20120622 000000 vector digital data https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/DataClearinghouse/default.aspx?p=202&XMLname=44.xml https://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/web%20stores/data%20libraries/files/ODFW/ODFW_44_5_ofpbds_shp.zip The Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) dataset contains barriers to fish passage in Oregon watercourses. Barriers include the following types of natural or artificial structures: bridges, cascades, culverts, dams, debris jams, fords, natural falls, tide gates, and weirs. The OFPBDS dataset does not include structures which are not associated with in-stream features (such as dikes, levees or berms). Barriers are structures which do, or potentially may, impede fish movement and migration. Barriers can be known to cause complete or partial blockage to fish passage, or they can be completely passable, or they may have an unknown passage status. The third publication of the OFPBDS dataset (Version 3) complies with version 1.1 of the data standard. New optional attributes have been added to describe fish passage barrier feature modifications, to describe supplementary information (via a comments field) and also to linear reference the barrier features to the National Hydrography Dataset. Linear referencing attributes for the Pacific Northwest Hydrography have been retained in this version of the publication datasets, however they are no longer part of the data standard and will be removed from the next dataset publication version. Version 3 of the OFPBDS dataset contains over 30,000 barrier features from seventeen separate sources including: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), Oregon Department of Water Resources (OWRD), Oregon Department of Forestry (ODF), Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB), US Bureau of Land Management (BLM), US Forest Service, Nez Perce Tribe, Benton SWCD, Washington county and watershed councils representing the Rogue, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Santiam, Calapooia, Clackamas and Scapoose basins. The Data Steward obtained fish passage barrier data from multiple data originators between 2008 and 2011, collaborated with them to develop inclusion / exclusion criteria and dataset specific crosswalks for converting data from its original data structure to the structure of the OFPBDS. The data were then converted into the OFPBDS format and analyzed for duplication with existing OFPBDS barrier features. Where duplicates were identified, depending upon the scenario, one feature was either chosen over the other or in some cases attributes from different sources are combined. Source information is retained for each feature. The data were then loaded into the OFPBDS database. Barrier features were linear referenced (Framework Hydro only which is outside of the standard) and the corresponding optional attribute elements were populated. The data conversion, duplication reconciliation and linear referencing protocols are documented in the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Management Plan. A separate dataset containing fish passage barrier features that have been completely removed (e.g. dam removals and culvert replacements) will be published simultaneously with version 3 of the OFPBDS dataset. The OFPBDS database does not represent a comprehensive record of fish passage barriers in Oregon. Attributes (including key attributes such as fish passage status) are often incomplete. Consistency in attribution also varies among data originators. Field verification of barrier features and their attributes will be an important component to making this dataset comprehensive, current and accurate. Fish passage status is a key attribute. Many barrier features - including all ODOT barriers - have an unknown passage status. For other features, the passage status may have changed since documented. Note that this metadata file is best viewed in ArcCatalog with the FGDC Classic Stylesheet. Documentation for the OFPBDS can be found online at http://www.oregon.gov/DAS/EISPD/GEO/docs/bioscience/OregonFishPassageBarrierDataStandardv1dot1.pdf. This dataset is ultimately intended to support the need for an accurate, current and complete representation of the fish passage barriers affecting fish migration throughout the state. The Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) will provide a consistent and maintainable structure for both producers and users of fish passage barrier data. -124.539629 -116.568582 46.220536 41.955041 None BioscienceFramework Dams Fish passage barriers ISO 19115 Topic Categories environment None See Distribution Liability. http://spatialdata.oregonexplorer.info/metadata/thumbnails/FishBarriers2012.gif Fish passage barriers 2012 GIF Barrier features originate primarily from the following agencies: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Department of Transportation, Oregon Department of Water Resources, Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, US Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service, Nez Perce Tribe, Benton SWCD, Washington County and watershed councils representing the Rogue, Umpqua, Siuslaw, Santiam, Calapooia, Clackamas and Scapoose basins. Microsoft Windows 7 Version 6.1 (Build 7601) Service Pack 1; ESRI ArcGIS 10.0.3.3600 None The Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Inventory is a compilation of data from a number of state, federal, tribal, county and local sources. Each source is documented along with the process step information. Converted Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) fish passage barrier data into the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) format and loaded the data into the OFPBDS geodatabase. Metadata for ODFW barrier data states the following: This dataset contains barriers to fish passage that are known to affect and potentially affect anadromous and/or resident fish migration within the state of Oregon. The following barrier types are included: dams, culverts, falls, cascade/gradient/velocity, hatchery facility-related, tide gates, debris jams, water diversions, insufficient flow, fords, bridges and weirs. The passage status attribute describes whether a barrier feature blocks passage (complete or partial blockage), is passable or has an unknown passage status. The passage status attribute, in some cases, may not reflect the current passage status of the barrier (for culverts in particular) as conditions may have changed since the date the passage status was last evaluated. The passage status for many of the barriers is unknown due to potential effects on species and/or life stages where little information exists at this time. Consequently, many of these barriers may be completely passable to most if not all the species and life stages that have a need to migrate through the affected stream reach. The dataset includes the ODFW - ODOT jointly developed "Assessment of Road Culverts for Fish Passage Problems on State and County Owned Roads" (1999). ODFW barrier data exist in an enterprise geodatabase consisting of multiple tables and one point feature class. The data were exported in June 2009 into a replica copy of the enterprise geodatabase where the records were manipulated. OFPBDS fields were added to the database. A crosswalk between ODFW and OFPBDS attributes and attribute values was developed. Once the crosswalk was completed, attribute values for all the point features were populated in the OFPBDS fields. The point features and attributes were then loaded into the OFPBDS geodatabase. A number of ODFW staff were consulted for the crosswalk. Agency staff were also involved in the standardization process. Specific notes regarding the ODFW data: * The coordinate system of the spatial coordinates in the fpbLong and fpbLat fields is GCS_North_American_1983. * For the multiple features attribute (fpbMltFtr), those records with a "yes" are features which occur at multiple-feature sites AND the features are part of multiple-feature sites which have the multiple features in the OFPBDS database. The fpbMltFtr attribute was not used to indicate features belonging to multiple-feature sites unless records for the features were actually in the database. * ODFW data are linear-referenced to the 1:24,000-scale PNW Framework Hydrography. The stream identifier (fpbStrID), stream measure (fpbStrMeas) and stream name (fpbStrNm) are dervied from the framework hydrography. * Values for road name (fpbRdNm) are what was originally inputted for the ODFW data; the source of the name varies. * A value of 0 for slope (fpbSlope) is presumed to indicate a flat plane. * A value of 0 for drop (fpbDrop) is presumed to indicate no drop. ODFW barrier data are published online at http://nrimp.dfw.state.or.us/nrimp/default.aspx?pn=fishbarrierdata. ODFW Jon Bowers GIS Coordinator 503-947-6097 jon.k.bowers@state.or.us Converted Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) culvert data into the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) format and loaded the data into the OFPBDS geodatabase. Culvert data from ODOT's Drainage Facility Management System (DFMS) were exported into XML format and provided to the Data Steward in August 2009. The data were converted into a feature class based upon the spatial coordinates of the records and added into a geodatabase where the records were manipulated. A methodology was developed to identify which of the ODOT culvert records were culverts at stream crossings. OFPBDS fields were added to the database. A crosswalk between ODOT and OFPBDS attributes and attribute values was developed. Once the crosswalk was completed, attribute values for the selected point features were populated in the OFPBDS fields. The point features and attributes were then loaded into the OFPBDS geodatabase. Several ODOT staff were consulted for the crosswalk and the record selection methodology. Specific notes regarding the ODOT data: * The coordinate system of the spatial coordinates in the fpbLong and fpbLat fields is GCS_North_American_1983. * Features with a originator feature identifier (fpbOFtrID) beginning with "T" are temporary records and are (eventually) replaced. * Some culverts exist at multiple-feature sites. Since ODOT provided only one record per site for multiple-feature sites, the Data Steward added culvert records for these additional features. * For the multiple features attribute (fpbMltFtr), those records with a "yes" are features which occur at multiple-feature sites AND the features are part of multiple-feature sites which have the multiple features in the OFPBDS database. The fpbMltFtr attribute was not used to indicate features belonging to multiple-feature sites unless records for the features were actually in the database. Fish passage status (fpbFPasSta) for