C 55". 3oa.- C73- 
 
 Columbia River Fisheries 
 Development Program 
 
 U.S. Department of Commerce 
 
Mitchell Act 
 
 To provide for the conservation of the fishery resources of the Columbia River, establishment, opera- 
 tion, and maintenance of one or more stations in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho, and for the 
 conduct of necessary investigations, surveys, stream improvements, and stocking operations for 
 these purposes. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Con - 
 gress assembled. That the Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to establish one or more 
 salmon-cultural stations in the Columbia River Basin in each of the States of Oregon, Washington, 
 and Idaho. Any sums appropriated for the purpose of establishment such stations may be expended, 
 and such stations shall be established, operated, and maintained, in accordance with the provisions of 
 the Act entitled "An Act to provide for a five-year construction and maintenance program for the 
 United States Bureau of Fisheries", approved May 21, 1930, insofar as the provisions of such Act are 
 not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act. 
 
 Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Interior is further authorized and directed (1 ) to conduct such investiga- 
 tions, and such engineering and biological surveys and experiments, as may be necessary to direct 
 and facilitate conservation of the fishery resources of the Columbia River and its tributaries; (2) to 
 construct and install devices in the Columbia River Basin for the improvement of feeding and spawn- 
 ing conditions for fish, for the protection of migratory fish from irrigation projects, and for facilitating 
 free migration of fish over obstructions; and (3) to perform all other activities necessary for the conser- 
 vation of fish in the Columbia River Basin in accordance with law. 
 
 Sec. 3. In carrying out the authorizations and duties imposed by section 2 of this Act, the Secretary 
 of the Interior is authorized to utilize the facilities and services of the agencies of the States of Oregon, 
 Washington, and Idaho responsible for the conservation of the fish and wildlife resources in such 
 States, under the terms of agreements entered into between the United States and these States, 
 without regard to the provisions of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, and funds appropriated to 
 carry out the purposes of this Act may be expended for the construction of facilities on and the im- 
 provement of lands not owned or controlled by the United States: Provided, that the appropriate 
 agency of the State wherein such construction or improvement is to be carried on first shall have ob- 
 tained without cost to the United States the necessary title to, interest therein, right-of-way over, or 
 licenses covering the use of such lands. 
 
 Approved May 11, 1938, amended August 8, 1946 
 (52 Stat. 345) (60 Stat. 932) 
 
, , ,\l\ll ISO, 
 
 NOflfl 
 
 ; ^fMT Of 
 
 COLUMBIA RIVER 
 FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT 
 PROGRAM 
 
 January 1981 
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary 
 
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 
 Richard A. Frank, Administrator 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service 
 
 Terry L. Leitzell, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
 
January 2, 1981 
 
 To Our Readers 
 
 The States of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, as well as the Federal Government, have made con- 
 certed efforts to maintain the anadromous fish runs in the Columbia River system. A large part of the 
 cooperative effort has been coordinated through the Columbia River Fisheries Development Pro- 
 gram. This booklet covers the many activities and accomplishments of dedicated State and Federal 
 fish biologists, fish culturists, and engineers who have combined their talents and energies to enhance 
 and maintain stocks of Columbia River Pacific salmon and steelhead trout that contribute to various 
 fisheries from Alaska to California at a highly favorable benefit-cost ratio. 
 
 Information presented in this report provides individuals and agencies concerned with the conserva- 
 tion and enhancement of Pacific salmon and steelhead trout a convenient reference to the activities 
 associated with the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program. 
 
 A 
 
 HA. Larkins 
 Regional Director 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 Anadromoussalmonids 1 
 
 Condition of the resource 3 
 
 Habitat 6 
 
 Columbia River Fisheries Development Program 12 
 
 Fishculture 14 
 
 Stream clearance and improvement 20 
 
 Diversion screening 24 
 
 Hatchery evaluations 25 
 
 Hatchery improvement studies 28 
 
 Fish Facilities Branch 31 
 
 NMFS Offices and Addresses 32 
 
 Selected Bibliography 33 
 
 The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) does not approve, recommend or 
 endorse any proprietary product or proprietary material mentioned in this publica- 
 tion. No reference shall be made to NMFS, or to this publication furnished by 
 NMFS, in any advertising or sales promotion which would indicate or imply that 
 NMFS approves, recommends or endorses any proprietary product or proprietary 
 material mentioned herein, or which has as its purpose an intent to cause directly 
 or indirectly the advertised product to be used or purchased because of this NMFS 
 publication 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2012 with funding from 
 
 LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation 
 
 http://archive.org/details/columbiariverfisOOunit 
 
ANADROMOUS SALMONIDS 
 
 Before an effective discussion of the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program can be under- 
 taken, it is necessary to first develop an understanding of the fish making up the anadromous salmonid 
 resource. The term salmonid refers to members of the genus, Oncorhynchus (salmon), the genus Salmo 
 (trout), and the genus Salvelinus (char). Anadromous is a term that when applied to fish indicates that 
 the fish spends a portion of its life in salt water before returning to fresh water to spawn. 
 
 There are six species of Pacific anadromous salmon, the chinook or king salmon — O. tschawytscha, 
 the coho or silver salmon — O. kisutch, the pink or humpback salmon — O. gorbusha, sockeye, red, or 
 blueback salmon — O. nerka, chum salmon — O. keta, and Masu or cherry salmon — O. masu (Figure 1 ). 
 Of these, only the masu salmon is not indigenous to North America. 
 
 While all the species of trout and char can be anadromous, only the steelhead troutfS. gairdneri), 
 and the sea run cutthroat trout (S. clarki) are of major importance to the Pacific Coast (Figure 1 ). 
 
 With one notable exception, the general life cycles of the anadromous salmon and trout are essen- 
 tially the same(Figure46 — Inside Back Cover). All species spawn in freshwater lakes and streams or in 
 brackish water near the mouth of rivers flowing into salt water. After hatching, the fry spend a period 
 of one day to eighteen months rearing prior to migrating to the ocean for the saltwater portion of their 
 life cycle. After spending one to five years in salt water, sexually mature fish normally return to the 
 place where they originally hatched to complete the cycle. The difference in life cycles in salmon and 
 trout is that all salmon die after spawning and trout may return to the ocean to repeat the cycle a 
 number of times. 
 
 Figure 1 
 
 Anadromous salmonids native to the Pacific Coast of North America. 
 
 Chinook Salmon 
 (Oncorhynchus tschawytscha) 
 
 Coho Salmon 
 (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 
 
 Pink Salmon 
 (Oncorhynchus gorbusha) 
 
 Sockeye Salmon 
 (Oncorhynchus nerka) 
 
 Chum Salmon 
 (Oncorhynchus keta) 
 
 -r^^T^^r 
 
 v<?; 
 
 Steelhead Trout 
 (Salmo gairdneri) 
 
 Sea-Run Cutthroat Trout 
 (Salmo clarki) 
 
Of the indigenous species of salmon on the Pacific Coast, the chinook is the largest. The distribution 
 of the chinook salmon is from southern California to Alaska as well as in the U.S.S.R. and northern 
 J apan. While the record weight reported for a commercially caught chinook is 1 26V2 pounds, few are 
 caught that weigh over 50 pounds, with the average being between 18 and 25 pounds. They are the 
 most desirable of marine game fish in northern waters and are subject to extensive ocean troll and 
 sports fisheries as well as fisheries within the rivers on the Pacific Coast. The principal fishing areas 
 stretch from Avila Beach, California, to southern Alaska. 
 
 In the Columbia Basin, chinook have been divided into three races based mainly on the time they 
 return to the river to spawn. The races are designated either spring, summer, or fall and normally 
 reflect how far upriver the returning adult fish migrate before spawning. In many cases the earlier a fish 
 returns, the farther upstream its historical spawning grounds are. This pattern has been altered 
 dramatically in recent years because of the many dams that have been built on the Columbia River 
 system and the transplantation of many runs of the different races of fish to more suitable habitat. 
 
 Coho salmon have been known to occur as far south as the Coronado Islands in Mexico and on up 
 into Alaska. On the Asiatic side of the Pacific, they range as far south as J apan. Coho have been caught 
 which exceed 30 pounds, but the average size is around 10 pounds. There is an active sports and com- 
 mercial fishery on the species in the ocean and the tributary streams which support a stock of coho. 
 
 Coho make up a major portion of the hatchery production of the Columbia River Basin hatcheries. 
 They enter the river in late summer and early autumn and spawn from October to December. 
 
 Pink salmon are found in southern California to northwestern Alaska and along the Asian coast, but 
 are not common south of Oregon. They are the smallest of the Pacific salmon averaging about 6 
 pounds when mature. Pink salmon normally spawn in the lower portions of rivers near or in tidewater. 
 They are not fished extensively by sports fishermen but are an important commercial species. 
 
 Sockeye salmon range from southern Oregon to northwestern Alaska and Asia. They average from 
 5 to 7 pounds at maturity. Sockeye normally spawn in rivers fed by lakes and often use the lakes as 
 rearing habitat for a year before migrating to salt water. As the sockeye salmon rarely take a hook, they 
 are not a major contributor to the sports catch. It is, however, an extremely important commercial 
 species, highly prized by commercial fishermen and consumers. 
 
 Chum salmon have a range similar to that for pink salmon. Like the pinks, chums primarily spawn in 
 the lower reaches of coastal rivers and sometimes even utilize salt water areas for spawning. They 
 average 10 to 12 pounds and are an important commercial species from Washington northward. 
 Because of their light colored flesh, however, they are not as highly regarded by the consumer as are 
 some other species of salmon. 
 
 The most important species of anadromous trout, based on fishing effort and hatchery production, 
 is the steelhead trout. A steelhead is a rainbow trout that spends a portion of its life in salt water. 
 They may exceed 36 pounds but most average 10 pounds at maturity. The range extends from Point 
 Conception, California, to Alaska in North America as well as from Japan to Russia on the Asian 
 Ocean coast. The fishery on steelhead is concentrated on the river as fish return to spawn and is mainly 
 sports oriented. 
 
 In the Columbia River Basin, an extensive hatchery rearing program helps maintain steelhead in the 
 face of increasing pressure and declining wild runs. Steelhead are divided into two races— winter and 
 summer. As with the chinook this division is based mainly on the time of return to fresh water. Both 
 races are present in the basin and their spawning grounds extend as far as Idaho and the middle Col- 
 umbia tributaries in Washington. 
 
