DOCSLIB.ORG

Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 2013 INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 2013 611th Air Support Group Alaska Installations U.S. AIR FORCE, 611th AIR SUPPORT GROUP, ALASKA 611th CIVIL ENGINEER SQUADRON, ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 2013 611th Air Support Group, Alaska Installations This revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) meets requirements of the Sikes Act (16 USC 670a et seq.) as amended and as approved in previous plans in 2007, 2008, and 2009 by the 611th Air Support Group Commander, the Alaska Regional Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game commissioner. Use and mission of the installations have not significantly changed since approval of the previous plans. The Short and Long Range Radar Sites and Eareckson Air Station INRMPs were approved for use in 2007; the King Salmon Airport INRMP was approved for use in 2008; and the Inactive Sites INRMP was approved for use in 2009. They will remain in use until replaced by the final version of this plan. The primary change in this revised INRMP is that of format to follow guidance provided in Air Force Instruction 32-7064. This INRMP also groups installations from the four previous plans into one document. Data specific to each installation and management goals, objectives, and projects have also been updated and included in this revision. Sikes Act Cooperating Agencies* ROBYN M. BURK, Colonel, USAF Commander 611th Air Support Group GEOFFREY HASKETT Regional Director, Region 7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service *Above signatures are digital copies of originals, which are on file at the 611th Air Support Group. INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 2013 611th Air Support Group, Alaska Installations U.S. AIR FORCE, 611th AIR SUPPORT GROUP, ALASKA 611th CIVIL ENGINEER SQUADRON, ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT Invited Collaborators Endorsement Both below agencies were afforded the opportunity to review and comment on this INRMP. James W. Balsiger Ph.D. Regional Administrator, Alaska Region NOAA Fisheries’ National Marine Fisheries Service* The Bureau of Land Management reviewed and provided comments on drafts of the INRMP, but the agency declined to formally sign the document. Appendix 2.5.2, Correspondence includes the letter to this effect. *The above signature is a digital copy of the original, which is on file at the 611th Air Support Group. INTEGRATED NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN 2013 611th Air Support Group, Alaska Installations PREPARED BY Gene Stout and Associates Center for Ecological Management of Military Lands 4307 Crane Court Colorado State University Loveland, CO 80537 Fort Collins, CO 80523 611th AIR SUPPORT GROUP REVIEW 611 Air Support Group 9480 Pease Ave, Suite 123 Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK 99506-2101 611th Civil Engineer Squadron 611th Air Support Squadron 10471 20th Street, Suite 302 10471 20th Street, Suite 265 Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK 99506-2200 Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, AK 99506-2200 Matthew Moran - Natural Resources Program Manager, Natural Resource Program Element, 611 CES/CEAN Keith Barnack - Remedial Project Manager (Eareckson Air Station, Cape Lisburne, Cape Newenham, Cape Romanzof, and Tin City), Environmental Restoration, 611 CES/CEAR James Fife – Chief, Asset Optimization, 611 CES/CEAO Vikki Gilmore – Realty Officer, 611 CES/CEAO Wade Gilpin – Environmental Compliance Manager, 611 CES/CEAN Nick C. Hilton - Deputy Program Manager, 611 ASUS/ARS Steve Hunt - Remedial Project Manager (Sparrevohn, Nikolski, Nome Tank Farm, Beaver Creek, Anvil Mountain, Bear Creek, and Driftwood Bay), Environmental Restoration, 611 CES/CEAR Robert Johnston - Remedial Project Manager (Oliktok, Indian Mountain, Tatalina, and Bethel) Laura Keiser – Realty Officer, 611 CES/CEAO Karlene B. Leeper - Cultural Resources Program Manager, Natural Resource Management Element, 611 CES/CEAN Steve Mattson - Chief, Environmental Restoration Section, 611 CES/CEAR Catherine Moody – Realty Officer, 611 CES/CEAO LtCol Robert Neiper – 611 ASUS/CC Charlie Peyton - Remedial Project Manager (Campion, Kalakaket, King Salmon, Naknek), Environmental Restoration, 611 CES/CEAR Yvonne Pierre 611 CES/CEAO – Realty Officer, 611 CES/CEAO Pat Roth - Remedial Project Manager (Cold Bay, Fort Yukon, Murphy Dome, Granite Mountain, North River, Port Heiden), Environmental Restoration, 611 CES/CEAR Lori Roy - Remedial Project Manager (Barter Island, Big Mountain, Bullen Point, Duncan Canal, Kotzebue, Lake Louise, Point Barrow, Pillar Mountain, Point Lay, Point Lonely, and Wainwright), Environmental Restoration Element, 611 CES/CEAR Maj David Troxell – Chief, Operations, 611 CES/CEOS Bryson Twidwell – Environmental Engineer, 611 CES/CEAN HEADQUARTERS, PACIFIC AIR FORCES REVIEW William Grannis - Natural Resource Program Manager, AFCEC/CFPE, 25 E Street, Suite F213, Hickam AFB, HI 96853-5412 PREFACE By working as a team, we can preserve both the natural diversity of military training areas and our opportunity to train the way we plan to fight, now and in the future.1 The primary change in this revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan is that of format to follow guidance provided in Air Force Instruction 32-7064 and the combination of four separate plans into a single plan. Data specific to 611th Air Support Group’s (611 ASG) 35 Alaska sites and management goals, objectives, and projects have also been updated and included in this revision. Missions of 611 ASG’s air stations and radar sites have changed over the decades... including defense against an invading nation in World War II, refueling aircraft and staging supplies during the Korean Conflict, ground- controlled aircraft intercept, operating Alaska’s DEW line and White Alice Communications System, intelligence-gathering during the Cold War, supporting civilian aircraft, defense communications, missile defense, and emergency divert airfields. Regardless of the mission, military and civilian services provided by the U.S. Air Force at 611 ASG sites are first rate today, just as they have been over the decades. 