# Staircase Rock Removal Permit Issued, help STOP this!



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

A permit has been issued by the Idaho Dept. of Water Resources to Tom Long of Cascade Raft & Kayak - an outfitter on the Paytte. We need public input on this. There has not been any public input yet, so here is a good place to start. And spread the word.

I'm extremely opposed this. One person should not get to decide to make river stream modifications. Staircase is a great rapid - probably my favorite class IV in Idaho. I ran it 20 times just this year. Opening the left channel will make it dangerously close to a class III - we already have plenty of class III's on the Payette. Nobody should be able to craft their own rapids. I think the stated reason for obtaining the permit is that this is a public safety hazard. There is a clean line down the center of the rapid that completely avoids the rock in jeopardy. I rarely run the left entry in staircase, but even when I do, I've never had trouble navigation around this feature.

We (the boating public) need to take a stand. This could set a horrible precedent. What's next? The rock that forms "seymour hole" in slalom? Then onto the NF Payette- making it just a steep canal?

Speak up, spread the word.

http://www.idwr.idaho.gov

Cascade Raft & Kayak
Cascade Raft and Kayak - Idaho's premier whitewater rafting

I think the immediate need is to convince the outfitter to not proceed. The permit is already issued, so I'm not sure how far we can get without legal action with Dept of Water Resources. However, I think it may help to voice your concerns with them so that this type of recreational river modification permit is not obtained in the future without public comment.

FYI - this is a cross-post from idahowhitewater : Idaho Whitewater

--Josh McDannel


----------



## Smurfwarrior (Feb 23, 2009)

Out of curiosity, which rock is the 'rock in question'?


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

I'm waiting for some better pictures from a friend, but it's the one with the boat wrapped. Notice the highway around the rock to river-right. That's where the run is.


















if these pictures aren't included, you can view them here: Black Mirror - Josh McDannel: Rivers, Code, Cards, and Deep Thoughts - Photo Gallery - Staircase


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Come on all you Coloradoans, we need help! With a smallish private boating community, we need voices to make a big impression on these people. 

I don't know about Colorado, but Idaho doesn't have a state NEPA law, there is no environmental review requirement for such things. Hence, it is easy for the highway on the Lochsa to become the future "high and wide" trucking corridor, and other things to just slip through without notice.

If you like to boat in Idaho, let your voice be heard. We don't need this to be a precedent. Didn't we stop blasting rivers 40 years ago???? Now we just have cranes to pluck shit out.


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

Laura's right. The precedent that this could set scares me as much as the idea of my favorite rapid being ruined.


----------



## Smurfwarrior (Feb 23, 2009)

Yeah, I saw a Cascade raft get highsided on that rock this year. The switched on guides had no problem avoiding it to the left or right...


----------



## Smurfwarrior (Feb 23, 2009)

Here are some pics of the rock

Proper line 
http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy222/UtahWhitewaterClub/DSCF1088.jpg

Not so proper line (about to get flipped)
http://i794.photobucket.com/albums/yy222/UtahWhitewaterClub/DSCF1083.jpg


----------



## Prezki (Jun 3, 2009)

You may want to take this up with the US Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District as well. Regardless of the state, USACE has primacy over navigable waters of the US and therefore any disturbance to the soil or substrate should require a Corps permit.


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

I sent Cascade Raft an email suggesting they should hire better guides.
Let's flood them with emails and calls to let them know they DO NOT have the support of the boating community.

Also curious about the liability issue of a commercial company moving rocks???

...but if we are going to start rearranging rocks, there is that one rock in
Jacob's Ladder that scares the crap out of me....

Richard

Cascade Raft 800-292-7238 
email on contact page www.cascaderaft.com


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

I'm not convinced the contact form is work. It was broken in firefox (earlier today at least). Tom Long is the owner, Tren Long is his son. I think tom's email is [email protected], tren's is [email protected]


----------



## Rich (Sep 14, 2006)

jmcdannel said:


> I'm not convinced the contact form is work. It was broken in firefox (earlier today at least). Tom Long is the owner, Tren Long is his son. I think tom's email is [email protected], tren's is [email protected]


 
Thanks, I sent also to the above emails.


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

The public forum is set for 7:00pm Monday October 11th at Cascade/Maravia in Garden City. (Garden City is the armpit of Boise for those of you not familiar with the Treasure Valley).

Attend if you can. I'll be relaying the outcry I'm seeing here, on facebook, ID WW yahoo group and wherever else the boating public speaks.


----------



## brandob9 (Jun 13, 2010)

Josh -

Thanks a lot for your advocacy here. I'm really surprised these things are allowed. 

Text of my e-mail:

_Hi Tom -

Word has it that you are the holder of a permit to move a rock in staircase. I'd really appreciate it if you didn't exercise that permit. Rocks are part of the game, and part of what I love about my passion for the water. I can understand your desire to remove the rock, but you will also remove the character. 

Additionally, I can see the possibility that if someone were hurt on your new rapid, the blame suddenly shifts from nature to you. I'd get a good lawyer now. _


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

Save the Rock!

Black Mirror - Josh McDannel: Rivers, Code, Cards, and Deep Thoughts - Blog - Save the Rock

Thanks for all of your help Mtn Buzz!


----------



## Matt J (May 27, 2005)

those of you closer to this watershed please keep us updated on what's going on here

has anyone contacted AW or any other non-profits that could contribute experience from the Dimple Rock dispute or the recent issue at Frog?

if the permit is issued does anyone have inside info on when the excavation could start?

perhaps a river side protest could draw boise / nat'l media attention?


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

I sent this:


As a boater I implore you not to modify the river.

Hire more experienced guides or do more extensive training.


----------



## Matt J (May 27, 2005)

I posted this on the Idaho forum:

I spoke with a representative of Cascade, and I think the previous poster who stated that there's a void in good information is correct.

First, I think Cascade moved quickly on this issue as far as applying for the permit and studying the feasibility due to the time frame of maintenance on the dam. They don't intend to proceed regardless of input from the community. Everyone should feel better knowing that their opinion will be heard and the decision will be made by a majority within our community.

Next, part of their perspective is that the rock was moved to its current location by heavy equipment during the dredging operations in 2002. Considering the fatality as well as the number of both private and commercial boats that struggle with the rapid and create potentially dangerous situations AND the fact that it is not a pristine natural stream bed but one that was altered 8 years ago, we as a COMMUNITY may value the opportunity to change where the rock sits.

There is a lot to consider. It may not be worth trying at all or it could be something that has value. Regardless, I don't think there's a need to villanize the Longs. They're merely proposing one option.


----------



## Matt J (May 27, 2005)

Also, another post from Yahoo Groups: Idaho Whitewater, from Tren Long, a member of the family that owns Cascade Raft and Kayak:

Hey all,
I will be shortly posting over on payetteriver.org a statement if you will about
this whole rock moving thing. But before we get out the pitchforks and torches-
We put in a permit to see if the rock COULD be moved- we have currently no
definitive plans to haul the rock out over the outcry of the boating community. 
We have followed all of the protocol as is set out by the state of Idaho. We
are not deciding what is safe and not in the river, there is a unique
opportunity with the Deadwood being off - to see this rock and why it has a
sieve that can and has trapped a human body. We are open to community input and
appreciate the boating community.
Thanks for all the feedback,

Tren Long


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

*Permit revoked!*

Wow, I have NEVER seen so fast of public response, result in so fast of gov't response! Email from IDWR below:

Ms. Howe,
 Thank you for your comments. IDWR has issued an order to revoke the permit to remove the boulder from staircase rapid. The process will be returned to the application phase and the decision to approve or deny the proposal will be open to public comment.
 Aaron Golart


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

We did it! From the IDWR:

IDWR has issued to revoke the Stream Channel Alteration Permit S65-20164 to remove a boulder from “Staircase Rapid” in the South Fork Payette River. The application will follow a process that will include input from the public.

Thank you to all who helped.


----------



## mania (Oct 21, 2003)

Oh hell yes! I was just about to go on a tirade. What fuckin pussies. that rock looks so easy to miss you would need a permit just to hit it.

Good work Ms Howe  and others.


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

The former permit holder has issued a response:

Rock Removal


----------



## soylent green (Jul 8, 2004)

I'm on the side of the raft company. 

That is all.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

soylent green said:


> I'm on the side of the raft company.
> 
> That is all.


Since you are a cannibal your opinion doesn't count.


----------



## jonas_f (May 31, 2007)

The rapid's "prestine" nature has been comprimised when the road was put in, then when the dam was put in, and then when the Corp placed the boulders where they thought the were, after a significant mudslide. Sorry, simply don't see what the issue is in this case. The rock's current placement is as contrived as its proposed removal, only thing is, if removed it won't kill someone. What say you all on the issue of dynamiting Quartzite Falls on the Salt?


----------



## afaust (Jun 14, 2010)

The Long family's response is worth considering...

I am generally against this sort of thing, but the logic is sound and the impact to the environment small while the potential impact of saving future lives is pretty significant. This being said I am still on the fence over this one, but the proposal is more than worth considering.

Rock Removal

check it out


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

I still think this boils down to turning a great class IV rapid into an OK class III rapid. Their argument could be made for almost any decent rapid. I recognize this is somewhat unique since the rapid has been altered by humans after a big mud slide 9 years ago. But the river bed has returned to a stable state and mother nature is now back in control.


----------



## soylent green (Jul 8, 2004)

jonas_f said:


> The rapid's "prestine" nature has been comprimised when the road was put in, then when the dam was put in, and then when the Corp placed the boulders where they thought the were, after a significant mudslide. Sorry, simply don't see what the issue is in this case. The rock's current placement is as contrived as its proposed removal, only thing is, if removed it won't kill someone. What say you all on the issue of dynamiting Quartzite Falls on the Salt?


Well said. Thats exactly what I was thinkin. Too bad all the really core boaters will have to suffer through another easy rapid.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

jonas_f said:


> The rapid's "prestine" nature has been comprimised when the road was put in, then when the dam was put in, and then when the Corp placed the boulders where they thought the were, after a significant mudslide. Sorry, simply don't see what the issue is in this case. The rock's current placement is as contrived as its proposed removal, only thing is, if removed it won't kill someone. What say you all on the issue of dynamiting Quartzite Falls on the Salt?


