DOCSLIB.ORG

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Record No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Record No Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report Record No. 101650317 17771-17789 Panama City Beach Parkway; 17690 Front Beach Road Panama City Beach, FL 32413 Prepared For: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Peoples First Community Bank,Bank No. 10165, c/o CBRE 2001 Ross Avenue, 33rd Floor Dallas, TX 75201 Prepared By: Tetra Tech, Inc. 17885 Von Karman Avenue Irvine, CA 92614 TETRA TECH PROJECT T24023.003 2010-08-25 17885 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92614 Office: (949) 809-5000 Fax: (949) 809-5010 August 25, 2010 Mr. Jon Walker (CB Richard Ellis, Inc. [CBRE]) Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as Receiver for Peoples First Community Bank, Bank No. 10165 c/o CBRE 2001 Ross Avenue, 33rd Floor Dallas, TX 75201 RE: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Record No. 101650317 17771-17789 Panama City Parkway and 17690 Front Beach Road Panama City Beach, Florida 32413 Project No. T24023.003 Dear Mr. Walker: Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) is pleased to submit this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for Peoples First Community Bank, Bank No. 10165, c/o CBRE, for the above-referenced property (the Site). Tetra Tech found one recognized environmental conditions (RECs), no historical RECs (HRECs), no potential environmental concerns (PECs), and three business environmental risks (BERs) in connection with the Site. It is Tetra Tech’s understanding that this ESA is being requested in conjunction with due diligence activities for the Site by the FDIC, as Receiver for Peoples First Community Bank, Bank No. 10165. Tetra Tech recognizes that this report is to be used exclusively by the FDIC, as Receiver for Peoples First Community Bank, Bank No. 10165. It is a report upon which the FDIC, as Receiver for Peoples First Community Bank, Bank No. 10165, can rely. Mr. Jon Walker 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. FDIC, as Receiver for 17771-17789 Panama City Parkway Phase I ESA Peoples First Community Bank, and 17690 Front Beach Road Record No. 101650317 Bank No. 10165 Panama City Beach, Fl 32413 Project No. T24023.003 August 25, 2010 We appreciate the opportunity to provide you with these services. Please do not hesitate to contact us at your convenience should you have any questions or comments regarding this report or our findings. It has been a pleasure working with you on this transaction. Sincerely, TETRA TECH, INC. STEVEN GROD, REA 07806 JON R. LOVEGREEN, CPG No. 4379 Project Manager Manager, Private Practice Group (PPG) Phone: 949.809.5076 Phone: 949.809.5060 Enclosure TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 General Information.................................................................................................................................1 2.0 Executive Summary................................................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Findings, Opinions, and Conclusions................................................................................................3 2.2 Recommendations............................................................................................................................. 4 3.0 Introduction..............................................................................................................................................5 3.1 Purpose.............................................................................................................................................. 5 3.2 Scope of Work................................................................................................................................... 5 3.3 Signi®cant Assumptions.................................................................................................................... 6 3.4 Limitations and Exceptions............................................................................................................... 6 3.5 Deviations..........................................................................................................................................7 3.6 Special Terms and Conditions........................................................................................................... 7 3.7 Reliance............................................................................................................................................. 7 3.8 Data Gaps.......................................................................................................................................... 7 4.0 Site Description........................................................................................................................................8 4.1 Location and Legal Description........................................................................................................ 8 4.2 Site and Vicinity Description.............................................................................................................8 4.3 Current Use of Property.....................................................................................................................8 4.4 Description of Structures, Roads, and Other Improvements............................................................. 8 4.5 Adjoining Property Information........................................................................................................ 8 5.0 User Provided Information.....................................................................................................................10 5.1 Actual or Specialized Knowledge....................................................................................................10 5.2 Commonly Known or Reasonably Ascertainable Information........................................................10 5.3 Valuation Reduction for Environmental Issues................................................................................10 5.4 Owner, Property Manager, and Occupant Information................................................................... 10 5.5 Land Title and Judicial Records for Environmental Liens or Activity and Use Limitations (AULS).................................................................................................................................................. 