DOCSLIB.ORG

River Forecast Performance Measures Development Project : Final Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Final Report Project Number 111430014 September 3, 2014 Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Performance Measures Development Project Calgary, AB, Canada Canmore, AB, Canada Calgary, AB, Canada River Forecast Performance Measures Development Project FINAL REPORT Prepared for: Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Ltd. 111430014 September 3, 2014 Stantec Consulting Ltd. 200-325 25th Street SE, Calgary AB T2A 7H8 September 3, 2014 File: 111430019 Attention: Ms. Colleen Walford, P.Eng. River Flow Forecaster Operations Infrastructure Branch Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) Government of Alberta 11th Floor, Oxbridge Place 9820-106th Street NW Edmonton, AB T5K 2J6 Dear Ms. Walford, Reference: Performance Measures Development Project Stantec is pleased to submit the final report for the Performance Measures Development Project to Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). This report and the accompanying Comparative Tables and Technical Memorandum, present the background, approach, methods and summary of the performance measures of several flood- forecast centres in North America, Europe and South Pacific. The outcome of the study includes important observations that will help assess the ongoing program, and the suitability and effectiveness of hydrological forecasting models for Alberta watershed conditions. The observations are primarily intended to provide ESRD with an opportunity to consider integration of desirable best practices implemented in other Flood Forecast Centres from jurisdictions throughout the world. The report also includes the complete responses to the questionnaire by 13 flood-forecast centres around the world and can be used for additional detailed analysis of similar studies in the future. The final report addresses comments received from the ESRD during the review of the draft final report. We extend our sincere appreciation to the following flood-forecast centres that took the time and committed resources to complete the questionnaire: National Weather Service - Colorado Basin River Forecast Centre Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (Denver, CO) Flood Control District of Maricopa Country (Arizona) September 3, 2014 Ms. Colleen Walford, P.Eng. Page 2 of 2 Reference: Performance Measures Development Project Arizona State-wide Flood Warning Network Switzerland Federal Office for the Environment Scotland Environmental Protection Agency – River Forecast Centre Upper Thames River Conservation Authority (Ontario) Grand River Conservation Authority (Ontario) British Columbia River Forecast Centre Bavaria River Forecast Centre (Germany) Manitoba Flood Forecasting Centre Australia River Forecasting and Warning Branch Flanders Hydrologic Information Centre (Belgium) If you have any questions or comments concerning the project, or require further information, please contact me. Regards, STANTEC CONSULTING LTD. Rick Carnduff, M. Eng., P. Eng. Principal, Engineering Phone: (403) 716-8213 Fax: (403) 716-8109 [email protected] Sign-off Sheet This document entitled River Forecast Performance Measures Development Project was prepared by Stantec for the account of Alberta Environment and Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD). The material in it reflects Stantec’s best judgment in light of the information available to it at the time of preparation. Any use which a third party makes of this report, or any reliance on or decisions made based on it, are the responsibilities of such third parties. Stantec accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of decisions made or actions based on this report. Issued on September 3, 2014 Survey carried out by: Phillip Mutulu (Ph.D.) Seifu Guangul (Ph.D., P.Eng.) Scott Robertson (P.Eng.) George Sabol (Ph.D., PE) Bryan Close (PE, CFM) Prepared by: George Rempel (P.Eng.) Seifu Guangul (Ph.D., P.Eng.) Phillip Mutulu (Ph.D.) Coordinated by: Seifu Guangul (Ph.D., P.Eng.) Senior Reviewed by: David Morgan (Ph.D., P.Eng.) Steve Brown (MBA, P.Eng.) Managed by: Rick Carnduff (M. Eng., P.Eng.) RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................. I 1.0 GENERAL INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 1.1 1.1 BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT .................................................................................... 1.1 1.2 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................... 1.1 1.3 GENERAL OVERVIEW OF FLOOD FORECASTING ......................................................... 