ODOT records has been assigned by ODFW using the following criteria: - where culvert drop > 1 foot and < 3.2 feet, passage status was assigned as "partial" - where culvert drop > 3.2 feet, passage status was assigned as "blocked" Fish passage status for ODOT culverts is a determination made by ODFW staff; ODOT defers to ODFW for evaluating passage status. * Values for stream name (fpbStrNm) were provided by ODOT; the source of the stream name varies. * For the road identifier (fpbRdID) and road measure (fpbRdMeas) attributes, ODOT's Highway and Milepoint attributes were used. Note that these two attributes alone are not enough to identify ODOT road features and their locations - other road attributes are needed as well. Note also that ODOT has more than one type of mileage (example: Milepoint 45 is not the same as Milepoint Z 45). fpbRdMeas is the road route measure in kilometers -- units in Milepoint were converted from miles. * A value of 0 for drop (fpbDrop) is presumed to indicate no drop. ODFW Converted US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) data into the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) format and loaded the data into the OFPBDS geodatabase. Data from six BLM districts in western Oregon were incorporated: Coos Bay, Eugene, Lakeview, Medford, Roseburg, Salem. Eleven BLM datasets were separately added into the OFPBDS geodatabase. BLM data were initially provided to the Data Steward October 2008, the geographic extents of which were typically entire BLM districts or individual resource areas. Subsequently (January - May 2009), the Data Steward obtained data from several BLM districts/resource areas, and this information was used instead of the original files. BLM data were provided in a variety of formats: GIS (shapefiles, geodatabases) and non-GIS (Access databases, Excel spreadsheets, Word documents). Tabular data (non-GIS) included both records with spatial coordinates and records without coordinates. Across BLM, there was a good level of consistency in the datasets, in terms of attributes and point collection. But, there were also substantial differences among the records, requiring that each dataset incorporated into the OFPBDS be handled individually. Not all barrier data provided to the Data Steward made it into the OFPBDS. There are three reasons for this: (a) The records are features, like cross drains (i.e., culverts not on streams), which are not on road-stream crossings. (b) The barriers are road-stream crossings not considered to be fish-bearing. (c) The datasets were provided in a non-GIS format and did not contain spatial coordinates, so the tabular information was not converted into GIS given the time constraints of the project. The overall process for incorporating BLM data into the fish passage barrier data standard was as follows: 1. Obtain BLM data. 2. Develop a crosswalk between BLM and OFPBDS, and develop a methodology to determine which records, if not all, to include in the standard. 3. Address any issues (like unique identifiers). 4. Convert data into the standard. 5. Provide standardized data back to BLM (and often also provide Steward-modified intermediate data developed during standardization, especially where identifiers were manipulated). 6. Throughout the entire process, BLM state and district staff were consulted. The Steward worked with the BLM data "as is". In other words, the Steward did not attempt to review, edit or 'correct' BLM records, locations or attributes. The goal was to get as much information into the standard as possible. Most BLM barrier data contain attributes which match those in the standard as well as attributes which do not exist in the standard. Throughout the process of converting BLM data into the OFPBDS, a series of determinations, assumptions and decisions were made. A BLM - OFPBDS Crosswalk (spreadsheet) was developed and contains a record of this, along with a document detailing key GIS steps in the conversion process. In order to standardize the data, crosswalks of each BLM dataset were developed to ensure that attributes and attribute values were properly matched. The crosswalk details how barriers were converted into the OFPBDS format. Two issues highlight the difficulty in integrating the data: unique identifiers (IDs); standardizing attribute values for fish passage status. There were several problems related to BLM records containing unique originator identifiers (IDs): a. There was not a consistent, unique identifier for barrier records among BLM districts and resource areas. b. Some BLM datasets did not contain any ID at all. c. Some BLM datasets contained records with duplicated IDs. To address these problems, the Steward developed a system whereby a prefix (e.g., "BLMMed" for BLM - Medford District) was added to the ID provided by BLM, or if there was no unqiue ID, the ID was modified or generated by the Steward. As for fish passage status, the OFPBDS considers barriers to be Blocked (not passable), Partial (partially passable), Passable, or Unknown. Where passage status was indicated, BLM data utilized several criteria/definitions: a. professional judgment, b. culvert design criteria, c. coarse screen filter (Green, Grey, Red). Crosswalking passage status can be less than exact (e.g where a coarse screen filter result = Red that could either equate to a partial or completely blocked culvert. In version 3 of the OFPBDS published dataset, BLM data based on a coarse screen filter result of red have been reclassified with a passage status of "partial" with the exception of culverts with drops > 3.2 feet which had a passage status of "blocked" maintained. Specific notes regarding the BLM data (for all source datasets): * The coordinate system of the spatial coordinates in the fpbLong and fpbLat fields is GCS_North_American_1983. * Most BLM datasets included BLM and non-BLM 'culverts', especially private barriers. * Values for road name (fpbRdNm) were provided by BLM, and tended to reflect BLM's internal road IDs. * Values for stream name (fpbStrNm) were provided by BLM; the source of the stream name varies. Specific notes regarding the BLM data (for one - or more - source datasets): * For fish passage status (fpbFPasSta), some BLM datasets utilized a BLM coarse filter to assess passage status while other BLM datasets utilized culvert design specifications ('Fish Pass'). The following represents how these attribute values were crosswalked to the OFPBDS values: BLM Coarse Filter OFPBDS Green Passable Grey Unknown Red Blocked BLM 'Fish Pass' OFPBDS Yes Passable No Blocked ODFW Reconciled barrier features duplicated in the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) geodatabase. Duplication Analysis Phase The Duplication Analysis phase consists of a set of procedures to determine if duplication exists between the targeted data and the OFPBDS. The Duplication Analysis occurs after the crosswalk methodology is approved, and the data is converted accordingly. Proximity is the most effective indicator in determining duplication, followed by a thorough, manual quality assurance review by GIS Analyst that considers attribute values and other factors such as data currency and completeness of the source datasets. The Duplication Analysis processing steps are as follows: 1) Build a Workstation (MXD): Using ArcMap, create a MXD (Map document) to house all of the data necessary to perform the Duplication Analysis. A group of datasets are required for the proximity analysis (model), and manual analysis (basemap data). a) Model Datasets: The three datasets required to run the duplication analysis model include: (1) Targeted Barriers, (2) OFPBDS, and a (3) Study Area. The targeted barriers are barriers of interest scheduled to be added to the standard, and the OFPBDS is the most recent updated version of the standard. The Study area is a polygon file that completely surrounds the targeted barriers, and can either be generated from hydrologic unit codes, or any boundary data that encompasses all targeted barriers. It is recommended to make addition modifications to the study area to tightly encompass the targeted barriers. b) Manual Datasets: The datasets instrumental in the manual analysis include: Streams (complete watercourse layer), roads (combination of BLM highways and roads), Image Web Server (Oregon Explorer), ESRI Topography (ESRI Map Server), ESRI Imagery World 2D (ESRI Map Server). These basemap datasets assist in determining apparent or ‘potential’ barrier locations. For instance, the barriers of concern for these efforts are on fish bearing streams, and in most cases, at the intersections of roads and streams. The two sets of satellite imagery shares a number of aerial indicators including: roads, streams, drainages, pools, linear vegetation indicating streams, infrastructure, and even the barriers themselves. The Topography layer helps identify slope, aspect, drainages, infrastructure, streams, roads and elevation. All together, these datasets present a strong representation of where barriers are ‘most likely’ located. 2) Run the Model: The Duplication Analysis Model (DAM) is designed to assist in the identification of duplication between barriers scheduled for integration in to the OFPBDS, and barriers that already exist in the OFPBDS. The primary goal of DAM is to distinguish between unlikely and potential duplicates in the Targeted Barriers. The unlikely duplicate barriers will be directly integrated in to the OFPBDS; where as the potential duplicates will require further investigation and analysis. a) DAM Parameters: There are three model parameters necessary to execute DAM indicated by a blue oval. These parameters include the Targeted Barriers, the OFPBDS dataset, and the custom Study Area. b) Model Assumptions / Limitations: The DAM does pose some limitations and assumptions that need to be addressed. 1) Assumption 1: DAM classifies duplicates automatically as a standalone tool. DAM is not the sole tool to identify duplication; its intention is to assist the GIS Analyst in the Duplication Analysis Process by providing a platform for further analysis with enhanced capabilities (filtered datasets, UIDs, relationship and connectivity potential, and distance measurements). 2) Assumption 2: The datasets (OFPBDS & Target Barriers) are geographically accurate. There may be unique instances where barrier features are not accurate, resulting in a false duplicate, or no duplicate at all. The Analyst Duplication Assessment will legitimize these features based upon attribute comparison, if their identified as a duplicate feature. 