Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Notices 66845 

for the Red River/Three Rivers Source 

Population Objective Area. Alternative 2 

best achieves national, ecosystem, and 

refuge-specific goals and objectives and 

positively addresses significant issues 

and concerns expressed by the public. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tina 

Chouinard, Natural Resource Planner, 

Central Louisiana National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, telephone: (318) 253–

4238; fax: (318) 253–7139; e-mail: 

tina_chouinard@fws.gov; or by writing 

to the Natural Resource Planner at the 

address in the ADDRESSES section. 

Authority: This notice is published under 

the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, Public 

Law 105–57. 

Dated: July 18, 2005. 

Cynthia K. Dohner, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. 05–21907 Filed 11–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

St. Catherine Creek National Wildlife 

Refuge 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment for St. 

Catherine Creek National Wildlife 

Refuge in Adams and Wilkinson 

Counties, Mississippi. 

SUMMARY: This notice announces that a 

Draft Comprehensive conservation Plan 

and environmental Assessment for St. 

Catherine Creek National Wildlife 

Refuge is available for review and 

comment. The National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966, as 

amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997, requires the Service to develop a 

comprehensive conservation plan for 

each national wildlife refuge. The 

purpose in developing a comprehensive 

conservation plan is to provide refuge 

managers with a 15-year strategy 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 Service policies. In 

addition to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, the plan identifies 

wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities available to the public, 

including opportunities for hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. 

DATES: A meeting will be held to present 

the plan to the public. Mailings, 

newspaper articles, and posters will be 

the avenues to inform the public of the 

date and time for the meeting. 

Individuals wishing to comment on the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment for St. 

Catherine Creek National Wildlife 

Refuge should do so within 45 days 

following the date of this notice. 

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

and Environmental Assessment should 

be addressed to St. Catherine Creek 

National Wildlife Refuge, 76 Pintail 

Lane, Natchez, Mississippi 39120; 

Telephone 601/442–6696. The plan and 

environmental assessment may also be 

accessed and downloaded from the 

Service’s Internet Web site http:// 

southeast.fws.gov/planning/. Comments 

on the draft plan may be submitted to 

the above address or via electronic mail 

to mike_dawson@fws.gov. Please 

include your name and return address 

in your Internet message. Our practice is 

to make comments, including names 

and home addresses of respondents, 

available for public review during 

regular business hours. Individual 

respondents may request that we 

withhold their home addresses from the 

record, which we will honor to the 

extent allowable by law. Anonymous 

comments will not be considered. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Significant issues addressed in the draft 

plan include: Threatened and 

endangered species; waterfowl 

management; neotropical migratory 

birds; bottomland hardwood restoration; 

agriculture; visitor services (hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation); funding 

and staffing; cultural resources; and 

land acquisition. 

The Service developed four 

alternatives for managing the refuge and 

chose Alternative D as the preferred 

alternative. 

Alternatives 

The Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment evaluates the four 

alternatives for managing the refuge 

over the next 15 years. These 

alternatives are briefly described as 

follows: 

Alternative A. Existing refuge 

management and public outreach 

practices would be favored under this 

alternative. All refuge management 

actions would be directed towards 

achieving the primary purposes 

including (1) preserving wintering 

waterfowl habitat (e.g., croplands, 

moist-soil management units, green-tree 

reservoirs, and permanent water); (2) 

providing production habitat for wood 

ducks; and (3) meeting the habitat 

conservation goals of the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan, 

all the while contributing to other 

national, regional, and state goals to 

protect and restore habitat for 

shorebirds, wading birds, neotropical 

breeding birds, woodcock, and 

threatened and endangered species. 

Refuge management programs would 

continue to be developed and 

implemented with little baseline 

biological information. Active habitat 

management would continue to be 

implemented through water level 

manipulations, moist-soil and cropland 

management, and forest management 

designed to provide a diverse complex 

of habitats that meet the foraging, 

resting, and breeding requirements for a 

variety of species. A summary of the 

current acreages by habitat type can be 

found in Table 2, Chapter II, of the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Refuge staff would continue to manage 

existing bottomland hardwood and 

upland hardwood forested and 

reforested areas, open water and 

impoundments, croplands, and moistsoil units. 

