# Late season Middle Fork



## slickhorn (Dec 15, 2005)

I've gone in Sept at 1.7' and loved it. low water means big beaches, and low water is beautiful water. 

I ran a 12.5' sotar legend. It had all the group gear and cooler for a party of 7, everyone else paddled. 

was really no trouble at all. I wouldn't consider missing the upper canyon, just be strategic. We skipped beer weight, and we filtered water rather than carry it all. That allowed us to have steaks and whiskey.


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

slickhorn speaks truth. 

I bring a large boat because.....that is what I have. There is a combo of wide fans of shallow rocks type places to get stuck and picket fences of large rocks. 

If you "have" to bring lots of stuff bring a larger boat. Think pounds per square inch of tube on the water. If you can bring the little boat by trimming and doing a resupply if necessary you will likely be happy you are not pushing the highside through some of those slots. Just do it. However you do it.


----------



## slickhorn (Dec 15, 2005)

one tip I remember from my low water trips: extra oar blades. Easy to go through a few in the shallow upper bits, especially when you are tired, out of patience, and start flailing and lever'ing with oars. 

I never had to do anything more than hop out. 

Run the tubes/floor a little soft to slide over things. 

balanced, trim loads are key. 

ask vets in your area what a good training run is. Here in Seattle, the Green Gorge will train you for the mfs ideally. go at 1100 to simulate 1.7'. Go at 4000 to simultate 6'. Bet there's something similar near you to dial in those short, shallow strokes.


----------



## ArgoCat (May 14, 2007)

*Low water MFS*

Have an Aug. 30th launch and launched several years ago on Sept. 1st. Small boats are nice, but an overloaded small boat is hard to maneuver and just as likely, or moreso, to get stuck than a similarly loaded bigger boat. Buddy took a 14 footer (7 foot width) and there were no problems with getting stuck in slots. You need to remember that a bigger boat with a similar load will ride higher in the water and thus, slide over more stuff that a smaller boat with a similar load will get stuck on. Keep your gear off the floor and run a soft floor. As for the tubes, different strokes for different folks. The one thing that I learned after the first day was this: don't try to run away from the small shit only to broadside a bigger rock. Point it and use inertia to plow over the small stuff. It is better to get out and push the boat straight over the small stuff than be broadsided on the bigger rock and have to start using vector pulls, or a pin kit, to get off.


----------



## fiya79 (Feb 9, 2010)

I have nothing to add to the old threads.

don't fly in
Go light
expect to get stuck
fish
expect it to be some work
Expect it to be worth it
Don't panic when early river miles are hard to make

I've run small cats and big rafts and all in between. I prefer a medium cat or small raft. Whatever you own will work fine. 


Soft tubes. Big smile. Dry flies

My only low water regrets:
brinigng a rower who was not prepared for techincal water
bringing a large group that necessitated heavier boats
choosing to avoid low water for a few years due to horror stories
Not having time for more trips


----------



## FatmanZ (Sep 15, 2004)

Take your cat down some low water Ark and Poudre runs and you'll have no problem with the low water MFS run. In fact, the Rustic sections of the Poudre remind me a lot of the first two days of the MFS at lower flows. 
Most of my trips down the MFS have been low water. I've heard rafts float higher than cats but I've always used a cat and prefer them with no floor - makes it easy to slip off the seat into the shallows and lift/push using the front foot bar and then hop back up onto the seat once it's moving. It's also nice to be able to straddle some rocks here and there. All of the hangups I experienced were on smaller rocks and in the wide shallows where at times there is no good defined line. One trip we helped pull a commercial raft from Bozeman, MT off an ugly pin in Tappan Falls - we ended up cutting out part of the lace in floor and deflating some tubes, frame ended up bent - make sure you scout that one. Line is straight forward but at low flows there is (was? it's been a few years) a rock on river right that can snag you good. you. 