This pretty much misses the point. A stream alteration, likely in violation of Idaho Law, being given the green light just because one outfitter requested it, is the issue. No matter the outcome, at least now it will happen in the "sunshine" which is how our government is suppose to function. It's actually a pretty cool example of stand up officials recognizing the error, and being willing to step back. Too often the fear of admitting an error results in full steam ahead. Kudos to the outfitter for being willing to pause, it sounds like he had fully authority to just remove it.

Whether or not to remove the rock, that issue really comes later. Very few really know what is going on, the history, the rationale to remove, why not to remove. It also opens the door to bringing the focus back to identifying the problem, and proposing multiple solutions. Maybe there's a better solution then rock removal.

Thanks for all who emailed in to the IDWR.


----------



## Katboater (Apr 21, 2009)

I say leave it as it is. There are at least 2 class III runs within a few miles of the rapid. One is literally a 2-3 miles from there. If you don't like the rock, don't run the staircase section, there are plenty of alternatives nearby. Besides imho if you run the preferable line through there you wouldn't come close to that rock. Save the Rock!!!!!


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

@jonas_f, soylent_green

Quartzite's fate should have been dealt with via proper legal means and should have been open to public comment.


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

Is it claiming lives, or just embarassing a bunch of guides when they pin or flip? If it's the latter, I'd certainly be opposed to it. Doesn't look worthy of it from a photo, but there's always more than meets the eye...


----------



## rmmann (Oct 2, 2010)

It's frustrating that people (i.e. the payette river boating community) are getting so frustrated at Cascade for starting talks about changing/moving the pin rock. For the record, most, if not all of the guides at Cascade are not in favor of moving the rock, as it will potentially ruin THE classic rapid on the South Fork. Some, however, are in favor of filling in the sieve in front of the rock that has killed people, and very nearly killed another boater this year (the boater made it out but was very seriously injured). Filling it in will not alter the wave profile around the rock and will not change the rapid, but instead will remove a deadly feature that 99% of people running that rapid don't even know is there. We are aware that many people run that rapid clean on a regular basis. But those people aren't running it with 6-8 people that they've never met before and that frequently have never paddled a rapid. The skill it takes to only occasionally swim someone in class 4 when sometimes guiding it 3 times a day, 7 days a week is extraordinary, and cannot be appreciated until you have tried the same thing yourself. Enough of my soap box, just wanted to clarify that the Longs are not the devil, and are trying to open community discussion on what to do, not just going out there and changing things without consulting the paddling community about the river.


----------



## Outlaw (Mar 8, 2010)

I don't really have a position on this issue yet, but here's a little writeup in favor of removing the rock. It was posted on kayakidaho.com. I think it provides a little more insight than we've seen so far. 



"In 2001 a massive landslide rolled down the canyon wall on the South Fork Payette and changed the river forever. Or at least a couple weeks. Most of the debris ended up right on top of the Idaho Icon, Staircase Rapid. It damed the road, cut Garden Valley off from shopping at Costco and made a giant of the famous rapid. The natural dam forced the river against the left bank. The whale rocks were completley covered with mud and debris. Birthday Hole and the rest of the riverbed for miles downstream were covered by a thick layer of mud and cobble. 
It took a massive effort to open the road. Part of that effort involved undaming the South Fork. The Army Corp of Engineers parked a giant Trackhoe in the middle of the river for a week and cleaned out the river bed. Not wanting to change nature (too much) they tried to put it all back together again. They took the trackhoe and dug out the center channel and placed the rocks, those that they could move, into some semblance of their previous position. The photos of the trackhoe in the river are on the wall of the Garden Valley Post office.


The result is Staircase in its present form is a less than natural rapid. Staircase has been altered by a natural disaster and then by the Army Corp of Engineers. In the photo (thanks James McNamara) of Staircase taken the day after the flood, Deans Rock is in place. It's unlikely that the landslide altered the farside of the riverbank.
There is far more at stake here than just
moving a rock. On June 30, 2007 river guide Dean Fairburn drowned on this rock when he became entraped after bumping into the rock that now bears his name. The left run had been, until then, considerd the "safe" route for rafts. It is still the choice for commercial trips. So the rock besdes beng a hazard is loaded with emotion for Dean's friends and family. The problem is there is not longer a clean line through Staircase. Pre-flood you could slam down the middle in a raft with a high success ratio. River sports by their nature are not safe. And as it is now, going near Deans Rock is not a walk in the park. It wraps boats daily. I participated in five different unwrap situations in 2010. The season total is far above that. The middle line as flows go below 1400 becomes a no-miss collision course. The left line done right is clean. Done wrong your on the Rock.
What has happend at Staircase? Like most of the Payette it is far from its natural state due to encroachments from the road and right of way. There is nothing natural in the ACE placed observation platform. It is hard to believe that a giant flat rock, almost as if it were made, landed there on the right bank parallel with the Whale rocks. But people believe it. Nature isn't kind enough to place a giant boulder with a flat face up, so the turons can oggle the kayakers from a nice flat surface. And the Duckpond -- long-gone. The river center holes -- gone. Deans Rock -- the rock in question -- was it placed there by the landslide or by a trackhoe with a thumb? The parking lot too is the New ACE expanded version of Staircase. Oh and don't forget around 2001 the USFS dynamited a log that had floated up against the bank of the SF Payette at the take-out above Big Falls making portaging a very risky move indeed.
If outfitters, or anyone, start moving rocks around where is the stopping point? I would like to see the South Fork Surf Wave restored to it's pre Bronco Billy flood state. And I would like to see the Spin Dry move replaced in BB. Not to mention replacing the very sticky hole that was the namesake of BB. I think it would be a great playspot with modern kayaks.
On the other hand, No one seemed to complain about moving rocks around to make Kellys Whitewater Park?
As for the riverbed, it is still full of gravel and debris for miles downstream. Staircase has been altered to the point of not being anywhere near a natural rapid. The riverbed is state property. The Army Corp of Engineers along with the IDWR is the governing agency as far as modifying the riverbed. The land on both sides of the river is BLM or BOR, but that is meaningless. The USFS manages the access points and has no say in the riverbed.
This has been a hot topic with the River Management Society this summer. Not the question of altering Staircase itself, but the concept of what to do on high use rivers with an obvious or unavoidable danger. The answer so far has been to sign or portage the danger."


----------



## Crockett (Oct 2, 2010)

My name is Dan Crockett and I have been a raft guide on the Payette River since 1994. I have been reading the responses to the rock removal issue for several days now while forming my own opinion. I can honestly say I don't know how I feel about it yet. Personally, I am going to take the next couple of days and prepare my ideas for the forum at Maravia on the 11th. 
I registered on this site for two reasons, firstly to offer to bring a brief statement from any of you that are passionate about the issue and feel that your voice will not be represented if you cannot attend. Please email them to [email protected], I will make sure they are either read or made available at the forum. (Not sure how the whole thing is going to go). Secondly to inform those of you that are arguing that the rock should not be removed due to the incompetence of our guides that this is not the issue. I can assure you we train our asses off to attempt to bring people down the river as safely as possible. There is not one guide at our company that would want a rock removed simply because the move was "too hard."


----------



## GPP33 (May 22, 2004)

Hard to see what's upstream but it doesn't look to really be a "hazard".


----------



## keithh2o (Jan 27, 2009)

Dean's Rock is not a natural part of the River. The Army Corps of Engineers placed it in 2001 after a giant mudslide plugged virtually the entire river and completely altered Staircase. As it is virtually every time a raft or kayak gets pinned Cascade Raft is called to get it off.
I did not see any complaints on this forum when the NF of the Payette was altered to put in Kelly's Whitewater Park. I have not seen any complaints about the Boise River being altered to re-direct flows into the new whitewater park their either. 
If Dean's Rock was there naturally I'd be the first to say leave it be, buts its not. Cascade is simply trying to undo an unforseen hazard put in place by the A.C.E.


----------



## phlyingfish (Nov 15, 2006)

There is a huge difference between building a whitewater park where there used to be a tiny riffle and "removing" a hazard because a single outfitter decides it can no longer tolerate the risk. Generally whitewater parks get built because there is broad community support for the endeavor. That was the case for Kelly's and it will be the case in Boise. Where's the broad community support for moving this rock? 

Plus, there is absolutely zero certainty that moving the rock will make Staircase less dangerous. Sure, it could remove a known hazard, but how will it affect the lines or the likelihood of being pushed into some other bad spot? Will moving the rock just create a new problem like in 2001? Nobody can answer those questions. I say we're better off with a known hazard that people can choose to avoid. If you can't avoid it, then you need to reconsider paddling "advanced" whitewater. If it's too dangerous to take a raft full of punters through Staircase, then don't offer the trip. Simple.

This is all about a single group forcing its risk tolerance on the entire community of river users. Cascade is attempting to sanitize a class IV rapid to reduce its liability. Guess what, class IV is dangerous and nobody is forcing Cascade to run the rapid. 

If Cascade's logic was widely used, the entire Gauley would need to be "fixed." Or maybe we need "safer" rapids on the North Fork, so we can run more rafts there? This whole saga has played out before on the Lower Yough and, in the end, a rock that has killed at least nine people is still there. American Whitewater - Lower Yough Safety Report On Dimple Rock


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

GPP33 said:


> Hard to see what's upstream but it doesn't look to really be a "hazard".


I think part of the hazard is that it’s not what you can see from upstream, it’s what you can’t. Much like Frog Rock, it’s what lies beneath that’s the hazard. If it’s a sieve under there, that’s the issue. Sure, wrapping a boat sucks, but losing a life in infinitely worse.




phlyingfish said:


> There is a huge difference between building a whitewater park where there used to be a tiny riffle and "removing" a hazard because a single outfitter decides it can no longer tolerate the risk. Generally whitewater parks get built because there is broad community support for the endeavor. That was the case for Kelly's and it will be the case in Boise. Where's the broad community support for moving this rock? ...