3) Assumption 3: The closest feature from the Target Barrier is a duplicate. In some cases, there is a duplicate, while in others there may not be. If there is a duplicate, it’s not always the closest barrier. The Model was designed to accommodate this situation, by clipping all features within 150 meters of the features as a base to run the Near Analysis. The Analyst Duplication Assessment would pick up these instances based on attribute comparison, geospatial patterns, and remote sensing using the available base map data. 4) Limitation 1: Horizontal accuracy of a feature needs to be taken in to account when comparing potential duplicates. For instance, the location accuracy of a feature may be outside of the established potential duplication range of 150 meters. 5) Limitation 2: Potential duplication is derived entirely geospatially using proximity. It does not account for similar or disparate descriptive attribute data to determine potential duplication. c) DAM Operations: There are four geospatial operations within DAM indicated by yellow boxes. First, DAM clips the OFPBDS features to the Study Area (clip). This provides a comprehensive OFPBDS copy to examine in future analysis. Next, DAM designates a 150 meter buffer around the Target Barriers (buffer), and clips the OFPBDS barriers to this buffer layer (clip 2), which results in an OFPBDS_Clipped dataset with only OFPBDS features within 150 meters of the Target Barriers. Finally, DAM performs an analysis on the Target_Barriers by calculating their distance from the closest OFPBDS_Improve barriers (near), and its corresponding ObjectID. The distance and ObjectID are added to two fields in the Target_Barriers. Note* The OFPBDS_Clipped dataset’s name will change to OFPBDS_Improve. This dataset will be used to improve duplicate features which reside in the OFPBDS if more comprehensive or accurate data is available. d) DAM Results: Two significant datasets are produced by DAM that requires further investigation. One is the OFPBDS_Improve, and the second is a revised Target_Barriers. Again, the OFPBDS_Improve dataset are OFPBDS features within 150 meters of the Target_Barriers. The OFPBDS_Improve is a direct result of the second clip operation in DAM. The revised Target_Barriers is the original Target_Barriers layer, although has two new fields added in the attribute table; one is named NEAR_FID, and the other NEAR_DIST. The NEAR_FID houses the ObjectID of the corresponding feature in the OFPBDS. Potentially, the tables can now be internally linked using the Object_ID field in OFPBDS_Improve, and the NEAR_FID field in the Target Barriers. This link may support relationship classes, joins, and several relate functions which can be applied for further evaluation in the manual analyst review. The OFPBDS_Improve dataset will be set aside for further analysis in the manual review. The Target_Barrier dataset can be delineated in to two subtypes. Features inside the 150 meter buffer will be extracted to a subsequent dataset called Potential_Duplicates. Features outside of the buffers range are extracted to a Barrier Final dataset, and set to be integrated to the OFPBDS. 3) Analyst Duplication Assessment: The Analyst Duplication Assessment is designed to physically sift through the Potential Barriers manually and compare their attributes to that of the OFPBDS_Improve. During this stage, it’s imperative to utilize professional judgment, while at all times protecting the integrity of the OFPBDS. The initial approach is to compare these datasets by their proximity to one another, and their descriptive barrier attributes. The Potential_Duplicates dataset is the primary dataset for evaluation in this assessment. a) Data Preparation: Using the workstation set forth in the first process, three main barrier datasets need to be added, and one created. These include the OFPBDS_Improve, Barriers_Final, and Potential_Duplication. An additional empty dataset called Questionable_Duplicates is also needed to house questionable barriers. b) Analyze Barriers: Two primary barrier datasets are necessary at this stage to identify duplication. They include the Apparent_Duplicates and OFPBDS_Improve datasets. By comparing these datasets by their proximity to one another, surrounding infrastructure, topography, vegetation, barrier measurements, hydrology, landscape, road/stream intersections, and remote sensing, a GIS Analyst can determine with a fair amount of certainty whether duplication exists. A document entitled, “Reconciling Duplicated barrier Features among Data Sources in the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard” provides some assistance in this process. c) Decision Results: Three actions result from this process, which all derive from the Potential_Duplicates dataset. 1. Duplication is Determined = Data is placed in an Apparent_Duplicate dataset, and set aside for further analysis when comparing the datasets already established in the OFPBDS (OFPBDS_Improve). Refer to the section d of this process. 2. Duplication is Questionable = Record is cut and pasted to the Questionable_Duplicate dataset. (Corresponding Record is removed from OFPBDS_Improve) The Questionable_Duplicate dataset is provided back to their origin source for further analysis. 3. Barrier is Unique = Record is cut and pasted to the Target_Finals. (Corresponding Record is removed from OFPBDS_Improve) The Target_Finals are integrated to the OFPBDS directly upon completion. d) Update OFPBDS: The approach is to improve upon existing data residing in the OFPBDS. If duplication has been determined through the Apparent_Duplicate dataset, the attributes are compared to their corresponding barrier in the OFPBDS. If data is superior in the Apparent_Duplicates dataset, then the corresponding OFPBDS_Improve data is improved with the enhanced data. For example, if data is missing in the OFPBDS, and present from the Target barriers, the attributes in the Target Barriers are integrated to the OFPBDS. In addition, if data has been updated, such as the fish passage status (fpbFPasSta) from a previous assessment, the more current attribute data is utilized. Process Date 2009 - 2011 ODFW Reconciled barrier features in the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) with project information from the Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI) maintained by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB). OWRI Reconciliation Process Use the most recent OWRI data. This geodatabase contains two feature classes: the full OWRI database and a subset feature class, fish_passage_projects, consisting of only the fish passage barrier improvement projects. The fish_passage_projects feature class constitutes records where the Project Type field = “fish passage” or “combined”; the Treatment field describes fish passage barrier modifications, replacement or removal, and Comment or Description fields mention fish passage, culverts, bridges, and/or dams. 1. Add the fish_passage_projects feature class to your MXD along with the OFPBDS version you are editing. 2. Do a Select by Location using the fish_passage_projects features and the OFPBDS features, within a distance of 150 meters. The selected OWRI points are now used for manual reconciliation. 3. Use the treatment field or TreatmentLUID field to divide the projects into three categories: Removed barriers, replaced barriers and modified barriers. Information regarding the projects is also available in the description and comment fields, and should be consulted if there is a question about what happened where. There may be cases where a barrier in your original data is the replaced or modified culvert that is recorded in the OWRI. 1. First, consider the date of the original data [fpbLocDt and fpbStaEvDt] in comparison to OWRI project dates [CompleteYear and CompleteMonth]. 2. Second, check the Fish Passage Status [fpbFPasSta]. A “Completely Passable” status in the original data would point toward a newer, possibly replaced or modified structure. 3. If it is determined that the original barrier feature and the OWRI feature are the same, only the fpbOrYr (if null) or fpbModDt (if applicable) fields would be populated from the OWRI record. Removed Barriers If the barrier was removed and not replaced, fill in the fpbRmvDt field in the OFPBDS data with the CompleteYear and CompleteMonth fields from OWRI. Following OFPBDS Business Rules: Data originators should populate these date elements as completely as possible. However, partial date information will be accepted. If the month and year are known, use zeros to populate the day portion of the date element. If only the year is known, use zeros to populate the month and day portion of the date element. If the date is unknown, use zeros to populate the entire element (e.g. 20011200, 20010000, 00000000). Replaced Barriers If the barrier was replaced with a new culvert, bridge, etc. there are two steps: Original OFPBDS feature is updated with the removed date, fpbRmvDt. A new feature is created for the new culvert, bridge, etc. and attribute data is copied and changed. 1. Select and Copy the original OFPBDS feature, and then Paste (Add) it to the appropriate feature class. You now have duplicate features. 2. Update the original record’s fpbRmvDt field: fpbRmvDt = CompleteYear and CompleteMonth fields per OWRI, following OFPBDS Business Rules, i.e., “20071000”. 3. Change attribute data for the new (copied) feature: a. fpbOFtrID and fpbOSiteID new features use the Site ID number (if available) or the OWEB Project Number if there is no SiteID number. If there is more than one feature for a Project, add a suffix, i.e., -A, -B for multiple features. b. fpbONm = “OWEB” c. fpbFPasSta = “Passable” d. fpbStaEvDt = CompleteYear and CompleteMonth fields per OWRI, following OFPBDS Business Rules. e. fpbStaEvMd = ”ByDesign” f. fpbOrYr = CompleteYear field per OWRI g. fpbFtrTy or fpbFtrNm if relevant, i.e. culvert replaced with bridge. h. Delete (make null) or update old information, copied from the original record, that is not related to the new feature, i.e. culvert subtype, height, length, width, slope, drop, and any other pertinent fields. i. Note: If you copied an OFPBDS feature that already has a fpbFtrID and fpbSiteID, these will need to be deleted (made null) and the Data Steward will assign new IDs. Modified Barriers If the barrier was modified, retrofitted, or improved in some manner, several fields in the OFPBDS records will be updated and the fields fpbModTy and/or fpbModDesc, in the version1_fields Table will be completed. 1. fpbModDt = CompleteYear and CompleteMonth field information from OWRI, following Business Rules for Dates. 2. fpbFPasSta = “Passable” Note: many modifications may only moderately improve passage; i.e., an upgrade from Blocked to Partial; so check OWRI comment fields or consider biologist verification if there is a question. 3. fpbStaEvDt = CompleteYear and CompleteMonth fields per OWRI, following Business Rules. 