Land would be acquired from willing 

sellers within the current acquisition 

boundary. The refuge would continue to 

emphasize land exchanges of isolated 

refuge tracts for inholdings within the 

acquisition boundary. 

Hunting and fishing would continue 

to be the major focuses of the refuge 

public use program, with no expansion 

of current opportunities. Current 

restrictions or prohibitions would 

remain. While no new trails would be 

developed, refuge staff would continue 

to maintain existing trails. 

Environmental education, wildlife 

observation, and wildlife photography 

would be accommodated on a case-bycase basis. Plans would continue to 

request funding for the construction of 

a refuge headquarters office/visitor 

contact area on the Sibley Unit and for 

the rehabilitation of existing facilities. 

Alternative B. Under this alternative, 

the emphasis would be on improving 

refuge resources for wildlife, while still 

maintaining those public use 

opportunities that presently exist. 

Primary management efforts would 

focus on restoring and enhancing 

habitats and associated plant 

communities for the benefit of migratory 

birds, threatened and endangered 

species, and other federal trust species. 

66846 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Notices 

Forest habitat would be managed to 

develop and enhance vertical structure 

by manipulating existing timber stands 

through both commercial and noncommercial harvest methods, and by 

incorporating greater native tree species 

in any future reforestation efforts. 

Conservation and protection efforts 

would also focus on unique loess bluff 

habitats by establishing buffer zones 

around spring seep wetlands at the 

bottom ridges. 

The refuge would continue to 

administer the cooperative farming 

program and improve impoundments 

for moist-soils units for the increased 

benefit to waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

wading birds. Baseline data would be 

collected, standardized surveys 

implemented, and populations 

monitored. 

The refuge would inventory and more 

aggressively monitor, control, and 

where possible, eliminate invasive 

plants, with particular attention to those 

having the greatest negative impacts on 

native habitat and wildlife. Population 

trend information for nutria, wild hogs, 

raccoon, and beaver will be developed 

to better control the detrimental effects 

of nuisance animals on habitat and 

wildlife. 

Additional staff would include a 

wildlife biologist and a biological 

technician to accomplish objectives for 

establishing baseline data on refuge 

resources and managing habitats. 

The refuge would work closely with 

partners to identify and acquire land 

from willing sellers within the current 

acquisition boundary, with emphasis on 

those lands that can provide additional 

habitat for trust species. Non-traditional 

land protection methods would be 

developed and employed, including 

land exchanges of isolated refuge tracts 

for inholdings within the acquisition 

boundary. 

Public uses would include hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and limited interpretation. 

Under this alternative, outreach and 

environmental education would occur 

only as time permits. Hunting and 

fishing would continue to be the major 

focuses of the refuge public use 

program, with no expansion or 

enhancement of current opportunities. 

While no new trails would be 

developed, the refuge staff would 

continue to maintain the existing trails. 

All new funding would support wildlife 

and habitat management programs, with 

annual maintenance funding to support 

upkeep of existing public use facilities. 

This alternative does not address the 

increased visitation, which has occurred 

in the past five years and is predicted 

to continue into the future. 

Alternative C. This approach would 

maintain the current wildlife and 

habitat management activities, while 

allowing for significantly more public 

recreational uses. The refuge would 

allocate a greater share of the budget to 

public use. Wildlife-dependent 

recreation uses, such as hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation, would 

remain priority uses and would be 

increased whenever compatible and 

appropriate. Increased opportunities to 

hunt waterfowl, mourning doves, deer, 

and feral hogs would be developed. 

Outreach opportunities would be 

designed to increase public 

understanding and enjoyment of fish 

and wildlife and their habitats. Efforts 

would include increased participation 

in the local tourism program and in 

meetings with city, county, and state 

officials. 

Environmental education and 

interpretation program, both on and off 

the refuge, would be expanded. Some of 

these would include environmental 

internships for local high school 

students, as well as bird banding 

demonstrations. Existing interpretive 

trails would be lengthened, improved, 

and provided with trail guides. New 

trails and observation towers would be 

added. Orientation and information 

signs would be established at all major 

refuge entrances, check stations, boat 

ramps, and parking lots. Public use 

facilities, such as boat launches and 

piers, would be added for the disabled. 

