Mountain Buzz banner

Late season Middle Fork

21K views 65 replies 23 participants last post by  fiya79 
#1 ·
I've read some of the threads on this in the past but would appreciate any new info. I have a post-lottery permit on Sept 6, which is ? 3 days after the end of the lottery. I would prefer to float the entire river, from Boundary Ck down, maybe if necessary flying some heavy stuff into Indian Ck.

I know there's a polished late season MF crew here - could you share your tips on what makes it work best? Small cats, such as my Sotar 12, or spread the weight with a larger one such as my Hyside 16? I've heard some say the big scows still do ok then, can't imagine that after seeing them on the Main.

Are there certain techniques that work best and is there usually a clearly defined channel or often a big, wide fan of shallow rocks? What to take to help get off rocks - is it generally just getting out and pushing or more of a ropes rescue deal - and what's the estimated level of danger? Do things ease up after Indian Ck?

Anyway, stuff like that. Anything you can offer as advice is appreciated. Might have some openings too.

I'm also considering adding a Main trip and continuing on down for a two weeker!

Thx.

- Jon
 
See less See more
#35 ·
Good posts Shap. As a water guy, I've always advocated for cfs comparisons for the reasons you mentioned. Especially when it comes to the lochsa with the painted gage at 3 rivers vs the usgs gage etc.

Problem is mf gage is one of those hold outs, from historical perspective. Historic readings prior to (late 90's?...can't remember off hand) were taken off the bridge with a drop down plumb bob. Affected by all kinds of things like temp and wind and human weight , but mostly by tension on the bridge cables, which were tightened from time to time. Then the bridge was completely rebuilt! Which is why the data went away for a couple years. About this same time, USGS funding for running the gage went away and was later restored.

Gage was moved upstream of the bridge and telemetered during the rebuild. Actually I think the usgs did that and LATER ran out of funding. Boaters demanded that our fees should go toward keeping the gage established. And here we are today. With regular visits by the usgs to measure and update the "shifts" to be applied to the gage.

Bottom line, last ten or so years consistent and accurate cfs readings, and gage height readings subject to the random shifts any river gage experiences.
 
#36 ·
I too appreciate shapp's input as I've never understood why the boating community relys so much on gauge height for the reasons mentioned above. I'll add that additionally discussing discharge is also invaluable when used as a mental comparison between streams. When looking at new water comparing gauge height is absolutely useless. Each is based on an arbitrary baseline that made sense at the time of original installation. Stage isn't even comparable within the same section as it's related to area (width and depth) and velocity, so saying that the river has dropped a foot on the gauge doesn't mean it's a foot lower up or down stream...it just means its lower.

If however folks related discharge you have an idea how much water your looking at and may realize that the difference between some known stream and the new one your discussing. Now I fully realize that discharge alone doesn't define a streams character but you can quickly start putting the pieces together if you know it's running at a 100, a 1000 or 10k cfs. Add a picture or discussion of gradient and width and you now can have a good idea what your looking at and can begin to formulate more questions based on these more subtle details.

Thanks Shapp.
 
#37 ·
Yes it would be great to have a consistent way to measure flow on the Middle Fork, but comparing flow in feet is so ingrained in the culture that it would be hard to make that changes. I feel that it's nice to follow the tradition and culture.

The flow (in cfs) of the Middle Fork at the confluence is at least double and even triple what is is at Boundary Creek. Would you refer to the flow at put-in, Middle Fork Lodge, the confluence with the Main Salmon, or somewhere else?
 
#38 ·
It's certainly ingrained, but does that make it any more useful? As for where to use as a baseline, the feet on the gauge at each section mentioned is also very different and not directly comparable, so following the current tradition and basing discussions at Boundary creek would be just as "traditional" (but ultimately more useful). That said, I know it's not going to change. But in a perfect world wouldn't it be nice?
 
#41 ·
Gauges on the middle fork

I always thought there to be 2 gauges, the MF lodge gauge and another several hundred yards above the confluence. With that said I was visiting with an acquaintance last week that has already floated the MF this year! He works for the USGS or some other water agency. I forgot how many gauges he said but I was surprised they check 9 (?) numerous times a year.
Next time I see him I will get more information.
 
#42 ·
Not arguing for sticking with feet on the MFS. CFS is a much more descriptive unit. It is superior in virtually every way. Except one- convention.

The flat world argument isn't strong because that is a falsehood. We move to talking about a round world because the world is in fact round. The middle fork running 2.1' or whatever is a fact. 560fcs is also a fact. They are the same thing.

