Don’t Go Viral.

Viruses are everywhere…they can make us sick, they can be highly contagious, and some of them are downright dangerous.  Fish get sick from viruses, too!

What is a virus?  Viruses are very specialized biological entities and for years scientists have argued whether or not they are even organisms at all.  They do contain genetic material and evolve through natural selection and at the very least interact with living organisms and have probably been present on Earth since the origin of life.  They are basically bits of genetic material (DNA or RNA) coated in protein and/or lipids, are so small that they are able to get inside of the cells of a host organism and replicate.  The large majority of virus exposure prompts an immune response from the host which destroys them.  Common viruses are rabies, hepatitis, influenza, and even the common cold.  Some are more serious than others.  It is the viruses that persist that can cause some problems – they basically take control of cellular functions and all sorts of chaos ensues – usually ending poorly for the host.

Let’s get to the lampreys.   Why study lampreys and virus?  There have been plenty of fish viruses identified with some wonderfully creative names.  Some examples are largemouth bass virus, channel catfish virus, and carp herpes virus.  In the Pacific Northwest, infectious hematopoietic necrosis virus (IHNV) is a virus that attacks salmon and trout.  It causes hemorrhaging, necrosis (tissue death), and organ failure and is particularly harmful to young fish.  It has the potential to kill large numbers of fish if it spreads into a hatchery facility.  Viral hemorrhagic septicemia virus (VHSV) is another nasty that does some of the same things and has been attributed to mass die-offs of fish in the Great Lakes region.

So we’ve blogged about lampreys on here plenty of times and why they’re important.  We wanted to know if larval Pacific lampreys (the ammocoetes) are susceptible to some viruses that infect salmon of the Pacific Northwest.  And we wanted to know not only if they were susceptible but also if they could carry the virus, replicate it, and therefore potentially transmit it to other fish.  We began talking with Susan Gutenberger, one of our fish health expert colleagues at the Lower Columbia River Fish Health Center about it.  We eventually connected with Gael Kurath and Jim Winton of the USGS Western Fisheries Research Center in Seattle – more fish health experts.   We hatched a plan…we decided to pull our resources and expertise and see if we could figure out if larval lamprey could be infected with viruses.



Gael gets the viruses from the -80^oC storage.



We conducted direct virus challenges using three viruses, two strains of IHNV and one strain of VHSV.  Native Pacific lamprey larvae were collected from the North Fork Eagle Creek (Clackamas River drainage, OR), a basin that does not contain these viruses, and transported to Western Fisheries Science Center.  Larvae were either immersed in a solution containing a high dose of virus or actually had the virus injected directly into their body cavity (the direct challenge)!  Even though larvae would never be exposed to a virus in this manner in the wild we wanted to be certain that they had as much exposure – and therefore probability of contracting it – as possible.  We also used control lamprey that experienced all the same conditions except the virus; they were handled similarly and injected with saline solution.  Larvae were monitored for mortality and disease signs for 45 days.  Subsamples of larvae were sacrificed at regular time intervals to test for presence of virus. 

I'm injecting a larval lamprey with IHN virus.

We saw low levels of mortality in the immersion trials (less than 15%) and those that died tested negative for virus, suggesting a different cause of death.  There was higher mortality for those that were injected (30-80%) but again they were negative for virus and we also had mortality in the control fish (30%).  In fact, virus was only ever detected in fish that were injected.  IHNV was detected in three fish and VHSV was detected in two fish – six days after injection (these were sacrificed fish) and in levels lower than they were originally injected.  Basically, there was no evidence of replication of the virus and the virus was rapidly cleared from the fish.

Gael and Tarin add virus for an immersion trial.  We really are nice people, though!

What does it all mean?  Well, we might feel a lot safer about bringing larval lamprey from the wild into captive facilities (e.g., hatcheries) to do basic research.  There is so much we don’t know about lampreys that we need to have some captive fish for experiments.  But we wouldn’t want to bring so-called “dirty” fish into a facility that may infect all the other fish.  But even more broadly, these fish have somehow figured out a way to deal with viruses.  Makes sense in some ways because these are prehistoric animals and you don’t survive the plague, pestilence, and famine of the ages without having a few tricks up your sleeve.  I think many might be interested in how these creatures pull it off.  But remember, as Gael says, “Viruses break all the rules.”  