10 5.6 Reason For Performing Phase I ESA.............................................................................................. 10 6.0 Records Review......................................................................................................................................11 6.1 Environmental Database Records Search........................................................................................11 6.2 Additional Environmental Record Sources..................................................................................... 12 6.3 Physical Setting Sources..................................................................................................................13 6.3.1 Surface Water Bodies.............................................................................................................13 6.3.2 Geology and Hydrogeology...................................................................................................13 6.3.3 Soils........................................................................................................................................13 6.3.4 Hydrology.............................................................................................................................. 13 6.4 Historical Use.................................................................................................................................. 13 6.4.1 Historical Summary............................................................................................................... 13 6.4.2 Title Records.......................................................................................................................... 14 6.4.3 Previous Environmental Investigations..................................................................................15 6.5 Environmental Liens and Activity/Use Limitations (AULs)........................................................... 15 7.0 Site Reconnaissance...............................................................................................................................16 7.1 Methodology and Limiting Conditions........................................................................................... 16 7.2 Site Visit Findings............................................................................................................................16 TETRA TECH, INC. PROJECT NO. T24023.003 RECORD NO. 101650317 TABLE OF CONTENTS 7.2.1 Hazardous Substances............................................................................................................16 7.2.2 Petroleum Products................................................................................................................ 16 7.2.3 Underground Storage Tanks (USTs)......................................................................................16 7.2.4 Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs)......................................................................................16 7.2.5 Other Suspect Containers.......................................................................................................16 7.2.6 Equipment Potentially Containing Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs).................................16 7.2.7 Interior Staining/Corrosion...................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Species Status Assessment Report for the Panama City Crayfish (Procambarus Econfinae) Version 1.1
    Species Status Assessment Report for the Panama City Crayfish (Procambarus econfinae) Version 1.1 November 27, 2017 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 4 Atlanta, GA This document was prepared by Patty Kelly and Dr. Sean Blomquist with invaluable GIS analysis provided by Lydia Ambrose and Gayle Martin and the support of all of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Panama City , FL Ecological Services Field Office Valuable reviews of this draft document were provided by Paul Moler, FWC and peer reviews of this draft were provided by: Suggested reference: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Species status assessment report for the Panama City crayfish, Version 1.1, November, 2017, Atlanta, GA Panama City Crayfish SSA Report-draft November 2017 Page 2 Species Status Assessment Report for the Panama City Crayfish (Procambarus econfinae) Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Executive Summary This species status assessment (SSA) reports the results of a comprehensive status review for the Panama City crayfish (PCC) (Procambarus econfinae), documenting the species historical conditions and providing estimates of current and future conditions under a range of different scenarios. The PCC is only known from a small portion of Bay County, Florida, in the vicinity of Panama City (Hobbs 1942, Mansell 1994, Keppner and Keppner 2001) (Figure 1.1). Historically, the PCC inhabited natural and often temporary bodies of shallow fresh water within open pine flatwoods (Hobbs 1942) and wet prairie-marsh communities. However, most of these communities have been cleared for residential or commercial development or replaced with slash pine plantations.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 86, No. 71/Thursday, April 15, 2021
    Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 71 / Thursday, April 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules 19863 Critical Habitat for Procambarus econfinae (Panama City Crayfish) Units 7-8: Star and Transmitter East Bay County, Florida 0 0.75 1.5 2.25 -c=:=---==::::iKilometers nit Boundary --=:::::11---==:::::iMiles ay County 0 0.55 1.1 1.65 (13) Unit 8: Transmitter East, Bay (ii) Map of Unit 8 is provided at DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE County, Florida. paragraph (12)(ii) of this entry. National Oceanic and Atmospheric (i) General description: Unit 8 * * * * * Administration consists of 3,571.5 ac (1,445.4 ha) and Martha Williams, is composed of lands in State, county, 50 CFR Parts 223 and 224 or city ownership (82.5 ac (33.4 ha)), Principal Deputy Director, Exercising the Delegated Authority of the Director, U.S. Fish and private ownership (3,489.0 ac and Wildlife Service. [Docket No. 210409–0078;RTID 0648– (1,412.0 ha)). [FR Doc. 2021–07243 Filed 4–14–21; 8:45 am] XR116] BILLING CODE 4333–15–C Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List the Shortfin Mako Shark as Threatened or Endangered Under the Endangered Species Act AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:01 Apr 14, 2021 Jkt 253001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\15APP1.SGM 15APP1 jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS EP15AP21.004</GPH> 19864 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 71 / Thursday, April 15, 2021 / Proposed Rules Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Background 1996). A species, subspecies, or DPS is Commerce.
