of 75 percent of the Klamath River spawning escapement goal compared to the Sacramento River where only 63 percent of the escapement goal was achieved.

We also provided for full exercise of Indian fishing rights, ceremonial, subsistence, and commercial, and provided emergency closure mechanisms to assure conservation. Looking at the third year, the regulations became effective on April 1. Those regulations were adopted only after extensive consultation with Indians along the river and the opportunity for public comment. The biologists predict that this will be a disastrous year for fish runs, largely due to the 1976-77 drought, and we have therefore banned commercial fishing for this year's run.

The ban is expected to reduce fishing pressure and to conserve fish runs while allowing some Indians to take fish for their subsistence needs. In cooperation with the State, last year we reached agreement on an interim management plan for the Klamath and Trinity Rivers. The agreement continues in effect this year and includes provisions for State regulation of non-Indians-sport fishery-departmental regulation of Indians, allocation of fall Chinook run between Indian and sports fisheries, no sale of steelhead or sturgeon, complete or partial closure when necessary for conservation and, when harvestable, number of fish taken. Of course, if runs size information becomes available later in the season, we may consult with Indians and the State on need for new allocation of this year's fall Chinook run.

Looking at the 1979 spring fishing season, which started on April 1, we feel it is going rather smoothly. The fish started moving through the rivers about the first of May, and 367 Indians have fishers identification cards issued under current regulations. Twenty-five to thirty-five nets are in the water each day, but only about 150 fish have been taken by the Indians, so far. These are counts by Indian enforcement agents and biologists.

Unfortunately, high turbid water has prevented us and the State from conducting test fisheries for run size.

Regular meetings are being held with the Indians to discuss the progress of the fishing season and all available fishery data. The first meeting was held May 16 and was attended by more than 60 Indians held at Chub's camp on Lower Klamath River.

A word about interaction with other managers. We believe our cooperation with the State remains at a high level. We continue to explore ways to prepare Indians for assumption of fishery management responsibilities. We continue to work with the Department of Commerce and Pacific Fishery Management Council to obtain reductions in ocean fishing to provide for inside fisheries such as the Klamath Indian fishery and for conservation. We are now exploring prospects for emergency closure of the ocean season.

I would like to speak to enforcement this year. In the broad picture, the Department is responsible for Indian fishers and the State is responsible for non-Indians. The State and departmental officers are cross-deputized for smoother enforcement and to enhance the sense of mutual support.

We are involving Indian people more this year than in the past in the enforcement activity. We currently have two Indian patrolmen and one supervisor, all Indians from the local area, on BIA

payroll. They are backed up by two Fish and Wildlife Service agents in the area. We do not anticipate need for other departmental enforcement agents to become involved. Indian enforcement agents have played a key role in educating the community about fishing regulations.

I believe that it is necessary to refer to the Court of Indian Offenses established last year to deal with the violations of the regulations. That court is proceeding steadily through last year's docket of 153 cases. All defendants have a right to jury trial, and most of them are represented by lawyers even though the maximum fine is $500, as established under the Indian Civil Rights Act. Ninety-five cases have been completed. There were 7 bench trials with 6 convictions, 1 acquittal on all charges; 20 jury trials, 9 convictions, 11 acquittals, and 3 cases were settled.

There are three judges in the court. The chief judge is a nonIndian lawyer; one associate judge is an Indian of the reservation, and the other associate judge is an Indian person from another reservation.

Looking at the initiatives benefiting Indians in the reservation resulting from the last 2 years' efforts, we believe that these initiatives of the Department's efforts to implement the spirit and the intent of the Federal policy of Indian self-determination has been upheld and that we are currently meeting other obligations which the United States bears as trustee.

We continue our efforts to resolve the governmental tribal problems perpetrated by the Jessie Short case. I will not go into the long details or background of that case. Suffice it to say, though, that we believe we are successful in assisting the Yurok Tribe in organizing. It will then provide an opportunity for the two tribes to establish a management entity to assume more of the managerial functions in connection with the fisheries.

Additionally, the Yurok Tribe would then be in a position to benefit from any Federal programs and services that are extended to Indian people through their tribal entities.

