A Summary Report Submitted the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources as Part of:

 Design, management, and implementation of a Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) process for a three-year study on the Gauley, New, Cheat, Shenandoah, and Tygart Rivers of West Virginia

by:
Steven A. Whisman, Steven J. Hollenhorst, and Christopher Jones
Research Associate, Associate Professor, and Doctoral Candidate
Recreation, Parks, and Tourism Management Program
Division of Forestry
West Virginia University
Morgantown, WV 26506-6125

Whitewater Rafting Injuries in West Virginia 1990 - 1995:
A Descriptive Summary

By Kathy Zhu, Virgil Norton, and Andy Whisman

Key Findings and Recommendations

Over the six years for which data were analyzed for the five study rivers, 53% of all reported commercial whitewater injuries occurred in the raft; 34% occurred during a swim (falling out of the raft and floating a rapid); 8% occurred on shore at the put-in, take-out, lunch stop, or other stop along the river; and about 5% occurred at unspecified locations. A large proportion of injuries occurring in the raft involve contact among customers while running rapids or accidentally striking one another with a paddle. These incidents most often result in injuries to the face. Injuries that occur on shore most generally involve the legs, knees, or ankles, while injuries that occur during swims typically involve the face, leg, or knee. Overall, most whitewater injuries were open wounds (i.e., cuts or abrasions), followed by sprains, fractures, bruises, and dislocations. Five whitewater deaths were reported in the State during the six year reporting period. The proportions just described remained remarkably consistent from year to year, and from river to river.

Injury reporting requirements changed at the beginning of the 1994 season such that only those injuries requiring treatment by licensed medical providers, excluding diagnostic procedures, needed to be reported. This change may have affected the number of injuries reported for the 1994 and 1995 seasons compared to previous years. Consequently, caution is advised in making annual comparisons of injury rates. It is also suspected that the injury data is of questionable reliability. Such factors as incomplete information on submitted injury report forms, changes in the reporting from year to year, inconsistent interpretation of the phrase "reportable injuries," and the diligence of outfitters in reporting injuries may affect the accuracy of the data. Because of these questions, no concrete generalizations can or should be made about the commercial whitewater injuries rates.

Additional findings and recommendations are as follows:

• The data reflect reported injuries, and are accurate only to the extent that companies are conscientious about reporting injuries.
• The reporting forms vary from year to year, and sometimes vary within a given year. Some companies use the State form, while others use their own form. In some years there are duplicate reports on file, one on the State form and the other on a company form. Only careful cross checking can prevent double counting of injuries.
• Many of the forms are incomplete, and forms are often unclear regarding whether first aid was given. Also, its not always clear what constitutes first aid.
• The questions regarding hospitalization and release from hospital are probably not accurate (e.g., hospitalization when?). It appears that there may be differences regarding how different companies interpret hospitalization (i.e., is the emergency room considered hospitalization?).
• A substantial difference appears to exist in the amount of writing done by individuals reporting injuries. Oftentimes, the writing is difficult to read, and written comments are often inconsistent.
• The number of accidents reported in 1995 was only about half the number in previous years which probably reflects the change in reporting requirements and the definition of "reportable injuries" implemented in 1994. Consequently, caution should be used when comparing injury rates in 1995 with previous years.
• The reporting policy and form should be reconsidered. Unless all companies are required to accurately report accidents, a disincentive exists to report injuries (i.e., being honest makes an outfitter look bad if others are under reporting, or not reporting at all).
• Just having the data in the DNR files (especially if the data do not accurately reflect the actual injury rates and severity) is probably not useful. DNR and the Whitewater Commission must decide: (1) if the reporting of injuries is important; (2) what is the purpose of having the data on record; (3) the need for monitoring; (4) how monitoring should be carried out and by whom; and (5) how to enforce compliance and penalties for not reporting. Unless these questions are addressed, it is uncertain that the reporting of injuries should be continued.
• If reporting is continued, a new form should be designed. It should minimize written comments, ask for only the most important information, and should be designed completely as a "check-off" form. This would eliminate much of the inconsistency among companies that now exists in the information provided on the forms, and would make data entry and analysis much easier.
• An annual average of about 90 injuries were reported -- the range was from 119 in 1992 to 53 in 1995
• About half of the injuries happened in the boat -- about one-third in the water while swimming a rapid
• More than one in five injuries were to the face -- the knee and ankle were the body parts next most often injured
• In-the-boat injuries were most often to the face. The leg, knee, and face were the most often injured during a swim. The ankle, knee, and leg were the most often injured on shore.
• A single bar attached to the helmet and designed to go across the face may be a method of preventing many face injuries. Face injuries are the most common, and most face injuries are caused in the boat by a paddle or by another passenger's helmet.
• "Horsing around" is the cause of many accidents, some of which are quite serious and require evacuation. The outfitters or the Commission, or both, may wish to address this issue.

---

REFERENCES

Shelby, B. and Danley, M. S. (1980). Allocating river use. USDA Forest Service Technical Report R-6-Rec-059.

Shelby, B. B., J. J. Vaske, and T. A. Heberlein. (1989). Comparative analysis of crowding in multiple locations: Results of fifteen years of research. Leisure Sciences 11:269-291.

Shelby, B. B. and T. A. Heberlein. (1986). Carrying capacity in recreation settings. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press.

Shelby, B. B., Whittaker, D. and Danley, M. (1989). Idealism versus pragmatism in user evaluations of allocation systems. Leisure Sciences 11:61-70.

Utter, J., Gleason, W. and McCool, S. F. (1981). User perceptions of river allocation techniques. In D. W. Lime and D. R. Field (Eds.), Some recent products of river recreation research, (General Technical Report NC-63, pp. 27-32). USDA Forest Service, North central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, MN.