Talk:Fraser River

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tributaries[edit]

how much detail should be listed in the Tributaries section? should the Coquihalla River be listed, for example? --Doviende 23:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By all means. And any other significant ones, too.--Keefer4 09:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flooding[edit]

Nothing is mentioned about the yearly flooding, and especially the major flooding concerns today.
70.69.51.111 06:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the Great Floods of 1894 and 1948 are crying out to have separate articles done; Flood control on the Fraser River is a worthy article subject, of course, under whatever tit; there's a great pic from 1894 of the Fraser's waters right up to the deck of the Alexandra Suspension Bridge that can be used for at least one illustration, although the flooded-out Matsqui Prairie or inundated Chilliwack or the washouts in Mission/Dewdney are all online archive shots too.Skookum1 (talk) 17:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About "top" status[edit]

I changed that a few hours ago and thought maybe I'd better make some comments here; I'm too used to taking liberties with edit comments and putting reasons for stuff there ;-) Lately I've been working with the WPWash and WPOreg folks on Columbia River, which they've got close to, if not at, FA status, and it's a magnum opus or river articles. I'm not in a position to augment the Fraser article from where I am (Halifax) although through discussion I'm able to offer ideas/hithces and all that; there are a few key subarticles:

But back to the main Fraser article; it's sorely lacking, sorry to say; I encourage the regional editors to start adding to/augmenting it....we can do better than this. As in the previous section, separate articles on the Great Fraser Flood of 1894 and Great Fraser Flood of 1948, by whatever titles, are more than worthwhile and there's lots of images for both; maybe once I get finished with the Interior steamboats stuff I'll get back to these floods, but again I don't have a lot of print sources on hand, just personal knowledge that somebody else will ahve to cite for me; also the New Westminster Great Fire has been needing as standalone article for a while; Vancouver's fire has its own, yes? No? Not sure....Skookum1 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of gold-mining bars on the Fraser River or something to that effect is also like the roadhouses a key history article here; I have a friend who's working on a piece taht should be acitable/published source on all of them, but there's lots already out there for many....Skookum1 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simpson in 1828[edit]

Addition by Pfly:

. Simpson and his party were the first Europeans to cross the Coast Mountains since Simon Fraser's journey twenty years before

Uh, the journey down the Fraser doesn't involve penetration of the Coast Mountains, rather the skirting of their southeastern/southern end; the Cascade Range is the left bank (east bank) - the Fraser Canyon does not pass through the Coast Mountains. And, er, at teh time in fact, the CM were still called "the Cascades" (not "Cascade Range"; see the BCGNIS for Coast Mountains about that). The first journey non-indigenous journey I know of through the Coast Mountains after A. Mackenzie in 1793 was Francis Ermatinger and sidekick (can't remember who) on a reconnaissance of what would later become the Lakes Route; I think the year was 1828, maybe 1827; that route transits the Coast Mountains and in a sense "crosses" them by linking Interior and Coast regions; I'm not sure when overland contact on other possible routes was first made, e.g. the Bentinck Arm and Bute Inlet routes; sometime well after 1858 though; Lieut. Mayne's explorations are teh first formal explorations c. 1860, include penetration of the Lillooet-Toba route and a trip from Lillooet to Fort Chilcotin (via the Yalakom River, sounds like, but his journal doesn't describe the trip in any detail) and from there west to the sea; I think at Bentinck Arm. Anyway, what can be said about Simpson is his trip was the first through the Fraser Canyon by a non-indigenous person since Simon F's journey. Gotta compare dates with that Ermatinger trip, though; which was before or after the other....Skookum1 (talk) 14:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good point. I was quoting the book w/o much thought. It was late. Remove or edit... Pfly (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of hte problems with non-source materials, and even source materials, is they often have things like geography wrong....just because something's in a book don't mean it's true; btw see latest on Talk:Sinixt re the claim that Colville operations revolved around them etc......Skookum1 (talk) 15:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though supposedly one should use primary sources sparingly on wikipedia, at least according to WP:PRIMARY. In any case, I undid that edit. Pfly (talk) 02:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wording about delta[edit]

From the Geography section: After 100 kilometres (about 60 mi), it forms a delta... After 100 km from what? From where it exits the Fraser Canyon? The text is unclear here. Pfly (talk) 04:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coast Mountains[edit]

Another comment, especially wrt the above thread about early HBC trips through the Coast Mountains. The article's Geography section currently says: It then issues from the Coast Mountains from a deep canyon (the Fraser Canyon) about 270 km (170 mi) long. Ok, does the Fraser cross the Coast Mountains or not. I think not. This text implies it does though. Pfly (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the whole intro has wording and terminology problems, and there's more geography that could fit into it - the Rocky Mountain Trench, Fraser Basin, Fraser Plateau, also Fraser Lowland, which is the proper name for the area that includes lower Whatcom County, not "the delta". The delta also begins at Agassiz/Chilliwack, some say even further upriver, where the floodplain and in-river floodplain islands and sloughs first appear, i.e. Sea Bird-Herrling Islands area, the small floodplain at Flood/Laidlaw isn't usually counted in; the river also doesn't just pass through Vancouver's suburbs, it delimits the southern part of the city proper as well. I'll try and amend the text in this section in the next few days, but it also predicates fixing up articles like Fraser Plateau and making Fraser Basin (separate from Fraser Plateau and Basin complex, which is an eco-region article, not a landform article) and Fraser Lowland.....my intent here, and it's too bad I'm so far from BC-oriented libraries, is to launch getting this article towards the kind of thoroughness that is so impressive in the teamwork results at Columbia River. This has a "top" importance in WPCanBC and should be ina lot better shape before it goes to V0.7 release.....Skookum1 (talk) 04:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sumallo River & more[edit]

