DOCSLIB.ORG

State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection State Implementation Plan (SIP) For Regional Haze Final Appendix C: Federal Land Manager Air Quality Value Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report June, 2016 National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resource Program Center Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report—Revised (2010) Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/232 ON THE COVER Courthouse Towers, Arches National Park, Utah. Photo by Debbie Miller. THIS PAGE: Jumping Cholla, Superstition Wilderness, Arizona. Photo by Steve Boutcher Federal Land Managers’ Air Quality Related Values Work Group (FLAG) Phase I Report—Revised (2010) Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/NRR—2010/232 U.S. Forest Service Air Quality Program 1400 Independence Ave, SW Washington, DC 20250 National Park Service Natural Resource Program Center Air Resources Division PO Box 25287 Denver, Colorado 80225 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge System Air Quality Branch 7333 W. Jefferson Ave., Suite 375 Lakewood, CO 80235 October 2010 The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and environmental constituencies, and the public. The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management applicability. All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This guidance document was jointly prepared by the National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency. Guidance contained herein has been reviewed by subject matter experts and the general public through formal public review and comment period. This guidance document provides information for Federal Land Managers, permitting authorities, and permit applicants to use when assessing air quality impacts to air quality related values. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government. This report is available from the Air Resources Division of the NPS (http://www.nature.nps.gov/air) and the Natural Resource Publications Management Web site (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM) on the Internet. Please cite this publication as: U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Federal land managers’ air quality related values work group (FLAG): phase I report—revised (2010). Natural Resource Report NPS/ NRPC/NRR—2010/232. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. NPS 999/105412, October 2010 USFS–NPS–USFWS iii iv FLAG Phase I Report—Revised (2010) Contents Figures ........................................................................................................................................................................... vii Tables ............................................................................................................................................................................ viii Preface to this Edition of the FLAG Phase I Report (New) .......................................................................................... ix Executive Summary (Revised) ...................................................................................................................................... xii 1. Background ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. History (Revised) ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1. FLAG Approach (Revised) ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1.2. FLAG Organization ......................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2. Overview of Resource Issues (Revised) .................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.1. Visibility .......................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.2. Vegetation ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 1.2.3. Soils and Surface Waters ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.3. Legal Responsibilities (Revised) ............................................................................................................................... 3 1.4. Commonalities Among Federal Land Managers ..................................................................................................... 4 1.4.1. Identifying AQRVs (Revised) ............................................................................................................................ 4 1.4.2. Determining the Levels of Pollution that Trigger Concern for the Well-Being of AQRVs (Revised) ..................... 4 1.4.3. Visibility .......................................................................................................................................................... 5 1.4.4. Biological and Physical Effects ......................................................................................................................... 5 1.4.5. Determining Pollution Levels of Concern (Revised) ........................................................................................... 5 1.4.6. FLM Databases (Revised) ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.5. Regulatory Developments Since FLAG 2000 (New) ................................................................................................. 5 2. Federal Land Managers’ Approach to AQRV Protection ........................................................................................ 7 2.1. AQRV Protection and Identification (Revised) ......................................................................................................... 7 2.2. New Source Review (Revised) ................................................................................................................................. 7 2.2.1. Roles and Responsibilities of FLMs (Revised) .................