Keel-Hauling the Triangle

Keel-Hauling the Triangle

a Carolina Paddler Article

By Zach Schiada

(A Self Assessment and Open Discussion)

-The most commonly used river rating system is the International Scale of River Difficulty, which goes from Class I (Easy, fast-moving water with small waves) to Class VI (Not often attempted and extreme, life-threatening difficulty and risk). This rating system is easy to understand, universally accepted and probably the only rating system many of us think about when assessing whether a river is suitable to run. For some of us who like to geek-out on a more granular level, there are other systems to consider.

Carolina Paddler recently carried an article on the Addison’s Scale of Rivers, which expands on the International Scale of Difficulty, adding Danger (I-VI), for the consequences of a paddler mistake, and  Exposure (A, B or C), the access to qualified help. This scale, while not widely known or used, seems to come closer to capturing the nuances of a given river and is often embraced by those familiar with it.

I recently purchased Monte Smith’s “Southeastern Whitewater.” Smith’s book uses the most comprehensive approach to river rating that I’ve seen so far. He has a weighted system for river rating that considers Difficulty, Volume x Gradient Interaction, Average Gradient, Streambed Morphology, Continuousness of Rapids, Maximum Gradient in Any One Mile, Total Gradient, Accessibility (Or Inaccessibility) and Reputation. What results is a basic scale from Class II (70) through class VI (140) where a river has the potential to be above or below this scale based on varying conditions at the time of running the river. While this is very comprehensive, it might be too complex for many people.

While reading Smith’s thorough notes, it occurred to me that I tend to compare a new river to a river I know well. This does a disservice to the work Smith has done and probably doesn’t yield the outcome he intended. Since I am not familiar with most of the rivers in his book, the scale doesn’t have a lot of meaning to me other than to point out the complexities that come with trying to truly judge a river’s difficulty. People familiar with the more popular Southeastern rivers should give this book a look.

Trusted folks in our whitewater community sometimes say you shouldn’t use rivers you have run as a benchmark for trying new rivers.  They encourage aspiring paddlers to become more comfortable on the rivers they know, catching every eddy, surfing every wave.  I mostly agree and follow this advice.  However, my mind wants to compare rivers of similar difficulty and consider whether I’m ready to try a new river.  This is the reason I like the Keel-Hauler’s scale.

I first found this scale by seeing a reference to it on the Carolina Canoe Club’s website. To my delight, the Lower Haw River is on the KH scale along with several other North Carolina rivers.  This helped me in sizing up what I might be able to run, by comparing what I’m familiar with versus what I am not.

The Keel-Hauler’s Scale starts with the international scale then subdivides Class I through VI into a range of 0 to 42, thus giving more gradation in the range of difficulty.  KH include a self-assessment to give the paddler a numerical measure of personal ability that can be used to decide if a river is suitable for their skill level. Paddlers can then evaluate one river they know to another unknown by comparing the point ratings for each. One point difference in the rivers is very similar, two points is noticeable, three points meaningful and five points is profound.  The personal evaluation score complements the river system.  A person might rate themselves at 22 so should consider rivers rated 22 or lower and perhaps a bit higher.

To me, Keel-Haulers river ratings are  helpful because it allows for ranking one river versus another in a more fluid way. The International Scale of Difficulty can have two rivers with drastically different difficulties within the same class designation. The international scale also might be representative of a particular rapid, but perhaps not the entire run. On American Whitewater’s website, an example river might have a range of difficulty Class I-III.  Sometimes a high-water level or a single bigger rapid is indicated in parentheses. A plus or minus such as class I-III (III+) is often used for more precision. This approach leaves some uncertainty. Is the river class II, but with one or two class III rapids or is it a class III run? Does the rating reflect a river with one difficult rapid that can be easily portaged to dramatically reduce the difficulty? Often rivers aren’t straightforward class I through VI runs, so the KH Scale helps my understanding by clarifying the difficulty with more detail. To be fair, many of the paddlers I trust, and respect find the AW data clear and reliable.

I run many local rivers and streams. When boating with friends I give feedback to what new rivers they might enjoy based on how they like the river we’re currently paddling. The flatter geology of the North Carolina Piedmont dictates most rivers max out around the class II-III level. On the international scale, there is little variance from one river to another. Lesser skilled paddlers like me do not have experience beyond class III. In our region, the useful part of the international scale is much narrower: class I-III, maybe III+.  One local river can have much more difficulty than another local run yet they are still rated as Class I-III rivers. Let’s use Upper Rocky, Middle Haw and Tar River as examples. Each are rated as Class I-III on American Whitewater. From my experience there is a big difference in difficulty between them.

I’d like to see the Keel-Haulers river ratings applied to the rivers of the Triangle area of North Carolina. For those people outside the state, the Triangle is the region centered around the cities of Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill. We’re in the northern middle of the state.  Go east and the land flattens out leading to the coast.  Go west and the rolling hills will elevate to mountains.