 The sea run cutthroat trout is a cutthroat trout that, like the steelhead trout, spends a portion of its 
 life cycle in salt water. The range of their distribution extends from the Eel River in California to 
 Southeastern Alaska. Sea run cutthroat usually reach a size of between 1 and 3 pounds. The fishery on 
 this species is almost total ly sports oriented and is confined to the fresh water streams to which this fish 
 returns to spawn. 
 
CONDITION OF THE RESOURCE 
 
 Pacific salmon and steelhead trout have played an important role in the history of the Pacific North- 
 west and the Columbia River Basin. Long before settlers and opportunity seekers came to the North- 
 west, tribes of Indians were involved in subsistence fishery. Using mainly spears and dipnets, Indians 
 annually caught large quantities of salmon and steelhead which they preserved by drying or smoking 
 (Figures 2 and 3). These preserved fish formed an important part of the Indians' food supply. 
 
 Figure 2 
 
 An Indian woman preparing salmon for smoking. 
 
 fstfSF 
 
 i ftf^frj? * U' i 'lit v j""m *' 
 
 r ^ 
 
 k"*"'-- 
 
 Figure 3 
 
 An Indian fishing camp with salmon drying on racks in the sun. 
 
The first recorded non-Indian exploitation of the Columbia Basin salmonid resource was a salmon 
 salting plant established in the lower river in 1832. Fish taken were packed in barrels of salt for ship- 
 ment. Although this first enterprise proved to be a failure, the ones that followed were not and a major 
 Northwestern industry was founded. 
 
 In 1866, William Hume established the first salmon cannery on the Columbia River at a site on the 
 Washington shore 40 miles above Astoria. The pack this first year was 4,000 cases of canned salmon. 
 By 1881 there were 34 canneries in operation and the total pack had increased to approximately 550 
 thousand cases from 37.5 million pounds of catch (Figure 4). In 1884, when the pack exceeded 620 
 thousand cases, fish were so numerous that tons of them were thrown overboard by fishermen 
 because the canneries were not able to use them. Yearly catches fluctuated between 22 and 42 million 
 pounds until in 1911 a record 49 million pounds were caught. The trend for the River catch from 1911 
 on has been generally negative. Some of the reasons for the decline are discussed in the "Habitat" sec- 
 tion of this document. 
 
 COL. R. COMMERCIAL SHLMONID CRTCH 
 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 in 
 
 o 
 
 en 
 n 
 z 
 u 
 o 
 
 Q_ 
 
 50000 
 
 40000 
 
 30000 
 
 20000 
 
 0Q0E 
 
 LD 
 
 s 
 
 C\J 
 
 en 
 
 
 s 
 
 CD 
 
 m 
 
 CRTCH YERR 
 
 Figure 4 
 
 Historical commercial catch of anadromous salmonids(in thousands). 
 
 In these early years, commercial fishing took place almost exclusively within the coastal rivers. 
 There were essentially no ocean commercial fisheries. In the case of the Columbia River, fishing ex- 
 tended from the mouth up to Celilo Falls, (River Mile192), the area now inundated by The Dalles Dam. 
 Most of the fishermen's efforts were concentrated in the lower 40 miles. 
 
 Depending on the area fished, different gear was used. Traps and pound nets proved effective in the 
 lower river as did drag or beach seines on the lower river sandbars (Figure 5). Fixed and drifting gill nets 
 were used in various reaches of the river (Figure 6) and fish wheels on the main stem (Figure 7) above 
 the junction of the Willamette River (River Mile 101). 
 

 MaMtttti 
 
 Figure 5 
 
 A horse seining operation in the Lower Columbia River in the191(ys. 
 
 Figure 6 
 
 Gillnet boats moored at Astoria in the early 1900's. 
 
 It is important to note that Figure 4 only includes commercial catches in the Columbia River. While 
 the trend line for the catch after1911 shows a dramatic decline, this does not accurately indicate the 
 status of Columbia River salmonid stocks. As previously mentioned, prior to 1911 there were essential- 
 ly no ocean fisheries and there were few closed periods during "in-river" fishing seasons. With rapid im- 
 provements in vessels, gear, and techniques, the ocean commercial fisheries gradually began to gain 
 in importance. Additionally, a large ocean sport fishery developed. The impact of these two fisheries 
 has severely reduced the "in-river" harvest. Fish of Columbia River origin that would have historically 
 been available to river fishermen were instead being taken in the ocean. Also, seasons were by necessi- 
 ty shortened to protect the declining numbers of fish returning to the river. 
 
Figure 7 
 
 A scow fish wheel near Corbett, Oregon — 1910. 
 
 To get a true picture of the state of populations of Columbia River origin fish, it is necessary to add 
 the ocean catches to those presented in Figure 4. Results of hatchery contribution studies conducted 
 by the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program of the National Marine Fisheries Service are 
 presented in Figures 37 and 38 in this document. While the catch data are only for hatchery fall 
 chinook and coho for 4 and 2-brood years respectively, the estimated total weight of the catch each 
 year, when added to that in Figure 4, would present an entirely different picture. Total catches of Col- 
 umbia River origin fish would approach those prior to 1940. 
 
 Recreational fishing on the Columbia River during the same period was limited in scope. A con- 
 siderable number of sportsmen did fish for salmon in the area of Willamette Falls and on the 
 Clackamas River each spring (Figure 8), but their catch was small when compared to the commercial 
 efforts. One of the most notable of these early sportsmen was the famous author, Rudyard Kipling. 
 
 HABITAT 
 
 The mainstream Columbia River is over 1 200 miles long, stretching from Lake Columbia in Canada 
 to the Pacific Ocean. Including tributaries, the Columbia River Basin drains approximately 259,000 
 square miles land (Figure 9), 39,500 square miles of which are in southeastern British Columbia. The 
 U.S. portion of the Basin consists primarily of portions of the states of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho 
 but also includes portions of the states of Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah. 
 
 Before the Basin was settled, salmon and steelhead were in great abundance. Spring and summer 
 chinook salmon as well as sockeye salmon migrated almost 1200 miles upstream to the lower end of 
 Lake Windemere in Canada to spawn, while coho salmon spawned in the Spokane River, 700 miles 
 from the Pacific Ocean. Both spring chinook and steelhead reached the area of Rock Creek, a Snake 
 River tributary in the area of Twin Falls, Idaho, 592 miles upstream. Figure 10 shows the extent of the 
 Basin historically accessible to spawning. 
 
Figure 8 
 
 Sports fishing in the Willamette River in the early 1900's. 
 
 Columbia River Basin 
 
 The Columbia River Basin. 
 
 Figure 9 
 
Area blocked by dams 
 
 Figure 10 
 
 The portions of the Columbia River Basin that are or have 
 been accessible to anadromous salmonids. 
 
 Much of the original habitat has undergone drastic change and reduction with the onset of civiliza- 
 tion. Development of the agriculture industry resulted in increased turbidity and caused changes in 
 chemical and physical properties of the water (Figure 11). A demand for irrigation water developed in 
 response to continually greater amounts of land being placed into cultivation (Figure 12). Many dams 
 were built to divert water to meet these demands which in some cases resulted in greatly diminished or 
 completely eliminated flows. These diversion dams were often built without fishways making them 
 impassible to upstream migrating adult salmonids. Unscreened diversion intakes killed large numbers 
 of downstream migrants as they entered irrigation canals and were diverted into farmers' fields. 
 
 Figure 11 
 
 Stream banks destroyed by over-grazing in adjacent fields. 
 
•* 
 
 
 
 '4? * 
 
 v9l J9 
 
 • 
 
 ■ ! #^ 
 
 
 
 • ® N ' '* *' 
 
 
 v 
 
 
 V 
 
 >• 
 
 '"'', 
 
 
 
 
 
 r 
 
 (V . 
 
 4 > S 
 
 
 
 h;]& 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 v 
 
 .r. 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 . 
 
 fw-' 
 
 
 ■ 
 
 
 ' 
 
 •*» > 
 
 /TT > 
 
 
 Figure 12 
 
 Circular pump irrigation systems in Columbia River drainage. 
 
 The extensive forested areas of much of the Basin have supported the development of a large and 
 diversified wood-products industry (Figure 13). Logjams and wood wastes left behind by timber 
 harvesting made large amounts of spawning and rearing habitat inaccessible (Figure 14). Early opera- 
 tions destroyed much of the natural forest cover resulting in rapid runoff, siltation, floods, low flows, 
 high temperatures, debris, and destruction of food organisms. 
 
 ■ 
 
 - 
 
 i^fiydfe : 
 
 Figure 13 
 
 Douglas Fir clear-cut site in the Columbia River drainage. 
 
£§8H v'.« 
 
 Figure 14 
 
 A log jam blocking a small tributary of the Columbia River to 
 passage of anadromous salmonids. 
 
 The mining industry has also had adverse effects on the spawning and rearing of fish in the Basin. 
 The operations required and diverted large amounts of water from natural stream channels. Mine and 
 gold dredge tailings as well as chemical effluents from the ore refining process have killed fish and 
 damaged their spawning and rearing habitat as well as affecting other forms of aquatic life (Figure 1 5). 
 Mining activities also have added to the siltation problem. 
 
 Urbanization and industrialization of the basin have been other causes of the degradation of 
 available habitat (Figure 16). Industrial and domestic wastes have been discharged into the rivers and 
 water withdrawals have reduced flows. Land fills associated with construction have encroached on 
 river beds and flood plains. 
 
 Figure 15 
 
 A gold dredge operating in Idaho on the Yankee Fork 
 of the Salmon River in 1941. 
 
 10 
 
• 
 
 .41 
 
 
 Figure 16 
 
 The Willamette River flowing through 
 Portland, Oregon. 
 
 Starting in the 1930' s, a series of large, multipurpose dams for hydroelectric power, flood control, 
 and navigation were constructed on the main stem Columbia and Snake Rivers as well as on other 
 Basin tributaries (Figures 1 7 and 1 8). Most of these, with the notable exceptions of Grand Coulee, Chief 
 Joseph, and Hells Canyon Dams have fish passage facilities but they have reduced the normally free- 
 flowing rivers to a series of reservoirs that disrupt both upstream and downstream migration. In addi- 
 tion, these dams kill or injure many of the young fish by forcing them to pass through the turbines. The 
 reservoirs created by the dams have altered temperature patterns of the river making habitat un- 
 suitable for salmon spawning and rearing. In the case of Grand Coulee and later Chief Joseph Dam, all 
 access to upstream habitat extending up into Canada was blocked. Hells Canyon Dam blocked access 
 to upstream habitat on the Snake River. 
 
