[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 62 (Friday, March 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19309-19311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7667]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R6-R-2012-N024; FF06R06000-FXRS1265066CCP0S2-123]
Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Great Falls, MT;
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and
environmental assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Benton Lake National
Wildlife Refuge Complex for public review and comment. The Draft CCP/EA
describes our proposal for managing the refuge complex for the next 15
years.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by
May 18, 2012.
We will announce upcoming public meetings in local news media.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments or requests for copies or more
information by any of the following methods. You may request hard
copies or a CD-ROM of the documents.
Email: toni_griffin@fws.gov. Include ``Benton Lake Refuge Complex
Draft CCP/EA'' in the subject line of the message.
U.S. Mail: Toni Griffin, Planning Team Leader, Suite 300, 134 Union
Boulevard, Lakewood, CO 80228.
Information Request: A copy of the Draft CCP/EA may be obtained by
writing to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge Planning,
134 Union Boulevard, Suite 300, Lakewood, Colorado 80228; or by
download from http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Griffin, 303-236-4378 (phone);
303-236-4792 (fax); or toni_griffin@fws.gov (email) or David C. Lucas,
303-236-4366 (phone): 303-236-4792 (fax): or david_c_lucas@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
The 163,304-acre Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex
(refuge complex) is part of the National Wildlife Refuge System and is
located in northwest and north-central Montana. Spanning both sides of
the Continental Divide, the refuge complex is a collection of diverse
landscapes, from wetlands and mixed-grass prairie in the east to
forests, intermountain grasslands, rivers, and lakes in the west. The
refuge complex oversees management of 2 refuges, 1 wetland management
district containing 22 waterfowl production areas, 3 conservation
areas, and administers 216 easements within the Refuge System:
[ssquf] Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1929
and consists of 12,383 fee-title acres and 76.88 acres of right-of-way
easement. It is located on the northern Great Plains, 50 miles east of
the Rocky Mountains and 12 miles north of Great Falls, Montana.
[ssquf] Benton Lake Wetland Management District was established in
1975. It includes 10 counties (Cascade, Chouteau, Glacier, Hill, Lewis
and Clark, Liberty, Pondera, Powell, Teton, Toole), 22 waterfowl
production areas, and 4 distinct easement programs.
[ssquf] Blackfoot Valley Conservation Area (CA) was established in 1995
and expanded in 2011. This conservation easement program has the
potential to protect up to 103,500 acres in the Blackfoot Valley by
buying conservation easements on private land within the 824,024-acre
project area.
[ssquf] Rocky Mountain Front CA was established in 2005 and expanded in
2011. This conservation easement program has the potential to protect
up to 295,000 acres in the Rocky Mountain Front (Front) by buying
conservation easements on private land within the 918,000-acre project
area.
[ssquf] Swan River National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1973 and
consists of 1,568.81 acres. It is located in the Swan Valley, 38 miles
southeast of Creston, Montana.
[ssquf] Swan Valley CA was authorized in 2011. This conservation area
has the potential to protect up to 10,000 acres in the Swan Valley by
buying conservation easements on private land, and up to 1,000 acres in
fee-title land next to the Swan River Refuge within the 187,400-acre
project area.
Refuge complex lands and waters are important corridors for birds,
fish, and other wildlife. Across the refuge complex, there exists a
very high level of diversity. Wildlife ranges from migratory waterfowl
to grassland birds, to native trout, to ``charismatic mega fauna'' such
as elk, gray wolf, and grizzly bear. Refuge complex lands harbor
Federal and State species of concern. Threatened and endangered species
include bull trout, grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and water howellia.
Candidate species include Sprague's pipit and wolverine. The refuge
complex is of great value to waterfowl and shorebirds, as well as other
migrating water-dependent bird species, because of the diversity of
wetland and upland habitats that provide for the diverse life cycle
needs of these species. The refuge complex has large, intact areas of
native prairie that provide habitat for grassland birds that are one of
the most imperiled groups of migratory birds nationwide.
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge Administration Act), as amended by the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to
develop a
[[Page 19310]]
CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP
is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge
purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife
management, conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition
to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and
their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update
the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Refuge
Administration Act.
Public Outreach
A Notice of Intent to prepare a CCP was published in the Federal
Register August 18, 2008 (73, FR 48237). During scoping and throughout
the process, we requested public comments and considered and
incorporated them in numerous ways. Public outreach has included local
news media announcements, a planning update, and several public scoping
meetings. In addition, a biological workshop to discuss management
issues and options related to water management, selenium contamination,
and public use at the Benton Lake Refuge took place in Great Falls,
Montana June 2011. Comments we received cover topics such as land
protection, climate change, wetland health, water quality, hunting,
wildlife observation, and environmental education. We have considered
and evaluated all of these comments, with many incorporated into the
various alternatives addressed in the Draft CCP and the EA.
