Return To Feature Stories List

SUMMARY OF RESOURCE AND SOCIAL INDICATORS ON THE GAULEY, NEW, CHEAT, SHENANDOAH, AND TYGART VALLEY RIVERS IN WEST VIRGINIA

---

CONTENT OF THIS DOCUMENT:

INTRODUCTIONDATA SOURCESWHITEWATER STUDY ZONESSUMMARY OF FINDINGSA LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (LAC) RIVER MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKAN ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY FOR COMMERCIAL RAFTING IN WEST VIRGINIARIVER SAFETYREFERENCES
 

 

---

Email Questions or Comments to: Andy Whisman

   RPTR Home      WVU Home

---

INTRODUCTION

A Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) decision process was adopted by the West Virginia Whitewater Commission for five commercial whitewater rivers in the State of West Virginia: the New, Gauley, Cheat, Tygart, and Shenandoah rivers. Originally, LAC was developed in response to the need of managers for a means of coping with increasing demands on recreation areas in a visible, logical fashion, and represents a re-formulation of the recreational carrying capacity concept. However, with LAC, emphasis is given to the environmental and social conditions desired for a recreation resource, rather than how much use the resource can tolerate. The LAC process was selected for the five study rivers in West Virginia to provide a framework for establishing acceptable and appropriate resource and social conditions.

The legislation that created the Whitewater Commission and authorized a three year study to implement the LAC process identified four primary issues, concerns, and opportunities (ICO's) for the five study rivers: (1) congestion and crowding; (2) participant safety; (3) environmental impacts; and (4) economic impacts. Environmental and economic impact studies were conducted and are reported in separate documents. Contained in this report are findings from the inventory of social and resource indicators related to crowding and safety. Social and environmental indicators relevant to congestion, crowding, and safety were identified cooperatively among WVU investigators and representatives of the Whitewater Commission, and a comprehensive inventory of selected indicators was initiated in the spring of 1995 on the study rivers.

The Whitewater Commission was directed by the same legislation authorizing the study to formulate and implement "rational criteria" for and river allocation methodology for the West Virginia whitewater industry, including the specification of minimum allocations to be conferred with commercial whitewater licenses on each study river. As well, depending on conditions on the five study rivers with respect to the primary ICO's described above, the Commission was authorized to issue additional licenses for commercial rafting purposes. To this end, study investigators worked with a committee appointed by the Whitewater Commission to develop a river management framework based on the Limits of Acceptable Change model and an allocation methodology for the commercial whitewater industry in West Virginia. The resulting river management framework and allocation methodology also are described in this report.

The four primary ICO's provided a basis for developing objectives for the LAC study. The objectives were numerous and are summarized as follows:

Develop an LAC framework for use by the Whitewater Commission in their efforts to develop commercial whitewater management plans for the five study rivers;Inventory the occurrence, amount, and concentration of commercial whitewater use of segments of each river designated as whitewater zones, and how use levels are dispersed over time;Determine standard operating procedures and format of the whitewater industry on each study river (i.e., trip sizes, equipment specifications, launch schedules, etc.);Determine the nature of safety programs/procedures practiced by each outfitter and identify indicators of participant safety;Identify and inventory environmental impacts of whitewater use as it relates to river access, day use, and overnight sites;Identify and inventory experience preferences, expectations, and corresponding satisfactions of commercial and noncommercial whitewater users, including comments of professional guides as to trip quality;Assess levels of perceived crowding and perceived safety among whitewater boaters;Evaluate economic impacts of commercial whitewater tourism on local communities in proximity to the study rivers and the State of West Virginia.

It should be noted that the third objective was not completed. A survey of commercial outfitters licensed to operate in West Virginia was designed to collect this information. However, low levels of participation among outfitters resulted in insufficient survey response rates to successfully completed this objective.

A summary of findings from the inventory of selected indicators of the primary ICO's is presented below. Detailed reports on the environmental impacts of commercial whitewater rafting on each of the five study rivers and the economic impacts of the industry have been prepared as separate documents.

---

DATA SOURCES

The scope of the LAC inventory required multiple techniques for collecting and compiling data from primary and secondary sources. Direct observations of river use and customer surveys were the predominant means of data collection. Secondary information about commercial use of the rivers and related whitewater injuries, primarily from the WV Division of Natural Resources (DNR), provided a substantial proportion of the data set. Environmental impact assessments were performed during the later stages of the use season to document worse case conditions for each river. Data collection techniques are briefly described below:

Direct Observations

Direct observations were used primarily for three purposes:

1. To obtain boat counts at designated sites along the rivers to document the patterns of whitewater traffic flow. Counts were performed at 15 minute intervals at 2 to 4 sites along the river, depending on availability of workers and seriousness of congestion problem.