 The portion of the Basin still accessible to salmon and steelhead after all the above mentioned 
 modifications is also shown in Figure 10. 
 
 f\(k 
 
 - . . m 
 
 Figure 17 
 
 Hells Canyon Dam — a complete blockage to salmon in the 
 Snake River in Idaho. 
 
 11 
 
Box Canyon v „ 
 
 '^S^^QaBinet Gorge 
 
 P AC 'Nc Hoxon Rapids 
 lbeniFalls\ J ( v ~ J *P'f' 
 
 t£ 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 1969 
 Lower _. 
 
 Monumental 
 
 ^Hungry Horse 
 
 "^MONTANA 
 
 IDAHO^ 
 
 ~f&if~Vlanapum 1963 
 
 Priest Rapids-*<&*<±- f, 
 
 1959 RICHUND^-lljk 
 
 —f^—Jfc^V 1975 
 
 2>tl,Ui 
 
 John Day 
 Dalles 1968 
 
 1957 
 
 OREGON 
 
 Figure 18 
 
 Locations at major dams in the Columbia River Basin. 
 
 COLUMBIA RIVER FISHERY DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 
 
 The Congress in 1 938 authorized the appropriation of $500,000 for surveys and improvements in the 
 Columbia River watershed for the benefit of salmon and other anadromous fish (the "Mitchell Act", 
 Public Law 75-502, May 11, 1938). This authorization recognized that in the years 1 905-31 the Federal 
 Government had received in excess of $500,000 from fishermen for leases of seining grounds on the 
 Government-owned Sand Island and Peacock Spit in the mouth of the Columbia River. Further, it 
 recognized that because of the destruction of favorable environmental conditions by deforestation, 
 pollution, and water diversions, the salmon fisher/ of the Columbia river was in a serious and pro- 
 gressive decline. The purpose of this authorization was to reinvest the funds derived from the leases 
 back into the resource. 
 
 Using the limited available funds, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) began a program of 
 stream census and surveys and by 1942 most of the tributary streams of the Columbia River had been 
 surveyed. Considerable data were accumulated regarding the various populations of salmon and 
 steelhead. Unscreened diversions, impassible waterfalls, log and debris jams, splash dams, and 
 sources of pollution throughout the basin were cataloged. 
 
 On August 8, 1946, President Truman approved a congressional amendment (Public Law 79-676) to 
 the Mitchell Act which removed the limitations on subsequent appropriations to be made by Congress 
 for the development of the fisheries for anadromous species in the Columbia Basin (inside front cover). 
 For the first time, the Secretary of Interior was authorized to utilize the facilities and services of the 
 conservation agencies of the States of Idaho, Washington, and Oregon in developing the salmon 
 resources of the region. The act, as amended, allowed a closer cooperation between the Federal 
 Government and the States and permitted, for the first time, the transfer of monies to the States for 
 specific work. 
 
 12 
 
In 1947, the Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee, composed of State and Federal agencies 
 concerned with the water-development projects of the basin, recognized that every effort should be 
 put forth by the Federal Government to maintain the salmon fishery of the Columbia and its tributaries 
 at the highest possible level of abundance in accord with development of other natural resources. 
 After the fishery interests were denied a temporary moratorium on new dam construction, the Com- 
 mittee recommended the formation of the Lower Columbia River Fishery Development Program as 
 the best means of maintaining the fishery. This recommendation was endorsed by the Federal River 
 Basin Inter-Agency Committee, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. The 
 Corps of Engineers submitted a request to Congress for an initial appropriation in fiscal year 1 949 to in- 
 augurate the work. The 80th Congress recognized the situation and appropriated one million dollars 
 for FY 1949. The resultant Lower Columbia River Fishery Development Program ("Program"), under 
 the U.S. Department of Interior, brought into being a concerned plan for the development of salmon 
 and steelhead in the basin watershed. 
 
 Until 1956, only the States of Oregon and Washington were actively engaged in the Program. The 
 area included was that portion of the Columbia River and its tributaries below McNary Dam. In 1956, 
 Congress instructed that the Program be activated above McNary Dam and Idaho became a partici- 
 pant in 1957. At this time the word "Lower" was dropped from the Program name. 
 
 Under the Program, emphasis has been placed on the following: expansion of artificial propagation; 
 improvement of existing salmon rearing and spawning habitat in the tributary streams by removal of 
 log jams, splash dams, and natural rock obstructions; construction and operation of permanent 
 fishways either to facilitate passage at partial barriers or to provide access to areas not previously 
 available to any anadromous fish; construction and operation of screens to protect downstream 
 migrants from irrigation diversions; and an accelerated program of developing new and improved 
 hatchery techniques. 
 
 In 1970, with a reorganization of Federal fisheries responsibilities, the oversight of the Program was 
 transferred from the Department of Interior to the Department of Commerce. It is currently ad- 
 ministered as part of the Environmental and Technical Services Division (ETSD) of the National 
 Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in Portland, Oregon, in cooperation with the USFWS, Oregon Depart- 
 ment of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Washington Department of Fisheries (WDF), Washington Depart- 
 ment of Came (WDG), and Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) (Figure 19). 
 
 
 
 TABLE OF ORGANIZATION 
 
 
 
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U.S. FISH HND WILDLIFE SERVICE 
 OREGON DEPT. OF FI5H RND WILDLIFE 
 WRSHINGTON DEPT. OF FISHERIES 
 WASHINGTON DEPT. OF GAME 
 IDRHO DEPT. OF FISH AND GAME 
 
 
 NATIONAL OCEANIC AND 
 ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES 
 SERVICE 
 
 
 
 t 
 
 
 
 
 
 o ' 
 en | 
 
 ENVIRONMENTAL AND TECHNICAL 
 SERVICES DIVISION 
 
 
 QL ' 
 O ' 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 COLUMBIA RIVER FISHERIES 
 DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 
 
 <---> 
 
 FISH FACILITIES 
 BRANCH 
 
 < > 
 
 ENVIRONMENTAL 
 ASSESSMENT BRANCH 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Figure 19 
 
 A portion of the organization of the Department of Commerce that includes the 
 Columbia River Fisheries Development Program. 
 
 13 
 
Fish Culture 
 
 The Columbia River Fisheries Development Program has used all practical means to attempt to in- 
 crease the abundance of salmonids in the Basin. The most important of these, both in effort and 
 money spent(Table I), has been artificial culture of fish. Section 1 of the Revised Mitchell Act authoriz- 
 ed the construction of fish hatcheries in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho. The Act further authorized 
 the facilities and services of the State agencies to be used for construction and operation of these 
 hatcheries. 
 
 The original plan for artificial propagation under the Program called for construction, enlargement, 
 or renovation of 31 hatcheries over a ten year period. In 1949, part of the initial $1 .0 million appropria- 
 tion was used to start construction of Klickitat Hatchery and expansion of Spring Creek National Fish 
 Hatchery. Due to changes in plan, a total of 21 of these were actually built (Figure 20 and outside back 
 cover), the last being G rays River started in 1 960 (Table 1 1 and 1 1 1). Al I, except for Toutle, are stil I actively 
 producing salmon and steelhead for release into the Basin. Spring Creek and Bonneville have both 
 undergone very extensive reconstruction funded by the Corps of Engineers as mitigation for fish losses 
 in the area above John Day Dam. Figure 22 shows the layout for a typical Program hatchery. 
 
 On 1 8 May 1 980, the eruption of Mt. St. Helens in Washington caused a massive mud flow to crash 
 down the North Fork of the Toutle River destroying anything in its path. Mud, volcanic ash, logs, and 
 other debris backed up into the Green River and covered Toutle Hatchery, killing 165 thousand year- 
 ling coho salmon, 4.5 million f ingerling coho, and 5.7 million fall chinook migrants. Resulting losses to 
 the fisheries were estimated at over $8.6 million. In addition to the loss of the fish, the hatchery itself 
 (Figure 21 ) and the Toutle River system suffered extensive damage. It is not known when the hatchery 
 will be put back into operation or when stream conditions will improve enough to support the 
 reestablishment of salmon populations. 
 
 Table i 
 
 FUNDS EXPENDED BY THE COLUMBIA RIVER 
 FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 194V .1.980 
 
 YEAR 
 
 CONSTRUCTION 
 
 0J.M AND STUDIES 
 
 POLLUTION 
 ABATEMENT 
 
 TOTAL 
 
 
 $1,000,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1949 
 
 
 
 
 $1,000,000 
 
 1950 
 
 1 ,192,500 
 
 7,50 
 
 
 
 
 1,200,000 
 
 1951 
 
 2,118,813 
 
 94, 1 30 
 
 
 
 
 2,212 ,943 
 
 1952 
 
 1 ,525,451 
 
 149,983 
 
 
 
 
 1 ,675,434 
 
 1953 
 
 2,935, 
 
 476,885 
 
 
 
 
 3,411 ,885 
 
 1954 
 
 1 ,750,000 
 
 634,81.4 
 
 
 (I 
 
 2,384,814 
 
 1955 
 
 1,000,000 
 
 1 , 080 ,305 
 
 
 
 
 2, 080 , 305 
 
 1956 
 
 9 0,000 
 
 972,527 
 
 
 
 
 1 ,872,527 
 
 1957 
 
 1,400,000 
 
 1 ,274, 133 
 
 
 
 
 2,674, 133 
 
 1958 
 
 1,600,000 
 
 1 ,215, (I'M 
 
 
 
 
 2,815, 091 
 
 1959 
 
 1,600,000 
 
 1 ,404,498 
 
 
 
 
 3, 004 ,498 
 
 i960 
 
 1,200,000 
 
 1 ,625,157 
 
 
 
 
 2,825,157 
 
 1961 
 
 1,400,000 
 
 1 ,964,429 
 
 
 
 
 3,364,429 
 
 1962 
 
 1 ,431 ,000 
 
 1 ,934 ,060 
 
 
 
 
 3,365,060 
 
 1963 
 
 1,608,20 
 
 2, 56,563 
 
 
 
 
 3,664 .763 
 
 1964 
 
 965,70 
 
 2,049,416 
 
 
 
 
 3,015,116 
 
 1965 
 
 588, 00 
 
 2,273,90 
 
 
 
 
 2,861 ,90 
 
 1966 
 
 968,70 
 
 2,382,800 
 
 
 
 
 3,351 ,500 
 
 1967 
 
 1,050,000 
 
 2,429, 00 
 
 
 
 
 3,479 ,00 
 
 1968 
 
 
 
 2,599,2 
 
 
 
 
 2,599,200 
 
 1969 
 
 420 , 00 
 
 2,571 ,80 
 
 
 
 
 2,991 ,80 
 
 1970 
 
 1 ,048,000 
 
 2,886, 
 
 
 
 
 3,934, 000 
 
 1971. 
 