    [Show full text]
  • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Clear Lake Estates Unit One Nassau County, Callahan, Florida 32011 Record No
    Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Clear Lake Estates Unit One Nassau County, Callahan, Florida 32011 Record No. 101650256 Project No. 112IG02645 June 4, 2010 TETRA TECH 201 Pine Street ● Suite 1000 ● Orlando, Florida 32801 (407) 839.3955 ● FAX (407) 839.3790 ● www.tetratech.com Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Clear Lake Estates Unit One Nassau County, Callahan, Florida 32011 Record No. 101650256 Project No. 112IG02645 June 4, 2010 Prepared By: Tetra Tech, Inc. 17885 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 500 Irvine, California 92614 Phone: 949.809.5000 Fax: 949.809.5010 Prepared For: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) As Receiver for Peoples First Community Bank No. 10165 c/o CB Richard Ellis, Inc. 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 400 Dallas, Texas 75201 Attention: Ms. Linda Yium TETRA TECH 201 Pine Street ● Suite 1000 ● Orlando, Florida 32801 (407) 839.3955 ● FAX (407) 839.3790 ● www.tetratech.com June 4, 2010 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) As Receiver for Peoples First Community Bank No. 10165 c/o CB Richard Ellis, Inc. 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 400 Dallas, Texas 75201 Attention: Ms. Linda Yium RE: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Clear Lake Estates Unit One Nassau County, Callahan, Florida 32011 Record No. 101650256 Project No. 112IG02645 Dear Ms. Yium: Tetra Tech, Inc. (Tetra Tech) is pleased to submit this Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), as Receiver for Peoples First Community Bank No. 10165, c/o CB Richard Ellis, Inc. (CBRE), for the above-referenced property (the Site). Tetra Tech found one potential environmental concern (PEC) and two business environmental risks (BERs) associated with the site.
    [Show full text]
  • Epigeic Spider (Araneae) Diversity and Habitat Distributions in Kings
    Clemson University TigerPrints All Theses Theses 5-2011 Epigeic Spider (Araneae) Diversity and Habitat Distributions in Kings Mountain National Military Park, South Carolina Sarah Stellwagen Clemson University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses Part of the Entomology Commons Recommended Citation Stellwagen, Sarah, "Epigeic Spider (Araneae) Diversity and Habitat Distributions in Kings Mountain National Military Park, South Carolina" (2011). All Theses. 1091. https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/all_theses/1091 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses at TigerPrints. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Theses by an authorized administrator of TigerPrints. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EPIGEIC SPIDER (ARANEAE) DIVERSITY AND HABITAT DISTRIBUTIONS IN KINGS MOUNTAIN NATIONAL MILITARY PARK, SOUTH CAROLINA ______________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of Clemson University _______________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Masters of Science Entomology _______________________________ by Sarah D. Stellwagen May 2011 _______________________________ Accepted by: Dr. Joseph D. Culin, Committee Chair Dr. Eric Benson Dr. William Bridges ABSTRACT This study examined the epigeic spider fauna in Kings Mountain National Military Park. The aim of this study is to make this information available to park management for use in the preservation of natural resources. Pitfall trapping was conducted monthly for one year in three distinct habitats: riparian, forest, and ridge-top. The study was conducted from August 2009 to July 2010. One hundred twenty samples were collected in each site. Overall, 289 adult spiders comprising 66 species were collected in the riparian habitat, 345 adult comprising 57 species were found in the forest habitat, and 240 adults comprising 47 species were found in the ridge-top habitat.
    [Show full text]
  • Araneae (Spider) Photos
    Araneae (Spider) Photos Araneae (Spiders) About Information on: Spider Photos of Links to WWW Spiders Spiders of North America Relationships Spider Groups Spider Resources -- An Identification Manual About Spiders As in the other arachnid orders, appendage specialization is very important in the evolution of spiders. In spiders the five pairs of appendages of the prosoma (one of the two main body sections) that follow the chelicerae are the pedipalps followed by four pairs of walking legs. The pedipalps are modified to serve as mating organs by mature male spiders. These modifications are often very complicated and differences in their structure are important characteristics used by araneologists in the classification of spiders. Pedipalps in female spiders are structurally much simpler and are used for sensing, manipulating food and sometimes in locomotion. It is relatively easy to tell mature or nearly mature males from female spiders (at least in most groups) by looking at the pedipalps -- in females they look like functional but small legs while in males the ends tend to be enlarged, often greatly so. In young spiders these differences are not evident. There are also appendages on the opisthosoma (the rear body section, the one with no walking legs) the best known being the spinnerets. In the first spiders there were four pairs of spinnerets. Living spiders may have four e.g., (liphistiomorph spiders) or three pairs (e.g., mygalomorph and ecribellate araneomorphs) or three paris of spinnerets and a silk spinning plate called a cribellum (the earliest and many extant araneomorph spiders). Spinnerets' history as appendages is suggested in part by their being projections away from the opisthosoma and the fact that they may retain muscles for movement Much of the success of spiders traces directly to their extensive use of silk and poison.
