HMM 141020, P. 75, L. 1755.

According to Dr. Donald H. Fry, Jr., California Department of Fish and Game, little is known about the movements of Klamath River chinook salmon in the Pacific Ocean. He presumes that a high proportion of these salmon migrates northward and are caught off Oregon and Washington. Precise information is unavailable. Source: International North Pacific Fisheries Commission, Bulletin No. 36, page 19. 1977.

The attached figures (Figures 8 and 9 from the Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission Bulletin No. 2) show some examples of movements in the ocean by chinook (king) and coho (silver) salmon that were tagged near the mouth of the Klamath River.

1. 1755

Recovery locations for salmon tagged near the mouth of the Klamath River, California. Note: King - chinook, and Silver coho. Some of the tagged salmon were recovered over 200 miles away. One chinook was recovered in the year of tagging near the head of the Sacramento River. Marine Fisheries Commission, Bulletin No. 2.

1951.

Source: Pacific

P. 75

Mr. LEITZELL. I do not know whether I can answer that. I can try to supply you with information on that.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. If the gentleman would yield. I thought the information we have is that they exhibit a generally conservative trend and take a right and go north.

Mr. LEITZELL. There have been some efforts to genetically breed salmon which will turn ether one way or the other just for that

reason.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. The State of California protected this particular river dating back to 1933 and said, no commercial fishing.

The State's jurisdiction above the Hoopa reservation they have enforced. They have been unable to enforce it from the Hoopa Square to the mouth of the Klamath during the past 3 years, but they have enforced it in the 3-mile limit, so we have two areas where the salmon fishery is in danger, one in the Indian reservation and the second out beyond the 3-mile limit where the Pacific Fishery Management Council has jurisdiction

We have now seen the State ban commercial fishing on the Klamath completely. The Department of Interior has banned the commercial fishing completely on the reservation, but the Pacific Fishery Management Council has followed a succession of cuts, but this year only a 15-percent additional cut.

Now that does not quite seem to jibe with the emergency that the rest of the parties have applied to the Klamath River fishery. Ideally, if those fish went straight out to sea because the fishery were in danger, there would be some mechanism to protect the Klamath River salmon if we knew where they went after 3 miles. What is your feeling on that?

Mr. LEITZELL. The problem is one that the Council and, in fact, to some extent the State of California do share. The protection at the mouth of the Klamath is essentially a fan-shaped area measured 3 miles from the mouth. There are certainly Klamath River fish within the California territorial sea beyond that area. Their concern and ours I would assume it to be the same, is that the people who are fishing either within 3 miles but beyond that protected area, or fishing in the 200-mile zone, are fishing on mixed stocks of fish and not just on Klamath River fish.

The question the Council has tried to address is how to balance the needs of the fishermen and the varying needs of the many different river systems. The Klamath and the Sacramento systems are unfortunately in some respects in perhaps more difficult shape than some others.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. What I am driving at is that that drought condition essentially occurred south of the Oregon border. As I understand it, the 1976-77 drought did not exist in Oregon and Washington and British Columbia. I am just wondering if beyond that 3-mile limit the Pacific Management Fishery Council couldn't recognize that commercial fishing from Oregon, California, and Washington might not limit itself north of a certain area so that the California area were not further endangered.

Mr. BREAUX. That is a second buzzer for a recorded vote. Would the gentleman hold his answer. The committee will be in recess. [Short recess.]

Mr. BREAUX. The committee will please be in order.

When we recessed I think Mr. McCloskey moved a question for response, and I would request you to please continue, Mr. Leitzell. Do you remember the question?

Mr. LEITZELL. I think I generally remember the question, Mr. Chairman. One of the major problems in managing the fish both within the 3-mile territorial sea and the area beyond is that during the fishing season from late spring through the summer and prior to the time that the fish actually enter the rivers for spawning they do migrate up and down the entire coast as almost entirely mixed stocks of fish. In that sense, the kinds of decisions that have to be made are very difficult ones because any restriction on the ocean fishery restricts their catch not only of fish going to a river such as the Klamath, but fish going to other rivers that may be able to support a greater harvest.

In that sense it is a rather difficult and delicate balancing act amongst the States, the Council members, and the industry. For example, even the protected area established by the State of California at the mouth of the Klamath is really of major importance only during the time when the fish have finally headed into the river to go upstream to spawn. They may well migrate through that area a number of times during the summer completely intermingled with fish from other systems. That is true up and down the coast from some of the recreational fisheries taking place almost inshore to areas 30 to 40 miles out, that is where the fishery takes place, all up and down the coast on completely mixed stocks. Mr. CLAUSEN. That again prompts me to place the emphasis on the conclusion that I have had for quite some time, and that is that the key-both inside and outside to the Indians and non-Indians interested in sustaining the resource-is, what is going to be the escapement figure? The escapement figure is what they have to focus their attention on because of the variables outside the States and so forth, but as far as the Klamath River is concerned we have to arrive at a conclusion as to what is the figure in the area of escapement that will permit us to sustain that resource. Isn't that the key figure?

Mr. LEITZELL. I think it is, but I am not sure that having all those figures would lead you to an easy conclusion with an existing ocean fishery on mixed stocks. The likely result, if we knew right now what the runs were going to be for each of the individual river systems, is that obviously some of the systems could sustain a heavier harvest than others. Then the choices would be how much of the conservation burden should be borne by the ocean fishery where their catch is going to be spread across all the runs, although in different percentages depending on the availability and size of the individual runs, and how much is going to be borne by inside fishing.