 
 
 2,939,40 
 
 
 
 
 2 ,939 ,40 
 
 1972 
 
 
 
 3, 020 ,400 
 
 
 
 
 3,020,400 
 
 1973 
 
 
 
 3,314,000 
 
 
 
 
 3,314, 00 
 
 197 4 
 
 63,4 
 
 3,301,300 
 
 394 
 
 50 
 
 3,759,20 
 
 1975 
 
 1 , 095,000 
 
 3,799,80 
 
 4 95 
 
 7 
 
 5,390 ,500 
 
 1976 
 
 781 ,80 
 
 4 ,439, 100 
 
 50 
 
 000 
 
 5,72 ,90 
 
 I Q 1 / 
 
 
 
 1 ,1.79,90 
 
 9 
 
 40 
 
 1 , 189,30 
 
 1977 
 
 445,100 
 
 5,007, 3 
 
 50 
 
 000 
 
 5,952,40 
 
 1978 
 
 217,000 
 
 5,646,600 
 
 50 
 
 00 
 
 6,363, 600 
 
 1979 
 
 33,50 
 
 6,111,400 
 
 2,797 
 
 000 
 
 8,941 ,90 
 
 193H 
 
 9,10 
 
 6,385, 1 
 
 50 
 
 00 
 
 6,894,20 
 
 TOTALS 
 
 $30,346,264 
 
 $77,226,491 
 
 $5,696,60 
 
 $113,269,355 
 
 1/ T Q refers to a three Month period fron July to 
 Septenber necessitated by a change in Federal 
 i c a 1 year reporting dates 
 
 14 
 
TABLE II - COLUMBIA RIVER FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM FACILITIES - COLUMBIA BASIN— WASHINGTON 
 
 Facility 
 
 Congressional 
 General Location District 
 
 Operating 
 Agency - 
 
 Species Reared.,. Anadromous Year Anadromous 
 1960-79 -' Releases 1979 Operation Bega n 
 
 Funding 
 Agency 
 
 Washington Hatcheries 
 
 Abernathy 
 
 Beaver Creek 
 
 Carson 
 
 Elokomin 
 
 Grays River 
 
 Kalama Falls 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 Little White Salmon 
 
 Willard 
 
 Skamania 
 
 Spring Creek 
 
 Toutle 
 
 Washougal 
 Rearing Ponds 
 
 Alder Creek 
 
 Big White Salmon 
 
 Go bar 
 
 Ringold Salmon 
 
 Ringold Trout 
 
 Longview 
 
 Cathlamet 
 
 Carson 
 
 Cathlamet 
 
 Grays River 
 
 Kalama 
 
 Glenwood 
 
 Cook 
 
 Cook 
 
 Washougal 
 
 Underwood 
 
 Toutle 
 
 Washougal 
 
 Toutle 
 
 Underwood 
 
 Toutle 
 
 Ringold 
 Ringold 
 
 3rd 
 3rd 
 4th 
 3rd 
 3rd 
 3rd 
 4th 
 4th 
 4th 
 4th 
 4th 
 3rd 
 4th 
 
 3rd 
 4th 
 3rd 
 
 5th 
 5th 
 
 USFWS 
 
 WDG 
 
 USFWS 
 
 WDF 
 
 ., II 
 
 WDF 
 
 WDF 
 
 USFWS 
 
 USFWS 
 
 WDG 
 
 USFWS 
 
 WDF 
 
 WDF 
 
 WDG 
 
 USFWS 
 
 WDG 
 
 WDF 
 
 WDG 
 
 fc( 
 
 sc,co,sh) 
 
 Yes 
 
 sh 
 
 src 
 
 Yes 
 
 sc 
 
 co (fcsh) 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 co (ch) 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 co, ch 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 SC, CO 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 SC, CO 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 sc, co,(ch) 
 
 Yes 
 
 CO 
 
 (fc, sc) 
 
 Yes 
 
 sh 
 
 (fc) 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 (co) 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc, 
 
 sc , co 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 co (ce) 
 
 Yes 
 
 sh 
 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 CO 
 
 Yes 
 
 sh 
 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 SC , CO 
 
 Yes 
 
 sh 
 
 
 Yes 
 
 1959 
 1953 
 1932 
 1954 
 1961 
 1959 
 1950 
 1898 
 1951 
 1956 
 1901 
 1952 
 1958 
 
 1973 
 1901 
 1975 
 1962 
 1962 
 
 NMFS, USFWS 
 NMFS 
 
 SFUS 
 NMFS 
 NMFS 
 NMFS 
 NMFS 
 
 NMFS, USFWS 
 NMFS, USFWS 
 NMFS, WDG 
 
 :orps, USFWS 
 ." 
 NMFS 
 
 NMFS, WOG 
 NMFS, USFWS 
 
 NMFS. JOG 
 
 NMFS 
 
 NMFS 
 
 1/ USFWS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NMFS-National Marine Fisheries Service, WDF-Washington Department of Fisheries, WDG-Washington Department of 
 Game, Corps-U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
 
 2/ fc-fall Chinook salmon, sc-spring Chinook salmon, co-coho salmon, ch-chum salmon, ce-cherry (masu) salmon, sh-steelhead trout, src-sea run cutthroat 
 
 TABLE III - COLUMBIA RIVER FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM - COLUMBIA BASIN-OREGON AND IDAHO 
 
 Facility 
 
 Congressional 
 General Location District 
 
 Operating Species Reared Anadromous Year Anadromous 
 Agency - 1960-79 2/ Releases 1979 Operation Began 
 
 Funding 
 Agency- 
 
 Oregon Hatcheries 
 
 Big Creek 
 
 Bonneville 
 
 Cascade 
 
 Clackamas 
 
 Eagle Creek 
 
 Gnat Creek 
 
 Klaskanine 
 
 OxBow 
 
 Sandy 
 Oregon Rearing Pond 
 
 Wahkeena 
 Idaho Rearing Ponds 
 
 Decker Flats 
 
 Pahsimeroi 
 
 Knappa 
 Bonnevil le 
 Cascade Locks 
 Estacada 
 Estacada 
 Westport 
 Astoria 
 Cascade Locks 
 Sandy 
 
 Bonnevil le 
 
 S ta n 1 ey 
 Challis 
 
 1st 
 3rd 
 3rd 
 2nd 
 2nd 
 1st 
 1st 
 2nd 
 2nd 
 
 2nd 
 2nd 
 
 ODFW 
 
 ODFW 
 
 ODFW 
 
 ODFW 
 
 USFWS 
 
 ODFW 
 
 ODFW 
 
 ODFW 
 
 ODFW 
 
 ODFW 
 
 IDFG 
 IDFG 
 
 fc 
 
 co, sh (ch) 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 co (sh) 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 co,(sc,ch) 
 
 Yes 
 
 sc 
 
 
 Yes 
 
 sc 
 
 co.sh (fc) 
 
 Yes 
 
 sh 
 
 (fcscsh) 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 co, sh 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 sc (co) 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc 
 
 co, (scsh) 
 
 Yes 
 
 fc, CO 
 
 smc, sh 
 
 No 
 Yes 
 
 1938 
 1909 
 1958 
 1979 
 1957 
 1960 
 1911 
 1938 
 1950 
 
 1968 
 1970 
 
 NMFS, ODFW 
 
 NMFS, Corps, ODFW 
 
 NMFS 
 
 ODFW, NMFS, PGE 
 
 NMFS 
 
 NMFS 
 
 NMFS, ODFW 
 
 NMFS, ODFW 
 
 NMFS 
 
 NMFS 
 
 NMFS, USFWS, IDFG 
 NMFS, IDFG 
 
 1/ ODFW-Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, USFWS-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, IDFG-Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Corps-U.S. Army 
 Corps of Engineers, PGE-Portland General Electric 
 
 2/ fc-fall chinook salmon, sc-spring Chinook salmon, smc-summer Chinook salmon, co-coho salmon, ch-chum salmon, sh-steelhead trout 
 
 15 
 
IDRHO 
 
 o 
 o 
 
 LJ 
 
 (X 
 
 1. Grays Rivei — WDF 
 
 2. Beaver Creek- WDG 
 Elokomin- WDF 
 Rbernathy- USFWS 
 Toutle- WDF 
 Kalama Falls- WDF 
 Skamania- WDG 
 
 8. Washougal- WDF 
 
 9. Carson- USFWS 
 
 10. Willard- USFWS 
 
 11. Little White Salmon- USFWS 
 
 12. Spring Creek- USFWS 
 
 13. Kl ickitat- WDF 
 
 14. Rlngold Salmon- WDF 
 
 15. Ringold Trout- WDG 
 
 COLUMBIR RIVER FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT PROGRRM FUNDED HRTCHERIES 
 
 Figure 20 
 
 Columbia River Fisheries Development Program hatcheries 
 and rearing ponds in Oregon and Washington. 
 
 An addition to the original 21 hatcheries has been the Clackamas Hatcher/ built in the Willamette 
 River drainage. Construction funds were provided by the Portland General Electric Company (PGE) 
 and NMFS. Operation and Maintenance funding for this hatchery comes from the operating agency, 
 ODFW, as well as from NMFS and PGE. PGE's involvement in the hatchery is compensation for losses 
 of fish and spawning and rearing area caused by PGE hydroelectric projects. Construction was far 
 enough along in 1979 to allow the first releases to be made in 1980. 
 