What’s next on the docket?  Bacteria.  New plans are being hatched.  Stay tuned.

Larval Pacific lamprey in a virus challenge trial.

Submitted by Jeff Jolley

Bull Trout “Bracketology”

As winter begins to lose its grip on the Pacific Northwest and the rain clouds occasionally give way to ever so brief sun breaks, the month of March marks an exciting time for “wildlife” regionally and across the country.  A veritable diversity of “animals” from across the landscape gather together in various regions of the country and engage in interspecific competition.  Grizzlies will battle badgers, owls may take on golden bears, and bearcats will tussle with longhorns.  While wildcats, jayhawks and even wolverines will be included, sadly the beavers, cougars, ducks and huskies will all be left out of this year’s “March Madness”. 

The NCAA tournament is generally reserved for teams sporting mammalian, avian or even reptilian mascots.  Very rarely are fish invited to the “Big Dance”.   After being ESA listed in 1998, bull trout have been in a tournament of their own.  Much like how a scrappy, physically overmatched regional college feeds off of emotion and frantically launches threes to hang with perennial ACC or Big East powerhouses, weakened bull trout populations throughout the Columbia Basin are faced with seemingly insurmountable opponents as they attempt to advance toward recovery.   In the NCAA tournament, any given basketball team must face and defeat numerous opponents as they progress through the tournament.  Similarly, bull trout survival and eventual recovery does not depend upon prevailing over only one major threat, but instead a combination of multiple factors must be overcome.  Factors such as habitat degradation, hybridization and a changing climate (among others) are the Kentucky, Syracuse and Duke of the bull trout world.  To continue the analogy, on the other side of the bracket, resource managers are working to address many factors that influence bull trout recovery.  Management actions that facilitate genetically diverse, interconnected populations and provide for habitat protection and enhancement are essential to bull trout recovery.    

Seemingly every year, a small school defies the odds and rises from obscurity to topple dominant programs as they advance through the NCAA tournament.  They are often referred to as a “Cinderella Team”.  Through persistence, cooperation, adaptive management and maybe even a little luck, it’s possible that the recovery and eventual delisting of bull trout could be a “Cinderella Story” of its own.

Submitted by Marshall Barrows

The Crews

I came to work at the Columbia River Fisheries Program Office in the summer of 2004. The following year, the program I work on, the Native Trout Program, began working in the Eagle Cap Wilderness of the Wallowa-Whitman National Forest looking at a number of different parameters of bull trout populations there. But, that is a story for another day.

It quickly became apparent that we would be doing quite a bit of work out there and we would need a number of people to get it accomplished. Thus, began the rotation of biologists through the Native Trout Program. The first year, Jeff J., Jeff H., John and Danielle were out there with me. The Jeffs and John had been working in the program for a few years conducting work in the lower Columbia River on coastal cutthroat trout. We spent three weeks in the mountains. The hot, dry weather was a welcome change from the damp, rainforest environment of the coast range.

Danielle, Jeff, John and Mike at camp (2005)

We would spend the days hiking through the mountains and streams. We would spend the nights sitting around the campfire, eating good food, and listening to Jeff H. play the guitar. A side benefit of this work, we quickly found out, was that we were going to be in great shape by the end of the summer. I think, among the five of us, we lost about 100 lbs. that summer. Within the year, Jeff J. had taken over another program in our office, Jeff H. had gone to work with another program in our office, and John and Danielle had gone to work with other conservation agencies in Washington.