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2. Elements of Permit Review .............................................................................................................................. 9 2.2.3. FLM Permit Review Process ........................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.4. Criteria for Decision Making (Adverse Impact Considerations) (Revised) ......................................................... 12 2.2.5. Air Pollution Permit Conditions that Benefit Class I Areas .............................................................................. 12 2.2.6. Reducing Pollution in Nonattainment Areas (Nonattainment Permit Process) ................................................. 13 2.3. Other Air Quality Review Considerations (Revised) ............................................................................................... 13 2.3.1. Remedying Existing Adverse Impacts ............................................................................................................. 13 2.3.2. Requesting State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions to Address AQRV Adverse Impacts (Revised)................ 14 2.3.3. Periodic Increment Consumption Review (Revised) ........................................................................................ 14 2.4. Managing Emissions Generated in and Near FLM Areas (Revised) ......................................................................... 14 2.4.1. Prescribed Fire ............................................................................................................................................. 15 2.4.2. Strategies to Minimize Emissions from Sources In and Near FLM Areas (Revised) ........................................... 15 2.4.3. Conformity Requirements in Nonattainment Areas........................................................................................ 16 3. Subgroup Reports: Technical Analyses and Recommendations ........................................................................... 18 3.1. Subgroup Objectives and Tasks ............................................................................................................................ 18 3.2. Initial Screening Criteria (New) ............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • VGP) Version 2/5/2009
    Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) VESSEL GENERAL PERMIT FOR DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF VESSELS (VGP) AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), any owner or operator of a vessel being operated in a capacity as a means of transportation who: • Is eligible for permit coverage under Part 1.2; • If required by Part 1.5.1, submits a complete and accurate Notice of Intent (NOI) is authorized to discharge in accordance with the requirements of this permit. General effluent limits for all eligible vessels are given in Part 2. Further vessel class or type specific requirements are given in Part 5 for select vessels and apply in addition to any general effluent limits in Part 2. Specific requirements that apply in individual States and Indian Country Lands are found in Part 6. Definitions of permit-specific terms used in this permit are provided in Appendix A. This permit becomes effective on December 19, 2008 for all jurisdictions except Alaska and Hawaii. This permit and the authorization to discharge expire at midnight, December 19, 2013 i Vessel General Permit (VGP) Version 2/5/2009 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 William K. Honker, Acting Director Robert W. Varney, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1 6 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, 2008 Signed and issued this 18th day of December, Barbara A.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Conservation Plan, 12 North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges
    Comprehensive Conservation Plan North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges September 2008 Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Approved by Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge Kellys Slough National Wildlife Refuge Lake Alice National Wildlife Refuge Lake Ilo National Wildlife Refuge Stephen D. Guertin Date Lake Nettie National Wildlife Refuge Regional Director, Region 6 Lake Zahl National Wildlife Refuge U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service McLean National Wildlife Refuge Lakewood, CO Shell Lake National Wildlife Refuge Stewart Lake National Wildlife Refuge Stump Lake National Wildlife Refuge White Lake National Wildlife Refuge and Region 6, Mountain-Prairie Region Division of Refuge Planning 134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300 Lakewood, CO 80228 Comprehensive Conservation Plan North Dakota National Wildlife Refuges Submitted by Concurred with by Kim Hanson Date Richard A. Coleman, PhD Date Project Leader Assistant Regional Director, Region 6 Arrowwood National Wildlife Refuge Complex National Wildlife Refuge System (Chase Lake National Wildlife Refuge) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pingree, ND Lakewood, CO Lloyd Jones Date Paul Cornes Date Project Leader Refuge Supervisor Audubon National Wildlife Refuge Complex U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6 (Audubon, Lake Ilo, Lake Nettie, McLean, Stewart Lakewood, CO Lake, and White Lake national wildlife refuges) Coleharbor, ND Roger Hollevoet Date Project Leader Devils Lake Wetland Management District Complex (Kellys Slough, Lake Alice, and Stump Lake national
    [Show full text]
  • Proposed Additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System
