Closed NewGraphEnvironment closed 1 year ago
Yes - focus has been on salmon/steelhead, mapping of resident spp behind dams need to be resolved.
open issue in bcfishpass is here https://github.com/smnorris/bcfishpass/issues/304
Yes, agree everything upstream of dams for resident species should be coloured as per above modelled/potential barriers. I also think that we don't really need HYDRO
in the mapping code, a dam is a dam in terms of symbolization for resident species. The HYDRO
code is more for mapping of historic anadromous habitat and I'm not sure it is really needed at this point either.
Hmmm. Maybe we’re not quite there yet with that symbolization with that adjustment. Really we want to be able to fix culverts on tribs to main rivers (Kootenay River in that example) and be able to visualize that its restored connectivity within the system… As it is there, if I have my head wrapped around it correctly,
If we don’t fix the dams we won’t be able to visualize any connectivity restoration work getting done upstream… maybe the HYDRO
label could be useful still but perhaps it could be ignored for our use case of exploring road/stream crossing restoration opportunities…
For barriers that get fixed we are already symbolizing as green (upstream of the barrier, and I think the coding is now smart enough to only consider stream immediately upstream of the restoration, downstream of additional barriers) But for resident spp, some other colour indicating upstream of dam but not upstream of a modelled crossing would be useful.
The concept of a HYDRO label for historic anadromous access is actual pretty awesome. There is TONS going on these days in the KOTL and LARL etc reagarding reintroductions (happening already with huge fry releases planned very soon) and modelling for salmon suitability. For those watershed groups dams in states should prob be considered too. All that is likely too much to deal with right now but perhaps the HYDRO label need not be changed - just pulled into the symbology. Just a thought…
I have added a column to streams table that indicates if the next barrier downstream is a dam. Those streams can be given a different colour, and streams upstream of modelled crossings / PSCIS barriers retain current colour. It isn't perfect but seems better than current style and can be adjusted as we figure this out.
I'll add a column indicating if a hydro dam is the next barrier downstream as well. But I'll hold off on any changes to anadromous symbology for now.
For areas like the
KOTL
watershed group, all streams are above dams. We deal with "resident" fish populations so still need to have map symbology that helps us understand connectivity in the watershed group.In the current symbology specs for the
bcfishpass
qlr
DAM
is involved. Guessing this is meant to beHYDRO
.... @smnorris - is theDAM
in the symbology of thestreams
layer meant to beHYDRO
? Is this issue already dealt with somehow for places like theELKR
watershed group - https://github.com/smnorris/bcfishpass/issues/110 ?Editing the
qgs
project file or a layer specificqlm
to swap outDAM
forHYDRO
in themapping_code_{sp}
columns of thebcfishpass.streams
layer forresident
species of interest such asbt
andwct
allows us to see symbology but shows everything upstream of the dams as blocked so does not symbolize connectivity above the dams (see screenshots below). Potential path forward?:streams_{sp}
layers forresident
species of interest so when aDAM
is involved forbt
,wct
(rainbow too soon hopefully) the stream still shows as orange (likeMODELLED
). Save theqlm
as astreams_above_dams
or something like that and then apply to specificstreams_{sp}
layers in Q?will load example project to Q and share for collaboration in case that is helpful
Before editing
qgs
fileAfter editing
qgs
file to swapDAM
forHYDRO
After editing symbology to swap orange for red when
HYDRO
involved