611 ASG airfield and radar sites include Alaska’s Arctic Coastal Plain, northwestern, southwestern and south- central coasts; the interior of Alaska; and the Aleutian chain of islands… all home of some of the most unique plant and wildlife species on the North American continent. This vast diversity of natural habitats is critical to our national environmental health and well-being. This Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan is the 611 ASG’s plan of action for the conservation of natural resources entrusted to the U.S. Air Force. The plan is intended for a finite period, but the philosophy behind it is for a much longer period of time. The U.S. Air Force will conserve its biological diversity and make sound decisions regarding the use of natural resources to support both the military mission and needs of the region and the nation. Lands at 611 ASG sites have been used to serve our national defense mission for over 60 years. This legacy is not taken lightly by those who use the facilities today. This Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan is dedicated to the next generation of Americans who will use these lands and their natural resources. 1 General Joseph W. Ralston, USAF, Vice Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff (March 1996 - April 2000) and former Commander, Eleventh Air Force and the Alaskan Command (July 1992 - July 1994) Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary ……………………………………………………………………………… 1-1 1.1 Purpose of the INRMP ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Purpose and Scope ............................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 INRMP Support of the Air Force Mission .......................................................... 1-1 1.2 Summary of Benefits of INRMP Implementation ............................................................. 1-2 1.3 Implementation of the INRMP ......................................................................................... 1-3 1.3.1 General Natural Resources Management Goals ................................................... 1-3 1.3.2 Effects of Implementation of INRMP Goals on Management Direction ............ 1-3 1.3.3 Significant Environmental Impacts of INRMP Implementation .......................... 1-3 2.0 General Information ................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1.1 Scope .................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.2 Function ............................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2 Authority .......................................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 Sikes Act ............................................................................................................. 2-2 2.2.2 Department of Defense Authorities ..................................................................... 2-3 2.2.3 Air Force Authorities ........................................................................................... 2-4 2.2.4 Other Related Authorities ...................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Elmendorf Air Force Base (Afb)
    ELMENDORF AIR FORCE BASE (AFB) Contract Details Contract Type: Energy Efficiency; Energy Savings Performance Contract; Guaranteed Energy Savings; Natural Gas Facility Size: Nearly 800 buildings; Over 9.3 million sq. feet Energy Project Size: Elmendorf Air Force Base, located in Anchorage, Alaska, comprises nearly 800 facilities and spans 9.3 million square feet of multi-use space. Ameresco $48.8 million implemented an ESPC, which included supplying the base with natural gas and decentralizing the heating system. Energy Savings: Customer Benefits (CHPP) with a modern and high-efficiency system. Over 1 million MMBtu The Elmendorf Air Force Base entered a partnership Ameresco’s insightful and thorough review of the with Ameresco to design and implement an energy project concept indicated the infrastructure to support savings performance contract (ESPC). The project the CHPP was failing and too expensive to repair. After Capacity: utilized locally available natural gas as an energy additional discussions concerning security and 5.6 MW component. Ameresco took into consideration the Elmendorf’s future growth projections, converting the setting and brief construction time frame for on-time CHPP to a decentralized heating system with the project completion. Elmendorf achieved its sustain- capability to receive their full electricity requirements ability goals and reduced energy use without redundantly from the local utility became the project’s compromising its mission. This project alone made new direction. Elmendorf’s energy reduction goals and has had a Summary major impact on the Air Force’s goals with annual Thorough consideration to provide the Ameresco developed the new project scope, managed a energy savings of over 1 million MMBtu.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Land Use Study
    Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study United States Army, Fort Wainwright United States Air Force, Eielson Air Force Base Fairbanks North Star Borough, Planning Department July 2006 Produced by ASCG Incorporated of Alaska Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study Fairbanks Joint Land Use Study This study was prepared under contract with Fairbanks North Star Borough with financial support from the Office of Economic Adjustment, Department of Defense. The content reflects the views of Fairbanks North Star Borough and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Economic Adjustment. Historical Hangar, Fort Wainwright Army Base Eielson Air Force Base i Fairbanks North Star Borough Joint Land Use Study Table of Contents 1.0 Study Purpose and Process................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................1 1.2 Study Objectives ............................................................................................................ 2 1.3 Planning Area................................................................................................................. 2 1.4 Participating Stakeholders.............................................................................................. 4 1.5 Public Participation........................................................................................................ 5 1.6 Issue Identification........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Law 161 CHAPTER 368 Be It Enacted Hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the ^^"'^'/Or^ C ^ United States Of
    324 PUBLIC LAW 161-JULY 15, 1955 [69 STAT. Public Law 161 CHAPTER 368 July 15.1955 AN ACT THa R 68291 *• * To authorize certain construction at inilitai-y, naval, and Air F<n"ce installations, and for otlier purposes. Be it enacted hy the Senate and House of Representatives of the an^^"'^'/ord Air Forc^e conc^> United States of America in Congress assembled^ struction TITLE I ^'"^" SEC. 101. The Secretary of the Army is authorized to establish or develop military installations and facilities by the acquisition, con­ struction, conversion, rehabilitation, or installation of permanent or temporary public works in respect of the following projects, which include site preparation, appurtenances, and related utilities and equipment: CONTINENTAL UNITED STATES TECHNICAL SERVICES FACILITIES (Ordnance Corps) Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Troop housing, community facilities, utilities, and family housing, $1,736,000. Black Hills Ordnance Depot, South Dakota: Family housing, $1,428,000. Blue Grass Ordnance Depot, Kentucky: Operational and mainte­ nance facilities, $509,000. Erie Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Operational and maintenance facilities and utilities, $1,933,000. Frankford Arsenal, Pennsylvania: Utilities, $855,000. LOrdstown Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Operational and maintenance facilities, $875,000. Pueblo Ordnance Depot, (^olorado: Operational and maintenance facilities, $1,843,000. Ked River Arsenal, Texas: Operational and maintenance facilities, $140,000. Redstone Arsenal, Alabama: Research and development facilities and community facilities, $2,865,000. E(.>ck Island Arsenal, Illinois: Operational and maintenance facil­ ities, $347,000. Rossford Ordnance Depot, Ohio: Utilities, $400,000. Savanna Ordnance Depot, Illinois: Operational and maintenance facilities, $342,000. Seneca Ordnance Depot, New York: Community facilities, $129,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Jurisdiction in OSHA, Region 10 Version 2018.2
    Guide to Jurisdiction in OSHA, Region 10 Version 2018.2 General Principles - Federal civilian employers are covered by OSHA throughout the four-state region. State, county, municipal and other non-federal public employers (except tribal government employers) are covered by state programs in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. There is no state program in Idaho, and OSHA’s coverage of public employers in Idaho is limited to the federal sector. OSHA regulates most private employers in Idaho with exceptions noted below. Industry / Location State Coverage OSHA Coverage Air Carriers1 Washington, Oregon and Alaska: Air Washington, Oregon and Alaska: carrier operations on the ground only. Aircraft cabin crewmembers’ exposures to only hazardous chemicals (HAZCOM), bloodborne pathogens, noise, recordkeeping, and access to employee exposure and medical records. Idaho: Air carrier operations on the ground. Aircraft cabin crewmembers’ exposures to only hazardous chemicals (HAZCOM), bloodborne pathogens, noise, recordkeeping, and access to employee exposure and medical records. Commercial Diving Washington, Oregon and Alaska: Washington, Oregon, and Alaska: Employers with diving operations staged Employers with diving operations from shore, piers, docks or other fixed staged from boats or other vessels afloat locations. on navigable waters 2. Idaho: All diving operations for covered employers. 1 The term “air carrier refers to private employers engaged in air transportation of passengers and/or cargo. The term “aircraft cabin crew member” refers to employees working in the cabin during flight such as flight attendants or medical staff; however, the term does not include pilots. 2 In the state of Washington, for vessels afloat, such as boats, ships and barges moored at a pier or dock, DOSH’s jurisdiction ends at the edge of the dock or pier and OSHA’s jurisdiction begins at the foot of the gangway or other means of access to the vessel; this principle applies to all situations involving moored vessels, including construction, longshoring, and ship repair.
