Several members of the CRFPO administrative team recently attended a three day training session in Portland on the new Financial and Business Management System (FBMS) that is scheduled to go live in the Fish and Wildlife Service on Nov. 7th. All Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies are expected to be using FBMS by fiscal year 2013. So far, the U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Land Management and the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement are the three DOI agencies that have migrated to this new system. FBMS will replace many of the systems we currently use to perform administrative functions involving procurement, property, grants and agreements and government charge cards.
The purpose of FBMS is to integrate and streamline how administrative functions are performed among all DOI agencies. It is expected that once FMBS has been deployed among all agencies, the need for more than 80 DOI systems will be eliminated. The overview provided underscores how sweeping the changes will be. Much of the terminology we are familiar with in the administrative arena will go away. Organizational codes will be replaced by fund/cost centers. The job number and ABC code on a project will be called a Work Breakdown Structure in FBMS. Also, what is now referred to as BOC (Budget Object Code) will be termed a General Ledger/Account Commitment Item. It will be much like learning a new language.
Apart from the administrative team, I think learning the new components of job cost structures will be the most challenging adjustment for CRFPO staff. The Quicktime and GovTrip systems will largely be unaffected by the move to FBMS. The job cost structures that get entered into these systems will be the most noticeable change. Employees will be able to use their government charge cards for purchases as they do now and acquisitions will still need to be completed. How personnel actions are processed will not change with the move to FBMS. Soon, FBMS roles for administrative team members will be designated. In the fall of 2011, more role specific training will be provided. As we learn more about FBMS, the administrative team will work with CRFPO staff to make the transition to FBMS as smooth as possible.
Submitted by Larry Fishler
Monday, April 18, 2011
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Lamprey Ladder Tours
Fish ladders - most people in the Northwest that even know a little bit about salmon know that many dams have fish ladders - allowing adult fish returning upriver to navigate up and over the hydropower dams along the Columbia River. These ladders have been specifically designed to help salmon migrate with highest success and survival, in the shortest amount of time. What they have not been designed for is Pacific lamprey passage.
This winter staff from the CRFPO including myself, Dave Wills, Christina Luzier, Greg Silver, and Howard Schaller all participated in a tour of all of the ladders on the hydrosystem. Some of us only visited a few while Dave Wills was a die-hard and visited every single ladder – most of them in the span of just a few weeks. Many of the ladders had been drained of water, an annual event that allows dam personnel to do routine maintenance. We were able to walk through them and get a fish’s perspective. We were guided by project biologists, engineers, and other fishery researchers, and learned how water is delivered through the different ladders. We learned about things like diffusers and hydraulic head pressure. We learned about known and perceived problem areas for adult Pacific lamprey passage.
Let’s back up. Pacific lampreys, like salmon, lay their eggs in fresh water. The young rear for several years in the fresh water and then migrate to the ocean. After one to three years in the ocean they mature and return to spawn in a freshwater river. Lampreys, however, do have some striking differences from salmon that make it harder for them to navigate the ladders. Pacific lamprey, Entosphenus tridentatus, is an ancient fish species that has a cartilage skeleton instead of bones. They may reach lengths of about 30 inches and weigh about one pound. They don’t swim as well as salmon and only a low percentage of fish make it past each dam. A previous study estimated that perhaps only 50% of lampreys that encounter a dam successfully pass it. This becomes a problem when you consider the 8 potential dams that lamprey will encounter during their migration from the Pacific Ocean to the Snake River and beyond. For example, only 15 adult lampreys were counted at Lower Granite Dam (the highest dam on the Snake River system with fish passage) in 2010 – only 2 were counted passing Wells Dam on the Upper Columbia! They don’t have the strong muscles that salmon do and rely on an undulatory swimming motion (sort of like a snake) which just isn’t as efficient. So when it comes to pure water velocity they can’t make it through very fast water without needing a break. Resting and attachment areas (you may have seen lamprey attached to the glass at the dam viewing windows) are needed to keep from getting swept back downstream. So things like roughened bottom surfaces may help break the current and also provide protected places for them to rest. Rounded corners are much better than 90ocorners. Lampreys have a very difficult time in fast velocities negotiating over or around a sharp 90° corner. Diffuser grates with smaller openings prevent lamprey from squeezing through and getting lost in dead-end portions of the dam.
