[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 155 (Wednesday, August 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48328-48331]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-19783]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R6-R-2015-N113; FXRS1265066CCP0-156-FF06R06000]


San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Alamosa, Rio 
Grande, and Saguache, CO; Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 
Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability; final comprehensive conservation plan 
and environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the 
availability of a final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and final 
environmental impact statement (EIS) for three national wildlife 
refuges (Alamosa, Monte Vista, and Baca National Wildlife Refuges) 
within the San Luis Valley National Wildlife Refuge Complex (refuge 
complex) in Alamosa, Rio Grande, and Saguache, Colorado. In these 
documents, we describe alternatives, including our preferred 
alternative, to manage the refuge complex for the 15 years following 
approval of the final CCP.

ADDRESSES: You may request copies of the final CCP and final EIS, or 
more information, by one of the following methods. You also may request 
hard copies or a CD-ROM of the documents.
    Email: [email protected]. Include ``San Luis Valley 
National Wildlife Refuge Complex CCP'' in the subject line of the 
message.
    Fax: Attn: Laurie Shannon, Planning Team Leader, 303-236-4792.
    U.S. Mail: Laurie Shannon, Planning Team Leader, Division of Refuge 
Planning, P.O. Box 25486, Denver, CO 80225-0486.
    To view comments on the final CCP-EIS from the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), or for information on EPA's role in the EIS 
process, see EPA's Role in the EIS Process under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurie Shannon, Planning Team Leader, 
303-236-4317 (phone) or [email protected] (email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    With this notice, we announce the availability of the final CCP and 
final EIS for three national wildlife refuges that are part of the 
refuge complex. We started this process through a notice of intent in 
the Federal Register on March 15, 2011 (76 FR 14042). Following a 
lengthy scoping and alternatives development period, we published a 
second notice in the Federal Register (79 FR 50937, August 26, 2014) 
announcing the availability of the draft CCP and draft EIS and our 
intention to hold public meetings, and requested comments. Comments 
were due October 27, 2014. In addition, EPA published a notice 
announcing the draft CCP and EIS (79 FR 53061; September 5, 2014), as 
required under section 309 of the Clean Air Act (CAA; 42 U.S.C. 7401 et

[[Page 48329]]

seq.) We now announce the final CCP and EIS. Under the CAA, EPA will 
notice the final CCP and EIS as well.

EPA's Role in the EIS Process

    The EPA is charged under section 309 of the Clean Air Act to review 
all Federal agencies' environmental impact statements (EISs) and to 
comment on the adequacy and the acceptability of the environmental 
impacts of proposed actions in the EISs.
    EPA also serves as the repository (EIS database) for EISs prepared 
by Federal agencies and provides notice of their availability in the 
Federal Register. The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Database 
provides information about EISs prepared by Federal agencies, as well 
as EPA's comments concerning the EISs. All EISs are filed with EPA, 
which publishes a notice of availability each Friday in the Federal 
Register.
    The notice of availability is the start of the 45-day public 
comment period for draft EISs, and the start of the 30-day ``wait 
period'' for final EISs, during which agencies are generally required 
to wait 30 days before making a decision on a proposed action. For more 
information, see http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html. You 
may search for EPA comments on EISs, along with EISs themselves, at 
https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

About the Refuges

    Alamosa, Monte Vista, and Baca National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) are 
located in the San Luis Valley, a high mountain basin in Alamosa, Rio 
Grande, and Saguache Counties, Colorado. A wide variety of habitats are 
found across the refuge complex, including wet meadows, playa wetlands, 
riparian areas within the flood plain of the Rio Grande and other 
creeks, desert shrublands, grasslands, and croplands. Totaling about 
106,000 acres, the refuges are an important stopover for numerous 
migratory birds. The refuges support many groups of nesting, migrating, 
and wintering birds, including sandhill cranes, grebes, herons, ibis, 
ducks, geese, hawks, eagles, falcons, shorebirds, owls, songbirds, and 
others. Other wildlife includes Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, 
pronghorn, coyotes, and other small mammals, amphibian species, and 
native fish.

Background

The CCP Process

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act) by the National 
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop 
a 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 (NWRS), 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, where appropriate, 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 as necessary in accordance with the Administration Act.

Public Outreach

    We started the public outreach process in March 2011. At that time 
and throughout the process, we requested public comments and considered 
them in numerous ways. Public outreach has included holding nine public 
meetings, mailing planning updates, maintaining a project Web site, and 
publishing press releases. We have considered and evaluated all the 
comments we have received during this process.

