Professor Paddle: Cascade: difficulty rating, ect...

Ok everyone- I'm requesting that anyone who's run the Cascade join this discussion and add your 2 cents...

I go through the database from time to time and when I see information that strikes me as inaccurate, I like to update it. The power and resiliency of this site's river beta rests in the hands of its active members. Need your help with this one.

The river description calls the Cascade a V.3
I'm wondering why it was given this rating. And while we're on the subject, perhaps someone can explain what the .3 means in this case and why it was applied to the Cascade. I'm an old-schooler, so the point system confuses me somewhat.

Bennett calls the run a class V (700- 1000 cfs).
So does AW, but their flow ranges seem vague.

I ran it in 2008, at between 1100 and 1400 CFS and considered that a healthy medium flow. The long and the short of it is that I would personally rate this whole run as follows:

IV- V, or IV (V), or IV (V+) at flows of 700 - 2000

Here's the breakdown of all the named/significant rapids and how I'd rate them:

Starts With A Bang: IV+
Bridge Wreck: V (or maybe even V+)
Premium: IV+
Monster: V
Shark's Tooth: IV+

The rest of the run I found to be mostly read and run class IV/IV+.

Normally I defer to the Bennett book. While different paddlers are bound to split hairs about flow ranges and +/- ratings, ect. I find Bennett's ratings to be consistantly more or less on target. I do not consider myself to be a sandbagger, BTW, and I know opinions are bound to differ-that's why this forum can be a good thing.

So those of you who've paddled the Cascade: Your feedback is needed in this case.
What was the flow when you paddled it and how would you rate it?

Keep in mind a few things before you respond:

-First of, that we rate rapids and runs to help people determine for themselves whether a run is apprpriate for their skill level: you are encourage to read the exiasting definitions for each class rating and try to adhere as faithfully to it as you can. The Bennett book and AW both list the I-VI scale.
-Remember also that other craft use this run (most notably Catboats!) so don't call it class III just because you're some bad ass kayaker, or some bad ass cat boater. The scale is meant to work for all river craft, however imperfectly.

yeah- as I listed each rapid, It can be argued that there are only 2 class V rapids. Both can be portaged. Hairs can be split whether or not they deserve a "+" as well, but it's safe to say that. Extremely conservative opinions could consider "Bang" and "Shark's Tooth" V-, but such opinions would likely be in the minority.

Generally the Parenthesis indicate that there a few rapids of that class rating along the run. Read the Bennett book for more detail about how he rates stuff. I think it works fairly well. I've run between 25-35% of the runs in the book. Perhaps equally split into thirds: III, IV and V runs. So i'm pretty familiar with the book at this point and find his ratings help me glean a general idea of what to expect when I go check out a new run. I always remember though that the rating or flow info may be off a tad.

Really want feedback from those who've run it. Include the flows the times you were there and how it influences the way you'd rate the run and rapids.
Thanks.

jP - Your ratings seem right on to me. I've run the Cascade two times, both times between 1300 and 1600 cfs ( I think...between 1.5 and 1 screen showing in 2006 and 2007). Great flows. Both times I walked Bridge and Monster, they just didn't seem that appealing at the time. Sharks tooth may have changed, I remember it being short, steep, and stupid (we ran left, since the right side had few safety/viewing options, but left started out pinny for sure). One I definitely recommend to folks, incredibly scenic, and a great paddle out when it's coming up and you can feel the canyon lifting off of your shoulders

Interesting. Thanks for sharing.

Three full grades harder than V vs IV-V is quite a difference.

For benchmarking purposes - would you also put S.A.T. on the 'Sack at IV+ when the flow is in the 700-1000cfs range as well. Just trying to get a feel for the difficulty we're talking about vs the stuff that I've actually run.

Both times I've run it have been in the 1300-1600 range (always took out before the screens so never got a gauge on those). I considered it a solid medium.

As said, SWAB had more consequences with the bridge rapid and debris below it but I still wouldn't want to to swim there today as you could be going swimming for a ways. I consider it in the grayish area of IV+/V- at that level but mainly due to the continuous nature more than anything.

