# Middle Fork of the Salmon CLOSED due to Blowout



## bkp77 (May 9, 2004)

FYI ladies and gents,

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060724/IDOUT/60724020


----------



## Dave Frank (Oct 14, 2003)

Major bummer. I sure hope they overlook some wilderness rules sand let some beavers in.


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

That sucks big time! Glad I got my permit for early season . Good luck for all those waiting on there trips.

COUNT


----------



## rwhyman (May 23, 2005)

Here is this mornings update.



http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060725/IDOUT/607250372/1059


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I just talked to the outfitter I went with earlier this year. Their trip is stuck above the log jam. Word from the forest service is that they are flying in some explosives and they are going to try and blow the log jam this evening. Hopefully the wood that goes downstream doesn't cause major problems there too.


----------



## WisegirlII (Apr 14, 2006)

I'm not entirely familiar with how many miles you cover each day or how far from the regular put in the jam is, but have friends that launched on Saturday (mostly rafts and three kayakers), is it safe to assume that they're stranded above the log jam?


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

*Maybe not*



WisegirlII said:


> I'm not entirely familiar with how many miles you cover each day or how far from the regular put in the jam is, but have friends that launched on Saturday (mostly rafts and three kayakers), is it safe to assume that they're stranded above the log jam?


The first debris pile is at about 20.5 miles and this all happened Sunday night apparently. If they went long or normal 10 to 15 per day they might be below the jam. Or they may have a front row seat for it.
Hope they are ok


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

It depends on how much mileage they covered in the first two days. Blowout happened on monday I think. They had 2 days to get past it. Its the second day on most commercials, but might be a 3rd day on a private if they are taking 8 days. They could easily be above it.


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

We camped at Marble Creek (a few miles past Pistol) on night two. So it's probably 50/50 that they got past Pistol by Monday if they launched on Saturday. Pistol (just below Lake Creek where the blowout was) is right around mile 27. It seems to me that most people usually camp somewhere between miles 5 and 15 on night one and somewhere between 23 and 35 on night two. So it's anybody's guess whether they made it or not. I guess it would be cool to be caught on the river below the jam and snag an extra hotsprings night . Do you know where they were planning on camping?

COUNT


----------



## WisegirlII (Apr 14, 2006)

I don't, but the funny thing is, we were supposed to be on that trip! Got imvited really last minute and then just couldn't make it work. Which we thought really sucked, but now I think maybe it worked out for the best if they are stuck. Was just getting ready to leave some harrassing messages on their voice mail. Hopefully they're past the log jam! Kind of wondering what the rest of the trip will be like if they're above it, the feds dynamite and then send everyone down... sounds kind of dicey...


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

*Pistol is further up*

Pistol is actually at mile 21 or so. Marble left is at mile 31. 

http://www.whitewatercampsites.com/Middle Fork Salmon/index.php



COUNT said:


> We camped at Marble Creek (a few miles past Pistol) on night two. So it's probably 50/50 that they got past Pistol by Monday if they launched on Saturday. Pistol (just below Lake Creek where the blowout was) is right around mile 27. It seems to me that most people usually camp somewhere between miles 5 and 15 on night one and somewhere between 23 and 35 on night two. So it's anybody's guess whether they made it or not. I guess it would be cool to be caught on the river below the jam and snag an extra hotsprings night . Do you know where they were planning on camping?
> COUNT


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

better leave em the harrassing messages anyway. just because theyre in a jam now doesnt mean they wont be having a blast somewhere down the line!


----------



## COUNT (Jul 5, 2005)

Sorry. Didn't have my guide with me and was just guessing from memory. I'd say that greatly increases their chances of having made it past the jam.

COUNT


----------



## JBL (Jun 7, 2006)

Even if the feds do blow up the log jam, all that wood is going somewhere downstream. It may work and be okay but it may just create strainers or other log jams in other rapids downstream. Not to mention, at this low flow, there's not a lot of water to move all the blown up wood into safe eddies or all the way to the Main. The whole plan sounds dicey. 

Regardless, it'd be fun to be on the water to see the antics!


----------



## carvedog (May 11, 2005)

*Link to photos of the log jam in Boise paper*

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/...ory=IDOUT&ArtNo=725002&Ref=PH&Params=Itemnr=1

Hope this comes through great photos in here.