1.2 1.3.1 The Hydrologic Cycle .................................................................................... 1.2 1.3.2 Basic Components of a Flood Warning System ....................................... 1.4 2.0 FLOOD FORECAST CENTRES SURVEYED ....................................................................... 2.1 2.1 INTERVIEWS/RESEARCH .................................................................................................... 2.1 3.0 GENERAL BACKGROUND OF THE FORECAST CENTRES .............................................. 3.1 3.1 BACKGROUND/HISTORY .................................................................................................. 3.1 3.2 SIZE/POPULATION OF FORECAST AREA ......................................................................... 3.1 3.3 FORECAST STAFFING ........................................................................................................ 3.2 4.0 FORECAST CENTRE OBJECTIVES/OPERATION ............................................................. 4.1 4.1 MANDATES ......................................................................................................................... 4.1 4.2 COMMUNIQUES ................................................................................................................ 4.2 4.3 MAJOR CAUSES OF FLOODING ..................................................................................... 4.4 4.4 EMERGENCY SERVICES DURING MAJOR FLOODS ...................................................... 4.5 5.0 GENERAL DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS ......................................................... 5.1 6.0 FORECAST MODEL DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................... 6.1 6.1 FORECAST MODELS .......................................................................................................... 6.1 6.2 FORECASTING MODE ....................................................................................................... 6.3 6.3 SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................ 6.4 7.0 PHYSICAL PROCESSES .................................................................................................. 7.1 8.0 DATA ACQUISITION/MANAGEMENT ........................................................................... 8.1 9.0 FORECAST PRODUCTS DISSEMINATION AND PROTOCOLS ........................................ 9.1 10.0 PERFORMANCE MEASURE REVIEWS ........................................................................... 10.1 11.0 OBSERVATIONS ........................................................................................................... 11.1 lf \\cd1184-f01\workgroup\1114\active\111430014_esrd_performance_measure\05_report_deliv\reports\final\rpt_esrd_perf_measures_final_20140903.docx i RIVER FORECAST PERFORMANCE MEASURES DEVELOPMENT PROJECT LIST OF TABLES Table 2-1: Flood Forecasting Centres and Acronyms ................................................ 2.1 Table 3-1: Flood Forecasting Centre Staffing .............................................................. 3.2 Table 4-1: Flood Forecasting Centre Mandates ......................................................... 4.1 Table 4-2: Flood Forecasting Centre Communiques ................................................. 4.2 Table 4-3: Flood Forecasting Centre Products ............................................................ 4.3 Table 4-4: Flood Forecasting Centre and Flooding Event Triggers .......................... 4.4 Table 6-1: Model Definitions ........................................................................................... 6.1 Table 6-2: Summary for Delft-FEWS Forecasting Tool ................................................. 6.2 Table 6-3: Flood Forecasting Centre Forecasting Mode ........................................... 6.4 Table 6-4: Flood Forecasting Centre Summary of Responses .................................. 6.5 Table 9-1: Flood Forecasting Centre Communication .............................................. 9.2 Table 9-2: Flood Forecasting Centre Uncertainty/Public Interpretation................. 9.3 Table 9-3: Forecast Products Dissemination and Protocols-Public Feedback ...... 9.4 Table 10-1: Performance Review-Public Feedback ................................................... 10.1 Table 10-2: Example of Forecast Verification by Flood Control District of Maricopa County ........................................................................................ 10.3 Table 10-3: Contingency Table I .................................................................................... 10.4 Table 10-4: Contingency Table II ..................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Consensus Statement

