does colorado have any "high volume" creeks? i've been looking at creek boat reviews and wondering where (volume wise) "high volume" creeks start. is the black canyon a "high volume" creek? please name a quintessential "high volume" creek in the u.s. or elsewhere. i've always thought that "creek" and "low volume" were synonymous.
-dan
When I was out in west virginia the meadow river, which seemed more like a dried up creek most the time went from 200cfs, to about 7000 cfs. I would consider that higher volume....haha
Imo-A creek is a high gradient bed(trib to main rivers) that exposes paddlers to dangers associated with a creek..Pins,sieves,not clear cut routes through rapids(different slots,chutes)..I do believe high volume creeks would be managable a high flows for the particular bed..Black canyon,icicle creek,clear creek,boulder,south yuba ect..I would consider these high volume creeks...Low volume--cheeseman,eldo,dream canyon,nsv,little nasty,big kimsho,little white ect...Thats how I seem to gage it...High in the thousand/s low in the 500's?
Gary
Well, are you eastern or western? Out east, higher volume starts closer to 300 or 350cfs. Out here, I'd tend to agree with Gary, folks seem to think you need a lot more before it gets to be high volume. In fact, I think of creeks as always steep and always low-volume. If it's steep and high volume, to me that's hair!
I think a whole lot depends on the nature of the streambed. 225cfs is a great number for the Green, but it's bone-dry for some of the runs out here. Gotta consider the river you're on. There is stuff in Cali that I've seen video of friends running that would make your skin crawl - super steep, continuous and loads of water, like the Upper Poudre Narrows for a few continuous miles, by the look of it.
I recall an instructor at NOC saying in 1999 that "we easterners" think we run all this steep stuff - and we do. But we run it with 200-350 cfs. She went on to say that out west, they run stuff just as steep, but with 1500cfs.
Personally, I prefer to dodge rocks and boof rather than tango with monster holes; I like the technical stuff, so I love southeastern creeking. Colorado seems to have plenty of both in any good snow year, though, so you're covered either way.
Caspian,you're killing me,lmao...God the eastern boaters crack me up...Just give me 1000 fpm and wet rock,and get the hell out of the way...Think you're being a little modest about eastern boaters,as I feel they are the best paddlers out there...I know I can scare the hell out of them if I put in a little effort,yet everytime I go out there,they do it without effort..
Happy holidays
Gary
Lake Creek of the Ark might be considered a high volume creek. Though it is unaturally high volume due to the Fry-Pan project.
It's quite the sight to see when it is pumping 1500+CFS. I looked at it when it was 1800CFS and the only line I saw down the Paralyzer was a for sure trip to death.
Well as a former southeastern boater, I wouldn't call 350 cfs high volume. Although, most of the southeastern creeks would definitely be considered low flow by western standards. A medium level for Watagua is 300-350. The green at 350 cfs would be high flow (on a low volume creek). I think 100% is somewhere around 130-150 cfs.
I think the distinction would be in the volume considered minimum. I don't have a number, but if the minimum runnable level is 500? 750? 1000? A creek with a minimum flow of 1000 cfs would have to be high volume. In the southeast a minimum 500 would most likely be considered high volume.
The distinction between creek and river is pretty blurry, maybe gradient versus volume.
Linear Mode