We have established a field office on the lower reaches of the river. Selection of the Director has just been made and that individual will begin his duties around the first of June. In the interim we have been operating with the staff from other Bureau offices for the past several months. That office gives Indian people essential direct liaison with services provided through the Hoopa agency and Sacramento area offices.

We continue to maintain a firm departmental commitment to enhance Klamath/Trinity salmon. We recognize the problems in the supply of salmon are complex and not susceptible to any easy solution.

The Department is acting in five categories to enhance runs entering the rivers to benefit Indian and the sport fisheries as well: One, stream rehabilitation; two, water flows; three, assessing with the Trinity River Task Force the problems with current land management policies and practices along the watershed; four, the continuing work to reduce the ocean catch.

I would like to speak briefly about artificial enhancement. The Department is committed to construction of new salmon rearing ponds on the lower reservation. We are committed to this extent of

about $250,000-$275,000. I believe it will add a capability to rear and release 400,000 yearling Chinook salmon each year. We are also coordinating these efforts with the State. The State has voted $250,000 for enhancement in its current budget. The Governor is expected to sign that into law by the 1st of July.

We are also cooperating in efforts to increase production at State hatcheries and rearing pond sites and to start production at New Orleans ponds. Altogether, State-Federal enhancement efforts should result in an addition of about 1,600,000 yearling Chinook salmon within the Klamath/Trinity system. We hope to have all facilities into production by next year. Once Indians of the reservation have the mechanisim for joint management of the reservation fishery, we anticipate turning the enhancement facility over to that entity for operation.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we believe that things are going much better in the regulation of the river this year compared to the past. We are optimistic about the 1979 fishing season although still concerned about problems of overfishing in the ocean, and the Department has undertaken a number of additional projects to improve fishery conditions and to correct the problems on the reservation resulting from a lack of the Yurok tribal government. Mr. Chairman, that completes my summary. I would be glad to defer to the other witnesses and respond to questions.

Mr. BREAUX. Do the other witnesses have any prepared statements or do you prefer answering questions?

Mr. BUTERBAUGH. Mr. Chairman, that statement was a departmental position.

Mr. BREAUX. All right. Do you have a statement, Mr. Sagalkin? Mr. SAGALKIN. We do not have a prepared statement but I would be pleased to answer questions.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you very much.

Normally on an Indian reservation doesn't the tribe itself regulate their own fishing activities? But I understand that the BIA has issued regulations in this instance?

Mr. GERARD. That is correct. Ordinarily we would expect the tribe, through its government, to assume that management responsibility. Because of the absence of the Yurok tribal governing body it was felt necessary for the Federal Government to assume that role.

Mr. BREAUX. I would take it that after a tribal government is formally organized, the Bureau of Indian Affairs would then relinguish their management responsibility?

Mr. GERARD. I think it is fair to say that both the Department and the Bureau are quite anxious to step back from the management role if the Yuroks are successful in forming their government.

Mr. BREAUX. Can you give an estimate of the time when that would come about? What kind of progress is being made?

Mr. GERARD. Mr. Chairman, the key to that will occur later in the summer. Final regulations for the Yurok voting criteria were published following two previous comment periods. The final regulations were published on April 25, 1979. I currently have on my desk the proposed regulation for election of an interim committee that would move forward in the establishment of the government. I

expect to clear those and send them on for publication soon, looking to the election to be held in late August or September.

Mr. BREAUX. I note that under the latest regulations of the Department there is a ban on Indian commercial fishing. The regulations would continue to allow Indian subsistence and ceremonial fishing. As one somewhat familiar with subsistence fishing in connection with other areas, I was wondering how it was defined in this area. What does the term "subsistence" encompass under the regulations with regard to Indian fishing rights on this river? Mr. GERARD. You are correct in the statement that there is no sale of the fishing commercially, but the Indian people are allowed a sufficient catch for consumption by the immediate and extended families.

Mr. BREAUX. I am not trying to ask any trick questions; I just want a discussion of it. The regulations that I have say, "Consumptive or subsistence fishing means the taking of fish to be eaten by Indians of the reservation or their immediate families." Under that definition I take it all commercial activities in the sense of selling fish that would be caught would be prohibited under the latest regulations?

