Hi James,

I'm a bit confused at two river readings.  I was thinking of going to the either the Sauk or the Stilly tomorrow since I saw them as being "runnable" on the gauge reading.  Something told me to just check the guide book against this so I did.  I noticed the reading for the Sauk (Whitechuck to Darrington) was running about 3500 on the AW site as well as yours.  However the guide book says to take 50% of the reading "Sauk at Sauk".  The Real Time Data also read 3500 at Sauk at Sauk so I knew that the run I wanted did not have enough water in it to run. 

Then I thought about the South Fork of the Stillaguamish - Riverbar to Verlot.  I know you don't have this particular run in your readings but the levels that would be associated to this run were also confusing.  It read 1070 cfs which is runnable but the book says to take 80% of that which makes it too not runnable.  Is there any way to make it clear that when a reading is taken and the reading says the river is runnable that it actually is?  Is there a way to take the 80% or 50% of the recommended reading so we can get the actual river level for that particular section of river. 

This may be wishful thinking but I thought I'd ask.  I almost drove out there thinking these rivers were runnable but instead did more research and even drove by the Stilly this afternoon.  You could barely run an innertube down it.

Thanks for listening,

Courtney

Well both.

The run on the Sauk from Whitechuck to Darrington is wrong.  The reading is being taken from Sauk at Sauk on the USGS site and from Whitechuck to Clear Creek / Clear Creek to Darrington on the ACA site as with your site.  So let's say the reading is 3000.  That is a runnable level.  However - the guide book say to take 50% of that reading to get the real level for those particular runs so now it's actually running only 1500 for those sections which is not a runnabel level according to "A Guide to the Whitewater Rivers of Washington" book. 

As for the Stilly run, Riverbar to Verlot, that is not on your river list and I would like it to be if you can put it there.  But - if you decide to put it on there the reading is being taken taken from the South Fork of the Stilly on the USGS site and the Robe Canyon section on the ACA site as well as your site and should only read 80% of that reading.  So if it says it's running 1000 cfs, take 80% of that which is 800 cfs, to get the real reading for that section of river.  

I hope all of that makes sense.  

Thanks to those for the feedback that the Sauk may still be running.  According to the book it's right at the lowest runnabel level.  It would be nice to do something different even though it's low but I've made other plans and it would be rude of me to change them at the last minute.  Anyway their cell phone doesn't work where they're at right now.  Bummer.

Courtney

Thanks James.  I understand you wanting to be 100% before doing anything and I appreciate you looking into it.  If you can do something about it then great.  If not I understand. 

Courtney