A big challenge to ladder improvements is that changes cannot be made that impede salmon passage. Many of the wild stocks of salmon in the Columbia River Basin are threatened or endangered and are thereby protected by the Endangered Species Act. We walked through these ladders with an eye toward improvements that may be made to help lamprey pass. For example, a simple fix being installed at the Washington shore ladder at Bonneville Dam was a piece of sheet metal to create a sort of ramp over a small concrete ledge.
The goal of the ladder tours is ultimately to work with the Corps of Engineers and develop a database of problem areas, ladder by ladder, and proposed fixes. Some fixes could be relatively cheap, others could have high costs. All of these factors will be input into a prioritization exercise and hopefully a systematic approach can be taken to start to address these fixes.
Beyond the Pacific lamprey’s intrinsic value as a unique aquatic species, these fish have been, and continue to be, an important fish, culturally and as a valued food source, for the native peoples in the Columbia and Snake River basins and a vital component of the aquatic ecosystem.
Newly installed sheet metal ramp to guide lamprey over a 90° concrete lip at the Washington shore ladder at Bonneville Dam.
Part of the newly completed John Day North ladder showing the rounded corners designed to help lamprey pass the vertical slot and weir portion of the ladder.
Junction pool corner and beginning of the weir portion of the Washington shore ladder at Bonneville. The junction pool with its diffusers, complex hydraulics, and density of sturgeon, is a known problematic area for lampreys.
The de-watered John Day south ladder. Lampreys have a long climb, but orifice openings are chamfered, which is easier for lamprey to pass than through a square cornered opening.
Submitted by Jeff Jolley.
This winter staff from the CRFPO including myself, Dave Wills, Christina Luzier, Greg Silver, and Howard Schaller all participated in a tour of all of the ladders on the hydrosystem. Some of us only visited a few while Dave Wills was a die-hard and visited every single ladder – most of them in the span of just a few weeks. Many of the ladders had been drained of water, an annual event that allows dam personnel to do routine maintenance. We were able to walk through them and get a fish’s perspective. We were guided by project biologists, engineers, and other fishery researchers, and learned how water is delivered through the different ladders. We learned about things like diffusers and hydraulic head pressure. We learned about known and perceived problem areas for adult Pacific lamprey passage.
Let’s back up. Pacific lampreys, like salmon, lay their eggs in fresh water. The young rear for several years in the fresh water and then migrate to the ocean. After one to three years in the ocean they mature and return to spawn in a freshwater river. Lampreys, however, do have some striking differences from salmon that make it harder for them to navigate the ladders. Pacific lamprey, Entosphenus tridentatus, is an ancient fish species that has a cartilage skeleton instead of bones. They may reach lengths of about 30 inches and weigh about one pound. They don’t swim as well as salmon and only a low percentage of fish make it past each dam. A previous study estimated that perhaps only 50% of lampreys that encounter a dam successfully pass it. This becomes a problem when you consider the 8 potential dams that lamprey will encounter during their migration from the Pacific Ocean to the Snake River and beyond. For example, only 15 adult lampreys were counted at Lower Granite Dam (the highest dam on the Snake River system with fish passage) in 2010 – only 2 were counted passing Wells Dam on the Upper Columbia! They don’t have the strong muscles that salmon do and rely on an undulatory swimming motion (sort of like a snake) which just isn’t as efficient. So when it comes to pure water velocity they can’t make it through very fast water without needing a break. Resting and attachment areas (you may have seen lamprey attached to the glass at the dam viewing windows) are needed to keep from getting swept back downstream. So things like roughened bottom surfaces may help break the current and also provide protected places for them to rest. Rounded corners are much better than 90ocorners. Lampreys have a very difficult time in fast velocities negotiating over or around a sharp 90° corner. Diffuser grates with smaller openings prevent lamprey from squeezing through and getting lost in dead-end portions of the dam.