So it is still a difficult choice, especially when you are dealing with salmon that will be lost in terms of utilization once they have gone through the fisheries, both offshore and inshore and into their spawning grounds. If the actual spawning escapement exceeds the optimum production numbers that are required, which is always possible, then we have lost some utilization of fish. The balance still has to be struck. It is clearly more difficult to strike the balance without those figures. I would not disagree with that. On

the other hand, from a biological point of view they are very difficult figures to come by.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I think what you have said is that with a 40percent reduction in the river, no commercial taking for 3 miles out from the mouth of the river, but a 15-percent reduction all up and down that Pacific fishery zone, in your judgment, is reasonable?

Mr. LEITZELL. Yes. Actually that is correct. Fifteen percent, again, is the prediction made by the biologists of the proportion of fish which would escape into the California system. The percentages are different for the various systems all up and down the

coast.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. The only problem I have is if the California system were to be protected, and of course you cannot protect it all the way out, but if you took a block 60 miles square, for example, around the mouth of the Klamath that would go up the Oregon border 30 miles to the north, 30 to the south, and 60 miles out into the Pacific, I would think you would have some reasonable assurance you were protecting Klamath salmon.

Mr. LEITZELL. You would certainly increase the protection, but the Klamath salmon, like all the others, might be found up and down the entire coast and are subject to the fishery off Oregon and Washington.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I appreciate that, but by having a limited area to protect-presumably if the entire Washington and Oregon and Canadian fishing fleets wanted to come down and fish off the mouth of the Klamath, you could save 15 percent overall, but you could have an 80-percent take of the Klamath salmon.

My question is, in an area situation like this where you have only one State south of the Oregon border subject to the drought that creates the emergency, why do we choose to do it by limiting base in the whole range rather than an area?

Mr. LEITZELL. I will answer the question and I might comment at the beginning that I am not sure that I would agree the drought affected only the California area.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. My understanding was that the rain clouds moved about 400 miles north and that Oregon and Washington actually had more rainfall than California. Is that reasonably accurate?

Mr. LEITZELL. That is not my understanding, but I can try to provide that kind of information for the record.

[The information follows:]

EFFECTS OF Drought on ALL NORTHWEST STATES

The drought of 1976 and 1977 occurred in Washington and Oregon as well as in California. Drought conditions from October 1976 through June 1977 prevented adult salmon from reaching the upper spawning areas in many coastal Oregon streams, tributaries to the Columbia River, coastal Washington streams, and Puget Sound streams. Many streams in Puget Sound were completely inaccessible to coho salmon spawners. The low stream flows and higher water temperatures that resulted from the drought provided poor rearing environments for juvenile salmon.

Source.-Appendices VIII and IX to the 1979 Amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California Commencing in 1978. Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1979.

Mr. LEITZELL. Let me make a comment on your point, though. The Council this year did consider looking at quotas for the different areas in order to provide a differential type of protection to the varying river systems along the coast. They decided not to adopt it this year because they felt that the reporting systems of the States involved were not adequate yet to manage in that fashion. We are dependent essentially on the reporting systems, and statistics from the states.

California, in this particular instance, would not have agreed to any more restrictive regulations. They, in fact, did not even want to agree with the regulations that were put in place and it was the council's understanding, and I have no reason to doubt it, that if the council had adopted more restrictive measures for the area beyond 3 miles, that California would have essentially opened up its territorial sea fishery to provide more opportunity for the ocean fishery because they thought it was being restricted too much. There is another problem involved in all of this and that is that we do have a large number of ocean fishermen, both commercial and recreational, who fish not in a particular area, but who will fish depending largely on availability. Even if a large area were established off the mouth of the Klamath in the conservation zone, I would expect that California fishermen and others who would normally have fished in that area would simply fish north of it and, consequently, you would have increased effort on the stocks of fish and probably not produced the conservation effect that is needed. To some extent fuel supply may make that more difficult. It has already this year, but that is another kind of problem.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you.

Mr. CLAUSEN. In your testimony, page 4, you make reference to the fact that the Pacific Fishery Management Council is planning to develop a comprehensive salmon plan that would address the conservation measurement consideration for the entire fresh water region, fresh waters as well as the ocean range.

Now, to what extent are they coordinating this with you, coordinating it with the State fish and game, the resource department of the State of California, so that the full run is taken into consideration here?

Mr. LEITZELL. The entire purpose of having such a comprehensive plan was to integrate the efforts of the States and the Federal Government council. All three State directors are voting members of the Council and the planning team that is working on this includes people from all 3 states as well as other members of the Council. It is not just around the corner by the way; it is obviously a very difficult kind of plan to put together, but the purpose of the Council, at least in the States involved, is to try without necessarily having to have a Federal legislative solution, to devise a cooperative plan which will try to insure that all segments of the industry are fairly treated and that the conservation goals are met. Mr. CLAUSEN. Thank you. I want to compliment you for your testimony.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you, gentlemen, for the questions. We appreciate your presentation. It is a very difficult problem at best and I recognize the problems that NOAA has been having in trying to come up with a solution everyone can agree with.