Sharks tooth is pretty easy overall, it's just the manky, pin potential that commands some respect. Love the boogie that leads up to it however.

I pretty much agree with the rest of your assessments.

JayB- I think SAT is in the IV+ neighborhood, especially at slightly higher flows. Definitely some places that can mess you up in there. Bridge on the Cascade is longer and pushier (and harder), but I think the lines look a little wider (anyone care to correct me there?). I've seen several nasty inverted lines on that one that did not inspire confidence. Monster is a little more spread out, with several big moves.

I just put some pictures up of the Cascade for reference. I think the one I labeled "sneaking monster" is actually a good bit below the real rapid. You can see one of the bigger drops in it way in the background.

sweet. Thanks for the feedback guys!

So It sounds like we're in general agreement. I was wondering how a flow above 1400 might affect the rating- sounds like you oth consider 1600 to still rate about the same.

Yeah, Jay B, I'd agree also that SAT is generally IV+. Maybe if you're in there on the high end of flows it'll take on a more Vish aspect. But let's keep this on topis: The Cascade.

Mr. Harms? What do you say?

I know Kennet and his friends have run it.

Chipper? You ever run it?

Franz- you wrote the original description in the database, so sooner or later when you find this thread, let's hear your input.

When I ran it, the bridge was still there. I didn't think SWB or bridge drop were difficult but got the V rating due to consequences. Don't know what cfs it was, but was around 1.5 screens. Monster was the only one that gave me trouble, the only drop I might consider a V, but easily portaged. So I would say IV to IV+(V).

The V.3 was a bit over rated since it was at the introduction to class V for me. This was also before the bridge wreck was removed and it was assuming a healthy flow which was my first trip. I would downgrade it to IV-V now, and if portaging certainly not a solid V run.

cool. I'm gonna let this thread simmer for a bit while various members happen along and provide their input. I'm gonna try to request that everyone who has run the cascade and has provided input be ready to get a little anal about how to express the rating for the run.

Once we're confident that everyone has had a chance to comment, we'll put it to a vote.

Most likely these are roughly the different ways we'll rate this run:

IV+(V)   ---Mostly class IV+ with a few class V rapids (Bridge Wreck and Monster)
IV(V+)   ---Mostly Class IV with a few class V+ rapids (Bridge Wreck and Monster)
IV-V      ----A mixture of class IV and V rapids

anyway that's roughly what the poll will look like and we can vote on it. My vote will be IV+(V)

some folks may find these subtle distinctions to be too anal, but if you are used to reading the guide book in any detail, this should make sense to you.

I don't plan on going too crazy with the database this way, but from time to time when a river description needs a severe facelift, this may be a good way to do it-with communuity involvement. Particularly when changing the rating of a run is concerned, I think it's important to put it to some kind of a vote so that no individual's subjectivities skew the beta.

This Cascade rating discussion can perhaps serve as a template for such a process.

Imagine it: Guidebooks in the past were largely written by a single author, no doubt with the combined input of a hand full of paddling buddies. But with (the modern wonders of!) our current technology, it is now possible to elicit the input of hundreds of local paddlers. With everyone's diverse perceptions and experiences, skill levels, ect. I believe it has the potential to average out our widely divergent opinions on what this or that is rated. More input from more paddlers should = a more accurate average, right?

Of course, this is dependent on every participant taking it upon themselves to know something about how to rate whitewater. Again: Look at at least two sources that define the rating system : AW and Bennett. You'll find that both of those are fairly closely if not exactly worded the same, while some less reliable sources will dumb it down and make it sound even more vague than it already is.

cool James, thanks for that 'lil morsel. So on that note, try to keep in mind your own subjectivities when you state your rate(ing).

It's true that sometimes when I run a river for the first time it seems more difficult than it really is. On the other hand that's how the rating is meant to be applied- as it is experienced the first time you paddle it. And if I'm hungover that day, it'll seem more difficult- like the Truss or LW does after your buddies keep ordering Scorpion Bowls all night long the night before!

After having done a few other rivers I would say IV-IV+(V) ...

