58067 - gramophone - update with 2023 info

[NewGraphEnvironment]

Revisited in 2023 to understand fish presence by scoping for barriers and sampling to inform prioritization and serve as baseline monitoring if it gets fixed.

revise in separate branch. ensure you can build both html and pdf (if possible) before and after and review outputs before PR

Background and significance info (and anything else that could use help can also be updated) - if it makes sense. Examples of updateing sites with new data here https://www.newgraphenvironment.com/fish_passage_skeena_2022_reporting/tributary-to-owen-creek---197379---appendix.html and elsewhere (point to others here if you find)

Can't remember if the 2022 fish data was submitted to province so can just summarize with a bit of text and a couple photos for now (how many - how big - looks like perhaps two age classes?) without adding the fish to habitat_confirmations.xls spreadsheet or calling for data from outside the repo

Need photo of falls and canyon. photos can be copied into site directory in sub-subdirectory (2023). append k and tag ex. 1234_k_fish1.JPG and 1245_k_canyon1.JPG to photos so they commit.

From a text "In 2023 We walked from the road to the Bulkley (see gps track). Thinking the reason we didn't catch coho at Telkwa high road lin 2022 are these two falls (2 @ ~1.7m) and the 25m rock chute in a canyon between (see photos). It's like 500m from the Bulkley. We caught two different sizes coho below with dip nets. The bottom few hundred metres of stream was dewatered too so timing of when ocean run fish can get in is key. We still think some of those fish we caught last year could have been steelhead (historic FISS steelhead spawning point documented upstream of road) but the falls and dewatering explains the lack of coho in 2022."

[lucy-schick]

Wondering about this 25m rock chute... maybe a typo and its 2.5m from looking at photo (see below)

Also, wondering if this rock chute is actually the second falls mentioned in the FISS site comments because there is no mention of a rock chute just 2 cascade sections (and only 1 photo tagged with falls, so would make sense to have another one):

FISS Site comments "High value habitat. Cite covers from confluence of Wiggs creek to the Bulkley River. Canyon located at proximately 400 m from confluence with the Bulkley. Coho sampled below using dip netting. Canyon - 40m long with two cascade sections 1.5 and 1.7 m high on bedrock may be barrier to anadromous fish under high and low flow conditions. 12:13:53"

[lucy-schick]

Also, whats the conclusion for this site? Are we saying we shouldn't fix the crossing because of the barriers to coho downstream or yes still fix because crossing is a barrier to other species?

[NewGraphEnvironment]

Lets make the feature in the current 58067_ds2 habitat_confirmations.xls feature (2023 workbook) be a canyon with height of 10m and length of 40m. We can also add three other rows to the file for chute (25m long and 5m high, rock 1.5m high and 1.5m long (photo above), rock 1.7m high and 1.7m long ( visible in 20230924_141057_58067_ds2_canyon.JPG - photo below ) . The utms stamped on the photo above should be fine for the upper rock outcrop but the UTMs for the lower rock outcrop and the start of the chute (same utm) should be extrapolated from the photo (30m or so upstream?). You can visualize the points you create using https://github.com/NewGraphEnvironment/fish_passage_skeena_2022_reporting/blob/2a59723573380d63f93d4f9dc566e8bb883e3cb7/scripts/outgoing-mapping.R#L5 , adding the gpkg to the Q project and importing the layers. We also make geojson versions of those files here https://github.com/NewGraphEnvironment/fish_passage_skeena_2022_reporting/blob/2a59723573380d63f93d4f9dc566e8bb883e3cb7/scripts/outgoing-mapping.R#L85 because of a request of Simon's back in the day. Can't remember if it allows map view refreshes without a restart of Q or is better for git tracking or native support in Git to view (see - https://github.com/NewGraphEnvironment/fish_passage_skeena_2022_reporting/blob/main/data/fishpass_mapping/hab_features.geojson ) or all. just mentioning since relevant...

