Tweaks Include crossing 198216 in memo for 198217 - trib to skeena (Sik-E-Dakh)

[Mateo9569]

The 198216 is the downstream survey I did and could only get about 100m because of wetland habitat, deep water and beaver dams.

[NewGraphEnvironment]

There are uav orthos for 198217 downstream and upstream too. Sure you are on it but this site can be the first of the two sites included in the memo..

fpr::fpr_appendix_title(site1, site2)

[Mateo9569]

Where are the orthos? Can you send me them so I can put them in the memo

[NewGraphEnvironment]

• [x] provide some background about the community, its history and its people. Detail both names.
• [x] mention dyking around the community
• [x] note that there was extensive beaver activity upstream and downstream of both crossings.
• [x] mention that one of the chiefs (Francis I believe) indicated that the local community used to harvest coho from the stream in periods of low flow
• [x] mention program initiated by GWA to engage knowledge holders about the stream
• [x] note the cage on the inlet of the hwy crossing.
• [x] mention how big the outlet drop on the water road was
• [x] discuss how the FWA and the on the ground reality of stream channels differs and how that could be the result of anthroprogenic influences (ie. channel redirection due to protection of road and community infrastructure).
• [x] Discuss how you looked for the crossing on the highway just north but could not find it and how Jesse tried to find the crossing on that same stream near the Skeena and could not locate it

[NewGraphEnvironment]

• [x] sites were listed backwards. The downstream site goes as my_site and the upstream is always my_site2
• [x] name of water tower road (according to the DRA layer in Q) has hyphens in the name (ie. Sik-e-dakh Water Tower Road)
• [x] the hwy is a mot crossing (has moti_culverts_sp point) but the one on the water tower road is within the jurisdictional of Sik-E-Dakh (see the Roads - DRA layer).

[NewGraphEnvironment]

prob best to just have one table of modelling (they are very similiar) and need to make a note about the modelling that it is not likely correct because the FWA does not capture the actual upstream watershed..

[NewGraphEnvironment]

• [x] Add recommendation bullets to conclusion (consider that some or all of these recommendations can be written in a tone that allows them to be pasted to general recommendation section of report because likely prudent for all streams that are prioritized in consultation with local Indigenous groups, ESI and regulators) including:

1. [x] aquisition of lidar for areas to west of current data available on LidarBC including area of water intake facilities to help inform regarding remnant channel locations

2. [x] aquisition of temperature data at points likely to contain water all year long (ex. outlet of culverts and upstream of culvert on water tower road. Aquire data for entire growing season (define using definition and references in Elk Report) and include areas in main north channel to elevation where coho are expected to populate.

3. [x] Fish sampling and PIT tagging utilizing electrofishing

4. [x] Delineation of reaches and aquisition of FHAP data (cite reference) within all reaches expected to be populated by coho.

5. [x] Aquire high resolution RGB imagery for entire area from confluence to above water intake infrastructure. Include areas on the west side of the highway where there is the remnant channel on the south of water tower culverts and wetland areas to the north.

6. [x] coho spawner surveys to coincide with known spawn timing in neighbouring systems

7. [x] snorkel and/or gopro surveys of plunge pool areas below culverts at times of steelhead and coho migrations to scope for adults attempting to ascend the watershed.

8. [x] Overall outreach program to educate Kispiox residence about the role of beaver in watershed health and the history of impacts to aquatic values due to road, community, ranch development in the valley

9. [x] Aquisition of enough hydrometric information using (cite methods) to build stage discharge curves for the watershed so relationships between fish life history timings, physical habitat suitability, temperature and flows can be understood

• [x] Simple figure map to show the lidar. lets build it as a figure (vs a map per se) with intent to function to be as visible within the report figure as possible. Very minimal legend (MoTi database culverts, modelled culverts, pscis culverts) strategically placed on a full frame map may work. Will need to add/clip the updated pscis layer and symbolize modelled crossings with modelled_crossing_id. Large enough to show the Skeena River and the northern remnant side channels that have potential to be the FWA channel for modelled crossings 8300064 and 8300001. These sort of figure style maps will likely be common in the future so somesort of template that uses the right sized frame to start is a good idea

[Mateo9569]

Is the pscis_assessment_svw layer in postgresql up to date? Shall I grab from there, clip and replace the pscis layer that's currently in the project?

[NewGraphEnvironment]

DO server version will have Skeena sites . Bcfishpass too I think… ya - replace

[NewGraphEnvironment]

Unless I'm missing them with a quick search there are no cross-references to the uav ortho/model

[Mateo9569]

I put the cross reference at the end of the section on stream characteristics downstream of crossing 198216

https://github.com/NewGraphEnvironment/fish_passage_skeena_2022_reporting/blob/cf5b9b55c2a6d1ed494092a3ae5963b5c7ad27af/0800-appendix-198217-trib-to-skeena.Rmd#L124

And again at the end of stream characteristics upstream of crossing 198216 and downstream of 198217

https://github.com/NewGraphEnvironment/fish_passage_skeena_2022_reporting/blob/cf5b9b55c2a6d1ed494092a3ae5963b5c7ad27af/0800-appendix-198217-trib-to-skeena.Rmd#L142

[NewGraphEnvironment]

• [ ] upstream Description should be more specific than "The second section was surveyed on an upstream tributary to the main stream for 100m. ". Should state where is enters and where it flows from and reference relative size of watershed. photo captions should state which channels the photos are showing as there are two channels of very different size. This one is the southern channel whos confluence with the main is approx xxx m upstream of Sik-e-dakh Water Tower Rd.

[lucy-schick]

2022 Background info work:

• [ ] https://github.com/NewGraphEnvironment/fish_passage_skeena_2022_reporting/issues/60#issuecomment-1771811880. Hard for me to do this background work because I think some of the streams are not in FWA so Hab tracks don't align with anything (mention here https://github.com/NewGraphEnvironment/fish_passage_skeena_2022_reporting/issues/60#issuecomment-1428868958), would be better for someone who knows the area. Maybe you could give me a little summary of the locations surveyed and I can write it up?

2023 Background info to be added:

• [ ] At site Tributary to Skeena River - 198217, 2023 fiss site comments mention a weir upstream but no mention of this in 2022 report, except it says there are " Multiple small steps from large and small woody debris with heights ranging from 20-40cm were present at the time of survey." which is maybe describing a weir??
• [ ] 2023 upstream fiss sites are WAY upstreams from crossing (~760m, see photo below) and I'm not sure about the reasoning behind this but I think it is important. Probably has to do with area surveyed in 2022 that needs a better description (mentioned above).

[NewGraphEnvironment]

closed with b5808b3da27ffeebdd053aa55f7b6e2759ec1a47