2. To obtain tallies of river incidents assumed to be linked to participant safety and congestion or crowding.

3. Assess the number, location, extent, and current condition of impact sites related to commercial whitewater river use. Impact sites included river accesses (put-in and take-out sites), river access roads, and river recreation sites (lunch sites, overnight sites, etc.).

Observers used standardized forms developed for this study to record observations on river traffic, rivers incidents, and impact sites.

Customer Surveys

The major objectives of the customer surveys were to collect information leading to the evaluation of commercial whitewater recreation in terms of the following themes:

1. Perceptions of crowding
2. Perceptions of risk and safety conditions
3. The quality of and satisfaction with the whitewater rafting experience
4. Support/opposition for alternative river management actions
5. Resource impacts
6. Economic impacts

The customer survey was divided into 3 separate units to collect data for the evaluation of: (1) economic impacts; (2) experience quality and crowding; and (3) perceptions of and attitudes toward river management. All three versions of the questionnaire were administered simultaneously to separate subsamples of commercial whitewater participants. The different sections of the survey instrument were distributed to customers systematically.

---

WHITEWATER STUDY ZONES

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources (DNR) was directed by section 20.2-23a of the West Virginia Code to provide law enforcement and regulate all aspects of commercial river use within designated "whitewater zones." Consequently, the authority of the DNR encompasses all navigable sections of the all five study rivers. However, the study rivers flow through a varied mix of private and public lands and multiple management jurisdictions exist. The section of the Gauley River that was the primary focus of study flows through the Gauley River National Recreation Area. Consequently, the US Department of Interior National Park Service is authorized to administer, develop, and manage land based activities within the administrative boundaries of the National Recreation Area. Similarly, the New River flows through the New River Gorge National River and the Shenandoah River flows through the Harper's Ferry National Historic Park. As on the Gauley River, the National Park Service is responsible for land based activities while the DNR regulates commercial river use.

Sections of each river designated as whitewater zones are as follows:

Gauley River Whitewater Zones

Approximately twenty-six miles of the Gauley River has been designated a "whitewater zone" by the WV Whitewater Commission, from its confluence with the Summersville Dam to the railroad bridge at Jodie, WV. This zone is further subdivided into three shorter segments:

1. From Summersville Dam to Mason's Branch Road (Upper Gauley);

2. From Mason's Branch Road to the confluence of Bucklick Creek (Lower Gauley);

3. From the confluence of Bucklick Creek to the railroad bridge at Jodie, WV (Lower Gauley).

New River Whitewater Zones

The New River has been designated a "whitewater zone" by the WV Whitewater Commission from its confluence with the Greenbrier River at Hinton, WV, to its confluence with the Gauley River at Gauley Bridge, WV. This zone is further subdivided into six shorter segments:

1. From the confluence with the Greenbrier River to the State Route 41 bridge at Prince (Upper New);

2. From the State Route 41 bridge at Prince to the railroad trestle at Dunloup Creek at Thurmond (Upper New));

3. From the railroad trestle at Dunloup Creek at Thurmond to the confluence of Manns Creek at Cunard (Upper New);

4. From the confluence of Manns Creek at Cunard to Teays Landing at Fayetteville (Lower New);

5. From the Teays Landing at Fayetteville to Hawks Nest State Park dam;

6. From the Hawks Nest State Park dam to the confluence with the Gauley River at Gauley Bridge.

Cheat River Whitewater Zones

Two segments of the Cheat River were designated as whitewater study zones by the WV Whitewater Commission.

1. From the Saltlick Creek confluence at Rowlesburg to the Rt. 26 Bridge at Albright (The Narrows);

2. Form Albright to the confluence of Big Sandy Creek at the Jenkinsburg Bridge (The Canyon Section).

Shenandoah River Whitewater Zones

One segment of the Shenandoah River has been designated as a whitewater study zone by the WV Whitewater Commission.

1. From the Potomac Edison Power Station Dam at Millville to the confluence with the Potomac River at Harper's Ferry.

Tygart Valley River Whitewater Zones

The Tygart River has been designated a "whitewater zone" by the WV Whitewater Commission from its confluence with Mill Creek at Belington, WV, to the County Route 62 Bridge at Colfax, WV. This zone further has been subdivided into three shorter segments:

1. From the confluence with Mill Creek at Belington, WV, to the covered bridge at Philippi, WV;

2. From the covered bridge at Philippi to the Tygart Lake Dam;

3. From the Tygart Lake Dam to the County Route 62 Bridge;

---

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Below is a summary of findings from the inventory of social and resource conditions on the Gauley, New, Cheat, Shenandoah, and Tygart Valley rivers. Findings for each river are grouped into several categories including River Use, River Crowding and Congestion, User Conflicts, River Safety, Boater Satisfaction, River Trip Experiences, Perceptions of River Resource and Facility Problems, and Management Actions.