There are examples of adding more than one feature to the same site in https://github.com/NewGraphEnvironment/fish_passage_skeena_2022_reporting/blob/main/data/habitat_confirmations.xls which can be viewed at the bottom rows of this csv ( https://github.com/NewGraphEnvironment/fish_passage_skeena_2022_reporting/blob/main/data/backup/step_4_stream_site_data.csv ) - which is produced with fpr::fpr_import_hab_con() when backup=TRUE param is set (the default) . Adding multiple features to the same site is a bit awkward but it sure is nice to see those obstacles to fish passage imported to our Q projects from here https://catalogue.data.gov.bc.ca/dataset/provincial-obstacles-to-fish-passage/resource/00984b9e-70a1-4e12-bda9-8cb3d663b567 once they get into FISS. Can save a lot of time for field assessments and explain lots of fish absence observations...

For the conclusion - I think we leave the priority to fix as high but we are clear that fixing the crossing may not result in anadromous fish species access to the crossing location due to the chute and rock steps located in the canyon. Some language around uncertainty regarding passability of the canyon dependent on flow levels through the canyon as well as downstream of the canyon and how those might line up with coho and steelhead migration makes sense. Maybe under the right setup they could get there. It worth thinking about how we could recommend following up monitoring to understand if fish ever get through the canyon is worthwhile. The spawning steehead point in fiss upstream of the site creates hope. the source_ref cited as O'NEILL, M.. TOBOGGAN CREEK HATCHERY MANAGER. PERSONAL COMMUNICATION. sure isn't as reassuring as data from an actually site assessment.....

[lucy-schick]

A bit confused here with the UTMs, this is my understanding so please correct me if I am wrong:

I've added and visualized the features in Q but need to get the UTMs for the chute and lower outcrop sorted before I can visual it all.

Photo 20230924_141113_58067_ds2_chute contains:

• The upper rock outcrop (1.5 m hight, 1.5 m long, UTM 608009, 6093231)
• In Q the upper rock outcrop is ~30m upstream from the canyon photo.
• the photo is tagged with chute so a little confused if this rock outcrop is part of the chute? Maybe this is the start of the chute and it goes 25m to canyon photo.

Photo 20230924_141057_58067_ds2_canyon contains:

• The lower rock outcrop (1.7m high, 1.7 m long, shouldn't the UTMs just be the ones from this photo (607983, 6083241) since its taken at this rock outcrop? )
• also the canyon (tagged in name), UTMs from this photo 607983, 6083241
• The end of the rock chute??
• I don't understand this part

but the UTMs for the lower rock outcrop and the start of the chute (same utm) should be extrapolated from the photo (30m or so upstream?).

[NewGraphEnvironment]

Photo 20230924_141113_58067_ds2_chute contains:

• The upper rock outcrop (1.5 m hight, 1.5 m long, UTM 608009, 6093231) yes
• In Q the upper rock outcrop is ~30m upstream from the canyon photo.

the upper rock outcrop is ~25m upstream of the start of the chute which begins with the 1.7m high rock that we can see in 20230924_141057_58067_ds2_canyon . The start of the chute however is approximately 30m upstream from where 20230924_141057_58067_ds2_canyon was taken as the utm stamped on the photo is of course the location of the camera vs the location of what the camera is focussed on.

Therefore - the downstream end of the lower rock outcrop is ~30 upstream from the UTM stamped on 20230924_141057_58067_ds2_canyon

• the photo is tagged with chute so a little confused if this rock outcrop is part of the chute? Maybe this is the start of the chute and it goes 25m to canyon photo.

yes. outcrop is a part of the chute (overlapping feature). It is steeper than the rest of the feature (ie. ~100% or 45 degrees gradient vs 20% or 11 degrees gradient).