    Consensus Statement

    Arctic Climate Forum Consensus Statement 2020-2021 Arctic Winter Seasonal Climate Outlook (along with a summary of 2020 Arctic Summer Season) CONTEXT Arctic temperatures continue to warm at more than twice the global mean. Annual surface air temperatures over the last 5 years (2016–2020) in the Arctic (60°–85°N) have been the highest in the time series of observations for 1936-20201. Though the extent of winter sea-ice approached the median of the last 40 years, both the extent and the volume of Arctic sea-ice present in September 2020 were the second lowest since 1979 (with 2012 holding minimum records)2. To support Arctic decision makers in this changing climate, the recently established Arctic Climate Forum (ACF) convened by the Arctic Regional Climate Centre Network (ArcRCC-Network) under the auspices of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) provides consensus climate outlook statements in May prior to summer thawing and sea-ice break-up, and in October before the winter freezing and the return of sea-ice. The role of the ArcRCC-Network is to foster collaborative regional climate services amongst Arctic meteorological and ice services to synthesize observations, historical trends, forecast models and fill gaps with regional expertise to produce consensus climate statements. These statements include a review of the major climate features of the previous season, and outlooks for the upcoming season for temperature, precipitation and sea-ice. The elements of the consensus statements are presented and discussed at the Arctic Climate Forum (ACF) sessions with both providers and users of climate information in the Arctic twice a year in May and October, the later typically held online.
  • Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview

    Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview

    PROJECT 6 – ALL-SEASON ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview PROJECT 6 – ALL-SEASON ROAD ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ......................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 The Proponent – Manitoba Infrastructure ...................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Contact Information ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.2 Legal Entity .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.3 Corporate and Management Structures ............................................................. 1-1 1.1.4 Corporate Policy Implementation ...................................................................... 1-2 1.1.5 Document Preparation ....................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 Project Overview .............................................................................................................. 1-3 1.2.1 Project Components ......................................................................................... 1-11 1.2.2 Project Phases and Scheduling ......................................................................... 1-11 1.2.3 The East Side Transportation Initiative ............................................................. 1-14 1.3 Project Location ............................................................................................................
  • Copyrighted Material Not for Distribution Fidler in Context

    Copyrighted Material Not for Distribution Fidler in Context

    TABLE OF CONTENTS acknowledgements vii introduction Fidler in Context 1 first journal From York Factory to Buckingham House 43 second journal From Buckingham House to the Rocky Mountains 95 notes to the first journal 151 notes to the second journal 241 sources and references 321 index 351 COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION FIDLER IN CONTEXT In July 1792 Peter Fidler, a young surveyor for the Hudson’s Bay Company, set out from York Factory to the company’s new outpost high on the North Saskatchewan River. He spent the winter of 1792‐93 with a group of Piikani hunting buffalo in the foothills SW of Calgary. These were remarkable journeys. The river brigade travelled more than 2000 km in 80 days, hauling heavy loads, moving upstream almost all the way. With the Piikani, Fidler witnessed hunts at sites that archaeologists have since studied intensively. On both trips his assignment was to map the fur-trade route from Hudson Bay to the Rocky Mountains. Fidler kept two journals, one for the river trip and one for his circuit with the Piikani. The freshness and immediacy of these journals are a great part of their appeal. They are filled with descriptions of regional landscapes, hunting and trading, Native and fur-trade cultures, all of them reflecting a young man’s sense of adventure as he crossed the continent. But there is noth- ing naive or spontaneous about these remarks. The journals are transcripts of his route survey, the first stages of a map to be sent to the company’s head office in London.
  • PRESENTATIONS CANOECOPIA PRESENTATIONS for 2020 We Proudly Offer up a Cornucopia of Canoecopia Speakers & Topics

    PRESENTATIONS CANOECOPIA PRESENTATIONS for 2020 We Proudly Offer up a Cornucopia of Canoecopia Speakers & Topics