    93d Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 93-403 PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM COMMUNICATION FROM THE PRESIDENT OE THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING PROPOSALS FOR THIRTY-SEVEN ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM AND DEFERRAL OF ACTION ON FIVE AREAS SUITABLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE SYSTEM, AND RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF FOUR OTHER AREAS STUDIED, PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 OF THE WILDER- NESS ACT OF 1964 [16 USC 1132] PART 29 ANAHO ISLAND WILDERNESS NEVADA DECEMBER 4, 1974. - Referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and ordered to be printed with illustrations. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON : 1974 42-797 O THE WHITE HOUSE WAS HINGTON December 4, 1974 Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, I am pleased to transmit herewith proposals for thirty-seven additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System. As described in the Wilderness Message that I am con- currently sending to the Congress today, the proposed new wilderness areas cover a total of over nine million primeval acres. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior has recommended that Congressional action on five other areas which include surface lands suitable for wilderness be deferred for the reasons set forth below: A. Three areas which are open to mining might be needed in the future to provide vital minerals for the Nation, but these areas have not been adequately surveyed for mineral deposits. The areas are the Kofa Game Range, Arizona; Charles Sheldon Antelope Range, Nevada and Oregon; and, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range, Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Border Security Threatens Northern Border Wildernesses
    Wilderness In Peril: Border Security Measures Threaten Wilderness along the Northern Border with Canada An Analysis Prepared by Wilderness Watch October 2012 Wilderness Watch P.O. Box 9175 Missoula, MT 59807 406-542-2048 www.wildernesswatch.org For more information, contact: George Nickas, Executive Director Kevin Proescholdt, Conservation Director [email protected] [email protected] 406-542-2048 612-201-9266 2 Table of Contents Executive Summary………………………………………………...…………….Page 3 Introduction………………………………………………………..………..….....Page 4 Background…………………………………………………..………………....…Page 4 A. Early 20th Century Border Easements B. International Boundary Treaties with Canada C. 2005 REAL ID Act D. 2006 Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Border Patrol Practices on the Southern Border and Lessons for the North……………………………………………………………….Page 9 A. Border Wall Construction B. Illegal Roads and Vehicle Routes C. Border Security Infrastructure D. Motorized Patrols Emerging Major Threats to Wildernesses near the Northern Border……...…Page 13 A. Congressional Legislation B. Northern Border Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement C. 2006 MOU and Motorized Patrols D. Administrative Waiver of Federal Laws E. Clearing and Construction in Border Reservations F. Conclusion Needed Actions to Reestablish and Affirm Wilderness Protections Along the Northern Border……………………………………….……………..Page 17 A. Existing Homeland Security Laws B. 2006 MOU C. Northern Border PEIS D. Pending Legislation E. Restore Wilderness Protection Appendix - Wildernesses at Risk along the Northern Border………………....Page 18 3 Executive Summary Under the guise of border security, a plethora of new and proposed laws, policies, memoranda, and other governmental actions pose an unprecedented threat to Wildernesses, including in many national parks, along our nation’s Northern Border. This whitepaper describes the threats and presents several recommendations for securing the protection of Wilderness and parks along the Northern Border.
    [Show full text]
  • Roger Dunsmore Came to the University of Montana in 1963 As a Freshman Composition Instructor in the English Department
    January 30 Introduction to the Series Roger Dunsmore Bio: Roger Dunsmore came to the University of Montana in 1963 as a freshman composition instructor in the English Department. In 1964 he also began to teach half- time in the Humanities Program. He taught his first course in American Indian Literature, Indian Autobiographies, in 1969. In 1971 he was an originating member of the faculty group that formed the Round River Experiment in Environmental Education (1971- 74) and has taught in UM’s Wilderness and Civilization Program since 1976. He received his MFA in Creative Writing (poetry) in 1971 and his first volume of poetry.On The Road To Sleeping ChildHotsprings was published that same year. (Revised edition, 1977.) Lazslo Toth, a documentary poem on the smashing of Michelangelo’s Pieta was published in 1979. His second full length volume of poems,Bloodhouse, 1987, was selected by the Yellowstone Art Center, Billings, MX for their Regional Writer’s Project.. The title poem of his chapbook.The Sharp-Shinned Hawk, 1987, was nominated by the Koyukon writer, Mary TallMountain for a Pushcat Prize. He retired from full-time teaching after twenty-five years, in 1988, but continues at UM under a one- third time retiree option. During the 1988-89 academic year he was Humanities Scholar in Residence for the Arizona Humanities Council, training teachers at a large Indian high school on the Navajo Reservation. A chapbook of his reading at the International Wildlife Film Festival, The Bear Remembers, was published in 1990. Spring semester, 1991, (and again in the fall semester, 1997) he taught modern American Literature as UM’s Exchange Fellow with Shanghai International Studies University in mainland China.