We only have so many photos/tags we can add to our phones so we choose something on the fly and have those names help us remember the story of what was going on. A better name choice in this instance may have been chute rock so that the resulting photo would have been processed by fpr::fpr_photo_rename https://www.newgraphenvironment.com/fpr/reference/fpr_photo_rename.html to be 20230924_141113_58067_ds2_chute_rock

btw - we of course communicate gradients in percentage (degrees presented to help get familiar with conversions since some are really useful - ie. 45 degrees = 100%).

Photo 20230924_141057_58067_ds2_canyon contains:

The lower rock outcrop (1.7m high, 1.7 m long, shouldn't the UTMs just be the ones from this photo (607983, 6083241) since its taken at this rock outcrop? ) see above. utm is camera vs feature and it is far enough away that we should adjust (5 -10 m can just be left as our phone/gps accuracy is up to ~5m usually anyway) also the canyon (tagged in name), UTMs from this photo 607983, 6083241 The end of the rock chute??

Ya - canyon can be put as UTMs from this photo 607983, 6083241 as it is reasonable that it starts at about the location of the camera. End of rock chute is 20-30m upstream of the camera though since that huge pool where we captured the fish can be considered within the canyon I'd say.

I don't understand this part

not surprising. Its all a bit complicated and perhaps overkill but it is a good way to get familiar with the differences between a subset of the types of features that are relevant to fish movement and subsequently fish ranges within watersheds. Normally - I probably wouldn't include so many features all in one place but this exercise will help get you up to speed with several parts of our workflow and how different features can be used to describe the situation.

Which data gets uploaded to the province is a bit of a different issue and something we can discuss at another time (ie. we often simplify what gets uploaded to the province so that we don't clutter maps with all the inputs).

This scenario summarized:

A canyon is present that is 40-50m long and is located ~Xm upstream from the confluence with the Bulkley River. Within that canyon (and because of it) there is a chute that is 25m long (shallow fast flows on rock) ~20% gradient. As part of the chute there are 2 rock outcrops that are 1.5 and 1.7 m high (one at the start of the chute and one at the end).

The chute and rock features are obstacles to fish passage that along with the low surface flows downstream (likely caused by low gradient, large substrate and floodplain of Bulkley River) likely explain why we did not capture any salmon when we sampled near Telkwa High Road in 2022 and provides uncertainty as to coho ability (and perhaps steelhead too) to ever ascend this section of the creek. Ability for anadromous species to ascend to watershed areas above these features is however likely influenced by the timing of migration for spawning and flow levels that coincide with those times (ie. maybe if there are significant rains during the late summer and fall when the coho are migrating or during the winter when steelhead also move - they could ascend and subsequently populate the upper watershed areas with their progeny). Interesting story if you ask me

Also of note - some of my estimates of distances might not make sense once you look at it in GIS and match one distance to the next so may need to be adjust slightly. that is ok and normal. we often use our gps points and tracks to adjust our field/office estimates and try to make everything reasonable. doesn't need to be perfect - just a decent accounting of what is going on

[lucy-schick]

OKay that is awesome thanks. Makes way more sense now. Will update so hold of the the PR until later today. Super good exercise for me so thank you!

[lucy-schick]

Okay after looking at this on QGIS things seem a little unclear to me. Apologies if I am just misunderstanding something because I know this is not top priority right now but I want to make sure I get the UTM points correct:

the upper rock outcrop is ~25m upstream of the start of the chute which begins with the 1.7m high rock that we can see in 20230924_141057_58067_ds2_canyon

and

yes. outcrop is a part of the chute (overlapping feature)

Seem to contradict themselves. The upper rock is part of the chute but somehow 25m above the start of the chute? Did you mean that the upper rock outcrop (1.5x1.5) is at the beginning of the chute and is ~25m upstream of 20230924_141057_58067_ds2_canyon and 20230924_141057_58067_ds2_canyon shows the lower rock outcrop (1.7x1.7) signifying the end of the rock?

