Starting with Ryan, Matt, and whatever combination of the 'cyber committee' (who presumably had a hand in building the current intervals and descriptions) and including also any and all other StreamTeam volunteers who have seen and started to take advantage of this new functionality -- I have a question about how you envision using the new capability to specify additional 'flow range' information.

The question is especially prompted by the current terminology on the descriptions StreamTeamers see ("Too Low, Not Fun", "Instant Death High Water", etc), but which are not seen by the general public (I.E., the users). (All they see is whatever "Comment" the STer typed in, which may or may not 'echo' the range description in the system, seen by the STer).

The present list follows, with my comments about how I would interpret them.

Extremely Low ('L8-')
Too low to expect any reasonable true 'whitewater' experience. While the flatwater areas may be paddleable, there will not be enough water (in any areas of gradient or in the 'drops') to consider them 'runnable'. It is hard to imagine that even the most desperate whitewater boater would want to do it, even as an 'ELF' (extreme low flow) run. That is, it is virtually impossible to imagine that anyone, beginner or ELF lover, would ever do it a second time at these flows (assuming someone has to have tried it once, just to see what it was like).

Too Low, Not Fun ('L9,L9')
I guess I would interpret this range to represent 'ELF' levels. That is, in this range, boaters should expect MOST of the rapids to be very 'grungy', but at least minimally boatable. While most boaters might say it is 'too low', they may also concede that you can get down most of the drops (you don't have to portage or 'knuckle-walk' or whatever).
However, I would take some issue with the terminolgy 'Not Fun'. While I doubt anyone would suggest such levels are 'ideal' or even 'desirable', there are any number of boaters who actually enjoy ELF runs. And, it can be a good way to see an amazing stretch of river which might scare the heck out of you at 'normal boatable' flows! So, this range would be levels that beginners or 'ELF' boaters (or boaters desperate to get on 'something') might be expected to do the run on some number of occasions, when need be.

Low Runnable (R0-R4), Medium Runnable (R4-R6), High Runnable (R6-R9)
--OR-- Low Runnable (R0-R5), High Runnable (R5-R9)
--OR-- Runnable (R0-R9)
These should be the 'standard', 'normal', 'usual' boatable flows -- the range(s) at which the greatest number of paddlers are likely to find the run worthwhile and 'manageable'. The bulk of the description (in the "Main Info" and "Rapids" tabs) should be based upon flows in this range (or these ranges).

These should seem reasonably obvious, save for the difference of how they are used, particularly in conjunction with or with respect to whether or how (each river/reach/StreamTeamer) makes use of the other ("too high", "too low") ranges. The concern is that (without some other agreement and instruction to the contrary, some volunteer may set the bottom end (of either the 'Runnable' or either of the 'Low Runnable' ranges) to represent 'ELF' runs, while others may interpret and set the low end of any of these ranges to represent the 'low-normal' or 'low-standard' flow, reserving 'L9' (as described above) as the ELF range.

Dangerously High (not fun) (H1,H2)
This ('dangerously high') seems an awkward terminology.

To MOST of the (non-whitewater) population, ALL the levels at which we have the most fun are 'dangerously high'. Heck, the state of Illinois actually officially CLOSES rivers it (the state DNR) considers too high! That is the time that EXPERIENCED whitewater boaters can actually find some waves and holes which are entertaining! (In a state with few rivers and few places otherwise to find whitewater entertainment.) But, the state bans being on the river, since inexperienced 'recreational paddlers' are likely to go out (ignorant of the power of these flows, and unaware of the possible dangers, and unable to read the river, unable to recognize the dangers, and too unskilled to be able to recognize eddies or be able to maneuver their craft into them) and end up either in need of a rescue or (unfortunately) body recovery.

Even among whitewater boaters, that which is 'dangerously high' (and, even more so, 'not fun') for one boater (a beginner or someone not experienced or comfortable with 'big water' runs) may be entirely reasonable and a whole lot of fun for someone else!

Instant Death High Water (H2+)

Even though it is only seen by STers, "Instant Death High Water" seems completely inappropriate. One may (somewhat reasonably) suggest that some (perhaps many) class IV and higher rapids may become 'unrunnable' or 'instant death' at high flows. I would submit that there are far more rivers/reaches (class II, III, and even IV) which have been regularly run at virtually any historic high flow, by well-experienced boaters (familiar with the run and comfortable with 'big water'), who not only lived to tell about it, but would gladly do it again at such epic flows. Thus, for these MANY rivers/reaches (class II, III, and even IV) on our database which NEVER really are 'Insant Death High Water' (or, for that matter, even "Dangerously High" may not apply), should these ranges not be used?

