BRIEF OUTLINING THE NEED FOR FISH PROTECTIVE FACILITIES AT THE

HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

PRESENTED TO Dr. H. F. ANGUS, COMMISSIONER

PUNTLEDGE RIVER INQUIRY,

BY W. R. HOURSTON, DIRECTOR, PACIFIC AREA,

ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES OF CANADA ·

VANCOUVER, B. C.

MARCH I, 1962 BRIEF OUTLINING THE NEED. FOR FISH PROTECnVE FACILITIES AT THE PUNTLEOGE HIVER I-IYDROE LECTRIC OEVE LOPMENT

Presented to Dr. H. F. Angus, Commissioner, Punt1edge River Inquiry, by W. R. Hours tor: , Director, Pacific Area, on Behalf of the Dep~rtment of Fisheries of Canada.

Vancouver. B. C. March 1, 1962.

( ------~------. -----~------~, ------~~_t' ,

Impounding Dam and Fishway

Spawning grounds for early Spring Salmon

Intake canal where fry are ~'-- Diversion Dam and Fishway salvClged by fyke net

A rea suggested for louver dil'ertBJ'S----

'-'<--- Punlledrze River (L ow residual flow, hIgh temperatures) Pipeline ------­ (Large volume of cold water J Staton Falls

Counting weir operated in 1955 -56

Powerhouse ___ '" Tailrace pool where ( Fry mortality 3U,4GI%JLJ-J adult salmon are delayed and injured

Sugllested area for adult trapping facilities

PUNTLEDGE RIVER PROJECT SCHEMATIC PLAN ILLUS TRATING FISHERIES PROBLEMS not to scole BRIEF OUTLINING THE NEED FOl{ FISH PROTECTIVE FACILITIES AT THE PUNT LEDGE RIVER HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT

Dr. H. F. Angus; Commissioner.

Mr. Commissioner, The Minister of Fisheries for Canada, the Hon. J. Angus MacLean, has instructed me, as Area Director of the Department of Fisheries, to outline to you in this brief the need for fish facilities to protect the valuable stocks of salmon and other fish which are being depleted by the Puntledge River Hydroelectric Development. I propose to outline to you the background of the fisheries problem on the Puntledge, and following that to answer, in turn, each of the points o·f issue which you have suggested. I would like to point out first of all that under ihe terms of the Fisheries Act, the responsibility is on the owner of any dam to develop and construct fish facilities satisfactory to the Minister of Fisheries. In practice, since many owners do not have the necessary technical background to do so on their own, staff of the Department will discuss the requirements and if necessary suggest in general terms the type of facility which would be acceptable. The owner then prepares detailed designs and drawings for approvaL If, during the preparatl.on of these 2 plans, the owner feels that economies can be effected by changes in the design or by substitution of different construction materials, he can submit them for discussion and consideration by the Department. In this way the most economical facilities possible to meet the fisheries requirements are developed. I would like to draw your attention to the list of industrial projects affecting the fishery.resource in and the Yukon shown in Appendix 1. This list, which is the latest revision, covers the period 1949-1961. The number of such projects totals 199. on each of which our technical staff have collaborated to resolve the fisheries problems. Appendix 2 lists the major fish protective facilities which have resulted from this collaboration. It will be noted that more than $4,000,000 has been expended in the area during this period. These facilities have been developed by the procedure outlined, with the owner accepting full responsibility for fish protective measures, but collaborating with this Department to ensure that the most economical solution was reached. The fisheries problems associated with the Puntledge project were extremely complex and after a great deal of investi­ gation and research our technical staff in their 1958 report

suggested the solution they considered was the most likely to be·~­ successful in maintaining the Puntledge stocks of fish at the level of abundance which existed prior to the rebuilding of the project by the B. C. Power Commission. There was no suggestion that this was the final answer, The Power Commission made a cost estimate of $720,000 for these facilities. Our staff believe 3 that this estimate is high, based on experience with the cost of similar facilities at other projects. In addition, it is believed that more economical structures could be designed, if collabora­ tion were continued with the Power Commission. It is our belief that even with the increase in construction costs since 1958, satisfactory facilities could be designed and built for a much lower figure than the $720,000 estimated by the Power Commission. Before commenting on the specifi.c issues associated with the Puntledge River Inquiry, I would ,like to review the importance of t he run of sp,ring salmon involved and to provide evidence of the damage the hydroelectric development haS caused to it.

Importance of the Puntledge River Salmon Fishery Firstly, the significance of the stock in question should be put in perspective. The total spring salmon escapement to the Puntledge River averages just over 6000 fish. This may seem like a small run when compared to the sockeye runs of many million fish that receive publicity during the fishing season. However, it is a large run relative to spring salmon runs. There are over 1600 salmon spawning streams in B. C. of which 259 have spring salmon runs. Only 15 of these have runS of 5000 or more. The Puntledge River is therefore one of the major producers of spring salmon in British Columbia. It has more than twice the stock of the Campbell River and four times the stock of the Big Qualicum River, the two adjacent large rivers to the north and south respectively, The spring salmon migrating to the Puntledge River 4 contribute directly to the commercial salmon troll, gill-net and seine fisheries in the coastal waters of British Columbia. The importance of these fisheries to the economy of British Columbia is well recognized. As pointed out in the Puntledge River Reportl there are two runs of spring salmon indigenous to the Puntledge River. The early upriver run is the one that is exposed to all the direct damage of the power development. The contribution of this early run to the commercial and sport fisheries can be calculated on the basis of an average annual catch-to-escapement ratio for British Columbia of 4.211, as shown in Appendix 3. The average annual escapement of the early run to the Puntledge River for the pre-development period was 3063 fish. The catch corresponding to thiS escapement would therefore amount to 12,865 fish. The average landed value of red spring salmon for all of British Columbia in 1961 was 36.6¢ per pound, and the average weight per fish was 14.2 pounds. On this basis an annual landed value of approx~mately $67,000 could be assigned to this run. A higher valuation -could be assigned to this run by taking into conSideration, the greater weight of Puntledge River fish. The average weight from samples of early run Puntledge spring salmon taken in 1955 and 1956 was 17.6 pounds per fish. On this basis an annual landed value of approximately $83,000 could be assigned to the run. The Puntledge River spring salmon run contributes

IThe Fisheries Problems Associated with the Power Development of the Puntledge River, , B. C. Department of Fisheries, Canada, October, 1958. 5 directly to the tidal sport fishery in the Courtenay-Comox area. There are reported to be 23 establishments offering overnight accommodation with 320 units available to the public in the region from Fanny Bay northward to Bates Beach. Five of these offer trailer and tenting accommodation as well. There are six boat rental establishments having 54 boats. Because of the attraction of the ntyee pool II at Comox and the fishing around Cape Lazo, the motels and other waterfront accommodation in the Courtenay-Comox area have become increasingly dependent on the sport fishing as a drawing card for about 50 to 75 percent of their annual clientele. British Columbia residents make up about 60 percent of the total trade with other Canadian and United States tourists in about even proportions making up the balance. Table I shows the annual total estimated catch of adult, jack, and grilse spring salmon by sport fishermen in the Comox­ Courtenay area for the period 1958 to 1961. Mature two and three­ year old male fish are called jacks, and the small immature fish of both sexes are commonly referred to as grilse.