Good mornin ya'll

Just wanted 2 point out, the Sumallo River is a tributary of the Skagit River, not the Fraser, so I took it off the tributary list.

Also, whether they were taken off the list or just never added, the tributary list is missing several major tributaries, all of which enter the river near Moose Lake. They are Yellowhead Creek (the outlet stream from Yelowhead Lake), the Moose River, Robson River & Swiftcurrent Creek. So, I thought I'd add them since all of them r significant tributaries.

Have a nice day everyone!

AndrewEnns (talk) 9:44, 02 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.48.161.11 (talk)

Pitt River not displaying in infobox[edit]

Not sure why that is; neither the Pitt nor Coquitlam are displaying; the Coquitlam's not really a major tributary (there are many others considerably larger, e.g. the Stein, Nahatlatch, Anderson and various in the Robson Valley area) so it doesn't ahve to be there; but the Pitt, as the largest-by-volume (I think - gotta be larger than the Thompson or Nechako!) certainly does).Skookum1 (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fraser River's Source[edit]

I do not believe the Fraser begins in Yellowhead Pass. It may start near Yellowhead Pass, however, I believe the river's true source is in a small, unnamed lake just west of Fraser Pass. On Google Earth, the little link to the Fraser River Page is on the little lake I'm referring to, which leads me to believe that is the widely accepted, true source of the mighty Fraser.

AndrewEnns (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that bit about the Yellowhead, too, but I know when I was transferring data from Basemap into http://bivouac.com (where I was an editor/geographer for a few thousand hours), that it showed the Fraser as starting in the pass, i.e. a stream entering - Moose Lake is it? - was labelled as the Fraser, and it began in the pass; that's the official labelling, I don't know if it's on the modern incarnation of Basemap, which isn't what it used to be (e.g. only 200m contour lines, isntad of of 20m, and fewer elevation points etc.). "true source" is not interpretable, it has to be cited; if it's flow-rate or size of creek that's leading you to that conclusion, it's still not a sourced fact, it's your conclusion, i.e. WP:Original research. Now that you've mentioned Fraser Pass, though, I guess I'll make its stub - using "Fraser Pass". BC Geographical Names.. Presumably not named directly for or by Simon Fraser, but as a consequence of its proximity to the river's headwaters; which is uncited so I can't really say it in the article; BCGNIS doesn't make the statement so neither can I....Skookum1 (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I wrote the above message which you replied to about the river's source, I didn't actually know where Yellowhead Pass was lol. Anyway, I used basemap to find it (I finally took your advice about using basemap) & its located between the headwaters of Yellowhead Creek & the Miette River. So does that basically mean the stream labeled on basemap as Yellowhead Creek I was actually planning on making an article on it) is actually the Fraser River? That seems pretty odd. Now I'm officially confused.

AndrewEnns (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Official names are often confusing; such as the Little River between Shuswap and Little Shuswap Lakes, which is really the South Thompson, or the Seton River, which everybody in Lillooet calls teh last stretch of "Cayoosh Creek"; similarly the Canim and Mahood Rivers were originally Bridge Creek.....I think the official source of the Fraser is whatever that big lake is - Moose Lake?. There's other large headwater-streams, though; e.g. to the west of Mt Robson - is it the Robson River? I've forgotten; the one with the big waterfall on it...anyway no, Yellowhead Creek is Yellowhead Creek; official names are all we (can) use; same as with Columbia Lake vs the streams that feed it, hwich are the "true" source of the Columbia, from the Columbia icefield, but not the official source as none of them are named Columbia River....Skookum1 (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. It appears there is a stretch of the Fraser above Moose Lake, as per this where it says the Moose River flows into the Fraser above Moose Lake...gonna have to poke aroudn some more but you're welcome to make Moose River and Yellowhead Lake (if that's not made already).Skookum1 (talk) 16:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's Moose Lake's BCGNIS for you (there's several others elsewhere in BC).Skookum1 (talk) 16:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note also Rainbow Canyon, which is on the Moose River.Skookum1 (talk) 16:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the basemap yet? have a look at it, that is where I found out that the river extends all the way up to Fraser Pass. Note, also the BCGNIS page says that Moose Lake is an expansion of the river, not the source. Also, the BCGNIS page for the Moose River says "it flows into the Fraser above Moose Lake, so there is reason to believe that the river extends well above Moose Lake. AS for making articles on the Moose River, [[Yellowhead Creek & Yellowhead Lake, I think I will do that sometime soon. Have a look at the basemap and tell me what you think.