 Since the initiation of artificial salmonid propagation programs on the Pacific Coast, large rearing 
 ponds have been used to supplement hatchery production (Figure 22). In these, salmon and steelhead 
 fry are raised to release size in a pseudo-natural environment. These ponds may be separate facilities 
 such as the two Ringold rearing ponds operated by WDF and WDG, or satellite ponds of Program 
 hatcheries like Herman Creek Ponds (OxBow Hatchery) (Figure 23) and Big White Salmon Ponds 
 (Spring Creek NFH). Of the seven rearing ponds built under the Program in Oregon and Washington, all 
 made releases in 1979. 
 
 16 
 
Figure 21 
 
 Toutle Hatchery in Washington, a Program hatchery severly 
 damaged by floods resulting from the eruption on May 18, 
 1980, of Mt St. Helens. 
 
 < -^<^% i 
 
 Figure 22 
 
 Layout of a typical anadromous fish hatchery. 
 
 Figure 23 
 
 Herman Creek Rearing Ponds near OxBow Hatchery, 
 Cascade Locks, Oregon. 
 
 17 
 
Program hatcheries and rearing ponds in Oregon and Washington are concentrated in the lower 
 portion of the Columbia Basin with only the two Ringold facilities being above The Dalles Dam (Figure 
 20). Species of fish reared include spring chinook, fall chinook, coho, and chum salmon and both sum- 
 mer and winter run steelhead trout. The magnitude of migrant releases from these facilities for the 
 years 1960-78 is shown in Tables IV and V. The totals from 1960 through 1976 amount to 74% by 
 number and 57% by weight of the total Columbia Basin releases. 
 
 t releases of chinook and coho salmon and steelhead trout - Pacific coast by Columbia River Development Program hatcheries (in thousands). 
 
 
 Fall ch 
 
 nook 
 
 Spring 
 
 chinook 
 
 Summer 
 
 chi nook 
 
 Coho 
 
 
 Winter 
 
 steelhead 
 
 Summer 
 
 steelhead 
 
 
 Number 
 
 Pounds 
 
 Number 
 
 Pounds 
 
 Number 
 
 Pounds 
 
 Number 
 
 Pounds 
 
 Number 
 
 Pounds 
 
 Number 
 
 Pounds 
 
 
 89,105.2 
 
 329.7 
 
 1,836.1 
 
 60.2 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 6,359.8 
 
 217.6 
 
 916.9 
 
 124.7 
 
 67.5 
 
 11.3 
 
 1961 
 
 46.640.1 
 
 305.5 
 
 827.3 
 
 30.0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 14,182.8 
 
 507.4 
 
 605.1 
 
 65.2 
 
 303.1 
 
 43.2 
 
 
 ."83.6 
 
 283.3 
 
 1,666.8 
 
 57.7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12,863.8 
 
 571.4 
 
 1,408.9 
 
 110.4 
 
 227.2 
 
 28.6 
 
 1963 
 
 58,845.0 
 
 325.8 
 
 2,391.4 
 
 85.0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 19,589.1 
 
 756.8 
 
 1,027.7 
 
 83.9 
 
 366.7 
 
 53.6 
 
 1964 
 
 65,501.5 
 
 407.5 
 
 7,643.3 
 
 220.8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16,529.8 
 
 775.3 
 
 1,106.7 
 
 145.6 
 
 562.3 
 
 87.1 
 
 1965 
 
 56,191.0 
 
 370.5 
 
 3,042.4 
 
 102.0 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 17,919.4 
 
 853.9 
 
 1,352.9 
 
 174.8 
 
 595.3 
 
 73.5 
 
 1966 
 
 54,944.7 
 
 488.9 
 
 3,812.4 
 
 111.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 21,170.4 
 
 1,074.7 
 
 1,733.1 
 
 206.5 
 
 745.7 
 
 101.8 
 
 1967 
 
 55,118.5 
 
 497.8 
 
 5,484.8 
 
 177.5 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 20,208.9 
 
 1,000.3 
 
 1,411.1 
 
 161.4 
 
 355.7 
 
 126.3 
 
 1968 
 
 55,514.9 
 
 595.5 
 
 3,788.8 
 
 166.8 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 15,715.2 
 
 866.9 
 
 1,425.9 
 
 149.3 
 
 1,527.7 
 
 175.7 
 
 1969 
 
 57,927.3 
 
 574.1 
 
 3,496.8 
 
 164.4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 18,620.3 
 
 1,103.7 
 
 1,494.9 
 
 171.6 
 
 822.7 
 
 96.6 
 
 1970 
 
 62,175.2 
 
 689.6 
 
 2,578.7 
 
 148.3 
 
 393 
 
 8 
 
 9 
 
 8 
 
 17,450.8 
 
 1,002.7 
 
 1,363.6 
 
 196.9 
 
 1,525.6 
 
 258.1 
 
 1971 
 
 63,277.3 
 
 483.3 
 
 3,784.3 
 
 238.9 
 
 400 
 
 3 
 
 13 
 
 9 
 
 21,281.2 
 
 1,207.2 
 
 1,287.4 
 
 151.7 
 
 1,130.3 
 
 156.1 
 
 1972 
 
 67,053.7 
 
 721.8 
 
 3,619.8 
 
 253.1 
 
 231 
 
 7 
 
 13 
 
 3 
 
 23,887.6 
 
 1,520.5 
 
 1,315.3 
 
 172.8 
 
 1,233.0 
 
 198.7 
 
 1973 
 
 70,384.2 
 
 831.4 
 
 4,822.9 
 
 401.3 
 
 217 
 
 1 
 
 4 
 
 3 
 
 20,879.2 
 
 1,196.4 
 
 1,385.9 
 
 223.5 
 
 1,151.4 
 
 189.4 
 
 
 65,476.3 
 
 887.5 
 
 4,423.5 
 
 269.2 
 
 330 
 
 
 
 8 
 
 1 
 
 20,163.6 
 
 1,177.4 
 
 1,137.9 
 
 162.7 
 
 1,168.5 
 
 176.7 
 
 1975 
 
 70,455.2 
 
 918.9 
 
 5,229.8 
 
 326.7 
 
 114 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 21,104.2 
 
 1,382.9 
 
 937.3 
 
 144.7 
 
 1,025.3 
 
 153.9 
 
 1976 
 
 80,866.8 
 
 1,108.1 
 
 5,933.6 
 
 479.8 
 
 406 
 
 6 
 
 15 
 
 8 
 
 22,217.8 
 
 1,325.9 
 
 1,216.7 
 
 184.9 
 
 950.4 
 
 150.5 
 
 1977 
 
 94,821.9 
 
 1,028.8 
 
 5,073.9 
 
 372.5 
 
 234 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 7 
 
 26,331.5 
 
 1,555.9 
 
 1,201.6 
 
 203.7 
 
 1,015.7 
 
 150.8 
 
 197£ 
 
 92,020.9 
 
 1,203.9 
 
 6,233.5 
 
 426.2 
 
 218 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 21,887.0 
 
 1,688.5 
 
 2,082.3 
 
 325.1 
 
 1,278.2 
 
 185.0 
 
 1,262,103.3 12,051.9 
 
 75,690.1 4,091.9 
 
 2,546.7 
 
 358,362.4 19,785.4 
 
 24,411.2 3,159.4 
 
 16,552.3 2,416.9 
 
 Table V. - Migrant releases of chum and cherry salmon and sea-run cutthroat 
 trout - Pacific coast-Columbia River Development Program 
 hatcheries (in thousands). 
 
 Release 
 
 Chum 
 
 
 Cherry 
 
 
 Sea-run 
 Number 
 
 cutthroat 
 
 year 
 
 Number 
 
 Pounds 
 
 Number 
 
 Pounds 
 
 Pounds 
 
 1960 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 1961 
 
 63.6 
 
 0.4 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 6.9 
 
 0.8 
 
 1962 
 
 717.5 
 
 1.8 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 1963 
 
 1,770.8 
 
 2.5 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 6.4 
 
 0.8 
 
 1964 
 
 150.8 
 
 0.2 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 82.5 
 
 10.0 
 
 1965 
 
 205.3 
 
 0.3 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 85.9 
 
 13.6 
 
 1966 
 
 738.1 
 
 2.4 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 41.5 
 
 6.7 
 
 1967 
 
 524.1 
 
 3.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 119.4 
 
 23.9 
 
 1968 
 
 173.6 
 
 0.6 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 121.2 
 
 25.8 
 
 1969 
 
 129.9 
 
 0.3 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 35.3 
 
 7.5 
 
 1970 
 
 62.5 
 
 0.1 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 50.0 
 
 10.6 
 
 1971 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 40.1 
 
 8.0 
 
 1972 
 
 638.5 
 
 1 .2 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 22.8 
 
 5.7 
 
 1973 
 
 563.6 
 
 1.4 
 
 1.8 
 
 0.1 
 
 27.0 
 
 9.0 
 
 1974 
 
 627.3 
 
 3.4 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 4.3 
 
 1.1 
 
 1975 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 1976 
 
 1,126.8 
 
 4.7 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 1977 
 
 961.3 
 
 1.9 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 1978 
 
 41.0 
 
 .1 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 0.0 
 
 Total 
 
 8,494.7 
 
 24.3 
 
 0.1 
 
 643.3 
 
 123.5 
 
 Hatchery involvement in Idaho under the Program has been limited. Efforts to improve Idaho's 
 salmon runs have been concentrated on screening and stream improvement. The Pahsimeroi rearing 
 facility was built partly with funds provided to Idaho Fish and Game (I DFG) for fishery related studies. 
 
 18 
 
During the past decade, an increased awareness in the environment has caused all potential pollu- 
 tion sources to come under close scrutiny. Attention has been directed towards fish hatcheries as 
 sources of water pollution. With this in mind, the NMFS developed a plan to construct and operate 
 abatement facilities at all Program hatcheries which would reduce pollution levels in hatchery 
 discharges to the legal limitations established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A 
 schedule for building abatement facilities was developed by incorporating four planning steps: 
 
 Phase 1. Evaluate levels of pollution abatement for hatchery effluent and size, 
 
 locate, private, provide cost estimates, and furnish architectural design for 
 the facility; 
 
 Phase 2. Provide construction drawings for each facility; 
 
 Phase 3. Construct facility (Figure 24); 
 
 Phase 4. Operate facility. 
 
 The schedule for completion of the construction and placing the facilities in operation is shown in 
 Figure 25. All pollution abatement facilities will be in operation by October 1 , 1 981 . 
 