4. fpbStaEvMd = ”ByDesign” 5. fpbPasONm = “OWEB” 6. Populate the fbpModTy and/or fpbModDesc fields as appropriate: Baffles, StreamSim, Weirs, Other, Unknown. If “Other”, describe in the fpbModDes field. This might entail copying information from the OWRI comments or description fields. Issues with OWRI data - In cases where multiple passage barrier features were addressed as part of a single restoration project, especially where different types of features were addressed, it may be unclear which point represents which feature. - A large number of OWRI passage project locations have poor positional accuracy, in particular with records created with the StreamNet Event Mapper (~2005 or earlier). This issue hinders reconciliation with OFPBD, but it likely accounts for only a small percentage of the mismatches between OWRI and the current OFPBDS. OWRI records with a location confidence rating of “high” match up with OFPBD at the same rate (~15-20%) as those records with medium and low location confidence ratings. - All OWRI passage project records should be incorporated into OFPBD at a later date to maximize its comprehensiveness. There are numerous records in OWRI that are unlikely to be submitted to OFPBD by their ultimate originators because they fall on private industrial and private non-industrial forestlands. Incorporating OWRI records into OFPBD will update the database on passage problems already addressed. - Rules and assumptions for populating required attributes such as passage status (e.g. all OWRI passage projects now pass fish) will need to be developed when OWRI feature points are incorporated into the OFPBDS data. Process Date 2009 - 2011 ODFW Converted Oregon Water Resources Department Dam Inventory data into the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) format and loaded the data into the OFPBDS geodatabase. Metadata for OWRD dam data states the following: dams within the jurisdiction of Oregon Water Resource Department are defined by a dam height >= 10 feet and storage of >= 9.2 acre feet. OWRD dam data exist in an enterprise geodatabase as a point feature class, updated in June 2010, and a SQL database with ongoing updates. A geodatabase with a point feature class and an Excel Spreadsheet of 318 additional dams, were provided to the Data Steward in June and July 2010 respectively. A feature class was created for the Excel spreadsheet records by importing the spatial coordinates through ArcGIS. The two feature classes were checked for record duplication and then merged. A crosswalk between OWRD and OFPBDS attributes and attribute values was developed. Additionally, a methodology was developed to identify OWRD dam records that were not located in stream channels, i.e. waste water lagoons, and therefore not a fish passage barrier. OWRD staff was consulted for the crosswalk and the record selection methodology. Once the crosswalk was completed, OFPBDS fields were added to the database and attribute values for all the point features were populated in the OFPBDS fields. The data were exported in July 2010 into a replica copy of the enterprise geodatabase. Once the dam features were loaded in the OFPBDS replica, the data were analyzed for duplication. Where OWRD features were duplicates of OFPBDS (version 1) features, the OWRD dam feature replaced the OFPBDS (version 1) dam feature. Spatial proximity along with attribute similarity was used to identify potential - and likely - duplicates. The threshold distance default was 150 meters. However, upon visual inspection of the distance between OWRD and OFPBDS (version 1) dam features with matching attribute characteristics, some were over 2,000 feet apart. Potential duplicates, based on spatial proximity, were manually reviewed to identify those which were actual (confirmed) duplicates. Features which were potential duplicates due to proximity were compared by key attributes: Dam name, stream name, dam height, and owner. If there was still a question regarding duplication after this comparison, OWRD's water rights database was queried. Because OWRD does not collect information on fish passage status, where there was a definitive match between an OWRD dam record and an OFPBDS (version 1) dam feature with barrier status and fishway information, that attribute information was merged from the OFPBDS record to the OWRD record in order to retain it. ODFW is noted as the data source for those fields (fpbFPasONm). A second manual review based on feature name similarity further identified actual duplicates where feature points were greater than 150 meters apart. Dam features removed from the OFPBDS (version 1) database were ODFW records. Once the barrier features were compiled in the OFPBDS database and once features were analyzed for duplication, a limited effort was made to update dam features based upon the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's (OWEB) Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI). The point features and attributes were then loaded into the OFPBDS geodatabase. Specific notes regarding the OWRD dam data: * The coordinate system of the spatial coordinates in the fpbLong and fpbLat fields is GCS_North_American_1983. *The passage status for many of the dams is unknown at this time. Consequently, some of these barriers may be completely passable to most if not all the species and life stages that have a need to migrate through the affected stream reach. *Because OWRD does not collect information on fish passage status, where there was a definitive match between an OWRD dam record and an OFPBDS (version 1) dam feature with barrier status and fishway information, that attribute information was merged from the OFPBDS record to the OWRD record in order to retain it. ODFW is noted as the data source for those fields (fpbFPasONm). *Values for stream name (fpbStrNm) were provided by OWRD and are generally the storage water source as stated on the OWRD permit, not the location of the dam relative to a stream channel. * Where there is stream identifier (fpbStrID), and/or stream measure (fpbStrMeas) data are linear-referenced to the 1:24,000-scale PNW Framework Hydrography. Process Date 2010 ODFW Converted Oregon Department of Forestry - Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODF-ODFW) Fish Presence barrier data into the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) format and loaded the data into the OFPBDS geodatabase. ODF-ODFW Fish Presence barrier data consists of two data sets: attributed line features in an ODF Fish Presence geodatabase, last updated in June, 2010, and an Access database of culvert specifics, with location coordinates, taken from ODF-ODFW Fish Presence survey forms, compiled in 2000-2001 by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. A process for deriving barrier feature points from the ODF line features and a conversion outline, or crosswalk, between the Fish Presence line data, Fish Presence culvert database, and OFPBDS attributes and attribute values was developed. ODF and ODFW staff who compiled the Fish Presence data was consulted regarding the crosswalk. OFPBDS fields were then added to the ODF-ODFW Fish Presence barrier feature tables and attribute values were populated in the OFPBDS fields. ODF-ODFW Fish Presence barrier data was then analyzed for duplication between the two data sets and with OFPBDS records. Where ODF Fish Presence line feature derived barrier records were duplicates of Fish Presence culvert survey features, the line feature derived barrier was deleted. Where ODF-ODFW Fish Presence barrier features were duplicates of OFPBDS features, the ODF-ODFW Fish Presence barrier features were not added to the OFPBDS geodatabase. Where there was a definitive match between features, absent attribute information was migrated from the ODF-ODFW record to the OFPBDS feature in order to retain it. ODF-ODFW is noted as the data source for those fields. Spatial proximity along with attribute similarity was used to identify potential - and likely - duplicates. The threshold distance default was 150 meters. Points greater than 150 meters from a current OFPBDS feature location were considered new features and added. Features within 150 meters of OFPBDS features were considered potential duplicates, based on spatial proximity. Features which were potential duplicates due to proximity were compared by key attributes: stream name, road name, culvert type, width and length. If there was still a question regarding duplication after this comparison, the feature was put aside in a separate feature class for consultation. ODF-ODFW Fish Presence barrier features were also analyzed for duplication with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's (OWEB) Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI). Where a match could be made between an OWRI record and an ODF-ODFW Fish Presence barrier feature, updates were made to pertinent fields. In October 2010, the ODF-ODFW Fish Presence barrier data were loaded into the OFPBDS enterprise geodatabase. Specific notes regarding the ODF-ODFW Fish Presence barrier feature data: * The coordinate system of the spatial coordinates in the fpbLong and fpbLat fields is GCS_North_American_1983. * The ODF Fish Presence feature class is attributed line features for watercourses within the state. The table contains a Barrier field to identify stream segments impacted by the presence of a fish barrier. To derive point features, ODFW selected records with a Barrier field value other than null or "None." Points were generated from the selected record lines [Barrier field value other than null or none] with the Feature Vertices to Points script/toolbox for line segments. Line segments above a barrier feature all carry the same barrier attribute; therefore upstream vertices need to be discarded. Arc direction varied in the feature class, so vertices (points) were checked manually against Fish Presence line work to identify the downstream terminus or point between stream segments with a barrier value other than null or none and segments with a none or null value. Line attributes transferred to the point. * ODF-ODFW Fish Presence survey data sources are varied, but are primarily Oregon Department of Forestry, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Federal land management agencies, private forest land owners, and private forestry consultants. Fish passage status evaluations are based on the ODF/ODFW Fish Presence Survey protocol described in Surveying Forest Streams for Fish Use. *Passage status for some barriers is unknown at this time. Consequently, some of these barriers may be completely passable to most if not all the species and life stages that have a need to migrate through the affected stream reach. * ODF Fish Presence data exists on hydrographic line work from several sources, including manually digitized watercourses. Where there is a stream identifier (fpbStrID), and/or stream measure (fpbStrMeas) data are linear-referenced to the 1:24,000-scale PNW Framework Hydrography. ODF Fish Presence data is available online: http://www.oregon.gov/ODF/GIS/fishpresence.shtml Process Date 2010 ODFW Converted Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Aquatic Inventories Project (AIP) Habitat Unit data into the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) format and loaded the data into the OFPBDS geodatabase. The ODFW Aquatic Inventories Project Habitat Unit data exists in ArcInfo Coverages packaged as Arc interchange files (.e00), last updated in 2010. Downloaded interchange files were imported into coverages in ArcCatalog, and then converted to geodatabase feature classes. A process for deriving barrier feature points from the AIP Habitat Unit line features and a crosswalk between the AIP Habitat Unit line data and OFPBDS attributes and attribute values was developed. ODFW staff, who compile the AIP Habitat Unit data, was consulted regarding deriving features and the crosswalk. OFPBDS fields were then added to the AIP Habitat Unit barrier feature tables and attribute values were populated in the OFPBDS fields. AIP Habitat Unit barrier data was then analyzed for duplication with OFPBDS records. Where AIP Habitat Unit line feature derived barrier records were duplicates of OFPBDS features, the AIP Habitat Unit barrier features were not added to the OFPBDS geodatabase. Where there was a definitive match between features, absent attribute information was migrated from the AIP Habitat Unit record to the OFPBDS feature in order to retain it. ODFW is noted as the data source for those fields. Spatial proximity along with attribute similarity was used to identify potential - and likely - duplicates. The threshold distance default was 150 meters. Points greater than 150 meters from a current OFPBDS feature location were considered new features and added. Features within 150 meters of OFPBDS features were considered potential duplicates, based on spatial proximity. Features which were potential duplicates due to proximity were compared by key attributes: feature type, stream name, road name, height, width and length. AIP Habitat Unit barrier features were also analyzed for duplication with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's (OWEB) Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI). Where a match could be made between an OWRI record and an AIP Habitat Unit barrier feature, updates were made to pertinent fields. In February 2011, the AIP Habitat Unit barrier data were loaded into the OFPBDS enterprise geodatabase. Specific notes regarding the AIP Habitat Unit barrier feature data: * The coordinate system of the spatial coordinates in the fpbLong and fpbLat fields is GCS_North_American_1983. * The AIP Habitat Unit feature class is attributed line features for surveyed watercourses within the state. The geodatabase table contains a Unit Type field that identifies culvert crossings, artificial step structures and natural bedrock step features, i.e. waterfalls, along with a unique identifier field (HABUNT). To derive point barrier features, ODFW selected records with a Unit Type field value equal to these unit types [culvert crossings, steps created by structures, natural bedrock steps greater than 2 meters]. The Comment Code and Note fields also identified features such as dams, fish ladders and road fords. Points were generated from the selected record lines with the Feature Vertices to Points script/toolbox for line segments, using the start point of the line. Line attributes transferred to the point. *Fish passage status evaluations are based on coarse passage criteria relative to the feature type. For culverts, a drop or perch height over 0.5 feet = Partial; if the drop is equal to or greater than one foot, then a two foot or greater unit depth is needed immediately downstream (jump pool). If the downstream unit depth is equal to or greater than two feet, then the Fish Passage Status remains as "Partial". If the downstream unit depth is less than two feet, the Fish Passage Status = Blocked. If the slope of a culvert > 5% = Partial; if the drop > 3.2 feet = Blocked . For dams and other artificial step structures - if the Height > 0.5 foot = Partial; Height > 6.6 feet = Blocked; If the height is equal to or greater than one foot, then a two foot or greater unit depth is needed immediately downstream (jump pool). If the downstream unit depth is equal to or greater than two feet, then the Fish Passage Status remains as "Partial". If the downstream unit depth is less than two feet, the Fish Passage Status = Blocked. For natural features if the height is over 16 feet = Blocked. If the height is less than 16 feet = Unknown; if the slope is greater than or equal to 16 % over a distance of 200 meters = Blocked. Passage status for some barriers is unknown at this time. Consequently, some of these barriers may be completely passable to most if not all the species and life stages that have a need to migrate through the affected stream reach. * Project survey dates range from 1990 to 2009. Where data was seasonal, winter data was not used. * AIP Habitat Unit data exists on hydrographic line work generally at a scale of 1:100,000. Where there is a stream identifier (fpbStrID), and/or stream measure (fpbStrMeas) data are linear-referenced to the 1:24,000-scale PNW Framework Hydrography. AIP Habitat Unit data is available online: http://oregonstate.edu/dept/ODFW/freshwater/inventory/habitgis.html Process Date 2010 - 2011 ODFW Converted from the Umpqua Basin Fish Access Team (UBFAT) fish passage data into the Oregon fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS). Geospatial and tabular data was provided by UBFAT, as well as a document entitled "Umpqua Basin Fish Access Team (UBFAT) Basin Plan." The overall process for incorporating the UBFAT data into the fish passage barrier data standard was as follows: 1. Obtain UBFAT data. 2. Develop a crosswalk between UBFAT and OFPBDS, and develop a methodology to determine which records, if not all, to include in the standard. 3. Address any issues (like unique identifiers). 4. Convert data into the standard. 5. Provide standardized data back to UBFAT (and often also provide Steward-modified intermediate data developed during standardization, especially where identifiers were manipulated). 6. Throughout the entire process, UBFAT were consulted. The Steward worked with the UBFAT data "as is". In other words, the Steward did not attempt to review, edit or 'correct' UBFAT records, locations or attributes. The goal was to get as much information into the standard as possible. Most UBFAT barrier data contain attributes which match those in the standard as well as attributes which do not exist in the standard. Throughout the process of converting UBFAT data into the OFPBDS, a series of determinations, assumptions and decisions were made. A UBFAT - OFPBDS Crosswalk (spreadsheet) was developed and contains a record of this, along with a document detailing key GIS steps in the conversion process. A duplication process was performed as the final stage of analysis and documented within the UBFAT crosswalk to determine what, if any UBFAT barriers were duplicates of pre-existing OFPBDS barriers. Using a duplication analysis model to identify potential duplicates within 150 meters, 838 of the 2242 barriers were classified as potential duplicates. Out of the 838 potential duplicates, 650 were apparent duplicates, while the remaining 188 were questionable. The 650 apparent duplicate barriers were then used to update or improve missing or erroneous data in the corresponding OFPBDS features. The entire integration process using UBFAT's fish passage barrier information resulted in 369 bridges, 1,211 culverts, 1 dams, and 11 waterfalls. The total of fish passage barrier features imported to the OFPBDS from UBFAT is 1,592 features. Process Date 2010 ODFW Converted Rogue Basin Fish Access Team (RBFAT) data into the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) format and loaded the data into the OFPBDS geodatabase. The RBFAT data exists in an Excel spreadsheet and an Access database, last updated in 2005. Spatial coordinates for RBFAT barrier features were not available, with the exception of the Bear Creek Watershed. RBFAT data for the Bear Creek Watershed exists in a point feature class shapefile. RBFAT features with no spatial coordinates were manually located on DRGs or imagery and digitized, referring to legal coordinates, river miles, and ownership in the spreadsheet and database, and Oregon Water Resources Point of Diversion database and Decree map information. A conversion outline, or crosswalk, between RBFAT and OFPBDS attributes and attribute values was developed. RBFAT members who compiled the data were consulted regarding the crosswalk. OFPBDS fields were added to the Bear Creek Watershed geodatabase and attribute values were populated in the OFPBDS fields. Bear Creek Watershed records were then loaded into the RBFAT geodatabase. The RBFAT geodatabase and RBFAT Access tables were joined on the BarrierID field and attribute values were populated in the OFPBDS fields. RBFAT data was then analyzed for duplication with OFPBDS records. Where RBFAT features were duplicates of OFPBDS features, the RBFAT features were not added to the OFPBDS geodatabase. Spatial proximity along with attribute similarity was used to identify potential - and likely - duplicates. The threshold distance default was 150 meters. Points greater than 150 meters from a current OFPBDS feature location were considered new features and added. Features within 150 meters of OFPBDS features were considered potential duplicates, based on spatial proximity. Features which were potential duplicates due to proximity were compared by key attributes: stream name, road name, culvert type, width and length. If there was still a question regarding duplication after this comparison, the feature was put aside in a separate feature class for consultation. Where there was a definitive match between a RBFAT feature and an OFPBDS feature, missing attribute information was merged from the RBFAT record to the OFPBDS record in order to retain it. RBFAT is noted as the data source for those fields. RBFAT barrier features were also analyzed for duplication with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's (OWEB) Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI). Where a match could be made between an OWRI record and a RBFAT feature, updates were made to pertinent fields. The RBFAT data were exported in October 2010 into a replica copy of the enterprise geodatabase and posted to the OFPBDS enterprise geodatabase. Specific notes regarding the RBFAT data: * The coordinate system of the spatial coordinates in the fpbLong and fpbLat fields is GCS_North_American_1983. * Where there is stream identifier (fpbStrID), and/or stream measure (fpbStrMeas) data are linear-referenced to the 1:24,000-scale PNW Framework Hydrography. RBFAT fish passage barrier data is available online: http://www.restoretherogue.org/docs/rbfat_barrier_prioritization92703.xls Process Date 2010 ODFW Converted Benton County's fish passage data into the Oregon fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS). Geospatial and tabular data was provided by BENTON COUNTY, as well as a document entitled "A comprehensive Assessment of Fish Passage Barriers in the Scappoose Bay Watershed." The overall process for incorporating Benton County's data into the fish passage barrier data standard was as follows: 1. Obtain Benton County data. 2. Develop a crosswalk between Benton County and OFPBDS, and develop a methodology to determine which records, if not all, to include in the standard. 