TABLE I. CATC~ OF ADULT, JACK, AND GRILSE SPRING SALMON IN tHE COMOX-COURTENAY AREA, 1958-61

Spring Jack Spring Spring Grilse Total 1958 8,375 6.500 13,250 28,125 1959 6,050 4,775 9,650 20,475 1960 2,725 4,925 8,500 16,150 1961* 1.750 2.350 3,900 8,025

* Preliminary figures - not released as of date. 6 The sport fishery has considerable economic value to the Gomox-Gourtenay area but it is difficult to derive the actual dollar value. It would be easy to go through calculations showing that sport-caught fish cost perhaps three to ten dollars a pound on the dinner-table as contrasted to commercially purchased fish. But these calculations are only a small measure of the value of the sport fishery, for no one can put a dollar sign on the intan­ gible benefits in health and recreation that are enjoyed by local residents, fellow Ganadians, and the ever-growing number of tourists from other countries. If even the most modest future population projections can be accepted, it is inevitable that the value of the sport fishery will grow at least in proportion.

Evidence of Damage to the Puntledge River Salmon Run In Table II the estimated annual escapements of both early and late runs of spring salmon migrating to spawn in the Puntledge River for the period 1949 to 1961 are summarized. The Puntledge River hydro project came i.nto operation in March, 1955, and the data have been arranged to show the escapements before and after the development. Analysis of the data shows that the average size of the early upri.ver run has declined from 3063 fish for the pre-develop­ ment period to 1127 fish for the post-development period. During the same period the late run, which i? largely unaffected by.the power development, showed a decline from an average of 3300 to 2697 fish as shown in figure 1. The percentage decline for the early run amounted to 63,2 percent in comparison with a decline of 18.2 percent for the late run, Furthermore, the escapement 7 TABLE II. ESTIMATED ANNUAL ESCAPEMENT OF PUNT LEDGE RIVER SPRING SALMON, 1949-61

Early Run Late Run 1949 5000 2000 1950 2000 4500 1951 2400 3600 1952 2400 1600 1953 1380 2100 1954 5200 6000 Pre-Development Period Average 3063 3300

1955 -1<-1543 4500 1956 -x- 618 900 1957 600 2400 1958 2000 6000 1959 1500 2000 1960 1400 1800 1961 225 1275 Post-Development Period Average 1127 2697

*Fence Counts.

for the early run in 1961 reached the lowest level of abundance ever recorded for the Puntledge River. There is no evidence to suggest that this decline will not continue. Table III shows the estimated annual escapements of pink, chum, and coho salmon to the Punt1edge HiveI' for the period 1950 to 19Q1. These species are not exposed to direct damage 'from the power development. It is readily noted that the 8

,;1

1949 1950 1951 1952 1953

Pre - develop enl escopemen 0 / (read obov ) 800-"1------+--- ... I =-- -1:.

i i

4000'+-_-\-______4--_____ ------jf----+--l------l I I

; I Pre - dey lopmenl W I :;; 30 OI.s:O~==--=Io==1_'"--"''"--"'=-===1 - ____ L ' Average W 1 ~ I

t- 2000"+______-¥'"'- ____ -' :J Post- developm nt Cl escopemen « / (reod below / - Post - evelopmen ~/ - _ __ ~_ ..L __ Average 1000 ~:-­ _____ -4 - ,,------/"------I I +----+------I----~--~-I------+-~-l 1957 1958 19 9 1960 1961

Figure 1. Estimated Annual Escapement 0.£ Puntledge Kiver Early Spring Salmon hun. 1949-61. 9 abundance of the runs in the lower Puntledge are virtually unchanged. The development neither improved nor damaged them.

TABLE III. ESTIMATED At:J_NUl\..L ESCAP!MENT_ Of PINK, CHUM, AND COHO SALMON TO THE PUNT LEDGE RIVER, 1950-61

Pinks Chums Coho 1950 6,000 20,000 1,200 1951"x- 130,000 55,000 3,000 1952 16,000 18,000 4,000 1953 10,000 42,000 6,000 1954 16,000 26,000 6,000 1955 16.,000 45,000 3,000 Pre-Development Average 31,600 *(12,000) 34,300 3,866 ------1956 6,000 18,000 4,500 1957 20,000 28,000 5,500 1958 35.,000 25,000 5,000 1959 2,000 42,000 1,600 1960 3,250 27,000 3,000

1961 9,000 20,000 3~150 Post-Development Average 12,541 26,600 3,790

* Removal . of exceptionally large 1951 run provides average of 12,000 pinks.

Comparisons have been made over the same period with average annual escapements of spring salmon to the Campbell River to the north of the Puntledge, and the Big Qualicum to the south. Table IV shows that the runs to the Campbell River remained the same after the development, while those in the Big Qualicum River increased considerably. 10 TABLE IV. ESTIMATED ESCAPEMENTS OF SPRING SALMON TO CAMPBELL AND BIG QUALICUM RIVERS, 1950-61

Average 1950-54 Average 1955-61 Campbell River 2300 2325 Big Qualicum River 570 1541

There are three distinct types of damage to the early run spring salmon attributable to the Puntledge power development, Each of these is capable of causing significant mortality and there is no question that in combination they have caused the decline. The three types are: (1) Damage to adult fish at the tailrace of the powerhouse, (2) Damage to fry from passage through the turbines, and (3) Damage to spawning grounds by siltation from impounding dam construction. These are desc,ribed as follows: (l) Damage a t the Tailrace__ It was established in 1955 during the first year of operation of the power plant that the early spring salmon run was being delayed in the tailrace pool at the powerhouse. Prior to the development these fish passed through this area without delay on their mi.gration to the spawning grounds. At a counting weir established in the river upstream of the powerhouse in 1955 few fish were recorded during July. This was abnormal since large numbers of fish were observed moving through this se(~tion of the river during early July in past years. S.urveys of the powerhouse taiLrace pool showed a concentration of fish which were continually fighting the heavy currents of the tailrace. It was evi.dent that they were being 11 attracted to the large volume of cold water emanating from the powerhouse and avoiding the small volume of warm water in the main stream. The maximum water temperature recorded in the main stream was 72°F on August 11. Between July 12 and September 6 there were twenty,"three days when the water temperature was 68°F or above. The temperature of the water.' in the tailrace pool was consistently lower than thtl temperatures recorded in the main stream during the same period. It should be noted that this delay of salmon was not recorded during the period the Canadian Collieries plant was in operation. It was therefore apparent that the change in flows resulting from the new larger project had altered water conditions sufficiently to cause a marked change in the behaviour pattern of the migrating fish. The fish were observed to enter at the base of the draft tube and when fighting upward to be thrown back by high velocities, hitting the concrete walls. The fish arriving at the fence showed injuries from this source. Many of the injuries were already characte:rized by fungus growth. The lesser injuries such as descaling and minor lesions were not noticed until a period of time later when fungus growth began to appear in these bruised, cut, and descaled areas. Fungus growth thrives in injured body tissue par'Ucularly when fish enter water of high temperature. On August 18, 1955 the Power Conunission agreed to a series of artificial freshets designed to move thB fish out of the tailrace pool into the river. The four flushes between August 18 and September 7 moved a large percsn tagEl of t he delayed, injured, and partially exhausted fish up~tream. Eight hundred 12 and forty-three fish were counted through the fence. During the same period 240 fish were recovered dead and unspawned at the fence. Fifty-six percent of these had damage to the dorsal surface of the head, TheI'" was no way of knowing how many of the fish in the tailrace pool died or drifted back downstream, Most of these fish would drift downstream without being observed. The resul ts of an investigation on the salmon obstructed /J.t. the Babine Slide2 showed that weak and injured fish were caught 150 miles downstream from the slide. More t.han 50 perc.ent of this run drifted downstream, as a result of exhaustion and injury sustained at the slide, On the Puntledge many of the fish that did move upstream out of the tailrace pool were able to withstand the immediate mortality during migration but died on the spawning ground before spawning. This latent mortality is largely attributed to the development of fungus on the injured fish. This has bean demonstrated by Dr. J. R. Brett's studies of coho salmon in Robertson Greek. In these studies eVEm the most sUghtl y inj uX'ad fish died from fungus in less than 20 days when confined in water ranging from 65 to 70 degrees Fahrenheit. Delay in the tailrace pool creates excessive demands on the stored energy of the salmon fighting the currents in the pool. McGrath (1958)3 describing dams as barriers or