A big challenge to ladder improvements is that changes cannot be made that impede salmon passage. Many of the wild stocks of salmon in the Columbia River Basin are threatened or endangered and are thereby protected by the Endangered Species Act. We walked through these ladders with an eye toward improvements that may be made to help lamprey pass. For example, a simple fix being installed at the Washington shore ladder at Bonneville Dam was a piece of sheet metal to create a sort of ramp over a small concrete ledge.
The goal of the ladder tours is ultimately to work with the Corps of Engineers and develop a database of problem areas, ladder by ladder, and proposed fixes. Some fixes could be relatively cheap, others could have high costs. All of these factors will be input into a prioritization exercise and hopefully a systematic approach can be taken to start to address these fixes.
Beyond the Pacific lamprey’s intrinsic value as a unique aquatic species, these fish have been, and continue to be, an important fish, culturally and as a valued food source, for the native peoples in the Columbia and Snake River basins and a vital component of the aquatic ecosystem.
Newly installed sheet metal ramp to guide lamprey over a 90° concrete lip at the Washington shore ladder at Bonneville Dam.
Part of the newly completed John Day North ladder showing the rounded corners designed to help lamprey pass the vertical slot and weir portion of the ladder.
Junction pool corner and beginning of the weir portion of the Washington shore ladder at Bonneville. The junction pool with its diffusers, complex hydraulics, and density of sturgeon, is a known problematic area for lampreys.
The de-watered John Day south ladder. Lampreys have a long climb, but orifice openings are chamfered, which is easier for lamprey to pass than through a square cornered opening.
Submitted by Jeff Jolley.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Oregon Chapter- American Fisheries Society
The Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society (ORAFS)was established in 1964 and is composed of over 400 fisheries and aquatic science professionals from federal, state, and tribal agencies, colleges and universities, private employers, students, and retired professionals of fisheries and aquatic science fields. Its mission is to improve the conservation and sustainability of Oregon fishery resources and their aquatic ecosystems by advancing science, education and public discourse concerning fisheries and aquatic science.
In February, I had the opportunity to attend the 2011 ORAFS Annual Meeting in Bend, OR. The meeting included a wide variety of opportunities for sharing technical expertise, ideas, results of research, and abundant networking opportunities. The plenary speaker was Dr. Don Chapman who has 55 years of fisheries experience. There were technical sessions that covered topics such as Marine Fishery Reserves, Fish Physiology, Salmonid Life History Investigations, Fish Passage Issues, and Fish Reintroduction Research. Networking activities included a student-mentor mixer, a banquet, and an auction/raffle (I co-chaired the raffle and auction this year and spent the last few months contacting donors, acquiring artwork, equipment, and fishing adventures). Another important role ORAFS plays is promoting the development of fisheries professionals. Student papers and posters were judged by fisheries professionals during the conference. Awards and scholarships were later presented to students recognizing their excellent work.
Submitted by Brook Silver.
In February, I had the opportunity to attend the 2011 ORAFS Annual Meeting in Bend, OR. The meeting included a wide variety of opportunities for sharing technical expertise, ideas, results of research, and abundant networking opportunities. The plenary speaker was Dr. Don Chapman who has 55 years of fisheries experience. There were technical sessions that covered topics such as Marine Fishery Reserves, Fish Physiology, Salmonid Life History Investigations, Fish Passage Issues, and Fish Reintroduction Research. Networking activities included a student-mentor mixer, a banquet, and an auction/raffle (I co-chaired the raffle and auction this year and spent the last few months contacting donors, acquiring artwork, equipment, and fishing adventures). Another important role ORAFS plays is promoting the development of fisheries professionals. Student papers and posters were judged by fisheries professionals during the conference. Awards and scholarships were later presented to students recognizing their excellent work.
Submitted by Brook Silver.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Winter Fish Sampling - Not the Warmest of Jobs
As I trudge through about 6 inches of fresh snow in the dark I wonder what the day holds. Most college students are still in their beds at their homes or some tropical place, but not me. I am awake before the sun, before most people in our town. Not because I don’t want to be in my warm bed but because I have fish to set free. I am one of seven STEP students hired by the CRFPO biologists to sample the screwtrap in the lower Walla Walla River with the hopes of catching bull trout to tag so we can monitor their movements out into the Columbia River.