3. Address any issues (like unique identifiers). 4. Convert data into the standard. 5. Provide standardized data back to Benton County (and often also provide Steward-modified intermediate data developed during standardization, especially where identifiers were manipulated). 6. Throughout the entire process, Benton County was consulted. The Steward worked with the Benton County data "as is". In other words, the Steward did not attempt to review, edit or 'correct' Benton County records, locations or attributes. The goal was to get as much information into the standard as possible. Most Benton County barrier data contain attributes which match those in the standard as well as attributes which do not exist in the standard. Throughout the process of converting Benton County data into the OFPBDS, a series of determinations, assumptions and decisions were made. A Benton County - OFPBDS Crosswalk (spreadsheet) was developed and contains a record of this, along with a document detailing key GIS steps in the conversion process. A duplication process was performed as the final stage of analysis and documented within the Benton County crosswalk to determine what, if any Benton County barriers were duplicates of pre-existing OFPBDS barriers. Using a duplication analysis model to identify potential duplicates within 150 meters, 93 of the 571 barriers were classified as potential duplicates. Out of the 93 potential duplicates, 60 were apparent duplicates, while the remaining 33 were questionable. The 60 apparent duplicate barriers were then used to update or improve missing or erroneous data in the corresponding OFPBDS features. The entire integration process using Benton County's fish passage barrier information resulted in 224 bridges, 2 cascades, 219 culverts, 5 dams, 4 waterfalls, 2 fords, 1 weir, 4 other known fish passage barrier feature including debris jams, and 13 unknown features. The total of fish passage barrier features imported to the OFPBDS from Benton County is 474 features. Process Date 2010 ODFW Converted Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce fish barrier inventory data into the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) format and loaded the data into the OFPBDS geodatabase. Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce fish barrier data exists in an Excel spreadsheet, last updated in 2007. A conversion outline, or crosswalk, between Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce and OFPBDS attributes and attribute values was developed. Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce staff who compiled the data was consulted regarding the crosswalk. OFPBDS fields were then added to the Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce fish barrier database and attribute values for all the point features were populated in the OFPBDS fields. The Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce fish barrier data was then analyzed for duplication with the OFPBDS (version 1) records. Where Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce fish barrier features were duplicates of OFPBDS (version 1) features, the Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce fish barrier feature replaced the OFPBDS (version 1) feature. Spatial proximity along with attribute similarity was used to identify potential - and likely - duplicates. The threshold distance default was 150 meters. Points greater than 150 meters from a current OFPBDS (version 1) feature location were considered new features and added. Features within 150 meters of OFPBDS (version 1) features were considered potential duplicates, based on spatial proximity. Features which were potential duplicates due to proximity were compared by key attributes: stream name, road name, feature type and subtype. Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce fish barrier features were also analyzed for duplication with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's (OWEB) Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI). Where a match could be made between an OWRI record and a Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce fish barrier feature, updates were made to pertinent fields. The Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce fish barrier data were exported in September 2010 into a replica copy of the enterprise geodatabase and posted to the OFPBDS enterprise geodatabase. Specific notes regarding the Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce fish barrier data: * The coordinate system of the spatial coordinates in the fpbLong and fpbLat fields is GCS_North_American_1983. *The Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce fish barrier inventory used a U.S. Forest Service/BLM Full Assessment protocol, which includes both barrier and hydraulic analysis, to evaluate fish passage status. This protocol may result in a high number of passage status evaluations = blocked. For information on the protocol, refer to Explanations and Instructions for Passage Through Road/Stream Crossings Inventory Form (Jacobson 2003) and Region 1 Fish Passage Evaluation Criteria (Jacobson 2003). * Where there is stream identifier (fpbStrID), and/or stream measure (fpbStrMeas) data are linear-referenced to the 1:24,000-scale PNW Framework Hydrography. Wallowa County BPA/Nez Perce fish barrier features information is available online at BPA Streamnet Data Store (BPA Project No. 2002-073-00). Process Date 2010 ODFW Converted Washington County fish passage assessment culvert data into the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) format and loaded the data into the OFPBDS geodatabase. The Washington County culvert data exists in an Excel spreadsheet, last updated in 2006 for the Dairy Creek watershed and in 2008 for the Gales Creek Watershed. A conversion outline, or crosswalk, between Washington County and OFPBDS attributes and attribute values was developed. Washington County staff who compiled the data was consulted regarding the crosswalk. OFPBDS fields were then added to the Washington County records and attribute values for all barrier features were populated in the OFPBDS fields. Washington County data was then analyzed for duplication with the OFPBDS records. Where Washington County fish barrier features were duplicates of OFPBDS features, the Washington County fish barrier feature replaced the OFPBDS feature. Spatial proximity along with attribute similarity was used to identify potential - and likely - duplicates. The threshold distance default was 150 meters. Points greater than 150 meters from a current OFPBDS feature location were considered new features and added. Features within 150 meters of OFPBDS (version 1) features were considered potential duplicates, based on spatial proximity. Features which were potential duplicates due to proximity were compared by key attributes: stream name, road name, culvert type, width and length. If there was still a question regarding duplication after this comparison, the feature was put aside in a separate feature class for consultation. Washington County barrier features were also analyzed for duplication with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's (OWEB) Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI). Where a match could be made between an OWRI record and a Washington County feature, updates were made to pertinent fields. The Washington County data were exported in October 2010 into a replica copy of the enterprise geodatabase and posted to the OFPBDS enterprise geodatabase. Specific notes regarding the Washington County fish passage culvert data: * The coordinate system of the spatial coordinates in the fpbLong and fpbLat fields is GCS_North_American_1983. * Culverts smaller than 15 inches in diameter were excluded from the Washington County fish passage assessment as were culverts carrying streams with gradients over 15%. * The culvert survey measured four surrogate indicators to determine a culvert's ability to pass fish: culvert gradient, stream bankfull width, inlet blockage, and outlet perch. The survey method selected was based on the BLM's Fish Passage Through Road Crossing Assessment. Barrier severity determination was based on the BLM Coarse Screen Filter Version 2.2 The filter identifies a culvert's barrier level based on the requirements of juvenile salmonids. *Passage status for a number of culverts was undetermined at the time data were integrated. These culverts require additional analysis that Washington County intends to undertake, to determine their fish passage status. Consequently, these barriers may completely or partially pass most if not all the species and life stages that have a need to migrate through the affected stream reach. * Where there is stream identifier (fpbStrID), and/or stream measure (fpbStrMeas) data are linear-referenced to the 1:24,000-scale PNW Framework Hydrography. The Diary Creek Watershed Study is available online: http://www.co.washington.or.us/LUT/Divisions/Operations/upload/fishpr07.pdf Process Date 2010 ODFW Data was converted from the Clackamas River Basin Council (CRBC) fish passage data into the Oregon fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS). Geospatial and tabular data was provided by CRBC, as well as two documents entitled "Clear and Foster Creek Fish Passage Assessment and Prioritization Project," and "Deep, Goose and Eagle Creeks Fish Passage Assessment." The overall process for incorporating the CRBC data into the fish passage barrier data standard was as follows: 1. Obtain CRBC data. 2. Develop a crosswalk between CRBC and OFPBDS, and develop a methodology to determine which records, if not all, to include in the standard. 3. Address any issues (like unique identifiers). 4. Convert data into the standard. 5. Provide standardized data back to CRBC (and often also provide Steward-modified intermediate data developed during standardization, especially where identifiers were manipulated). 