There is zero difference in my opinion. I would be opposed to building a whitewater park myself, I am not a kayaker. The kayakers would have broad community support though. Same argument regarding the Carbondale access in the other thread. Broad support for fishing access by the fishermen, the kayakers have broad support for another playpark. As time goes on, I imagine this topic will become equally polarized, with broad support on both sides of the issue.

I think it’s great that there’s actually some action being taken, and swift action at that – a bit too swift actually, but at least there is action. As long as it goes through a thorough process and all sides are allowed to be heard, I’d be happy with the outcome. It’s easy to just post a partial story and very little fact on the Internet and stir up a public outcry, but as more facts and data come out, I would hope reasonable and appropriate actions will take place. If one side or the other doesn’t like the outcome, then they get to make a decision – run it anyway or run something else. If it stays a class IV, then so be it. At least maybe this will provide some education for folks to have better knowledge of the hazard. If they do something and it becomes “just” another class II, then enjoy it as another class III – at least you’re on the water.


----------



## caspermike (Mar 9, 2007)

Boiler maker go f yourself... whitewater parks are key. You aren't a kayaker and wouldn't understand obstacle.. like I said above... wish I could have boofed on you today at pots but you don't Kayak, that's a shame.. cause rafting gets boring.... hey bet you were to stupid to realize Kayaking parks are better places for fish than most natural riverbeds. And a whitewater park restores more than it damages on most places. Leave your hermet house sometime and check one out...."damaging parks ruining class 2 I want my class 2"


----------



## Id725 (Nov 22, 2003)

If too many rafts are wrapping there every day, then too many underqualified rafters are paddling that rapid.
If a boat full of custies can't safely navigate the rapid, then DON'T TAKE CUSTIES THERE!
There is plenty of rafting near Boise; Therefore there is no public interest in making Staircase safe for rafting.
As one or two people mentioned, moving the rock may well create a new hazard. It's very hard to predict how that will play out.
Somebody suggested filling in the sieve. That doesn't work either. That stuff breaks loose and doesn't last, and now you've put MORE crap in the river.
What was done in 2001 is done. And it was done a long time ago.
Stay out of the river and don't do any more, because every time you start moving stuff around in there, you create unintended consequences.
I'm sorry for the guide who lost his life there.
But now that we know it's such a dangerous rapid to try to take custies through, the solution is really effing simple, is it not?
Stop taking custies through there. Take them on the class iii run below the confluence. Take them on the Cabarton. Take them to the Boise. Whatever. They frankly won't know the difference.


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I don't think its a big deal to move a rock. The entire river corridor has been changed by putting in a highway, and the river's flows have been changed by a dam. Both of these massive changes are what enables paddlers to use this run on a frequent basis. I find it comic that massive changes enable the use of a run, that then make it so popular, that folks are falling on their swords about minor changes. Change made this run what it is, so we must never change it. Odd logic.

One of my favorite runs (SSV) is almost 100% sharp road blast rock. I'd love to move a couple of nasty boat breaker rocks if I could. I have no allegiance to a rock that is in the river channel due to man's actions, espcially if they involved dynamite and heavy equipment. 

Where some people see doom, I see opportunity. The pics of the rock in staircase look like its a big ass rock that you need to miss. If the commercial guys are going to pay to move it, why not figure out a way to make an awesome boof, or a primo surf wave, instead of a rock to miss with a seive? Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Also, the commercial folks are river users too. They have a right to have a voice, as do private boaters. Instead of making this a black or white issue to fight over, why not seek to find ways to work together to make things better for all users?


----------



## keithh2o (Jan 27, 2009)

*Public forum meeting on Staircase*

There will be a public forum meeting on this on Monday 10/11 at 7:00pm at Maravia
in Boise. No matter which side you fall on, if you have an interest please attend and let your opinion be known.


----------



## benpetri (Jul 2, 2004)

This thread is quite the contrast to the one earlier this year on Frog rock. On that thread, buzzards were 10 to 1 in favor of blowing up a (possibly natural) rapid / sieve that has killed boaters. In this thread, buzzards are 10 to 1 against blowing up a (possibly unnatural) rapid / sieve that has killed boaters.

Any reason for the sudden shift in opinion?


----------



## kelly (Dec 13, 2003)

*Rock Removal...*

Mabey Cascade can/will remove the "pesky" pin rock in Juicer (NF Payette) as well????


----------



## keithh2o (Jan 27, 2009)

*reply to benpetri*



benpetri said:


> This thread is quite the contrast to the one earlier this year on Frog rock. On that thread, buzzards were 10 to 1 in favor of blowing up a (possibly natural) rapid / sieve that has killed boaters. In this thread, buzzards are 10 to 1 against blowing up a (possibly unnatural) rapid / sieve that has killed boaters.
> 
> Any reason for the sudden shift in opinion?


To Benpetri: Unfortunately Cascade seems to be a flash point for a lot of local boaters. 
The best solution I've heard comes from JB (owner of IWU, the outfitter whose guide died on Dean's Rock). JB suggested filling in the under cut/sieve of the rock, thus reducing the most lethal part of the obstacle while leaving the rapid relatively unchanged.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

benpetri said:


> This thread is quite the contrast to the one earlier this year on Frog rock. On that thread, buzzards were 10 to 1 in favor of blowing up a (possibly natural) rapid / sieve that has killed boaters. In this thread, buzzards are 10 to 1 against blowing up a (possibly unnatural) rapid / sieve that has killed boaters.
> 
> Any reason for the sudden shift in opinion?


I don't think there's nearly the quantity of tragedy here that surrounds Frog Rock. Plus, FR is Class III (with the high consequences) so there is a lot more likelihood of people getting in trouble. Staircase is a solid Class IV so there's not as much of the float-and-bloat crowd there. It tends to be more experienced and/or skilled boaters. But, there is always the issue of commercial customers, they don't necessarily fall into that category and are vulnerable in either situation. Hopefully customers self-select a bit as there are two other nice Class III sections in the area also. 

I think a lot of the opposition is that it came out of the blue, and nothing has even been vetted yet. There's not even been an identified problem (or maybe that's better said that there's no overall buy-in that there is a problem that needs solving). I think more people have died on my local Alberton Gorge (same rapid, not sure) in the past few years and no one is talking about changing that river/rapid.

It's all a case by case basis, which is really how it should be. One size does not fit all. Just imagine if people started eyeing rapids on the Upper Gauley, proposing they be changed to increase safety. I'd hope there it is also dealt with on a situational basis, and not all of this topic-changing where people say "this was done there so it's OK", or "that was left alone there so that's what we should do". Staying with the topic at hand will help produce the best solution for the problem at hand.

Keithh20 - I've not gotten that impression about Cascade. Most people seem to put them in the upper eschelon of guides. I don't know them, but they're involved in SWR and EMT, and those types of guides are usually boating community assets. The one here in MIssoula is (rock-star Rescue Mike). I've taken a lot of the anger to be typical anger at someone who wants to do this (especially essentially behind the private boaters back), and would expect it to be even higher (and meaner) if the guy/shop was a creep or a flake. More thoughts?


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

rmmann said:


> It's frustrating that people (i.e. the payette river boating community) are getting so frustrated at Cascade for starting talks about changing/moving the pin rock. For the record, most, if not all of the guides at Cascade are not in favor of moving the rock, as it will potentially ruin THE classic rapid on the South Fork. Some, however, are in favor of filling in the sieve in front of the rock that has killed people, and very nearly killed another boater this year (the boater made it out but was very seriously injured). Filling it in will not alter the wave profile around the rock and will not change the rapid, but instead will remove a deadly feature that 99% of people running that rapid don't even know is there. We are aware that many people run that rapid clean on a regular basis. But those people aren't running it with 6-8 people that they've never met before and that frequently have never paddled a rapid. The skill it takes to only occasionally swim someone in class 4 when sometimes guiding it 3 times a day, 7 days a week is extraordinary, and cannot be appreciated until you have tried the same thing yourself. Enough of my soap box, just wanted to clarify that the Longs are not the devil, and are trying to open community discussion on what to do, not just going out there and changing things without consulting the paddling community about the river.


Sorry, but that to me is the fault of the outfitting company and the decisions they (and the paddlers in question) made in floating this stretch of river. 

The argument that changing a river is justified so that guided paddling trips are safer is asinine. Run the Main or the Carbarton, or make sure your paddling crew is up to snuff. 

The rest of us shouldn't have to cater to the whims of a commercial outfitting company that wants to haul as many people as they can down as many rivers as they can. If your guides are exhausted or overwhelmed by doing 2+ trips a day... DO LESS TRIPS ON SAFER RIVERS. 

---------

On a tangent, I've decided to apply for a permit to remove as many rocks as I can from the NF. Almost all of them were put there when the highway was constructed. I've always wanted to float the NF but my skills aren't there... I figure by removing as many rocks as I can I'll finally be able to conquer that beast. 

After all... we're talking about removing dangerous rocks that were put there by man, right?


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

deepsouthpaddler said:


> I don't think its a big deal to move a rock. The entire river corridor has been changed by putting in a highway, and the river's flows have been changed by a dam. Both of these massive changes are what enables paddlers to use this run on a frequent basis. I find it comic that massive changes enable the use of a run, that then make it so popular, that folks are falling on their swords about minor changes. Change made this run what it is, so we must never change it. Odd logic.
> 
> *Even better logic: we've made alterations to the river in the past, therefore making rather unnecessary alternations in the future should be okay?
> 
> ...


.....


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

Laura

I agree. Cascade has historically been an excellent steward of the Payette river system. In fact, all 3 of the primary commercial outfitters (Bear Valley, IWU and CRC) are all pretty darn good. If any other entity (government, private, commercial) had obtained a permit, the backlash would have been much more intense.

