In NewGraphEnvironment/fish_passage_bulkley_2020_reporting: Does not matter.

Recommendations

Recommendations for potential incorporation into collaborative watershed connectivity planning for the Bulkley River and Morice River watershed groups include:

Continue to develop bcfishpass,bcfishobs, fwapg and other open source data analysis and presentation tools that are scalable and facilitate continual improvement and collaborative adaptation. Tools should continue to be flexible and well documented to allow the future incorporation of alternative fragmentation indicators, habitat gain/value metrics, watershed sensitivity indicators/risk factors and information sharing formats.
Continue to conduct fish passage and habitat confirmation assessments at road and rail stream crossings at sites in the study areas prioritized through this project and future connectivity analysis/modelling. In the Bulkley River watershed group, particular sites of note where future Phase 1 and Phase 2 assessments are recommended include John Brown Creek, Toboggan Creek, Cesford Creek, Watson Creek and Ailport Creek.
Continue to acquire funding to procure site plans and replacement designs for structures collaboratively identified as high priorities for restoration. Explore cost benefits and ethics of crossing structure upgrades alongside the cost benefits and ethics of alternative alternative investment activities including transportation corridor relocation/deactivation, land procurement/covenant, cattle exclusion, riparian restoration, habitat complexing, water conservation, commercial/recreational fishing management, salt water interventions and research. Look for opportunities to leverage initiatives together for maximum restoration benefits.
Refine barrier thresholds for road-stream crossing structures to explore metrics specific to life stage and life history types of species of interest. This will further focus efforts of potential remediation actions based on biological attributes (ex. timing of migration, size/direction of fish migrating, etc.) and could result in the consideration of interim "stop-gap" physical works to alter crossing characteristics that can address key connectivity issues yet be significantly less costly than structure replacements (ex. building up of downstream area with rock riffles to decrease the outlet drop size and/or increasing water depth within pipe with baffles and substrate additions).
Model fish densities (fish/m^2^) vs. habitat/water quality characteristics (i.e. gradient, watershed size, channel size, alkalinity, elevation, etc.) using historically gathered electrofishing data to inform crossing prioritization, future data acquisition needs, and the monitoring of subsequent restoration actions.
Expand the Bulkley River fish passage working group focus area to include the greater Skeena River watershed. A Skeena level effort will facilitate a more inclusive decision making environment, open up opportunities for collaboration/funding to more governments/organizations/stakeholders and allow consideration of all potential remediation sites that could benefit Skeena fish populations and the livelihoods they support.
Build relationships with other working groups (ex. Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group) to share knowledge and biuld capacity related to large scale connectivity remediation.
Continue to collaborate with potential partners to build relationships, explore perspectives and develop “road maps” for fish passage restoration in different situations (MoT roads, rail lines, permit roads of different usages, FSRs, etc.) – documenting the people involved, discussions and processes that are undertaken, funding options, synergies, measures of success, etc. Through this collaboration, such as is occurring with the Bulkley River working group, continue to draft and implement plans for fish passage restoration investments as well as to monitor the impacts of those investments on fish populations.