2Effects of a Rock Slide on Babine River Salmon. Godfrey, H., W.R. Hourston, J.W. Stokes, F.C. Withler, 1954. Bull.. 101, Fisheries Res. Bd. Canada, Ottawa" 3 Dams as Barriers or Deterrents to the Migration of Fish. C.J. MeGl"ath. Intern. Un. for Consv, Nature, Proc. 7th Tech, Mtg, 1958. 13 deterrents to migration of Atlantic salmon states, ~During the delay period fish utilize energy reserves that would otherwise be available for migration, gonad development and spawning activities." The effects of delay on salmon are well documented3 ,4,5 in the literature. For example, the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission studies at Hell's Gate show that before fishways were constructed a delay of 12 days prevented all sockeye from reaching their spawning ground. Lesser delays resulted in a reduction of the success of spawning. Also a 6-day block at Yale, in 1955, allowed only 2170 sockeye to reach their spawning ground out of an estimated 30,000 to 35,000 arriving at the obstruction. Similarly, at Sabine Lake as a result of • rock slide, delayed, injured, and weakened salmon arriving at their spawning g:t'ound were found to b(~ only 30 to 42 percent effective in spawning. There is no question that much of the mortality of uninjured fish on the Puntledge, both during migration and on the spawning grounds, was due to delay, fatigue, and exhaustion. The B. C. Power Commission recognized the adverse effects due to delay and injury at the taUrace, and took emergency measures to meet them. The flushes of water mentioned previously have been continued each year to date. In addition, a grating was installed over the draft tube before the run commenced in 1956. These measures have only offered oil partial solution to the problem. For example, the numbers of dead fish

4Effect of the Obstruction at Hell's Gate on the Sockeye Salmon of the Fraser River. W.F. Thompson, I.ntern. Pac. Salmon Fish. Com •• BUll. 1, 1945.

5Annual Report, Intern. Pac, Salmon Fi.sh. Com., 1955" ].4 at the counting fence with head injuries dropped from 56% in 1955 to 30% in 1956, The numbers of dead fish with no visible ,injuries increased from 10% in 1955 ,to 13% in 1956, There was very little change in the total number of injuries, however, and the proportion of dead, unspawned fish actually increased, Furthermore, each year since the project has been in operation injured fish have been observed in the tailrace pool, and lax:ge numbers of dead unspawned salmon have been found on the spawning grounds and on the trash racks of the power canal, (2) Damage to Fry fr:om Passage t.hrou.9..h the Turbines Ihenew development. of the Puntledge which came into operation in 1955 resulted in a Significant change :I.n the ratio between the volume of flows entering the powerhouse intake canal and the volume released down the river. This was particularly true during the period of downstream migration in the spring when a large surplus of water had been previously available to the Canadian Collieries operation. After 1955 the B. C. Power Commission was able to use much of this surplus in their plant or later on to store it in their new reservoir for later release, Under the new conditions existing since 1955, approximately 75% of the flow during the fJ:y migration period has been diverted into the intake canal, carrying with it an estimat­ ed equal proportion of t.he downst.ream migrant fry, The 25% of the fry which are carried downstream in the main river are the only fry which follow a natural route of migration and would be expected to yield a high percentage return of adultso The 75% carried into the intake suffer impairment to varying de9x'ees 15 ranging from immediate mortality to minor impairment either from handling in the salvage operation or from pressure changes and cavitation in the turbine. A series of experiments was carried out in 1955 to determine the mortality to downstream migrating salmon and trout from passage through the turbines and the tailrace of the powerhouse. The results of these experiments established that there is a 30 to 40 percent mortality to these fish wi thin 48 hours of passing through the turbines. There is some doubt as to the success of survival of the remaining 60 to 70 percent, This Department immediately commenced an emergency salvage operation, consisting of installation of several fyke-nets in the intake channel. These were installed in the hope that some of the fry could be captured and returned to the river thus avoiding exposure to the turbines. This was intended to be a temporary operation pending installation of permanent facilities, The operation had some value and has been continued in ensuing years. The B. C. Power Commission eventually assumed responsibility for the operation. It was established by releases of marked fry that the salvage nets caught 35 percent of the total number of fry entering the intake. Table V summarizes the fry migration for the period 1956 to 1961. To prepare this table, an average turbine mortality of 32.6% was used, and it was assumed that the number of fry entering the intake channel was propor­ tional to the volume of flow each day, This table provides an estimate of the total number of fry produced each year and divides these totals into portions that are exposed to various features of the development. The following points should be noted: 16 TABLE V. SUMMARY OF PUNTLEDGE RIVER EARLY RUN SPRING FRY MIGRATIONS. 1956-61

Estimated 6-yr. No. of fry !956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 Average Sa1vaged* 23,541 31,069 135 4,462 18,606 7,1.16 14,155 Killed in turbines 14,422 18,813 83 2,827 11.742 4,309 8,700

Survived turbines 29 0 509 38,897 lnl 5,845 24,278 8,909 1.7,935 Total entering intake 67,472 88,779 391 13,134 54,626 20,334 40,790 Over diversion weir 23,273 13,540 107 2,162 17,188 26,979 13,875 Total migration 90,745 102,319 498 15,296 71,814 47,313 54,665 *Actual Counts.

1. Approximatel y 25 percent of the total number of fry produced migrate downstream over the diversion weir with no exposure to damage. These are considered normal viable fry. 2. Approximately 26 percent of the total number of fry produced are salvaged in fyke-nets and returned to the stream. These trapped fish are delayed and handled and conse­ quently are subjected to descaling. fatigue and changes in their migration patterns. For these reasons this portion of the progeny cannot be considered normal fry and the percentage return of adults would probably be reduced. It should be pointed out that biological programs of all fisheries agencies recognize this danger and where similar trapping eqUipment is used samples are kept to a minimum. 3. Approximately 16 percent of the total number of fry are killed outright during passage through the 17 turbine or die within a 48-hour period. 4. The remaining 33 percent of the total number of fry survive passage through the turbine and live for at least 48 hours. These fish however, have been exposed to pressure changes and cavitation which could CaUse internal hemorrhage, gas embolism and could affect the swim bladder mechanism. There is good reason to believe that future demands of the environment would add a cumulative stress and cause appreciable delayed mortality to these fry. It is further noted from the table that the yearly production of fry averages only 54,665. Based on avail­ able evidence this number of fry is not large enough to insure an average return of 3000 fish to the spawning grounds. A generally accepted average percentage fry-to­ adUlt return is between one and two percent for salmon that go to sea as fry. For example, on the Big Qualicum River the 1959-60 adult run of 2399 spring salmon produced 185,600 fry. On this basis the early Puntledge River spring salmon run requires a downstream migration of 231,000 normal fry per year. The 6-year average of 54.,600 fry falls far short of this requirement. (3) Damage to Spawning Grounds by Siltation The major spawning grounds for the upriver spring salmon run are between the imp.ounding dam and the diversion dam. In September, 1957, during construction of the new sluiceway in the ComoxLake impounding dam lllany truckloads of earth were dumped on the upstream cofferdam in an effort to decrease leakage through it. Most of this earth fill eventually washed into the 18 river and was deposited on the river bed downstream of the dam. Following this in December, a section of the cofferdam broke. During the ensuing two months thousands of cubic yards of material eroded and was deposited on the spaw~ing grounds below. As a result of this silt load virtually all of the spawning ground was temporarily destroyed. Thi.s siltation caused the almost complete loss of fry during the winter of 1957··58. While there was some improvement in the survival of 1958-59 it was still exceedingly low. Table VI shows that the fry produced per adult decreased from 165 in 1956-57 to less than 1 in 1957-58. However, an increase ha$ occurred since that time and the future of the spawn-· ing grounds apparently is one of slow improvement.