After a few blocks the sun starts to peak over the horizon and I reach the science building at Walla Walla University and head down to the basement hoping that the waders and boots are dry and don’t smell too bad. Carrying my equipment I head out to a snow covered vehicle. After a few minutes of getting a ton of snow off the windows and using the defroster, I discover that I may not be adequately dressed for the weather. Our normal thirty minute drive now takes about forty minutes in four wheel drive on a snow covered road with other drivers who seem to have never seen snow in their lives.
Once on site and dressed in river appropriate gear, that was not dry and is quite rank, my partner and I encounter the ice laced winds that are sweeping across the RV park where the fish trap is located. Stomping through the snow in my boots seems to be difficult as the snow and mud stick to the metal on the bottom of the boots, eventually making me about 4 inches taller. Balancing on these new stilts is nothing compared to attempting to open the first of four frozen locks with my now frozen fingers.
Carrying the rest of our equipment to the river on the short trail seems magical with the fresh snow covering the bushes that line the trail, yet I still stumble on my stilts in unseen holes. We reach the river, its banks lined with ice, the trap spinning perfectly with water splashing to add to the icicles dripping from all parts of the cold metal of the trap. One of us cranks in the trap while the other preps the data sheet and buckets. The trap reaches the shore and we grab our equipment. We hope for two things as we enter the water: not to trip and get soaked, and for our waders to not have any holes in them. Fishing out sticks and debris seems to be the hardest as our fingers’ numbness tells us to save what movement we have left and not yet get our hands wet. The night before has produced so many fish that the water in the trap appears cloudy. To our amazement the catch turns out to be more than 200 fish. Identification starts with us immersing our hands in the ice cold water that is 2 degrees Celsius. After sampling the fish our fingers have turned blue. We must now push out the trap since flows have decreased with the cold temperature, and yes it takes both my partner and I to do it making me aware of muscles I did not know I had. Eventually we get back to the rig, we crank up the heat, get out of our wet clothes, and smack the snow off the bottom of our wading boots. Then we sit and thaw out before we head home to rest before turn around and do it all again that evening.
Over time our group developed a perfect system of working together for efficiency and we also discovered the perfect amount of clothing layers to wear- usually about 6or 7. We discovered the great benefit of thick snow gloves and our hands and bodies eventually became use to the cold and the water no longer phases us. The people working the fish trap have been brought together as a team and the experience has allowed me to see the beauty in the river and the many different species of fish that few people get to see in the cold winter months. It is more than just counting fish and recording data. It is working hard for a better future with the people here today and having fun while doing it.
Submitted by Rebecca Bullard
After a few blocks the sun starts to peak over the horizon and I reach the science building at Walla Walla University and head down to the basement hoping that the waders and boots are dry and don’t smell too bad. Carrying my equipment I head out to a snow covered vehicle. After a few minutes of getting a ton of snow off the windows and using the defroster, I discover that I may not be adequately dressed for the weather. Our normal thirty minute drive now takes about forty minutes in four wheel drive on a snow covered road with other drivers who seem to have never seen snow in their lives.
Once on site and dressed in river appropriate gear, that was not dry and is quite rank, my partner and I encounter the ice laced winds that are sweeping across the RV park where the fish trap is located. Stomping through the snow in my boots seems to be difficult as the snow and mud stick to the metal on the bottom of the boots, eventually making me about 4 inches taller. Balancing on these new stilts is nothing compared to attempting to open the first of four frozen locks with my now frozen fingers.