    PRESENTATIONS CANOECOPIA PRESENTATIONS FOR 2020 We proudly offer up a cornucopia of Canoecopia speakers & topics. Christopher Amidon Paddling Isle Royale National Park Sat 1:30p, Quetico Sun 2:30p, Superior Isle Royale National Park offers unique opportunities for paddling in and around a wilderness island in Lake Superior. The challenges facing paddlers are many, from the logistics of transporting paddling equipment to the unpredictable and cold waters of Lake Superior. Join Ranger Chris Amidon to explore the paddling options and obstacles of Isle Royale National The Aluminum Chef Competition Park. Brought to you by MSR Sat 4:30p, Quetico Gregory Anderson Once again, our three Aluminum Chefs will test their camp culinary The Science of Waves skills against each other in true outdoor style. Kevin Callan returns as Fri 6:30p, Loon our unstoppable emcee in this fast-paced event. Woods-woman, Mona Have you ever wondered why wave fronts Gauthier and former park ranger Marty Koch go up against local chef end up parallel to the beach? How do shoals Luke Zahm of the Driftless Cafe in Viroqua, WI. Using MSR stoves create larger waves? Why do waves bend and cook kits, and a pantry of simple ingredients you might have on around obstacles? Understanding waves will your next camping trip (donated by the Driftless Cafe), our chefs will help you manage the surf zone and make you compete for the best appetizer, entree, and dessert. Come join the fun a better paddler, whether you want to avoid a - you could be one of the judges from the audience who will determine pounding or to catch the ride of your life.
  • Appendices Part 1 of 3

    Appendices Part 1 of 3

    TAZI TWÉ HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT EIS APPENDIX 2.1 Concordance Table February 2014 Report No. 10-1365-0004/DCN-171 APPENDIX 2.1 Concordance Table LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS Abbreviation or Acronym Definition ARD/ML Acid Rock Drainage/Metal Leaching BLFN Black Lake First Nation CEA Agency Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency CEAA Canadian Environmental Assessment Act D&R Decommissioning and Reclamation EIS Environmental Impact Statement LSA local study area MOE Saskatchewan Ministry of the Environment NOx nitrogen oxides PM2.5 Particulate Matter up to 2.5 microns in size PM10 Particulate Matter up to 10.0 microns in size PSG Project-Specific Guidelines RSA regional study area SOx sulphur oxide SAR species at risk TSP total suspended particulates UTM Universal Transverse Mercator VC valued components February 2014 Project No. 10-1365-0004 1/26 APPENDIX 2.1 Concordance Table Table 1: Concordance Table to Identify Where the Project Specific Guidelines are Met in the Environmental Impact Statement Section in Section in the Project Environmental Requirement Specific Impact Guidelines Statement 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Proponent (Black Lake First Nation [BLFN] and SaskPower) has been informed that the proposed Tazi Twé Hydroelectric Project EIS represented (the Project ) will require an environmental assessment under the Environmental Assessment Act (Saskatchewan), hereafter referred by this to as “The Act,” and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The proponent is required to conduct an environmental document impact assessment
  • Chapter 4 – Project Setting

    Chapter 4 – Project Setting

    Chapter 4 – Project Setting MINAGO PROJECT i Environmental Impact Statement TABLE OF CONTENTS 4. PROJECT SETTING 4-1 4.1 Project Location 4-1 4.2 Physical Environment 4-2 4.3 Ecological Characterization 4-3 4.4 Social and Cultural Environment 4-5 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 4.1-1 Property Location Map ......................................................................................................... 4-1 Figure 4.4-1 Communities of Interest Surveyed ....................................................................................... 4-6 MINAGO PROJECT ii Environmental Impact Statement VICTORY NICKEL INC. 4. PROJECT SETTING 4.1 Project Location The Minago Nickel Property (Property) is located 485 km north-northwest of Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada and 225 km south of Thompson, Manitoba on NTS map sheet 63J/3. The property is approximately 100 km north of Grand Rapids off Provincial Highway 6 in Manitoba. Provincial Highway 6 is a paved two-lane highway that serves as a major transportation route to northern Manitoba. The site location is shown in Figure 4.1-1. Source: Wardrop, 2006 Figure 4.1-1 Property Location Map MINAGO PROJECT 4-1 Environmental Impact Statement VICTORY NICKEL INC. 4.2 Physical Environment The Minago Project is located within the Nelson River sub-basin, which drains northeast into the southern end of the Hudson Bay. The Minago River and Hargrave River catchments, surrounding the Minago Project Site to the north, occur within the Nelson River sub-basin. The William River and Oakley Creek catchments at or surrounding the Minago Project Site to the south, occur within the Lake Winnipeg sub-basin, which flows northward into the Nelson River sub-basin. The topography in these watersheds varies between elevation 210 and 300 m.a.s.l.
  • Radio Aids to Navigation 2017