I wouldn't skip the top 30 miles, especially that time of year - it's a fantastic run and you'll have it all to yourself. I doubt they run that late in the season, but watching a big sweep boat (raft) navigate the upper part in low water is a sight to see - lots of respect for the guys that run those.


----------



## ArgoCat (May 14, 2007)

*Scows and Sweeps*

Yep, they still run late season. One pushed off the morning of our last trip (Sept 1st) @ 1.84 ft. Figured if that thing could get down so could we. lots of inertia heading downriver in a 20+ foot scow.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

I have done September trips for the past 5-6 years. We always fly in to Indian Creek. Two reasons....we are lazy and don't want to work that hard on the top, and we do 8 day trips with two layovers. So basically we are slackers who like to relax a lot.

It is easier after Indian Creek, but definitely not a piece of cake. Low water MF takes all of your attention on the oars pretty much all of the time. Not a leisurely float. If you're not paying attention you can get stuck just about anywhere. You usually can push your way off of a "get stuck" episode, but you definitely can get stuck in bad places that need a rope.

Run your tubes a little soft to "slime" over the rocks. I got stuck significantly more in my cat than in my raft. Boat design or user error? Who knows?

We bring the same amount of shit on the MF in September that we bring on any trip, but we are not big drinkers, so we don't have a ton of beer.

Shallows, rock gardens, chutes....the MF has it all in the fall. I've never broken an oar or blade, but bent a carlisle blade a little bit once. Friends have dinged blades a few times. Spares are good to have. The phrase "watch your downstream oar" was probably talking about the MF at low water.

We have always lucked out on weather. Never got snowed on. A little rain. Last year was sunny and mild to slightly cool. Lucked out and had the windy day on a layover. Great camps. Great fishing. Great scenery. Hot springs. FUN!!!!!

We launch from IC on Sept. 5th. Since we are slow farts, maybe you'll catch up to us. Green Maravia rafts & cats and one bright red, super cool Sotar raft.


----------



## zcollier (Jan 1, 2004)

This thread is full of great advice. If you have solid boaters and long days on the water are fine then launching from Boundary Creek will definitely be worth it. Here's a blog post I wrote with more advice about low water Middle Fork Trips.

Pro-Tip: Low Water Advice for the Middle Fork | Whitewater Guidebook


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

Great advice Zach. It all applies to the MF after Indian Creek as well. It might not be quite as difficult from Indian Creek down, but it's no picnic either. I can verify your cat vs raft comparison. I ran it at low water in a 14 foot cat for many years, and switched to a 14 foot raft last year. I got stuck a lot less in the raft. Last year was my best run ever.


----------



## mowgli (Feb 24, 2010)

Does anybody have an idea of predicted water levels this summer? Hows the snow pack looking? I scored a permit for Aug 13th.


----------



## wildh2onriver (Jul 21, 2009)

You just beat me to it on snagging the 8/13 date. I clicked on it when it showed it was available, but it wasn't...

Enjoy!


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## mowgli (Feb 24, 2010)

That shows how much luck is involved. Just randomly opened the page and there it was.  Sorry to pull it out from under you. 
Big thanks to Shappattack for the links!!


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

mowgli said:


> Does anybody have an idea of predicted water levels this summer? Hows the snow pack looking? I scored a permit for Aug 13th.


The last time I talked about low water and my predictions I was told that my guesses were all fallacy.

Somehow I have managed to open the road to Boundary 4 times in the last 12 years and seen peak 3 or 4 times as well. 

Lots of winter left to happen. But.....

even in Stanley there is little to no snow below 6,000 feet. South and East slopes are bare in many areas and some west slopes. This is at 6-8K. This affects more the peak potential than August. There is quite a bit of snow up high. More in the Northern side of the Middle Fork than the Southern. 

Less snow on Banner means more challenges getting to Indian Creek. 