TABLE VI. NUMBERS OF FRY PRODUCED PER ADULT SPRING SALMON MIGRATING TO SPAWNING GROUND, 1955-60 Estimated total Number of Fry number of Fry per Adult Year Number of Adults produced 1955 1543 90,745 58.9 1956 618 102,319 165,5 1957 600 498 0.8 1958 2000 15,296 7.6 1959 1500 71 ,814 47.8 1960 1400 47,313 33.8

Having reviewed the background of the fisheries problem I would now li.ke to discuss each of the points of issue which you have suggested. 19 1. Have the fisheries on the Puntledge been damaged by power installations to the full extent of the proposed expenditure?

It has been shown in the background data presented that the salmon run affected by the development has declined from an average of 3063 fish to

Ihe above'! mentionr~d factors we consider are 22 sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the sport and commer­ cial fishery hal not contributed to the decline of the Puntledge River early spring salmon run. Logging Logging practices which can affect fisheries include deforestation, road construction, log booming and log driving. The basic result of decreasing the forsst cover in a watershed is a change in the flow regime to produce increased peak disch

3. Are the fisherie~ __ exposed ~_o f~rther damage from power instal­ lations, or by other agencies? Ample evidence has been provided to show that the fishery will suffer further damage from the power installa­ tions if permanent facilities are not installed, The emergency measures which have been taken to date by the Power Commi.ssioB have been useful only in slowing the rate of decline of the run. It is fully expected, for the reasons set out, that the run will continue to decline until it eventually reaches a level which no longer could support a fishery of any value. The possibility that other agencies caused the decline has been examined and rejected. There is no reason to believe that any such agency will cause a decline ih the future. Excellent cooperation is now received from the 24 forest industry generally. and little or no effect is antici­ pated on the fishery in the future. In addition, excellent cooperation exists with the provincial government water rights branch in connection with consumptive uses of water which are controlled by the province. Providing adequate measures are taken in the future, there should be no detrimental effects on the fishery. Such measures have been demonstrated to be both possible and practicable in the past, and satisfactory measures have been developed in all cases by cooperation and collaboration with the owners. The same comments apply to other factors such as pollution. Cooperation with the owners, in cases where new industries have moved in, has resulted in protection to the fishery resource through implementation of reasonable measures. The fishery itself can be controll ed by regulation to ensure that adequate spawning stock is available in the future.

4. Is the proposed expenditurE;) of $720,000 ~dequate and necessary

for its purpose? T~~$ involves c9nsideration ?J_~~posed measures and their efficacy. There is some question as to whether an expenditure of $720,000 is required to provide adequate facilities. We feel the actual cost should be left open for the present, and the question reworded to ask if facilities such as those outlined

in our 1958 report are adequate and necessary 0 Oll.!: answer would t.hen be that in order to preserve t.he .run some form of works to protect the upstream migrants from damage in the powerhouse tailrace and t.he downstream migrants from harm in 25 the turbine are needed. We have suggested what we believe are the best form of works which will be adequate for the purpose. We believe the exact form of these works could be subject to adjustment to make them more economical to construct, as long as they were still able to perform the desired fUHGtions. With regard to t.he measures which have been suggest.ed, it is felt there is sufficient experience to guarantee their effiGacy. Barrier dams, racks, collection facilities, and trucking operations have been in use on the Pacific Coast for many years. Spring salmon have been trapped and trucked in a similar manner on the Sacramento River, the , and in British Columbia at Stamp Falls and Robertson Creek near Alberni. Other species have been trapped and trucked at many locations on the Pacific Coast, including the Capilano River in British Columbia. This method of providing for fish passage has been proven satisfactory in operation for condi­ t.ions similar t.o those on the Puntledge.

D Our 1958 report recommended instalhtion of louvers to divert young spring salmon migrating downstream out. of the int.ake canal. This was a comparatively new device, but was known to be much less costly than screens, which were the only other alternative. A million dollar louver installation has been operat.ing successfully on a large irrigation canal intake at Tracy, California for a number of years. It has been inspect.ed by our technical staff who are assured that its operation has been satisfactory in divert.ing the young 26 spring salmon at that point. A second louver installation has been operating for several years on the Gold Hill hydro­ electric plant on the Rogue River in Oregon. Our technical staff have also inspected this installation, which is compar­ able to that proposed for the Puntledge, and was approved by the fisheries authorities in Oregon. In addition, our staff felt that further research and testing was necessary on the Puntledge River to ensure that a louver installation would be completely satisfactory for this spring salmon run. This testing program was performed and accounts for a considerable part of the Department 9 s $278,000 total expenditure on the Puntledge investigations, as shown in Appendix 4. In addition, further tests of louvers have been made since 1958 in a test flume at Robertson Creek near Alberni. The data corroborated the results of the Puntledge River tests and provided additional information for use in the design of louver diver­ ters. On the basis of this experience and research, it is believed there is reasonable assurance as to the efficacy of louvers for the Puntledge PI'oj eet. Alternative means of taking care of the Puntledge runs were considered at the time the 1958 report was being prepared. These methods would have involved the capture of the fish, holding to maturity, and some form of artificial propagation. Our technical staff have again reviewed these methods and they have been rejected for the following reasons. First, there is no doubt that natural propagation i.s superior to artificial propagation. Secondly, the problems associated 27 with holding early run spring salmon to maturity are extremely complex and methods used to date have resulted in considerable mortality. Finally, there is every reason to believe that facilities to provide for natural propagation could be designed which would satisfactorily protect the fishery at a reasonable

cost in relation to the value of the ~uns protected. Our answer to this question is, therefore, that facilities to perform the functions outlined in our report are indeed necessary, and would if properly designed and constructed, be adequate for the purpose.

5. Is the expenditure warranted on economic grounds alone?

6. Is the expenditure warranted on economic and other grounds? If so, what are the other grounds? We feel these questions should be answered simultaneous­ ly because in our opinion all factors must be taken into consideration when deciding if the protective facilities are warranted. Under the terms of the Fisheries Act the Minister of Fisheries is charged with determining if facilities are required in the public interest, and it is on this basis that his decision is made. With regard to the economics of the situation, it has been shown that the landed value to the commercial fishery of the run which could be lost by reason of the power develop­ ment is at least $67,000 annually and could be as high as $83,000 annually. Using the basis of an equivalent annual cost of 10%, this would appear to warraJ.l1t a capital 28 expenditure of at least $670,000 or as high as $830,000, without any allowance for the value of the fresh and salt water sport fisheries, or for the recreational and social value. There is no doubt therefore, that an expenditure in the range required to construct the suggested facilities would be warranted. We believe it is significant that as shown in Appendix 5 the sum of mO,re than 130 million dollars has been spent on fillh f acili ties primarily for spring salmon at hydroelect;ric projects in the Pacific Northwest States of the United States, and that the unit expenditure per spring salmon is greater than that which would be needed for satisfactory facilities on the Puntledge. In

It is evident from these examples that the runs of i spring salmon have been valued very highly by trH, responsible authorities in the United states as well as by those in Canada. Their value is increasing as popUlation increases, and f:rom the point of view of their economic worth alone in the future, there is no doubt that it is in the public interest that protective facilities be provided. Our answer is therefore that the expenditure necessary to provide satis­ factory protective facilities is warranted not only on economic grounds but on all grounds.