AndrewEnns (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basemap wasn't functioning earlier and I got caught up with things elsewhere (passes in the Chilcotin Ranges; see my user contributions); I have to go out now, will try to remmber to look it up later. BTW if you're interested in the Fraser as a general subject there's a book on the river by Bruce Hutchison, can't remember its exact title.....Skookum1 (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right you are; I just looked at Basemap and it is in the basin on the northwest side of Fraser Pass, due south of Blackrock Mountain; and it's not an Alberta-border pass so I'll strip that cat from that article; if you want a lat long for the origin it's hard to say, but I doubt that creek out of Fraser Pass is any much larger than the ones off the moraine to its west; I think about where they all come together could be used for a position for the source, since that would appear to be the start of the main stream - 52°31′36″N 118°53′59″W / 52.52667°N 118.89972°W / 52.52667; -118.89972; sorry for the confusion, it's been a while since my intense digi-mapping of this area so it must have been some other matter that had me on the in-the-pass bandwagon; maybe it's the Kickign Horse I remember us (in the office at bivouac.com) squabbling over it (mildly; we had other un-miled squabbles...). BTW although I've made a few of them - the Torpy, McGregor, and Milk Rivers - the upper Fraser tributaries like the Raush and various others are all in need of making, also any large feeder streams like Herrick Creek; nearly all other tributaries downstream from here - of this size - have been made....Skookum1 (talk) 03:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Well its good to get that all fixed up. NEXT TOPIC OF CONFUSION PLZ!!! HAHA! Anyhow, yeah either that little lake just west of Fraser Pass or the joining of all those little streams is the offcial source of the Fraser, you decide. As for other articles, I plan on making Yellowhead Creek & Yellowhead Lake, the Moose River, maybe Moose Lake, the Robson River (I've made a stub for one of its 4 waterfalls - Emperor Falls) & Swiftcurrent Creek. I will also see if I can make Herrick Creek & the Raush River as well. Also, I think I will expand your stubs on the Torpy, McGregor & Milk. To make a long story short, hopefully I will try to look at doing or expanding all the articles mentioned by you here, however, as you can see, thats a fair bit of work, so I guess I just gotta go one article at a time and I should be good.

Thanx for helping me figure this out tho

Gnite

Fraser River Source Fixed[edit]

Hello Everyone

Just so everyone knows, the source of the Fraser (coordinates & all) have been changed (now that I finally got around to doing it) finally! Skookum1 & I carefully discussed it & we both agreed it for sure does NOT start at Yellowhead Pass. For it to do that, the creek known as Yellowhead Creek would have to be the Fraser & Yellowhead Lake (I made that stub by the way) would... well... have to be... Fraser Lake? Then what we call the Fraser Lake out near Vanderhoof (the guys who live next door to me are moving there this summer LOL)? Good thing the river was named the way it was!

Anyhow, I'm just letting everyone know of the long needed change!

Peace Everyone

AndrewEnns (talk) 22:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aboriginal name[edit]

Given the example of the Columbia River article, and others also within BC where the indigenous name is used in the lede somewhere, and in the infobox, the question here is which of the names/spellings might apply. Sto:lo with or without diacriticals is only the Halkomelem name, and I'm not sure as ever whether the diacriticals are appropriate for referring to the whole group, beyond the bounds of the tribal council (the STC) which prefers that way of spelling/orthography; its name in Skwxwu7jkesh or Shishalh doesn't really apply, although those would be good to have of course; but whiel I suspect that in Nlaka'apamux and Shuswap it might be Staulo or Stahlo, which is how it's transcribed in Kamloops Wawa in its Chinook Jargon lexicon. I've seen in early accounts but I wouldn't know in modern Thompson or Shuswap how it should be spelled; in Lillooet I think it's related to Setl or Sat', which is the name of the Bridge River Fishing Grounds and also the basis of the term "St'at'i'mc/Stl'atl'imx (peple of Setl/Sat'" - "people of the Fraser" (originally that term applied only to bands in the area of Lillooet and the Tslalh'mc and N'Quatqu'mx of Seton and D'Arcy were together "the lakes people" (rendered by Edwards as Lexalexamux, but I've seen no modern corroboration of that, i.e. academic/indigenous sources)and the term Lillooet only applied to Lil'wat, and not all of the Lower Lillooet; Teit comments that in Thompson and Shuswap languages/versions, there was no common name for the people west of the Fraser, and that th tertm "Slatlemuk "had no meaning; unless it does mean "river people" in those languages spun off their name for the Frser; I think there was a separate term or qualifier, for lesser streams; but each had a name. Farther upstream in Fraser's journals there's this term Tacoutche Tesse, which was what was thought tobe the name of the Columbia (which is what Fraser hoped the river was), I don't know what language it's in, it may not be Carrier. Names used by the Tshilqot'in and [[Okanagan people}|Okanagan]] would also be good to have, and Lummi, Nooksack, Straits, the Island/Downriver Dialects etc...Languages needed for all present on the river itself are Hunquminum, Halqemeylem (whose spakers were known as the Fraser River Salish or Fraser River Indians (and omsetimes called Cowidgins/Cowichans...), Nlaka'pamuctsin, Lillooet/St'at'imcets/, Tsilhqot'in, Secwepemctsn, Carrier and Sekani; but any found can be added; the primary one I guess is Sto:lo/Staulo since so many areas use it or a form of it; but then, as I started mentioning, which spelling to use; beucase "Sto:lo" is expressly Halqemeylem, with or without diacriticals; the old anglicization up and down the river as far as I suppose, Williams Lake, was Stalo/Staulo/Stahlo/Stl; above that the Carrier and Sekani terms are probably similar, and related to the Chilcotin one....its Chilcotin form is, just guessing, likely to end in /-ko/ like Chilko and Taseko. There's likely different terms depending on which group of Carrier, too, e.g. the Ulkatchos vs those in Prince George (Lheidli Tenneh).Skookum1 (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flow rates paper[edit]