Findings from the Gauley River

River Use

Commercial use of the Gauley River in 1995 was 65,438 customers, an increase of about 10% compared to 1994, and about 8% more than 1996. About 66% of commercial use took place on the Upper Gauley (43,082 customers), with the remaining 34% on the Lower Gauley (22,356 customers)

• Most commercial activity on both sections of the river took place during September and October during the fall draw down of Summersville Lake: 97% on the Upper Gauley and 88% on the Lower Gauley
• Seventy-four percent of commercial rafting on the Upper Gauley occurred on Saturdays and Sundays. On the Lower Gauley, 80% occurred on weekends.
• In 1995, the maximum daily commercial use on the Upper and Lower Gauley occurred on Saturday, September 16, when 2,863 and 1,798 commercial customers, respectively, ran these river segments. On the Upper Gauley, this represented about 94% of the daily maximum allocation of 3,040 commercial users per day.
   

River Crowding and Congestion

• The overall average crowding score among commercial boaters on the Upper Gauley River was 4.5 on a 9-point crowding scale, with average daily crowding scores ranging from 2.4 to 5.4.
• About 79% of commercial boaters on the Upper Gauley reported being at least slightly crowded during their river trip, which corresponds to an overall more than capacity social carrying capacity judgement and indicates that intensive management may be necessary to preserve the current experience. On a daily basis, social carrying capacity judgements ranged from low normal to much more than capacity.
• The overall average crowding score among commercial boaters on the Lower Gauley was 4.7 on a 9-point crowding scale, with average daily crowding scores ranging from 1.2 to 5.5.
• About 74% of Lower Gauley boaters reported being at least slightly crowded during their river trip, which like on the Upper Gauley corresponds to an overall more than capacity social carrying capacity judgement. On a daily basis, social carrying capacity judgements ranged from suppressed crowding to much more than capacity.
• Crowding was significantly higher on Saturdays and Sundays that on Fridays and Mondays. On the Upper Gauley, there was a 30% probability of being moderately crowded and a 20% probability of being highly crowded when running the river on a Saturday or Sunday. On Saturdays and Sundays on the Lower Gauley, the probability of being moderately crowded was 37%, and the probability of being highly crowded was 29%.
• Factors contributing to crowding on both the Upper and Lower Gauley were time spent within sight of other trips, queue times above rapids, queue times at the put-in, and river use levels.
• Customers on the Upper Gauley reported average queue times of 5 to 15 minutes at the put-in and less than 5 minutes above any rapids. Lower Gauley customers reported average queue times of less than 5 minutes both at the put-in and above any rapids. Ninety-three percent of Upper and Lower Gauley customers indicated put-in queues were acceptable, while 88% of Upper Gauley customers and 85% of Lower Gauley customers indicated that queue times above rapids were acceptable.
• Customers on both river segments reported that they spent an average of 51 to 75% of their time on the river within sight of other trips. However, almost 60% reported that they spent more than 75% of their time on the river within sight of other trips, while almost 35% reported spending 100% of their time within sight of other trips. Overall, 28% of Upper Gauley customers and 36% of Lower Gauley customers said these conditions were unacceptable.
• Customers were more likely to rate the amount of time spent in sight of other trips as unacceptable on Saturdays and Sundays. On these days, there was a 29% probability on the Upper Gauley and 45% probability on the Lower Gauley of reporting the amount time in sight of other trips unacceptable.
• On the Upper Gauley, about 31% of boaters reported that the number of other people they saw putting-on the river was too many, 25% reported they saw too many other boaters at their lunch site, 34% reported they saw too many others while traveling on the river, and 10% reported they saw too many other boaters at the take-out.
• On the Lower Gauley, 17% reported that the number of other people they saw putting-on the river was too many, 30% reported they saw too many other boaters at their lunch site, 50% reported they saw too many others while traveling on the river, and 13% reported they saw too many other boaters at the take-out.
   

User Conflicts

• Approximately 19% of boaters surveyed on the Upper Gauley and 24% on the Lower Gauley reported experiencing or observing user conflicts of some kind. Most reported conflicts were associated with crowding or congestion (e.g., boat-to-boat contact, too many kayakers, etc.). The remaining conflicts were related to the behavior of others (e.g., trips jumping line, rudeness, poor river etiquette, etc.)
   