 Figure 24 
 
 Newly constructed pollution abatement facilities con- 
 structed by Little White Salmon NFH, Cook, Washington. 
 
 HATCHERY POLLUTION ABATEMENT SCHEDULE 
 Design Construct ■ 
 
 Operate '////J// 
 
 AGENCY HATCHERY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 
 71 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 
 
 U.S. Fish & Eagle Creek 
 Wildlife Abepnathy 
 Service Little White 
 Carson 
 
 Washington 
 Dept. of 
 Fisheries 
 
 Kalama 
 
 WASHOUfiAL 
 
 Elokomin 
 Grays Rivi 
 
 Klickitat 
 
 Wash. Dept, Skamania 
 of Game Beaver Creek 
 
 Oregon 
 Dept. of 
 Fish and 
 Wildlife 
 
 Gnat Creek 
 Klaskanine 
 Big Creek 
 Cascade 
 OxBow 
 
 Bonneville 
 
 Figure 25 
 
 Construction schedule for pollution 
 abatement facilities at "Program" 
 hatcheries. 
 
 19 
 
Stream Clearance and Improvement 
 
 Another means that has been used by the Columbia River Fisheries Development Program to in- 
 crease the abundance of salmonids in the Basin has been the construction of fishways and the 
 removal or modification of both natural and man-made barriers affecting fish migration. These ac- 
 tivities, authorized and directed by Section 2 of the amended Mitchell Act, have opened nearly two 
 thousand miles of prime rearing and spawning habitat formerly inaccessible to returning adult fish. 
 
 Although early efforts were directed to the area downstream of McNary Dam, in 1957 the Upper 
 Columbia and Snake River drainages were included. A comprehensive survey was conducted which 
 located, catalogued, and assessed the impact of any barriers. Each was evaluated on existing and 
 potential spawning and rearing habitats. Priorities were assigned based on the surveys, engineering 
 estimates, and projected results. With the exception of some projects in Idaho, construction was 
 essentially completed by 1970. 
 
 Two different types of obstacles were involved; those which could be removed or modified, and 
 those that required the construction of a fishway. In the case of many of the natural barriers such as 
 small waterfalls and cascades, it was possible to blast or otherwise modify the obstruction so that fish 
 could pass upstream without difficulty. Blasting and use of bulldozers also proved effective in remov- 
 ing man-made obstacles such as log jams, coffer dams and crib dams (Figure 26). 
 
 Figure 26 
 
 A crib dam on South Yamhill River, Oregon, before removal. 
 
 Where barriers were larger or more permanent, it was often necessary to construct fishways over 
 them. The fishways (or ladders) consist of a series of connected artificial pools through which a fish is 
 able to pass over an obstruction (Figure 27). Those constructed under the program varied in size from 
 the small ladders built over 8 to 10 foot high falls on Wiley Creek in Oregon (Figure 28) and Scanty- 
 grease Creek in Washington to the massive ladders on the Wind and Klickitat Rivers in Washington, 
 and over Willamette Falls in Oregon. 
 
 The benefits derived from the stream clearance and improvement work are readily visible. The 
 45-foot high Willamette Falls has always been an obstruction to migrating salmon. A series of ladders 
 have been built over the falls sincel 885 but these proved barely adequate even with numerous correc- 
 tions that were made. In the 1960's passage problems were studied and a new ladder was designed. 
 
 20 
 
*m x :. 
 
 ^$8^ ■ '■•'•■' 
 
 
 Ifc"^ 
 
 Figure 27 
 
 Drawing of fish ladder in operation. 
 
 Figure 28 
 
 A small fish ladder over a barrier on Wiley 
 Creek in Oregon. 
 
 The f ishway began operating with one entrance in February 1 968. Three entrances were complete in 
 October 1971 when the f ishway was formally dedicated. A fourth entrance was finished in September 
 1975. The f ishway has three legs which join below the counting station located at the top of the ladder 
 near the single exit into the forebay (Figure 29). The cul-de-sac leg has its entrance farthest 
 downstream, in a large bay where up to 29 industrial hydroturbines discharge, and has been 
 designated entrance 1. Entrance 2 is located on the west side of the horseshoe area of the falls. En- 
 trance 3 is located near the apex of the falls. And entrance 4 is located about 20' above entrance 3 and 
 on the same leg (Figure 30). 
 
 Since the destruction of the old fish ladder on J une 1 , 1 970, all fish moving upstream have passed a 
 viewing window in the counting station of this f ishway except for the few fish that may have passed 
 through the boat locks. A second viewing window is located near the top of the cul-de-sac leg. 
 
 21 
 
Figure 29 
 
 The Willamette Falls Fishway. 
 
 Figure 30 
 
 Aerial view of the Willamette Falls Fishway. 
 
 Thousands of fish pass over the falls every year destined for hatcheries and spawning grounds in the 
 Upper Willamette River and its tributaries (Table VI). Using Columbia River hatcheries and Willamette 
 River rearing ponds, an extensive program was conducted that successfully introduced fall chinook 
 and steelhead above the falls. Figure 31 shows a section of the Santiam River from the air. Salmon 
 redds or nests show up as light areas in the river bottom. It is estimated that over 1 ,000 fall chinook 
 spawned in this area. 
 
 Several of the hatcheries constructed under the Program are on sites on streams above formerly im- 
 passible barriers. Carson National Fish Hatchery in Washington has operated successfully as a spring 
 chinook hatchery since the construction of Shipperds Falls fish ladder (Figure 32). To reach Klickitat 
 Hatchery, also in Washington, returning fish must negotiate five waterfalls, of which three were 
 modified to permit passage and the others laddered. In all, 87 different f ishways were built within the 
 Basin under the Program. 
 
 22 
 
TABLE VI - ADULT SALMON IDS COUNTED OVER WILLAMETTE FALLS 
 
 Year 
 
 Fall Chinook 
 
 Sprinq Chinook 
 
 Coho 
 
 Winter Steel head 
 
 er Steel head 
 
 1968 
 
 4,040 
 
 29,070 
 
 7,01 
 
 6,400 
 
 -0- 
 
 1969 
 
 6,820 
 
 31,110 
 
 12,400 
 
 8,400 
 
 -0- 
 
 1970 
 
 7,460 
 
 33,410 
 
 3,260 
 
 4,700 
 
 1 50 
 
 1971 
 
 4,800 
 
 42,900 
 
 17,410 
 
 26,300 
 
 2,310 
 
 1972 
 
 11,614 
 
 25,300 
 
 9,983 
 
 23.200 
 
 690 
 
 1973 
 
 21,861 
 
 40,500 
 
 5,174 
 
 17,800 
 
 1 ,790 
 
 1974 
 
 33,924 
 
 44,100 
 
 1,501 
 
 14,800 
 
 4,900 
 
 1975 
 
 32,877 
 
 17,800 
 
 5,922 
 
 6,100 
 
 2,900 
 
 1976 
 
 29,269 
 
 21,000 
 
 2,333 
 
 9,400 
 
 3,900 
 
 1977 
 
 25,742 
 
 38,500 
 
 1,007 
 
 13,600 
 
 9,200 
 
 1978 
 
 17,437 
 
 45,700 
 
 1,711 
 
 16,800 
 
 15,200 
 
 1979 
 
 9,905 
 
 25,500 
 
 1,787 
 
 8,700 
 
 7,600 
 
 
 
 Figure 31 
 
 Fall chinook redds or nests in a section of the Santiam River in Oregon. 
 
 
 
 Figure 32 
 
 Aerial view of the Shipperd Falls fish ladder on the Wind River in Washington. 
 
 23 
 
Diversion Screening 
 
 The greatly expanded program of irrigating dry and barren lands in the Columbia River Basin has 
 created problems for young salmon and steelhead. One method of getting water used for this irriga- 
 tion is the use of diversion ditches. Water is diverted out of the mainstream river and into ditches 
 through which it flows to the points of use. Unfortunately, the periods of high water use coincide with 
 the annual seaward migration of young salmon. If there are no barriers to block them, large numbers 
 stray into the ditches and end up dying on the farmer's fields. Lack of proper screening has resulted in 
 losses of tremendous numbers of these migrants (Figure 33). 
 
 Figure 33 
 
 An unscreened diversion ditch in the Salmon River Drainage, Idaho. 
 
 Since the Program began, over 600 irrigation diversions have been screened, more than 400 of 
 which were built on the John Day watershed. Some have been phased out because of changes in 
 methods of securing the irrigation water. Many of the current irrigation projects pump water from 
 streams and spray it onto fields. All that is required in this type operation is a screen on the pump 
 intake. 
 
 \fcr. 
 
 A water powered fish screen constructed on an irrigation 
 diversion under the "Program." 
 
 24 
 
There are many types of diversion screens in use. They may be stationary or rotating drum type 
 (Figure 34) but all serve the same purpose, to al low the passage of water into the diversion while routing 
 migrant fish back into the river or stream. Figure 35 shows the schematic drawing of a water powered 
 drum screen. The reason for the rotating drum, which in this case is turned by the paddle wheel but 
 may also be powered by an electric motor, is to prevent a buildup of debris on the screen. Since the 
 drum rotates, any debris that collects will be washed off in the current when an 180° rotation is 
 completed. 
 
 R I VER 
 
 > Jr. A. 
 
 Figure 35 
 
 A schematic of a typical water powered fish screen showing 
 its principles of operation. 
 
 Hatchery Evaluations 
 
 In the early 1960's the U.S. Bureau of the Budget required that evaluation studies be conducted on 
 existing hatcheries before any new construction could take place. The first of these studies was con- 
 ducted with fall chinook salmon. A percentage of the production at1 3 Columbia Basin hatcheries for 
 brood years 1 962 to 1 965 were marked with fin clips. Marked releases for the four years totalled almost 
 31 million fish. In 1963 through 1969, a program of coast-wide mark sampling checked for these marks 
 in all ocean and river sport and commercial fisheries. Additionally, hatchery returns were sampled for 
 marks. An evaluation of the recoveries and returns showed on the average that for every dollar spent 
 on rearing the fish a return of $4.20 was realized (Figure 36). The releases during the four year study 
 were estimated to have resulted in the catch of almost 1 .5 million fall chinook (Figure 37). 
 
 A similar study on coho salmon released from 20 hatcheries in the basin in 1967 and 1968 resulted in 
 an estimated catch of 2.1 million fish (Figure 38). The benefit/cost ratio for this group of fish was 7.0/1 
 (Figure 39). 
 