One thing that really bugs me is that CRC claims that they only applied for the permit and contacted the crane operator "With no intention of actually removing anything we continued to pursue this goal." (Rock Removal). Then they complain about the backlash from the community. I'm sorry, but if ANYONE gets a permit and begins to take steps towards doing whatever that permit allow them to do, it should be expected that anyone knowing about the permit and plans will assume that the work is going to be done. They cry foul, but they shouldn't expect the whitewater community to have any idea that they weren't going to move the rock. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt now, but last Thursday when I brought the information to the buzz and other forums, the facts were that CRC had a permit and had a crane and no public input. Those facts justified bringing this to the whitewater community.

The arguments about whitewater parks also rubs me the wrong way. It's a completely different argument and these things should be dealt with case by case. Building a park is way different that making a rapid easier.


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

Here's the official announcement from the IWA:

Recently, a proposal was made to remove a rock from Staircase Rapid on the South Fork of the Payette. In response to the large amount of public concern and debate over this issue, the Idaho Whitewater Association has scheduled a public forum to enable the proponent and the public to discuss this issue. 

The forum will be Monday October 11th at 7:00pm. The location will be Cascade Outfitters, 604 E. 45th Street , Boise, Idaho 83714


----------



## suigeneris (May 25, 2004)

*save the rock*

This is all about a single group forcing its risk tolerance on the entire community of river users. Cascade is attempting to sanitize a class IV rapid to reduce its liability. Guess what, class IV is dangerous and nobody is forcing Cascade to run the rapid.

I couldn't agree more. I witnessed a dead girl floating upside down below Staircase in 2002 after falling out of her ducky and drowning. She was not wearing a life jacket and obviously had no business paddling through Staircase. Shall we regulate who qualifies to paddle a stretch of river as well? Who is to blame if the rock is moved and someone becomes injured or dies as a result of the alteration?

If the commercial customers are not qualified to help the guide miss that rock, go boat the Main or Swirly Canyon.

SAVE THE ROCK


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

If you some of you had bothered to read through the links posted you will see that Cascade regularly gets called out to pull private boaters off the rock. It's not a case of guides sucking or commercial guests sucking. It's a matter of 2 body entrapments, 1 one fatal. It's a matter of getting called out as part of the local SAR (or similar) group and pulling private boaters, probably the ones who are bitching in this thread the most, off the rock. 

Personally I'm for keeping the rock, but I've got to say lots of you are blowing up at Cascade, and from what I see they are being very open about the process, and want public input, not personal attacks on their company and guides.

As someone else mentioned, there was a loophole in the system that allowed a permit to be issued where no public input would be given. Cascade had no intentions of acting without public input, and the government agencies in question acted quickly to revoke the permit sans input.

To me it's a non-issue until the meeting takes place, where I'm sure based on the concerns voiced here and elsewhere a decision for no action will be reached.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

jmcdannel said:


> One thing that really bugs me is that CRC claims that they only applied for the permit and contacted the crane operator "With no intention of actually removing anything we continued to pursue this goal." (Rock Removal). Then they complain about the backlash from the community. I'm sorry, but if ANYONE gets a permit and begins to take steps towards doing whatever that permit allow them to do, it should be expected that anyone knowing about the permit and plans will assume that the work is going to be done. They cry foul, but they shouldn't expect the whitewater community to have any idea that they weren't going to move the rock. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt now, but last Thursday when I brought the information to the buzz and other forums, the facts were that CRC had a permit and had a crane and no public input. Those facts justified bringing this to the whitewater community.


This is indeed a red herring. If they wanted to investigate it, they could have talked to a crane operator, highway dept (traffic control), etc to determine feasibility BEFORE they applied for the permit that allowed the work to proceed. Stating the opposite is backpedaling at best. Ask them what part of having the permit in hand was necessary for scoping the work. Maybe there was something, but if there was I'd expect they would have made that know by now in an effort to defend themselves, instead of just saying "we didn't really plan to move the rock". Alternatively, what would they have done once they determined they could, and would, move the rock that would have been any different? Public process? Public notification? It all just sounds like fast talk.

Glen, if you truly believe as you say you don't know how the game is played, or you play it yourself. It's called "asking for forgiveness is easier than asking for permission" and is a typical way to do business for those not quite standing tall.


----------



## glenn (May 13, 2009)

Maybe you are right, but I believe they had several weeks to make a go of it. Either they were slow about being shady or they simply contacted the crane operator for details so questions can be answered regarding specifics of removing the rock. 

I've always been low man on the totem pole with no power or money, so I'm not playing games. I've certainly been used before by people in power, but this doesn't have the same stink to me.


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

Honestly, at this point I don't even care about the intentions. I cared that no public input was collected. We've fixed that problem. Now, the only point that is important to me is that I don't believe the rock should go. It's an obstacle in a class IV. Leave it alone.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

glenn said:


> If you some of you had bothered to read through the links posted you will see that Cascade regularly gets called out to pull private boaters off the rock. It's not a case of guides sucking or commercial guests sucking. It's a matter of 2 body entrapments, 1 one fatal. It's a matter of getting called out as part of the local SAR (or similar) group and pulling private boaters, probably the ones who are bitching in this thread the most, off the rock.
> 
> Personally I'm for keeping the rock, but I've got to say lots of you are blowing up at Cascade, and from what I see they are being very open about the process, and want public input, not personal attacks on their company and guides.
> 
> ...



I think it's hard to tell what CRC was going to do until the whole thing exploded. They weren't forthright and open to begin with. They could have posted to their website or alerted the whitewater community through its various channels that "we're looking into rock removal from Staircase rapid," instead of waiting until someone picked up on it. 

To me the worrisome aspect of this is how often and frequent IDWR approves these permits, many times without consideration of the proper procedures. I've seen it a few times in my line of work. I think for them to come out and say "oh wait, there should have been a public hearing" is really bothersome. 

I have nothing against the guide companies or their guides, but the simple fact remains that this sport is inherently dangerous and attempts to make it "safer" by altering the river should be resisted strongly without significant justification for doing so. Is a loss of life significant justification? I don't think so... otherwise we'll be altering rapids in every river.


----------



## phlyingfish (Nov 15, 2006)

Regardless of the IDWR permit, wouldn't CRC need a 404 permit from the Army Corps? And since the SF is bull trout and kokanee habitat that permit might very well require NEPA analysis? Or was CRC good to go with the IDWR permit?


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

phlyingfish said:


> Regardless of the IDWR permit, wouldn't CRC need a 404 permit from the Army Corps? And since the SF is bull trout and kokanee habitat that permit might very well require NEPA analysis? Or was CRC good to go with the IDWR permit?


That's interesting...

They would certainly need a Section 404 permit, but I have no idea if that's "wrapped up" in the IDWR permit or not. As for a NEPA analysis.. as I understand it that's only for federal action upon federal land. Not sure how that applies to water and/or if the action is carried out by a private party.


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

Here's what a friend of mine posted on my Facebook wall when the same question about a 404 came up. He's a water rights attorney and seems more knowledgable that me about this.

"Corp of engineers has jurisdiction over 404 permits. These are required for DISCHARGES of material INTO waters of the United States (the payette is waters of the U.S.). Removal of a rock is not a discharge of material other than incidental fallback of material. On navigable rivers the Department of Lands is to review stream channel alteration permit applications. If you look at my earlier post I cut and pasted this requirement out of the IWDR regs. (02. Permits Allowed Without Review. A permit may be approved by the Director of the Department
of Water Resources wi...thout review by other agencies in situations where the work is of a nature not uncommon to the
particular area and where it is clear that the work will not seriously degrade the stream values except on navigable
rivers which require review by the Department of Lands. All work approved in this manner shall be accomplished in
accordance with the minimum standards. (7-1-93)). I am not saying the Department of Lands has any authority to determine whether a permit is issued or not, only that the depatment is supposed to review the application and give any comment deemed appropriate."


----------



## SonOfASailor555 (Oct 6, 2010)

The only thing I feel compelled to add to this discussion is my concern over the oft-stated comparison of removing/moving/altering Dean's Rock to the work done to build Kelly's Whitewater Park at Cascade. Apples and oranges. Where KWP was built was once be class II whitewater at best—that's being generous. In addition to building 5 features where there were essentially none, the project also brought about the removal of a dangerous, crumbling concrete diversion dam that used to be part of the Boise Cascade lumber mill that once stood where the park now stands. Complete with re-bar and assorted junk dumped there over the years. Where there was once no reason to boat, there are now all kinds of reasons and that hasn't been lost on the boating public as it was a very busy first year for KWP. Everything else has been said better than I can say it.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Whoa Mike- you're slumming now, posting on the Buzz!


----------



## SonOfASailor555 (Oct 6, 2010)

Slumming? Laura, it's more like I've left my hovel under the overpass and I'm hanging out in Tuxedo Park ...


----------



## suigeneris (May 25, 2004)

*cascade*

Here is a response from Tren at Cascade concerning swiveling the rock:
This might have minimal impact while reducing impact to quality of line by rock...

Hi,Absolutely that is one of the options that has been proposed. We actually just heard back from a hydrologist about the minimum impact on the rapid, and according to him, there would be minimal change in the rapid, with the ability to eliminate the sieve! Deans rock is basically sitting on three rocks, on to the right one slightly behind and to the left and another to the far left. I think if we swivel it almost 180 it would fill in its on sieve (Based on the shape of the rock) and the rapid would essentially be the same. We have sent in some much more detailed photos for additional analysis.
Thanks,
Tren


----------



## phlyingfish (Nov 15, 2006)

Gentle reminder, the meeting to discuss CRC's proposal is at 7 tonight. Location: Cascade Outfitters, 604 E. 45th Street , Boise, Idaho 83714

Whichever way you lean on this issue, show up and be heard. There's more at stake than Staircase.