    Radio Aids to Navigation 2017

    Radio Aids to Marine Navigation 2017 (Atlantic, St. Lawrence, Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, Arctic and Pacific) EKME #3608779 Radio Aids to Marine Navigation 2017 (Atlantic, St. Lawrence, Great Lakes, Lake Winnipeg, Arctic and Pacific) Published under the authority of: Director General, Operations Fisheries and Oceans Canada Canadian Coast Guard Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0E6 Annual Edition 2017 DFO/2017-1990 Fs151-18E-PDF ISSN: 2371-8935 © Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2017 EKME # 3608779 Available on the CCG Internet site: http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/Marine- Communications/Home Disponible en français: Aides radio à la navigation maritime 2017 (Atlantique, Saint-Laurent, Grands Lacs, Lac Winnipeg, Arctique et Pacifique). DFO/2017-1990 RADIO AIDS TO MARINE NAVIGATION 2017 ATLANTIC, ST. LAWRENCE, GREAT LAKES, LAKE WINNIPEG, ARCTIC AND PACIFIC AMENDMENT REGISTER Amendment Register # Date Description Initials 1 July 28th, 2017 NOTMAR 07/2017 RJ 2 August 25th, 2017 NOTMAR 08/2017 RJ 3 September 29th, 2017 NOTMAR 09/2017 RJ 4 October 27th, 2017 NOTMAR 10/2017 RJ Annual Edition 2017 Page i DFO/2017-1990 RADIO AIDS TO MARINE NAVIGATION 2017 ATLANTIC, ST. LAWRENCE, GREAT LAKES, LAKE WINNIPEG, ARCTIC AND PACIFIC TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents PART 1 Foreword 1 1.1 Advance Notices ................................................................................................................1 1.1.1 The Radio Aids to Marine Navigation Annual Publications .....................................1 1.1.2 Ship Radio Inspections ...........................................................................................1
  • Lt. Aemilius Simpson's Survey from York Factory to Fort Vancouver, 1826

    Lt. Aemilius Simpson's Survey from York Factory to Fort Vancouver, 1826

    The Journal of the Hakluyt Society August 2014 Lt. Aemilius Simpson’s Survey from York Factory to Fort Vancouver, 1826 Edited by William Barr1 and Larry Green CONTENTS PREFACE The journal 2 Editorial practices 3 INTRODUCTION The man, the project, its background and its implementation 4 JOURNAL OF A VOYAGE ACROSS THE CONTINENT OF NORTH AMERICA IN 1826 York Factory to Norway House 11 Norway House to Carlton House 19 Carlton House to Fort Edmonton 27 Fort Edmonton to Boat Encampment, Columbia River 42 Boat Encampment to Fort Vancouver 62 AFTERWORD Aemilius Simpson and the Northwest coast 1826–1831 81 APPENDIX I Biographical sketches 90 APPENDIX II Table of distances in statute miles from York Factory 100 BIBLIOGRAPHY 101 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Fig. 1. George Simpson, 1857 3 Fig. 2. York Factory 1853 4 Fig. 3. Artist’s impression of George Simpson, approaching a post in his personal North canoe 5 Fig. 4. Fort Vancouver ca.1854 78 LIST OF MAPS Map 1. York Factory to the Forks of the Saskatchewan River 7 Map 2. Carlton House to Boat Encampment 27 Map 3. Jasper to Fort Vancouver 65 1 Senior Research Associate, Arctic Institute of North America, University of Calgary, Calgary AB T2N 1N4 Canada. 2 PREFACE The Journal The journal presented here2 is transcribed from the original manuscript written in Aemilius Simpson’s hand. It is fifty folios in length in a bound volume of ninety folios, the final forty folios being blank. Each page measures 12.8 inches by seven inches and is lined with thirty- five faint, horizontal blue-grey lines.
  • Keeyask Generation Project April 2014