River Safety

• From 1990 through 1995, a total of 244 whitewater injuries were reported on the Gauley River, accounting for 45% of all reported whitewater injuries for the period on all five study rivers. Annual injury rates ranged from 20 injuries in 1995 to 64 in 1992, however, injury reporting requirements changed in 1994 making annual comparisons of injury rates dubitable.
• Most injuries on the Gauley were cuts or open wounds (28%), sprains (26%), contusions/bruises (16%), and fractures (16%), dislocation (4%), breathing/water intake (2%), and broken teeth (1%). One death was reported during the six-year period.
• Most injuries reported to DNR occurred at Sweets Falls (25%), Insignificant (11%), Pillow Rock (11%), Woods Ferry (5%), Pure Screaming Hell (5%), Iron Ring (4%) and Mash (4%). The remaining 38% of injuries were distributed over several other sites, or occurred at unknown locations.
• Review of the injury reports for all study rivers suggests that the definition of a "reportable injury" may be inconsistently interpreted, and clarification and reiteration of reporting requirements may be needed to ensure consistent reporting.
• Boaters generally rated conditions on the river as safe. However, there was less agreement about safety relative to the number of boats on the river and the danger of running rapids because of the number of other boats trying to get through.
• About 16% of surveyed boaters identified safety hazards in three categories: inherent whitewater hazards (e.g., big rocks, rapids, etc.); environmental safety hazards (e.g., scrap metal, litter and debris, etc.), and crowding/behavioral safety hazards (e.g., boats too close, boat-to-boat contact, etc.)
• In terms of river incidents, an average of 8.3 commercial swims and 2.2 raft incidents (flips, pins, or dumps) were observed at Lost Paddle per 1,000 customers, while 47.7 swims and 4.1 raft incidents were observed at Sweets Falls per 1,000 customers.
   

Boater Satisfaction

• Commercial boaters reported very high levels of satisfaction with their river trips. About 99% of Upper Gauley boaters and 95% of Lower Gauley boaters rated their trip as very good, excellent, or perfect.
• Factors positively correlated with customer satisfaction on the Upper Gauley were being pleased with the job being done by outfitters, guide professionalism/competence, favorable comparisons to previous rafting trips, rafting equipment quality and condition, safety instructions provided by outfitters, and favorable weather conditions.
• Factors negatively correlated with customer satisfaction on the Upper Gauley were crowding perceptions, queue times above rapids, percent of time in sight of other trips, trip pace, dangerous rapids because of the number of other boats, being uncomfortable with how close other boats came, perception of an unsafe number of boats on the river, previous rafting experience, and customers' ratings of trips as more social and/or high density.
• Factors positively correlated with customer satisfaction on the Lower Gauley were favorable comparisons to previous rafting trips, being pleased with the job being done by outfitters, and safety instructions provided by outfitters.
• Factors negatively correlated with customer satisfaction on the Lower Gauley were crowding perceptions, queue times above rapids, percent of time in sight of other trips, river use levels, dangerous rapids because of the number of other boats, and customer ratings of trips as more social and/or high density.
   

River Trip Experiences

• Overall, the river trips that customers received appeared to be relatively close to what they expected. However, they said they would have preferred more low density, natural river conditions than what they expected or received.
• On the Upper Gauley, about 23% of customers expected a remote wilderness trip, 31% expected a low density - natural river trip, 21% expected a scenic river trip, and 20% expected a social river trip. About 5% expected a developed or high density - developed river trip.
• About 19% of Upper Gauley customers received a remote wilderness trip, 25% received a low density - natural river trip, 19% received a scenic river trip, 28% received a social river trip, and 9% received a developed or high density - developed river trip.
• About 42% of Upper Gauley customers preferred a remote wilderness trip, 32% preferred a low density - natural river trip, 13% preferred a scenic river trip, and 9% preferred a social river trip. Less than 4% preferred a developed or high density - developed river trip.
• On the Lower Gauley, about 24% of customers expected a remote wilderness trip, 34% expected a low density - natural river trip, 24% expected a scenic river trip, and 16% expected a social river trip. No Lower Gauley customers expected a developed or high density - developed river trip.
• About 13% of Lower Gauley customers received a remote wilderness trip, 25% received a low density - natural river trip, 23% received a scenic river trip, 32% received a social river trip, and 6% received a developed or high density - developed river trip.
• About 47% of Lower Gauley customers preferred a remote wilderness trip, 34% preferred a low density - natural river trip, 14% preferred a scenic river trip, and 6% preferred a social river trip. No Lower Gauley customers preferred a developed or high density - developed river trip.
   

Perceptions of River Resource and Facility Problems

• Boaters reported few resource impact problems, but when asked to identify environmental impacts observed on the river, they reported litter and debris along the river and access points, trampled vegetation, soil erosion, graffiti, and campsites.
• Boaters rated the availability of bathroom facilities as the most serious river resource or facility problem, with 16% of Upper Gauley boaters and 8% of Lower Gauley boaters reporting this as a serious or very serious problem.
   

Management Actions

• Commercial boaters generally supported management actions to regulate the flow of river traffic or control the spacing among river trips. Specifically, boaters more strongly favored a scheduling system to increase spacing among river trips, and decreasing the number of rafts allowed on the river at one time.
• Boaters generally opposed actions to lower use levels or restrict river access. Customers opposed allowing more commercial users on the river, but at the same time opposed reducing the number of commercial users if it resulted in higher outfitter fees or denied them access to the river. However, boaters on the Lower Gauley indicated they were somewhat supportive of the prospect of being denied access to the river to reduce river use levels.
   

