Capacity model applied to canals with DA above threshold

[jtgilbert]

I noticed that some canals are attributed with the DA from the river they're diverted off of, so the capacity model wasn't being applied to canals coming off of the rivers with DA larger than the max DA for the HUC. This, in turn, affects the potential conflict model (i.e., shows no conflict where there actually could be in canals). I made the change and tested it successfully here:
https://data.riverscapes.xyz/#/BEAR/03df162f-38c2-44fc-af89-6a06f376a03f

[philipbaileynar]

We are aware that side channels (not just canals) sometimes have the DA of the adjacent mainstem. In the case of side channels, this can cause the side channel to get assigned "blow out" and no dam capacity when in fact, the side channel capacity should be much lower than the mainstem and is ideal beaver habitat.

@KellyMWhitehead has investigated the NHD attributes and discovered useful attributes pertaining that help distinguish side channels from mainstems. The same logic might apply to canals.

I'm wondering if we solve the side channel issue it might also solve this canal issue at the same time and might make the FIS changes proposed here unnecessary?

(Might be easiest to discuss rather than type...)

[jtgilbert]

Yeah, if there's a way to solve both this issues in the same way that would probably be ideal.

[philipbaileynar]

@jtgilbert is this required/desired?

[jtgilbert]

@philipbaileynar I would say yes, I think it's important for accurately representing conflict potential.

[philipbaileynar]

Approving following discussion with @jtgilbert