I haven't actually participated in the current edit dispute about flow rates. However for all involved I have located the paper being cited as the source for the new numbers: here the /publ/ section of the address was left out so the link in the edit summaries was not linking correctly. --Kevmin (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When located on the river here the monitoring station (N 49 22' 26" W 121 30' 15") is just west of Hope and not at the mouth of the Fraser.--Kevmin (talk) 23:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

supposed to open minded forum[edit]

you guys will make up any excuse to keep your contributes in play, calling down all others opinions or facts and SKOOKUM1 THe Fraser river is no where near the size or depth or lenth of the Congo River in Africa but obviously you have never been there have you, so what makes you think that your right when your world is so small. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonfictionary (talk • contribs) 07:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just spent a bit of time trying to solve this, but must stop and sleep. The 139,000 m3/s stat is quite large--nearly twice the greatest recorded flow of the Columbia River. But the 19,600 m3/s stat is smaller than I would expect for the historic peak flow of the Fraser. Both numbers appear to come from reliable sources. Perhaps it is a difference between peak "instantaneous" flow and peak "daily", or some similar measurement variant. It could be differences in estimating the flow of an event that occurred more than a century ago. It could be a typo. Still, Nonfictionary, your approach is failing to win me over. Personal attacks in edit summaries, Skookum's talk page, etc, only undermine your credibility. Calling his world small and questioning his understanding of hydrology only demonstrates how little you know about him. Comparisons to the Congo River seem misguided. The Fraser and the Congo differ hugely. Does the Congo experience huge releases of glacier meltwater during the summer? How many square kilometers of glacial icefields feed into the Congo? The seasonal hydrology of the two rivers couldn't be more different. The source cited for 139,000 m3/s is clear and reliable. It could be an error. Shouting and making belittling comments do nothing to resolve things. Pfly (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the MoE source last night; avg discharge in the 3k range, minimum in the 1k range - max in the 139,00 range? It may very well be a typo in that document, though to me 19,000 seems way to small though it is in the other sources but only in a certain context "discouting inflows from tributaries below Hope" or however it's put. http://www.fraserbasin.bc.ca is NOT an authoritative site, nor is it a government site. As for the twice-the-Columbia comparison, I've heard that before actually - that the Fraser, though narrower, can out-discharge the Columbia when in freshet. Has me thinking that List of rivers by volume might be a good idea....there's other rivers in BC that are profoundly big despite very short lengths - the Pitt among them, but also the Squamish, Homathko, Skeena, Nass and Stikine...where to find that data I'm not sure....but I'm pretty sure that if the DFO and Fraser Basin Council sites are read carefully, that 19,000 figure is in a certain context; I'll see what I can find at MoE and also at the Int'l Hydrography site.....Nonfictionary's attack on me alone, given the five or six other editors that have been reversing his edits (which were wildly off the pre-existing data; I think he even "corrected" the mean/avg discharge and even the river's well-known length from the DFO site....in general, federal sites are less reliable about BC geography than provincial ones are, but.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See next.Skookum1 (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrometric data source[edit]