----------



## lagoonia (Oct 21, 2004)

Do they know how many CFS Lake Creek was flowing? That would of been a sight to see. What about people that were below the log jam. The river must of risen pretty dramatically.


----------



## stinginrivers (Oct 18, 2003)

Thanks for the link to the photos, that is pretty amazing...


----------



## ChrisKelly (Feb 7, 2005)

*Thank god the gov't will blow it up.*

It is of course right in ther middle of a "wilderness". And, no interest is served by blowing it but that of recretional users and those who sell rides on the river.

If you don't want to portage it stay home.

Chris Kelly


----------



## JBL (Jun 7, 2006)

Does 'wildness' which has occurred in the Wilderness mean that it's time to portage around the log jam and keep on boating? Yes. If man intervened every time the Wilderness got a little too wild, then it wouldn't be Wilderness would it. 

From http://www.wilderness.net - 

In 1964 our nation's leaders formally acknowledged the immediate and lasting benefits of wild places to the human spirit and fabric of our nation. That year, in a nearly unanimous vote, Congress enacted landmark legislation that permanently protected some of the most natural and undisturbed places in America. The Wilderness Act of 1964 established the National Wilderness Preservation System, the system of all America's wilderness areas, to "secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness."

The United States was the first country in the world to define and designate wilderness areas through law. Subsequently, countries around the world have protected areas modeled after the Wilderness Act. Wilderness is part of our history and heritage and is passed as a legacy to future generations. Indispensable to the American past, the legacy that is wilderness will remain indispensable to the American future.

Wilderness is:

"...lands designated for preservation and protection in their natural condition..." Section 2(a)
"...an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man..." Section 2(c)
"...an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvement or human habitation..." Section 2(c)
"...generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable..." Section 2(c)
"...has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation..." Section 2(c)


----------



## bkp77 (May 9, 2004)

while i agree with the idea, the cold truth is someone will die there despite potential future warnings at the put in of the jam. i don't think anyone wants to have that on their head. and since it is a wilderness they would not put warning signs for the rapid they are approaching. some group will lose track of their location on the river(easy to do for first timers) or some swimmer(s) from a flip in next year's high water will be swept in there. 
just not worth it.

I think it is good that they are removing it by hand now and not blowing it up too.

plus, from a logistics/management stand point they would create a huge mess and bottleneck at that spot , they would have to extend people's permits by two days to 10 days from the 8 now and issue even less permits. it would turn into a real high impact area in heartbeat.


----------



## JBL (Jun 7, 2006)

While I agree that it is a hazard, I think that their current approach is a good one. 

I was on the Main Salmon in May of this year and the gauge at White Bird was reading 92,000 cfs when we put on. If Idaho has anohter water year like that (or even close) next year, that log jam would be gone anyway.


----------



## Schizzle (Mar 26, 2004)

Nothing would be hurt by blowing up the log jam or using a chainsaw. That's common practice on beaver dams, strainers on high use rivers, etc.

Just gotta' rant for a minute:
When I'm out hiking in an official wilderness area and I come across one of those 10 people with handsaws + horses trail maintenance crews doing what would be a two person job if they had a chainsaw, I want to puke at the bureaucracy of wilderness rules. Furthermore, horses Vs. mountainbikes. Horses shit all over the trail, clobber switchbacks and streamcrossings. And how is a mountain bike mechanized anyway??? Never seen someone fill up the mountainbike's tank before taking off.

BTW, longest day i've ever had in a kayak was on the MF at lower water. We went from Marsh Creek P.I. to Indian Creek. I don't know the mileage, but I think it was like 35 or 45 miles. Rest of the party flew the raft into Indian airstrip (too low to float Marsh Creek) and when we pulled in they had dinner ready - yeah! It was a good weather spell in late-April and we had the river entirely to ourselves for a full week. Did lots of side hikes, creekin', and hot springing. Felt very fortunate to have had that experience.


----------



## Schizzle (Mar 26, 2004)

JBL, what was the main like with whitebird at 92k? I gotta' hear about that.

I was up there at the same time doing day runs and we had a great trip. We took things down a notch difficulty-wise and did some III-IV runs at stompin' flows. SF of Payette at 14k -- Canyon and Staircase stretches. MF Boise at 10k on the SF gauge. Super fun! Boils would push you back and forth like an ocean swell. I had a 10 1/2 foot Dagger Animas and was loving the big front surfing and blasting into boiling eddies. It was a bigwater playground. People would disappear for a while under waves, then pop out the back in a towering endo. Tell me a story from your trip if you have a minute.