7. Is any addi tional e~pend~ ture in contemplation (and, if so by whom.)?

(a) to make good d~mage done by other agencies. As pointed out in the background data, the avail­ able evidence shows that no damage has been inflicted on the salmon runs of the Puntledge River system by other agencies since inception of the new development. It would be expected in the futUre that reasonable cooperation with industrial and other users similar to that which has occurred in the past will ensure the protection of the fishery. There is no way of predicting what expenditures will be required for this purpose in the future. (b) to improve the fisheries. The Department of Fisheries during recent years 30 has been engaged in a large-scale salmon development program. Thi, program has included the construction of fishways and re~oviill of natural rock slides to overcome obstructions to migration of salmon, construction of controlled flow channels to increase the abundance of salmon runs, and construction of an incubation-type hatchery to assist in the rehabili taUon of a salmon run. The Department of Fisheries will not undertake a developmentpI'oject unless it can be shown to be feasible from both a biological and economic viewpoint. Furthermore these projects are assigned priority on the basis of securing the maximum initial benefit to the fishery. On this basis the Puntledge is not scheduled for early development even though biological surveys have indicat­ ed that the upper system of rivers and lakes above Comox Lake contain.potentiiillly good spawning and rearing areas. The biological problems associated with a salmon development project in this area are extremely complex, and it is considered at this time that techniques and methods are not available to ensure success in increasing salmon production in the Puntledge. The development of tbe salmon runs in this area might however be possible in the future as a result of advances in the field of fish culture. If it was decided to proceed in this area, the cost of the project would of course be assumed by the Department. (c) to forestall further damage. We believe this question has been partly answered 31 under section (a) of this point of issue, and is allo further explained under point (d). (d) contingently on the failure of the proposed expenditure to produce the anticipated benefi ts. It is considered that the fish facilities suggested to the B. C. Powel: Commission are the be$t practical solution to the problems associated with the hydroelectric development. It is further expected that t.he solution offered will afford the maximum protection to the spring salmon run and that these salmon will continue to make a valuable contribution to the sport and commercial fishery. It should be mentioned however, that the Minister of Fisheries can require the owner or occupier of any dam or , obstruction to make such changes and adjustments at his own

expense iilS will in the opinion of the Minister be necessary for efficient operation of the fish facilities under actual working conditions. It must be remembered that fish are living animals, and their behaviour cannot be predicted in all situations. Adjustments may therefore be necessary in any facilities. and the foregoing safeguard was included in the Fisheries Act to cover this eventuality, However, it is very unlikely changes would be required in the facilities suggested for the Puntledge, since they are well proven else­ where, and have been thoroughly tested.

8 • 'Nh ill t a c c 0u n t sho u1 cL}?"~:!:.~1~~~1 O!~_ th e _1c2~\l- '~~£:~y~o s P e_c;~~9.f (

6productive Capacity of Canadian Fisheries - An Outline. W.E. Ricker, Background Papers, Res. for Tomorrow Confer­ ence, 1961. 33 other interests to develop a mutually satisfactory solutiori to fisheries problems associated with other uses of the river and lake. At this time we do not visualize any problem resulting from other uses of the river and lake that would seriously harm the salmon runs of the PunUedge River system.

9. Other issues One point has been omitted from the list of issues which in our opinion has considerable bearing on the economics of the power development as they relate to the fish protect.ive facili ties. It could be assumed from the list of issues that should the Power Commission spend the sum required to provide fish protective facilities, they would be out of pocket the entire amount, with no benefits received in return. We would like to point out, as we have on previous occasions to the Power Commission, that construction of the f aeili ties would result in a considerable sav:l.ng of water which would then be available for production of power. The

additional amount of water made available for power produc~ tion would be at least 77 cfs, and could be as high as 92 cfs. We have had conflicting statements from the Power Commission as to the value of this extra water. One method of evaluation used by the Power Commission? would indicate that this water, if available continuously, would have an equivalent capital value of $1,100,000. Another method of evaluation used by the CommiSSionS indicates it would have a

7Letter from B. C. Power Commission dated August 31, 1954. 8Report on the Fisheries Problems of the Puntledge River Power Development - 1954, B. C. Power Commission, Victoria, B. C. 34 value of about $800,000. Subsequently, however, the Power Commission has indicated that this water, which they are presently required to spill, is of little or no value to them. We find it difficult to reconcile these conflicting statements. We also find it difficult to believe that this water bas no value, when the Power Commission have made the point that fisheries flow requirements below the powerhouse have forced them to operate the plant at less than peak efficiency for long periods of time. They imply that this has been uneconomical, and it would appear, therefore, that any extra water available would have considerable value. We feel that this extra water must have some value, and that this value would appear to be high enough to offset at least a substantial part of the expenditures required for fish facilities, if not all of the cost.

Conclusions In conclusion, 1 would like to refer to the B. C. Power Commission statement of policy presented to the opening meeting of this inquiry. First I should like to comment on the view expressed that all major fish protection requirements should be established during the planning of the power development. This is a policy which the Department has made every possible effort to establish and follow. It is indeed unfortunate that the Power Commission decided on its own volition to proceed with the Puntledge Development without establ.ishin9 such requirements. This has resulted in a substantial loss of fish to the fishery already, and a continuing loss through the period necessary to 35 requirements al expeditiously 8. possible and these were presented to the Power Commission in 1957, The prolongedd\'Jlay in providing the necessary facilities has resulted in a substantial loss of fish to the fishery already and a continuing loss through the period necessary to restore the runs to the levels which existed prior to the development. The Power Commission also expressed a willingness to take reasonable measures to protect the fishery. We have shown that such.measures are possible ind can be justified by the econom,ic value .f the commercial and sport fishery alone. In addition, the social and aesthetic values of the resource, which are 1I10re difficult to meaSUre would further enhance this vdue, We Cilln only conclude that the fish protective facilities shOUld be provided aSl required by the Fisheries Act. Appendix 1

IWDUSTRIAL PROJECTS AFFECTT~TG THE FISHERY.

AS OF FEBRUARY, 1962 §RITISH COLUMBIA & YUKON TERRITORY • 1. HYDROELECTRIC PROJECTS A. Constl'uction Completed 1. Jones ('rJahleach) Creek - B. C,. Eleatl"ic 2. Puntledge River (except· B. C. Power Commission fish facilities) Theodosia Rive!" ~ Powell River Company ~: .\Ieton Creek - B. C. Electl'ic 5. One~kafums Rive!" B. C. Elect!'ic 6. Campbell Rive!' Diversions- B. C. Power Commission 7. :to.Techako-Ki timat - Aluminum Company of Canada 8. B!'idge River - B. O. Elect!'ic 9. Ash River DiiTe!'sion - B. O. POlMer> Commission 10. 1rJhi teho!'se Rapids, Yukon Rivel" - No!'thern Oanada Powe!' Commission B. Investigation and Research Proceeding 1. Stamp River - B. C. POlMer Oommission 2, Sproat River - B. C. POHer> Oommission ;3. Wass River - ·TlTorth'Mest Powe!" Industries 4· Clearwater Rive!' - B. O. Power CommisSion 5. Chilko-Taseko-Homathko D:!, ve!'si ons - B. C. Power Commission 6. Kokish Rive!' - B. C. Power Oommission 7. Nanika Rive.!' - Aluminum Oompany of Oanada 8. Columbia - Frase!' Dive!'- sion 9. Yukon-Taku Diversion - !)To!'thwest POl.er Industries 10. Fraser> River (System "AIi)_ Fr>!l.ser R.ive!' Boa!'d 11. Gold Rive,!' - B. O. POlMer COmmission 12. Nimpkish River .. B. C" P01.el" 0 ommissi on 1;3. Chilliwack River - Wate):' 'Rights Branch 14. Frasel' River (Moran Dam) - MOran Development Co. 15. Bulkley - Morice Rivers - B. C. P 01<1'e r 0 Clmmi 8 s ion 16. Fulton and Pinkut Rivers - B. C, POl.er Commission 17. Shuswap 'River - B. C. Power CommissiOn 11. THERMAL-ELECTRIC PROJEOTS (Cooling water supply) 1. Thermal-electrio plant, Quesnel B. C. POlNer CommissiOn 2. Thermal-eleotric plant, Prince Geo'('ge - B. O. P01N'er CommiSSiOn Thermal-eleotrio plant, Port Mann _. Bw O. Electrio Thermal-eleotrio plant, Chellls1nua,,, V~I.'" B. O. POl.er CommiSSion t Thermal-eleotrio plant, B. C; Eleotric - 2 -