Well, I've found an authoritative primary source at FedGov - Water Survey Canada but haven't been able to get it to load (timeout errors), i.e. the "Archived Hydrometric Data" link, which goes back to mid-19th C. - see the Fraser River entries under F, in the Station Name Index - here. The station for main flow is "Fraser River at New Westminster", as below that the data is for different channels/arms. Station number for that Archived Hydrometric Data is 08MH025. Seems like the information avaiable will also enable us to make a flow-chart for the Fraser at different points along its length, i.e. above/below each main tributary; might make a nice chart huh? Anyway I can't get that site to load, maybe someone else can, and we can have a resolution to this silly dispute and the childish behaviour about it; an authoritative source is an authoritative source, i.e. the hydrometric data; other reports whether fraserbasin.bc.ca or MoE's flood summary are actually secondary sources, not primary.16:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at the archived hydrometric data last night, actually--for various Fraser River stations. I didn't see any "peak" numbers above about 20,000 m3/s, but the actual data was rather patchy for many stations and the whole system was being really slow, so I wasn't thorough. The method I was using is the one I wrote about here, User:Pfly/BC hydrometric data. The GIS web app system seems to have been changed a bit since I wrote that page, so the process is not quite the same, but close. Anyway, I discovered that you can download the raw GIS data from GeoBC; the "download" link takes you to the "Province of British Columbia GeoBC Data Distribution Service". I already have a BCeID from downloading from the BaseMap Store, so it was easy to browse the data available and download some, including all the active and discontinued hydrometric station data (I also grabbed a bunch of other datasets). And, by coincidence I had dug out and set up the old computer with ArcGIS on it, so I can actually load the raw data and take a closer look. I'll see what turns up and write again later. The "great flood" of 1894 is said to have been the highest discharge on record, I think--but I'm not sure whether the raw hydrometric station data is going to be good that far back. The discharge numbers for 1894 seem to often include the word "estimated". But I will see what I can find.
Btw, I too have heard, I think, that the Fraser's freshet discharge can reach surprisingly high levels due to, if I remember right, the type of headwater sources (especially snow and glacier meltwaters) and the constriction through the canyon, plus the large tributaries below the canyon flowing from yet more snow and glacier sources in the Cascades and Coast Mountains), among other things. A peak discharge twice that of the Columbia's historic max does not strike me as implausible. But! I think I made a mistake when saying 139,000 m3/s is twice that of the Columbia's historic max. It was late and I seem to have converted between cfs and m3/s incorrectly. The Columbia's max discharge was 1,240,000 cfs, which according to the "Discharge" subsection of the Columbia River page is 35,000 m3/s. So a 139,000 m3/s discharge would make the Fraser's max about four times greater than the Columbia's. Now it is sounding rather implausible. Also of note is when these historic max flows of the Fraser and Columbia occurred. Fraser, summer (June?) 1894. Columbia? Yep, June 1894. Pfly (talk) 17:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the hydrometric station data will not answer this question. Here's an interesting source: Comprehensive Review of Fraser River at Hope: Flood Hydrology and Flows--Scoping Study, Final Report, October 2008. Prepared for: BC Ministry of Environment. Prepared by: northwest hydraulic consultants (but note it says, "this project was conducted under the guidance of Bill Kuhnke, P.Eng. and Neil Peters, P.Eng. of the BC Ministry of Environment, who together with Ron Henry, P.Eng., also of BC Ministry of Environment, reviewed the draft report and provided valuable comments."--sounds good to me). Some key passages:

  • "The 1894 flood is considered to be the flood of record... The 1894 flood discharge at Hope was estimated from high water marks determined in 1934, not from actual discharge measurements at the time of the flood. Therefore, there is some uncertainty associated with the magnitude of the discharge." (p. 1)
  • "The probable maximum flood (PMF) is considered to be the greatest flood that could conceivably occur and was computed on the assumption that all contributing factors would reach their critical magnitude simultaneously. The PMF at Mission was estimated to be 40,000 m3/s (1,400,000 cfs) or just over double the estimated 1894 flood discharge." (p. 3)
  • "The two key [hydrometric] stations with long-term records are Fraser River at Hope (08MF005) and Fraser River at Mission (08MH024). ... [For the Hope gauge,] An estimate for the 1894 flood peak is not provided in WSC's published database." (pp. 4-6)
  • "[Hope gauge 08MF005]... The 1894 high water mark at the gauge [at Hope] was determined from anecdotal evidence forty years after the flood... [details about it] An effort was made to check the estimate using a correlation of flows with the Columbia River. On this basis the Fraser River Board (1958) adopted a value of 17,000 m3/s for the 1894. This value has been specified by regulatory agencies for all subsequent flood control work on the river." (p. 7)
  • "[Mission]... The 1894 flood discharge at Mission can not be reliably estimated..." (pp. 7-8)
  • "Based on the reported high-water marks near the Hope gauge, the hydraulic modelling [described before] indicates the 1894 peak discharge could have ranged between 16,000 m3/s and 18,000 m3/s." (p. 13)
  • "The Laidlaw-Hope hydraulic model...confirmed the 1894 flood discharge was approximately 17,000 m3/s at Hope [the standard estimated value used by the WSC]. The accuracy of the high water marks is probably about +/- 0.3 m corresponding to a flow range of about 16,000 m3/s to 18,000 m3/s." (p. 23)
  • Also, check out figures 2.7 and 2.8 of the Alexandria Bridge in 1863 and during the flood of 1894!

