This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains documents other than rules or

proposed rules that are applicable to the

public. Notices of hearings and investigations,

committee meetings, agency decisions and

rulings, delegations of authority, filing of

petitions and applications and agency

statements of organization and functions are

examples of documents appearing in this

section.

Notices Federal Register

19388

Vol. 60, No. 74

Tuesday, April 18, 1995

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Grain Inspection, Packers and

Stockyards Administration

Advisory Committee Meeting

Pursuant to the provisions of section

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (Pub. L. No. 92–463),

notice is hereby given of the following

committee meeting:

Name: Federal Grain Inspection Service

Advisory Committee.

Date: May 10–11, 1995.

Place: Double Tree Hotel, Kansas City

Airport, 8801 112th Street, N.W., Kansas

City, MO.

Time: 8:30 a.m. May 10 and May 11.

Purpose: To provide advice to the

Administrator of the Grain Inspection,

Packers and Stockyards Administration

(GIPSA) with respect to the implementation

of the U.S. Grain Standards Act.

The agenda includes: (1) Financial status of

Agency, (2) Wheat Classification, (3) Test

weight per bushel as a quality measurement

for Soft Red Winter Wheat, (4)

Standardization of Commercial Inspection

Equipment, (5) Promoting competition

between Official Agencies, (6) On-Line/AtLine Inspections, (7) Implementation of New

Moisture Meter, (8) ERS Soybean Cleaning

Study, and (9) other matters.

The meeting will be open to the public.

Public participation will be limited to written

statements, unless permission is received

from the Committee Chairman to orally

address the Committee. Persons, other than

members, who wish to address the

Committee or submit written statements

before or after the meeting, should contact

the Administrator, GIPSA, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, P.O. Box 96454, Washington,

D.C. 20090–6454, telephone (202) 720–0219

or FAX (202) 205–9237.

Dated: April 12, 1995.

Calvin W. Watkins,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–9507 Filed 4–17–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–EN–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

[I.D. 040795A]

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Notice of Availability of a

Proposed Recovery Plan for Review

and Comment; Public Hearings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability; public

hearings.

SUMMARY: NMFS has developed its

Proposed Recovery Plan for the Snake

River sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus

nerka), Snake River fall chinook salmon,

and Snake River spring/summer

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus

tshawytscha). It is available upon

request. NMFS seeks public comment

and has scheduled 11 public hearings

on this Proposed Recovery Plan.

DATES: Comments on the Proposed

Recovery Plan must be received by July

17, 1995, if they are to be considered

during preparation of a final recovery

plan. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

for dates and times of public hearings.

ADDRESSES: Requests for a copy of the

Proposed Recovery Plan should be

addressed to Recovery Plan Coordinator,

National Marine Fisheries Service, 525

NE Oregon Street, Portland, OR 97232

telephone: 503–230–5400. Written

comments and materials regarding the

Proposed Recovery Plan should be

directed to the same address. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for

locations of public hearings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert Jones, Recovery Plan

Coordinator, (503–230–5420).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Salmon are culturally, economically,

and symbolically important to the

Pacific Northwest. Columbia River

chinook populations were at one time

acknowledged to be the largest in the

world. Prior to the 1960’s, the Snake

River was the most important drainage

in the Columbia River system for

producing salmon. But in the 1990’s,

Snake River salmon struggle to exist.

Snake River salmon have declined to

such low levels that protection under

the Endangered Species Act of 1973

(ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) is needed

to prevent their extinction (56 FR 58619,

November 20, 1991; 57 FR 14653, April

22, 1992; 59 FR 42529, August 18, 1994;

and 59 FR 66784, December 28, 1994).

In the 1800’s, there were approximately

1.5 million Snake River chinook

salmon; by 1994, only 1,800 adults

returned to the Snake River. Snake River

fall chinook salmon numbered over

72,000 50 years ago, but only 400 adults

were counted at Lower Granite Dam in

1994. As many as 4,400 Snake River

sockeye salmon could be found 40 years

ago, but last year only one returned to

Redfish Lake.

The ESA requires that the agency

responsible for a listed species develop

and implement a recovery plan for its

conservation (defined by the ESA as

recovery to delisting) and survival,

unless it is determined that such a plan

will not promote the conservation of the

species. Accordingly, NMFS appointed

the Snake River Salmon Recovery Team

(Team) to assist in the development of

the recovery plan for the Snake River

salmon. In May 1994, the Team

submitted its final recommendations to

NMFS. NMFS used these

recommendations to formulate the

Proposed Snake River Salmon Recovery

Plan.

The conservation of natural salmon

and their habitat has not been afforded

balanced consideration in past resource

allocation decisions. Natural salmon are

those that are the progeny of naturally

spawning parents. Development in the

Pacific Northwest has often proceeded

with the assumption that improved

technology or management would

mitigate impacts on natural salmon

stocks. The Region’s reliance on

uncertain mitigation schemes (as

opposed to fundamental conservation

strategies) has been a very costly

approach, both for natural salmon and

the public.

However, recent efforts have

concentrated on conserving natural

salmon and their habitats. There is new

emphasis being placed on natural fish

escapement, improved migration

conditions for juveniles and adults,

increased riparian area protection, and

equitable consideration of natural fish

in resource allocation processes. This

focus differs from previous management

and represents important progress