111. pOLLUTION P~OJEOTS

A. Domestic Sewage

1. Vancouver Ai~port addition - Fraser '<.iver 2. Skyline Hotel - morth Arm, Fraser 'River New Hotel, New ~estminster - morth A~m, Fraser 'River ~: ' Fraser Valley Lands Subdivision (Broadmoor) - B'raser "'liver Timberland Housing Development ... F.rasel" Bl.ver Maple·Bidge Hospital ... Frasel" Biver Bristol AeT'o EYlgines ('.,Testel.'n) - Fraser 'liver· Hou~ing Development, Port Mann - Fraser Ri vet' Riohmond Gilmour Parks Subdivision M Fraser' Biver Master Semlerage Plan, Munioipali ty of Richmond - Fraser 'liver 11. Surrey Memorial Hospital Sel,Jage Disposal .' Bear Creek 1 "-." . South Delta Sewage Disposal Plan - 'Roberts Bank Trans Canada Airlines - F.raser River 1l~. • MunicipaUty of Mission ... Fraser River 1 • Municipali ty of Smithers - Bulkley Hi Ve1" 16. Municipality of Terrace - Skeena 'Ri vel' 1"/. I,Tindsor Park Sub-Division - Burrard Inlet lB. Unnamed trailer court ... Ft'aser Biver 19. Unnamed sub-division, Surrey - Fraser Rivel' 20. City of Chilliwack ~ Fraser Rive!' 21. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Discovery St. sewer ... English Bay 22. . Greater Vancouver Sel'lerage and Drainage District, Capilano Sewer-,English Bay 23. Greater Vancouver Sewerage and ., ! Drainage Distriot, Port Moody Sewer- Burrard Inlet 24· Delta Muni01pali ty, Delta Trunk Sewer - Fraser River 25. ' City of Ki timat Kitimat River 26. ' Corporation of the District of Saanioh - Hat'o Strait 2'1. Ci ty of life lson • Kootenay Lake 2B •. Dish-iot of SUY'Y'ey (Clover-dale Sewage Lagoon) - No outfall (lagoon) 29. District of Delta - Lo'~er Fraser ~1iver 30. Village of Montrose - Beavel' Cl'e€)k 31. C1 ty of Courtenay - Courten~y River mouth 32. City of ~hite Rook Campbell River 3,3. Langley Memorial Hospital Nikomekl \'liver 3~,; T01<1nship of Fort St. John Peace Rivel:' 35. District of ~Tot'th Co',richan .. ", Holmes GJ:'6ek 36. €}1 ty of :Junoan - Cowiohan 'Rivel:' :37 • C1 ty of Kamloops ... No out.fall (lagaons) 3B, Oi ty of Vernon - City of Dawson Creek ... DawS'on Creek ~: Canada Bioe Mills ,. Fraser River 41. City of North Vancouver ... Burrard Inlet 42, Village of Comox ... Comox: Harbour 43. Convent of the Good Shepherd " Nikomekl River - 3 -

A. ,Domestic Se',ag~. (Continued)

b4;\ Delport Moto~ Hotel - LQ1,ve,~ Fr>aseY> '=liver, 45. Village of Bu"ns Lake (lagoon) - BU~ns Lake B. Insecticide -Herbicide Control:

1. D.D .T,' spraying pl"ogram fo~ c01'1trol of Black-Headed Bud"10rm _ Northet'n Vancouver Is...

2. Sodi urn a pseni te pl"ogt'am 1'0" control of' Teredo ':'" Powell 'River - Burl'ard I1'11et - Teakerne Arm - Crofton 3. Benzene Hexachlo"lde expet'imental spraying p~ogpam fop contpol of Ambrosia Beetle - Sproat Lake Albernl. Inlet 4. Sodi um Arsenite for c antral of 'Need Growth, Harrison Village -, Miami Slough :;. Coppep sulfnte Or Nlgt'olline fOr con­ trol of ',Teed Gro"rth, Chilliwack Indian Hospital - Luck-a-Kuck Cr ,• .. Ft'aser "live!;'

6. Control of "Swimmers Itch i1 Copper sulphate & coppep capbonate:- Cultus Lake 7., Benzene hexachloride helicopter spraying p "ogram 1'0" Amb rosl. a beetle control - G o"lichsn TJske 8. Benzene hexachlot'ide hand sppaying pt'ogpsm fa" Ambrosia beetle con- tpol - Go'')ichan Lake 9. Benzene hexachlot'ide hand spraying program for Ambrosia beetle con­ trol Tahsis Inlet

10. D.D.T. spraying program for mosquito control (assessment ;>t'ogram) 7' L01..1er Fraser Valley 11. D .D.T., sp,raying pt'ogram for cont:rol of Black-headed bud"orm '- North Moresby Island 12. Experimental program for assessment of effects of treating floating log booms 'oTi th benzene hexachloride 13. Experimental program for assessment of effects on fish of oil emulsions of Bacillus ThuPingiensis D;D. T. sppayi ng fat' contpol of Saddle.., 'baoked looper - Kitimat (1960) B. Inseotioide,~Her·bioide Contl'ol (Continued)

D .D,.T" spraying for c antral of hem­ look looper - Stanley Park (1959) 2~4D spraying for oOntrol of oom­ peting species of trees - C ourtE'may, Nanaimo Lakes,. C owichan Lake" San Juan Biver 17,. Sodium Arsenite foro antral of Marine borers (1960) ,- 111 orb urn Lumber, Call Creek, Beoher Bay, Crofton, Bull Harbour., Sterling Shipyat'ds, Johnson Export .• 18" Sodium arsenite for control of M;'Irine bore rs - The odosia AX'm.. BuX'rard Dr·ydoc k" .:iluX'ra.t'd In l<;)t. Blackball Ferry dook, Earl Cove (2) Teakerne .Arm.. 1\lorHood Lumber, Burrard Inlet (2).B. C~ Forest Produots, Crofton. Blaokball Ferry, Horse­ shoe Bay. Blackball FerX'yLangdale. Arnott·· Smith Lumber,Bu!'J:>ard Inlet. Moore-1rJhittington Lumber, Sooke Bay. Viking Timber., Burrard Inlet. Massett Inlet .• 19 .• D .D.'r. for oontt'ol of saddle­ baoked looper - Kitimat (1961) 20 .• Assessment p~ogram saddle-backed looper spraying - Kitimat (1961) 21. D.D.T. for oontrol of pine butterfly- Cameron Biver (1961) 22. Assessment program, pine butterfly spraying - Cameron River (1961) 23. 2 .. 4D spraying for cont:?ol of compet- Nanaimo River ing speoies of trees - Tsolum River, Cowiohan Lake Tributaries, Nitinat RiveX', Exstew Slough, Benzene hexachloride spraying for Control of Ambrosia Beetles - Comox Lake, ~anaimo Lakes, C01.richan Lake Tahsis Inlet 25. Assessment of effects of Benzene Hexaohloride spraying - Comox Lake, Nanaimo Lakes, C01l-richan Lake 26. Copper sulphate treatment of CultuB Lake for SHimmel'S Itch control - Cultul! Lake C. Mine ..Mil1 1rJastes

