Casey comments/updates from August 12

[x] By combining the historical (1999-2003) and contemporary (2004 – current) datasets and databases we are left with duplicate Survey IDs and Observation IDs in fish_observations.xlsx. This is problematic for determining when the surveys actually occurred when cross referencing survey_characteristics.xlsx.
[x] Unit 28 is Moe’s Side Channel.
[x] z. nada is not a fish species. Where it occurs it signifies that no fish were observed in that unit. There were (2) z. nada records that were juvenile chinook observations and I’ve noted those in fish_observations_campos edits.xlsx.
[x] Individual LWD pieces were marked at some point and are referenced in the observation data from 1999-2013 by a unique ID number. I cannot find anything describing the location, size, etc. of these LWD pieces beyond the sections where they occur in the snorkeling records. I suggest removing the LWD column where ID numbers are used. I do see some records that a LWD with a unique ID is used but not captured as an instream cover element so those records would need to be changed to add C as a cover element.
[x] Between 2004 and 2007 the fork length of observations was not recorded and a size class was used instead. Size class has been removed from the fish observations spreadsheet and needs to be incorporated for those records.
[x] Values in the Turbidity field after 2013 are actually measures of visibility using the “fish on a stick” method. In situations after 2013 where there are zeros in the turbidity field the visibility can generally be considered good.
[x] update methods
[x] update survey characteristics metadata
[x] update fish obs metadata

FlowWest / edi-feather-snorkel

Casey comments/updates from August 12 #12