    [Show full text]
  • Cladistic Analysis of the Atypoides Plus Antrodiaetus Lineage of Mygalomorph Spiders (Araneae, Antrodiaetidae )
    1996 . The Journal of Arachnology 24 :201–21 3 CLADISTIC ANALYSIS OF THE ATYPOIDES PLUS ANTRODIAETUS LINEAGE OF MYGALOMORPH SPIDERS (ARANEAE, ANTRODIAETIDAE ) Jeremy A . Miller and Frederick A . Coyle : Department of Biology, Western Carolina University, Cullowhee, North Carolina 28723 USA ABSTRACT . Cladistic analyses of the antrodiaetid spider genera Atypoides O .P.-Cambridge 1883 and Antrodiaetus Ausserer 1871 yield a much more completely resolved phylogeny than that proposed by Coyle in 1971 . Twenty-nine potentially informative characters were used in the analyses, which wer e performed using PAUPs a posteriori weighting options . Three independent analyses were performed , each with a different outgroup . These outgroups were 1) the antrodiaetid genus Aliatypus Smith 1908, the putative sister group of Atypoides plus Antrodiaetus, 2) Aliatypus gulosus Coyle 1974, the most primitive Aliatypus species, and 3) a hypothetical ancestral taxon based on character states found in Aliatypus an d the Atypidae, the latter being the putative sister group of the antrodiaetids . These three analyses produced a total of eight most parsimonious trees which support the following principal conclusions : 1) Atypoides, as defined by Coyle, is paraphyletic (Atypoides riversi O . P.-Cambridge 1883 plus At. gertschi Coyle 1968 share with Antrodiaetus a common ancestor not shared with At . hadros Coyle 1968). 2) Antrodiaetus roretzi (L. Koch 1878) is a relict species which shares a unique common ancestor with all other Antro- diaetus species . 3) Coyles unicolor group of nine Antrodiaetus species is paraphyletic ; six of these form a recently-derived Glade, (Antrodiaetus occultus Coyle 1971 (An . yesoensis [Uyemura 1942], An. cerberu s Coyle 1971, (An. montanus [Chamberlin Ivie 1933], (An.
    [Show full text]
  • A Range Extension of the Purseweb Spider Sphodros Rufipes in Eastern Kansas (Araneae, Atypidae )
    1986 . The Journal of Arachnology 14:119 A RANGE EXTENSION OF THE PURSEWEB SPIDER SPHODROS RUFIPES IN EASTERN KANSAS (ARANEAE, ATYPIDAE ) Little is known about the behavior or ecology of atypid spiders, aside fro m descriptions of tube-web construction and prey capture (McCook 1888, Potea t 1890, Bristowe 1958) and partial descriptions of the natural history of a fe w species (Enock 1885, Muma and Muma 1945, Coyle and Shear 1981). Gertsch and Platnick's (1980) excellent paper provides a much needed taxonomic revisio n of the group as well as known distributions and notes on natural histories of th e Nearctic species of atypids . Atypids are patchily distributed, though locally abundant . The areas of abundance are often difficult to locate and associate with climatic and ecologica l variables, making their occurrence difficult to predict . They are more commo n in the southern U.S., where they are found in forested areas with sandy soil, o r soil with a moderate to low clay content . In these areas, sites with southern exposures, often along a stream or in fairly mesic situations, seem to be the mos t prevalent purseweb habitats (Bristowe 1933, Muma and Muma 1945, pers . comm. Teeter). This note extends the range of Sphodros rufipes (Latreille) to the northwes t of previous records and is the first record of the species in Kansas . Previously published distribution is from eastern Texas to northern Florida and northwar d to southern Illinois and Rhode Island (Gertsch and Platnick 1980) . S. bicolor and S. milberti have recently been synonymized with S.
