Mr. GERARD. Mr. McCloskey, I would presume that any assessment of that question would be deferred until we see what happens with the August or September vote on the part of the Yuroks to form or to reject the idea of a tribal government.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. So if a tribal government is formed, then there is the problem as to whether or not individual Yuroks then will get some money through a tribal organization or individually.

Mr. GERARD. Also they are in a position to begin determining their own membership the same as other tribes throughout the Nation.

Mr. MCCLOSKEY. I have no further questions.

Mr. BREAUX. I thank the panel for its testimony this morning. There may be additional questions we would like to submit as the hearings progress and that we have not thought of at this time, and we would ask that you gentlemen respond at that time. The witnesses are excused.

Mr. BREAUX. Our next witness is Mr. Terry Leitzell. We thank you for participating. We have a copy of your testimony. We invite you to proceed as you see fit.

STATEMENT OF TERRY LEITZELL, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR FISHERIES, NOAA, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. AVEN ANDERSEN AND MS. PAT KRANIO

TIS

Mr. LEITZELL. Thank you. I have with me today, on my right, and your left, Dr. Aven Andersen, from our Fisheries Management Conservation Office, and Ms. Pat Kraniotis from the Office of General Counsel.

With your permission, I would like to summarize my statement and ask that it be inserted in the record in full.

Mr. BREAUX. Without objection, the entire statement will be made a part of our record.

[The information follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TERRY L. LEITZELL, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, National MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE, NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, the Secretary of Commerce and the Regional Fishery Management Councils are responsible for the development, approval, and implementation of fishery management plans. The commercial and recreational salmon fisheries in the 200-mile Fishery Conservation Zone off the coasts of California, Oregon and Washington have been regulated since 1977 under a plan developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. The plan has been amended annually to respond to new information and changes in the fishery.

The National Marine Fisheries Service is represented on the policy, management, and action groups of the Klamath-Trinity River Task Force, along with representatives of the California State Department's of Fish and Game and Water Resources, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, and the Hoopa Indian Nation. Our position on the Task Force has been to seek an adequate allocation of water from the upstream dams to meet the spawning and habitat requirements for chinook salmon. In addition, we have given spawning and habitat requirements primary consideration when we review Federal or Federally supported applications for environmental modification which affect salmon.

The National Marine Fisheries Service has been concerned about the decline of chinook salmon in the Klamath River in recent years and believes that major cause for the decline is related to the loss of valuable spawning areas and poor environmental conditions in the river. The effects of severe drought during 1976 and 1977

resulted in greatly reduced stream flows and the loss of important spawning habitat for chinook salmon in all California north coast streams including the Klamath River, and the Sacramento River system. These low water years had a negative impact on the survival of juvenile salmon migrating to the ocean and consequently the number of adult fish returning to spawn in subsequent years. As a result, natural runs of chinook salmon in the Klamath River are expected to be below average for the 1979, 1980, and 1981 seasons.

Accordingly, the Secretary of Commerce has approved the strict conservation regulations adopted by the Pacific Fisheries Management Council and implemented them on an emergency basis for the 1979 ocean salmon season. These regulations, are predicted to ensure that the proportion of chinook salmon off California "escaping" to the river system will be 15 percent more than would have escaped under previous ocean regulations. We believe these regulations are necessary to help increase the spawning stock of Klamath Chinook salmon until the depressed runs can be restored to normal size.

The chinook salmon fishery in the Klamath River has been the subject of considerable controversy during the past year as the impact of poor survival attributed to the 1976-77 drought years has required regulation of the salmon fishery in the river to insure the escapement of adult fish to their spawning grounds. The State of California closed the non-Indian recreational fishery by emergency regulation in 1978. In addition, commercial gillnet fishing conducted by resident Indian tribes was closed by the Department of the Interior. Ceremonial and subsistance fishing by Indian tribes was allowed to continue.