Maybe if you shared your potential group makeup in terms of craft and low water experience I could give better advice. Also total group size will dictate how many days you can take. 10 and under can go 8 days and I would recommend this. Up to 20 can go 7 days and over 20 need to run in six days. 

I love the upper river but realistically you need to assess your group and see what flows are. At a minimum unless you are converted backpackers you should plan on flying a plane load of coolers and beer into Indian. I think you will at 2 feet or below. 

Congrats on the permit and I hope you pull it off in style.

Webcam in Stanley. Go to the 10 day review or the last year to get some comparison. 

Sawtooth Camera: Live webcam from Stanley, Idaho. Views of the Sawtooth Mountain Range.

Live Web Cam | Flying Resort Ranches

2007 was a very low year. I launched one trip from Boundary on May 16th. We barely had to shovel. It was 5 feet or so. I launched again on June 1st at 3.3 and falling. We still did an October trip at 1.45 feet or about 450 cfs. 

Currently the SWE at Banner Summit ( close to the Headwaters at Boundary Creek) is at 16.5. In 2007 it was at 19.6 or very close to where it peaked that year. If it still snows some it could catch up or pass that. All depends on temps and precip in the next three months. 


Banner Summit (312) - Site Information and Reports

Go to 'View Historic' to keep comparable snowpacks on different years.


----------



## zcollier (Jan 1, 2004)

My optimistic guess for mid August is about 2 feet. Almost definitely between 1.7 and 2.1 feet. 


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## mowgli (Feb 24, 2010)

Carvedog,

Thanks for the info!! Sounds like this is your back yard. We areally looking forward to another epic trip.

"Maybe if you shared your potential group makeup in terms of craft and low water experience I could give better advice. Also total group size will dictate how many days you can take. 10 and under can go 8 days and I would recommend this. Up to 20 can go 7 days and over 20 need to run in six days."

Our group is typically in the 12-18 range. We ran a few years back at 2.0 and holding almost the whole way. Everyone agreed to keep it "light" on the gear. Yeah, right!! Looked like a typical big water gear/beer load. No real problems though. We have mostly 13-15 ft rafts. 
I was a guide on The Box and Racecourse in New Mexico for 6 years. Ran company boats down to 175cfs on the RC and 350cfs on the Box. Wouldn't take my own boat at that level.  Ran the Salt down around 1K a couple times. Everyone is good to super solid with regards to experience.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

I'll bet a nickle that it'll be below 2' sometime in July. Gosh I hope I am wrong.


----------



## mowgli (Feb 24, 2010)

I'm hoping it will hover at 2.2ish from 7/21-9/1. Fantasizing. I know.


----------



## BrianK (Feb 3, 2005)

Going on a MF trip launching June 25 and hoping to take out and head to the South Fork Salmon on July 2. Since there are some experts here:

What Snotel sites besides Banner should I look at for the middle fork?

What Snotel sites should we look at to gauge SF Salmon snowpack?

Thanks


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

lhowemt said:


> I'll bet a nickle that it'll be below 2' sometime in July. Gosh I hope I am wrong.


I sure hope you're wrong Laura. We have a Sept. 5th launch from Indian Creek.


----------



## tteton (May 16, 2014)

I'll take that nickle bet. The mountains up there hold their water well. Did last year. It won't hit 2' till end of August! Looking forward to my launch in September. Ricky Bobby says,"Rubbins racin!" and "I'm too drunk to taste this chicken!" So that about sums up the MFS in low water fer me.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

tteton said:


> I'll take that nickle bet. The mountains up there hold their water well. Did last year. It won't hit 2' till end of August! Looking forward to my launch in September. Ricky Bobby says,"Rubbins racin!" and "I'm too drunk to taste this chicken!" So that about sums up the MFS in low water fer me.


I hope I am taking one for the team! Last year had epic snowpack, esp at mid and lower elevations. Pray for spring snow!