Meaning most of the river is class IV - IV+ and you should be cool running that before hitting it up, there is class V but walkable and I would not call Monster & Bridge a V+, only a V. At one time I thought with the bridge debris it was more like V+ but that could even be argued.

Yeah. I agree that both rapids are more class V than V+ curently. I guess my knowledge of the Old Bridge Wreck comes from the Jooseman. Ask him. I'm sure he'd swear on a bible while standing nipple deep in the cold Cascade it was a V+. But that's neither here nor there now that most of the debris is gone, and I never saw it so I don't know.

anyway, IV-IV+(V) sounds good too.

I'm kinda having fun geekin out on this stuff

Originally posted by jP

with (the modern wonders of!) our current technology, it is now possible to elicit the input of hundreds of local paddlers. With everyone's diverse perceptions and experiences, skill levels, ect. I believe it has the potential to average out our widely divergent opinions on what this or that is rated. More input from more paddlers should = a more accurate average, right?

I disagree.
I think the internet is a great way to share beta, opinions etc. However, if that information is not credited to an individual, it is much harder to work with. For example, hearing that a run is 8 miles longs and rated class V does not tell me much. However, if Lars Holbek says that the run is class V, I have a good idea what I'm in for (based on personal experiences of other runs that Holbek rated). Similarly, I've gotten used to how Bennet rates runs and can get a decent idea of what to expect. Then look at Soggy Sneakers (OR), which is a collaborative effort. It is much harder to know what to expect when a run is labeled IV+ etc given how subjective these ratings are.
I'm not a big fan of the PP run writeups where we don't know who wrote the description (I'll weaken my point by admitting that I know you write most of them, JP).
To summarize: averaging everyones vote on the difficulty of a run is less useful to me than knowing what JP thinks the difficulty.

I would rate the Cascade IV+ at normal flow and V at higher flow. IV-V seems like a good compromise.

Originally posted by fiddleyak

To summarize: averaging everyones vote on the difficulty of a run is less useful to me than knowing what JP thinks the difficulty.

I would rate the Cascade IV+ at normal flow and V at higher flow. IV-V seems like a good compromise.

Well, Ben we all know that my opinion is of vital importance-just ask Tobin!

just kiddin.

Yeah, I see your point. And I agree to. I mean, I see both ways of looking at it. And I've thought about that. I too have come to know what to expect when I flip through the Bennie Book. I'm gonna let others weigh in on that one.

That is something we could address though. We can either manually type in our names when we do write ups, or we can have our tech-master craft up some means of displaying a list alongside the description of every user who has contributed to a description. I just don't want to over tax the Professor's workload. we gotta get him out on the water more before anything else!

Prolly express the rating as IV+(V). But as people weigh in, we'll see and then put it to a vote.

It would be nice to see when updates have been made and who made them on the 'rivers' page.

Originally posted by fiddleyak

Similarly, I've gotten used to how Bennet rates runs and can get a decent idea of what to expect. Then look at Soggy Sneakers (OR), which is a collaborative effort. It is much harder to know what to expect when a run is labeled IV+ etc given how subjective these ratings are.

Nice discussion. Just my .02c for Soggy Sneakers. One of my main goals for the 4th edition was to try and standardize all the ratings to reflect current standards similar to Bennett, etc. When the authors of the description include "and WKCC editors" that means some consideration was given to making sure the rating was consistent with others runs in the book and other guidebooks. I'll be the first one to admit we didn't get it right all the time but the 4th edition should be close in a lot of cases. All bets are off if you are using the 3rd edition though

.

pete

Showing a list of beta updates & what was submitted would not be difficult. I will consider it in the upcoming year and give a post when it is going to be done.

Dave and I usually run the Cascade several times a season and have been running it for about the last 7-8 years. We generally run it in the 900-1600'ish range - I've done it once at about 1800 and walked away once when I was a new Cascade boater at some insane high level after a storm (although 2 cats ran that day). I agree with the overall rating - I tend to group Starts with a Bang and Bridge Wreck into a single Class V stretch of water because at the higher levels it gets real hard to catch the eddy on river right above Bridge Wreck.