    Keeyask Generation Project April 2014

    REPORT ON PUBLIC HEARING Keeyask Generation Project April 2014 REPORT ON PUBLIC HEARING Keeyask Generation Project April 2014 ii iii iv Table of Contents Foreword . xi Executive Summary . xv Chapter One: Introduction. .1 1.1 Th e Manitoba Clean Environment Commission. .1 1.2 Th e Project . .1 1.3 Th e Proponent. .2 1.4 Terms of Reference . .3 1.5 Th e Hearings . .4 1.6 Th e Report. .4 Chapter Two: The Licensing Process . .7 2.1 Needed Licences and Approvals . .7 2.2 Review Process for an Environment Act Licence . .7 2.3 Federal Regulatory Review and Decision Making . .8 2.4 Section 35 of Canada’s Constitution. .8 2.5 Need For and Alternatives To. .9 2.6 Role of the Clean Environment Commission . .9 2.7 Th e Licensing Decision. .9 Chapter Three: The Public Hearing Process. 11 3.1 Clean Environment Commission . 11 3.2 Public Participation . 11 3.2.1 Participants . 11 3.2.2 Participant Assistance Program . 11 3.2.3 Presenters. 12 3.3 Th e Pre-Hearing . 12 3.4 Th e Hearings . 12 v Chapter Four: Manitoba’s Electrical Generation and Transmission System . 13 4.1 System Overview. 13 4.2 Generating Stations . 15 4.3 Lake Winnipeg Regulation and the Churchill River Diversion. 17 Chapter Five: The Keeyask Generation Project. 21 5.1 Overview. 21 5.2 Major Project Components and Infrastructure. 23 5.2.1 Powerhouse . 23 5.2.2 Spillway . 24 5.2.3 Dams . 24 5.2.4 Dykes . 24 5.2.5 Ice Boom .
  • Circumpolar Wild Reindeer and Caribou Herds DRAFT for REVIEW

    Circumpolar Wild Reindeer and Caribou Herds DRAFT for REVIEW

    CircumpolarCircumpolar WildWild ReindeerReindeer andand CaribouCaribou HerdsHerds DRAFTDRAFT FORFOR REVIEWREVIEW 140°W 160°W 180° 160°E Urup ALEUTIAN ISLANDS NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN KURIL ISANDS Paramushir ALEUTIAN ISLANDS Petropavlovsk Kamchatskiy Commander Islands Bering Sea Kronotskiy Gulf r ive Gulf of Kamchatka a R k 50°N at ch NORTH PACIFIC OCEAN m Ka 40°N Sea of Okhotsk Bristol Bay KAMCHATKA PENINSULA Karaginskiy Gulf Okha ALASKA PENINSULA Tatar Strait Kodiak Gulf of Sakhalin Bethel Iliamna Lake Shelikhova Gulf P’yagina Pen. Koni Pen. Riv Homer ina er iver zh Magadan Cook Inlet R n m Pe Taygonos Pen. wi Coos Bay ok sk u Kenai K Kotlit S . F Gulf of Anadyr' Okhotsk-Kolyma Upland Kenai Peninsula o Western Arctic Wi r Uda Bay llam Anchorage k iver Eugenee Ku r’ R tt Tillamook Gulf of Alaska sk dy e S o Nome A na R Prince William Sound kw Salem2iv Queen Charlotte Islands u im s e Astoria Palmeri R Norton Sound ive r t iv R r STANOVOY RANGE n e a r a Valdez m Portland2 R y r Aberdeen2 Port HardyQueen Charlotte Sound i l e Dixon Entrance v o v Vancouver1 e CHUKCHI PENINSULA K i r R y r Centralia Bering Strait O u e Sitka l t v Olympia Seward Peninsula o h i ALASKA RANGE y R k R Courtenay ive u ia KetchikanAlexander Archipelago r K b TacomaStrait of Juan de Fuca Nanaimo m r Bol’sho u e y l A Wrangell v n o Puget Sound Strait of Georgia i United States of America yu C SeattleEverett R y r er Kotzebue Sound Ri e Juneau p ve iv BellinghamVancouver2 S op r R Yakima t C Kotzebue n ik r o COAST MOUNTAINS in e l COLUMBIA PLAT.
  • The Conquest of the Great Northwest Piled Criss-Cross Below Higher Than