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Mountain Buzz mobile app


----------



## 6FEETandRISING (Feb 15, 2012)

zcollier said:


> Pro-Tip: Low Water Advice for the Middle Fork | Whitewater Guidebook


It all depends on how it comes off the mountains, but I would guess that it will be 2'-1.8' in early august but sept can be anywhere from 1.7' to lower. Then again it could be 4' if a week long rainstorm comes in like it did two years ago. I agree with most of the information in the above link. I will offer some insight though into the idea of running a large craft vs. smaller boat. I definitely think that rafts are the way to go. I've have done my share of deadheads in the past off the top in Sept and in this particular instance the company sweep boat was out of commission for the year so we were taking a lot of gear off the top in the rafts. Flows held around 1.7' to 1.6' I believe. The first two deadheads I ran an Aire 176R loaded off the top and it was tricky but very doable. The worst was the chutes by far and spending time getting stuck in the little shitty one above the chutes "sticky ricky" or whatever some people call it took about an hour to get the whole crew thru after we watched a sweep boat grease it. The third trip I was able to trade in the big gear boat and row a Super Puma off the top. WOW!, the difference was amazing, the little boat had a box and a cooler and my personal bags of gear and that was it. It scooted all over the place and believe I only got stuck in the chutes breifly and probably some other places where i shouldn't have because i wasn't paying attention. But overall after that trip in the super puma I was impressed with a small boat and I remember thinking that I would like a 13ft or 14ft in the future to do the MFS in sept and october when nobody is there and I could go solo and if I got stuck most likely it would be easy to get off. I would try to always to go from boundary regardless, big or small run everything super soft and you will be fine. If it's between your Sotar small cat and a 16ft raft I would say take the raft but go light and be prepared to kick off rocks. One tool that I have used for years is a climbing runner with a Beener on it. If you get stuck and you will, hook the beener to the d ring by the rock and stand on the raft on the opposite tube and give er a yank and voila' you will come right off, no wet shoes.


----------



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

I indicated I wouldn’t post on this site anymore, but I just can’t help not chiming in here.
The whole discussion of feet on the gage is not that meaningful.This measurement refers to gage height (i.e. water surface stage height at the gage location).River stage height is related to total discharge (typically measured in cubic feet per second, cfs, in the U.S.)A lot of measurements are taken over several years to develop what is referred to as a stage-discharge relationship, which is a relationship between the gage height in feet to total discharge (flow in cfs).The relationship changes over time because the cross section shape of the river at the gage site changes over time.This means that every so often the stage-discharge relationship changes, or in other words, the flow associated with a specific gage height is not constant over time.The USGS takes periodic measurements of flow and shifts the stage-discharge relationship periodically as warranted. 
For example 2.0 feet on the gage:
currently 2.0 feet = 932 cfs

year 2013 = 910 cfs
year 2008 = 865 cfs
year 2001 = 800 cfs
year 1980 = 700 cfs
year 1975 = 675 cfs
I would imagine there is a big difference in floating off the top when the flow is actually 932 cfs compared to 675 cfs.So if you did a lot of low flow trips in the 1980s and calibrated your mind’s eye to 2.0 feet on the gage at about 700 cfs, you might be surprised to find things a little easier going more recently when 2.0 feet on the gage means there is almost 30% more water (at 900 cfs or so).
This is why folks should go back to the historical flow data and look up what the flow was in cfs during their trip, and not calibrate their mind’s eye to feet on the gage.Talking about experiences at different flows (cfs) is a lot more meaningful and consistent over time than talking about feet on the gage.You can easily go back in time and look at what the flow was on your trip in cfs here (at least back to 1973):
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/id/nwis/dv/?site_no=13309220&agency_cd=USGS&referred_module=sw
Talking about cfs rather than gage height is most important when talking about low flow trips as the changes in the stage-discharge relationship tend to be dampened at high flows (unless there is a major channel forming flood event that completely alters the prior stage-discharge relationship curve).
Regarding chance for various flows, based on the historical flow record.
There is a 50% chance that flows will be 933 cfs or less on August 1 and 753 cfs or less on August 15.
There is a 25% chance that flows will be 679 cfs or less on August 1 and 574 cfs on August 15.
All of the above relates to the MF Salmon Gage at MF Lodge.
So long for now, I'll try hard not to post again for another several months.