6. Throughout the entire process, CRBC was consulted. The Steward worked with the CRBC data "as is". In other words, the Steward did not attempt to review, edit or 'correct' CRBC records, locations or attributes. The goal was to get as much information into the standard as possible. Most CRBC barrier data contain attributes which match those in the standard as well as attributes which do not exist in the standard. Throughout the process of converting CRBC data into the OFPBDS, a series of determinations, assumptions and decisions were made. A CRBC - OFPBDS Crosswalk (spreadsheet) was developed and contains a record of this, along with a document detailing key GIS steps in the conversion process. A duplication process was performed as the final stage of analysis and documented within the CRBC crosswalk to determine what, if any CRBC barriers were duplicates of pre-existing OFPBDS barriers. Using a duplication analysis model to identify potential duplicates within 150 meters, 90 of the 558 barriers were classified as potential duplicates. Out of the 90 potential duplicates, 48 were apparent duplicates, while the remaining 46 were questionable. The 48 apparent duplicate barriers were then used to update or improve missing or erroneous data in the corresponding OFPBDS features. The entire integration process using CRBC's fish passage barrier information resulted in the addition of 469 culverts. Process Date 2010 ODFW Data was converted from the Calapooia Watershed Council (CWC) fish passage data into the Oregon fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS). Geospatial and tabular data was provided by CWC, as well as a document entitled "Calapooia Watershed Fish Passage Assessment." The overall process for incorporating the CWC data into the fish passage barrier data standard was as follows: 1. Obtain CWC data. 2. Develop a crosswalk between CWC and OFPBDS, and develop a methodology to determine which records, if not all, to include in the standard. 3. Address any issues (like unique identifiers). 4. Convert data into the standard. 5. Provide standardized data back to CWC (and often also provide Steward-modified intermediate data developed during standardization, especially where identifiers were manipulated). 6. Throughout the entire process, CWC was consulted. The Steward worked with the CWC data "as is". In other words, the Steward did not attempt to review, edit or 'correct' CWC records, locations or attributes. The goal was to get as much information into the standard as possible. Most CWC barrier data contain attributes which match those in the standard as well as attributes which do not exist in the standard. Throughout the process of converting CWC data into the OFPBDS, a series of determinations, assumptions and decisions were made. A CWC - OFPBDS Crosswalk (spreadsheet) was developed and contains a record of this, along with a document detailing key GIS steps in the conversion process. A duplication process was performed as the final stage of analysis and documented within the CWC crosswalk to determine what, if any CWC barriers were duplicates of pre-existing OFPBDS barriers. Using a duplication analysis model to identify potential duplicates within 150 meters, 65 of the 116 barriers were classified as potential duplicates. Out of the 65 potential duplicates, 48 were apparent duplicates, while the remaining 17 were questionable. The 48 apparent duplicate barriers were then used to update or improve missing or erroneous data in the corresponding OFPBDS features. The entire integration process using CWC's fish passage barrier information resulted in the addition of 68 culverts. Process Date 2010 ODFW Data was integrated from the Santiam Watershed Council's (Santiam WC) fish passage data into the Oregon fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS). Geospatial and tabular data was provided by Santiam WC. The overall process for incorporating the Santiam data into the fish passage barrier data standard was as follows: 1. Obtain Santiam WC data (107 records). 2. A crosswalk was not necessary for Santiam WC because they used ODFW's schema and existing barriers. 3. Santiam WC updated and corrected attributes of these existing fish passage barriers, most importantly, barrier dimensions and fish passage status. 4. Where Santiam WC identified multiple features at a single location, fish passage barriers records were added. Exactly 18 barriers were added, and assigned Santiam WC as the fish passage barrier originator (fpbOrNm). The remaining features retained ODFW as their original source. 5. Provide standardized data back to Santiam WC (and often also provide Steward-modified intermediate data developed during standardization, especially where identifiers were manipulated). 6. Throughout the entire process, Santiam WC was consulted. The Steward worked with the Santiam WC data "as is". In other words, the Steward did not attempt to review, edit or 'correct' Santiam WC records, locations or attributes. The goal was to get as much information into the standard as possible. Most Santiam WC barrier data contain attributes which match those in the standard as well as attributes which do not exist in the standard. The entire integration process using Santiam WC's fish passage barrier information resulted in the addition of 18 culverts. Process Date 2010 ODFW Converted the Scappoose Bay Watershed Council's (SBWC) fish passage data into the Oregon fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS). Geospatial and tabular data was provided by SBWC, as well as a document entitled "A comprehensive Assessment of Fish Passage Barriers in the Scappoose Bay Watershed." The overall process for incorporating SBWC data into the fish passage barrier data standard was as follows: 1. Obtain SBWC data. 2. Develop a crosswalk between SBWC and OFPBDS, and develop a methodology to determine which records, if not all, to include in the standard. 3. Address any issues (like unique identifiers). 4. Convert data into the standard. 5. Provide standardized data back to SBWC (and often also provide Steward-modified intermediate data developed during standardization, especially where identifiers were manipulated). 6. Throughout the entire process, SBWC were consulted. The Steward worked with the SBWC data "as is". In other words, the Steward did not attempt to review, edit or 'correct' SBWC records, locations or attributes. The goal was to get as much information into the standard as possible. Most SBWC barrier data contain attributes which match those in the standard as well as attributes which do not exist in the standard. Throughout the process of converting SBWC data into the OFPBDS, a series of determinations, assumptions and decisions were made. A SBWC - OFPBDS Crosswalk (spreadsheet) was developed and contains a record of this, along with a document detailing key GIS steps in the conversion process. A duplication process was performed as the final stage of analysis to determine what, if any SBWC barriers were duplicates of pre-existing OFPBDS barriers. It was determined using a 150 meter distance analysis that 13 barriers had in fact already existed in the OFPBDS dataset. In comparing the two, it was determined that the 13 newer SBWC contained more comprehensive and updated data, and subsequently, the 13 records were removed in the OFPBDS, and replaced by the SBWC records. The entire integration process using SBWC's fish passage barrier information resulted in 1 bridge, 96 culverts, 12 dams, and 1 tidegate. The total of fish passage barrier features imported to the OFPBDS from SBWC is 110 features. Process Date 2010 ODFW Converted Siuslaw Watershed Council culvert inventory data into the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) format and loaded the data into the OFPBDS geodatabase. Siuslaw Watershed Council culvert data exists in a point feature class shapefile, last updated in 2006. A conversion outline, or crosswalk, between Siuslaw Watershed Council and OFPBDS attributes and attribute values was developed. Siuslaw Watershed Council members who compiled the data were consulted regarding the crosswalk. U.S. Forest Service records in the Siuslaw Watershed Council data were excluded, pending receipt and review of statewide Forest Service data. OFPBDS fields were then added to the Siuslaw database and attribute values for all the point features were populated in the OFPBDS fields. The Siuslaw Watershed Council data was then analyzed for duplication with the OFPBDS (version 1) records. Duplicate features were not added to the OFPBDS. Spatial proximity along with attribute similarity was used to identify potential - and likely - duplicates. The threshold distance default was 150 meters. Points greater than 150 meters from a current OFPBDS (version 1) feature location were considered new features and added. Features within 150 meters of OFPBDS (version 1) features were considered potential duplicates, based on spatial proximity. Features which were potential duplicates due to proximity were compared by key attributes: stream name, road name, culvert type, width and length. If there was still a question regarding duplication after this comparison, the feature was put aside in a separate feature class for consultation. Where there was a definitive match between a Siuslaw Watershed Council feature and an OFPBDS (version 1) culvert feature, missing attribute information was merged from the Siuslaw Watershed Council record to the OFPBDS record in order to retain it. Siuslaw Watershed Council is noted as the data source for those fields. Siuslaw Watershed Council features were also analyzed for duplication with the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board's (OWEB) Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI). Where a match could be made between an OWRI record and a Siuslaw Watershed Council feature, updates were made to pertinent fields. The Siuslaw Watershed Council data were exported in September 2010 into a replica copy of the enterprise geodatabase and posted to the OFPBDS enterprise geodatabase. Specific notes regarding the Siuslaw Watershed Council data: * The coordinate system of the spatial coordinates in the fpbLong and fpbLat fields is GCS_North_American_1983. *The passage status for many of the culverts is unknown at this time. Consequently, some of these barriers may be completely passable to most if not all the species and life stages that have a need to migrate through the affected stream reach. *The Siuslaw Watershed Council data includes features located by field surveys conducted for the Council, as well as records garnered from multiple agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, the Oregon Department of Transportation and Watershed Enhancement Board, and Lane County. *Where