----------



## climbermale (Aug 31, 2004)

Josh I know you are in your own words extremely opposed to this whole moving a rock in a river. But, I feel that you have misled the entire mountainbuzz community in your way of handling this situation. Your right in the fact that one person should not get to decide to make a river stream modification. What you forgot to say was the US Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District already had and I would assume took on the liability. This is already an unnatural man made rapid. Tom Long is trying to let people know of a danger of a misplaced Boulder. He dose not want to change a rapid but turn a rock. I called him and spent 30 minutes with a great man that wants to bringing awareness to a known problem in your area. Tom is trying to be river responsible and save future lives that could be lost. Boaters now are taking cheap shots and telling him to get better guides. I would think a company like his would have great guides, they have been in business since 1985 and have great reviews. He also offers NFPA Certified Courses and several rescue classes including Swift Water Rescue basic and advanced and Technical Rope Rescue. But, could it be his guides are tired of pulling off pinned boats and putting their own lives at risk along with the group they are responsible for. Running this section of river this year Cascade guided pinned one boat with over 300 trips down, not bad for any company. This rapid is not a problem for him or his company guides, the problem is with private boaters. If your community dose nothing about the situation it will end up like one in Colorado where 4 people have died sense 2000, two being husband and wife. I personally don’t feel that it is responsible to do nothing and just watch another death happen. I also feel that there is a difference between natural and man made. All and all it’s irresponsible. If you were the parent of a victim, would it change the way you feel? What if your child’s body was in a sieve or undercut rock for 3 months and you had no closure. If turning a rock or making a channel deeper saves a life then it is worth it. If that is not possible adequate signage should be in place. I am talking signage that dose not blend in with the forest. But, setting in your boat paddling by doing nothing shows complete disregard for our great community. This is a sport where people come together and help one another. We learn together, celebrate together, chase gear and boats together and in all sadness greave together. We jump on the buzz anytime we loose a piece of equipment and it is usually found and returned with in a week. But, it can also be a very selfish community. It blows me away when we can change the river bottom for our pleasure but not to save a life. I believe after talking to Tom that is what he is doing. If our community chooses to do nothing there will be another death on the Staircase. If the rock is or is not moved Tom has made everyone a where of a situation that calls for concern and he can sleep at night knowing he made a difference. If I ever make it down to the Staircase rapid I know I will be very careful around the rock and if something happens I hope Cascade is close by with there trained staff. I happen to be extremely opposed to doing nothing in an area that is not in its natural state.


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

I have intentions of communicating my thoughts in a post now the meeting has taken palce, but I haven't had time yet. Stay tuned for a more in-depth post.

But, in reply to climbermale:
I stand behind my actions and words and I am not going to apologize for having an opposing opinion on this. 

Also, just to clarify, my original post was "Rock REMOVAL Permit Issued." I was and am strongly opposed to that. A lot has changed since then.

When this first surfaced, there were two issues I had: 1-that the permit was issued without public comment, 2-that a rock was going to be removed and would therefore drastically change a great rapid. Well, we fixed the problem with #1 by getting the permit revoked and getting the public aware and involve. I am proud to have been a part of that. And #2 is no longer the issue. There is no longer a proposal to remove the rock, just to move it. So, I am forming a new opinion. I've previously commented that I think the Longs have been great stewards of the river and I have never questioned their commitment to safety and running a top-notch rafting company. I'm sorry the Longs had to endure some backlash from the community, but people get heated over things like this (rightfully so) and I don't think it's my fault.

But, I suppose you wish I'd have never said anything?

I still disagree with the idea of moving the rock.

I think mistakes were made when the rapid was modified after the 2001 slide. That set a precedent. Now, since the rapid had a bulldozer in it, the Longs and their supporters want to act upon the precedent set in 2001 and fix the mistake. Well, one of my biggest problems with this from day 1 had been precedent. And that remains a big factor in my opposition. Two wrongs don't make a right.



> If turning a rock or making a channel deeper saves a life then it is worth it.


I couldn't disagree with you more about making rivers safer for the sake of saving a life in the future. The way you state your argument makes it sound like you think we should remove any obstacle if it kills somebody. This sport is dangerous. Undercut rocks exists in many many places. Other features capable of killing exist everywhere.

I HAVE lost a friend in the river. Last year. Maybe you read about it. 
http://www.mountainbuzz.com/forums/f11/death-on-the-murtaugh-23949-2.html
I was devastated and it affects me to this day. But I don't want Hooker Ledge modified to save a life in the future.

I hate signs that tell me rafting or rapids are dangerous. I like running rivers without knowing exactly whats around each corner. We can't put signs up at every obstacle. I'm not 100% opposed to signage on the staircase run, but I wish people who aren't willing to take the risk of the rapid as it is would run another stretch. Signage is better than moving the rock, but I think there are other or additional opportunities to raise awareness of the hazard. Places like the buzz, I think, are great for this type of information. If someone wants to know how to run staircase, come ask other river runners. I think that awareness of this NEW obstacle will be greatly increased by the event and conversations of the past weeks.

Any road-side rapid is "man-altered." I hope people with your opinion stay away from the north fork payette, lochsa, or any of the great road-side rivers I frequent. Keep your rock-moving, obstacle-crushing, thrill-hating, canal-creating butt away from my rivers. I don't want anymore class II rapids.

--Josh


----------



## studytime (Oct 4, 2010)

What if the Army Corps of Engineers put out a letter saying we fucked up. We created a dangerous hazard while dredging the river from the landslide and we are going to fix it. We don't want to be liable for that. 

Then what would you do? Or Say? Or Feel?

FWIW I don't like the idea of changing rapids. I would be so bummed if I went to my local river and saw a rapid was changed for safety. Especially if I worked up to that river. And knew about the dangerous rapid. And built my skills so that one day I could run it. And then what was once a great challenge was now nothing.


----------



## studytime (Oct 4, 2010)

I was actually up on the Payette this summer with my girlfriend. We wanted to R2 and were coming from Boise. I have rowed the upper section of the South Fork with the Big Falls portage but have never been on the staircase run. After looking at it from the side of the road. And still feeling hungover we opted for the Cabarton run for a nice mellow day. This decision was partly based on my girlfriends friend getting stuck on that rock and having a close call a few weeks prior. I like the idea of the river being a challenge and knowing this in the back of my mind. Im looking forward to doing this run with some nervousness in my stomach about that rock.


----------



## SonOfASailor555 (Oct 6, 2010)

*Personal responsibility*

Here's the last bit (edited a tad for clarity only) of a rather lengthy letter I sent to the Idaho Whitewater Association board outlining my position on moving Dean's Rock on Staircase ... and I have to say that I think Josh is pretty much spot-on with his comments above. 

As much of this discussion seems to have become focused on the number of wraps by private boaters on Dean's Rock, here are a few (too many probably) words about personal responsibility. While I admire and appreciate Cascade Raft Company's commitment to helping recover private boats that do get wrapped there, it is a part of this quandary. Maybe if CRC were to charge for its time and effort to unpin boats wrapped there, we might see a reduction in the number of incidents there. It might cause some boaters, ill-equipped or of questionable ability, to re-think a decision to float the Staircase section. Now, of course, if lives are at stake, EVERYONE will help out. I'm primarily talking about situations where people are safe and all that's at issue is a boat and equipment wrapped on a rock. Some South Fork boaters, primarily some of those new to the sport, seem to have an attitude of reliance on others, that there is an obligation on the part of commercial outfitters and local government entities to bail them out when they get in trouble pursuing some outdoor pursuit. It's more of that "saving us from ourselves" attitude that I abhor. And I believe CRC has been somewhat accommodating to that attitude. As an alternative, I'd say there is a good chance other private boaters would step up to help unwrap boats there. Many of us are packing around “pin kits," itching to break them out and practice what we learned in rescue classes such as those taught by CRC. It seems that CRC has made a choice to be the savior of those who have problems at Dean's Rock and elsewhere on the Payette system. Again, I emphasize that I'm talking primarily about recovering lost equipment and stuck boats. CRC's choice is truly generous and community-spirited. But, as my dad used to say, "If you continue to bail out the fools, the fools will continue to be fools." And unfortunately, fools sometimes die doing foolish things. People who boat Class IV water should have the skills and knowledge — or, at the least, be boating with others who have the skills and knowledge — to help them out of a situation with a wrapped boat. I am certainly not advocating an "everyone for themselves" attitude on the river, and I do help out when assistance is needed or solicited. It's river people taking care of river people and that is one of the beautiful things about this activity. But, neither do I complain if I do happen upon a situation where I feel comfortable helping out, and subsequently get involved. CRC shouldn't complain about its perhaps too freely-offered assistance either. That's a choice CRC has made.

Again, I appreciate the well-intentioned efforts of the Long family to make Staircase safer, but I'm with others when we get to the bottom line — the question of altering the rapid. Making the boating community aware of a hazard that has become serious is a very large first step. And yes, we have Tom Long to thank for that. My opinion is let’s leave the rock where it is for now. Let's try education and perhaps some additional signage first and see if that helps reduce the number of wraps, and the resulting risk of taking a swim above Dean’s Rock.

Mike Stewart


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Climbermale - Are you selling used cars, or just paid to put out such a poorly written slash on Josh, and everyone else who DARES to voice their opinion? What's the deal with people almost flagellating themselves over how great Tom and Cascade is? It's creepy. This is not about Tom, and his defenders are weak in repeatedly going back to that. 

The issue at hand is modifying the river channel, one that is protected from such activities. It will be a sad day if one (even if they are so awesome, so great, whatever he could be god for all I care) person (who cares if it is an outfitter or private party) can hype up enough fear and anger to have the governing bodies ignore their own regulations such as river protection. Unfortunately they do it often enough and we the public MUST voice our difference. You see CM, that's how it works. TL is in a position of power, he had the permit once and likely could easily get it again if no one spoke up. Unfortunately people probably thought this sort of this was no longer possible, once the river achieved state protection, but unfortunately it is all too common.

As Mike says, this "save us from ourselves" is BS in my opinion. Good friends have taught me to always watch out for those claiming to help me from myself, and actually it's best to avoid them. Either they are misguided (it's best to let people take care of themselves, and experience both success and failure) or trying to tap into some unrequested sense of obligation. It's kind of like asking someone to pay for a mortgage that they did not request. 

It's pretty weak to play the victim card that he's having cheap shots thrown at him. When you step out into the limelight by attempting to do something such as this, you better be able to take the boo's with the applause. Not everyone gets applause.