When you say 1.4' I know what that means. I have no idea what the CFS conversion is. The FS uses feet in all of their info. All of the forums use feet. I've never heard someone discuss the MFS in CFS. I think the USGS site automatically brings up feet first. Yes the ft-FCS conversion wiggles over time but not enough to matter to me. I still know below 2' is low. above 6' is high. I'm going to pack the same for a 1.89' trip in 1994 as a 1.67' trip today regardless of the actual CFS conversion.

I'm fine with this river being a holdout of an arcane system that makes no actual sense. The mystique might keep a few people off it.
 
#43 ·
I'm fine with this river being a holdout of an arcane system that makes no actual sense. The mystique might keep a few people off it.
Well spoken and despite that I can see logic of CFS conversations it is so ingrained in my reality and personal history that I see the river that way.

Kind of like the Grand Canyon rapid rating system in a way, unique only to the Colorado through Grand Canyon. Maybe Cataract as well. The point is think in feet and converting to CFS would be a conversion, like speaking another language. The other part is that at the launch sites they display the foot reading from that day not CFS you look up online before launch. So all my prcoessing for that river trip flows off of that reading.

Does any other river system display flow off the gauge at launch like the Middle Fork?
 
#44 ·
fiya79 - well said. I totally agree that the cfs system is WAY better but the mystique of the feet gauge is part the Middle Fork.

lyhfamily -I'm fairly confident there is only on gauge on the Middle Fork between Boundary Creek and Cache Bar. If there are others I would LOVE to know.

carvedog - I live in the Columbia Gorge and we commonly use the feet gauge on the Wind River, White Salmon River, Little White Salmon, and Hood River. Everyone recognized that cfs is better, but it's part of the culture. The only gauge on the White Salmon is a stick gauge that has no cfs correlation. The New River in West Virginia and the Futaleufu River in Chile are a couple other examples.
 
#46 ·
Thanks fiya 79. It's kind of a bummer to see the water levels are higher than normal right now. I really wish the snowpack would stay in place.

Yes, feet on that gauge means nothing to me. I would use the cfs here too.
 
#51 ·
I'll pick that nit - 500 cfs means a lot it tells you exactly how much water is flowing through the stream. No it doesn't tell you the dimensions of the stream so you don't know if that's deep, shallow fast or slow, BUT it's infinitely more useful than 6.52' on the gauge. That could mean 30k cfs or 2 cfs on different streams.

If you were researching new trips which would you look at?
 
#55 ·
So now you start adding variables like new trips.....and stuff.

I made the most recent comments in regards to the validity of a gauge reading on the Middle Fork vs a CFS reading on the Middle Fork.

I will address this to Mania as well. Without a prior point of reference either number becomes subjective to one's experience. 10cfs is big on the Middle Fork but not on many other large rivers. It is a bit low in the Grand Canyon.

False. height has absolutely no meaning without repeated runs at all different levels. move the stick 10 feet and you have to relearn everything. with cfs you can infer a lot based on the size of the drainage and gradient. move the gauge half mile up or downstream no big deal as long as you don't move it past a significant confluence.
There is still subjective knowledge required for CFS to mean something. I have learned that particularly with low flows one person's 'low' is not the same as it is for me. Whether you call it 450 cfs or 1.45 without knowing the river involved it means nothing. Not talking about moving the stick just the arbitrary assignment of value to subjective numbers.
The linearity of 1,000 cfs being double 500 could be useful to some but it is still only marginally useful.

I was speaking directly to the Middle Fork gauge and that the 'foot' reading is just as useful as cfs.

Does everyone know that the cfs is calculated from the 'foot' gauge reading?
yep. it is. on the Middle Fork that is. That was one of my points.

The 'calibration' involves actually mapping the streambed in segments and using a current meter or an Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter to measure flow in the different segments.

Personally I think there is way too much attachment to numbers. Maybe that is why I don't really care what number is used. Either one is only marginally useful.
 
#53 ·
2.1 or whatever number measures a depth at a certain point in the river. It isn't measured from the bridge. The river bed changes slowly. I'm fine with a small degree of imperfection in the depth vs volume. That error rate doesn't change my trip.

Depth isn't as telling as CFS. Everyone agrees. But it conveys the same information. It lets people know how to pack and what to expect. For river runners it works just fine to compare the river to itself year to year.

Even CFS isn't perfect. That is just one point on a 100 mile river. It doesn't tell you how bad the top 15 miles is. It doesn't tell you how big the river is at the bottom. And as carvedog wisely pointed out it doesn't tell you gradient, width, class or anything else.

If everyone switched to CFS tomorrow I'm on board. Until then I'm happy being on the board of the depth of the month club.

If I told you this group I ran the MFS at 10,000 CFS does anyone know if it was epic? On which gauge? Confluence gauge? meh.

