DOCSLIB.ORG

The Prch Consortium

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Prch Consortium THE PRCH CONSORTIUM A Collaborative Framework to Increase Science- Based Information for Management Action Héctor E. Pérez, Ph.D. Ziziphus celata seed and embryo viability tests Plant Restoration & Conservation Horticulture Research Consortium Department of Environmental Horticulture Enhance the conservation process through exchange of information needs and knowledge outputs Resource managers Biologists Ecologists To provide research- based information and applications for successful plant conservation Future conditions will most likely induce a shift in the priority for collaborative efforts Collaboration Future Collaboration important conditions required Collaboration will be essential • Reasons for expanding collaborative efforts – Identify key gaps in vital areas • The Plant Restoration & Conservation Horticulture (PRCH) Research Consortium – Objectives – Important considerations – Nature of collaborative efforts – Example of collaborative project Major gaps exist in the following areas: Funding Requirement Plant Expertise for collaboration Blindness Knowledge Funding Plants sustain life on Earth… Fuel Fiber Aesthetics Food Medicine Ecosystem Oxygen services Plants sustain life on Earth… Extinction of 1 plant may result in the disappearance of up to 30 other species of plants and wildlife (Roberson, 2002) Return on Investment and Utility Dominate Allocation of Funding What is the dollar value of one plant now growing in US, should it become extinct? • Based on pharmaceuticals • 40 useful drug plants in US with plant-derived active valued at $203 M per ingredients (PDAI) species • 25% of prescriptions (1959- – $8.1 B / 40 1973) contained one or • more PDAI 16 useful drug plants may become extinct by 2000 • 507 M prescriptions dispensed during 1980 • Total value of extinct – Extrapolated amount species $3.2 B in 2000 • Adjusted pharmacy- – 16 x $203 M dispensed prescription value = $8.1 B (Farnsworth and Soejarto, 1985) Inflation adjusted value estimate of one endangered plant $$3.2 B in 1980 $9.1 B in 2015 Rare plants have high economic potential • Rare species not typically identified as useful – Rarity = obscurity • 80% of US plant genera with rare taxa contain at least one useful species • 54% of CPC genera contain cultivated species • Annual US wholesale value of rare species relatives = $9 B – Wild plants as a significant resource for agriculture (Phillips and Meilleur, 1998) Walnut’s Success in CA Based on Endangered Congener • California walnut crop 2013 $1.8B (USDA-ARS, 2014) Juglans persica Juglans hindsii, critically endangered in CA. Florida’s rare plants may also have economic potential Genus Uses Amorpha Tumor and microbe inhibition, dyes Asimina Edible fruits Brikellia Fever, cough management Chamaesyce STDs, laxatives Chionanthus Pain relief Chromalena Cold remedy, STDs 41% of Florida’s federally Cucurbita Anti-tumor listed taxa may have Erigonum Dyes species with economic uses Eriogonum Asthma relief Eryngium Pain relief, diuretic, emetic Galactia Anti-fever, diarrhea Harrisia Edible fruits Jacquemontia Pain relief Liatris Anti-leukemic, anti-cancer Polygala Emetic, expectorant, anti-inflammatory Prunus Pharmaceuticals, flavorings (Austin, 2004) Plants sustain life on Earth and endangered plants have high value, but… plants get little attention for recovery funding! Federal recovery expenditures for listed animal species in 1997 $10.6 M 25 x $265M Federal recovery expenditures for plants in 1997 (Roberson, 2002) Recovery funding for endangered plants does not match level of listings Listed Species Animals Plants 43% 57% (Negrón-Ortiz, 2014) Recovery funding has declined since 1997 and plants still at the bottom! Reptiles Plants $17.2M $9.7M (8%) (5%) Birds $27.7M (13%) • Total recovery expenditures (2007-11) Mammals = $207.7 M $67.6M • Total for animals = $198 M (33%) Fishes • Funding for animals 20 x higher than for $85.5M plants (41%) (Negrón-Ortiz, 2014) What does the future hold for plant recovery funding? • No historical growth in funding for E&T plant recovery • No pending legislation at state or federal level to increase endangered/threatened plant recovery funding Will Amendment 1 be the bright spot for rare plants? Funds the Land Acquisition Trust Fund to acquire, Increased restore, improve, and manage conservation lands endangered plant including …by dedicating 33 percent of net recovery funds revenues from the existing excise tax on ??? documents for 20 years. Expertise Workload heavily outweighs human capacity • Federal level • Do you think your – BLM agency has enough • 68 botanists to manage botanically trained 264 M acres staff…? • 3.9 M acres / botanist – Federal govt agencies – Forest Service • 94% (N=358) responded • 128 botanists to manage No 191 M acres – State Natural Heritage • 1.5 M acres / botanist • 84% (N=32) responded No – Botany top job shortage area (Roberson, 2002; Kramer et al., 2013) Workload heavily outweighs human capacity • Florida – 536 E, T, & CE state listed species – About 40 E&T plant-related researchers to Humans as an endangered component of rare plant recovery • Botanical capacity survey – 147 respondents (Federal botanists) – Nearly 50% plant to retire by 2019 (Kramer et al., 2013) Humans as an endangered component of rare plant recovery • USFWS • Academic Institutions – Proportion of planned – Wave of retirements in retirements botany/plant sciences • 2014 • 43% of UF ag faculty will – 19% of all employees be 65 by 2012 – 24% of refuge managers – Loss of botany/plant – 28% at Washington related degree programs office – 26% at Regional offices – 17% of refuge unit employees • How many work on plant • 2020 recovery? – 43% of all employees • Will positions be refilled? (McMullin, 2009) Plant blindness Does plant blindness exacerbate funding and expertise shortfalls? (Wandersee and Clary, 2006) Knowledge Plant biology information is essential for enhancing recovery outcomes Specific Species: factors: Causing decline Limiting Abundance expansion Distribution To improve Taxonomy conditions (SERP and CPC, 1995) Seed biology information has implications for in and ex situ recovery actions Seed storage Species Develop Phys Amo cre No information Some information Complete information Seed storage Initial seed quality Germ ecology Germination Abiotic stress Species Develop Phys Viability Pathogens Dormancy Soil S.B. phenology Temperature Fire Salt Drought Amo cre Asi tet Bon gra Bri mos Cer eri Cha del Cha gar Chi pyg Chr flo Chr fru Cli fra Con bre Con cor Cro avo Cuc oke Dee pul Dic chr Dic fru Dic imm Eri lon Ery cun Gal sma Har abo Hyp cum Jac rec Lia ohl Lin car Lup ari Nol bri Par cha Pil rob Pol bas Pol lew Pol myr Pol sma Pru gen War car War amp Ziz cel Most species have at least some information when looking across seed biology topics complete info 0% 16 5 = Complete information no info 14 6 spp. 4 = Some information (15%) 12 10 3 = No information 8 Frequency 6 some info 4 33 spp. (85%) 2 0 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 4.0 Weighted Score Funding Requirement Plant Expertise for collaboration Blindness Knowledge We seek to increase science-based information for plant recovery actions Plant Restoration & Conservation Horticulture Research Consortium Dr. Carrie Adams Dr. Michael Kane Dr. Héctor Pérez Plant ecology Eco-physiology Seed biology Ecosystem In vitro Germination structure propagation ecology Native plant Plant Ex situ establishment reintroduction conservation PRCH objectives support plant recovery management 1. Implement research responsive to missions of conservation and restoration organizations 2. Provide a forum to discuss priority research areas and applications 3. Develop scientifically-sound research to support plant conservation We are establishing long-term relationships with conservation partners Gov. agencies Allied Botanical practitioners gardens PRCH Resource managers NGOs Life at a Research 1 (R1) Institution Teaching responsibilities Research responsibilities • Courses • Communicating research • Mentoring undergraduate results researchers • Obtaining funds to support • Training graduate students programs • Pipelining motivated graduates with research skills into workforce Research collaborations can take many forms based on needs • Phone call, email, site visits, office consult • Well-defined project of limited scope – Undergraduate research intern – 6-12 weeks, $5,000 • Research problem TBD, intermediate scope – Master’s student – 2-2.5 years, ca. $36,000-40,000/year • Research problem ill-defined, broad scope, fundamental research, extensive field work – Ph.D. student – 4-5 years, ca. $40,000-45,000/year Utilizing Seed Biology to Meet Endangered Plant Recovery Goals Harperocallis flava Patchwork funding for 1 MS student: • Grant from USFWS • Florida Wildflower Foundation Endowment • USDA Multi-state project • Other small grants Work Summary: 1. Identify traits that correlate with seed viability, dormancy, and the potential for in and ex situ seed banking. 2. Determine seasonal fluctuations that influence germination timing and recruitment. 3. Clarify limits of desiccation and cold tolerance thus leading to recommendations for ex situ seed storage. Funding Requirement Plant Expertise for collaboration Blindness Knowledge .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • "National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary."