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

shappattack said:


> So long for now, I'll try hard not to post again for another several months.


Why you no like us?

I have always enjoyed your posts here and your insight into gauge readings is pertinent. There are a few time periods mid 90s that I have not been able to find historic flow data and for some reason 2001 and 2002 wouldn't show up for me the other day. 

And yes I should get used to speaking in CFS, been on the gauge height for so long sometimes I forget.


----------



## zcollier (Jan 1, 2004)

Well shappattack unfortunately EVERYBODY (gudiebooks, USFS, outfitters, etc) refers to the flow in feet on the gauge so it's the common language. There is a big change between 1975 and 2013, but luckily the change over the past 5 years is small.

I agree that changing the language to cfs is the way to go, but getting everyone to change the discussion is a big task.


----------



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

zcollier said:


> unfortunately EVERYBODY (gudiebooks, USFS, outfitters, etc) refers to the flow in feet QUOTE]
> 
> Precisely why I had to make this post. A little more info, all the field discharge (flow) measurements taken since 1973 that were within 0.1 feet of 2.0. You will notice a distinct lack of field verification in the 1990s. There is a fair amount of variation of what 2.0 feet = in flow (cfs) over the last decade, I think there could be a significant difference in floatability if there is 100 cfs more flow between two trips that both occurred at "2.0 feet", a 100 cfs difference at low flow could easily mean a few more inches of water depth, which could mean the difference between skimming over that rock or getting hung up. It could also provide additional info to explain the variation in perceptions given by boaters, where some folks indicate they didn't have much problem getting their 14' cat down loaded with group gear at 2.0 feet, and why others had a harder time at 2.0 (in addition to skill). I do a lot of low water boating on lots of rivers and sometimes an extra 100 cfs can make a big difference. Look just over the last 5 years, 2.0 was almost 150 cfs more in 2013 than 2009. I think that would translate into a significant difference in floatability for the most shallow rocky rapids.
> 
> ...


----------



## mowgli (Feb 24, 2010)

Thanks for posting, Shap! So there is a 50% chance the water will be 933 or above August 1st, eh? Glass 1/2 full. 😄


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

mowgli said:


> Thanks for posting, Shap! So there is a 50% chance the water will be 933 or above August 1st, eh? Glass 1/2 full. ��
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


 Actually given the current snow pack is somewhat below average, I would think the probability of the glass being half empty is more likely at this point in time, though it is still only February. Better wild guesses can be had in May.


There is only a 25% chance the river will exceed 1,180 cfs on August 1 (currently = 2.23 ft on the gage), or 1,010 cfs on August 15 (currently about 2.07 ft on the gage)


----------



## mowgli (Feb 24, 2010)

Nice! Now those are some great numbers!! 😉


Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz


----------



## Wadeinthewater (Mar 22, 2009)

shappattack said:


> Actually given the current snow pack is somewhat below average, I would think the probability of the glass being half empty is more likely at this point in time, though it is still only February. Better wild guesses can be had in May.


Today's SWE for Banner + Deadwood is 42.6 inches. I would guess low flow at the end of July, but like Jason said it is only the end of February.


----------



## DarrylH (Mar 10, 2015)

*DarrylH*

Mowgli - We have a permit for 18 Aug, so we're watching the snowpack closely as well. Here is a good site to periodically check - I'm hoping for lots of spring snow too! ftp://ftp.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/data/water/wcs/gis/maps/id_swepctnormal_update.pdf
shappattack adds good perspective.
I've used the same technique as 6FEETandRISING - added a short length of pvc to the webbing for a good gripping handle - and trained nimble-footed passengers to help with weight transfer and pull, while I stay at the oars.


