Tributary to Houston Tommy - 198934 and 198942

[NewGraphEnvironment]

Well written

tackling these fpr::fpr_appendix_title() for two crossings ?fpr::fpr_appendix_title

Duplicated photos (really strange since chunks aren't repeated. not sure why)

can usually get away with just 1 model ouput table and watershed stats since crossings are so close and details of distance hopefully noted in text

watershed group is Morice (vs zymo) in fpr_my_mapsheet

7: The label(s) fig:photo-198934-01 not found 
8: The label(s) fig:photo-198934-02 not found 
9: The label(s) fig:photo-198934-03 not found 
10: The label(s) fig:photo-198934-04 not found 

[NewGraphEnvironment]

reason for duplicated photos is as follows:

> my_photo1 = fpr::fpr_photo_pull_by_str(str_to_pull = 'landslide')
> my_photo1
[1] "data/photos/198934/20230916_112157_14000571_us_landslide_k_.JPG" "data/photos/198934/20230916_112157_14000571_us_landslide.JPG"  

we have 2 matches for fpr_photo_pull_by_str! Crazy that they get their own figure reference.... interesting

need to run rmarkdown::render('scripts/02_reporting/photos_import.Rmd', output_dir = "scripts/02_reporting/docs") in scripts/run.R before build. ~Guessing the _k_ photos might have been added to the repo in the fork by hand but the above script handles that for us whenever we change the photo files by deleting everything and then copying over the latest version of everything from the shared location....~ Could also just be a remnant of grabbing the PR locally (thats actually more likley!). Edit: PR will add photos not there without deleteing old version. that is why...

this deals with the figures not found too - sweet.

[NewGraphEnvironment]

this one is documented here https://www.newgraphenvironment.com/mybookdown-template/intro.html related to empty lines between paragraphs and default spacing that comes above and below different levels of headers. Demo of before after below

[NewGraphEnvironment]

site was reviewed in 2022 and ranked as moderate priority for follow up qgis/Background/planning_2022 (forgot that file even existed)

[NewGraphEnvironment]

super annoying semantics I know but Triton did a stream sample site and we did a habitat confirmation assessment. Either really could be called a "habitat assessment" but I think it is pretty common to reserve that term for more detailed assessments like "FHAP" and using the other terms provides more accurate descriptions

[NewGraphEnvironment]

wouldn't expect chinook in this stream. we leave our thresholds low to be conservative but it would be shocking to see them as high in a trib as these crossings. Not a well developed thought here but... overall the modelling is so hokey just presenting the table can be enough as then we don't seem to be vouching for it too much.

[NewGraphEnvironment]

Surveyors observed excellent habitat both upstream and downstream of the crossing and noted fish in the outlet pool.

in the stream characteristics at crossing section. prob from the notes but better belongs elsewhere. "Excellent habitat" contradicts our hab value rating too....

strange placement for this too

The site was rated as a r fpr::fpr_my_priority_info(col_pull = priority) %>% stringr::str_to_lower() priority for replacement.

Conclusion

significantly size outlet drops on both culverts

but the upper crossings drop is only 10cm....

[NewGraphEnvironment]

upstream Triton site survey mentions

CHANNEL: Falls prevent U/S migration of fish. NFC above falls. Fish caught easily below.

will add this detail