    Intro 1996 National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands The Fish and Wildlife Service has prepared a National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary (1996 National List). The 1996 National List is a draft revision of the National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: 1988 National Summary (Reed 1988) (1988 National List). The 1996 National List is provided to encourage additional public review and comments on the draft regional wetland indicator assignments. The 1996 National List reflects a significant amount of new information that has become available since 1988 on the wetland affinity of vascular plants. This new information has resulted from the extensive use of the 1988 National List in the field by individuals involved in wetland and other resource inventories, wetland identification and delineation, and wetland research. Interim Regional Interagency Review Panel (Regional Panel) changes in indicator status as well as additions and deletions to the 1988 National List were documented in Regional supplements. The National List was originally developed as an appendix to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et al.1979) to aid in the consistent application of this classification system for wetlands in the field.. The 1996 National List also was developed to aid in determining the presence of hydrophytic vegetation in the Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland regulatory program and in the implementation of the swampbuster provisions of the Food Security Act. While not required by law or regulation, the Fish and Wildlife Service is making the 1996 National List available for review and comment.
    [Show full text]
  • National List of Vascular Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands 1996
    National List of Vascular Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: 1996 National Summary Indicator by Region and Subregion Scientific Name/ North North Central South Inter- National Subregion Northeast Southeast Central Plains Plains Plains Southwest mountain Northwest California Alaska Caribbean Hawaii Indicator Range Abies amabilis (Dougl. ex Loud.) Dougl. ex Forbes FACU FACU UPL UPL,FACU Abies balsamea (L.) P. Mill. FAC FACW FAC,FACW Abies concolor (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr. NI NI NI NI NI UPL UPL Abies fraseri (Pursh) Poir. FACU FACU FACU Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D. Don) Lindl. FACU-* NI FACU-* Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt. NI NI FACU+ FACU- FACU FAC UPL UPL,FAC Abies magnifica A. Murr. NI UPL NI FACU UPL,FACU Abildgaardia ovata (Burm. f.) Kral FACW+ FAC+ FAC+,FACW+ Abutilon theophrasti Medik. UPL FACU- FACU- UPL UPL UPL UPL UPL NI NI UPL,FACU- Acacia choriophylla Benth. FAC* FAC* Acacia farnesiana (L.) Willd. FACU NI NI* NI NI FACU Acacia greggii Gray UPL UPL FACU FACU UPL,FACU Acacia macracantha Humb. & Bonpl. ex Willd. NI FAC FAC Acacia minuta ssp. minuta (M.E. Jones) Beauchamp FACU FACU Acaena exigua Gray OBL OBL Acalypha bisetosa Bertol. ex Spreng. FACW FACW Acalypha virginica L. FACU- FACU- FAC- FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acalypha virginica var. rhomboidea (Raf.) Cooperrider FACU- FAC- FACU FACU- FACU- FACU* FACU-,FAC- Acanthocereus tetragonus (L.) Humm. FAC* NI NI FAC* Acanthomintha ilicifolia (Gray) Gray FAC* FAC* Acanthus ebracteatus Vahl OBL OBL Acer circinatum Pursh FAC- FAC NI FAC-,FAC Acer glabrum Torr. FAC FAC FAC FACU FACU* FAC FACU FACU*,FAC Acer grandidentatum Nutt.