----------



## cahatch52 (Jan 6, 2010)

*Middle Fork 1.7'*

Like the title says we did a 1.7 from Boundary a few years ago. As for boats we went small. I ran an Aire Puma outfitted with oars, my friends were running Hyside Mini Me's. We also had the advantage that I know the Middle Fork very well. The same day we launched a commercial group launched a deadhead run to Indian Creek to pick up clients and gear. They were running 18' Avons. Totally empty except for personal gear. We did well, not a lot of issues. We caught up to the commercial folks a few days later. Apparently they did well also. I was curious so I asked, how did you get those boats into Sulfur Slide? We only found a slot wide enough for our small boats. He said Sulfur was not a problem. What kicks his but is the Chutes. Looking back I can see why a big boat would have problems. For our small boats it was a great fun. Like bouncing down three sets of stair cases. Any way I am rambling. The single malt is starting to kick in.
Craig


----------



## boicatr (Mar 14, 2013)

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.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

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.


----------



## zcollier (Jan 1, 2004)

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?


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

zcollier said:


> 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?


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?


----------



## zcollier (Jan 1, 2004)

Yes, in a perfect world it would be nice.

I'm pretty sure the only gauge on the Middle Fork is at Middle Fork Lodge.


----------



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

people once thought the world was flat, following that tradition doesn't make it so. Maintaining the use of a metric that isn't constant over time is like using a measuring tape that regularly changes the length of an inch to build a house.


----------



## lyhfamily (May 13, 2009)

*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.


----------



## fiya79 (Feb 9, 2010)

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.


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

fiya79 said:


> 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?


----------



## zcollier (Jan 1, 2004)

*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.


----------



## fiya79 (Feb 9, 2010)

USGS Current Conditions for USGS 13310199 MF SALMON RIVER AT MOUTH NR SHOUP, ID

This gauge is the middle fork just above the confluence. That is the only other gauge I know about. Ironically when I think of this gauge it is in CFS.


----------



## zcollier (Jan 1, 2004)

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.


----------



## slickhorn (Dec 15, 2005)

fiya79 said:


> The middle fork running 2.1' or whatever is a fact. 560fcs is also a fact. They are the same thing.


I'm gonna disagee. they are not the same at all. you have no idea what 2.1' is measuring. Saggy suspension cables? different reading. Spring flood shifted gravel around? 2.1' before that shift is a different flow than 2.1' after. 

that is why usgs visits and recalculates the gauge: they account for streambed changes and provide consistent correlated data. 

cfs is a unit of flow: volume per unit time. 

feet is unit of distance. what the heck are you measuring? 

Enjoy your mystique, but only one of these things meaningfully discusses flow.


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

slickhorn said:


> I'm gonna disagee. they are not the same at all. you have no idea what 2.1' is measuring. Saggy suspension cables? different reading. Spring flood shifted gravel around? 2.1' before that shift is a different flow than 2.1' after.
> 
> that is why usgs visits and recalculates the gauge: they account for streambed changes and provide consistent correlated data.
> 
> ...


The same gauge still provides the data used for both numbers. And with calibration directly correspond. No mystique, just a different number that is equally valuable based on your personal understanding of the number. 

feet on a gauge is equally abstract to cfs without some basis to understand that figure. 500 cfs on the MF is puny. In many creeks it becomes a significant number. Each number is unique to the situation being interpreted. 

I see no difference myself. Carry on.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

carvedog said:


> The same gauge still provides the data used for both numbers. And with calibration directly correspond. No mystique, just a different number that is equally valuable based on your personal understanding of the number.
> 
> feet on a gauge is equally abstract to cfs without some basis to understand that figure. 500 cfs on the MF is puny. In many creeks it becomes a significant number. Each number is unique to the situation being interpreted.
> 
> I see no difference myself. Carry on.