Key Findings from the New River

River Use

• Commercial use of the New River in 1995 was 160,142 customers, an increase of about 25% compared to 1994. About 87% of commercial use took place on the Lower New, with the remaining 13% on the Upper New.
• Most commercial activity on both sections of the river took place during July and August: 55% on the Lower New and 68% on the Upper New.
• Fifty-seven percent of commercial rafting in the Lower New occurred on Saturdays and Sundays. On the Upper New, only 35% occurred on weekends.
• In 1995, the maximum daily commercial use occurred on Saturday, July 29, with 3508 commercial customers. This was about 90% of the daily maximum allocation of 3,875 commercial users per day.
   

River Crowding and Congestion

• The overall average crowding score among commercial boaters on the Lower New River was 3.7 on a 9-point crowding scale, with average daily crowding scores ranging from 2.0 to 5.9.
• About 62% of commercial boaters reported being at least slightly crowded during their river trip, which corresponds to an overall high normal social carrying capacity judgement and indicates potential capacity problems if use continues to increase. On a daily basis, social carrying capacity judgements ranged from suppressed crowding to much more than capacity.
• The day of the week (weekend vs weekday) and river flow levels significantly affected river crowding. There was a 34% probability of being moderately crowded and a 25% probability of being extremely crowded while running the river on a weekend when river flows were 1.0 foot or less (Fayette Station gauge).
• Factors contributing to river crowding were, in decreasing magnitude of correlations, queue times above rapids, time spent within sight of other trips, river use levels, river flow levels, and queue times at the put-in.
• Customers reported average queue times of 5 to 15 minutes at the put-in and above any rapids. Most customers (>90%) indicated that queue times were acceptable.
• Customers reported that they spent an average of 51 to 75% of their time on the river within sight of other trips. However, about 43% of boaters reported that they spent more than 75% of their time on the river within sight of other trips. Overall, 20% said these conditions were unacceptable.
• Customers were more likely rate the amount of time spent in sight of other trip as unacceptable on weekends, especially at low flows. On weekends, there was a 44% probability of an unacceptable amount time in sight of others when flows were 1.0 foot or less, a 26% probability at flows from 1.1 to 3.5 feet, and a 14% probability at flows greater than 3.5 feet.
• About 16% of boaters reported that the number of other boaters they saw at the put-in was too many, 11% reported they saw too many other boaters at their lunch site, 27% reported they saw too many others while traveling on the river, and 14% reported they saw too many other boaters at the take-out.
   

User Conflicts

• About 10% of customers reported experiencing or observing conflicts among river users. Of the 50 reports of user conflicts, 35 were associated with crowding or congestion (e.g., too many kayakers, boat-to-boat contact, etc.), and 15 were related to the behavior of others (e.g., trips jumping line, water fights, spraying, etc.)
   

River Safety

• From 1990 through 1995, a total of 263 whitewater injuries were reported on the New River, which amounted to 49% of all reported whitewater injuries for all rivers. The annual rate of injuries ranged from 28 injuries in 1995 to 62 in 1993, however, injury reporting requirements changed in 1994 making annual comparisons of injury rates dubitable.
• The most frequently reported types of injuries on the New River were cuts or open wounds (29%), sprains (24%), contusions/bruises (19%), and fractures (12%), dislocation (6%), broken teeth (3%), breathing/water intake (2%). Two deaths were reported during the six-year period.
• Seventeen percent of all injuries reported on the New occurred at Surprise rapid, followed by the Railroad and the Keeney sets of rapids each with 11% of injuries, Double Z (10%), Bus Stop (7%), and Millers Folly (7%). The remaining 37% of injuries were distributed over several other sites, or occurred at unknown locations.
• Boaters generally rated conditions on the river as safe. However, there was less agreement about safety relative to the number of boats on the river and the danger of running rapids because of the number of other boats trying to get through.
• About 9% of surveyed boaters identified safety hazards in four categories: inherent whitewater hazards (e.g., big rocks, rapids, etc.); environmental safety hazards (e.g., scrap metal, glass, litter and debris, etc.); behavioral safety hazards (e.g., water fights, boater without helmets, etc.); and crowding safety hazards (e.g., boats too close, boat-to-boat contact, etc.)
• In terms of river incidents, an average of 8.52 commercial swims and 0.87 raft incidents (flips, pins, or dumps) were observed at Railroad rapid per 1,000 customers, while 10.45 swims and 2.82 raft incidents were observed at Double Z rapid per 1,000 customers.
• River incidents (swims and raft incidents) were highly dependent on river flow levels. Both increased slightly with flows less than 1.0 foot, and increased dramatically with flows greater than 3.75 feet.
   

