[x] Intro – please remove reference to draft form. Could include a sentence noting this is a living document and may change over time. There is nothing in this section (or elsewhere) to acknowledge why the project is being undertaken and who the funders are. Much of this can probably be copy-pasted from last year’s report.
[x] 2.5.1 Bulkley River and 2.6 Morice River – there is a missing entry for the number of Phase 1 assessments completed prior to 2020 in both of these sections
[x] 3.1.2 PSCIS and Modeled Stream Crossing Review – doesn’t seem to reflect how sites in the Bulkley were selected, which was a combination of the list we gave you and the methods you outline in this section.
[x] 3.2.2.1 Habitat Gain Index – still a misquote in here attributed to me saying that box culverts are viable alternative to open bottom structures. This seems to be an ongoing issue in New Graph reports. Please remove from this report and any other past and future reports.
[x] 4.4 Phase 3 – you can add that CWF has completed designs for remediating this site with plans to complete Phase 4 this summer.
[x] McDowell Creek – some data is not filled in: Stream Characteristics Downstream of 123544, second paragraph - At the time of the survey, PSCIS culvert 58158 on Highway 16 located approximately had been recently..
[ ] -Stream Characteristics Upstream of 123544 and downstream of 58151 - The stream was surveyed upstream of crossing 123544 for 25m and downstream from crossing 58151 for 120m (Figures 5.11 - 5.12). The average channel width was NAm, the average wetted width was NAm, and the average gradient was 2%., The dominant substrate was NA with NA sub-dominant. Total cover amount was rated as NA with dominant. Cover was also present as .
-Stream Characteristics upstream of 58151 - the average wetted width was NAm,
-Structure Remediation and Cost Estimate – both crossings (1st 2 paragraphs) show NA m2/$1000
[x] Mission Creek – no information in the following sections: - Stream Characteristics Upstream of 124421 and downstream of 124422, Stream Characteristics Upstream of 124422
[x] Trib to Maxan – Stream Characteristics Downstream: Cover was also present as ., The dominant substrate was fines with NA sub-dominant.
-Stream Characteristics Upstream: Total cover amount was rated as moderate with dominant. Cover was also present as ., The dominant substrate was NA with NA sub-dominant Total cover amount was rated as moderate with dominant.
[x] Robert Hatch Creek - Stream Characteristics Upstream of 197912 - total cover amount was rated as with deep pools dominant.
[x] Taman Creek PSCIS crossing 1805529 photos are all upside-down except for 1
[x] Cesford Creek – Background - Upstream of crossing 198048, have previously been recorded
[x] Throughout: there is no writeup on 198049
[x] Thompson Creek – Stream Characteristics at Crossing: Water temperature was NA ∘ C, pH was NA and conductivity was NAuS/cm.
-Stream Characteristics Upstream of 198066 and downstream of 123377 - The dominant substrate was NA with NA subdominant.
Just a couple of comments:
[x] Intro – please remove reference to draft form. Could include a sentence noting this is a living document and may change over time. There is nothing in this section (or elsewhere) to acknowledge why the project is being undertaken and who the funders are. Much of this can probably be copy-pasted from last year’s report.
[x] 2.5.1 Bulkley River and 2.6 Morice River – there is a missing entry for the number of Phase 1 assessments completed prior to 2020 in both of these sections
[x] 3.1.2 PSCIS and Modeled Stream Crossing Review – doesn’t seem to reflect how sites in the Bulkley were selected, which was a combination of the list we gave you and the methods you outline in this section.
[x] 3.2.2.1 Habitat Gain Index – still a misquote in here attributed to me saying that box culverts are viable alternative to open bottom structures. This seems to be an ongoing issue in New Graph reports. Please remove from this report and any other past and future reports.
[x] 4.4 Phase 3 – you can add that CWF has completed designs for remediating this site with plans to complete Phase 4 this summer.
[x] McDowell Creek – some data is not filled in: Stream Characteristics Downstream of 123544, second paragraph - At the time of the survey, PSCIS culvert 58158 on Highway 16 located approximately had been recently..
[ ] -Stream Characteristics Upstream of 123544 and downstream of 58151 - The stream was surveyed upstream of crossing 123544 for 25m and downstream from crossing 58151 for 120m (Figures 5.11 - 5.12). The average channel width was NAm, the average wetted width was NAm, and the average gradient was 2%., The dominant substrate was NA with NA sub-dominant. Total cover amount was rated as NA with dominant. Cover was also present as .
[x] Mission Creek – no information in the following sections: - Stream Characteristics Upstream of 124421 and downstream of 124422, Stream Characteristics Upstream of 124422
[x] Trib to Maxan – Stream Characteristics Downstream: Cover was also present as ., The dominant substrate was fines with NA sub-dominant.
[x] Robert Hatch Creek - Stream Characteristics Upstream of 197912 - total cover amount was rated as with deep pools dominant.
[x] Taman Creek PSCIS crossing 1805529 photos are all upside-down except for 1
[x] Cesford Creek – Background - Upstream of crossing 198048, have previously been recorded
[x] Throughout: there is no writeup on 198049
[x] Thompson Creek – Stream Characteristics at Crossing: Water temperature was NA ∘ C, pH was NA and conductivity was NAuS/cm.
[x] -Throughout - no writeup on 123378