The move in Bridge Wreck is more challenging than Starts with a Bang but there are a lot of moves in Starts with a Bang (continuous with consequences). I think Bridge Wreck is a bit harder with the bridge gone. Monster has changed dramatically and I think it's quite a bit easier than it used to be. Old Monster had a nasty manky narrow (for cats) slide on the left and a Class VI sieve on the right. Now, there is a clean line through the ledges but I would still rate it as Class V. I would call everything else Class IV. Shark's Tooth is still probably IV+ because of mank and pin potential.

Another highly unscientific yet possibly valuable factor is when we take new boaters on the Cascade (people who are comfortable in Class IV-V water) we always scout Starts with a Bang, Bridge Wreck (if people catch the eddy) and Monster.

--Shelly

I have never run it, but feel the need to chime in here because I hear all the old school tales of deaths on the Cascade from the old SAR guys in my department.

In talking to them it sounds like there have been at least six boating deaths on the river, and only one of them that they recall had anything to do with the old bridge wreckage. Assuming the AW information on the bridge removal page is right there are at least two other deaths that may have been a result of the wreckage, but may have been due to a unknown danger that is still there. It also bears noting that in the five years I have been working the area we have had no boating deaths there, but NPS has their own SAR groups, and we often never hear about their calls.

I remember reading an account of a flush drowning on the run below SWB that definately did not involve the bridge debris.

I haven't seen the river from river level, though I would like to run it some day. I just think it is worth restating here that consequences determine ratings as much as difficulty.

Kyle

Edited by Wiggins - 02 Feb 2010 at 7:17pm

I'm late getting on this one but here are my two cents:

The Cascade as a river is definitely Class V.

There are slow spots and it gets easier as you get to know the lines or....if you are a bad ass boater it might be an easier class V but.....

Remembering my criteria for the classification of rivers is that you must include access and the remoteness of outside help. As I understand it there is a spot where helicopters have touched down and evacuated people but if you are down there and the sh*t hits the fan it will be an epic. Contrast this with something like Tumwater, even at high water.

Another thing that makes the Cascade Class V in my opinion is that it is ever changing. What Monster was today might not be tomorrow. Logs are definitely in play. Overnight logs placing themselves in lines has been reported. Scouting is important.

I would also NOT COUNT OUT THE BRIDGE WRECK! I talked with people who were there when it was removed and it is easy to tell that there is still some rebar in there deep. A swim in SWB is not unlikely for ANYONE and you better get the hell out and not swim ANY of Bridge Wreck. Rochelle's boogie boarding of the Bridge wreck was awesome and I guess you could swim the right but I am pretty sure she stayed out of there. I have seen kayakers run the right and that seemed OK.....
....my point here is the Bridge Wreck rapid is still dangerous as is the rest of the river....

I think its important that we don't forget that many of us are Class V boaters. Some I guess are more "core" than others or some a little rusty but when you've run a lot of stuff and actually start to have fun and not be so gripped in tough water it doesn't mean that it isn't that hard. Class V does not have to be "gripping" water. The truth is there are a lot of dangerous places in the Cascade and it is pretty deep in there.

Wiggins is right. Not everyone died because of the wreck. I know of one story though where a guy was saved off of the Bridge wreck by an oarsman.

SWB used to be a lot tougher too....

I do like knowing the perspective of my source of information as well. Pretty helpful in assessing ratings. Does AW base theirs off of the streamkeepers who edit the pages or by local guidebooks?

Also, I think there are quite a few Bennett write-ups that were written by other folks and therefore, not based on his perspective.

I know this is almost off topic now, but the way I had the V.1, V.2 etc, scale explained to me was that the difference in a creek or river that is V.1 is proportional to the jump in difficulty or danger as class IV is to V. So a V.3 rapid would be 3 stops or grades (?) higher in difficulty or danger than a normal class V drop.

Originally posted by catwoman4cfs

We generally run it in the 900-1600'ish range - I've done it once at about 1800... I agree with the overall rating - I tend to group Starts with a Bang and Bridge Wreck into a single Class V stretch of water because at the higher levels it gets real hard to catch the eddy on river right above Bridge Wreck.

--Shelly