Boater Satisfaction

• Commercial boaters reported very high levels of satisfaction with their river trips. About 94% rated their trip as very good, excellent, or perfect.
• Factors positively correlated with satisfaction were favorable comparisons to previous rafting trips, high river discharge levels, rafting equipment quality and condition, guide professionalism/competence, outfitter safety instructions, and favorable weather conditions.
• Factors negatively correlated with satisfaction were perceived crowding, queue times, percent of time in sight of other trips, number of other boaters on the river, daily temperatures, trip pace, dangerous rapids because of the number of other boats, being uncomfortable with how close other boats came, and previous rafting experience.
   

River Trip Experiences

• Overall, the river trips that customers received appeared to be relatively close to what they expected. However, they said they would have preferred more low density, natural river conditions than what they expected or received.
• About 21% of customers expected a remote wilderness trip, 34% expected a low density - natural river trip, 24% expected a scenic river trip, and 17% expected a social river trip. Less than 4% expected a developed or high density - developed river trip.
• About 16% of customers received a remote wilderness trip, 29% received a low density - natural river trip, 22% received a scenic river trip, 27% received a social river trip, and 7% received a developed or high density - developed river trip.
• About 37% of customers preferred a remote wilderness trip, 34% preferred a low density - natural river trip, 14% preferred a scenic river trip, and 11% preferred a social river trip. Less than 5% preferred a developed or high density - developed river trip.
   

Perceptions of River Resource and Facility Problems

• Boaters reported few resource impact problems, but when asked to identify environmental impacts observed on the river, they reported litter and debris along the river and access points, trampled vegetation, soil erosion, graffiti, bad odors, and sewage.
• Boaters rated the availability of bathroom facilities as the most serious river resource or facility problem, but only 7% reported this as a serious or very serious problem. Litter and polluted water were rated as the next most seriously problems.
   

Management Actions

• Commercial boaters generally supported management actions to regulate the flow of river traffic or control the spacing among river trips. Specifically, boaters more strongly favored a scheduling system to increase spacing among river trips, which was followed by decreasing the number of rafts allowed on the river at one time.
• Boaters generally opposed actions that restrict use levels or river access. Customers opposed allowing more commercial users on the river, but at the same time opposed reducing the number of commercial users if it resulted in higher outfitter fees or restricted access to the river.

Key Findings from the Cheat River

River Use

• Overall commercial use has declined about 40% since 1990 from about 20,000 customers annually to about 13,000 customers annually in 1994 and 1995.
• In 1994 and 1995, over 70% of commercial use of the Cheat River occurred in the Canyon section, with the remainder on the Narrows.
• In 1995, over 80% of commercial rafting in the Canyon occurred on Saturdays (50%) and Sundays (32%). On the Narrows, only 49% occurs on weekends.
• In 1995, the maximum daily commercial use occurred on Saturday, April 29, with 793 customers. This level of commercial use was only 42% of the daily maximum allocation of 1,856 user days.
   

River Crowding and Congestion

• Crowding among commercial users appears to be relatively low. Overall, average crowding scores were 3.1 on a 9-point scale, and 54% of commercial boaters reported feeling crowded during the river trip, most of whom felt only slightly crowded. In 1991, average crowding was 4.1 and 64% of boaters reported feeling crowded.
• The flow of commercial and noncommercial river traffic appears relatively consistent from low to high use days. Flow levels in the range observed during the sampling period (2.0 to 3.5 feet) appeared to have little effect on traffic flow.
• Commercial customers reported average queue times of 5 to 15 minutes at the put-in and above rapids, and an average of 26 to 50% of their time on the river within sight of other trips. About 90% of customers said these conditions were acceptable.
   

River Safety

• From 1990 through 1995, only 22 whitewater injuries were reported in the Cheat Canyon. The number of reported injuries has fallen each year from 9 in 1990 to 1 each in 1993, 1994, and 1995, however, injury reporting requirements changed in 1994 making annual comparisons of injury rates dubitable.
• The types of injuries, in decreasing order of frequency, were open wounds (4), contusions/bruises (3), unknown (3), sprains (3), broken teeth (2), fractures (2), breathing/water intake (2), and dislocation (1). Two deaths were reported.
• The majority (9) of injuries occurred at Coliseum, followed by 4 at Big Nasty, 3 each at High Falls and on shore, 1 at Decision, 1 at Teardrop, and 4 at unspecified locations.
• River incidents in the form of customer swims and raft incidents (flips/pins/dumps) appear to increase substantially with water flow levels. Occurrences of these incidents rose from 47 swims and 6 raft incidents per 1000 customers to 152 swims and 28 raft incidents per 1000 customers with a 1.5 feet rise in water flows.
   

Boater Satisfaction

• Commercial boaters reported very high levels of satisfaction with their river trip. 64% rated their trip perfect or excellent.
• The river trips that customers received appear to be relatively close to what they expected. However, they said they would have preferred much more low density, natural river conditions than what they expected or received.
   

Perceptions of River Resource and Facility Problems

• Commercial boaters rated water quality as the most prominent resource impact on the river, with 37% indicating water pollution was at least a moderate environmental problem. Twenty-five percent said water pollution was a serious or very serious problem.
   