    [Show full text]
  • Board of Game and Inland Fisheries Meeting Agenda
    Revised Board of Game and Inland Fisheries 4000 West Broad Street, Board Room Richmond, Virginia 23230 August 14, 2012 9:00am Call to order and welcome, reading of the Mission Statement and Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 1. Recognition of Employees and Others 2. Public Comments – Department plan to build a new headquarters under PPEA 3. Public Comments – Non-Agenda Items 4. Approval of July 10, 2012 Board Meeting Minutes 5. Committee Meeting Reports: Wildlife, Boat and Law Enforcement Committee: Mr. Turner, Chairman of the Wildlife, Boat and Law Enforcement Committee, will report on the activities of the August 7, 2012 Committee Meeting. The Committee will recommend the following items to the full Board for final action: Staff Recommendations – Fisheries Regulation Amendments Staff Recommendations – Diversity Regulation Amendments Staff Recommendations – Boating Regulation Amendments Staff Recommendations – 2012-2013 Migratory Waterfowl Seasons and Bag Limits Staff Recommendations – ADA Regulation Agency Land Use Plan Proposed CY2013 Board Meeting Schedule Finance, Audit and Compliance Committee: Mr. Colgate, Chairman of the Finance, Audit and Compliance Committee, will report on the activities of the July 25, 2012 Committee Meeting. The Committee will present the following reports: FY2012 Year-end Financial Summary Internal Audit FY2013 Work Plan - Final Action Education, Planning and Outreach Committee: Ms. Caruso, Chairwoman of the Education, Planning, and Outreach Committee Meeting. Ms. Caruso will announce the next Committee Meeting will be held on October 17, 2012 beginning at 10:00am. 6. Closed Session 7. Director's Report: 8. Chairman's Remarks 9. Additional Business/Comments 10. Next Meeting Date: October 18, 2012 beginning at 9:00am 11.
    [Show full text]
  • Georgia's Purseweb & Trapdoor Spiders
    Georgia’s Purseweb and Trapdoor Spiders By Dirk J. Stevenson In Georgia, trapdoor and purseweb spiders are found statewide. Called mygalomorphs (the species are of the infraorder Mygalomorphae), these arachnids are ground-dwellers related to tarantulas. Male blue purseweb spider (Daniel D. Dye II) Here’s a quick look at both. Purseweb Spiders Three species of purseweb spiders (family Atypidae, genus Sphodros) are known to occur in the state. Each builds tough silken tubes carefully disguised with bits of lichen and moss. The tubes extend up the sides of tree trunks, with the bottoms ending a few inches underground, in damp soil. The tubes serve as shelter and hunting stations. The spiders spend most of their lives in them. Arachnologists enjoy describing the gruesome hunting strategy used by purseweb spiders. When an insect or other potential prey walks over the exposed portion of the tube, the spider, sensing vibrations, attacks from within the tube, impaling the prey with enormous fangs thrust through the tube wall. Once the prey is subdued, the spider cuts a slit in the tube and pulls the insect inside to consume at its leisure. The fastidious spider then stitches up the hole. The bottoms of many purseweb tubes I have excavated were littered with arthropod remains, including the chitonous parts of millipedes and beetles. Adult red-legged purseweb spider on Recent Georgia surveys for purseweb spiders conducted by well-known its tube (Daniel D. Dye II) Florida-based herpetologist Paul Moler and I focused on the status and distribution of the red-legged purseweb spider (Sphodros rufipes) and blue purseweb spider (Sphodros abboti) species.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation
    CONSERVATION ecapod crustaceans in the families Astacidae, recreational and commercial bait fisheries, and serve as a Cambaridae, and Parastacidae, commonly known profitable and popular food resource. Crayfishes often make as crayfishes or crawfishes, are native inhabitants up a large proportion of the biomass produced in aquatic of freshwater ecosystems on every continent systems (Rabeni 1992; Griffith et al. 1994). In streams, sport except Africa and Antarctica. Although nearly worldwide fishes such as sunfishes and basses (family Centrarchidae) in distribution, crayfishes exhibit the highest diversity in may consume up to two-thirds of the annual production of North America north of Mexico with 338 recognized taxa crayfishes, and as such, crayfishes often comprise critical (308 species and 30 subspecies). Mirroring continental pat- food resources for these fishes (Probst et al. 1984; Roell and terns of freshwater fishes (Warren and Burr 1994) and fresh- Orth 1993). Crayfishes also