    [Show full text]
  • Macbridea Alba
    Macbridea alba (White birds-in-a-nest) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Lathrop Management Area, Bay County. Photos by Vivian Negrón-Ortiz U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Panama City Field Office Panama City, Florida 5-YEAR REVIEW Macbridea alba (White birds-in-a-nest) I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Methodology used to complete the review This review was accomplished using information obtained from the plant’s 1994 Recovery Plan, peer reviewed scientific publications, unpublished field survey results, reports of current research projects, unpublished field observations by Service, State and other experienced biologists, and personal communications. These documents are on file at the Panama City Field Office. A Federal Register notice announcing the review and requesting information was published on April 16, 2008 (73 FR 20702). Comments received and suggestions from peer reviewers were evaluated and incorporated as appropriate (see appendix A). No part of this review was contracted to an outside party. This review was completed by the Service’s lead Recovery botanist in the Panama City Field Office, Florida. B. Reviewers Lead Field Office: Dr. Vivian Negrón-Ortiz, Panama City Field Office, 850-769-0552 ext. 231, [email protected] Lead Region: Southeast Region: Kelly Bibb, 404-679-7132 Peer reviewers: Ms. Louise Kirn, District Ecologist Apalachicola National Forest P.O. Box 579, Bristol, FL 32321 Ms. Faye Winters, Field Office Biologist BLM Jackson Field Office 411 Briarwood Drive, Suite 404 Jackson, MS 39206 C. Background 1. FR Notice citation announcing initiation of this review: 73 FR 20702 (April 16, 2008). 1 2. Species status: Unknown (Recovery Data Call 2008); the species status is unknown until all the Element Occurrences1 (EO’s) are revisited.
    [Show full text]
  • APALACHICOLA NATIONAL FOREST PETS PLANT SPECIES LIST (Subset of the R8 Regional Forester's List Dated 08/07/01) Revised August 7, 2001 Effective January 1, 2002
    APALACHICOLA NATIONAL FOREST PETS PLANT SPECIES LIST (Subset of the R8 Regional Forester's List dated 08/07/01) Revised August 7, 2001 effective January 1, 2002. SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME Endangered Harperocallis flava Harper's Beauty Threatened Macbridea alba White Birds-in-a-Nest Pinguicula ionantha Godfrey's Butterwort Scutellaria floridana Florida Skullcap Sensitive Agalinis divaricata Pinelands false foxglove Agrimonia incisa Incised Groovebur Andropogon arctatus Pine-Woods Bluestem Angelica dentata Coastal-Plain Angelica Aristida patula Tall threeawn Aristida simpliciflora Southern threeawn grass Arnoglossum diversifolium Variableleaf Indian plantain Arnoglossum sulcatum Indian plantain Asclepias viridula Southern Milkweed Aster chapmanii Chapman's Aster Aster eryngiifolius Coyote Thistle Aster Baptisia simplicifolia Coastal Plain Wild Indigo Berlandiera subacaulis Florida Greeneyes Boltonia apalachicolensis Apalachicola Doll's Daisy Calamintha dentata Toothed Savory Carex baltzelli Baltzell's sedge Carex decomposita Cypress-knee sedge Cleistes bifaria Small spreading pogonia Coreopsis nudata Georgia Tickseed Euphorbia discoidalis No Common Name Forestiera godfreyi Godfrey's swampprivet Galactia microphylla No Common Name Gentiana pennelliana Wiregrass Gentian Hymenocallis henryae Panhandle Spiderlily Hypericum chapmanii A Saint John's-Wort Hypericum exile A Saint John's-Wort Justicia crassifolia Thick-leaved Water Willow Lachnocaulon digynum Bog Button Lachnocaulon engleri Engler's bogbutton Linum westii West's Flax Lythrum curtissii
    [Show full text]
  • Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report for the National Forests in Florida
    United States Department of Agriculture Biennial Monitoring Evaluation Report for the National Forests in Florida Version 2, November 2020 USDA Forest Service National Forests in Florida National Forests in Florida FY 2014-2019 Monitoring Report For More Information Contact: Matthew Trager, Forest Planner 325 John Knox Rd., Ste. F-210 Tallahassee, FL 32303 [email protected] In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form.