1. Yreka Mine - Neroutsos Inlet 2. Rexspar Uranium Mine - ~orth Thompson Biver 3. United Keno Hill Mill - McQuesten Biver, Y.T. - 5 - C. Mine-Mill 1rJastes (Continued) 4. Mackeno Mine - McQ,uesten "liver, Y,'T', 5. Mannix Mining Co. Ltd. - Be1"son Biver, Alice Lake Northern Vancouver Island 6. CO'Nichan Copper - COr,richan Lake, Vancouver Ie. 7. Nimpkish I~on Mine - lITimpkish Ri vel", Horthe.rn Vancouver Island 8. International I~on Mine - Zeballor,l, Vane :'uver Islafld 9. Giant Hickel M:Lnes - Texas C~eek, Hope, B. C. 10. Birkett C~eek Mine Operato~s - Nicola "liver 11. NOranda I~on M!ne - D~S1N C~eek 12. Coast Copper Mine - Benso" "liver 13. Bethlehem Copper Mine - No-name Lake D. Pulp-Mill 1,Tastes

1. Port Alice Pulp Mill Expansion - Neroutsos Inlet 2. Elk Falls Pulp Mill Expansion - Duncan Bay 3. C~ofton Pulp Mill - Osb OY>" Bay 4. Albe~ni Pulp Mill Expansion (1957) - I\lbe~ni IYllet 5. Columbia Cellulose - Prince Rupert 6. MacMillan, Bloedel, P01Nell River Co. (Expansion 1961) - Alberni 7. Rayonier Canada Ltd - 1,Toodfibre

E. Oil Befinery ',Tastes

1. Boyalite Oil Befinery - Kamloops 2. B. A. Oil Befinery - BU~~8.rd Inlet 3. Impe~ial Oil Befinery - Burrard Inlet ~.. She 11 Oil Be fl ne ry - Burraro Inlet 5. Standard Oil Befinery - Burrard Inlet

F. Chemical Plant ~astes

1. Lafarge Cement Co. - Fr'aser River 2. MOnsantoChemical Co. - F1"aser Rl.ver 3. "leiohold Chemical Co. - BU1"rard I"let 4. Green Valley Fert'.l~zer & Chemical Co. - Serpentine Piver 5. Heoker Chemical Co. - BUl"raro Inlet 6. P01Nell "liver Company 1<'1ne PapeY' Mill - Annacis Island, Fraser Hiver

7. DOr,J Chemical Company - Ft'8ser Rive~ G. ManufactUY'lng and J11scellaneous

1. Sidney Boofing Co. - Fraser' "liver 2. PaCific Elevato~s Ltd - BUl"ra~d Inlet Northwest Forest Products - F1"aser "liver a: Cro'Nn Zellerbach Box Plant - F1"aser "liver 5. Canadian ',Testern Pipe Hills - Burrard Inlet 6. Cariboo Brewing Company. Pri nce Ge orge - Fraser l1iver' - 6 - G. Manufactut'ing an.d Miscellaneous (Continued)

7. Alaska Pine ~ayflo Plant - FY>asel" 'l.iver 8. Aylmer Foods Pl"ocessing Plant - OkAnagaD 8iver 9. 1,Testel"n Gypsum Products Plant - FY>aser 'liver 10. Timber Management Ltd. Board Plant - Fraser 'liver 11. 1,,Testern Copper Mills - Fraser l1iver 12. Fairmont Plat·.ng - Fraser Rivet' 13. Glaco Plant - Fl'asel" 'liveY> 14· National HarbouY>s Board GY>ain Elevators - BUl"l'ard Inlet 15. Aboo Manufacturing (electroplating) - Vancouver, B. C. 16. Hudson Plating (electroplating) - Vancouver, B. C. 17. Canadian Park and Tilford (di sti 11ery) - North Vancouver', B. C. 18. Federated Cooperatives Ltd. (sal"dust) - , B. C. 19. Scott-Foster Limited (acetylene wastes) - Burnaby, B C. 20. Liquid CarboniC, Canadian . Corporation Limited (acetylene wastes) - BUrnaby, B. C. 21. B. C. Coast Vegetable Coopera­ tive ASSOCiation - Richmond, B. C. 22. Legace Creek (chlorine, sl"imm- ing pool) - Fr>aser Valley, B. C. 23. POl"ell River Company (Fine paper mill) - Fraser Biver 24. Caribou Meat Packing - Richmond, B. C. 25. Schlage Lock Company - Vanoouver, B. C. 26. B. C. Bumper Platers - Burrard Inlet 27. United Industrial Plating - BuY>rard Inlet 28. Oxo-Li te Plastic Products - BUr>naby, B. C.

U. 1,TATE'l SUPPLY PRO,TECTS

1. Capilano BiveY> - Greater> Va"lcouver 1,lateY> District 2. C01"ichan River ',TeiY> & Intake - CroftOn Pulp Mill Supply C o1,richan River IYltake - City of Duncan ',Tater Supply G: SpY>oat Lake 1,TeLr and Intake - Alberni pulp Mill Supply. 5. Great CentY>al Lake Dam - Alberni Pulp Mill Dilution '\later 6. Kloiyah Siver - Columbia Cellulose Supply. 7. Manaimo Biver - Harmac Pulp Mill SUpply. 8. Campbell Biver - Elk Falls Pulp Mill Supply. 9. - 1.Tatel" Supply - HOlNe Sound Pulp & Paper - POrt Mellot) 10. Kitimat 'liver - Alcan Mill Supply 11. Haslam Lake - ',Tatel" Supply fOr Co"poratlon of POl,rell 'liver. 12. ThompsoD Rive)" - "Tatel" Supply foY> "oyali te 'lef:nery and ~estcoast Transmission 1;3 , BUl"raY>d Inlet - Cooling 1,latel" Supply fol" Hookel" Chemical Co. 14· Seymour l:l.iveY> - ',TateY> Supply fol" GY>eatsl" VaYlcouver 1,Tater Distriot 15. Thompson 8iveY> - B" C. Fl'uitlands IrY>igatioY) & Domestic Supply. 16. - Village of Chase Water> Supply 17. Somass Bivel" - CIty of Alberni 1,rateY> supply. - 7 - IV. "JATEB SUPPLY pqOJECTS (Continued)

18. RalDY Rive~ - B. C. Fo~est P~oducts Ltd, 19. F~ase~ River - Powell River Company (now MacMillan, Bloedel and Powell Rive~ Company). . 20. Fras8~ River - Dow Chemical Company of Canada Ltd. 21. ¥orth Thompson Biver - Village of ¥orth Kamloops. 22. Shawatlans Lake - C1 ty of Prince Rupert. 23. F~asep Bive~ - Csnadian Forest Products Ltd. (Eburns). 24. Gold Biver - Tahsis Co. Ltd. Pulp Mill "Iata~ supply. 25. Tsabla River - Canadian Coll18r1e8 Besources Ltd, Pulp Mill '~ater supply. 26. Toquart River - woranda Mlnes Industrial and domestic supply