CCP Alternatives We Are Considering
During the scoping process with which we started work on this Draft
CCP, we, other governmental partners, and the public raised several
issues. Our Draft CCP addresses these issues. The Draft CCP/EA includes
the analyses of two different sets of alternatives. The first analysis
includes three alternatives for managing the refuge complex. The second
analysis includes five alternatives for addressing the declining
condition of the Benton Lake Refuge wetlands. A full description of
each analysis and the associated alternatives is in the EA. The
alternatives are summarized below.
Alternatives for the Refuge Complex
Alternative A, Current Management (No Action). Management activity
being conducted by the Service would remain the same. The Service would
not develop any new management, restoration, or education programs at
the refuge complex. Current habitat and wildlife practices benefiting
migratory species and other wildlife would not be expanded or changed.
Habitat management within the refuge complex has been focused on
benefitting migratory birds, primarily waterfowl. Other species are
considered through land protection programs and partnerships (for
example, grizzly bear and bull trout). Staff would continue monitoring,
inventory, and research activities at their current levels. Money and
staff levels would remain the same with little change in overall
trends. Programs would follow the same direction, emphasis, and
intensity as they do at present.
Alternative B. Management efforts would be focused on maintaining
the resiliency and sustainability of native grasslands, forests,
shrublands, and unaltered wetlands throughout the refuge complex by
emulating natural processes. Prescribed fire, grazing, and other
management techniques would be used to replicate historical disturbance
factors. Where feasible, restoration of native uplands would occur. For
wetlands where water management capability exists, management efforts
would be focused on achieving conditions that are more consistent by
minimizing the effects of drought periods of the northern Great Plains
and Rocky Mountains. Management would be active and intensive to keep
these conditions in a consistent state for wildlife using tools such as
artificial flooding, drawdowns, fire, rest, and grazing. Changes in the
refuge complex's research and monitoring, staff, operations, and
infrastructure would likely be required to achieve this alternative's
goals and objectives. The success of these efforts and programs would
depend on added staff, research, and monitoring programs, operations
money, infrastructure, and new and expanded partnerships.
Alternative C, the Proposed Action. Emphasis would be placed on
self-sustaining systems with ecological processes functioning for long-
term productivity. Management efforts would focus on maintaining and
restoring ecological processes including natural communities and the
dynamics of the ecosystems of the northern Great Plains and northern
Rocky Mountains. Conservation of native landscapes would be a high
priority accomplished by protecting habitats from conversion using a
combination of partnerships, easements and fee-title lands, and through
active management and proactive enforcement of easements. Management
actions such as prescribed fire, grazing, and invasive species control
would be used to maintain the resiliency and sustainability of Service-
owned lands throughout the refuge complex. Whenever possible, habitat
conditions would be allowed fluctuate with climatically driven wet and
dry cycles, which are essential for long-term productivity. The success
of these efforts and programs would depend on added staff, research,
and monitoring programs, operations money, infrastructure, and new and
expanded partnerships.
Alternatives for Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge
The Service and the public have identified declining wetland
productivity and selenium contamination, and its effects on all aspects
of management at the refuge, as one of the most critical situations
needing to be addressed in the CCP planning process. To fully
understand what is causing this decline, the Service met with
consultants from Greenbrier Wetland Service in 2009 to understand what
changes had occurred in the Benton Lake wetlands over time and how this
might relate to the observed declines in productivity, increases in
invasive species and increasing selenium contamination. In addition,
the United States Geological Survey developed a water budget model
based on more than 30 years of data and selenium model based on
research conducted by USGS and the University of Montana on the refuge.
These models, coupled with a hydro geomorphic assessment, were used to
develop and analyze the management alternatives and to select one as
the proposed action for the refuge.
The Service developed and analyzed five alternatives representing a
full range of options to address the declining condition of the Benton
Lake Refuge wetlands. The Service selected ``Self-sustaining Systems
through Adaptive Resource Management'' as the Proposed Action. Under
the Proposed Action, the Service will (1) start to address the selenium
load, and (2) work throughout the watershed to reduce incoming
selenium, and (3) monitor results and make necessary changes to pumping
and water management infrastructure to achieve the long-term goal of a
more natural process. The Service identified this alternative as the
best option for
[[Page 19311]]
addressing the declining condition of wetlands based on the
effectiveness of treatment, environmental and social consequences, and
cost.
Next Steps
After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments we may
issie a finding of no significant impact and final CCP, or if
significant impacts are identified, the Service will prepare an
environmental impact statement.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. 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.
Dated: February 29, 2012.
Matt Hogan
Acting Deputy Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-7667 Filed 3-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P