There are likely people out there that sincerely feel this rock is a risk. So far all I've heard are people that sound like sandbaggers. It reminds me of when our neighborhood was fighting some developments, and the developer tries to pack the room with friends and cronies that "support" their project. 

Actually, your post CM, sounds like you need a Saturn, or love your Saturn, or love the guy that sells them.


----------



## Matt J (May 27, 2005)

I'm coming to my personal threshold on vile spew over this issue.

Can someone summarize what took place at the meeting for those of us unable to attend?

Perhaps even a version that's reasonably unbiased?

Regardless of your feelings about the rock a few of you that've engaged this topic must admit that the mud slinging has gone a bit far. The "save the rock" crowd has played the victim role pretty well despite the fact that no one at Cascade ever intended to change one damn thing about that rock w/out community input. I know conspiracy theories are a lot more exciting, but it's merely not the case in this situation.


----------



## Matt J (May 27, 2005)

BTW - Ms. Howe may I ask where you were in 2001 when the river was "naturally" dammed by the flood. I would have liked to see you up there on your high horse defending the natural course of the river to the people upstream that couldn't access the road. Perhaps the ACoE was violating the same "regulations" then as now?

For all the sickbirds that are proud that they always can make the move in front of the rock, I'm sure the boating was really bad ass when the river turned into a lake.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Matt J said:


> I'm coming to my personal threshold on vile spew over this issue.


You can change your homepage anytime you want, so it doesn't bring you to this thread. Or just don't click on it if you don't like the conversations.

2001? Let me check my calendar. Oh yeah, I got married, that's about all I remember from that year because getting married was so awesome! And I don't remember things all that well anymore. Getting old is brutal.

Now you bring the road into question. Good, expand the discussion even further into more unrelated issues. The protection on the river excludes a few things such as road repair. The issue is changing a riverbed for reasons other than those allowed by the state protected status.

Discussions are good, the Buzz has had more of it than even the Idaho WW group, which is pretty weird.

From what I heard, people that oppose moving the rock weren't too happy with the meeting. But since I wasn't there, I won't pass on second hand information. Find someone to talk to directly I guess. Unbiased? Find god.


----------



## Matt J (May 27, 2005)

I bring the road into discussion because the corps drove front end loaders into the river bed and placed the rocks where they are after the flood. Considering the fact that the rock in question sits exactly where it does because it was placed there by the corps my comment is exactly on topic.

That's already been mentioned in this thread but I wouldn't have expected that you noticed. You probably don't read the post seeing as you feel that no one on here really knows anything about boating.

The reason there's more discussion here than the WW Idaho group is because that group is hosted by Yahoo! groups which is a cumbersome and inefficient message board. This is a lot easier and more user friendly.

I asked for reasonably unbiased. Knowing your personal bias and presenting information in a neutral manner despite your bias is a higher level thinking skill. Perhaps something foreign to you?

I was fairly neutral on this topic until reading all the dumbass responses on here to "save the gnarl." Sounds like good news that such faction was disgruntled after the meeting.


----------



## Outlaw (Mar 8, 2010)

Jesus Christ!! It's a fucking rock that was placed by the corp (very unnaturally)! Get over it you fucking granola crunching weirdos.


----------



## Katboater (Apr 21, 2009)

I really don't recall Josh saying much of anything negative about the Longs. I believe his intent was to spread the word about a permit that had been issued to "Remove a Rock" from Staircase. Not many in the boating community new that this permit had been issued nor did we know that anyone was even thinking about moving or removing this rock. If you look at this thread most of the negative posts about the guides and such were posted by people from Colorado, not people from Idaho. I really don't know what the intentions of Mr Long were with regards to an open forum from the community, all I know is that he wasn't out there spreading the word. Does this mean that he wouldn't have? Well the fact is is that he didn't have to because Josh and others spread the word for him.

It all comes down to differing opinions where both sides think they are right and are doing what is best for the river and boaters. I happen to be on the side of not removing the rock but am open to the idea of filling in the sieve or rotating the rock to make less dangerous. I also know what it is like to lose someone on the river. I was with Josh's group on the Murtaugh that day. Probably the most helpless I've ever felt was when that situation was transpiring. Many of us have felt loss on the river and aren't of the mindset that I can't happen to us nor our friends. We have seen it happen first hand.

Sorry, got a little sidetracked....my intent in this post was to support Josh after someone earlier attacked his character and intentions. Josh's wanted his voice heard in the matter and thanks to him and others everyone who cared enough to show up at the meeting got to voice their opinion. Thanks Josh.


----------



## climbermale (Aug 31, 2004)

In the beginning of this post Ihowemt said “Come on all you Coloradoans we need help! But, I feel some people on this topic took it way to far. People called the company, clogged emails and most likely harassed the staff. “If you like to boat in Idaho, let your voice be heard”. That is GREAT! But come on Rich said “I sent Cascade Raft an email suggesting they hire better guides. Let’s flood them with emails and calls”. We are all a better boating community then this. I very much like to boat in Idaho as well as other places in the Colorado. But if there is a danger where two or more people have died in the same location I feel the area should be looked at closer. It’s wrong to say it will never happen again. I’m not one to say that one rock in Bailey gets me every time so take it out. Or even Blast the first fall on Four Falls to make it safer. I am only saying there needs to be more education at locations where more the two deaths have occurred with in one rapid, hell with in 10 foot of eachother. I don’t think the answer is placing a small sign on the river side that one misses every time they pass by. The sign on Frog Rock in Colorado is so small it’s took me three times down to find it. The rapid is very easy class III but has class V consequences. I feel that by doing nothing we are wrong as a community. To say that nothing will happen again at this area is wrong. To harass a family for trying to make a difference and bring a serious concern to light is wrong. For Dean Fairburn to die in a man made rapid is wrong. So what is the answer to the problem? As a concerned boater I just don’t want to have another Frog Rock where another death will occur. But, we say there is not a problem. What are your comments on Tren Longs statement? “It seems strange to me that we all support the alteration of the steam bed to make water parks, and in some cases even compete diversion of a river, but an effort to remove a rock that has is a clear unnatural hazard is unthinkable. Kelly’s Whitewater park runs on the NF of the Payette, they dramatically altered the river, and have plans to alter the river again, but there is no condemnation or outpouring of sentiment. So do we as the boating community support altering the stream bed only when it improves our play waves and not when it can save lives”?


----------



## craporadon (Feb 27, 2006)

Final Solution:

LEAVE THE ROCK

FILL IN THE SIEVE

MAKE THAT SPOT A GREAT SPLATWHEEL SPOT.

It is absolutely right that this is no different than a whitewater park. They need to make Staircase an even sweeter rapid, a full on Class IV that is safe. Do it up really subtle, but really killer like a WW Park. Everyone Wins.


----------



## SonOfASailor555 (Oct 6, 2010)

CM, please read back upthread to an earlier post of mine about comparing work done to build KWP and what we're talking about on the South Fork. I don't know what existed before most other whitewater parks were built, but to throw Kelly's Whitewater Park up as a straw man, as a precedence to altering a river so that it becomes okay to alter Staircase, is ludicrous and only discredits the "let's move the rock" argument. Don't forget, the list of permits (Corps of Engineers, Idaho DOE, Idaho Department of Water Resources, Idaho Department of Lands, Valley County Commission, etc.) needed was long and opportunities for the public to provide comment were numerous before in-the-river work began on KWP. There was no such process here. IDWR wrongly issued the permit, and the work could have gone ahead without any public comment or process. (And, to clarify again, it was the Idaho Whitewater Association that set up Monday's public meeting and invited Tom Long to present his argument for moving Dean's Rock, and not the other way around.) Prior to KWP, there was little other than a mostly sandy river bottom on that stretch of mostly flatwater. The only "rapid" had mostly to do with an eroding and dangerous old concrete diversion dam, complete with rebar sticking out of it, that was associated with the old lumber mill that once stood near where the welcome center for KWP now stands. And the planned work for KWP this fall have to do with repairing damage that resulted from the epic June flows we had out of Cascade Dam and also to adjust the angles of some of the features to help further mitigate on-going erosion problems that have plagued that stretch of river. Have you been to KWP? Again, where there was once nothing for a whitewater boater, there are now five very nice play features. KWP's construction should not be part of the discussion. And we need to focus on the issue. Yes, the Long family and CRC are terrific stewards of the river system. Yes, they're concerned about safety and their actions over the years clearly demonstrate that. Yes, the Longs and CRC are great people, great guides and they run a great operation. Does that mean we just nod and go along with their proposal without asking questions? Certainly not.

Mike Stewart


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Mike pretty much covered it, and I'll just go back to what I've said before, which is that to bring up examples of other places to justify removal is disingenuous. Now other situations can be used to learn from, but if you are just throwing them out to justify your position, and they aren't applicable to the situation at hand, I don't think those examples are relevant.

You can argue back and forth, and each side can find examples to support their position (where a protected river was changed, and where it wasn't), so it is fruitless and does no justice to the issue at hand.


----------



## afaust (Jun 14, 2010)

So many twisted pairs of panties on this thread. Just an observation... please continue .


----------



## catboatkeith (Jun 11, 2010)

:mrgreen:I'm staying out of this one for the most part, but I came across this fitting Quote: 

"Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure."
Helen Keller


----------



## Droboat (May 12, 2008)

*Stop the Madness - Leave the Rock*

It should be without debate among river runners that rivers should be left to run their own course. Period.

Our rivers can never get back to their task of making their own way across and through the landscape until the arrogant, bulldozer-fascinated, desk- calculator-loving, Disney-emulating, enemies-of-all-things-natural are made to let the rivers run themselves.


----------



## craporadon (Feb 27, 2006)

I don't see any reason to not make the rapid better. Safer but also a bigger hit and more exciting. These roadside rapids were so hugely altered during road construction that making it a super fun Class IV rapid makes it more like it used to be. Make it safe and make it fun. The people are right that there is no difference in doing a WW play park and doing a Class 3-4 Rapid Running Park. We need more Rapid running Parks. 

Also making a creeking park like 6 Dub in Utah, right here Hobag's Halloween Huckfest 2010 on Vimeo. This creeking park is super fun and relatively safe. 25 people ran it Saturday at 32 cfs (perfect flow). 