I agree that 20230924_141057_58067_ds2_canyon was not physically taken at the lower outcrop therefore we need to add some distance to the UTMs (essentially the distance of the pool seen in the photo). I don't think the pool is 30m though because when I plot the UTMs from 20230924_141113_58067_ds2_chute (upper rock outcrop) and 20230924_141057_58067_ds2_canyon (x distance from lower outcrop) in Q, they are 30m apart.

Im kinda old school and need to visualize so here is my rough doodle of what I think is going, please let me know if I have this confused.

[NewGraphEnvironment]

Looks close except my estimate of distance from camera to start of chute is 30m.

Would be good to sync Q if you have info I don’t have as that might help.

rock can be part of the chute. If chute is 25m long then rock is at 23.5m from the start of it. (Or the chute is 26.5m long and the rock starts at 25m)

Related to what I mentioned before - some of my estimates of distances might not make sense once we look at it in GIS and match one distance to the next and to each waypoint and compare to gps track so all may need to be adjusted slightly

[lucy-schick]

just synced in Q

Distance between canyon (UTMs from 20230924_141057_58067_ds2_canyon) and upper rock outcrop (UTMs from 20230924_141113_58067_ds2_chute) is ~30 m.

[NewGraphEnvironment]

Aha. Well - maybe we could make it work so that we say the camera was 10 m away from bottom rock and start of chute (ya - 10m wide pool is prob more accurate) and that the chute was still approx 25m long (top end of rock was 5m from camera)? Could make chute 20m too. Either way is fine. Was tricky footing and setting in that canyon - a bit tricky to get an accurate ground estimate

[lucy-schick]

how exactly would you add 10 meters to a UTM point? I've tried measuring it out in Q and then trying to convert the crs coordinates to UTM but haven't got that to work yet. Any ideas would be great.

[NewGraphEnvironment]

Guessing we want the numbers for the coordinate....

then trying to convert the crs coordinates to UTM

when poss, provide code of what was tried as sometimes it can clarify what we want the solution to look like... maybe this wasn't scripted though...

if so, a few options

1. change Q crs (Project Properties/CRS) to your utm zone and use the coordinate window and mouse to get coordinate
2. Install the coordinate capture plugin in Q and use the mouse to grab the coordinate from approximate location
3. a bit more involved. copy the gpx layer in Q, physically move the point (edit/move feature), import to R and extract coordinates with fpr_sp_assign_utm() or fpr_sp_gpkg_backup() or with sf::st_coordinates (ex. https://gist.github.com/NewGraphEnvironment/9e20702275c63bf6f15304944a85d535 )
4. use basecamp. import gpx, add a waypoint and with the mouse, double click new waypoint to see the utms. Weird ref to basecamp here https://www.newgraphenvironment.com/onboarding/fish-passage-field-work-guide.html

[lucy-schick]

After trying the first 2 options I think the issue is a difference in Crs between Q and photos. In Q, my crs is set to BC albers (EPSG: 3005) which I believe is correct.

CRs/UTM stuff is all new to me to still getting the hang of it. My understanding is that the CRs and UTMs are both coordinate systems, but CRS is a geographic coordinate system (based on spheres) and UTMs is a Projected coordinate systems (based on planes), and we can derive the Projected Coordinate System from a geographic coordinate system (info here).

I measured out ~10m from the canyon feature and the coordinates given by Q are 916167.099, 1109141.000 which are very far from the utms in the photos (for example the canyon's UTMS are 607983, 6093241) so maybe the photo utms are in a different crs?

[NewGraphEnvironment]

1. change Q crs (Project Properties/CRS) to your utm zone and use the coordinate window and mouse to get coordinate

2. Install the coordinate capture plugin in Q and use the mouse to grab the coordinate from approximate location

[NewGraphEnvironment]

9 | 608010 | 6093232

Close enough for report text currently there already but fish data submission spreadsheet appears to be ~300m off so needs to be corrected