Or should they be used with the understanding that what we really mean is "Unusually high water" or "EPIC high water"? (In which case, it would seem the labels on these ranges should be changed accordingly.)

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Leader

Not sure what the design intent of this new feature was, but it seems overly complicated, and ambiguous with all the overlapping flow ranges. I was trying to set it up for a reach today and am not even sure it is working. Is there anyway to simply disable it for a reach, and to just enter minimum and max recommended ranges?

You can still enter just a 'min' and 'max' just as before. You just use the 'R0-R9' range, and do not use anything else, and all will work fine.

The seemingly 'overlapping' ranges are merely various options of how you can break down flows for a given river. Unfortunately, without 'grouping' the options it looks confusing. It is perhaps less obvious that you would use only certain combinations of them. No StreamTeamer HAS to do so, but this allows StreamTeamers to break out different flows, add different comments (which will appear as an 'information' bar), and apply different classification ratings at those different flows.

So, the idea is, you can decide how far down you want to break the river/flows into. You can just specify two numbers, getting three 'ranges' as before: Too low, runnable, too high. Or you can break flows down into as many as seven ranges: Way too low, low-but-doable extreme-low-flow (ELF) run, 'normal' Boatable low, Boatable medium, Boatable high, Unusually high, extraordinarily high.

That is, you can:
1) Use R0-R9 (and nothing else).
This is how you supply a single 'min' and 'max', just as had been the case in the past. In fact, all 'pre-existing' reaches with gauges, with min/max specified, were defaulted to precisely this. Unfortunately, rivers with a gauge, but with either no min or no max or missing both, had values 'defaulted' for them -- values which were largely ill-chosen -- negative number low end, way too large number high end.

2) Use L0-L9, R0-R9, H0-H9
To the above, for a bit more 'completeness', you could add the 'L0-L9' range (using 0 cfs as the bottom end, and your previously stated 'min' as the top end of this range), and also add the 'H0-H9' range (using your previously stated 'max' as the bottom end and whatever the 'all time high' for the river is, or some value above which the river 'never' gets (though preferably not too far above).
There is no 'need' to do this, but it allows the OPTION to do it, and to specify a comment and a different class/rating if you take advantage of this option.

Aside from the above, you have the OPTION to split out each 'main' range (low, runnable, high) into 'sub-ranges'.

3) R0-R5 and R5-R9 (with or without various 'low' or 'high' range options)
Use these non-overlapping options to break the 'runnable' range into 'low-runnable' and 'high-runnable'. You might want to do this if there is a WIDE range of runnability, and 'medium' or 'moderate' flows are symmetrically between your min and your max. For example, maybe some river is boatable whitewater down to 200 cfs, and can be reasonably boated (by experienced paddlers) up to 10,000 cfs. Specifying only the R0-R9 range (min/max, as before), flows (roughly) between 4,500 cfs - 5,500 cfs would be labeled "R5" ('moderate' runnable levels). However, instead, you could specify R0-R5 as being from 200 cfs up to 2000 cfs, and say the river is class II-III at those flows, then specify R5-R9 as being from 2000 cfs up to 10000 cfs, and say the river is class III+ (or whatever) at those flows.

4) Use R0-R4, R4-R6, and R6-R9 (with or without various 'low' or 'high' range options)
Use these non-overlapping options to break the 'runnable' range into 'low-runnable', 'medium-runnable' and 'high-runnable'. Just like above, but perhaps you want to say from 200-1000 it's class II, from 1000-3000 it's class II-III, and from 3000-10000 it's class III+.


It should be noted that you would NOT want to 'mix' the ranges. That is, use EITHER R0-R9, OR R0-R5 and R5-R9, OR R0-R4, R4-R6, and R6-R9. Ranges used should 'meet' (so that the top of each range is the bottom of the next range), but will not 'overlap'. You want to make sure NOT to do something like R0-R5, R4-R6, R5-R9.

The same principle applies for splitting the 'low' range: either leave it as L0-L9, or split out "L8-" (emphatically too low to boat) versus "L9" (ELF run). Similarly, either leave the 'high' range as H0-H9, or split it out into "H1, H2" (unusually high, but not insane) versus "H3-H9" (outrageously high, MAYBE nearly 'suicidal' flows).

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Leader

Rob,

Thanks for the very detailed explanation of the new features. I've set up one reach as R0 to R9 and it doesn't seem to be working. That is, when I navigate to the state summary page for Idaho, even though the gauge for this reach is above the min and below the max I have defined, it is not highlighted in green?