Idaho could build a bunch of these.


----------



## SonOfASailor555 (Oct 6, 2010)

I respectively disagree. As others have said ... the next step will then be to take the rough edges off of the North Fork and make it one continuous class IV sluice box. Concerns right now about Juicer and work the Idaho Northern & Pacific Railroad is undertaking to clear a big rock slide right above it.


----------



## BobN (Mar 28, 2006)

I definitely oppose altering any natural rapid to make boating safer. I am also generally opposed to altering hazards created by the actions of man, particularly if these hazardous resulted from actions not directly related to streambed alteration (e.g., blast rock found in many, many rivers from road or railbed construction) and especially if those hazards were in-place before people started whitewater activities on said river. Further, I agree with those that have said USACE erred in trying to put the rapid back together (so to speak) after the 2001 mudslide.

That being said, from what I can discern, this case is somewhat unique. USACE put the rock in what they "thought" was about the right place (i.e. where some rock previously existed, hard to know if it is the exact same rock that was there prior to the landslide). In doing so, USACE unwittingly created a dangerous sieve that did not previously exist on a section of river that had been boated for many, many years prior to this alteration. Therefore, I don't see this rock as being substantially different than the crumbling dam with rebar alluded to above or a large block of concrete placed unnaturally in the river bed. While I do not support actual removal of the rock, given the circumstances, I cannot oppose filling in the sieve as a reasonable action. There are ways to do this so that the material does not move (think large rocks wedged in and oriented so as to be held in place by the flow). Though I think it less desireable than filling the sieve because it seems there is more of a potential for unintended consequences, I can't really oppose rotating the rock 180 degrees if that gets rid of the sieve hazard. Who knows maybe that's the way the rock should have been placed in the first place.

This may sound like situational ethics to some, but I see it as a pragmatic approach to a hazard recently-created by USACE's actions and don't see it as a slippery slope leading to removal of hazards on other rivers.

jmt.


----------



## MountainMedic (Apr 24, 2010)

​




Info 
*Taming the River Wild*

Proposals to make rapids safer raise raft of questions News - From the October 25, 2010 issue of High Country News by Sarah Gilman 







_Updated 10/19/10_
There's a boulder in Staircase Rapid on the South Fork of Idaho's Payette River that can kill you.
If you spill from a raft upstream on the left side of the river, you might get channeled to the boulder's submerged undercut face, where the water could suck you into a dangerous sieve. River guide Dean Fairburn drowned here in 2007. Some 15 to 20 rafts wrap here every season, according to commercial outfitter Chad Long, who co-manages Cascade Raft and Kayak with his extended family.
But with the river low this fall because of work on an upstream dam, Chad's father, Tom Long, saw an opportunity. Could the boulder be moved to make the rapid safer? It's not exactly natural, anyway: The Army Corps of Engineers reconstructed the run after a mudslide here blocked the river in 2001. So Tom got a stream-alteration permit from the state -- and kicked off a heated discussion within the whitewater community.

see the rest here Taming the River Wild — High Country News


----------



## Stuntmonkey (Jul 9, 2009)

Never paddled Staircase, but that doesn't matter. 

Time for a history lesson. Anyone remember the Gros Ventre landslide? (Pronounced Grow-Vawnt) Of course you don't, it happened in 1925, in Wyoming, on the Gros Ventre River. Huge landslide, dammed the river, eventually filled, dam failed, wiped out a town and a few people. Today, the lower river section, emmidately below the natural lake, is supposedly a very entertaining Class IV.

Point is, the Army corps guys should have never touched the river channel in the first place. Clear the road, slightly modify the natural dam to allow it to settle into a stable state, slowly drain and reform a river channel- leave the river alone- in it's natural state. Yes, a landslide is a natural event including whatever it alters. If Staircase became a Class V knee-knock fest, so be it. 

At this point, we've allready modified the river enough to not call it natural, so the subject of 'modification' is moot. Remember this lesson for the future.


----------



## lhowemt (Apr 5, 2007)

Stuntmonkey said:


> At this point, we've allready modified the river enough to not call it natural, so the subject of 'modification' is moot. Remember this lesson for the future.


It absolutely is not moot, any more than questioning old practices in mining, forestry, industry, etc. Just because we did it before doesn't mean we should continue doing it. In general, as a population, we have slowly moved towards understanding the benefits of leaving mother nature alone as much as possible. I don't recall anyone on this post, or anywhere else on this discussion, claim that the river is completely natural. The future is now and the lessons were in the past. Will we continue to repeat them? Unfortunately the answer seems to frequently be yes. For such an intelligent species, we sure are stupid.


----------



## Kendi (May 15, 2009)

*completely off topic*

but just thought I'd throw in that Gros Ventre means "fat stomach".....


----------



## BoilermakerU (Mar 13, 2009)

Stuntmonkey said:


> ...Point is, the Army corps guys should have never touched the river channel in the first place. Clear the road, slightly modify the natural dam to allow it to settle into a stable state, slowly drain and reform a river channel- leave the river alone- in it's natural state. Yes, a landslide is a natural event including whatever it alters. If Staircase became a Class V knee-knock fest, so be it...


First of all, that's your opinion (on the Army corps). We all have an opinion. Including the Army corps! 

The rest of what you said there doesn't even make sense. You mention all kinds of alterations to what was once natural land, and then say leave it natural?

Clear the road. First of all, the road isn't natural, somebody, I'm willing to bet it was human, put it there. Clearing it isn't natural either, any more than clearing a river bed of a dangerous obstacle. 

Slightly modify the natural damn. "Slightly" doesn't make it any more or less acceptable or natural or intrusive by mankind. You modify a natural damn even slightly, your still not leaving it in it's natural state!

Slowly reform and drain the river channel. And that's natural? Aside from it happening in a drought, having humans do it doesn't make it natural either.

I don't know the are, and I certainly haven't been around for the thousands of years the river has been there (although I feel like it sometimes! ), but who is to say that "Class V knee-knock fest" wasn't originally a Class IV rapid. Or a Class III wave train. Or a Class II wave train. Or a nice, family float?  Wh can really say it's in any kind of a natural state now, or 5 years ago, or 50 years ago?

We all want to argue for what we think is best for our own river enjoyment. I'm not a class V boater. I say make it a Class III or Class IV. 

I don't think that's the way folks should look at it personally. I think it should be looked at as what is good for a community at large. Natural or otherwise, what's good for the river community at large? Is it killing people? Are people regularly getting seriously injured? Is it some gigantic economic issue that needs to be addressed? Then for the greater good of the community at large, fix it. Is it not feasible? Is it just an inconvenience? Does it have safe alternatives? Then leave it alone.

Just because it may change the class isn't a valid argument as far as I am concerned, for this or any other proposed change to any river or river feature.


----------



## phlyingfish (Nov 15, 2006)

Boilermaker, I'll take a stab at your questions. I regularly boat the section and have friends on both sides of the debate.

(a)"Natural or otherwise, what's good for the river community at large?"
I don't profess to know the answer to this. Some private rafters pin on the rock. Some commercial rafts pin on the rock. The number of raft pins vary with who you ask. The plan's proponent says it happens all the time. Suffice it to say that pins on the rock are not uncommon. As far as I know, it's a non-issue for hard boaters to avoid the hazard. If I had to guess, the majority of use is by commercial raft trips. 

(b)"Is it killing people? Are people regularly getting seriously injured?"
To my knowledge the rock in question has caused one death and one near death/serious injury since 2002. So, no it is not regularly killing or seriously injuring people. Moreover, death and serious injury are some of the consequences of missing a line on class IV. Thus, there is nothing "out of character" about this particular rock in this particular rapid. Class IV is dangerous and this rock is a dangerous feature in a class IV. 

(c)"Is it some gigantic economic issue that needs to be addressed?"
Nope. The local raft companies are more than willing to book trips on this stretch and routinely run Staircase in its current form without incident. However, most local raft guides say running Staircase at medium-low levels, when the hazard is most acute, is the most stressful part of their job.

(d)"Is it not feasible?" 
Moving the rock requires a permit and a big crane. The proponent has attempted to get both. Seems feasible to me. Feasibility aside, nobody has addressed the real potential for creating a new unknown hazard by removing or shifting this rock. That silence suggests such a prediction is not feasible. 

(e)"Is it just an inconvenience?"
From the "if it's too dangerous, then portage" standpoint, yes. A dangerous feature in a class IV is merely another inconvenience on an inherently inconvenient class of whitewater. Nothing in the definition of class IV would give you the opposite impression. Running "must make moves" is part of running class IV. I have a hard time seeing why this feature is any different. I can point to sieves on many other Idaho rivers, all just as deadly. Also, the proponent, who regularly and voluntarily unpins rafts wrapped on the rock, argues that it's inconvenient (and dangerous) to do so. 

(f)"Does it have safe alternatives?" 
Portaging. Works every time. Plus, there is a convenient flat spot on river right to take out and start walking. Other alternatives include several wonderful class II/III runs in the immediate vicinity. One could also stay home. That's probably the safest bet.


----------



## C-dub (Oct 7, 2007)

Been following this thread for a bit. I think the initial intentions, agree with them or not were sound. Best logic I've heard, this being post 93. 
"(f)"Does it have safe alternatives?" 
Portaging. Works every time. Plus, there is a convenient flat spot on river right to take out and start walking. Other alternatives include several wonderful class II/III runs in the immediate vicinity. One could also stay home. That's probably the safest bet."
The waivers folks sign getting on, followed by the experienced guides making sound judgment, should make this a non-argument. Every year the outfitter applies for a working permit on the EXISTING river. If there is any further question, check out the warning label on the inside of every kayak ever produced.

I don't want folks dead, but Jeez. This is class four boating and the outfitter is choosing to take it's clientele down it. Not a wrong choice, but rivers, by nature are constantly changing. Deal with it, or guide easier stretches.

That is all i got. Good day.