My challenge is I’m not an authoritative source.  I’m not an expert on river beta. This lack of experience can lead me to misrepresent the difficulty of a river. I’d like to have other CCC paddlers’ opinions of how they would rate our local rivers using the KH Scale.  To stimulate interest, I’m giving my personal assessment of KH ratings. Please keep in mind this is a rough starting point offered by a modestly experienced paddler.  Use your own self-evaluation and the guidance of the many valuable resources we have at our disposal to make safe, appropriate decisions about paddling destinations and conditions. The CCC has many experienced boaters who would welcome a request for guidance in paddling.

My Methodology

A future article in Carolina Paddler will explore the history of the Keel-Haulers Scale and the methodology used in rating rivers.

In pursuing my idea of using the KH scale to rate Triangle rivers, I posted on social media to gather input from others.  I hoped the responses would lead to a consensus of ratings for each run.  The goal was to have a rating system that would allow a paddler to evaluate their experience on one local river when considering tackling a new one. Responses have been varied and many people question the need for such an enterprise.

The existing sources of river information, while great, have their limits too. For example, American Whitewater, the preferred resource for many, allows users to write and edit river descriptions. Sometimes these are widely disputed.  I have found guidebooks such as “Paddling Eastern North Carolina” by Paul Ferguson and the more dated “A Paddler’s Guide to Eastern North Carolina” by Bob Benner and Tom McCloud are the only resources for our area that give a paddler a true idea on what their experience might be.

One example is the Little River, an Eno tributary north of Durham. American Whitewater describes this river at high water as comparable to the Upper Gauley. I do not have experience with the Upper Gauley, or sufficient runs on the Little to weigh in on this. I have heard this comparison criticized. In “Paddling Eastern North Carolina,” this run is rated Class III with a note that “above 4.6 ft (1,000 cfs), the run becomes class IV and higher with extremely powerful holes.”Many experienced paddlers dispute the higher ratings, saying the river is Class III at mid to high levels, maybe III+ at higher levels.

My Keel-Hauler Ratings

So far, I have not received enough viewpoints to present any consensus on Triangle river ratings.  Perhaps a different survey approach should be used. For now, I’d like to present my own conclusions as a starting point for discussion.

First, I did the  self-assessment using the Keel-Haulers ratings.  I’ve heard feedback saying many paddlers tend to overestimate their skill level. To avoid this, for any questions where I didn’t have a conclusive response, I rated myself on the lower end. Some knowledgeable friends said Class III boaters have a difficult time evaluating themselves since the category is so broad. Also the nature of Triangle rivers, often creeky, might unduly impact my evaluation since I have little experience on big-water runs.

I used this feedback to rate myself more conservatively than what I would have liked, but in the end, this probably presented a truer assessment of my abilities than perhaps my ego would like. My answers indicated I was at a level of 22.  As a note, in trying to think like people experienced with a vaster array of rivers, I would rate myself somewhere in the class II-II+ range, not quite reaching class III.

For those who want to see what a boater with a score of 22 would qualify to  paddle, below are the KH ratings for rivers matching this skill level.

These rivers have little meaning to me given most of my experience is on Triangle rivers.  I then moved on to a subjective measure of how I “feel” about what I have run in the Triangle. I used the Lower Haw River as my baseline since it is the only Triangle river rated by Keel-Haulers. The KH rating of 20 matches how I feel about the Lower Haw at 3,000 cfs. Others will disagree with this baseline, but for the sake of consistency, I’m using it.  In providing my KH ratings on Triangle rivers I tried my best to conform with ranges that fall within the International Class Ratings. Additional notes indicate where I strayed from this.

I start by accepting the KH rating for the Lower Haw and do a comparison to other rivers to see where they might line up. I ordered the rivers above and below this Haw baseline in terms of my perceived difficulty before assigning a KH rating to the rivers. I came up with this ordering based on how I felt about a run as a whole with notes on certain larger rapids considered. Keel-Haulers allows for a lower rating if one rapid is to be portaged, but I assumed no rapids are portaged for each river I rated. The rapids and rivers in the Triangle don’t lend themselves to portaging so I’m leaving that factor out.

Order of River difficulty, without KH ratings entered, except the baseline Lower Haw.

Discussion/Ratings

I’ll start with the rivers that were closest to the Lower Haw River baseline. The Upper Rocky River at a minimum flow of 200cfs, a level not enticing to most paddlers, was easier than the Lower Haw River, but not enough to justify a difference of 2 points. The same can be said for the Little River Gorge section at 3.4’, slightly more difficult, but not justifiable for a 2 point increase. For these, I opting for a rating of 19 for the Upper Rocky and 21 for the Little River Gorge.

I ran the Upper Flat in January at a level of 5’. At this level, I found the river to be noticeably more difficult than the Haw at 3,000 cfs and a bit more than the Little River Gorge at 3.4’. I ran the Little River Gorge at 4.5’ felt that it was slightly more consequential than the Upper Flat at 5’ and meaningfully more difficult than the Haw River at 3,000 cfs. For these I’m stepping up the ratings by one and two points respectively based on my experience. I did not find them high enough to jump outside of the Class III range of 15-25 points, but I did find one particular drop, Fossil Rapid on the Little to be a significant challenge compared to others. I don’t think it’s practical to portage this rapid if one is just running the Gorge. I couldn’t style the Little River at this level but I wasn’t overwhelmed.