John, Jeff, Mike and Jeff taking a break from driving through the mountains (2005)

The departure of the Jeffs, John and Danielle resulted in a turnover of personnel in the Native Trout Program for 2006. Four new people came to work with varying levels of experience. By the end of the summer, everyone was on the same page and holding their own. This summer continued the musical theme begun the previous year. Joel was a genius on guitar. You name it, he could play it. If he didn’t know it, but you could sing it, he would figure it out. Justin learned a lot that summer, including how to be a good crew leader and play guitar. Darby came to us from Missouri and went back to work there for the Dept of Conservation. Andy, who was a student at Mt. Hood CC, decided that he did not want to work in a hatchery after he graduated.

Justin, Andy, Darby, Mike and Joel on our way out of Big Sheep Creek (2006)

2007 brought some new faces to the crew. Justin was still around. He just wasn’t able to come out the Eagle Cap with us because of a torn ACL. How he got that is probably best left for another day too. So, we recruited Jen from another program in the office to come out and help for a few weeks. Sheila, Anna (a student) and Ryan also joined us. Ryan had been volunteering/working with us on and off for a few years before finally getting him out with us for the summer. He was also the resident musician for the crew that summer. Ryan has since moved on and is the point man for the Builders and the Butchers, a local Portland band. Anna continued her schooling with a graduate degree.

Anna, Mike, Sheila, Jen, and Ryan after a long day in McCully Creek (2007)

The only new face we added in 2008 was Brook who had been working for a company selling tile. She had previously worked for US Fish and Wildlife and Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife, and decided that selling tile was not for her and wanted to come back outside and play with the fish. I think she made the right choice, not that I am biased, and you’ll see her in all the remaining photos. Justin got to come out with us this summer, Jen insisted on coming back out, and Sheila joined us for another year before going back to school to become a teacher.

Justin, Jen, Sheila, Mike, and Brook on our way out of Lick Creek (2008)

Justin’s last year with us was in 2009. He was an incredible contributor to the work we conducted during his tenure with the Native Trout Program and is missed. But, I suppose we don’t blame him for moving to Bozeman where he is a stone’s throw away from where a river runs through it. Brook returned for a second year and we recruited Bill from another program in the office to join us for a week. There are two things I will remember about this year: Kim and the wolves. Kim was a student at Lewis and Clark University and a member of their basketball and softball teams. That isn’t why I will remember her. I will remember her because after spending all day hiking up and down mountains and through streams, enduring rain followed by hot, humid weather, she would come back to camp and go for a run. Yes, a run. I will never completely understand that. But, she exemplifies the incredible, unique people I have had the privilege of working with over the years. The cherry on top for the year was Justin, Brook and Kim discovering and pointing Oregon Dept of Fish and Wildlife in the direction of the wolf pups – the first confirmed pups in Oregon since they came back.

Justin, Brook, Mike, Bill, and Kim after a wet day in Lick Creek (2009)

We trimmed the crew way down in 2010. Brook took over for Justin as crew leader and resident guitar player. Shawna took over for Kim as our employee who was a former Lewis and Clark women’s basketball player. I think Shawna liked Hells Canyon because she is working for Bureau of Reclamation in that area now. And, Nicole was our addition that continued our many years of providing opportunities for current students. She is finishing up at Oregon State University this year.

Brook, Shawna, and Nicole overlooking Hells Canyon (2010)

2011 brought many challenges… including not being able to hire a crew until mid-summer. But, we were able to bring on some quality guys to help out for a couple of months. Mike had just finished up school and was pursuing his second career after previously producing videos. Jason came to us from Brook’s husband’s hometown in Michigan and brought along a GIS degree and more working knowledge of GPS/GIS technology in his little finger than I will gain in my lifetime. Chris was our student from Evergreen College. None of them had ever done the type of work we were doing. All were experts by the time they moved on.

Chris, Mike, Jason, Brook, and Mike’s last day in Big Sheep Creek (2011)

We have had some really good people move through here over the years. There have been others, but these are the ones that have worked in the Eagle Cap with us. I wanted to take a moment to recognize them for a couple of reasons. First, we could not have done it without them. Second, while it is ultimately fun work, it is not always easy work. And, finally, because each of them has brought something different to our program: music, kids, hats, attitude, food, experience, basketball, fishing, woodwork, coffee, GIS, torn ACLs, busted ankles, stories, different perspectives, and the list goes on and keeps growing. It has been a privilege to work with each and every one of them, and I look forward to the new faces that this year brings.

