Michigamme Moose Rapids Approximation

[Doug Heym]

For flow on the Peshekee river, MI, there seems to have once been an approximation based off a near by river called the Michigamme Moose Rapids Approximation.    Peshekee - Peshekee Grade Road (various, up to 18 miles) | American Whitewater

Any chance of tracking that down in the old code and re-creating?

[Rob]

Since nobody from headquarters has replied, I'll address this, and they can perhaps chime in if this is not substantially correct.

As I understand it, all 'virtual' (calculated) gauges on AW are down, while they rewrite all the code.

This has fouled up a good many rivers on which I (and other StreamTeam members) had set up virtual gauges.

The only option for now might be to link directly to the USGS gauge on some nearby river (the one the approximation was based upon), and guesstimate what the appropriate flow-ranges would be for runnable levels on the Peshekee.

[Rob]

AFAIK, there is not even a way for me to find and look at the coding of the virtual gauge(s), so I'd be starting from scratch to figure out and connect to the reference gauge, guess at the appropriate intervals, and convey the appropriate 'conversion' as to what gauge flow might translate to what flow on the Peshekee (to anyone bothering to fully read the Peshekee main page and gauge page on AW).

I have been holding off doing any that for any of these virtual gauges in the Upper Midwest, in anticipation that there would have been a priority on getting that coding in place.

Apparently there are higher priorities being addressed by the programming team, leaving all virtual gauges (and all users across the whole country) in the lurch, until all those higher priorities are taken care of and they can address the calculated gauges once again.

[Doug Heym]

Okay.  Got it.  I'll just wait until virtual gauges get sorted out.

Another quick question, for a USGS gauge, if the river where the gauge is located is frozen, does the AW page show something like: 

null cfs @ Mar 13, 2026

????

[Rob]

You got it. (Yes.)

[Anthon Allred]

While virtual gauges are down, one thing that you can do is record the actual mathematical correlation under Gauge Summary - correlation details on the flow page.  That way a record of the correlation might be preserved during the period while virtual gauges are unavailable and paddlers could use it to do the math manually.

Tony Allred Jr.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "American Whitewater StreamTeam Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to american-whitewater-stre...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/american-whitewater-streamteam-forum/69fba6d2-93df-47e7-b36e-9ec4c7e42404n%40googlegroups.com.

[Rob]

I have linked the Peshekee (and W.Br.Peshekee) to the M.Br.Escanaba at Humboldt (which I believe is the nearest USGS gauge on a fairly similar watershed.

The 'flow ranges' are rather arbitrarily set at present. If you have suggestions to improve these ranges (either right now, or as boating season gets underway and you have opportunity to get 'eyes on' experience to correlate gauge readings and your preferred flows) feel free to log into the website and add 'trip reports', or make the edits on the gauge page for these two sections of river.

[Doug Heym]

Okay, but I don't have the correlation.  I just saw on the river page that at some point in time, someone had created a correlation.  I was hoping this could be re-created from the old code.

[Doug Heym]

I had entered a Trip Report from last April.  I updated it with the level on the Middle Branch of the Escanaba.  Maybe someone will find this useful.