    [Show full text]
  • The President of the United States Transmitting
    93d Congress, 2d Session House Document No. 93- 403 PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM COMMUNICATION FHOVI THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TRANSMITTING PROPOSALS FOR THIRTY-SEVEN ADDITIONS TO THE NATIONAL WILDERNESS PRESERVATION SYSTEM AND DEFERRAL OF ACTION ON FIVE AREAS SUITABLE FOR INCLUSION IN THE SYSTEM, AND RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST THE INCLUSION OF FOUR OTHER AREAS STUDIED, PURSUANT TO SECTION 3 OF THE WILDER- NESS ACT OF 1964 [16 USC 1132] PART 31 UL BEND WILDERNESS MONTANA DECEMBER 4, 197 4. - Referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs and ordered to be printed with illustrations. U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON: 1974 THE WHITE HOUSE • WASHINGTON D e cembe r 4, 1974 Dear Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the Wilderness Act of September 3, 1964, I am pleased to transmit herewith proposals for thirty-seven additions to the National Wilderness Preservation System. As described in the Wilderness Message that I am con­ currently sending to the Congress today, the proposed new wilderness areas cover a total of over nine million primeval acres. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior has recommended that Congressional action on five other areas which include surface lands suitable for wilderness be deferred for the reasons set forth below: A. Three areas which are open to mining might be needed in the future to provide vital minerals fer the Nation, but these areas have not been adequately surveyed for mineral deposits. The areas are the • Kofa Game Range, Arizona; Charles Sheldon Antelope Range, Nevada and Oregon; and, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Range, Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1464 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1132
    § 1132 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION Page 1464 Department and agency having jurisdiction of, and reports submitted to Congress regard- thereover immediately before its inclusion in ing pending additions, eliminations, or modi- the National Wilderness Preservation System fications. Maps, legal descriptions, and regula- unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress. tions pertaining to wilderness areas within No appropriation shall be available for the pay- their respective jurisdictions also shall be ment of expenses or salaries for the administra- available to the public in the offices of re- tion of the National Wilderness Preservation gional foresters, national forest supervisors, System as a separate unit nor shall any appro- priations be available for additional personnel and forest rangers. stated as being required solely for the purpose of managing or administering areas solely because (b) Review by Secretary of Agriculture of classi- they are included within the National Wilder- fications as primitive areas; Presidential rec- ness Preservation System. ommendations to Congress; approval of Con- (c) ‘‘Wilderness’’ defined gress; size of primitive areas; Gore Range-Ea- A wilderness, in contrast with those areas gles Nest Primitive Area, Colorado where man and his own works dominate the The Secretary of Agriculture shall, within ten landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where years after September 3, 1964, review, as to its the earth and its community of life are un- suitability or nonsuitability for preservation as trammeled by man, where man himself is a visi- wilderness, each area in the national forests tor who does not remain. An area of wilderness classified on September 3, 1964 by the Secretary is further defined to mean in this chapter an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its of Agriculture or the Chief of the Forest Service primeval character and influence, without per- as ‘‘primitive’’ and report his findings to the manent improvements or human habitation, President.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the 2008 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium
    United States Department of Agriculture Proceedings of the 2008 Forest Service Northeastern Recreation Northern Research Station Research Symposium General Technical Report NRS-P-42 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium Policy Statement The objective of the NERR Symposium is to positively influence our profession by allowing managers and academicians in the governmental, education, and private recreation and tourism sectors to share practical and scientific knowledge. This objective is met through providing a professional forum for quality information exchange on current management practices, programs, and research applications in the field, as well as, a comfortable social setting that allows participants to foster friendships with colleagues. Students and all those interested in continuing their education in recreation and tourism management are welcome. NERR 2008 Steering Committee Arne Arnberger – University of BOKU, Vienna, Austria Kelly Bricker – University of Utah Robert Bristow – Westfield State College Robert Burns – West Virginia University Fred Clark – U.S. Forest Service John Confer – California University of Pennsylvania Chad Dawson – SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry Edwin Gomez – Old Dominion University Alan Graefe – Penn State University Laurie Harmon – George Mason University Andrew Holdnak – University of West Florida Deborah Kerstetter – Penn State University David Klenosky – Purdue University (Proceedings co-editor) Diane Kuehn – SUNY College of Environmental Science & Forestry (Website Coordinator)
    [Show full text]
  • Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L
    Page 1517 TITLE 16—CONSERVATION § 1131 (Pub. L. 88–363, § 10, July 7, 1964, 78 Stat. 301.) Sec. 1132. Extent of System. § 1110. Liability 1133. Use of wilderness areas. 1134. State and private lands within wilderness (a) United States areas. The United States Government shall not be 1135. Gifts, bequests, and contributions. liable for any act or omission of the Commission 1136. Annual reports to Congress. or of any person employed by, or assigned or de- § 1131. National Wilderness Preservation System tailed to, the Commission. (a) Establishment; Congressional declaration of (b) Payment; exemption of property from attach- policy; wilderness areas; administration for ment, execution, etc. public use and enjoyment, protection, preser- Any liability of the Commission shall be met vation, and gathering and dissemination of from funds of the Commission to the extent that information; provisions for designation as it is not covered by insurance, or otherwise. wilderness areas Property belonging to the Commission shall be In order to assure that an increasing popu- exempt from attachment, execution, or other lation, accompanied by expanding settlement process for satisfaction of claims, debts, or judg- and growing mechanization, does not occupy ments. and modify all areas within the United States (c) Individual members of Commission and its possessions, leaving no lands designated No liability of the Commission shall be im- for preservation and protection in their natural puted to any member of the Commission solely condition, it is hereby declared to be the policy on the basis that he occupies the position of of the Congress to secure for the American peo- member of the Commission.