A new visitor center, with state-ofthe-art interactive displays and 

classrooms, would be needed to 

accomplish the goals and objectives 

associated with this alternative. To 

improve the quality of the visitor 

experience, the refuge would work with 

the state and county to widen York 

Road from U.S. Highway 61 to the 

refuge. Additional staff needed to 

implement this alternative includes an 

outdoor recreation planner, a law 

enforcement officer, and a seasonal 

maintenance worker. Additional staff 

would be used for developing and 

presenting both on- and off-site outreach 

and interpretation programs. 

Land acquisition within the current 

acquisition boundary would continue 

with emphasis on those lands that can 

provide additional public use 

opportunities and access. 

Alternative D. The Service planning 

team has identified Alternative D as the 

preferred alternative. This alternative 

was developed based on public input 

and the best professional judgment of 

the planning team. Strategies presented 

in the Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan were developed as a 

direct result of the selection of 

Alternative D. 

Alternative D represents a 

combination and/or compromise 

between Alternative B (Habitat 

Management Emphasis) and Alternative 

C (Public Use Emphasis). Whereas these 

two alternatives seek to maximize either 

expanded wildlife habitat management 

or expanded public use opportunities, 

Alternative D seeks to optimize the 

benefits of the refuge to wildlife and 

people, recognizing that tradeoffs may 

preclude maximizing benefits to both 

simultaneously. By seeking the best of 

both Alternatives B and C, Alternative D 

would promote greater protection of 

fish, wildlife, and their habitats and 

more evenly balanced recreational and 

educational programs for visitors. 

Under Alternative D, refuge lands 

would be more intensely managed than 

at present to provide high quality 

habitat for wildlife, particularly 

migratory birds. This would include 

creating and maintaining additional 

moist-soil units for an annual goal of 

1,800 acres of quality moist-soil habitat 

to meet the goals established in the 

Biological Review, as well as developing 

methods to maximize use of Mississippi 

River overflow events to provide water 

for moist-soil units. The refuge would 

establish a banding quota for wood 

ducks to support the objectives of the 

Mississippi Flyway Council and provide 

and enhance habitat for woodcock 

populations to contribute to the 

objectives of the American Woodcock 

Management Plan. In addition, the 

refuge would implement step-down 

objectives for non-game migratory land 

birds, as well as for shorebirds and 

wading birds, to support the goals of the 

Partners-in-Flight Plan. 

Fisheries would be emphasized and, 

where appropriate, restored for native 

diversity within the floodplain. Refuge 

habitats would be managed and restored 

for natural diversity in support of 

national and regional plans. Forest 

management would address the need to 

enhance and develop vertical structure 

to provide habitat for a diversity of 

species, particularly priority migratory 

birds. Any future reforestation efforts 

would incorporate greater native species 

diversity. 

This alternative would encourage 

more public recreational and 

educational uses, where feasible, while 

intensifying current habitat 

management. Hunting and fishing 

would continue with greater emphasis 

on the quality of the experience and 

with more diverse opportunities, 

including those for youth and disabled 

hunters/anglers. Education and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 212 / Thursday, November 3, 2005 / Notices 66847 

1The record is defined in sec. 207.2(f) of the 

Commission’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 

CFR 207.2(f)). 

2Commissioner Shara L. Aranoff did not 

participate in these reviews. 

interpretation would be promoted by 

providing programs and partnerships 

with local schools. Wildlife observation 

and photography opportunities would 

be expanded, including construction of 

photo blinds and observation towers. 

Information guides and signage that 

highlight refuge management programs, 

as well as unique wildlife habitats, 

would also be developed. The refuge 

would also undertake efforts to improve 

road maintenance in order to provide 

better visitor access. 

A visitor center and headquarters 

office would be constructed on the 

refuge, with space for interpretation, 

environmental education, and staff. 

Research studies on the refuge would 

continue to be fostered and partnerships 

developed with universities and other 

agencies, with the refuge providing 

needed resources and study sites. 

Research on the refuge would also 

provide benefits to conservation efforts 

throughout the Lower Mississippi River 

Valley to preserve, enhance, restore, and 

manage bottomland hardwood habitat. 

Inventorying and monitoring of birds, 

freshwater mussels, reptiles, and 

amphibians would be continued and 

expanded in order to assess population 

trends, correlate with environmental 

pressures, and provide baseline data to 

be used in development of appropriate 

management strategies. 