    [Show full text]
  • Tampa Technology Park
    SHULER PROPERTY UMBRELLA REGIONAL MITIGATION PLANS FOR FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS CONCEPTUAL MITIGATION PLAN LIBERTY COUNTY, FLORIDA Prepared for: Mr. David Clayton Northwest Florida Water Management District 81 Water Management Drive Havana, FL 32333 3 October 2008 Prepared by: _____________________________ _____________________________ Joshua L. Hofkes Ann M. Redmond Staff Ecologist Senior Consultant 4240-022 Shuler Restoration Plan 100308_E.doc Shuler Property Umbrella Regional Mitigation Plans for Florida Department of Transportation Projects 3 October 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND GOALS ......................................................................................... 1 2.0 LOCATION AND LANDSCAPE.................................................................................................. 1 3.0 EXISTING AND RECENT HISTORICAL CONDITIONS ................................................................ 4 4.0 HISTORIC CONDITIONS ............................................................................................................... 9 4.1 SOILS ............................................................................................................................................ 9 4.1.1 Ecological Community Types based on Soils Types ........................................................ 11 4.1.2 Landform Position based on Soils Types.......................................................................... 11 4.2 PROTECTED SPECIES .................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment
    United States Department of Environmental Assessment Agriculture Forest Mechanical Fuel Reduction Service August 2009 PALS No. 28526 Apalachicola and Wakulla Ranger Districts, Apalachicola National Forest, Liberty and Wakulla Counties, Florida Deciding Officer: Marcus A. Beard District Ranger For Information Contact: Susan Fitzgerald Apalachicola Ranger District PO Box 579 Bristol, FL 32321 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion. age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720- 2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Table of Contents Page SUMMARY i INTRODUCTION 1 Background 1 Purpose and Need for Action 1 Proposed Action 2 Decision Framework 3 Public Involvement 3 Issues 4 ALTERNATIVES 4 Alternatives 4 Coordination Measures 5 Comparison of Alternatives 5 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 6 Physical Components 6 Air, Soil, and Water 6 Biological Components 8 Vegetation 8 Plant Communities 8 Management Indicator
    [Show full text]
  • A Three-Year Demographic Study of Harper's Beauty (Harperocallis Java Mcdaniel), an Endangered Florida Endemic Joan L
    ~~urnnlof the Torrey Botanical Sociery 132(4), 2005, pp. 55 1-560 A three-year demographic study of Harper's Beauty (Harperocallis Java McDaniel), an endangered Florida endemic Joan L. Walker2.3and Andrea M. Silletti USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station 233 Lehotsky Hall, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634 WALKER.J. L. AND A. M. SILLETTI(USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 233 Lehotsky Hall, Clemson University. Clernson, SC 29634). A three-year demographic study of Harper's Beauty (Harperocallis McDaniel), an endangered Florida endemic. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 132: 551-560. 200.5.-Harperocallisflava is a federally listed endangered plant narrowly endemic to the Florida panhandle. A lack of knowledge about Hurperocaffispopulation dynamics currently hinders conservation planning. Our objectives included describing ramet size. reproductive status, and mortality and recruitment rates in natural populations of H. flava. In 1998, we established permanent plots and marked individual ramets at six sites representing two habitat types in Apalachicola National Forest. At each site, we established 2 3 plots of varying size (0.12-1.8 m2) to include -300 ramets 1 site. In the first year we tagged, recorded reproductive status of, and measured individual ramets (# of leaves, longest leaf length). In 1999 and 2000, new ramets were tagged and all tagged ramets were re- measured. Analysis of variance methods were used to detect site, year, and habitat effects on response variables. Total number of rarnets sampled varied between sites and declined from year to year. The proportion of ramets bearing reproductive structures was low (0.01 to 0.10) and varied with site and year.
    [Show full text]
  • Harperocallis Flava Harper's Beauty
    Harperocallis flava Harper’s beauty 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation Apalachicola National Forest, Liberty County Photos by Vivian Negrón-Ortiz U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Southeast Region Panama City Field Office Panama City, Florida 5-YEAR REVIEW Harperocallis flava (Harper’s beauty) I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Methodology used to complete the review This review was accomplished using information obtained from the Recovery Plan of June 1994, unpublished field survey results, reports of current research projects, peer reviewed scientific publications, unpublished field observations by Service, Forest Service, State and other experienced biologists, and personal communications. These documents are on file at the Panama City Field Office. In addition, a Working Recovery Group meeting, including those individuals working on and knowledgeable about the natural history of Harper’s beauty, was held on July 14, 2015 to discuss past, current, and planned activities and their relationship to the recovery actions stipulated in the Recovery plan. Information from that meeting, including progress on certain recovery actions, new scientific data, management, has been incorporated into this 5-year status review. A Federal Register notice announcing the review and requesting information was published on September 23, 2014 (79 FR 56821). No part of this review was contracted to an outside party. This review was completed by the Service’s lead Recovery botanist in the Panama City Field Office, Florida. B. Reviewers Lead Field Office: Dr. Vivian Negrón-Ortiz, Panama City Field Office, 850-769-0552 ext. 231 Lead Region: Southeast Regional Office: Kelly Bibb, 404-679-7091 Peer reviewers: Mr. Jason Drake. Ecologist. Forest Service, National Forests in Florida.
