NewGraphEnvironment/fish_passage_skeena_2022_reporting

`198236` trib to Kitwanga River

NewGraphEnvironment opened this issue · 3 comments

NewGraphEnvironment commented
  • discuss downstream crossings not assessed
  • elev_min in text should be elev_site
NewGraphEnvironment commented

features in habitat confirmations xls are linked to wrong site. Falls and logjam were recorded by jesse vs me.

  • lets remove from habitat confirmation.
  • need to rebuild geopackage (needs to happen anyway).
  • need to reload to fish submission website

image

NewGraphEnvironment commented

because this is a steeper site with gradient at time of reporting in 2023 logged as > than the steelhead rearing cutoff (see methods) it is showing as haveing no upstream ST habitat. However, our measurements of gradient indicate it is under 7.5% which closer aligns to the current modelling.

We should highjack the cost estimate and summary tables so that there is a cost estiate and the reporting reflects taht the stream could support these species

lucy-schick commented

fixed this issue by changing upstream_habitat_length_m to 2400 in habitat_confirmations_priorities.csv.

The amount of st_rearing_km in bcfishpass is 2.4km which is used to get upstream_habitat_length_m(https://github.com/NewGraphEnvironment/fish_passage_skeena_2022_reporting/blob/main/scripts/01_prep_inputs/0100-extract-inputs.R#L688)

Then habitat_confirmations_priorities.csv is used to build cost estimate tables here https://github.com/NewGraphEnvironment/fish_passage_skeena_2022_reporting/blob/main/scripts/tables.R#L1146C1-L1161C162

This fixes cost estimates in the memo as well as the summary tables in the results section