Mr. BREAUX. Also, if you reduce the total ocean catch by 15 percent, that 15 percent are all not going to go back up the Klamath River, they might go in several of the other rivers along there, so 15 percent less harvest in the ocean doesn't necessarily in any way insure 15 percent greater catch in the Klamath River. Mr. LEITZELL. We do predict the 15-percent figure that I am indicating is a 15-percent increase in fish going into the California systems. It is not specifically a 15-percent reduction in the ocean fisheries. The reduction in the ocean fisheries will cut back the ocean fisheries possibly by even more than that in percentage terms of the number of fish that they catch, but the amount going into California streams we expect to be increased by about 15 percent. Mr. BREAUX. I take it the Bureau of Indian Affairs is recommending and the Assistant Secretary is recommending even stricter or further restrictions on the ocean harvesting of the salmon. And I take it the position of the Department of Commerce and National Marine Fisheries Service is that additional restrictions are really not necessary? Mr. LEITZELL. Secretary Andrus wrote to both the Council Chairman and Secretary Kreps on this particular issue and we did take those comments into account when making our decisions. We feel that the economic impact on the ocean fisheries was already quite severe, and I think all of us are equally concerned about the needs for spawning escapement in that area. I think in some river systems, and it may turn out to be true in the Klamath, we can't predict at this point, the escapement needs may not be met; but we felt that the reductions that were taken by the Council on the ocean fishery were quite severe and that, in fact, they would almost certainly drive a number of people out of the fishery, which will have a strong economic impact. Mr. CLAUSEN. It might be helpful for the hearing record if at this point you could spell out what the migration pattern is, how far seaward does the normal run of the anadromous fish extend seaward, how much of it is managed under the 3-mile territorial sea limit which is under the jurisdiction of the State of California, and then the extended zone beyond that 3-mile territory out to 200 miles. Could you give us a quick rundown on that? Mr. LEITZELL. I can give you some comments. If you would like more detail I will ask Dr. Andersen. Most of the stocks of fish do migrate quite extensively across the ocean. As I mentioned, they are available to the high-seas Japanese fishery beyond the 200-mile zone and far western Pacific. Mr. CLAUSEN. They go out about 400 miles, don't they? Mr. LEITZELL. Well, certainly much farther than that I would think from some of the areas of California and Oregon, but I would ask Dr. Andersen to comment on that. Mr. BONKER. Would you yield? Is it not true the Management Council has jurisdiction over migratory species that proceed even beyond 200 miles, if we wanted to so manage? Mr. LEITZELL. That is correct under the law. We have tried to implement that through a treaty with the Japanese who are the only ones who conduct a fishery beyond our 200-mile zone, partly because in the area that they fish there is an intermingling of Asian and American origin salmon. Yes, there is jurisdiction under the FCMA. I think it is also important, though, to understand that the fish from all of the river systems in the three States do intermingle and migrate north and south along the coast and are subject to an ocean fishery both inside the 3-mile limit which is under State jurisdiction and outside which is in the jurisdiction of the Council. And, of course, many of the fish are intercepted by Canadian fishermen in Canadian waters during various parts of the season. The State Department has been engaged in negotiations with Canada to try to limit those interceptions. One of the important points, by the way, in terms of adoption of a management plan by the Pacific Council, was an attempt by the Council to obtain the cooperation of the States involved in making their regulations compatible with what was being done by the Pacific Management Council. In fact, the Council felt that the State of California would not have adopted regulations any more stringent than what are in the Council's management plan. There is obviously a certain amount of negotiation that goes on within the Council and among the State directors, particularly with regard to anadromous fish where there are several national entities. Mr. CLAUSEN. Could you provide for the record a more detailed explanation, that which represents an identifiable species and the migratory pattern that they follow seaward and put it all in one package? I think it would be helpful for the record. Mr. LEITZELL. Yes. Mr. CLAUSEN. If we are going to deal with something in the way of a comprehensive management program we have to recognize those factors as well. Mr. LEITZELL. I would be happy to do so and I will try to provide something before you have your hearings in California. [The information follows:] OCEAN MIGRATIONS AND DISTRIBUTION OF PACIFIC SALMON A. Chinook salmon: 1. Spawning grounds of Chinook salmon in California. 2. Known ocean distribution of Chinook salmon. 3. Migrations of individual tagged salmon in the North Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea. 4. Basic migration pattern of Pacific Coast Chinook salmon stocks. B. Coho salmon: 1. Spawning grounds of coho salmon in California. 2. Basic migration pattern of Pacific Coast coho stocks. 3. Movements of individual tagged coho salmon in the North Pacific. C. Chum salmon: 1. Ocean distribution of chum salmon. D. Pink salmon: 1. General distribution of pink salmon in the ocean. 2. Important spawning areas of pink salmon. 3. General distribution of pink salmon in the North Pacific Ocean in odd- and even-numbered years. E. Sockeye salmon: 1. Generalized distribution of sockeye salmon from Asia, western Alaska, and other North American areas. 2. Movements of individual tagged sockeye salmon in the North Pacific Ocean. FIG. 16. Known occurrence of chinook salmon in the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea as indicated by stippled 2x5 areas (nations, types of fishing gear, ocean-age groups, months and years combined, 1962 70). Zeros indicate areas fished but no chinook taken. Source: International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Bulletin Number 38. 1978. (Hatched areas added by N.M.F.S. on the basis of additional sources of information.) CHINOOK SALMON FIG. 20. Release and recovery locations of tagged chinook salmon released on the high seas by the U.S., Canada, and Japan, 1956-70. Solid lines indicate that the recovery was made in the year of tagging. broken lines indicate that the recovery was made in years subsequent to tagging. Maturing individuals are designated (M): immatures (1); and those with unknown maturity (?). The stippled band along the west coast of North America indicates the general homeward inigration route of chinook salmon to streams from southeastern Alaska to northern California as indicated by tag ging studies in that area. Source: International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Bulletin Number 38. 1978. P. 67 |