there was a definitive match between an OFPBDS (version 1) and Siuslaw Watershed Council features, additional attribute information was merged from the Siuslaw Watershed Council record to the OFPBDS record in order to retain it. Siuslaw Watershed Council is noted as the data source for those fields. * Where there is stream identifier (fpbStrID), and/or stream measure (fpbStrMeas) data are linear-referenced to the 1:24,000-scale PNW Framework Hydrography. Siuslaw Watershed Council information is available online at http://www.siuslaw.org/ Process Date 2010 ODFW United States Forest Service (USFS) Culvert Inventory data were converted into the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard (OFPBDS) format and loaded into the OFPBDS geodatabase. Data were obtained from the following National Forests: Deschutes, Fremont - Winema, Malheur, Mt. Hood, Ochoco, Rogue River - Siskiyou, Siuslaw, Umatilla, Umpqua, Wallowa Whitman, and Willamette. Point feature classes were provided from each of the forests giving culvert locations and a varying amount of attribute data. Additional attribute data from two regional datasets were used to augment the attributes furnished by the forests. A file geodatabase was constructed for each forest to contain the source spatial and tabular data and the derived data products. The number of records per forest varied from 40 to over 400, and the total number of records processed was 3,046. A crosswalk between USFS and OFPBDS attributes and attribute values was developed for each forest. The crosswalk consists of three sections: a section that contains summary information relating to the entire dataset; a section for “Required” attributes, which provide information considered essential to the usefulness of the data; and a section for “Optional” attributes, which provide supplementary information that provide additional details not found in the required attributes . An initial crosswalk was developed and sent to each forest presenting the mapping between USFS attributes and OFPBDS attributes and describing the processing necessary to transform the USFS data to meet OFPBDS standards. Each forest was invited to review the crosswalk and submit comments or concerns related to the proposed processing of their data. Processing the data from each forest took place in four primary phases executed sequentially. The objective of the processing was to identify and upload fish passage barriers in the forest data that were not yet represented in the OFPBDS dataset and to update existing records with more current information coming from the forests. The first phase of the processing established a correspondence between the USFS data and the OFPBDS data such that USFS attributes were transformed to meet the standards set forth in the Oregon Fish Passage Barrier Data Standard document. The resulting attribute values were loaded into empty “Required” and “Optional” fields corresponding to the OFPBDS attributes appended to each record in the USFS point feature class. The next phase of processing compared fish passage barrier point features in the USFS data to existing features in the OFPBDS dataset. Spatial proximity along with attribute similarity were used to identify potential and likely duplicates. A default threshold distance of 150 meters was used to partition the USFS points into those too distant from any OFPBDS point to be considered to represent the same feature and those close enough to be potential duplicates. Taking the potential duplicates, a script was run that compares the values of selected attributes and considers spatial proximity to calculate a measure of how much evidence exists in the data to indicate duplicate points. A summary table was constructed to permit quick comparisons of attribute pairs and see the cause of a mismatch. Where the evidence was low, a close manual examination of the pair of points in ArcGIS was conducted to confirm whether they represent the same or different features. Where the evidence for matched points was high, e.g. points less than 30 meters apart, a quick look was usually sufficient to confirm the match. In order to obtain additional information that might clarify the status of culverts that had been removed or replaced, a second proximity analysis was run against the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board’s (OWEB) Oregon Watershed Restoration Inventory (OWRI). The same threshold of 150 meters was used, and OWRI points close to USFS points were manually examined to determine if any recent maintenance action may have affected the status of the culvert. The third phase of processing the data involved linearly referencing the new USFS points to be added to the OFPBDS dataset. Each new point was spatially analyzed to determine where it falls on a mapped stream. The Framework hydrography dataset was used to reference each barrier point, assign a unique stream identifier and stream distance measure. The final phase in the processing consisted of a quality check on the new data points prior to loading the data into the OFPBDS dataset. In the case of USFS barriers that were already represented in the OFPBDS data, a check was performed to determine if the USFS data contained new fish passage information. If so, the fish passage status (fpbFPasSta), fish passage data originator (fpbFPasONm), and revision date (fpbRevDt) were updated in the OFPBDS dataset. For new fish passage barrier records, the data were loaded into an editable version of the OFPBDS dataset, which was uploaded to a QA version and verified before being incorporated into the operational version. Specific notes regarding USFS fish passage barrier data: There was a wide variation in the quantity and quality of the initial datasets obtained from the forests. The number of attributes varied from less than 20 to well over 100. Approximately half of the datasets were well-attributed, while a few had most of the “Required” attributes and some of the “Optional”, and the remaining datasets did not have many of either category of attribute. To supplement the attributes supplied by the forests, the forests’ attribute tables were linked to available regional fish passage datasets, which supplied additional attributes. Two types of feature identifier schemes were employed in the USFS data. One scheme utilizes a long integer of 10 or more digits, which is unique across forests. The other scheme is basically a sequential numbering of the records from one to the total number of records. There were two ramifications of this situation. In order to connect datasets with the sequential numbering to regional data, additional attributes had to be used to achieve a unique match.. The second impact was that in order to have identifiers unique across forests, the originator feature ID (fpbOFtrID) was made to consist of a concatenation of the forest name and the identifier used within the forest. Physical data on culverts was often lacking. In many cases the basic parameters of height, width and length were absent. In other cases the values were suspect, either because they seemed to be in the wrong units or because they differed significantly from other measurements at the same location. In order to represent slopes as positive numbers, the sign had to be inverted. Drop values also were inverted to create positive numbers, but there were many instances of both positive and negative drops in the same dataset. The existence of multiple culverts, in space or over time, was usually not clearly represented. In a few instances multiple culverts were represented by multiple features in the dataset and identified as such. More commonly, the only indication of the existence of multiple features was a note in the “Comments” field. Similarly, the only indication of a culvert replacement or removal was often in the form of a cursory note, making it difficult to determine whether the data in the current record represented a culvert that had been taken out or one that replaced it. Process Date 8/2011 - 12/2011 ODFW Fish passage barriers were mapped in association with anadromous salmonid habitat and maps were provided in either digital or hardcopy format to ODFW district fisheries biologists for the purpose of addressing data gaps and inconsistencies as well as the identification of priority barriers. Maps were produced and distributed in November and December of 2011. Initial input on was received in January 2012. Approximately 150 new barrier features were identified and updates to passage status and other attributes were made for hundreds of other barrier features. A GIS technician worked with the biologists in April and May 2012 to address remaining discrepancies between the barrier data and the fish habitat distribution data including the following scenarios: blocking barriers within anadromous fish habitat, blocking barriers at the end of anadromous habitat with no historical habitat mapped and priority barriers located in areas where fish habitat had yet to be mapped. Information collected from this effort will inform the refresh of the ODFW maintained priority fish passage barrier list. ODFW Ruth Schellbach GIS Technician 503-947-6096 Vector Entity point 30389 WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere PROJCS["WGS_1984_Web_Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere",GEOGCS["GCS_WGS_1984",DATUM["D_WGS_1984",SPHEROID["WGS_1984",6378137.0,298.257223563]],PRIMEM["Greenwich",0.0],UNIT["Degree",0.0174532925199433]],PROJECTION["Mercator_Auxiliary_Sphere"],PARAMETER["False_Easting",0.0],PARAMETER["False_Northing",0.0],PARAMETER["Central_Meridian",0.0],PARAMETER["Standard_Parallel_1",0.0],PARAMETER["Auxiliary_Sphere_Type",0.0],UNIT["Meter",1.0],AUTHORITY["EPSG",3857]]-20037700-302411001000001010.0010.0010.001true3857 coordinate pair 0.0001 0.0001 Meter D WGS 1984 WGS 1984 6378137.0 298.257223563 sde.gis.iw_or_fishbarriers_v2_2012 objectid_1 Internal feature number. ESRI Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated. Shape Feature geometry. ESRI Coordinates defining the features. OBJECTID fpbFtrID fpbLong fpbLat fpbSiteID fpbRevDt fpbOFtrID fpbONm fpbOSiteID fpbLocMd fpbLocAccu fpbLocDt fpbFtrTy fpbFtrNm fpbRmvDt fpbMltFtr fpbFPasSta fpbStaEvDt fpbStaEvMd fpbFySta fpbFyCrit fpbCrdDesc Permanent_ ReachCode Measure EventDate ReachSMDat ReachResol fpbStrNm fpbRdID fpbRdMile fpbRdNm fpbLocONm fpbFtrSTy fpbFtrNmSr fpbHeight fpbLength fpbWidth fpbSlope fpbDrop fpbOrYr fpbModDt fpbModTy fpbModDesc fpbDesONm fpbOwn fpbLOwn fpbOperate fpbFyOwn fpbOwnTy fpbLOwnTy fpbOwnONm fpbFyTy fpbFySTy fpbFyOrYr fpbFPasONm fpbLocMdD fpbFtrTyD fpbFtrSTyD fpbEvMdFAD fpbEvMdPAD fpbFyTyD fpbOwnTyD fpbLOwnTyD fpbComment fpbStrID fpbStrMeas ComID offset_ FeatureCla EventType 20120625 FGDC Content Standard for Digital Geospatial Metadata FGDC-STD-001-1998 local time