Ah, but you can infer something from that 500 cfs, it's high for a creek and low for the MF. 2 feet on the gauge means Jack Squat without prior knowledge


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

elkhaven said:


> Ah, but you can infer something from that 500 cfs, it's high for a creek and low for the MF. 2 feet on the gauge means Jack Squat without prior knowledge


500 cfs means nothing without prior knowledge of that river and the constraints within. 

Not to pick nits but a gauge height reading is every bit as valid as the CFS measurement projected from it. It is still the same gauge.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

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?


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

carvedog said:


> Not to pick nits but a gauge height reading is every bit as valid as the CFS measurement projected from it. It is still the same gauge.


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.


----------



## fiya79 (Feb 9, 2010)

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.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

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  (which by the way is 423 CFS)


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

elkhaven said:


> 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?


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. 



mania said:


> 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.


----------



## elkhaven (Sep 11, 2013)

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.


----------



## slickhorn (Dec 15, 2005)

fiya79 said:


> 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.


I think this here explains the whole thing!!


----------



## zcollier (Jan 1, 2004)

fiya79 said:


> 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.


The cfs-ers were starting to sway my opinion, but fiya79's reminded me of why I like the foot measurement.

Another classic river that uses the feet is the North Fork of the Smith in Northern California ( North Fork of the Smith Rafting & Kayaking | Northwest Rafting Co. ).

The really interesting part of this discussion are the trouble spots on the Middle Fork at low water. Here are some that stand out to me:

1. The entrance to Hell's Half Mile. There's a distinct route through here and a lot of dead ends.

2. Sulfur Slide. Driftboats and small boats tend to struggle here. Bigger boats (16' and 18') usually don't have much of a problem. (Here's video of a 22' sweep boat at 1.9 feet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH1Yf-iNOu8)

3. The shallows above the Chutes. It's Class II but there are a lot of decisions to make and I always make the wrong ones.

4. The Chutes. This one is brutal for big boats at flows below 2 feet and most big boats get stuck. It's interesting to hear that little boats do fine. Sweep boats do great here but if they make a mistake they get REALLY stuck.

5. Pistol Creek was pretty easy before the Lake Creek blowout but now there's a fang rock in the entrance of the left side that tears a lot of boats.


----------



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

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).


----------



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

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.


----------



## cataraftgirl (Jun 5, 2009)

shappattack said:


> 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.


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"


----------



## Sembob (Feb 27, 2014)

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


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

shappattack said:


> 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.


Of course the numbers matter. In a general way. As much as any abstract data can mean anything. 

To get a real 'flow' you would take a very large bucket and fill it for one second and measure the cubic feet to get an actual concrete number. For me, anything other than that is theoretical.

Because cfs at any time is gauged on the Middle Fork by towing a little boat around the river to get a depth profile and current velocities of a constantly changing entity. Then they get some sort square footage of a plane that is constantly fluxing with hundreds of micro fluctuations of the river per day. Even on a low flow change day there is a 20 to 50 cfs change in the day. 

That calculation of "flow" then gets calibrated to "the stick in the mud" on the side of the river which in this case is a little more sophisticated- using photovoltaics, floats, intake tubes and a stilling well set off to the side of the river. Then that number is sent up to a satellite through the inter webs to a USGS site where it is converted back to a guesstimate of what CFS it is flowing. Twenty minutes ago.

To say that a flow of 1,000 cfs is more concrete or better number than 2 feet without a personal reference point is overconfidence in a fictional number. 

IMHO. 

Cfs is better to use to compare with other similar rivers in a general way.


----------



## zcollier (Jan 1, 2004)

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


----------



## shappattack (Jul 17, 2008)

zcollier said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


My apologies, the calculus comment was out of line, I meant no personal offense.


----------



## fiya79 (Feb 9, 2010)

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.


----------