    [Show full text]
  • Tate's Hell State Forest Management Plan
    TEN-YEAR LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE TATE’S HELL STATE FOREST FRANKLIN AND LIBERTY COUNTIES PREPARED BY THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND CONSUMER SERVICES FLORIDA FOREST SERVICE APPROVED ON October 18, 2019 TEN-YEAR LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN TATE’S HELL STATE FOREST TABLE OF CONTENTS Land Management Plan Executive Summary ......................................................................... 1 I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 3 A. General Mission and Management Plan Direction ...................................................... 3 B. Past Accomplishments ................................................................................................. 4 C. Goals / Objectives for the Next Ten-Year Period ........................................................ 5 II. Administration Section ....................................................................................................... 9 A. Descriptive Information ............................................................................................... 9 1. Common Name of Property .................................................................................... 9 2. Legal Description and Acreage ............................................................................... 9 3. Proximity to Other Public Resource ....................................................................... 10 4. Property Acquisition and Land Use Considerations ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Bay County Joint Land Use Study Appendices Appendix a Appendix a Federal Register (Final Rule) United States Navy Restricted Area, NSA Panama City
    Bay County Joint Land Use Study Appendices Appendix A Appendix A Federal Register (Final Rule) United States Navy Restricted Area, NSA Panama City Appendix A Federal Register (Final Rule) United States Navy Restricted Area, NSA Panama City Appendix A Effective October 14, 2008, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) established ten restricted water areas at NSA PC. The purpose of these restricted areas is to ensure continued public safety and to preserve current military training vital to the Global War on Terror and to all‐service military readiness. The restricted areas are limited to times when they are used as “military security zones.” Military security zones are identified as specific portion(s) within any of the restricted areas which are defined by the safety vessels accompanying each training exercise. Thus, of the ten restricted areas, limitations are only in place when training exercises are underway and the military security zone definition is enacted. A General Local Notice to Mariners will be communicated for normal/routine activations, while a Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners will be communicated for significant exercise and training events. During training events, all persons, vessels, and other craft are prohibited from entering, transiting, anchoring, or drifting within the military security zone established in the restricted area. The NSA PC Commanding Officer, or his/her designee, is responsible for enforcement of the restricted areas. As part of the JLUS implementation plan, Strategy #17 was created which reads: Evaluate the usage of the training areas on a yearly basis. Based on the analysis, consider expansion, reconfiguration, reduction or abandonment based on changes in training, technology and/or testing.
    [Show full text]
  • June2002 INSECT POLLINATORS of THREE RARE PLANTS in A
    308 Florida Entomologist &X2) June2002 INSECT POLLINATORS OF THREE RARE PLANTS IN A FLORIDA LONGLEAF PINE FOREST THERESA L. PITTS-SINGER’, JAMES L. HANULA’ AND JOAN L. WALKER* ‘U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, 320 Green St., Athens, GA 30602 ‘U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Department of Forest Resources, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634 ABSTRACT As a result of human activity, longleaf pine (Pinus palustris Miller) forests in the southern United States have been lost or drastically altered. Many of the plant species that histori- cally occupied those forests now persist only as remnants and are classified as threatened or endangered. In order to safeguard such species, a better understanding of their pollination ecology is needed. We identified insect visitors and potential pollinators of Harperocallis fluua (McDaniel) (Amaryllidaceae), Macbridea alba Chapman (Lamiaceae) and Scutellaria floriduna Chapman (Lamiaceae) that occur in longleaf pine habitat on the Apalachicola Na- tional Forest in Florida. We observed that potential pollinators of H. fluua were Halictidae, of M. alba were bumble bees (Apidae: Bombus), and of S. floridana were Megachilidae and Halictidae. However, the rates at which these insects visited the flowers were very low. Our results raise important concerns about how forest management practices affect the survival of rare plants, as well as their pollinators. Key Words: Harperocallis flava (McDaniel), Macbridea alba Chapman, Scutellaria floridana Chapman, Pinus palustris Miller, threatened species, endangered species R ESUMEN Como resultado de la actividad humana, 10s bosques de pino de hoja larga (Pinus palustris Miller) de1 sure& de 10s E&ados Unidos han desaparecido o han sido drasticamente altera- dos.
    [Show full text]