V. 1::1ISCE.LLJlNEOUS PROJECTS (Biver C~oss1ngs, Storage & Diversion) 1. Fraser Biver and tributaries - I/Jestcoast Transmission lITatural Gas Pipeilne. 2. Fraser Biver and t~ibutaries - Trans Mountain Oil Pipeline. 3. Yukon Territory - Haines-Fairbanks Oil Products Pipeline. 4. Fraser Bive~ and tributaries - Va~ious Placer Gold lesses. 5. Irrigation Projects throughout B. C. 6. Gravel removal from spaloming grounds at var ous locatlons in B, c. 7. Highway culverts and bridge construction throughout B. C. 8. Coastal Waters - Seismic explorations of variOUS oil companies. 9. Georgia Strait - Laying of unde~IN8ter telephone and DO,·ler lines. 10. Frase~ R.ivep and t~ibuta"ies - ',Test8~n Pacific Products and C~ude Oil Pipelines Ltd. oil pipeliYl8 ft>om Taylor to Kamloops. £l:p.~!1 d J.:..x--.1..!. MAJOR FISH PHOTECTIVE FACILITIES IN D. C. AND YUKON ---TA ll--Ins:t aTTe;:rEriTIrefy---a-i:-12"xj:Jerl-s e--of-OwI1err- Location Facility Owner Approximate Co§t CapUano Barrier, Trap·· Greater Vancouver ping & Trucking Water District $ 290,000 Yukon Barrier Dam & Northern Canada Fishway Power Commission 875,000 Seton Creek Fishway B. C. Electric 150,000 Kloiyah Dam Fishway & Screen Columbia Cellulose 100;000 Jones Creek ArtiHcial Spawning Channel B. C. Electric 130,000 - Burrard Thermal Plant Mechanical Screens B. C. Electric 300,000 Port Milnn Thermal Plant Fixed Screens B. C. Electric 100,000 Crofton Pulp Mill Effluent Pipe B. C. Forest Line Products 500,000 Great Central Lake Dams and Fishway MacMillan, Bloedel & Powell River Ltd. 800,000 Sproat Lake Mechanical - MacMillan, Bloedel Screens & Powell River Ltd. 150,000 Cowichan River Control Weir & B. C. Forest Mechanical Products Screen 250,000

Nanaimo River Lake storage & MacMillan, Bloedel Fixed Screen & Powell River Ltd. 200,000 Campbell River Mech. Screens Elk Falls Co. 100 ,000 Rainy River Fishway & Screen Howe Sound Pulp and Paper 25,000 ·F.raser River Effluent Treatment Plant Dow Chemical Co. 185,000 Fraser River Intake Screens MacMillan, Bloedel & Effluent & Powell River Ltd. Treatment 50,000 Toquart River Intake Screens Noranda Mines Ltd. 10,000 Okanagilo River Drop Structurel Okanagan Flood for Fish Passage Control Project 100,000 Appendix 3.

SPRING SALMON CATCH AND ESCAPEMENT FOR B. C. 1953-1960

Year Total B.C. Catch* . Total B.C. Escapement Elatio (Thousands of fish) (thousands_ of fish) Catch/Escapement 1953 1066 269 4.0:1 1954 919 263 3.5:1 1955 926 231 4.0:1 1956 1047 237 4.4:1 1957 1032 218 4.7:1 1958 1158 262 4.4:1 1959 1014 287 3.5:1 1960 787 158 5.0:1 *Commercial plus Sport Catch Average 4.2:1 Appendix 4.

SUMMARY OF COSTS TO DEPARTMENT OF THE PUNTLEDGE RIVER INVESTIGATIONS

Year Permanent Cost of Casual Expenditures ·Total Staff Ix'avel & Labour on Salaries & VehiCles Experiments, Overhead Survey gear, etco 1953 $ 9,000 $ 800 $ $ $ 9,800 1954 18,000 1,300 600 19,900 1955 30,200 3,800 2,500 36,500 1956 23,800 2,600 1,500 27,900 1957 30,200 6,500 2,100 17,800 56,600 1958 41,000 6,500 1,800 12,200 61,500 1959 30,000 3,000 900 8,200 42,100 1960 10,600 700 1,300 12,600 1961 4,200 300 4,500 Jan. Feb.

1962 7;400 l. 7,400 Total 1953-62 $204,400 $25,500 $4,800 $44,100 $278,SOO = !

Appendix 5.

~. FISH F'ACn,I~~,

J..ocation Capital Cost Cnpi'Cal Cost Percent Year p;quivalent __u. ___ .• ______Escapement · _____ CHpital Cost J<:qlli valent cf Hydro of Fish of CanstI' In Presont Day per Spring C()[;t for Projects Facilities Pro jed Cost nsh Spring Ot.her gqlliv. No~ of Salmon Puntlcdf(e Cof'l'~S Facilities Salmon Speciel3 Spring Sal'noll (3063 f hIll) (by F;hlIL CoaL by wei.ght Index)

Columbia River Damel BonnevU1e, McNary, John Day, The Ds,lles, Ice Harbour, PX'ie16t 100,000 sockeye Rapids, Pock Island, Rocky Reach . 1,597,000,000 121,650,000 Various 121,650,0()() 400,000 11,0,000 stho 51, 0 ,000 6')0,000

Mud Mountain Dam, 2,555 coho

White River Unlmown 194,000 1%3 536,000 ~18 302 sthd 1,844 29] S90,UOO

Me rwin Darr, ,

Lewis River Unknown 270,000 1940 934,000 1,000 h ,000 coho 3,000 3D 955,000 Baker River f' ,1,.00 coho

(Upper & Lower) Unknown 2,2.50,000 2,250,000 100 1,900 Bockeye 5,150 1,340,000

1,.0 :!;thd

Carmen Smith,

MacKenzie Hiver 153,000 15.3,000 200 200 765 2.345,000

North Fork of 1,500 athd

ClackanlU6 Hiver 17,500,000 3,550,000 20.3% 3,550,000 400 1,500 coho :3,000 1,160 3,570,000

Pelton Pro ject,

Deschutes River 20,575,000 5,017,000 5,017,000 600 soc sthd 1,200 4,220

Totals 133,084.000 l3h,090,OOO 554/394

Averages 8. % 21,.2, 740,OCO £I !?'pend ix 6 •.

CANADIAN l'IOH f'ACILITBS . -

Location Capi"Clll Cost Ca pital Co st Percent Year .&ju1 valent Escapeliloot Cspit8.1 Cost Equivalent of Hydro of Fish of Constr 'n Pr"serr~ Day ._-- per Spring Cost for Projects Facilities Project Cost l'ish Spring Other E

Sairrt John Hiver, N. B. 7,581,.,000 259,000 3.4% 1950 MO,OOO 2500 Atlantic 2,500 176 5[,0,000 salmon (Equiv. OOll'e no. spring salmon)

Cleveland Dror, 3~00 coho

Capilano IJ.iver Unknown 292,000 1954 1,00,000 120 athd 1,'/80 224 690,000

Whitehorse Rapids Unknown nOB. Power Pro ject, grayling, eiBcoes, lal(s Yukon Illver 7,200,000 875,000 12.1% 1959 930,000 1,050 trout, etc. 2,100 M2 1,310,000 (Allow equiv, of No, of' epring salmon) .. ' '. ----_. Totall! 1,h26,oOO 1,770,000 6,380

Averages 7.7% 27$ 850,000