Mr. GERARD. That is our intent, sir.

Mr. BREAUX. How is that working? I take it they have been in effect since April 1. What are your field people telling you? Is commercial fishing still continuing or has it in effect been eliminated, or how are we doing with enforcement?

Mr. BUTERBAUGH. There really has not been a fair test of this regulation this year. Since the spring run has been on, there have been only 150 fish taken. We won't know until August how well this is working. As far as we know at this point, there have been no sales of fish. There is just not enough fish available for sale. Mr. BREAUX. Some of the testimony we have had for the hearings in California this weekend from some of the organizations indicates that commercial fishing apparently is still continuing in a sense; also several Indian gill netters are active on the Klamath River at the present time. Quote: "It has been reported that one well-known gill netter has received $40,000 for the sale of steelheads so far this year.

I take it the regulations banning the commercial fishing would be effective only as of April 1 of this year. Is that correct?

Mr. GERARD. The regulations, yes, became effective April 1 but run through the entire season including the fall run, where Mr. Buterbaugh indicated we would expect more activity.

Mr. BREAUX. I take it that the Department does not agree with the allegation just cited?

Mr. GERARD. That has not been brought to our attention, and if we accept the count of the biologists that the Indians have only taken something in the neighborhood of 150 or so fish, it is a little difficult to conceive of $40,000 income from that catch. But we would be willing to look into that if we may have the statement. Mr. BREAUX. They were talking about steelhead trout as opposed to salmon.

Mr. GERARD. Mr. Chairman, we would be willing to look into that allegation.

Mr. BREAUX. I think it is something we need to have resolved at some point. Of course the hearings there will be aimed at discussing this.

What is the position of the Department with regard to the management activities of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council of the salmon being taken outside the 3-mile limit? That has to have an effect on fishing in the river itself within State jurisdiction. How much is your Department cooperating with the people over in Commerce with regard to regulations outside the 3-mile boundary? Mr. BUTERBAUGH. Mr. Chairman, the Fish and Wildlife Service is a nonvoting member on the council, and we have day-to-day contact with the fishery personnel and the members of the council and staffs of the council. We have written the Secretary of Commerce raising a concern that we feel that the restrictions imposed this year in the offshore salmon fishery are not sufficient to give us the escapement needed in the Klamath and it is now a matter of waiting to see what shows up this fall, but we are concerned that we will not have the necessary escapement. On the other handMr. BREAUX. What do you think would be needed to insure a healthy population in the river?

Mr. BUTERBAUGH. In terms of numbers?

Mr BREAUX. Numbers.

Mr. BUTERBAUGH. In terms of numbers, based mainly on State information, we feel that 100,000 fish-escapement should be 100,000 fish in the Klamath to utilize the spawning habitat.

Mr. BREAUX. What is the number the National Marine Fisheries is using?

Mr. BUTERBAUGH. I am not aware there is any disagreement over the number. The disagreement is whether or not the restriction in the ocean fishery will be enough to allow that escapement. We are talking about 15 percent versus 25 percent. It has to do with how effective the percentage will be to allow the escapement.

Mr. BREAUX. Do you have any idea from your Fish and Wildlife Service how many salmon are caught in the ocean from the Klamath River?

Mr. BUTERBAUGH. Estimates vary, but we estimate the Klamath stocks at least 70 percent are taken in the ocean.

Mr. BREAUX. I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McCloskey.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. Mr. Gerard, Mr. Leitzell testifies after you, but are you satisfied that cutting back the ocean salmon fishing by 15 percent is sufficient, particularly since this year's salmon spawning runs will be effected by the drought of 1976-77?

Mr. GERARD. Mr. McCloskey, the biologists or scientists we generally look to have led me to believe that problems of the Klamath and other rivers on the west coast are impacted by factors beyond the ocean fishery. We have looked into the Klamath situation extensively. As I understand it, there are other diversion questions affecting the level of water.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I appreciate all that. I think we owe an obligation to attack all of the questions: the forestry practices, the road building, the siltation, the flow from the Lewiston Dam into the Trinity River. But when you have imposed a complete moratorium