 Because of the amount of time that has passed since the first fall chinook study was organized and 
 because there have been substantial changes in hatchery techniques, fish food, the fisheries, and fish 
 marking, Program personnel are conducting and coordinating a new fall chinook evaluation study. 
 The study, being partially funded by the Bonneville Power Administration, began with fish released in 
 1979 and will include those released through 1981 (Figure 40). The fish will be marked with an adipose 
 fin coded wire nose tag mark (see page 30) and again all fisheries and returns will be sampled 
 coastwide (Figure 41 ) for these marks. Preliminary evaluations will begin as soon as data are available, 
 and final evaluations will be conducted after the last fish are caught in 1987. 
 
 25 
 
5.23C 
 
 COLUMBIR RIVER HRTCHERY 
 FRLL CHINOOK VRLUE 
 
 ^^ V BRITISH 
 
 ^ COLUMBIR 
 
 
 SI, 564,0 \~7j WRSH. 
 
 ^S52S,03i 
 
 SI 62,1 
 
 ORE. 
 
 \ CRLIF. 
 
 .-. Total Benefit 
 
 5: ,000,000 
 
 Avo. Total Cos 
 
 $700,00 
 Figure 36 
 
 Rvo. Beneflt/Cost 
 
 4.2/1 
 
 COLUMBIA RIVER HRTCHERY FRLL 
 CHINOOK CRTCH DISTRIBUTION 
 
 0.25jVMJkFiLHSKH 
 (2,600)^^/ 
 
 BRITISH 
 COLUMBIR 
 
 0.4'/. 
 (6,000) [ F . 
 
 Figure 37 
 
 COLUMBIR RIVER HRTCHERY 
 COHO CRTCH DISTRIBUTION 
 
 RLRSKfl 
 
 BRITISH 
 COLUMBIR 
 
 6* 
 
 :i3,800'C^\ 
 
 13,000) \ p 
 
 33* 
 
 (818,600) 
 
 WASH. 
 
 105. 
 
 (263,600) \ CRLIF. 
 
 COLUMBIR RIVER HRTCHERY 
 COHO VRLUE 
 
 Figure 38 
 
 26 
 
s 
 
 ^': 
 
 W SERVICE Mi 
 
 MOBIL FISH MARK 
 
 
 r 3«i 
 
 J 3 
 
 Figure 40 
 
 NMFS Mobile Fish Marking Facility built as part of the Bonneville Power 
 Adminstration, Department of Energy funded "Fall Chinook Hatchery 
 Evaluation Study." 
 
 Figure 41 
 
 The area and ports where sports and commercial salmon 
 catches are sampled for marked fish. 
 
 27 
 
Hatchery Improvement Studies 
 
 In addition to placing the National Marine Fisheries Service in a lead role in protecting the 
 anadromous salmonid resource of the Columbia River Basin, activities conducted under the Colum- 
 bia River Fisheries Development Program have resulted in major advancements in the field of fish 
 culture. Considerable time is spent by Program personnel on studies aimed at improving the quality of 
 fish produced, increasing their contribution and chances for survival, and improving general hatchery 
 techniques. The studies are either coordinated by NMFS personnel or by the State fish agency and 
 USFWS personnel at Program-funded facilities. Work is normally done by the fishery agencies or 
 under contract to educational institutions or private consultants. 
 
 One of the prime concerns in any fish cultural operation is the quality of food fed to young fish. 
 Prior to Program-sponsored research, the diets in use were combinations of ground animal and fish 
 flesh mixed with ingredients such as milk and milk by-products and cereal grains. These "wet" diets 
 had to be prepared daily at each hatchery and were labor consuming. The diets were of questionable 
 nutritional value and provided a source of disease from the raw fish used. Wet diets were difficult to 
 feed and resulted in problems of cleanliness in the rearing areas. With funds and support by the Pro- 
 gram, two new diets were developed. The Oregon Moist Pellet formula (OMP), developed jointly by 
 the Oregon Fish Commission (now the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife) and Oregon State 
 University, and Abemathy Dry Granule formula, developed at Abemathy Fish Cultural Development 
 Center (USFWS), are in wide use in both Program and non-Program hatcheries. Both of these open for- 
 mula diets are commercially prepared and shipped to hatcheries. They are easy to handle and readily 
 accepted by the fish. Growth using these diets has been excellent, and the formulas are constantly be- 
 ing reviewed from possible improvements. 
 
 The search for a method of mass-marking large numbers of salmon and steelhead as required in the 
 conduct of evaluation studies has resulted in the development of two new marking techniques. The 
 first, a terramycin mark, was originally discovered as a by-product of studying the use of tetracyclene 
 on the bones of humans. Supported by the Progam, presonnel from USFWS used this research to 
 develop a technique to mark fish and ODFW began to use the technique on a production basis. The 
 mark results from the ingestion of tetracyclene mixed with the fish's food. The drug is deposited in the 
 fish's bones and is detectible as a fluorescent yellow ring when the bones are viewed in a special wave 
 length fluorescent light under a microscope. Since there is normally no way of determining externally 
 whether the fish has a terramycin mark, this method is limited in its use to studies that are based on 
 returns to hatcheries. Here the fish can be easily sampled for marks. 
 
 To facilitate identification of fish in the fishery as well as on return to the hatcheries, a second 
 technique was developed. This combines the use of a metal coded wire tag which is injected into the 
 snout of the small fish (Figure 42) and the removal of the adipose fin from the back of the fish. The 
 removal of the adipose fin serves as an indicator which, by agreement of all fishery agencies on the 
 Pacific coast, signals the presence of an internal tag. The tag itself is only .042 inch long and contains 
 information on its surface in the form of binary notches or a combination of colored bands. Although 
 the work done by WDF with Program funds only produced a prototype tag, this research served as a 
 foundation for the development of the tags that are currently in use world-wide. Well in excess of 100 
 million fish have been marked using this technique. 
 
 Studies are being supported by Program personnel and funds to investigate and develop a 
 physiological indicator or set of indicators that can be used to determine a young salmon's or 
 steelhead trouf s readiness to migrate into salt water. If a hatchery is to rear and release fish with the 
 least impact on the native or wild populations, it is important that the hatchery fish spend as little time 
 as possible in the rearing areas of the rivers and estuaries and move rapidly into the ocean to begin the 
 saltwater phase of their life cycle. Fish that are released either too soon or too late will either spend the 
 time in the rearing areas competing for food and facing predation until they are ready to migrate or 
 they will residualize and never migrate. Currently, the basis for determining the release timing for 
 hatchery fish is often less than scientific. The decision may be based on necessity — lack of food or too 
 much food can drastically alter a projected release date. Overcrowding of a hatchery can force the 
 
 28 
 
release of fish before the projected date. Manager's intuition or other arbitrary determination methods 
 are also often used to make the release determination. The possibility of using one or more 
 physiological parameters measureable at hatcheries to determine the migration readiness is being 
 studied by personnel of the NMFS Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center in Seattle in cooperation 
 with the various agencies operating Program-funded hatcheries. 
 
 Figure 42 
 
 A cross section of the nose of a small chinook salmon 
 showing a coded wire tag in place (enlarged 
 approximately 7 times). 
 
 Another cooperative study being funded by the Program involves the serial release of coho from 
 hatcheries operated by the ODFW and WDF to determine optimum release times. Three separate 
 releases are being made at one-month intervals starting in May at each of four hatcheries, two in each 
 state. To make sure only one variable, time, is being evaluated, the fish are being reared so that size is 
 held constant for all releases. Each group is being marked with an adipose-coded wire tag mark and 
 the evaluation of the different release dates will be based on catch and survival. This study is being 
 meshed with the Program supported physiological work. 
 
 Other possible indicators of migration readiness are being examined as they are proposed and will 
 be studied if promising. 
 
 An example of a study conducted by NMFS personnel is one just completed to determine the 
 feasibility of creating or enhancing the fishery in a specific area by releasing hatchery salmon into that 
 area. Homing ability and contribution to the fisheries of coho salmon released at Willard Hatchery 
 and at a remote site on Youngs Bay in the Columbia River estuary were examined and compared 
 (Figure 43). The results show that the fish homed to their release site and the fish that were transplanted 
 into the estuary contributed four times as well as those released at Willard, 166 miles upstream from 
 the Pacific Ocean. The implications of these results on salmon management are great. They show that 
 it is possible to transplant coho and have these fish contribute to fisheries that may be historically short 
 of fish. 
 
 29 
 
SCALE IN KILOMETERS 
 
 Columbia Ri 
 
 Figure 43 
 
 Maps of the Columbia River coho homing study area showing location of Willard 
 and Little White Salmon NFH and detailed features of the Youngs Bay region. 
 
 A final example of the type of hatchery improvement study being funded by the Program is a study 
 being conducted by WDG to assess the impact of hatchery steelhead trout on the native populations 
 of steelhead and cutthroat trout. By using the procedure of genetically marking all hatchery steelhead 
 released into the Kalama River, the study, when completed, will determine if the hatchery fish 
 adversely affect the native fish, the life's history of the hatchery as well as the native fish, and the 
 relative status of the Kalama River steelhead populations. A sidelight to this study is important 
 because of the location of the study area. The primary study site is Gobar Rearing Pond on Gobar 
 Creek, a tributary of the Kalama River, which is in close proximity to Mt. St. Helens and the area af- 
 fected by the eruption (Figure 44). Data gathered to date in connection with the steelhead study may 
 serve as important baseline data when the effects of the eruption are evaluated. 
 
 Figure 44 
 
 Mt. St. Helens and surrounding area after the devastating 
 eruption May 18, 1980. Photo courtesy of Henry Whitacre. 
 
 30 
 
FISH FACILITIES 
 
 As indicated in Figure 19, Columbia River Fisheries Development Program Office personnel often 
 work closely with those of the Fish Facilities Branch (FFB) concerning Program activities. The FFB pro- 
 vides engineering and biological expertise for the design and operation of fish passage and fish protec- 
 tive facilities, as well as for facilities that may be required to direct, trap, or collect fish at dams, fish 
 hatcheries, or other installations. 
 