contribute to the maintenance of water mussels (J. D. Williams et al. 1993), the southeastern food webs by processing vegetation and leaf litter (Huryn United States harbors the highest number of crayfish species. and Wallace 1987; Griffith et al. 1994), which increases avail- Crayfishes are a significant component of aquatic ecosys- ability of nutrients and organic matter to other organisms. tems. They facilitate important ecological processes, sustain In some rivers, bait fisheries for crayfishes constitute an Christopher A. Taylor and Melvin L. Warren, Jr. are cochairs of the Crayfish Subcommittee of the AFS Endangered Species Committee. They can be contacted at the Illinois Natural History Survey, Center for Biodiversity, 607 E. Peabody Drive, Champaign, IL 61820, and U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloads; (2) Reduced Number of Modem Telephone Lines at the Refuge; (3) Reduced Costs to Service Due to Decreased Calls Into the Service Modem Pool
    REVIEW AND APPROVALS OKEFENOKEE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FOLKSTON, GEORGIA ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 2000 Refuge Manager ^ / Date Refuge Supervisor, Area HI / Date Chief of Refuges Date TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION iii HIGHLIGHTS iv CLIMATIC CONDITIONS v MONITORING AND STUDIES 1 l.a. Surveys and Censuses 1 l.b. Studies and Investigation 18 HABITAT RESTORATION 24 2.a. Wetland Restoration: On-refuge 24 2.b. Upland Restoration: On-refuge 24 2.c. Wetland Restoration: Off-refuge 24 2.d. Upland Restoration: Off-refuge 24 HABITAT MANAGEMENT 25 3.a. Water Level Management 25 3.b. Moist Soil Management 29 3.c. Graze/Mow/Hay 29 3.d. Farming 29 3.e. Forest Management 29 3.£ Fire Management 40 3.g. Control Pest Plants 52 FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT 53 4.a. Bird Banding 53 4.b. Disease Monitoring and Treatment 53 4.c. Reintroductions 53 4.d. Nest Structures 53 4.e. Pest, Predator and Exotic Animal Control 53 COORDINATION ACTIVITIES 54 5.a. Interagency Coordination 54 5.b. Tribal Coordination 54 5.c. Private Land Activities (excluding restoration) 54 5.d. Oil and Gas Activities 58 5.e. Cooperative/Friends Organizations 58 -i- RESOURCE PROTECTION 60 6.a. Law Enforcement 60 6.b. Wildfire Preparedness 61 6.c. Permits & Economic Use Management 61 6.d. Contaminant Investigation and Cleanup 62 6.e. Water Rights Management 62 6.f Cultural Resource Management 62 6.g. Federal Facility Compliancy Act 62 6.h. Land Acquisition 62 6.L Wilderness and Natural Areas 62 6.j. Threats and Conflicts 62 ALASKA ONLY 63 PUBLICEDUCATION AND RECREATION 64 8.a.
    [Show full text]
  • Spider Sex Pheromones: Emission, Reception, Structures, and Functions
    Biol. Rev. (2007), 82, pp. 27–48. 27 doi:10.1111/j.1469-185X.2006.00002.x Spider sex pheromones: emission, reception, structures, and functions A. C. Gaskett* Department of Biological Sciences, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia (Received 17 October 2005; revised 30 August 2006; accepted 11 September 2006) ABSTRACT Spiders and their mating systems are useful study subjects with which to investigate questions of widespread interest about sexual selection, pre- and post-copulatory mate choice, sperm competition, mating strategies, and sexual conflict. Conclusions drawn from such studies are broadly applicable to a range of taxa, but rely on accurate understanding of spider sexual interactions. Extensive behavioural experimentation demonstrates the presence of sex pheromones in many spider species, and recent major advances in the identification of spider sex pheromones merit review. Synthesised here are the emission, transmission, structures, and functions of spider sex pheromones, with emphasis on the crucial and dynamic role of sex pheromones in female and male mating strategies generally. Techniques for behavioural, chemical and electrophysiological study are summarised, and I aim to provide guidelines for incorporating sex pheromones into future studies of spider mating. In the spiders, pheromones are generally emitted by females and received by males, but this pattern is not universal. Female spiders emit cuticular and/or silk-based sex pheromones, which can be airborne or received via contact with chemoreceptors on male pedipalps. Airborne pheromones primarily attract males or elicit male searching behaviour. Contact pheromones stimulate male courtship behaviour and provide specific information about the emitter’s identity. Male spiders are generally choosy and are often most attracted to adult virgin females and juvenile females prior to their final moult.
    [Show full text]