    [Show full text]
  • Limited Effects of a Keystone Species: Trends of Sea Otters and Kelp Forests at the Semichi Islands, Alaska
    MARINE ECOLOGY PROGRESS SERIES Vol. 199: 271-280,2000 Published June 26 Mar Ecol Prog Ser I Limited effects of a keystone species: trends of sea otters and kelp forests at the Semichi Islands, Alaska Brenda Konar* U.S. Geological Survey, University of California, Santa Cruz, California, USA ABSTRACT: Sea otters are well known as a keystone species because of their ability to transform sea urchin-dominated communities into kelp-dominated communities by preying on sea urchins and thus reducing the intensity of herbivory. After being locally extinct for more than a century, sea otters re-col- onized the Sernichi Islands in the Aleutian Archipelago, Alaska in the early 1990s. Here, otter popula- tions increased to about 400 individuals by 1994, but rapidly declined to about 100 by 1997. Roughly 7 yr after initial otter re-colonization, there were only marginal changes in sea urchm biomass, mean maximum test size, and kelp density. These small changes may be the first steps in the cascahng effects on community structure typically found with the invasion of a keystone species. However, no wholesale change in community structure occurred following re-colonization and growth of the sea otter population. Instead, this study describes a transition state and identifies factors such as keystone species density and residence time that can be important in dictating the degree to which otter effects are manifested. KEY WORDS: Community structure . Trophic interactions . Urchin barrens . Enhydra lutris . Strongy- locentrotuspolyacanthus . Alaria fistulosa
    [Show full text]
  • Aleuts: an Outline of the Ethnic History
    i Aleuts: An Outline of the Ethnic History Roza G. Lyapunova Translated by Richard L. Bland ii As the nation’s principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has re- sponsibility for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural and cultural resources. This includes fostering the wisest use of our land and water resources, protecting our fish and wildlife, preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places, and providing for enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Shared Beringian Heritage Program at the National Park Service is an international program that rec- ognizes and celebrates the natural resources and cultural heritage shared by the United States and Russia on both sides of the Bering Strait. The program seeks local, national, and international participation in the preservation and understanding of natural resources and protected lands and works to sustain and protect the cultural traditions and subsistence lifestyle of the Native peoples of the Beringia region. Aleuts: An Outline of the Ethnic History Author: Roza G. Lyapunova English translation by Richard L. Bland 2017 ISBN-13: 978-0-9965837-1-8 This book’s publication and translations were funded by the National Park Service, Shared Beringian Heritage Program. The book is provided without charge by the National Park Service. To order additional copies, please contact the Shared Beringian Heritage Program ([email protected]). National Park Service Shared Beringian Heritage Program © The Russian text of Aleuts: An Outline of the Ethnic History by Roza G. Lyapunova (Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo “Nauka” leningradskoe otdelenie, 1987), was translated into English by Richard L.