 Services provided to the Program Office are divided into three areas — design, review, and inspec- 
 tion. Most of the design work involves conceptualization during the planning phase of a project. FFB 
 engineers and biologists work with the various fisheries related agencies in developing preliminary 
 plans which are functional and feasible. In the case of Willamette Falls fish ladder, FFB engineers con- 
 tributed significantly to the original design. In addition to actual design work, the FFB also advises con- 
 cerned agencies on types of facilities to use in constructing Program projects. 
 
 Project and plan reviews are the services most frequently provided by the FFB for the Program Of- 
 fice. They examine project proposals and plans that are submitted, commenting on the designs, and 
 requesting modifications when necessary (Figure 45). FFB personnel have been closely involved with 
 plans developed under contract with a private consultant firm for the pollution abatement facilities 
 that have been built or are being built at Program hatcheries (Figure 24). They examine drawings for 
 fish ladders and other construction planned by the fishery agencies for financing with Program funds. 
 
 Figure 45 
 
 Adult salmon trapping facilities 
 of Applegate Dam on the Rogue 
 River in Oregon. The project was 
 designed with the assistance of 
 the Fish Facilities Branch. 
 
 Once construction begins on a Program project, the engineers of FFB visit the project site to inspect 
 the construction and make recommendations when necessary to the agency actually having the con- 
 struction done. Upon completion, they often take part in the final inspection to assure quality of work 
 before the project is accepted. 
 
 In addition to their Program related work, the FFB; 1 . reviews and passes judgment on the adequacy 
 of fish facility designs for federal, federally-funded, Federal Energy Regulation Commission, Nuclear 
 Regulatory Commission license, and Anadromous Fish Act (Public Law 89-304) projects; 2. inspect the 
 operation of fish facilities at projects in the Columbia Basin; 3. participate in interagency committees 
 dealing with the design and review of fish facilities, and other problems associated with fish protection 
 in the Columbia Basin and other parts of the country; and 4. respond to requests from other regions 
 and agencies for assistance in designing fish protective facilities. 
 
 31 
 
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 
 
 Terry L. Leitzell 
 
 Assistant Administrator for Fisheries 
 
 National Marine Fisheries Service 
 
 Washington, DC. 20235 
 
 (202) 634-7283 
 
 H. A. Larkins 
 
 Regional Director — Northwest Region 
 
 1700 Westlakd Ave., North 
 
 Seattle, WA 98109 
 
 (206) 442-7575 
 
 Dale R. Evans 
 
 Chief — Environmental and Technical Services Division 
 
 P.O. Box 4332 
 
 Portland, OR 97208 
 
 (503) 234-3361, ext. 4301 
 
 Einar Wold 
 
 Director — Columbia River Fisheries Development Program 
 
 P.O. Box 4322 
 
 Portland, OR 97208 
 
 (503) 234-3361, ext. 4303 
 
 Robert O. Pearce 
 
 Chief — Fish Facilities Branch 
 
 P.O. Box 4332 
 
 Portland, OR 97208 
 
 (503) 234-3361, ext. 4314 
 
 Merritt E. Tuttle 
 
 Chief — Environmental Assessment Branch 
 
 P.O. Box 4332 
 
 Portland, OR 97208 
 
 (503) 234-3361, ext. 4311 
 
 William Aron 
 
 Director — Northwest and Alaska Fisheries Center 
 
 2725 Montlake Blvd, East 
 
 Seattle, WA 98112 
 
 (206) 442-4760 
 
 32 
 
Selected Bibliography of Program Publications 
 
 LARSON, DM., R.j. WAHLE, R.Z. SMITH and W.G. BROWN 
 
 1978. Estimated economic benefits to visitors of selected Columbia River fish hatcheries. Spec. 
 Rpt. 515. Agr. Exp. St., Ore. St. Univ., 44 p. 
 
 VREELAND, R.R., R.J. WAHLE, AND AH. ARP 
 
 1975. Homing behavior and contribution to Columbia River fisheries of marked coho salmon 
 released at two locations. Fish. Bull., U.S., 73:717-725. 
 
 WAHLE, R.J., R.O. KOSKI, and R.Z. SMITH 
 
 1979. Contribution of 1960-63 brood hatchery-reared sockeye salmon, Oncorhynchus nerka, to 
 the Columbia River commercial fishery. Fish. Bull., U.S. 77:229-242. 
 
 WAHLE, R.J. and R.R. VREELAND 
 
 1978. Bioeconomic contribution of Columbia River hatchery fall chinook salmon, 1961 through 
 1964 broods, to the Pacific Coast salmon fisheries. Fish. Bull., U.S. 76:179-208. 
 
 WAHLE, R.J., R.R. VREELAND, and R.H. LANDER. 
 
 1974. Bioeconomic contribution of Columbia River hatchery coho salmon, 1965 and 1966 
 broods, to the Pacific salmon fisheries. Fish. Bull., U.S. 72:139-169. 
 
 WAHLE, R.J. and R.Z. SMITH 
 
 1979. A historical and descriptive account of Pacific Coast anadromous salmonid rearing 
 facilities and a summary of their releases by region 1960-76. U.S. Dept. Commer., Natl. Mar. Fish. 
 Sen/., Spec. Sci. Rep. Fish. 40 p. 
 
 WAHLE, R.J. and W.D. PARENTE. P.J. JURICH, and R.R. VREELAND. 
 
 1975. Releases of anadromous salmon and trout from Pacific Coast rearing facilities, 1960 to 
 1973. U.S. Dep. Commer., Natl. Mar. Fish. Sen/., Data Rep. 101, 443 p. on 7 microfiche. 
 
 WORLUND, D.D., R.J. WAHLE, and P.D. ZIMMER. 
 
 1969. Contribution of Columbia River hatcheries to harvest of fall chinook salmon (Oncorhyn- 
 chus tschawytscha). U.S. Fish. Wildl. Serv., Fish. Bull. 67:361-391. 
 
 33 
 
Illustration Credits 
 
 1. USFWS 
 
 2. L. E. Perry 
 
 3. P. Zimmer 
 
 4. NMFS 
 
 5. NMFS 
 
 6. NMFS 
 
 7. NMFS 
 
 8. Oregon Historical Society 
 
 9. P.N.R.C. 
 
 10. P.N.R.C. 
 
 11. S.Smith - NMFS 
 
 12. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 
 
 13. R.Z.Smith - NMFS 
 
 14. NMFS 
 
 15. NMFS 
 
 16. R.Z.Smith - NMFS 
 
 17. C.Wagner - NMFS 
 
 18. Army Corps of Engineers 
 
 19. NMFS 
 
 20. NMFS 
 
 21. E. Wold - NMFS 
 
 22. Adapted from WDF 
 
 23. R. Z. Smith - NMFS 
 
 24. R. R. Vreeland - NMFS 
 
 25. NMFS 
 
 26. NMFS 
 
 27. Bonneville Power Administration 
 
 28. NMFS 
 
 29. ODFW 
 
 30. R. Z. Smith - NMFS 
 
 31. J. Linvog - NMFS 
 
 32. NMFS 
 
 33. R. Z. Smith - NMFS 
 
 34. R. Z. Smith - NMFS 
 
 35. USFWS 
 
 36. NMFS 
 
 37. NMFS 
 
 38. NMFS 
 
 39. NMFS 
 
 40. R. Z. Smith - NMFS 
 
 41. NMFS 
 
 42. S. Leek - USFWS 
 
 43. NMFS 
 
 44. Henry Whitacre 
 
 45. R. Pearce - NMFS 
 
 46. (Inside back cover) — NMFS 
 
 Back Cover — Landstat photo — NASA 
 
 34 
 

 ~g 
 'c 
 o 
 
 J 
 
 to 
 <a 
 
 to 
 o 
 
 T3 
 TO 
 
 "D 
 TO 
 
 ^ 
 
 u 
 
 +-> 
 TO 
 
 .C 
 
 "a 
 
 c 
 
 TO 
 
 "to 
 
 i_ 
 
 +-> 
 TO 
 
 C 
 
 O 
 
 J3J 
 U 
 
 u 
 
 TO 
 
 c 
 
 
 00 
 
PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
 
 
 W. 
 
 
 NMFS Activities in the Columbia River Basin 
 Solid Circles — CRFDP Rearing Facilities (Operating Agency) 
 
 1 . Grays River Hatchery (WDF) 
 
 2. Beaver Creek Hatchery (WDG) 
 
 3. Elokomin Hatchery (WDF) 
 
 4. Abernathy Salmon Cultural Development 
 
 Center (USFWS) 
 
 5. Toutle Hatchery (WDF) 
 
 6. Alder Creek Pond (WDG) 
 
 7. Kalama Falls Hatchery (WDF) 
 
 8. Gobar Pond (WDG) 
 
 9. Skamania Hatchery (WDG) 
 
 10. Washougal Hatchery (WDF) 
 
 11. Carson NFH (USFWS) 
 
 12. Little White Salmon NFH (USFWS) 
 
 13. Willard NFH (USFWS) 
 
 14. Spring Creek NFH (USFWS) 
 
 Not Shown 
 
 Ringold Trout Pond (WDG) 
 Ringold Salmon Pond (WDF) 
 
 15. Big White Salmon Ponds (USFWS) 
 
 16. Klickitat Hatchery (WDF) 
 
 17. Herman Creek Ponds (ODFW) 
 
 18. OxBow Hatchery (ODFW) 
 
 19. Cascade Hatchery (ODFW) 
 
 20. Bonneville Hatchery (ODFW) 
 
 21. Wahkeena Pond (ODFW) 
 
 22. Sandy Hatchery (ODFW) 
 
 23. Eagle Creek NFH (USFWS) 
 
 24. Clackamas Hatchery (ODFW) 
 
 25. Trojan Ponds (ODFW) 
 
 26. Gnat Creek Hatchery (ODFW) 
 
 27. Big Creek Hatchery (ODFW) 
 
 28. Klaskanine Hatchery (ODFW) 
 
 Decker Flats Pond ( I DFG) 
 Pahsimeroi Hatchery (IDFG) 
 
 Open Circles — Other NHFS Facilities in Columbia River Basin 
 
 1. Hammond Field Station (NMFS Seattle) 
 
 2. Jones Beach Sampling Site (NMFS Seattle) 
 
 3. Prescott Field Station (NMFS Seattle) 
 
 4. Environmental & Technical Services Division (NMFS Portland) 
 
 5. North Bonneville Field Station (NMFS Seattle) 
 
 * GPO 1981 796-542