MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2036182649 · doi:10.1061/41143(394)41

Removing Barriers to Fish Passage at the City of Bellingham's Middle Fork Nooksack River Diversion Dam

2010· article· en· W2036182649 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lawrence M. Magura, Clare Fogelsong

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBedrockCobbleHydrology (agriculture)GeographyPopulationFisheryArchaeologyGeologyHabitatGeomorphologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The City of Bellingham, Washington (2008 population, 76,130) constructed a diversion dam and tunnel project on the Middle Fork of the Nooksack River in the early 1960's to divert supplemental water into Lake Whatcom, the City's primary municipal source of water supply. The City is located on Puget Sound, about 90 miles north of Seattle, and 21 miles south of the U.S. — Canada border. See below Figure 1, Project Vicinity map. The diversion dam is located in a steep and narrow gorge on the Middle Fork Nooksack River on the heavily forested western slopes of Mt Baker in northwestern Washington, about 20 miles south of the U.S. — Canada border. The diversion dam site is characterized by steep forested slopes, a boulder and cobble streambed with numerous bedrock outcrops, and a steep pool and cascade channel morphology. The Middle Fork Nooksack River Diversion Dam is shown in Figure 2. When the diversion dam was constructed in 1960-61, there was little awareness in the community of either fish passage issues or the looming decline in Pacific Northwest salmonid stocks. Therefore, no fish passage provisions were included in the design of the 30 foot tall by 150 foot long concrete dam. Completion of the dam and diversion tunnel in 1961 therefore cut off approximately 9 miles of potential salmon habitat river channel. Although there are no definitive written records of salmon being present in the upper Middle Fork Nooksack watershed prior to completion of the dam, anecdotal information from Native American oral sources indicate that anadromous fish were present in the upper watershed before European settlement began in the area in the 1850's, and fisheries biologists generally believe that salmon could survive in the upper reaches of the Middle Fork of the Nooksack River if they could somehow get past the passage barrier created by the diversion dam. By the beginning of the 21st Century, the dam and diversion gate structure were starting to show the effects of the ravages of time from the cumulative effects of more than 40 severe Washington Cascades winters, and the abrasive effects on the concrete dam spillway of the pulverized "rock flour" entrained in the river water derived from Mt Baker's alpine glaciers in the headwaters of the watershed. The need to repair and rehabilitate the facility was becoming readily apparent. By that time also, the prevailing public sentiment in this former timber, shipping, and fishing town, now reborn as a highly desirable cosmopolitan university town that was rapidly attracting new residents from throughout the Puget Sound region and beyond, had been transformed by the environmental movement. A strong community desire to remove this barrier to Salmon migration by either adding a fish ladder to the existing dam, or constructing a new diversion facility that would not require a diversion dam for its operation, had firmly taken root. The City Council made elimination of this barrier to fish passage a priority for the City, and City staff formed a partnership with two local Native American tribes, the Nooksack Indian Tribe, the Lummi Nation, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife to search for a workable solution.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→