Management Actions

• Commercial boaters generally supported management actions to regulate the flow of river traffic or control the spacing among river trips, and generally opposed actions that restricted use levels or river access.
   

Key Findings from the Shenandoah River

River Use

• Overall commercial use has increased annually since 1994, the first year that reliable commercial use data were available. In 1994, total commercial use was 15,911 users days, which increased to 18,194 in 1995 and 19,219 in 1996
• In 1996, about 59% of commercial rafting in the Shenandoah occurred on Saturdays (34%) and Sundays (25%)
• In 1996, about 80% of total use occurred in June (23%), July (30%), and August (27%)
• In 1996, the maximum daily commercial use occurred on Saturday, July 27^th, with 480 customers
   

River Crowding and Congestion

• Crowding among commercial users appears to be relatively low. Overall, average crowding scores were 2.6 on a 9-point scale, and 49% of commercial boaters reported feeling crowded during the river trip. This corresponded to a low-normal social carrying capacity judgement for the Shenandoah River, suggesting the river has not yet reached its capacity in terms boater crowding and congestion
• Commercial boaters reported that the presence of other rafts on the river contributed more to their perceptions of crowding than kayakers (rigid and inflatable duckys), tubers, or canoeists
• Commercial customers reported average queue times of approximately 5 minutes at the put-in and above rapids, and an average of approximately 25% of their time on the river within sight of other trips. Over 90% of customers said these conditions were acceptable
   

River Safety

• From 1990 through 1995, only eight whitewater injuries were reported on the Shenandoah River. No injuries were reported in 1990, 1991, and 1994; one was reported in 1992; three in 1993, and four in 1995. Five injuries were open wounds, one was a contusion/bruise, one was a sprain, and one was listed as unspecified pain.
• No injuries were reported in 1990, 1991, or 1994. Most injuries (4) were reported in 1995, with three in 1993 and one in 1992. The change in the injury reporting requirements in 1994 appears to have resulted in a reduction in the number of reported injuries on other study rivers, while on the Shenandoah the effect was unclear in that the highest annual injury rate was reported in 1995.
   

Boater Satisfaction

• Commercial boaters reported very high levels of satisfaction with their river trip. 58% rated their trip perfect or excellent.
• The river trips that customers received appear to be relatively close to what they expected. However, they said they would have preferred much more low density, natural river conditions than what they expected or received.
   

Perceptions of River Resource and Facility Problems

• Commercial boaters rated erosion, litter, and trampled vegetation as the most prominent resource impacts on the river, however, most rated these as only slight problems. The availability of bathroom facilities a slight problem
   

Key Findings from the Tygart River

River Use

• Overall commercial use has decreased annually since 1994, the first year that reliable commercial use data were available. In 1994, total commercial use was 435 users days, which decreased to 370 in 1995 and 233 in 1996
• Commercial rafting on the Arden section of the Tygart is primarily a spring activity and accounts for more than 80% of all commercial use. On the Valley Falls section, most use occurs in mid-summer
   

River Crowding and Congestion

• Crowding among commercial users appears to be relatively low. Overall, average crowding scores were 1.9 on a 9-point scale, and only 10% of commercial boaters reported feeling crowded during the river trip. This corresponded to a suppressed crowding social carrying capacity judgement for the Tygart River, indicating the river offers unique density paddling opportunities.
• Commercial customers reported less than 10% of their time on the river within sight of other trips. All customers said these conditions were acceptable
   

River Safety

• From 1990 through 1995, no whitewater injuries were reported on the Tygart River.
   

Boater Satisfaction

• Commercial boaters reported very high levels of satisfaction with their river trip. 40% rated their trip perfect or excellent and 60% rated their trip as very good.
   

---

A LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE (LAC) RIVER MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

Identifying and Defining Opportunity Classes

The Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) framework used for the commercial whitewater study consists of a series of interrelated steps leading to a set of measurable management objectives and "prescriptions" for achieving those objectives. In the process, the environmental and social conditions desired for the five study rivers were identified. LAC is a conceptual process -- not final policy. It provides a framework for the development of a sound river management policy process and a consistent management direction for the five whitewater study rivers.