Carrying the rest of our equipment to the river on the short trail seems magical with the fresh snow covering the bushes that line the trail, yet I still stumble on my stilts in unseen holes. We reach the river, its banks lined with ice, the trap spinning perfectly with water splashing to add to the icicles dripping from all parts of the cold metal of the trap. One of us cranks in the trap while the other preps the data sheet and buckets. The trap reaches the shore and we grab our equipment. We hope for two things as we enter the water: not to trip and get soaked, and for our waders to not have any holes in them. Fishing out sticks and debris seems to be the hardest as our fingers’ numbness tells us to save what movement we have left and not yet get our hands wet. The night before has produced so many fish that the water in the trap appears cloudy. To our amazement the catch turns out to be more than 200 fish. Identification starts with us immersing our hands in the ice cold water that is 2 degrees Celsius. After sampling the fish our fingers have turned blue. We must now push out the trap since flows have decreased with the cold temperature, and yes it takes both my partner and I to do it making me aware of muscles I did not know I had. Eventually we get back to the rig, we crank up the heat, get out of our wet clothes, and smack the snow off the bottom of our wading boots. Then we sit and thaw out before we head home to rest before turn around and do it all again that evening.
Over time our group developed a perfect system of working together for efficiency and we also discovered the perfect amount of clothing layers to wear- usually about 6or 7. We discovered the great benefit of thick snow gloves and our hands and bodies eventually became use to the cold and the water no longer phases us. The people working the fish trap have been brought together as a team and the experience has allowed me to see the beauty in the river and the many different species of fish that few people get to see in the cold winter months. It is more than just counting fish and recording data. It is working hard for a better future with the people here today and having fun while doing it.
Submitted by Rebecca Bullard
Monday, February 7, 2011
USFWS Presents Its “Mitchell Act Message” at the First Annual Mitchell Act Program Review Meeting
A number of Columbia River Fisheries Program Office staff attended and participated in a two-day conference at the Portland Double Tree Hotel on January 18 and 19, 2011 to highlight the efforts of the USFWS in conducting its Mitchell Act funded programs. The Mitchell Act was initiated in 1938 and is administered by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to provide fishery mitigation for Columbia River Basin development, especially hydro-system development, and to help conserve Columbia River salmon and steelhead resources. The Mitchell Act program provides funding in three major program areas: hatchery operations; fish screens and fish ways; and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and hatchery reform. The funding, although administered by NMFS, is distributed to Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Yakama Nation, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the USFWS to implement program actions.
The two-day conference on January 18 and 19 was billed as the first annual meeting program review, at least first in recent history, to provide Mitchell Act operators the opportunity to highlight their programs and explain how the Mitchell Act funding they receive is being used to address the goals and objectives of the program. The conference was attended by 80 - 100 agency and tribal staff representatives and presenters and by interested public. NMFS hosted the conference and indicated their desire to make this an annual event for the future that can be used to help set and reshape program direction and help give guidance for future funding decisions for the Mitchell Act program.
A common theme by all agency and tribal representatives that gave presentations was that the Mitchell Act program is a very important program that provides substantial fishing opportunity and fishery benefits to the Pacific Northwest region, as well as fish conservation benefits in the Columbia River Basin. However, there was broad recognition that limited funding has definitely strained the ability of the program to continue to provide these critical benefits. Flat funding since the mid-1990s, reduced buying power for current funding, escalating costs for current program activities, and a whole new set of Endangered Species Act (ESA) driven fishery and hatchery management constraints and costs have definitely taken their toll on program implementation. Program operators have responded by cutting and/or reducing Mitchell Act hatchery production programs in some instances, seeking alternate and/or cost share funding, and prioritizing activities that are most critical to program implementation and program results.
The USFWS made five presentations on the second day of the conference that highlighted its Mitchell Act programs and allowed the Service to “tell its Mitchell Act story”. These five presentations included 1) a general but comprehensive overview of its Mitchell Act hatchery production program, baseline M&E program, fish health program, Abernathy Fish Technology Center (AFTC) program, and newly expanded M&E and hatchery reform program, 2) a focused fish marking, tagging, and bio-sampling program presentation, 3) a focused fish health program presentation, 4) a presentation on recent Eagle Creek winter steelhead and coho ecological interaction studies, and 5) a presentation on recent Gorge area fall Chinook investigations and pre-Condit Dam removal activities in the Big White salmon River. All of these presentations were applauded for their high quality and vivid demonstration of the critical benefits that these USFWS Mitchell Act production programs and M&E programs bring to the Pacific Northwest region for sustainable fisheries and fish conservation.