If I told you I ran it at 7' everyone knows which gauge I used and that I am a badass, which is what is really important.

If you are going to advocate for change let's go whole hog and implement CMS instead.
 
#54 ·
So in reality we should discuss both, because they're both useful on their own levels. Discharge tells you some pretty valuable data and allows you to compare different reaches and streams. But, when you arrive on site there is no way to look at the river and say, "that's 375 cfs" you may say its a couple hundred, a couple thousand, or what ever but there is no way to quickly discern discharge. That is the original reason the stage-discharge relationship was created. A way to have a readily identifiable measure that an individual could record and move on. I'm sure it's also the reason that folks started talking about stage. It's something you can show up, look at the gauge and know where you stand (if you'd been there - done that before). So since were fruitlessly arguing for change lets just start using both. I know I can type 2ft/365 cfs almost as easly as 365 cfs.

And fiya79, I think we should go CIS over CMS, it would sound alot more impressive to say you ran the mf at 12,000,000 CIS than 12 CMS :D (which by the way is 423 CFS)
 
#56 ·
carvedog, all of my comments have revolved around the comparability to other streams. That's where I think discharge (in cfs) is actually very useful. A quick visual comparison of the subject stream coupled with the known discharge in CFS tells me alot about what I might expect. I can relate it to other streams at similar CFS. That's how I work.

Does everyone know that the cfs is calculated from the 'foot' gauge reading?
yep. it is. on the Middle Fork that is. That was one of my points.
This is only partly true. With out actual measurement there would be no way to "calculate" the flow based on gauge height. Shapp and others have outlined the process above but in summary the only meaning the gauge height has is directly related to the stage discharge relationship developed over the years, by coupling actual in-stream measurements with a specific gauge height. This forms a curve on a graph which is represented as an equation. So yes the telemetered data you see on your screen is "calculated" from measured gauge height. But that height would be meaningless with out actual measurements of discharge to equate it to.

Edit to move this statement to a summary: It starts with discharge, gets converted to gauge height then gets interpolated back to discharge.
 
#59 ·
I don't know what I was thinking trying to discuss some basic integral calculus with river guides :)

1.9 feet is really like calling the earth flat because it is a perception. The world does look flat from a certain vantage point, from a certain vantage point 1.9 feet may be representative of 700 cfs, but not always. However, 700 cfs is always 700 cfs every time you measure it. The world is round every time you measure it (well not totally round in a true spherical sense, but thats another matter).
 
#60 ·
The math and numbers really do matter. Does anyone think that floating the upper MF say at 600 cfs would be harder than 800 cfs? These could equal the same stage, for example 1.7 feet on the gage in 2 different years. Why did you get stuck 1 year in sulphur slide at 1.7 and not in the next year at 1.7, was it because you were in a different boat, or because you had 1 - 12 pack too many, or because the "flow" was not the same.
 
#61 ·
When we launch from Indian Creek in the fall, the board at the ranger station rarely reads 1.5, 1.6, or 1.7 feet. It reads 1.56 feet, 1.62 feet, 1.78 feet. I'm guessing this represent the difference in cfs you are talking about. We use the feet as a generalized reference point to talk about the range in which we are familiar/comfortable with the characteristics of the river.

To answer the question about why I got stuck at 1.7 feet two years ago and not at 1.7 feet last year.....my answer would be that I was in a different boat last year & paying more attention to my line. I always chalk it up to "user error" :)
 
#62 ·
What I am curious about is " what tool works best for splitting hair"? 😜
I will have to say that this has been an entertaining topic. Both sides have legit arguments. I know if someone tells me the CFS of the MFS or Lochsa I ask what is that in feet. Lots of other rivers I know only by CFS. Our local paper has some sort of feet guide for our rivers that means nothing to me. I only look at it to see if the flow is rising or falling. If I am doing a river for the first time CFS does give a pretty good description of flows and what size boat I may take. No I can't determine a slew of info from that nor could I from knowing depth at some specific spot but I do think it is helpful.


Jim
 
#64 ·
I taught calculus for four years so we can have that discussion.

There's no doubt that the cfs measurement is better. I'm just not willing to be Christopher Columbus.


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz
 
#66 ·
I pack the same for a 600cfs mfs trip vs a 800cfs trip. If your skills are so precision that you alter your pack based on decimals you are a better boater than me.

The gauge just lets us know approximately what to expect. And the far smaller numbers are just easier to discuss and remember.

But if anyone wants to post both I'm down to start learning both languages. But I am unwilling to look up the conversions for my posts because I am motivates enough to spend an hour reading and writing on this thread but not spend the 5 seconds to look it up.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top