Inherent in the LAC process is the identification and definition of opportunity classes that describe conceptually the physical and/or social conditions desired, or potentially available, on each river segment. Opportunity classes describe themes, concepts, and/or management directions within the context of primary resource management issues. Also inherent in LAC is the selection of key variables or indicators that are (1) relevant to resource management issues (2) measurable using valid and reliable methods; (3) sensitive to changes in conditions, and; (4) measurable within constraints of money, labor, and time. Indicator standards (i.e., acceptable maximum or minimum values for each indicator) quantitatively represent resource and/or social conditions characterized in the opportunity class descriptions. Key indicators selected for the definition of opportunity classes on the five study rivers include:

• Average customer crowding scores using a standard 9-point crowding scale (Shelby, et al. 1989)
• Average trip leader crowding scores using a standard 9-point crowding scale (Shelby, et al. 1989)
• Percentage of customers who experienced crowding
• Percentage of trip leaders who experienced crowding
• Percentage of time customers report spending within sight of other river trips
• Percentage of time trip leaders report spending within sight of other river trips
• Percentage of customers reporting that their trip expectations were not met as determined by the River Trip Performance Estimate (RTPE). RTPE is an indicator of river trip quality and was developed to measure the extent to which boater's river trip expectations were met. RTPE was expressed as a negative number -- trip expectations were not met or the trip was not as good as expected; zero -- trip expectations were exactly met; or a positive number -- trip expectations were exceeded.

Opportunity classes for the study rivers were developed on the basis of daily commercial use levels within peak-use seasons on each study river. Peak-use periods for study rivers were defined as follows:

• Cheat Canyon: April 15 through Memorial Day weekend
• New River: Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend
• Gauley River: Fall Release Season (Labor Day to Mid October)
• Shenandoah: Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend
• Tygart River: Not Applicable as Use is Infrequent
   

Each peak-use period was subdivided into four quartiles (25%) on the basis of daily river use. These subdivisions served as the starting point for identifying opportunity classes. For example, on each river the 1^st quartile represented days within the peak-use period with the lowest 25% of commercial river use, while the 4^th quartile represented days within the highest 25% of use. Indicator scores were examined and compared to identify differences between quartiles, and those with no apparent differences on indicator scores were combined to form new opportunity classes (Table 1). For example, no differences were found for the Lower New on indicator scores in the 2^nd and 3^rd quartiles. These quartiles were combined to form a new class, and resulted in only three opportunity classes on the Lower New: the lowest 25%, the middle 50%, and the highest 25% of use days. No differences were found between the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th river use quartiles on both the Upper and Lower Gauley. Consequently, two opportunity classes are proposed, representing the lowest 25% of use days and the highest 75% of use days. On the Cheat and Shenandoah Rivers, no differences appeared on indicator scores among the four river use quartiles. Opportunity class labels were derived on the basis of use level and the median boater response on the type of river trip the received. The resulting opportunity class labels included Low Use - Natural, Moderate Use - Natural, and High Use - Scenic.

Current conditions as represented in the Low Use - Natural and Moderate Use - Natural opportunity classes were deemed acceptable. Consequently, no management actions were developed other than continued monitoring to insure that these classes remain intact. Conversely, conditions represented in the High Use - Scenic opportunity class were of primary management concern. An overlapping management framework was developed to address boating conditions that exist on days in this class. In this framework critical indicator standards, management categories, and examples of corresponding management action alternatives were specified (Table 2).

Management categories identified in the framework include mandatory action, minor action, acceptable, and re-assess. Mandatory actions are intended to remedy the most severe river conditions in terms of the key indicators, and include such regulatory responses as reducing the maximum allocated river capacities or implementing a required trip launching schedule. These actions should be interpreted as strict regulatory responses to undesirable or problematic river conditions such as high levels of crowding or congestion and poor trip quality. Minor actions include such management responses as implementing outfitter and visitor education/information programs, voluntary trip launching schedule, or other "light handed" management responses. The acceptable management category requires no management response as it represents conditions desired for the opportunity class. Finally, when the re-assess management category is indicated, river conditions are well below the critical standards for the opportunity class. Such actions as relaxing the current over-booking policy may be appropriate, as well as potentially redefining the opportunity class.

Critical indicator standards in this framework serve as triggers for management response to river conditions. However, it is unlikely that all critical indicator standards will be violated or exceeded simultaneously. For example, the likelihood that all indicators indicate mandatory action (i.e., that average customer and trip leader crowding scores exceed 6.5, that 90% of them experience crowding, that they spend 100% of their time on the river, and that 35% of customers have unmet trip expectations) will occur simultaneously is probably low. To illustrate this point, the framework was applied to data collected from commercial customers on the Lower New, Upper and Lower Gauley, the Cheat Canyon, and Shenandoah Rivers (Table 3). Indicator scores for all applicable opportunity classes are reported, however, the management category designations are applicable only to the High Use - Scenic class. On the Lower New and Upper Gauley, two of the four indicators reported in Table 3 indicate acceptable conditions while two indicate that some minor actions are necessary. On the Lower Gauley, three of four suggest minor actions while one, the percent of customers with unmet trip expectations, indicate mandatory actions. On the Cheat Canyon and Shenandoah River, indicators suggest that acceptable conditions exist or the opportunity class perhaps should be redefined. Overall, these assessments appear to yield ambiguous results. However, it was believed that when a preponderance of critical indicators exceeded the specified standards, the need for management response would be evident and that the Whitewater Commission and DNR, as the primary regulatory authorities, would jointly develop and implement an appropriate river management response.