    The Conquest of the Great Northwest Piled Criss-Cross Below Higher Than

    The Conquest of the Great Northwest festooned by a mist-like moss that hung from tree to tree in loops, with the windfall of untold centuries piled criss-cross below higher than a house. The men grumbled.They had not bargained on this kind of voyaging. Once down on the west side of the Great Divide, there were the Forks.MacKenzie's instincts told him the northbranch looked the better way, but the old guide had said only the south branch would lead to the Great River beyond the mountains, and they turned up Parsnip River through a marsh of beaver meadows, which MacKenzie noted for future trade. It was now the 3rd of June.MacKenzie ascended a. mountain to look along the forward path. When he came down with McKay and the Indian Cancre, no canoe was to be found.MacKenzie sent broken branches drifting down stream as a signal and fired gunshot after gunshot, but no answer!Had the men deserted with boat and provisions?Genuinely alarmed, MacKenzie ordered McKay and Cancre back down the Parsnip, while he went on up stream. Whichever found the canoe was to fire a gun.For a day without food and in drenching rains, the three tore through the underbrush shouting, seeking, despairing till strength vas ethausted and moccasins worn to tattersBarefoot and soaked, MacKenzie was just lying down for the night when a crashing 64 "The Coming of the Pedlars" echo told him McKay had found the deserters. They had waited till he had disappeared up the mountain, then headed the canoe north and drifted down stream.
  • HAYES RIVER a Canadian Heritage River Ten-Year Monitoring Report: 2006 – 2016

    HAYES RIVER a Canadian Heritage River Ten-Year Monitoring Report: 2006 – 2016

    HAYES RIVER A Canadian Heritage River Ten-year Monitoring Report: 2006 – 2016 Prepared by Manitoba Sustainable Development Parks and Protected Spaces Branch for The Canadian Heritage Rivers Board April 2017 Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Manitoba Sustainable Development with contributions from numerous individuals and organizations including: • Manitoba Tourism Secretariat • Historic Resources Branch of Manitoba Sport, Culture and Heritage • Manitoba East Side Road Authority • Manitoba Hydro • Dr. Virginia Petch, president of Northern Lights Heritage Services • Councillor Liberty Redhead of Shamattawa First Nation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Hayes River, Manitoba’s longest naturally Various research and monitoring projects have been flowing river, is rich in cultural history and the conducted in the Hayes River corridor over the sights and sounds of the wilderness. Opportunities past ten years. Much of this has been done by or for natural heritage appreciation and adventure for Manitoba Hydro in relation to its hydroelectric abound for those who undertake the challenge developments on the nearby Nelson River. Work of paddling down all or a portion of the was also undertaken to protect York Factory 600-kilometre route. On the basis of these and National Historic Site, located at the downstream other values, the Hayes was designated to the end of the route, from natural erosion processes. Canadian Heritage Rivers System (CHRS) Other activity in the area involved the work of in 2006. The CHRS requires that a detailed river stewards, provincial staff who travelled the monitoring report be prepared every ten years river corridor maintaining the route and campsites from designation to confirm that rivers continue to over the course of several summers, and the gradual possess the natural, cultural and recreational values development of an all-season road network in for which they were designated.