Providing additional staff (e.g., 

wildlife biologist, biological technician, 

outdoor recreation planner, seasonal 

maintenance worker, and full-time law 

enforcement officer) would enable the 

Service to fully develop and manage 

fish and wildlife resources and habitats, 

an offer environmental educational 

programs that promote a greater 

understanding of both natural and 

cultural resources. 

Under this alternative, the refuge 

would continue to acquire lands within 

the present acquisition boundary for 

compatible wildlife-dependent public 

recreation and environmental education 

opportunities. 

Tracts that provide better-quality 

habitat and connectivity to existing 

refuge lands would receive higher 

priority for acquisition. The refuge 

would use other important acquisition 

tools, including land exchanges, 

partnerships with conservation 

organizations, conservation easements 

with adjacent landowners, and leases/ 

cooperative agreements. 

Authority: This notice is published under 

the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Improvement Act of 1997, Public 

Law 105–57. 

Dated: April 29, 2005. 

Cynthia K. Dohner, 

Acting Regional Director. 

Editorial Note: This document was 

received at the Office of the Federal Register 

October 31, 2005. 

[FR Doc. 05–21906 Filed 11–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

General Management Plan, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Colorado National Monument, 

Colorado 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of a 

Record of Decision on the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the General Management Plan, 

Colorado National Monument. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969, 83 Stat. 852, 853, codified 

as amended at 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the 

National Park Service announces the 

availability of the Record of Decision for 

the General Management Plan, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, 

Colorado National Monument, 

Colorado. On August 31, 2005, the 

Director, Intermountain Region, 

approved the Record of Decision for the 

project. As soon as practicable, the 

National Park Service will begin to 

implement the Preferred Alternative 

contained in the FEIS issued on June 6, 

2005. The following course of action 

will occur under the preferred 

alternative: Weave Colorado National 

Monument into the regional ecosystem 

on the northeastern edge of the Colorado 

Plateau by pursuing common 

stewardship goals with government 

agencies, tribes, educational 

institutions, and communities. 

This course of action and 2 

alternatives were analyzed in the Draft 

and Final Environmental Impact 

Statements. The full range of foreseeable 

environmental consequences was 

assessed, and appropriate mitigating 

measures were identified. 

The Record of Decision includes a 

statement of the decision made, 

synopses of other alternatives 

considered, the basis for the decision, a 

description of the environmentally 

preferable alternative, a finding on 

impairment of park resources and 

values, a listing of measures to 

minimize environmental harm, an 

overview of public involvement in the 

decision-making process, and finding 

that the alternative selected for 

implementation will not impair park 

resources or values and will not violate 

the NPS Organic Act. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Superintendent Bruce Noble, Colorado 

National Monument, Fruita, CO 81521–

0001; Tel: (970) 858–3617, ext. 300; 

FAX: (970) 858–0372; e-mail: 

bruce_noble@nps.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Copies of 

the Record of Decision may be obtained 

from the contact listed above or online 

at http://planning.nps.gov/plans.cfm 

Dated: August 30, 2005. 

Michael D. Snyder, 

Acting Director, Intermountain Region, 

National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–21941 Filed 11–2–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–CP–P 

INTERNATIONAL TRADE 

COMMISSION 

[Investigations Nos. 731–TA–308–310, 520, 

and 521 (Second Review)] 

Carbon Steel Butt-Weld Pipe Fittings 

From Brazil, China, Japan, Taiwan, and 

Thailand 

Determinations 

On the basis of the record 1 developed 

in these subject five-year reviews, the 

United States International Trade 

Commission (Commission) determines,2

pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff 

Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)) (the 

Act), that revocation of the antidumping 

duty orders on carbon steel butt-weld 

pipe fittings from Brazil, China, Japan, 

Taiwan, and Thailand would be likely 

to lead to continuation or recurrence of 

material injury to an industry in the 

United States within a reasonably 

foreseeable time. 

Background 

The Commission instituted these 

reviews on December 1, 2004 (69 FR 

69952) and determined on March 7, 

2005 that it would conduct full reviews 

(70 FR 14713, March 23, 2005). Notice 

of the scheduling of the Commission’s 

reviews and of a public hearing to be 

held in connection therewith was given 

by posting copies of the notice in the 

Office of the Secretary, U.S. 

International Trade Commission, 

Washington, DC, and by publishing the