CCP Alternatives We Are Considering

    During the public scoping process with which we started work on the 
draft CCP and EIS, we, other governmental partners, Tribes, and the 
public raised several issues. Our final CCP and final EIS addresses 
both the scoping comments and the comments we received on the draft CCP 
and draft EIS. A full description of each alternative is in the final 
CCP and final EIS. To address these issues, we developed and evaluated 
the following alternatives, summarized below.

Alternative A: No Action

    Habitat and wildlife management: There would be few changes in 
management of habitats and wildlife populations across the refuge 
complex through the manipulation of water. We would continue to manage 
wetland areas, wet meadows, riparian areas, and upland habitats to 
provide for a variety of waterbirds and other migratory birds. We would 
continue to protect habitat for the federally endangered southwestern 
willow flycatcher and other species of concern. We would continue to 
produce small grains at current levels on Monte Vista NWR to provide 
food for spring-migrating sandhill cranes. The management of elk 
populations would be limited to nonlethal dispersal, agency culling, 
and the limited distribution (dispersal) hunts on the former State 
lands of Baca NWR. We would phase out the existing arrangement with The 
Nature Conservancy for season-long bison use within Baca NWR, and we 
would not use bison as a management tool in the future.
    Water resources management: We would continue to manage water in 
the same manner, except as modified by changed State rules, 
regulations, and policies, and we would augment water supplies in 
accordance with State law.
    Visitor services: We would continue to provide for limited 
wildlife-dependent public uses, including waterfowl and small game 
hunting, on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs. We would not build new 
facilities to support visitor services. Baca NWR would remain closed to 
all public access except for limited guided tours and access to refuge 
offices.
    Cultural resources, partnerships, and refuge complex operations: 
There would be few changes from current management. When the 
legislation passed authorizing the Baca NWR, it did not come with 
additional funding, and additional operations costs were absorbed into 
the current operations. We would seek some additional staff and 
operations funding to support current management needs.
    Wilderness review: We would not recommend protection for any areas 
having wilderness characteristics or values.

Alternative B: Preferred Alternative (Wildlife Populations, Strategic 
Habitat Restoration, and Enhanced Public Uses)

    Habitat and wildlife management: Although we would manage wetland 
and riparian areas within the refuge complex to achieve a variety of 
wetland types and conditions in order to support a diversity of 
migratory birds, we would focus on the focal species, including the 
federally listed southwestern willow flycatcher, greater sandhill 
cranes, and other migratory bird species or wildlife species that 
represent larger regional and landscape conservation goals. In specific 
areas, we would restore historical water flow patterns through more 
effective and efficient water management practices (e.g., moving water 
to areas that historically held more water). This could include removal 
or replacement of water infrastructure. We would restore riparian 
habitat along streams in Baca

[[Page 48330]]

NWR and along selected areas along the Rio Grande in Alamosa NWR, and 
we would manage upland habitats to create a variety of conditions to 
provide for a diversity of wildlife species. We would use public 
hunting, including elk hunting across the refuge complex, to complement 
the State's management of elk herds in the San Luis Valley, with more 
limited elk hunting used on Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs. We would 
phase out the existing arrangement with The Nature Conservancy for 
bison management on Baca NWR, but we would research the feasibility of 
using semi-free-ranging bison year-round to effectively maintain and 
enhance refuge habitats. The research area (about 12,140 acres) would 
have habitat-type acreages that are roughly in proportion to the 
habitat types found on the greater Sand Dunes landscape that includes 
lands managed by the National Park Service, The Nature Conservancy, and 
refuge lands. We would continue to grow limited amounts of small grain 
on Monte Vista NWR to provide food for spring-migrating sandhill 
cranes, but there would be a small decrease in the amount of grains 
grown as a result of restoring historic water flow patterns.
    Water resources management: We would continue to work with other 
landowners and agencies throughout the watershed to keep flexibility as 
well as to protect and, if necessary, augment our water rights as State 
regulations evolve. Our water infrastructure, delivery, and 
efficiencies would require upgrades to make sure our wildlife, habitat, 
and visitor services objectives are met.
    Visitor services: In addition to continuing waterfowl and limited 
small game hunting opportunities on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, we 
would offer limited elk hunting on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, and we 
would open Baca NWR for big game and limited small game hunting. We 
would improve public access on Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs, including 
allowing more access from approximately mid-July through the end of 
February for wildlife viewing and interpretation on roads and trails 
that are currently only open to waterfowl hunters during hunting 
season. We would also improve existing access opportunities. We would 
seek funding to build a visitor center and refuge complex offices at 
either Monte Vista NWR or Alamosa NWR to provide for safer access to 
the refuge complex headquarters and to provide for a modern work 
environment, as well as to offer a place for visitors to come and learn 
more about the refuge complex resources. We would permit walk-in 
fishing access and bank fishing just below and above the Chicago dam on 
Alamosa NWR (fishing from the dam would not be allowed). We would open 
Baca NWR for a variety of compatible, wildlife-dependent opportunities, 
including providing facilities to support them, including an auto tour 
route, trails, viewing blinds, and interpretation and environmental 
education programs.
    Cultural resources, partnerships, and refuge complex operations: We 
would increase our efforts toward identifying and protecting the 
significant cultural resources found on the refuge complex. We would 
work with partners and volunteers to accomplish our objectives, but we 
would also seek increased staffing levels of both full-time and 
seasonal employees, as well as increased funding for operations.
    Wilderness review: We would recommend protection of about 13,800 
acres along the southeastern boundary of Baca NWR and adjacent to Great 
Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve that possess wilderness 
characteristics and values.