    [Show full text]
  • Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations
    Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations Revised Report and Documentation Prepared for: Department of Defense U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Submitted by: January 2004 Species at Risk on Department of Defense Installations: Revised Report and Documentation CONTENTS 1.0 Executive Summary..........................................................................................iii 2.0 Introduction – Project Description................................................................. 1 3.0 Methods ................................................................................................................ 3 3.1 NatureServe Data................................................................................................ 3 3.2 DOD Installations............................................................................................... 5 3.3 Species at Risk .................................................................................................... 6 4.0 Results................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Nationwide Assessment of Species at Risk on DOD Installations..................... 8 4.2 Assessment of Species at Risk by Military Service.......................................... 13 4.3 Assessment of Species at Risk on Installations ................................................ 15 5.0 Conclusion and Management Recommendations.................................... 22 6.0 Future Directions.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • LEGISLATIVE BUDGET and AUDIT COMMITTEE Division of Legislative Audit
    LEGISLATIVE BUDGET AND AUDIT COMMITTEE Division of Legislative Audit P.O. Box 113300 Juneau, AK 99811-3300 (907) 465-3830 FAX (907) 465-2347 [email protected] SUMMARY OF: A Special Report on the Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Spill Prevention and Response, Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund, March 18, 2008. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT In accordance with Title 24 of the Alaska Statutes and a special request by the Legislative Budget and Audit Committee, we have conducted a performance audit of the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), Division of Spill Prevention and Response (Division). Specifically, we were asked to review the expenditures and cost recovery revenues from the Oil and Hazardous Substance Release Prevention and Response Fund (Fund). REPORT CONCLUSIONS The conclusions are as follows: all expenditures are not recorded according to activities compliance with statutory cost recovery requirements is unclear Division is not efficiently and effectively recovering costs most expenditures were appropriate legal costs need an improved budgeting process certain contractual oversight practices are weak detailed information on the Fund’s financial activities is incomplete During the audit we reviewed a $9 million reimbursable services agreement between the Division and the Department of Law for legal services related to two transit pipeline spills on the North Slope. The contract was funded by the Response Account without specific legislative appropriation. It would have been more prudent to follow the established legislative budget process, especially for long-term legal activities. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. The Division Director should improve the accountability for the Division’s activities and reporting of Fund expenditures.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 64, No. 59/Monday, March 29, 1999/Rules
    14972 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 59 / Monday, March 29, 1999 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Airspace Management, Federal Aviation comments on the proposal to the FAA. Administration, 800 Independence The FAA received 11 written comments Federal Aviation Administration Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; in response to the proposal to modify telephone (202) 267±8783. the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Area 14 CFR Part 93 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: (Notice 97±14). These commenters [Docket No. 29029; Amendment No. 93±77] included the following parties: the Air Background Transport Association; Anchorage RIN 2120±AG45 On December 17, 1991, the FAA International Airport; Alaskan Aviation published, in the Federal Register, the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Area Safety Foundation; Alaska Airmen's Airspace Reclassification Final Rule (56 Association, Inc.; Department of the AGENCY: Federal Aviation FR 65638). This rule reclassified various Army; State of Alaska Department of Administration (FAA), DOT. airspace designations and deleted the Transportation and Public Facilities; ACTION: Final rule. term ``Airport Traffic Area.'' These and other concerned citizens. All changes were designed to apply to all comments received were considered SUMMARY: This action amends similarly designated airspace areas. before making a determination on this regulations regarding aircraft operations However, Title 14 of the Code of Federal final rule. The following is an analysis in the Anchorage, Alaska, Terminal Regulations (14 CFR) part 93, subpart D of the substantive comments received Area. Specifically, this action revises was not amended to reflect the airspace and the Agency's responses. the description of the Anchorage, reclassification effort. Alaska, Terminal Area and the In this action, the FAA amends the Analysis of Comments Communications requirements for regulations set forth at part 93, subpart Lake Hood Segment operating in the area; adds a new D, to reflect airspace designations in the segment, with communication and vicinity of Anchorage, Alaska.