Gotta run, more later! Pfly (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Notes on what you've found out:[reply]

  • the reason the Mission gauge is important is it is at the head of tidal effects on the flow of the river WHEN during freshet; at low water the head of tidal activity is at Chilliwack, though whether that's above or below the mouth of the Harrison River I don't know. The important over-arching factor between Mission and the Strait of Georgia is the Pitt River; but typically when the Fraser is in freshet it, as well as the Stave and Alouette and Harrison and all the little creeks and sloughs flanking the bigger river, is blocked up and does not flow; it also tends to have a different flood peak of its own and as you know is itself a very large river; how much of it enters the Fraser during freshet is an interesting problem in fluid dynamics which maybe one of the sources you've found addresses; point is the flow at New Westminster would theoretically be the larger number EXCEPT that at high tide the rate of flow is likely slower, even though water levels are higher. One of the reasons that paper says Mission and Hope are the most important is because they are the "distant early warning system" for floodplain downstream from there; can't remember what the time lag is and it's not like Richmond or Ladner would get more than a few hours of warning of a dyke-breaking peak flow, but that's the point of those being the two most important hydrometric stations; with Mission being, at freshet, is not affected by the tide so is a "real measure" whereas' New West's is conceivably slowed down, except at low tide huh? BTW about the Chilliwack upper limit of the tidal bore, that's likely below Harrison Bay (really a lake/sidewater of the Harrison River) ,as only t he Pitt qualifies as a tidal lake; Silvermere, an artificial lake adjacent to the mouth fo the Stave MIGHT except that it's dyked and has its own pumping system.
  • Great Flood of 1894 (Fraser River) and Great Flood of 1948 (Fraser River) have both been crying out for creation for a long time ,as also Flooding hazards in the Fraser Lowland (note that term includes the flat parts of Whatcom County, since any re-staging of 1894 - for example - would conceivably re-create Sumas Lake and similarly a Nooksack flood could overflow the low ground between its drainage and that of Sumas Prairie/River. The idea with the Great Flood articles is not just a summation fo the kind of stats you've provided, but also of the timeline of the associated disasters; when the Chilliwack dyke broke, when the Matsqui and Mission dykes broke, numbers of casualties/amount of damages etc, social/development impacts (e.g. because 'f '48 downtown Mission was never the same, and it killed the town's role as the centre of the strawberry industry). The "weather event" or structure of the snowpack's melt pattern that lay behind the scale of each flood could also be in the respective articles. The Flooding hazards could also include the disaster studies re Mount Meager, Mount Breakenridge, the theorized subsidence of Richmond/Lulu Island, or the MPF of 40,000 if all of the Pitt, Stave, Harrison, Chilliwack/Vedder/Sumas, Sumallo, Coquihalla, Nahatlatch, Anderson, Thompson, Stein, Cayoosh/Seton, Bridge et al et all all came down at once. Flooding is also an issue along the Thompson, Nechako and in Prince George and, sometimes, Quesnel.
  • There's also Natural hazards along the Fraser River in general, as in cases like Boston Bar Mountain and farther upstream there are natural calamities which could transform the landscape; a slide at Texas Creek (Canada) is what created a lake that stretched up to Big Bar and beyond, and is why the Keatley Creek archaeological site is where it is (high, high up above the river at that point) and why the big benchlands etc; other similar landslides created all the terraces north from Boston Bar, at different times etc.
  • For a while I've wondered about enlisting the crew who worked up the Columbia River article to its current condition to lend a hand with the Fraser and maybe its northward kindred ,the Skeena and Stikine especially, as the amount of material and the potential for Featured Article quality calls out for attention; there's just not enough BC editors to do it, or none so inclined anyway. The river and its basin is of primary importance in BC geography/history (NB "Fraser Basin" refers to a lowland area within the Nechako Plateau, not to the whole basin proper, just as Fraser Valley only refers to the stretch through the Fraser Lowland) (which like Georgia Depression and other landform-units needs an article also). The complexity of the Flooding patterns in the Fraser River basin might be a way to integrate all the science and data sources into a side-article too huh?
  • There's a whole literature about the Fraser, e.g. Bruce Hutchison's book on it (aptly titled The Fraser, and although lauded it's pretty simple stuff) and all kinds of quasi-tourism/quasi-nationalist mytho9logy bumpf, plus lots of organizations defined in terms of it either as a river or as a community/region; this is why a more comprehensive article here is needed; it's pretty thin right now; as noted I'm intending on finding cites for the respective indigenous names for the river and as with your rapids thing on the Columbia List of canyons, rapids, bars and other landmarks of the Fraser River or some such is called for, but it would sure help to have distance-marks/humbers and pretty much each tributary would have to be listed in sequence in such an article; often because they are accompanied by a bar or rapid etc.
  • About the 139,000 my bet now, seeing the 19,000, is that that "3" is a typo; MoE won't be open until Tuesday because of Canadian Thanksgiving so I'll see if a query to them results in a correction of the online document, or an explanation. The biggest number you've come up with is 40,000 for MPF and it's only theoreticaly; 139,000 must be a mistake..
  • the list of hydrometric stations and, if that site ever gives us any response, the data available from them, is applicable to all the rivers in question; I was wondering where to get flow data for the Squamish, Powell, Klilnaklini, Homathko, Dean etc and now I know....
  • Some kind of main article no the Fraser salmon fishery is needed, given the tons of data/history/politics, but a good section on the salmon runs and main spawning beds and any artificial measures is needed in this article also.