Alternative C: Habitat Restoration and Ecological Processes

    Habitat and wildlife management: We would take all feasible actions 
to restore--or mimic, where needed--the native vegetation community, 
based on ecological site characteristics, ecological processes, and 
other factors. We would restore the function of the riparian and playa 
areas on the Baca NWR. Where possible, we would restore natural 
waterflow patterns. We would phase out and end the production of small 
grains for migrating sandhill cranes on Monte Vista NWR. Similar to 
alternative B, we would use hunting to manage elk populations across 
the refuge complex. Periodically (not annually), we would use bison on 
Baca NWR to mimic the ecological benefit they may have once provided.
    Water resources management: We would manage water to restore the 
hydrologic conditions, with less focus on habitat management for 
specific species or for providing wildlife viewing. In some years, 
water might not be available to meet life cycle needs for some 
waterfowl species. Existing water infrastructure would be removed or 
modified as needed.
    Visitor services: We would continue to allow waterfowl and limited 
small game hunting on the Monte Vista and Alamosa NWRs. Similar to 
under alternative B, we would open the Baca NWR for limited big game 
and limited small game hunting, whereas, on the Monte Vista and Alamosa 
NWRs, we would rely more on limited public hunting or agency dispersal 
methods for elk management.
    There may be other changes in public use, depending on the habitat 
management action. Some areas could be closed, or wildlife viewing 
would be more limited. Current public access would be evaluated on the 
Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs. If existing roads or trails are not 
needed, or if these facilities fragment habitat, they could be removed 
or altered. Viewing areas for sandhill cranes may be moved, depending 
on restoration efforts. As under alternative B, on Monte Vista and 
Alamosa NWRs, we would also allow for access opportunities within the 
hunt boundary from mid-July through the end of February. We would not 
build a refuge headquarters or visitor center on Monte Vista or Alamosa 
NWR. Except for limited hunting access to achieve our management 
objectives, there would be few visitor facilities or programs on Baca 
NWR, and most of the refuge would remain closed.
    Cultural resources, partnerships, and refuge complex operations: 
Our actions would be similar to those under alternative B, except that 
on Baca NWR, roads that are not needed or that are fragmenting habitat 
would be removed.
    Wilderness review: This would be the same as under alternative B; 
we would recommend protection of about 13,800 acres along the 
southeastern boundary of Baca NWR.

Alternative D: Maximize Public Use Opportunities

    Habitat and wildlife management: Under this alternative, our 
habitat management practices would be a blend of alternatives A and B. 
We would manage wildlife habitats on the refuge complex consistent with 
our mission and purposes, while maximizing and emphasizing quality 
visitor experiences and wildlife-dependent public uses. For example, we 
could irrigate areas that are closer to public access to facilitate 
wildlife viewing. We would increase agricultural production of small 
grains for sandhill cranes on Monte Vista NWR, including the 
consideration of producing grain in specific places to enhance wildlife 
viewing. We would offer a variety of opportunities for elk hunting 
(e.g., youth hunts or additional provisions for persons with 
disabilities), managing numbers at levels that would restore and foster 
the long-term health of native plant communities. We would introduce 
and manage a small bison herd on a confined area of the Baca NWR, 
emphasizing wildlife viewing and interpretive opportunities.
    Water resources management: We would manage water similar to