The USFWS acknowledges the critical nature of the Mitchell Act production program to meeting tribal trust responsibilities; honoring the current 2008-2017 U.S. v. Oregon Management Agreement; meeting Pacific Salmon Treaty production expectations; and meeting other social, economic, and cultural needs and thus has done all that it can within overall budget constraints to maintain these important programs. The USFWS has also been very proactive to implement a number of fish conservation and hatchery reform actions and to expand its M&E programs for its Mitchell Act funded facilities as recommended by recent Hatchery and Scientific Review Group (HSRG) and Hatchery Review Team (HRT) reviews. The challenge is to manage our programs in such a way that they continue to provide the fishery benefits anticipated under the original purpose of the Mitchell Act program while also addressing other biological and legal management constraints on our management actions such as ESA compliance and implementation of hatchery biological opinion terms and conditions.
The USFWS is very proud of its Mitchell Act program efforts and believes its program can best be described as: Quality Stewardship Mitigation for the 21st Century. The USFWS continues to work together with its Columbia River co-manager partners to improve the overall Mitchell Act program and thereby provide the benefits anticipated and honor its promise to the Columbia River Tribes and the American public for continued harvest opportunity, even in the midst of very significant funding and ESA listing and recovery challenges. All of the USFWS powerpoint presentations and those by other agency and tribal presenters will soon be available for viewing at the NMFS webpage for their Mitchell Act program: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/Salmon-Harvest-Hatcheries/Hatcheries/MA-prgrm.cfm which is currently being restructured. Readers are encouraged to link to this webpage for further information on the Mitchell Act program and its benefits to the Pacific Northwest region.
Submitted by: Tim W. Roth
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Hiking Along the SF Walla Walla River
We left before dawn on Wednesday morning. After a nearly 4 hour drive, we arrived at the first PIT tag antenna site. The first thing we saw, were a couple of the antennas tied up close to the bank. High flows had occurred throughout the state that past weekend, causing damage and flooding in many areas. The antennas appeared undamaged but were definitely out of place. Courtney quickly loaded updates to the computer and downloaded the PIT tag information onto her thumbdrive. We did this throughout the day, one site to the next. That was the easy day.
After a night in the hotel, we rose once again before dawn, packed up our gear, and headed out to visit a remote site located along the SF Walla Walla River. We knew the hike in was about 4 miles but we didn’t know how much snow or ice would be covering the trail. It was uncertain whether we could even make it to the site safely. There was about an inch of snow at the trailhead, so we donned layers of clothes and loaded up our packs with snowshoes, yaktrax for icy conditions, and an ice axe, in addition to the essentials needed to maintain the site as well as plenty of snacks. George, the gentleman who helps us maintain this site, estimated that it would take a good 2½ to 3 hours to get to our destination.
About 15 minutes into the hike, we soon figured that we would probably not need the snow shoes so we hid them behind some trees, hoping that we were right in our assumption. The trail had patches of ice and snow and was bare under some of the trees. Soon we decided the ice axe could stay behind as well.
Onward we went. The first neat thing we saw were some tracks. Not just any tracks though. These appeared to be Big Dog tracks or wolf. Seeing that there were no human prints around, we think they were wolf tracks. Wolf have been spotted just 70 miles from where we were so it was not too far fetched to believe that these were indeed the tracks of wolves. That was exciting for me. We followed the tracks for some time and I was happy that we were following the animal who was making the tracks and not the other way around.
At one point, we detected a rancid, decaying odor. As it got stronger, we looked off the trail towards the river and saw an elk carcass covered with tree limbs and twigs. It couldn’t have been more than 10 meters off the trail. Could this animal have been cached by a cougar? We did not have the answer to that but we were a bit spooked and hurried on our way.
The only live animals we saw were a grouse which we flushed out of some trees and the elk and deer feeding on the steep hills above the canyon. At one point, I caught a glimpse of a brownish mammal scurrying into the trees above the trail. It could have been a rabbit I suppose.
The hike up to the site was gorgeous with the snow covered trees and hillsides and river down below. We arrived at the site and once again, Courtney did her thing. I was very impressed with the equipment running this site. A small trailer housed the PIT tag detector, batteries, and computer and whatever other electronics are needed. Solar panels were perched over the trailer along with a small satellite dish. There were also more than half of a dozen big propane tanks alongside the trailer. Wow!
