the companies have no special harvest rights to fish 

 returning to the release site. 4 



While the private companies are prohibited by State 

 law from engaging in "ocean ranching," (see Oregon 

 Coastal section), the treaty Indian tribes are not. Many 

 tribal councils have become active in this form of aqua- 

 culture. The operations take place either on streams 

 completely within reservation boundaries or on streams 

 where the tribe has been granted exempt status through 

 treaty. In one example of this type of operation, the 

 Quinault Indians, as a tribal enterprise, hatch and rear 

 salmon and release them into the Quinault River system. 

 After maturing in the ocean, adult fish return to the 

 Quinault River where many are caught in the exclu- 

 sively Indian river net fishery. 



The fish released by these Indian operated facilities do 

 contribute to ocean sports and commercial catches 

 before they return to the rivers where only tribal 

 members may fish for them. Because of difficulties in ob- 

 taining accurate release information from some of the 

 operations, we have included in this report only the re- 

 leases from facilities that provide information to WDF. 



USFWS. The funds were used for stream clearance and 

 construction and modernization of hatcheries. 



In 1956, the Program was expanded to include the up- 

 per Columbia and Snake River drainages extending into 

 Idaho. The word "Lower" was subsequently dropped 

 from the Program name. The funding is now admin- 

 istered by the National Marine Fisheries Service, De- 

 partment of Commerce, Portland, Oreg. 



Since 1960, releases from Program hatcheries have ac- 

 counted for 74% of the Columbia Basin migrant release 

 by number and 57% by weight (Tables 12, 13). 



In recent years, an additional source of funds for con- 

 struction and operation of hatcheries in the basin has 

 been the power producing agencies and companies. The 

 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has funded the con- 

 struction or modernization of nine hatcheries as mitiga- 

 tion and compensation for their hydroelectric projects 

 and is presently providing operational monies for these 

 facilities. Also in the basin, 17 facilities were con- 

 structed by public utility districts or private power com- 

 panies in connection with the effects of their water re- 

 lated projects. 



Columbia Basin 



The Columbia Basin, as referred to in this report, 

 contains the portions of Washington, Idaho, and Oregon 

 drained by the Columbia River (Fig. 5). The five State 

 and Federal fish management agencies in this region ac- 

 count for 54% (by number) and 55% (by weight) of the 

 total Pacific coast anadromous releases made in 1976 

 (Tables 10, 11). Migrant releases for the 17-yr period 

 starting in 1960 amount to over 2 billion fish and 61 mil- 

 lion lb (27.7 million kg), raised at a total of 81 facili- 

 ties — 63 hatcheries and 18 rearing ponds. During the 17- 

 yr, all species of fish included in this report, except pink 

 salmon, were released into streams of the basin. During 

 1976, anadromous migrants were released from 53 hatch- 

 eries and 14 rearing ponds. 



The Columbia Basin is unique in the number of hatch- 

 eries constructed and operated as compensation for habi- 

 tat destroyed by water use projects on the Columbia 

 River and its tributaries. Compensation was initiated on 

 the Columbia River by the Mitchell Act passed by 

 Congress in 1938. The Act provided for a cooperative 

 fisheries management program involving the Federal 

 Government and the States of Oregon and Washington. 

 Initially a small amount of money was appropriated for 

 the implementation of the Act under the Department of 

 Commerce. Little was accomplished until 1946 when the 

 Act was amended to create the Lower Columbia River 

 Development Program (subsequently referred to as the 

 Program) at the time under the Department of Interior. 

 Initial funding came from the U.S. Army Corps of 

 Engineers and the Program was administered by the 



'H. Senn. Chief of Artificial Production, Washington Department of 

 Fisheries. Olympia, WA 98504, pers. commun. November 1977. 



I . .Mahnken, Manchester Field Station, National Marine Fisheries 

 Service, NOAA, Manchester, WA 98353, pers. commun. August 1976. 



Columbia Basin-Washington. — The State Fish Com- 

 missioner, James Crawford (1890), stated in his first 

 report to the Governor of Washington concerning artifi- 

 cial propagation: "To foster and replenish the streams of 

 our state with salmon and trout, the establishment of a 

 hatchery is a positive necessity. While though much 

 could be done by the passage and enforcement of a 

 stringent law protecting our fish during the spawning 

 season, still, as has been demonstrated in the older states 

 without the aid of artificial propagation, the stock of wild 

 fish will eventually be exhausted." This statement was 

 based on declining populations of fish in Washington's 

 rivers, especially the Columbia, even at that early date. 

 Diversions and obstructions were blocking access to 

 historically important spawning and rearing areas. Also, 

 operators of gill nets, fish wheels, and traps, along with 

 the Indians and their dip nets, were taking excessive 

 numbers of fish. It was estimated that each fish wheel 

 took more than 100 tons offish per year (Crawford 1890). 

 The pack of salmon by Washington canneries had in- 

 creased from 4,000 cases in 1866 to a high of 629,000 cases 

 in 1883 (Crawford 1892) and then declined to 321,000 

 cases in 1889 (Cobb 1931). 



In light of this dwindling resource, the 1891 legislature 

 appropriated $15,000 for securing a site and erecting a 

 hatchery. The commission first selected a location in 

 Okanogan County, but was unable to build there because 

 of title and land survey problems (Crawford 1892). 



In 1894, Commissioner Crawford investigated the 

 possibility of enhancing upper Columbia stocks of salm- 

 on by taking and eyeing eggs artificially in the lower 

 reaches of the Columbia River and transporting them to 

 suitable hatching sites up the river. Working with fish- 

 ermen using pound net traps in Baker's Bay, near the 

 mouth of the Columbia River, he secured 150 chinook 

 salmon which he held for spawning. He obtained only 

 6,000 eggs before the holding area was washed out. No 



11 



