When modelled crossings are generated, Nick is hoping we can add some logic to assign all modelled crossings on 5th order streams and above a crossing_subtype of 'bridge' and a passability_status of 'passable'. Once implemented, these types of crossings should also be skipped over for any functional upstream habitat calculations, as they do not represent a barrier to fish passage.
Because these streams are so large, it's unlikely that any crossing over these streams would not be a bridge. We will verify individual crossings through field assessments down the road. The same logic was used in the BC project and they have only found one crossing so far that was not a bridge.
I've created a barriers table in the working schema. This table includes any barriers loaded from cabd (dams, waterfalls) plus any stream crossing with a strahler order < 5.
When modelled crossings are generated, Nick is hoping we can add some logic to assign all modelled crossings on 5th order streams and above a crossing_subtype of 'bridge' and a passability_status of 'passable'. Once implemented, these types of crossings should also be skipped over for any functional upstream habitat calculations, as they do not represent a barrier to fish passage.
Because these streams are so large, it's unlikely that any crossing over these streams would not be a bridge. We will verify individual crossings through field assessments down the road. The same logic was used in the BC project and they have only found one crossing so far that was not a bridge.
Is this possible to implement?