I later learned that the solar panels will charge the batteries in sunny weather. In the event that they are not working, either in the winter months or extended periods of cloudy days, the propane automatically gets kicked on to take over the charging process. The batteries keep the PIT tag detector and computer running. Data is uploaded via the satellite dish at times. All of this high technology in the middle of nowhere!
After taking a few pictures, downloading data, we shut the site down since those antennas were destroyed with the high flows. We loaded up our gear and headed back down the trail.
We pushed on down the trail since we still had more sites to visit that day. We once again rushed by the site of the elk kill. I for one, did not want to be around if something came back to get a snack. When we reached the snowy part of the trail where we originally saw the wolf tracks, there were some new tracks. A few big cat tracks crossed the trail. Most likely a cougar. Further down the trail we saw smaller cat tracks, maybe those of a bobcat. In addition, there were raccoon and rabbit tracks. All very cool, indeed.
All in all, it was a very good day. Nearly 4 hours of steady hiking, beautiful scenery, and great company. I’d love to do it again.
For more information about this great project, click here.
Submitted by Donna Allard
Thursday, January 13, 2011
How Computers Help Us to Understand Mark Selective Fishing
Mark selective fishing is a strategy to protect endangered wild salmon and steelhead while allowing fishers to harvest abundant hatchery fish. The idea is to release unmarked wild fish and keep only hatchery fish marked with an adipose fin clip. Releasing unmarked wild fish is an easy concept to understand but estimating the impacts to the unmarked fish is a lot more complicated. There are infinite combinations of unmarked to marked ratios, size of mark selective fishery relative to non-selective fishery, and harvest rates, all of which affect the outcomes.
For problems that are too complicated to solve with a pencil and paper, we turn to computer models, just like forecasting the weather or the stock market, designing airplanes and bridges, you name it. For “what if” type of questions, a common technique is called Monte Carlo simulation because probabilities to a computer are not much different than a person throwing a dice. For our mark-selective fishing question, we add another technique where we track the fate of each and every fish in the fishery, all two hundred and fifty thousand of them.
Tell the computer to pick a fish at random. Is it marked or unmarked? Pick a fishery at random. If the fishery is non-selective, then flag the fish as caught. If the fishery is mark selective and the fish is marked, then flag the fish as caught. But if the fish is unmarked, then add one to the number of times the fish has been released. Not all fish survive being released because survival depends on where they were hooked and how they were handled. Pick another random number. If it is better than the odds, then the fish is still alive to be caught again. Otherwise, flag the fish as dead. Pick another fish at random until the catch quota has been achieved and add up the number of dead unmarked fish.
You have to repeat the procedure many times, until the average of all trials is stable. The result is an example of how we use computers to help us understand complex problems that are difficult to observe in the field or, in this case, under water.
Submitted by Henry Yuen
For problems that are too complicated to solve with a pencil and paper, we turn to computer models, just like forecasting the weather or the stock market, designing airplanes and bridges, you name it. For “what if” type of questions, a common technique is called Monte Carlo simulation because probabilities to a computer are not much different than a person throwing a dice. For our mark-selective fishing question, we add another technique where we track the fate of each and every fish in the fishery, all two hundred and fifty thousand of them.
Tell the computer to pick a fish at random. Is it marked or unmarked? Pick a fishery at random. If the fishery is non-selective, then flag the fish as caught. If the fishery is mark selective and the fish is marked, then flag the fish as caught. But if the fish is unmarked, then add one to the number of times the fish has been released. Not all fish survive being released because survival depends on where they were hooked and how they were handled. Pick another random number. If it is better than the odds, then the fish is still alive to be caught again. Otherwise, flag the fish as dead. Pick another fish at random until the catch quota has been achieved and add up the number of dead unmarked fish.
You have to repeat the procedure many times, until the average of all trials is stable. The result is an example of how we use computers to help us understand complex problems that are difficult to observe in the field or, in this case, under water.
Submitted by Henry Yuen
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)