That's all for now; I'll probably see something in your items again once I post this but these are all thoughts ensuant upon the flow-rate debate and what else is needed to improve the article.Skookum1 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


other than noting that the high waters of 1863 (that pic is public domain, in BC Archives btw) are associated, I'd think anyway, with the record winter of 1862-63, which is when smallpox swept through the Interior and destroyed the Tsilhqot'in....one of the "saddlebag parsons" lives a grim account of the devastation of the combined impact of smallpox and a harsh winter......I think but am not sure there are stories of record snowfall throughout the Interior that winter; there was no settlement yet in the Lower Fraser Valley, other than one or two landholdings, so it wasn't as much of an economic/social crisis as the later events and has not left as much of a "data trail".....Skookum1 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oop, I must have been editing the page while you adding these comments here. I have to run again so cannot read them right now. I just wanted to note that I added a discharge section to the page and used the info and figures mentioned above in the geobox, vaguely following the style used on the Columbia River page. If 17000 m3/s is the one used by "all regulatory agencies for flood control" for the 1894 flood and considered the highest known level, as the "review" source says, it made sense to use it over the myriad of alternates out there. Anyway, more later! Pfly (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't bother to add (80 miles from mouth) after Hope in th3 infobx because I think it should be at Mission; the meltwater from the southern Lillooet and Douglas Ranges and the same from the Skagit Ranges and also Manning Park/Hozameen Ranges (the Coquihalla is one e highest-snowfall totals, for passes anyway)are gonna be big chunks of the flow; as are the Harrison, Chilliwack, Sumas/Vedder (depending on how they're backed up or not). The Stave is at least now dam-regulated; and if anything because of canalization the Sumas/Vedder probably flow faster and enters the Fraser more easily during the big river's freshet; I grew up watching the Stave back up, and once or twdce theere was concomitant flow from the melt in the upper Stave basin, typically during heavy rain, and at times it seemed Ruskin Dam couldn't spill enough water through its gates to be able to withstand it; scary stuff to watch when you live right below it LOL (as I did); but if the Stave was already being backed up by the Fraser it only added to the problem, though there weren't many low-lying residents....except along the artificial lake already mentioned). Anyway maybe the thing to do is to have all of the Hope, Mission and New Westminster stations, with notes on teh chracteristics/location of each station and its relevance, and in the article at large a suitable section accounting for the flow rates for each of the delta's arms below there. I thought the bit about the North Amr being too narrow for the salt bore to come up it was kinda interesting..... There's heaps of studies on Industrial land use environmental issues on the Fraser River (with maybe a title that was a bit less of POV-bait) the Fraser certainly has spawned more research literature than any other river in British Columbia, tha's for certain LOL. Skookum1 (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic issues[edit]

NB Fraser Delta isn't just from New West/Queensborough downstream; it's everything up to Rosedale Prairie/Sea Bird Island, in pockets flanking the river, as defined by BC Gov via Holland's source; I can't remember if it's considered to include Flood-Laidlaw....the Fraser Valley begins at Hope, but does teh Delta?? There's a highways/tourism sign at the crest pull-out of the Agassiz Mountain stretch of Highway 7 (the mountain is actually Mount Woodside) taht says the view marks the beginning of the Delta (though Sea Bird Island would be out of view beyond and as an extension of Agassiz Prairie, to the left/east; Seabir'ds more of a canyon island, though floodplain, though; there is a mountain wall between it and agassiz prairie, but only a short strtch; if it's included in the Detla, then the Detla begins at Ruby Creek, which seems odd to me. as it's a very mountainous neighbourhood right there) And btw I finally figured out a conundrum that has always bothered me; Yale is at the mouth of the canyon. but Hope is where the valley and the canyon meet; what Yale is at the mouth of is the Little Canyon (the Big Canyon or Black Canyon stretching from Spuzzum to Boston Bar...). Hope is at the mouth of the Fraser Canyon, overall, the Canyon, which is also something of a cultural unit, though both Hope and Yale are aligned Coast-wise as far as Interior/Coast goes, though Yale is by definition an "Interior town" as the Valley, part of the Coast, only begins at Hope; it's because of its old role as a port town and at one time the biggest industrial camp in BC (CPR construction base) that, though in the Interior, culturally/historically it's part of the Coast; similarly it and Spuzzum and the end of the coastal climate area (though even Spuzzum can be dry when it's been raining in Yale for days....) not incidentally, it's also where Sto:lo territory ends; Spuzzum is Nlaka'pamux, so there's an "ethnographic fit" to the Coast inclusion; just a side issue but relevant to any later discussions about what begins where in terms of the Fraser's geography, i.e .as the article grows. Hope, on the other hand, has always related up-canyon and it's something of a commercial centre for people from the Canyon towns, as it has more services and commercial/retail offerings, and at least south of Lytton is a lot of an easier drive than up to Cache Creek/Ashcroft; some Lyttonites will shop in Lillooet for similar reasons. Geography of the Fraser River or Geography of the Fraser River basin might be a title for a core article, given all the landforms within the basin etc; we might think about or just start List of Fraser River-related topics though in a way that's already the disambiguation page isn't it? Skookum1 (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, lots of words! You make me want to work on this page and related topics. But first I must finish/publish the rapids of the Columbia page. Almost ready to move it from sandbox to a real page. Some of the minor rapids will have to wait for later incorporation. I'll see if I can find hydrometric data for the rivers you mentioned (Squamish, Powell, Klilnaklini, Homathko, Dean). The stations are sadly sparse and all too often no where near the river's mouth. Pfly (talk) 05:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, did three (all in m3/s). Squamish River near Brackendale (08GA022): 238 mean, 2630 max daily, 3149 max instantaneous, 11 min. Homathko River at the mouth (08GD004): 270 mean, 2660 max daily, 3140 max inst.; 20 min. Klinaklini River East Channel (main) near mouth (08GE002): 297 mean, 1830 max daily, 1640 max inst.; 24.9 min. Pfly (talk) 06:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I found useful, also, on that table, was the size of teh drainage basin for each river, at least above any given measuring station. In the case of the Klinaklini it would make sense to combine the two channels, since there's no common figure for the combined - or is that OR? As for the Squamish at Brackendale, hmmm that excludes the flow of the Mamquam which is quite large but I guess they have no measuring gauge below that (possibly because the course of the river below there is nearly all in Indian Reserve - ??)Skookum1 (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of islands in the Fraser River [and its tributaries][edit]