The reach I am working with is:
[www.americanwhitewater.org]

Any thoughts on what might be wrong?

Regards,

Todd

Todd,

The color and R-x level designation don't update until the gauge has updated. If you check back tomorrow, it'll probably look the way it should.

Matt
PS. I second Todd's thanks to Rob for an excellent explanation.

Matt,

On a side note, if you look at the Idaho State Summary page, there are almost no gauges updating anymor? And the old min max levels that were set up for reaches seem to have dissappeeared? The Lochsa for example:

[www.americanwhitewater.org]

Rob, hope I haven't hijacked your post here with my bug.

To your original point, my thoughts are that in most cases flow ratings are simply too subjective.

I only plan to provide minimum recommend level parameters, and I always define the minimum flow as ELF, or the minimum level you can scrape down the run. I prefer to comment on characteristics of various levels in the text of the reach description where a more meaningful interpretation can be made and explained. I may say something like, "...this reach is most commonly run and levels between XX and YY, with diffuculty increasing considerably above ZZ..."

In very few cases, I may share a more precise breakdown of flows (like when significant danger might be present at certain levels), and then only with the consent and feedback from a wide range of boaters who are very familiar with the run.

Here is an example of how I did it for Lolo Creek (unfortunately Lolo doesn't have an online gauge though), working collaboratively with local boaters. Even then, the main purpose of the exercise was really just to help understand how the old gauge related to the new gauge.

[www.facebook.com]

I think the new functionality is a little too complicated and will end up confusing people. It certainly had me confused. Maybe your comments above could be adapted into a user guideline to help understand both the functionality and how the various ratings should be applied. That being said, we can't even get people to agree what minimum levels are in most cases. Tellico is a good example. I can only imagine when we start to try to split out many levels of detail. It's kind of like the debates on difficulty ratings of rapids. I think we have probably just opened up a can of worms.

My advice to SK's would be don't provide any more information than is absolutely necessary, which in most cases is just a min.

Todd,
Completely as 'instructional' information and guidance in how I think this functionality can best be used, I would make the following comments.

To me, your cited example shows precisely why the newly defined functionality exists. You have defined only a single range, the R0-R9, and put a comment on it which says nothing about that range! Rather, it contains information which should be on the 'low' and 'high' ranges! I would expect better usage to show something like:

L0-L9: 0' to 2.5 ' (Comment) "The flat water section will be too low."
R0-R9: 2.5' to 4' (Comment) "Good boatable flows."
H0-H9: 4' to 10' (Comment) "Above 4 feet the eddies start to disappear and the river is out of it's banks."

OR, you could take further advantage of the 'sub-ranges', perhaps something like:
L0-L8: 0' to 2.0 ' (Comment) "Too low for any reasonable whitewater."
L9-L9: 2.0' to 2.5 ' (Comment) "The flat water section will be low, but remainder of run can be ok."
R0-R9: 2.5' to 4' (Comment) "Good boatable flows."
H0-H1: 4' to 5' (Comment) "High water run -- eddies start to disappear and the river is out of it's banks."
H3-H9: 5' to 10' (Comment) "Flood levels."

OR, split out the R0-R9 a bit further into R0-R5 and R5-R9 or R0-R4, R4-R6, and R6-R9.

Again, I understand the ranges may seem a bit confusing at first, but it seems this allows the AW website to reflect that which we all know: Rivers/Rapids CHANGE in difficulty at different flows. Virtually NO river/rapids IS some fixed difficulty at every possible water level. We have the list of 'Standard Rated Rapids, which (in most cases) states precisely what flow each rapids IS exemplary of each particular rating. This new functionality just allows us to bring the rest of our listings more in line with this recognition.

Rob Smage
AW member since 1992, volunteer since 2000, Midwest Regional StreamTeam Leader

To address one question that Rob asked in his first post: I don't think there's a problem with the wording "Too Low, Not Fun." I agree that some boaters enjoy ELF levels and find them "fun." Butt I believe that other than STers, the users of the website don't see that phrasing. They'll see the "R9" level rating, and they'll see any explanation the STer chose to write. No harm, no fowl.

Now, it's true that assessments of levels are very subjective. Butt as Todd points out, so are ratings of rapids. Anyone who doesn't understand that when perusing this website (or any guidebook, for that Matt er), doesn't understand jack about whitewater. I don't think we can help those people.

Interesting discussion, but something I have observed on numerous occasions is that the complexity of the site, and difficulty using it, drives away a lot of potential contributors. This functionality is certainly a new layer of complexity and is not terribly intutitive for the average user to figure out.