On August 22, 1978, the Secretary of the Interior requested an emergency closure of the ocean commercial fishery in the Fishery Conservation Zone adjacent to the Klamath River to protect the chinook salmon runs. After careful consideration of the request by the Department of Commerce, and after consultation with representatives of the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Fishery Management Council and others, it was determined that an emergency closure in the Fishery Conservation Zone would have no significant impact on the spawning escapement of chinook salmon in the Klamath River. This decision was based on the historical closure of fishing around the mouth of the Klamath River within State jurisdiction and was considered sufficient to protect salmon entering the Klamath because it was believed that much of the salmon run had already migrated waters near the mouth of the river. Further, the request for closure was made at the time of the fall migration of adult salmon when most commercial ocean fishing had already ceased. The Department of the Interior was notified of this decision on September 2, 1978. An analysis of the 1978 run as of October 2, 1978, showed that the run was apparently late but near normal in size. Ultimately, the instream flow and other environmental/habitat problems must be addressed to insure adequate spawning escapement of chinook salmon. These requirements are also essential to maintaining viable recreational and commercial fisheries for Klamath area Indians and non-Indians. Clearly, the fisheries problems on the Klamath River are caused by a variety of reasons. No simple solution-such as constructing new hatcheries-exist. However, a comprehensive salmon plan addressing conservation and management considerations over their entire freshwater and ocean range is being prepared for implementation by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. An important portion of this plan is the section identifying habitat problems and the requirements to resolve them. Implementation of the comprehensive plan by the responsible state and Federal agencies, we believe will provide the best opportunity for maintaining and enhancing future salmon runs in the Klamath River and elsewhere. This plan expected to identify the actions necessary for all agencies, organizations, and the public to conserve and manage salmon. Meantime, the ocean salmon fisheries have been managed since 1977 under the plan and plan amendments developed by the Council. Such a plan, however, can only regulate fishing in the Fishery Conservation Zone. A major goal of the Council in adopting the 1979 amendments to the FMP was to decrease the proportions of the salmon runs harvested by the ocean fisheries so that more salmon can be available for spawning and for inshore harvest. This has required placing additional restrictions in 1979 on the already limited ocean commercial and recreational fisheries. While it was not possible for the Council to predict returns to individual streams, we believe it acted responsibly in increasing the proportion of fish returning to States' waters. In view of the decreased returns of salmon expected in 1979, the severe management measures adopted for the ocean fishery are not completely satisfactory to those concerned with the harvest and conservation of the salmon resource. I believe however, that they are necessary in order to provide a balance among the many competing salmon resource management needs. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement.

Mr. LEITZELL. Mr. Chairman, as you are well aware, under the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, the Secretary of Commerce and the Regional Fishery Management Councils, in this case, the Pacific Council, are responsible for the development, approval, and implementation of fishery management plans.

The commercial and recreational salmon fisheries in the ocean in the 200-mile zone off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington, have been regulated since 1977 under a plan developed by the Pacific Council. That plan has been amended annually to respond to new information and to changes in the fishery.

The National Marine Fisheries Service of NOAA is represented on the policy, management, and action groups of the KlamathTrinity River Task Force along with representatives of the California State Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, and the Hoopa Indian Nation.

Our approach in the task force has been to seek an adequate allocation of water from the upstream dams to meet the spawning and habitat requirements for salmon. In addition, we have given spawning and habitat requirements primary consideration when we review Federal or federally supported applications for environmental modification in those areas which could affect salmon.

We have been concerned about the decline of salmon in the Klamath River in recent years and believe that the major cause for the decline is related to the loss of valuable spawning areas, and poor environmental conditions in the river. The effects of the severe drought in 1976 and 1977, which were mentioned this morning, resulted in greatly reduced streamflows and loss of important spawning habitat for chinook salmon in all the California north coast streams, including the Klamath. These low water years certainly had a negative impact on the survival of juvenile salmon migrating to the ocean and, of course, consequently on the number of adult fish returning to spawn in subsequent years.

We do expect that natural runs of chinook salmon in the Klamath River will be below average in 1979, 1980, and 1981. Because of that condition, the Secretary of Commerce has approved the rather strict conservation regulations adopted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council for the ocean salmon fishery and has implemented them on an emergency basis for the 1979 ocean salmon season. These regulations are predicted to insure that the proportion of chinook salmon off California escaping the ocean fishery will be fifteen percent more than it would have been under last year's regulations. I would stress that that is a question of proportion and not necessarily of absolute numbers.

We do believe that the strictness of the regulations are necessary to help increase the spawning stock of Klamath chinook salmon until the depressed runs can be restored to normal size.

As I mentioned, we do believe that the habitat-related problems must be addressed to insure adequate spawning escapement. Those requirements are also essential, of course, to maintain viable fisheries for the Klamath area Indians and non-Indian fishermen. A comprehensive salmon plan addressing conservation and management considerations over the entire fresh water and ocean range is being prepared for eventual implementation by the Pacific

Fishery Management Council. An important portion of that plan is a section identifying habitat problems and the measures necessary to resolve them. Implementation of that comprehensive plan by the responsible State and Federal agencies involved in its preparation, we believe, will provide the best opportunity for maintaining and enhancing future salmon runs in the Klamath River and elsewhere. We expect that the Council's plan will identify actions necessary for all agencies, organizations, and the public to conserve and manage salmon.