Of People and Fish

This is the first in an occasional series of blogs explaining the various educational kits/trunks available for checkout from the CRFPO.  The Of People and Fish education trunk contains the curriculum developed by the Oregon 4-H Natural Science and Cultural Discovery Program and the materials to support it.  Participants in the Of People and Fish program will be introduced to the complex cultural and scientific history that has led to the “salmon crisis” and become active citizens in the search for solutions within their communities.      

The Of People and Fish curriculum is designed for grades 4 through 8.  It may be used alone or with the materials trunk.   Supporting materials include preserved specimens, reusable equipment, books, videos, and posters.  Seven units cover Fish Fundamentals, Pacific Salmon Life Cycles, Native American Life Ways and Legends, The Lewis and Clark Corps of Discovery, A History of People and Fish, Fishing Techniques, and Salmon for the Future.  Students can study replicas of equipment used by Native Americans to catch and process fish, including a trap net, harpoon, and Leister spear.  The hands on lessons intoduce students to the science of archaeology, which helps us understand past and present cultures.

To check out this education trunk or other trunks, please contact Donna Allard.  For a complete list of educational materials or services available from the CRFPO, visit our website and look for more blogs describing these trunks in detail.  

Submitted by Donna Allard

Staggering Numbers!

Twelve million! At first glance, a staggering number. Imagine twelve million of anything. It is the population of the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho combined. It is the amount of steps Martin Partell of Calgary, Alberta took to run 250 marathons in 2010. And it is also the amount of fish the Columbia River Fisheries Program Office Marking crew is going to be adipose fin clipping and /or coded-wire tagging starting February 22nd at Spring Creek National Fish Hatchery (NFH).

Spring Creek NFH is located approximately 4 miles west of the Hood River Bridge on the Washington side of the Columbia River. The hatchery was initially put into operation September 1901 to provide support for the commercial fishing industry. In 1938, it was reauthorized by the Mitchell Act and on August 8th, 1946, Spring Creek NFH was amended for conservation of fishery resources in the Columbia River basin. The hatchery facilities were later remodeled twice, first in 1948 as mitigation for Bonneville Dam and later in 1972 as mitigation for the John Day Dam Flood Control Act of 1950.

Starting in late August and running through September, adult tule fall Chinook return to Spring Creek NFH. Male and female salmon are spawned in September and upon fertilization, they are reared in trays within the incubation building. After reaching their fry stage, the Chinook are transferred outside to one of 44 burrows ponds in early January at an approximate population of 330,000 fish per pond. Here they are raised until the Marking crew arrives in late February to mark the population to be released as authorized by H.J. Res. 2 Sec. 138, which states that “The United States Fish and Wildlife Service shall, in carrying out its responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species of salmon, implement a system of mass marking of salmonid stocks, intended for harvest, that are released from Federally operated or Federally financed hatcheries.”


Manual Trailer

Mass marking of this year’s Spring Creek release group will commence on Wednesday, February 22. As in previous years, the marking will begin in traditional manual trailers and finish in computerized “automatic” trailers. Mass marking refers to the removal of the adipose fin, a small fleshy fin located on the back of the salmon near the tail. The removal of this fin allows for the fish to be harvested when caught by a fisherman. In the manual trailers, the clipping of the adipose fin is accomplished by human hands. The juvenile salmonids are initially anesthetized, moved to a freshwater recovery bath , marked, and returned to the burrows ponds via a pipe leaving the trailer. 1.7 million fish are processed in this manner. Marking in the manual trailers will last about seven days and these fish will afterwards be transferred to Little White Salmon NFH for acclimation and an onsite release.