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

> (f)"Does it have safe alternatives?"
> Portaging. Works every time. Plus, there is a convenient flat spot on river right to take out and start walking. Other alternatives include several wonderful class II/III runs in the immediate vicinity. One could also stay home. That's probably the safest bet.


Just to re-iterate a point I've made before - there is a center line in the rapid - the one I almost always run - that completely avoids this obstacle. No portage necessary. 

Also, the IWA has a meeting tonight at Idaho River Sports in Boise. The topic of discussion will be, you guessed it, "The Staircase Rock."

Also, the Idaho Stateman ran an article last Sunday:
Staircase Rapid on the South Fork of the Payette River is becoming a whitewater gray area | Idaho Outdoors | Idaho Statesman

I'm tempted to go read through all the comments here, on the statesman site, the idahowhitewater yahoo group, facebook, and various other places this has been discussed and tally up a count of those for moving the rock and those opposed. I guarantee it is not a landslide win for those in favor of modification, although that's what Cascade Raft & Kayak believes:
Rock Removal Meeting a success!
The vote at the meeting last month was a little ridiculous. The wording was strange and many of us were confused. We weren't sure if we were voting against removing the rock, moving the rock, or waiting for a hydro study. I promise more than 12 people in attendance there don't want to touch the rock.

Save the Rock

--Josh


----------



## idbugin (Jul 28, 2006)

Count me in for a vote of do not modify. I chose not to vote that night as I felt having a poorly worded impromptu vote at the end a meeting that had been hijacked by a particular person with an agenda didn’t seem worth a whole lot.


----------



## phlyingfish (Nov 15, 2006)

Josh,
Yes, there is a center line. Perhaps it is not run as often as it could be; perhaps it is even less dangerous. But, running that line means you are still running a class IV. The question was about "safe alternatives." In my view, the only safe alternative to running a rapid is not running it. If you are paddling whitewater, you are putting yourself at risk. It doesn't matter that you are a paying customer, a guide, or a private boater. 

Safety is a matter of your skill, your luck, or your discretion no matter the class of rapid or paddler. It's really just that simple. Each and every one of us should be free to make that choice for ourselves. Nobody should be telling us a particular rock is too dangerous because nobody is required to run Staircase. The hazard is sitting in plain view for every person who drives up the road to put on. Therefore, nobody has to die under that rock unless they choose to expose themselves to that risk.


----------



## climbermale (Aug 31, 2004)

lhowemt said:


> The future is now and the lessons were in the past. Will we continue to repeat them? Unfortunately the answer seems to frequently be yes. For such an intelligent species, we sure are stupid.


The future is now and yes lessons are in the past, learn from them. This lesson will continue in the future and will be repeated again with another death in the same spot. You are right we are stupid. What's wrong with turning the rock and just being done with it? Look at what they did to the Frog Rock area, will it help I can't say. But, the river community came together as one and did something about it in hopes it would. I think you all should do the same.


----------



## wasatchbill (Apr 9, 2007)

The "turn the rock" guys were going to do this with their own money, right? No taxpayer dollars? To make the run safer, for private rafters and commercial; as I understand it. 
I am a little surprised at all the resistance. If someone had turned that rock one night, I doubt anyone would have ever noticed. Turn the rock already. 

This reminds me of the rock climbing debates from eras past about "bolt/don't bolt" the rock, to improve routes for climbers, and even save rock climbers lives. Then the "don't bolt" crowd chops bolts; the "bolt" crowd rebolts... the ugly reminders are still in Boulder Canyon and elsewhere. 

This would be the most entertaining scenario- The "Turn the rock" guys get the go-ahead, the big bad evil bulldozer is in coming, and the "don't turn the rock" leaders attempt to chain themselves to the rock, to "save the rock". But the rock has no place to anchor chains, so they must drill bolts into the rock, to chain themselves to the rock, to save the rock. Then we can have a "bolt-the-rock or don't-bolt-the-rock, to save-the-rock" debate. (cue tense soap opera music)


----------



## cmike1 (Sep 10, 2006)

climbermale said:


> Look at what they did to the Frog Rock area, will it help I can't say. But, the river community came together as one and did something about it in hopes it would. I think you all should do the same.


The river community certainly came together to recover her body. Unless something happened that I'm not aware of, the coffer dam was to be removed and the river bed was to be restored as close as possible to it's original state. The seive was to NOT be altered.


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

I'm curious if Cascade wants to assume liability on that section of river should they move the rock and someone gets hurt/killed in the future. 

Because by moving that rock, liability is established.


----------



## afaust (Jun 14, 2010)

cmike1 said:


> The river community certainly came together to recover her body. Unless something happened that I'm not aware of, the coffer dam was to be removed and the river bed was to be restored as close as possible to it's original state. The seive was to NOT be altered.


...yet


----------



## cmike1 (Sep 10, 2006)

afaust said:


> ...yet


Not sure what you're suggesting.


----------



## SonOfASailor555 (Oct 6, 2010)

*The "vote"*

I have to agree with Josh's comments a page or two back. I too was at that meeting and have a couple of observations. When the fellow, at the end of the meeting, asked for a "show of hands," my antennae started tingling, knowing how such information could be mis-represented. And I must learn to trust my feelings. What was, in my opinion, a fairly close show of hands — not an 80 percent landslide by any stretch — has been represented as a lopsided rout of a vote in favor of moving the rock.

What was the show of hands about anyway? The fellow who asked the question said something about wanting a show of hands "to help guide him in establishing his position" on the issue. Not his exact words, but close. I guess he just didn't want to be in the minority, albeit a small one. There were a number of hands that weren't raised one way or the other. There was also a certain "orchestrated" aspect to the whole thing to begin with.

And what were we showing hands about? Josh said it was confusing and I agree. Tom Long had said that he was going to have some hydrologist friends of his, whitewater park designers and so on, do some modeling to see what moving the rock might do before he proceeded with refiling an application to "move" the rock. Has that work been done and what are the results of that modeling?

Remember, the original application was to "remove" Dean's Rock from the rapid. And, we cannot forget that it was the Idaho Whitewater Association that set up the meeting when it learned that a permit had been issued devoid of any public input or process. The meeting was not set up by Tom Long and Cascade Raft, nor was there any public airing of the proposal scheduled by the proponents.

Finally, someone on some other discussion site said it isn't a popularity contest anyway, so what meaning is there to any kind of "vote?" While public sentiment is certainly a factor in determining public policy, there are certain laws and a process that apply to what was proposed — a public policy and process that was established with public input.

And that other most troubling issue is still not addressed — where does it end? The North Fork Payette is filled with rocks that weren't put there naturally thanks to construction of a railroad and highway that were built along the river — and no doubt, some of those rocks have claimed lives and caused injuries. I live quite near the North Fork and I hear no clamor to alter rapids there, and can only imagine the shouting that would ensue if that were to be proposed. But, if this precedent is set, isn't that what we're setting ourselves up for? I'm still in the leave the rock where it is, as it is camp.


----------



## Favre (Nov 17, 2010)

Having been at the entire length of the meeting, here are my observations:

At the end of the meeting, a gentlemen named Kevin representing Idaho Rivers United asked for a show of hands for "all of those in favor of changing rapids/rivers," or something to that extent. Needless to say, people immediately demanded a rephrasing of the vote.. To my understanding, it was rephrased to "all of those in favor of doing something about it, rather than leaving it the way it is."

In my honest estimation, about 50-55% of the people raised their hands in favor of doing something (that might be filling in the sieve, that might be rotating the rock, that might blowing the rock up with some explosives.) 

Then there was a show of hands for those in favor for leaving the rock the way it is. Noticeably fewer hands were raised. Maybe 35% or so.

Then someone from the crowd said "how about undecided?" And a few hands were raised. Maybe a few others didn't vote.

Again, those are my observations, but I would say without a doubt in my mind that the majority of the voters (if not the majority of all the people present) were in favor of some kind of change.

This article appeared in the Idaho Statesman the other day. You may or may not enjoy reading it. Kevin Talley: We made Staircase Rapid so dangerous; now we must fix it | Reader's Opinion | Idaho Statesman


----------



## kellip (Mar 1, 2007)

Micah, does Kevin work for Cascade?

Josh and SonofaSailor, I posted a comment questioning the numbers Cascade posted on their blog. Rock Removal Meeting a success!


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

kellip said:


> Micah, does Kevin work for Cascade?
> 
> Josh and SonofaSailor, I posted a comment questioning the numbers Cascade posted on their blog. Rock Removal Meeting a success!


He does/did.


----------



## Favre (Nov 17, 2010)

Kelli,
yes he does. I don't believe working for Cascade has influenced his opinion but I think being a raft guide on the South Fork of the Payette has. In my opinion, it's irrelevant, many people share his point of view that are in no way affiliated with Cascade Raft Company. But in this polarized debate, probably just as many disagree.

Kelli - I'm curious to know if you disagree with my estimation of the numbers?


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

Kevin Lewis works for Idaho Rivers United. He is also the president of the Idaho Whitewater Association. I'm a member of the IWA board of directors. As far as I know, Kevin has never worked for Cascade. I've only known him for a couple years, but I'd be surprised if that were the case.


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

maybe I'm mistaken?


----------



## Favre (Nov 17, 2010)

Josh, we are talking about Kevin Talley, the author of the article I posted..


----------



## Anchorless (Aug 3, 2010)

I'm still curious as to the aspect of liability. 

If the rock is changed, does liability for that rock and/or that stretch of river fall to the permit holder? To IDWR?


----------



## jmcdannel (Apr 22, 2009)

aha, two different Kevin's mentioned in the same post.


----------



## kellip (Mar 1, 2007)

Josh, I think we're talking about 2 different Kevins. Kevin Talley guides for Cascade and wrote the letter to the Statesman that Micah posted a link to and Kevin Lewis is the IWA President. 

Micah, I do think your numbers listed above are more accurate with what actually happened at the meeting. I didn't agree with what was posted on the payetteriver.org blog saying the meeting was a success with only 6 people opposed. The meeting allowed people to voice their opinions and it was a civil discussion, but for me personally I left more torn on the issue. As others have posted above it wasn't quite the landslide described on the blog.


----------