[[Page 48331]]

alternative B, except we would make a concerted effort to make sure 
there is water in specific areas to enhance wildlife viewing; this 
practice could require additional augmentation of water.
    Visitor services: We would provide for the widest variety of 
compatible wildlife-dependent recreation. Similar to under alternative 
B, public access and visitor programs would be expanded, including 
building a visitor center and refuge complex at either Monte Vista or 
Alamosa NWR; however, there would be additional trails, viewing blinds, 
and seasonal auto tour routes provided across the refuge complex. 
Subsequently, we would increase interpretation and environmental 
education opportunities and seek more staff, volunteers, and 
partnerships to support the visitor services program. We would allow 
for limited fishing access on Alamosa NWR. We would also consider 
additional commercial uses.
    Cultural resources, partnerships and refuge complex operations: Our 
actions would be similar to those under alternative B, except there 
would be greater emphasis on using students and volunteers to help us 
survey areas with high potential for cultural resources. We would 
pursue more outside partnerships and seek to increase staffing and 
funding to support our refuge complex operations.
    Wilderness review: This would be the same as that under alternative 
B; we would recommend protection of about 13,800 acres along the 
southeastern boundary of Baca NWR.

Comments

    We solicited comments on the draft CCP and draft EIS from August 
26, 2014, through October 27, 2014 and accepted them through November 
3, 2014. During the comment period we received over 1,000 letters, 
email, petitions (form letters), or verbal comments, and we thoroughly 
evaluated them all.

Changes to the Final CCP and Final EIS

    We made the following changes in the final CCP and final EIS from 
the draft CCP and draft EIS.
     Fishing on Alamosa NWR. Under alternative B, we would 
provide for fishing access along the banks of the Rio Grande just above 
and below the Chicago dam (fishing from the dam would not be allowed). 
This was part of broader fishing opportunity element that was 
considered under alternative D in the draft CCP and draft EIS. Prior to 
our acquisition of the property near the Chicago dam, the area was 
popular with local fisherman who fished for game fish like northern 
pike and carp. When we acquired the property, we closed the access due 
to concerns of having people fish off the dam. After further review, 
under alternative B and D, we would use signs, barriers, and increased 
law enforcement to keep people off the dam and allow an opportunity for 
bank fishing just above and below the dam. Currently, there are no 
nesting territories for southwestern willow flycatcher found in this 
area, but monitoring for these protected birds would continue. Should 
territories be established in the area, we would institute seasonal 
closures as needed. Other opportunities for fishing along the Rio 
Grande could be considered in the future.
     For Baca NWR, we modified several trails under alternative 
B and D to provide for some shorter loops and longer loops. We provided 
additional clarity on how the public use program would be managed on 
the refuge.
     We also provided additional clarification under the action 
alternatives about opening Alamosa and Monte Vista NWRs for limited big 
game hunting and Baca NWR for limited big game and limited small game 
hunting, making it clearer that we would develop and implement a hunt 
plan within 1-3 years under all three action alternatives.
     Under the objectives for cultural resources, we added 
information about the importance of oral traditions practiced by Native 
Americans, and we would reach out to the Tribes regarding their oral 
traditions and regional knowledge about the history of the San Luis 
Valley.
     To emphasize the importance of water quality and 
monitoring and the importance of the San Luis Valley as a primary 
staging area for sandhill cranes from their winter grounds in northern 
New Mexico and the breeding grounds to the north, we added two new 
figures to the document: (1) Impaired waters in the San Luis Valley; 
and (2) Distribution of the Rocky Mountain Population of Greater 
Sandhill Cranes. We would also initiate a research project to better 
understand the trends in agricultural practices in the San Luis Valley, 
including the amount and distribution of small grain production on 
private lands, the energetic demands of spring migrating cranes, and 
whether other changes to Monte Vista NWR's farming program are needed 
as a result of ongoing drought, climate changes, and changes in State 
groundwater regulations.
     As necessary, we updated maps, corrected errors and 
provided additional clarification throughout the final CCP and final 
EIS.

Public Availability of Documents

    In addition to any one method in ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain 
documents at the following locations:
     Our Web site: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/refuges/refugesUpdate/alm_bac_mtv.php
     Public libraries:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Library                     Address             Phone No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alamosa Public Library........  300 Hunt Avenue,          (719) 589-6592
                                 Alamosa, CO 81101.
Carnegie Public Library.......  120 Jefferson Street,     (719) 852-3931
                                 Monte Vista, CO 81144.
Baca Grande Library...........  67487 County Road T,      (719) 256-4100
                                 Crestone, CO 81131.
Saguache Public Library.......  702 Pitkin Ave,           (719) 655-2551
                                 Saguache, CO 81149.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next Steps

    We will document the final decision in a record of decision, which 
will be published in the Federal Register after a 30-day ``wait 
period'' that begins when EPA announces this final CCP-EIS. For more 
information, see EPA's Role in the EIS Process.

    Dated: August 5, 2015.
 Matt Hogan,
Acting Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-19783 Filed 8-11-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-P