As I noted, the ocean salmon fisheries have been managed since 1977 under the FCMA and under the FMP and plan amendments developed by the Pacific Council. That plan, of course, can only regulate fishing in the fishery conservation zone beyond the 3-mile limit of the territorial sea.

A major goal of the Pacific Council in adopting the 1979 amendments to the plan was to decrease the proportion of the salmon runs harvested by the ocean fisheries so that more salmon would be available for spawning and for inshore harvest. This has required placing additional restrictions in 1979 on the already limited ocean commercial and recreational fisheries. While it was not possible for the Council to predict returns to individual streams, we do believe that it acted responsibly in increasing the proportion of fish returning to State waters.

The severe management measures adopted for the ocean fishery are not entirely satisfactory to those concerned with the harvest and conservation of the resource. I do believe, however, that they are necessary in order to provide a balance among the many competing salmon resource management needs.

Mr. Chairman, while that concludes my prepared statement, I would like to add a couple of comments after listening to the discussion that has taken place so far.

I would like to note for the committee that, as many of you are well aware, the salmon fisheries which take place in the ocean do take place on mixed stocks, on stocks that are headed for many streams and rivers, consequently causing a very difficult management situation for insuring that all rivers receive the number of fish necessary for inshore fishing and for spawning purposes.

Also, as was noted in the earlier discussion, the fish are subject to fishing by the Japanese in the Western Pacific, although they are limited by a treaty which was successfully renegotiated last year; so there are a number of pressures on that particular fishery. Also, as was pointed out, there are a number of fishing groups with different interests in the fishery, who fish at different times and in different places.

During the Council discussions of the plan, there were a number of options put forward for management of the ocean fishery, some of which would have involved much more restrictive measures than were, in fact, adopted.

In the final analysis, I think everyone on the Council felt that the plan as adopted was a compromise, a compromise reached not only between the affected industry groups, the Federal Government, and the Council; but also, of course, with each of the individual States, which are voting members of the Council.

The plan that was adopted was viewed, as I think you are aware, by the State of Washington as being too lenient on the ocean fishery. Washington State felt that the restrictions in the ocean would not provide for their requirements for inside fisheries and for spawning escapement.

The State of Oregon essentially felt that the plan as adopted came fairly close to the requirements that they were setting for spawning in Oregon rivers; and, in fact, the State of California felt that the restrictions on the ocean fishery were too strict and had argued during Council discussions for more lenient regulations with regard to the ocean fishery.

Consequently, there was considerable discussion. The final plan was adopted at a later session than had originally been planned to insure that there was adequate input from all of the affected industry groups. The plan adopted does provide for rather severe restrictions which will, regardless of size of the runs, certainly result in decreases in catch by ocean fishermen.

One other point that I would like to address that was raised earlier. Neither we in the Federal Government nor the State governments have the capability at present of predicting the absolute size of the salmon runs. We expect that because of the environmental conditions in 1976 and 1977 the runs will probably be reduced. There were some biological indicators in last fall's fishery that the runs may be reduced this year, but the estimates of absolute size varies rather considerably. So, in terms of talking about specific numbers of fish, it becomes difficult to estimate what the size of the run is going to be and whether the specific goals for escapement in terms of numbers of fish will be met.

With that I would be happy to answer questions.

Mr. BREAUX. Thank you, Mr. Leitzell, for your testimony.

I am probably a little bit confused, at the least a little confused. On page 2 you talk about, at the bottom of the page, the last paragraph about the Secretary of Commerce approving the strict conservation regulations adopted by the Pacific Fishery Management Council, and you say that these regulations are predicted to insure the proportion of chinook salmon off California escaping from the ocean fishery will be 15 percent more than what have escaped under previous ocean regulations.

In other words, you are saying that I guess the reduction is about 15 percent of the amount that would have been available in the previous year for ocean harvesting?

Mr. LEITZELL. Yes, it is only a proportional reduction, Mr. Chairman. The ocean fishery is managed through specification of seasons, open dates for fishing in the commercial fishery rather than through specific numbers of fish.

There is also a bag limit on the sport fishery. Taking that into account, and the reductions that take place in the number of days available for the fishery, we believe that approximately a 15-percent reduction will be taken by the ocean fishery.

Mr. BREAUX. I guess the problem I have is that you really can't tell where all of the salmon are coming; they are not all coming from the Klamath River.

Mr. LEITZELL. Yes, sir.