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY WASHINGTON, B.C. 20240 SEP 14 Dear Mr. President: It is with pleasure that I recommend the establishment of Lostwood Wilderness within the Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge, North Dakota, as a part of the National Wilderness Preservation System. Section 3(c) of the Wilderness Act (approved September 3, 1964; 78 Stat. 890, 892; 16 U.S.C. 1132(c)), directs the Secretary of the Interior to review roadless areas of 5>000 acres or more in the national parks, monuments, and other units of the National Park System, wildlife refuges, and game ranges, and report to the President his recommenda- tion as to the suitability of each such area for preservation as wilderness. The Act further directs the President to advise the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of his recommendation with respect to the designation of each such area as wilderness. A recommendation of the President for designation as wilderness shall}. T3ecome effective only if so provided by an Act of Congress. This Department has recently completed its review of such a roadless area in Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge. Based upon this review, we recommend 5>577 acres within the national wildlife refuge "be designated as wilderness. Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge, which contains 26,7^7 acres, is one of the northernmost national wildlife refuges and is located in the "Coteau" region of northwestern North Dakota. This is an area of sharply rolling hills, covered with native prairie grasses, with thousands of small natural ponds and marshes nestled between them.
    [Show full text]
  • Avenue West – Suite a Dickinson, North Dakota 58601-2619
    United States Department of the Interior BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT North Dakota Field Office 99 23rd Avenue West – Suite A Dickinson, North Dakota 58601-2619 In Reply Refer To: www.blm.gov/mt 1600/3100 (MTC030) August 25, 2014 Dear Reader: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) North Dakota Field Office has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) to analyze the potential effects from offering 7 nominated lease parcels for competitive oil and gas leasing in a sale tentatively scheduled to occur on January 27, 2015. The EA with an unsigned Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is available for a 30-day public comment period. Written comments must be postmarked by September 24, 2014 to be considered. Comments may be submitted using one of the following methods: Email: [email protected] Mail: North Dakota Field Office Attn: Shelly Ziman 99 23rd Avenue West, Suite A Dickinson, ND 58601-2619 Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be advised that your entire comment – including your personal identifying information – will be available for public review. If you wish to withhold personal identifying information from public review or disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), you must clearly state, in the first line of your written comment, “CONFIDENTIALITY REQUESTED.” While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations, businesses, and individuals identifying themselves as representatives of organizations or businesses, will be available for public review.
    [Show full text]
  • Medicine Lake National
    FIRE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MEDICINE LAKE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPLEX Prepared by: Range Technician, Date Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex Submitted by: Project Leader, Date Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex Reviewed by: Prescribed Fire Specialist, Date Mountain-Prairie Region Concurred by: Regional Fire Management Coordinator, Date Mountain-Prairie Region Concurred by: Geographical Associate Regional Director, Date ND/SD/MT/WY Approved by: Regional Director, Date Mountain-Prairie Region TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1 II. COMPLIANCE WITH FWS POLICY............................................................................... 2 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE REFUGE COMPLEX............................................................... 6 IV. MEDICINE LAKE COMPLEX FIRE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES......................... 8 V. FIRE MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES ............................................................................ 9 VI. FIRE MANAGEMENT UNITS 14 VII. FIRE MANAGEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITIES...................................................... 20 VIII. WILDLAND FIRE PROGRAM...................................................................................... 21 IX. PRESCRIBED FIRE PROGRAM................................................................................... 28 X. AIR QUALITY / SMOKE MANAGEMENT GUIDELINES ........................................ 32 XI. FIRE RESEARCH AND MONITORING .....................................................................
    [Show full text]