----------



## JBL (Jun 7, 2006)

The Main at that level was HUGE! The gauge on the ramp (brass numbers embedded in the ramp) at Corn Crk. was at 11 ft. The sign at the put-in that explains river levels says that 8ft = 32,189 cfs and is rated "extreme". The sign doesn't even list water levels above 8ft. At 11ft we estimated the water to be running 52,000 cfs at the put-in. The water was scray because it was so big, fast and cold. But even scarier were the trees - not logs - trees that were floating down the river. We had 3 18' oar rigs and 3 17' dories. We also had two safety boaters in creek boats. We made huge miles very, very quickly. We'd average 25 miles in 2 hours. I had a GPS with me and according to it we hit 22 mph in one rapid on the second day. The boils, eddies and seams were crazy scary. Much more so than any of the rapids. I'd never seen literal eddy 'fences', which were tough to deal with. One of the hardest things to do each day was to break the eddyline to get into camp. Oh, dodging the trees was hard and scary too. The biggest rapids were Killum, Big Mallard, Elk Horn and Whiplash (huge, huge, huge). There were other big ones but these stand out in my mind. A lot of the rapids were washed out, like Salmon Falls. The waves were huge and the holes were the biggest I'd ever seen. We hit some waves that the 18' rigs barely made it over. You'd almost crest, think you were not going to make it, then the front of the raft would creep over the top of the wave and you fly down the backside. It was awesome. One of the guys on our trip is a Grand Canyon guide (has been for 27 yrs) and he was even surprised by some of the rapids and their size and power. The camping was interesting since there were no beaches. We camped in forest every night. In fact, I don't even remember seeing any sand the whole trip! It was definitely an expert run at that level. Not so much because of the rapids but because if you had a problem, a flipped raft, swimmers, etc. The speed and temp of the water would have made rescue very, very difficult. We didn't have any incidents, for which we counted our blessings. What was even crazier were the rapids below the takeout along the road to Riggins. They were absolutely enormous. Some of those holes would have eaten our 18' rigs. All in all, it was an amazing experience. Some of the biggest water Idaho has had in the past 10 years and I'm glad I got to see it.


----------



## jaydrury (May 21, 2004)

*Never mind the navigations logistics...*

....those folks could potentially run out of beer on a river trip.

Something to calculate into future beverage logistics. Good to know.


----------



## bkp77 (May 9, 2004)

more info...

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060726/IDOUT/607260343/1059


----------



## Caspian (Oct 14, 2003)

I can't believe that they are contemplating explosives - which have the potential to alter the rapid unnaturally and create sharp rocks - but insist on not using chainsaws. Ridiculous.


----------



## yetigonecrazy (May 23, 2005)

i like the part about how the flow actually stopped below the dam for a bit...wonder what the wall of water was like when that broke....

and for that matter, to anyone whos been on this stretch, whats the next set of closed in rapids downstream? surely theres several narrows below here, they need to watch and make sure it doesnt happen just a mile downsteam or whatever....


----------



## deepsouthpaddler (Apr 14, 2004)

I think that the logs should be removed, and I think its the right thing to do. The river is not "wilderness" even though it has that designation. The ranches, airstrips etc show the human presence. What the wilderness designation and river management have done is managed the number of boaters at any one time, and stopped and future development to allow boaters to float throuh relatively pristine forest and canyons. With the relatively constant lauching of boaters, portaging would not be feasible. Campsite allocation would be a mess, and the entire balance of the system would be a mess. We are not talking a handful of hardy groups portaging logs in marsh creek early season. We are talking people with short windowed permits getting down the river and getting to see one of the most beautful slices of american outdoors. Its all about balance, and removing the logs doesn't hurt the "wilderness" of the river, and helps people go about enjoying it in a sensible manner. 

I know that there have been long debates on the ethics of moving logs around etc. I think this is a case where its fine.


----------



## bkp77 (May 9, 2004)

someone posted this on BT...note the big drop when it damed up

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/id/nwis/uv/?site_no=13309220&PARAmeter_cd=00065,00060


----------



## bkp77 (May 9, 2004)

150 lbs of tnt later...

http://www.idahostatesman.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060727/IDOUT/607270341


----------

