RKM Mask

1 posts, 0 answered
  • Dave Marvin
    Dave.Marvin avatar
    13 posts
    Registered:
    02 Nov 2012
    08 Jul 2014
    When reporting RKM values, I suggest altering the format of the RKM mask appending an underscore ("_") as a prefix so that every reported RKM code would begin with "_".  Thus, the RKM mask for Spring Creek NFH would change from "269" to "_269", the mask for release sites at Lower Granite Dam would change from "522.173" to "_522.173", and the mask for a release or recapture event 47 kms upstream from the mouth of the Grande Ronde River would be "_522.271.047".  This would prevent "smart" software (such as Excel) from coercing the RKM string value for Wallace Island from "080" to the integer 80, or converting the RKM string value for Elochoman Hatchery from "058.019" to the real value 58.109.

    The field width of the RKM mask needs to increase from the current 27 characters to accommodate at least 31 characters, because there are streams in the Lemhi watershed (and perhaps elsewhere) that have "abbreviated" RKM codes.  These abbreviations are necessary with the current mask definition for sites that have seven or more streams (six or more nodes) in their RKM hierarchy, in order to ensure that four characters (the period separator and a 3-digit stream distance offset) can be appended to denote where on the terminal stream the MRR event occurred.   Thus the abbreviated mask for the mouth of Quaking Asp Creek, Lemhi River Basin ("522.303.426.092.021") would be fully represented as "522.303.426.092.004.015.002".  This full representation requires 27 characters, plus an additional four characters (a period separator and 3-digit value) to denote the actual MRR event location on QKASPC.

    Marking-only sites are currently differentiated from release/recovery sites in the MRR domain by the use of an asterisk ("*") in place of the actual RKM hierarchy mask.  This is done solely to prevent the use in the P3 software of marking-only sites as release/recovery event descriptors.  The P4 software should employ a different technique to prevent the use of mark-only site codes (e.g., BON, LGR) to describe release/recovery events, and the RKM masks for those code definitions should be restored so that data consumers can see, for example an RKM value of "234" when they view the definition for "Bonneville Dam Complex", and "522.173" when they view the definition for "Lower Granite Dam".
    Link to this post
    Last modified on 08 Jul 2014 23:07 by Dave.Marvin