q<X00PX00NX00LX0U$QX0SX0RX0PX00LX00MX00MAD  h D Q-&:MHN|P!RSUVWYt[w[/1234568:=?@BCEFGHIJKv[0@{wSX  '!!!"L "L T="L "L ̎"L  "L d"L "L "L $"L d"L d0 "L 0 "L 0 "L $1 "L d1 "L 1 "L M"L N"L TN"L N"L N"L O"L T"L "L ԉ"L "L T"L "L L5"L 5"L 5"L  6"L L6   (( ))**,,22??FFFGG GQGVHRIbJTQQxS       00 )* * *,,22??FFFGG%G]GbHXInJZQQxS   B*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region9 *urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace9!*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName ! !   !!  ! ! ! n w SYRRPSQSQSSSSSTSTSVSWSYSZS\S]SeShSrSuSxS_RRPSQSQSSSSSTSTSVSWSYSZS\S]SeShSrSuSxS3_RRRRRPSQSQSSSSSTSTSVSWSYSZS\S]SeShSrSxS|~ _ahinost{|~RRPSQSRSSSSSTSUSVSXSYS[S\S]SeShSrSuSxS ho$PxK*-tg7T>7A8W:J LYj$FOOJ*{(_Fs$-#iL nb!*/u~ڲ^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohpp^p`OJQJo(hHh@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJo(hHh^`OJQJ^Jo(hHohPP^P`OJQJo(hH ho$g7J L/u7AxK*$FOO{(_$-#iL n X]                                                                       k                 X^egUg^egIK^egx _ ^eg^egHY!^egvA'^eg~+^eg00^ege{9^eg^$<^eg?<^egL>^egD@^egISA^egPB^eg>N^egpZV^egy_`^eg;b^egMd^egJ/u^eg'&d  :o_$6r/8599HxAJN" V XX\\ ^igij{1lKm"qHpy~~2 j}foZA hf.97Ose![6b'xSi@pwS`@Unknown Johanna M WardGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial?5 z Courier New;Wingdings"1hQfQffQ 8F*Q 8F* 4d_R_R 2qHP?Ro_$2 Prep Work Molly Ingraham4         Oh+'0x  ( 4 @ LX`hp Prep Work  Normal.dotMolly Ingraham2Microsoft Office Word@@Tm @P@PQ 8F՜.+,D՜.+,H hp  The Nature Conservancy*_R'  Prep Work Title 8@ _PID_HLINKSA)%;http://www.ntc.blm.gov/krc/uploads/201/LUP_SpecVeg_01.html  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLNOPQRSTVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry FisPData M1TableUu^WordDocument7SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q