Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Great Falls, MT; Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, 19309-19311 [2012-7667]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices
proposed renewal. We received one
comment expressing general criticism of
DOI management. Because the comment
provided no specifics, we have not
modified the proposed renewal. The
public now has a second opportunity to
comment on this renewal. We invite
comments concerning this IC on:
(1) Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on
respondents.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. 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 or OMB in your
comment to withhold your personal
identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Dated: March 26, 2012.
Benjamin Simon,
Assistant Director, Office of Policy Analysis,
U.S. Department of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 2012–7665 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–RK–P
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
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
AGENCY:
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
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 https://mountainprairie.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:
D 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.
D 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
PO 00000
Frm 00133
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19309
production areas, and 4 distinct
easement programs.
D 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.
D 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.
D 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.
D 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
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
19310
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices
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 wildlifedependent 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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
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 selfsustaining 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
PO 00000
Frm 00134
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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 Serviceowned 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 ‘‘Selfsustaining 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
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 62 / Friday, March 30, 2012 / Notices
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, MountainPrairie Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–7667 Filed 3–29–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R9–IA–2012–N075;
FXIA16710900000P5–123–FF09A30000]
Endangered Species; Receipt of
Applications for Permit
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications
for permit.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, invite the public to
comment on the following applications
to conduct certain activities with
endangered species. With some
exceptions, the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) prohibits activities with listed
species unless Federal authorization is
acquired that allows such activities.
DATES: We must receive comments or
requests for documents on or before
April 30, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Brenda Tapia, Division of
Management Authority, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax
Drive, Room 212, Arlington, VA 22203;
fax (703) 358–2280; or email
DMAFR@fws.gov.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brenda Tapia, (703) 358–2104
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:11 Mar 29, 2012
Jkt 226001
(telephone); (703) 358–2280 (fax);
DMAFR@fws.gov (email).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Public Comment Procedures
A. How do I request copies of
applications or comment on submitted
applications?
Send your request for copies of
applications or comments and materials
concerning any of the applications to
the contact listed under ADDRESSES.
Please include the Federal Register
notice publication date, the PRTnumber, and the name of the applicant
in your request or submission. We will
not consider requests or comments sent
to an email or address not listed under
ADDRESSES. If you provide an email
address in your request for copies of
applications, we will attempt to respond
to your request electronically.
Please make your requests or
comments as specific as possible. Please
confine your comments to issues for
which we seek comments in this notice,
and explain the basis for your
comments. Include sufficient
information with your comments to
allow us to authenticate any scientific or
commercial data you include.
The comments and recommendations
that will be most useful and likely to
influence agency decisions are: (1)
Those supported by quantitative
information or studies; and (2) Those
that include citations to, and analyses
of, the applicable laws and regulations.
We will not consider or include in our
administrative record comments we
receive after the close of the comment
period (see DATES) or comments
delivered to an address other than those
listed above (see ADDRESSES).
B. May I review comments submitted by
others?
Comments, including names and
street addresses of respondents, will be
available for public review at the
address listed under ADDRESSES. The
public may review documents and other
information applicants have sent in
support of the application unless our
allowing viewing would violate the
Privacy Act or Freedom of Information
Act. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00135
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
19311
II. Background
To help us carry out our conservation
responsibilities for affected species, and
in consideration of section 10(a)(1)(A) of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), along
with Executive Order 13576,
‘‘Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and
Accountable Government,’’ and the
President’s Memorandum for the Heads
of Executive Departments and Agencies
of January 21, 2009—Transparency and
Open Government (74 FR 4685; January
26, 2009), which call on all Federal
agencies to promote openness and
transparency in Government by
disclosing information to the public, we
invite public comment on these permit
applications before final action is taken.
III. Permit Applications
A. Endangered Species
Applicant: Paulina Hechenleitner, Royal
Botanic Garden, Edinburgh, UK;
PRT–63796A
The applicant requests a permit to
export dried leaf material from
Hawaiian vetch (Vicia menziessii) to the
Royal Botanic Garden, Edinburgh,
United Kingdom, for the purpose of
enhancement of the species through
scientific research. This notification
covers activities to be conducted by the
applicant over a 5-year period.
Applicant: North Carolina Zoological
Park, Asheboro, NC; PRT–679557
The applicant requests renewal of
their captive-bred wildlife registration
under 50 CFR 17.21(g) for the following
families, genus, and species, to enhance
their propagation or survival. This
notification covers activities to be
conducted by the applicant over a
5-year period.
Family:
Canidae
Cercopithecidae
Equidae
Felidae (does not include jaguar,
margay or ocelot)
Hominidae
Indriidae
Lemuridae
Columbidae
Gruidae
Sturnidae (does not include Aplonis
pelzelni)
Crocodylidae (does not include
American crocodile)
Testudinidae
Varanidae
Species:
Parma wallaby (Macropus parma)
Applicant: The Maryland Zoo,
Baltimore, MD; PRT–671151
The applicant requests renewal and
amendment of their captive-bred
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Agencies
[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 https://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