this is a draft list, ensuant from revisions to List of islands of Canada#British Columbia and Lower Mainland articles; not ready to make a full list, but starting it here, partly from memory and otherwise from map reference; my estimate is there are about a hundred islands between Hope and the Strait of Georgia, not including minor sandbars...there may be a few above Hope, including Lady Franklin Rock and Saddle Rock (British Columbia). "Banks" e.g. Roberts Bank and the Sand Heads, should probably not be included....partly because they're not really in the Fraser River...rather offshore from it. I've included, potentially, "the Fraser River [and its tributaries] so Hatzic Island (in Hatzic Lake), Hullah's Island (in the lower Stave delta/oxbow adjacent to Silvermere Lake and Echo and Long Islands (in Harrison Lake) can be included.

That's in rough upstream order, obviously not alphabetical, and is a list of officially gazetted/named islands only. I haven't included sandbars, though maybe notable ones like Hill's Bar and Maria Bar should be so included; but some bars are not islands e.g. Yale Bar, Hope Bar (though Hill's and Maria are...or were though siltation may have changed that...). The note on Lower Mainland that there are almost a hundred islands in the Fraser is from either the Dept of Highways info sign on Highway 7 for "Fraser Delta", which is on Agassiz Mountain, overlooking Rosedale Prairie, or is in S. Holland's "Landforms of British Columbia". There are other smaller islands up the Fraser, some of them named; I may get to that later.Skookum1 (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "huge sturgeon"[edit]

A huge white sturgeon weighing an estimated 0.91 kg (2 lb) and measuring 3.76 m (12 ft 4 in) was caught and released on the Fraser River in July 2012.

This would had to have been a very thin fish at 2 pounds....

Here's the correct info from (http://greatriverfishing.com/world-record-sturgeon-fraser-river/)

It measured an astounding 12 feet and four inches, and while it was impossible to weigh it, charts indicate that its weight is about 1,100 pounds. It had a 53 inch girth measured below the pectoral fins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.149.69.113 (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of sloughs[edit]

I've moved the list I built here to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia#Sloughs list as it's not just Fraser sloughs or Lower Mainland sloughs.Skookum1 (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New map[edit]

I made a new, rather detailed map and added to the page. Let me know if there are any mistakes or problems. I based it on this nice map of the Rhine. It is obviously meant to be viewed at larger than thumbnail size. In time I'd like to add an inset (or separate map) of the Lower Mainland region, but that will have to wait. Pfly (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discharge data from 1985[edit]

I've been looking for a better source for the annual mean, minimum, and maximum discharges that is published but have not found one yet. Having a source on discharge from 1985 is seriously out-of-date. That's missing almost 30 years of data when that data does actually exist at multiple gauges (Hope and Mission?) along the river. I think this needs to be addressed if anyone can find a more authoritative source. Perhaps an actually published peer-reviewed paper would do well. --Curoi (talk) 23:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most-downriver hydrometric station I can find data for is station 08MH126, "FRASER RIVER AT PORT MANN PUMPING STATION". It is below Coquitlam but before the river branches in the delta. You can get historical discharge data for 1965-1992. The mean discharge over all those years is 3620 m3/s, or slightly more than the page currently says. Here is a link to the station page, historical monthly discharge—see the "mean" column, per year, and at the bottom the mean row, mean column, for all years. This might not be quite what you are looking for, but perhaps helpful. Pfly (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fraser River. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sediment discharge[edit]

The article has this:

"it discharges 20 million tons of sediment into the ocean"

If interpreted literally then that's the total sediment the river has/will ever send into the ocean -- and I highly doubt that meaning is what is intended to convey. I would bet it's the annual rate but without access to good documentation I can't modify it. Anyone have a source? Linktex (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fraser_River&oldid=1194728414"