With mid-level runs, the Lower Rocky River is noticeably less difficult in my experience than the Lower Haw River and has two significant rapids, Knucklebuster and Round House Cut,  that novices should scout. I don’t consider these class III drops, but they are right on the edge. I’m going to rate this one as a 15 since it is near the cutoff. While I think these rapids are class II+, I’m bumping it up to a low class III for my rating due to the remoteness and challenge of reaching help if something were to go wrong.  Round House Cut is roughly 1.75 miles from US-15/501 and about a mile from the takeout, which still involves a ½ mile hike out.

 

Next, the Lower Flat and Kibler Valley/Dan River runs are very similar in difficulty to each other and in my opinion slightly easier than the Lower Rocky at the levels I ran. They both contain what guidebooks refer to as a single class III rapid (III- for Basketball Falls on Dan). These rapids don’t represent the difficulty of the entire run and they do not require any significant maneuvering if one wants to take an easier route. Upper Eno is similar, but slightly easier with one significant rapid at Few’s Ford and another one upstream that requires some maneuvering. The Upper Haw is like the Upper Eno, but without a bigger rapid. Tar is similar to Upper Haw difficulty, but with one rapid at Schoolbus (Class II+) not too challenging at the level I ran it. Middle Haw is rated as class I-III on AW, but I find it less challenging than the Tar and despite the ratings established, a bit easier than Upper Haw.

The Deep River from 15/501 to US1 is probably the least popular on here, but I wanted to include it as the lowest river I felt deserved a rating. It only has two sets of rapids of note, with those above the Lockville Dam being on the easier side of class I-II and those below the dam being on the harder side of class I-II. The breached dam is in the range of class II+ and above depending on water level. Few boaters would bother to run this, and it’s not the safest drop, so I don’t recommend doing so.  Because of this, I’m not factoring running this drop into the rating. Because the dam has to be recognized and portaged, I did tilt the rating slightly higher.  My ratings for these are below.

Limitations to My K-H Ratings

I’m opting to not include the whole table since I don’t want to give the impression this is an authoritative source for river difficulty. My experience on many of these rivers is limited to a few paddles at similar water levels. My perception is most Triangle river ratings would fall into a range of 4 points:  +2 for high water, -2 for low water from an established mid-range.

Finally, I am working from the existing baseline K-H rating of Lower Haw at 20 and this affected how I rated some rivers. Others may see the Lower Haw at 3000cfs as something else than 20.

My ratings are here to invite discussion.

Absent from this list are New Hope Creek, Eno River from Pleasant Green to West Point and the Cape Fear River. I have yet to run this section of the Eno.  The Cape Fear and New Hope are two that I have not run at levels that I believe fall into the popular paddling range. New Hope would probably go somewhere in the higher end of the range and Cape Fear in the Upper Mid-range. For anyone interested in Buckhorn Creek, I would put this somewhere around 12 points.

Conclusion

It is not my intention to tease paddlers away from the International Scale of difficulty. As the name implies, it is internationally accepted and will likely continue to be standard by which rivers are rated.  It has flaws. Despite being called “international” it seems to be more of a regionally applied system allowing variance by geographic location. In a sub-region like the Triangle, where the range of difficulty is limited, it’s harder to use such a system on a micro level, so that one can confidently compare one river to another. Again, many boaters have no issues with the International Scale.

My personal experience is that the user-driven information on AW is not always representative of my experience. I hope we can apply the Keel-Haulers river ratings to build a better network for understanding the rivers we have.  This knowledge could help new paddlers better evaluate their skills and the rivers suited to them. To do this, we need input from as many experienced paddlers as possible, each voice giving more resolution to the picture of Triangle rivers.  It’s a project worth considering.

There are many sources of information available to paddlers.  New paddlers shouldn’t rely on just one reference, whether it’s a friend or an internet site or a video.  Paddlers who are familiar with a certain river can broaden their experience by thoughtfully trying a new river, armed with information (and more experienced paddlers) to make a first time paddle an invigorating experience.  Who knows, some might just discover their new favorite river has been sitting under their noses the whole time.

References:

“Addison’s Scale For Rivers” by Alton Chewning:  https://www.carolinacanoeclub.org/content/addisons-scale-for-rivers/

Southeastern Whitewater by Monte Smith,  Pahsimeroi Press, 2005

Keel-Haulers: https://www.keelhauler.com/river-ratings

Paddling Eastern North Carolina by Paul Ferguson, Pocosin Press, 2018

A Paddler’s Guide to Eastern North Carolina by Bob Benner and Tom McCloud, Adventure Keen,  1987

American Whitewater: https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/River/view/river-index

https://www.americanwhitewater.org/content/Wiki/safety:start