    [Show full text]
  • Mid-Twentieth Century Architecture in Alaska Historic Context (1945-1968)
    Mid-Twentieth Century Architecture in Alaska Historic Context (1945-1968) Prepared by Amy Ramirez . Jeanne Lambin . Robert L. Meinhardt . and Casey Woster 2016 The Cultural Resource Programs of the National Park Service have responsibilities that include stewardship of historic buildings, museum collections, archeological sites, cultural landscapes, oral and written histories, and ethnographic resources. The material is based upon work assisted by funding from the National Park Service. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of the Interior. Printed 2018 Cover: Atwood Center, Alaska Pacific University, Anchorage, 2017, NPS photograph MID-TWENTIETH CENTURY ARCHITECTURE IN ALASKA HISTORIC CONTEXT (1945 – 1968) Prepared for National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office Prepared by Amy Ramirez, B.A. Jeanne Lambin, M.S. Robert L. Meinhardt, M.A. and Casey Woster, M.A. July 2016 Table of Contents LIST OF ACRONYMS/ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................... 5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................... 8 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Historic Context as a Planning & Evaluation Tool ............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register/Vol. 78, No. 193/Friday, October 4, 2013/Notices
    Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 193 / Friday, October 4, 2013 / Notices 61851 11. Type of Information Collection this collection contact Anitra Johnson at would constitute a clearly unwarranted Request: Reinstatement without change 410–786–0609). invasion of personal privacy. of a previously approved collection; 13. Type of Information Collection Name of Committee: National Human Title of Information Collection: Request: Extension of a currently Genome Research Institute Special Emphasis Medicare Geographic Classification approved collection; Title of Panel Extramural Gene Function Research Review Board (MGCRB) Procedures and Information Collection: State Children’s Initiative (R21) UDP. Supporting Regulations; Use: The Health Insurance Program and Date: November 27, 2013. information submitted by the hospitals Supporting Regulations; Use: States Time: 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. is used to determine the validity of the must submit title XXI plans and Agenda: To review and evaluate grant hospitals’ requests and the discretion amendments for approval by the applications. Secretary. We use the plan and its Place: National Human Genome Research used by the Medicare Geographic Institute, 4076 Conference Room, 5635 Classification Review Board (MGCRB) subsequent amendments to determine if Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20852, in reviewing and making decisions the state has met the requirements of (Telephone Conference Call). regarding hospitals’ requests for title XXI. Information provided in the Contact Person: Keith McKenney, Ph.D., geographic reclassification. Form state plan, state plan amendments, and Scientific Review Officer, NHGRI, 5635 Number: CMS–R–138 (OCN: 0938– from the other information we are Fishers Lane, Suite 4076, Bethesda, MD 0573); Frequency: Yearly; Affected collecting will be used by advocacy 20814, 301–594–4280, mckenneyk@ Public: Business or other for-profits and groups, beneficiaries, applicants, other mail.nih.gov.
    [Show full text]
  • Boreal Partners in Flight 2009 Project Summaries
    Boreal Partners in Flight 2009 Project Summaries Table of Contents BCR REPORTS BCR 1 – Renner ………………………………………………………………….……….4 BCR 2 – Savage…………………………………………………………………………...4 BCR 5 – Cady………………………………………………………...…………………...6 PROJECT SUMMARIES Ajmi – Fort Wainwright Tanana Flats Training Area and Yukon Training Area………..7 Ambrose et al. – American Peregrine Falcon (Falocperegrinus anatum) Monitoring along the Upper Yukon River in Yukon-Charley River National Preserve……………………………………………………………………………….….10 Baluss and Hopey – Tongass National Forest Partners in Flight…………………….…12 de Zeeuw – New National Eagle Take Permit Program…………………………...……13 Ely and Shook – Tundra Swan Avian Influenza Sampling on the North Slope of Alaska……………………………………………………………………………………14 Gotthardt et al. – Biogeography of Select Avian Species in Alaska’s National Parks…………………………………………………………..………….………………14 Griese and Moran – Elmendorf AFB Update…………………………………………..15 1 Harwood – Landbird Update for Kanuti NWF...........................................................…..15 Johnson et al. – Using Satellite Telementry to Determine Migratory Movements of Short-eared Owls from the Seward Peniusula……………………………………….…..16 Johnson et al. – Landbird Update from Tetlin NRW………………………...…………16 Kirchhoff – The Audubon Alaska WatchList……………………………………….…..20 Kovach – Bird Monitoring at Innoko NWR…………………………………….……….21 Macander and Augustine – USAF Goose Forage Study, the Near Island Group in Western Aleutians…………………………………………………..................................21 Matsuoka and Pardieck – North American
    [Show full text]