The primary reason for the use of the manual trailers is that at the time it is necessary to begin marking, the fish are not large enough to run through the automatic trailers. By Tuesday March 6, the salmon fry will have reached the average size of 65 millimeters in length to be processed by the automated trailers. In the Autotrailer, fish are brought into a holding tank, sorted by length to the nearest tenth of a millimeter, sent through a series of gates and sensors, and adipose clipped with a computerized system verifying a successful mark. The process is achieved without the use of any handling or anesthetic and upwards of 60,000 fish can be run through a trailer in an 8 hour shift. Three trailers running a double shift will be present and it will take approximately 6 weeks to mark the remaining 10.5 million fish.


Autotrailer

A small percentage of fish will also have Coded-Wire Tags (CWTs) inserted into their snout. These tags are 1.1 millimeters in length, constructed of stainless steel wire, and are etched with a specific series of numbers that will not be duplicated. They remain within the snout for the life cycle of the fish and are scanned for electronically during hatchery spawning operations. The tags are recovered, the numbers read, and the data from the tag codes is used for the management of fisheries and the assessment of hatcheries, as well as other studies.

The CRFPO Marking crew would like to extend an invitation to the public to come observe the marking process. Visitor hours for Spring Creek NFH are on weekends from 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM. Manual trailer operations will be running from February 22 through approximately February 28 and automatic trailer operations will be going from March 6 through April 13.

Submitted by Geoff Gribble

Rosemary Anderson High School

Occasionally, I have the privilege to work with a small group of high school students from Rosemary Anderson High School (RAHS). It is the Portland Opportunities Industrialization Center’s community based alternative high school, which gives at-risk students who are not succeeding in public school, a last chance for an education, and a way to change their future.



The students are incredible. Together, we have collected and identified macroinvertebrates, learned tree identification, received instruction in using ArcMap, and collected and identified different types of lichen.

With Wolftree staff as lead organizers, RAHS students have embarked on a multi-year study involving an urban tree inventory project. The tree inventory will be used to compare neighborhoods and demographics. The students are particularly interested in census information for different neighborhoods in Portland.

During times when tree identification is made difficult by the absence of leaves, such as now, the students compile the data already collected, practice using GIS, and conduct other field studies related to their tree study. These studies include lichen identification and nest observations. These side studies may or may not be used in conjunction with their tree inventory study. At the very least, the students continue to gain knowledge in data collection and scientific observations.



Submitted by Donna Allard

PIT Tagging

My name is Bob Haverkate and I am the Agreements Assistant at the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Columbia River Fisheries Program Office. My normal workday duties consist of administering the Grants and other Financial Assistance awards our office provides to Tribes, other agencies, and non-profit organizations. My work is primarily performed at my desk either on my computer or on the telephone.



Once in a while, maybe three or four times a year, I get an opportunity to help out our Marking Crew with a PIT tagging project. I will be working in the field, actually a marking trailer, with no phone, no computer, not a single luxury.I relish a chance to work in the field with other staff that I do not normally work with on a day to day basis.

Today’s task is to implant 6000 PIT (Passive Integrated Transponder) radio tags into 6000 juvenile spring Chinook salmon. These tags emit a specific radio code when energized by a PIT tag antenna. Each tag is discreet which enables tracking of each individual fish. (More information on PIT tagging projects and results is available on the CRFPO website.) The tags in this picture are 12mm or .47 inches long.

The first step in the process is placing the tag inside a 12 gauge veterinary hypodermic needle with syringe attached. Each tag has to be placed inside the needle. The needle/syringes are stacked into the trays shown in the background of the photo. The trays are then provided to the person performing the actual tagging of the fish.

The juvenile fish, in this case spring Chinook salmon, are anesthetized prior to tag implantation. The fish shown below are underwater and are gilling (breathing) slowly. They are very much alive and healthy.



Each fish is lifted by hand and the PIT tag is inserted into the abdominal cavity using the syringe.

The fish is then placed in a “lazy river” flowing through the tagging trailer and arrives in the hatchery raceway. The fish recover from the anesthetic quickly and usually show no sign of the PIT tag implanting procedure.



Submitted by Bob Haverkate