Community Survey Results for 

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife 

Refuge: Completion Report 

By Natalie R. Sexton, Susan C. Stewart, and Lynne Koontz 

Open-File Report 2008-1219 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey 
 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Mark D. Myers, Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2008 

For product and ordering information: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, 

its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment: 

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov 

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

Sexton, N.R., Stewart S.C., Koontz, Lynne, 2008, Community Survey Results for 

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge—Completion Report: U.S. 

Geological Survey Open-File Report 2008–1219, 91 p. 

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. 

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the 

individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted material contained within this 

report. 

ii
 

Contents 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge......................................................... 3

Study Objectives ................................................................................................................. 3

Methods .............................................................................................................................. 4

Population Sampled......................................................................................................... 4

Weighting the Data........................................................................................................... 4

Data Analysis and Measurement of Concepts ................................................................. 6

Results................................................................................................................................ 6

Response Rate ................................................................................................................ 7

Community Respondent Profile ....................................................................................... 7

Community Residents’ Recreation Experience along the Rappahannock River .............. 9

Community Communication, Civic Engagement, and Trust............................................. 9

Community Understanding of the Refuge ...................................................................... 17

Community Preferences for Future Services ................................................................. 22

Willingness to Pay Fees for Services............................................................................. 25

Community Preferences for Management of Refuge Lands .......................................... 27

Discussion of Key Findings............................................................................................... 33

Community Resident Profile........................................................................................... 33

Recreation Experience along the Rappahannock River................................................. 34

Communication about Natural Resources along the Rappahannock River.................... 34

Civic Engagement in Natural Resource Decisionmaking ............................................... 34

Familiarity with and Confidence in Natural Resource Organizations.............................. 34

Community Understanding of the Refuge ...................................................................... 35

Preferences for Future Services and Willingness to Pay Fees ...................................... 35

Preferences for Management of Refuge Lands ............................................................. 36

References........................................................................................................................ 36

Appendix A: Frequency Results for Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Community Survey............................................................................................................ 39

Appendix B: Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Community Survey ... 79

Figures 

1. Sampling area for Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge community 

survey .................................................................................................................................5

2. Percentage of Rappahannock River Valley Community respondents (or immediate 

family members) who depend on industries for their livelihood...........................................8

3. Percentage of community residents of Rappahannock River Valley who participate in 

specific recreation activities near their home ....................................................................10

4. Community participation in recreation activities along the Rappahannock River ..........11

5. Degree to which community residents of Rappahannock River Valley rely on sources 

for news and information about natural resources along the Rappahannock River ..........13

iii
 

6. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ mean reliance on sources of information about 

natural resources along the Rappahannock River ............................................................14

7. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ engagement in natural resource decisionmaking

..........................................................................................................................................15

8. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ familiarity and confidence of key organizations 

and agencies who address natural resource issues along the Rappahannock River .......16

9. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ actual knowledge of Rappahannock National 

Wildlife Refuge purpose and National Refuge System mission ........................................19

10. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ actual knowledge of land acquisition and land 

ownership..........................................................................................................................20

11. Rappahannock River Valley respondents’ knowledge of permitted activities on the 

Rappahannock National Wildlife Refuge...........................................................................21

12. Comparing hunters’ understanding of activities that are allowed or not allowed on 

Rappahannock National Wildlife Refuge to that of nonhunters.........................................22

13. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ mean desirability to see services offered by 

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge.......................................................23

14. Community desirability for recreation services along the Rappahannock River. 

Numbers are number of people who desire each service within each area along the river

..........................................................................................................................................24

15. Hunters’ mean desirability to see hunting activities offered by Rappahannock River 

Valley National Wildlife Refuge .........................................................................................25

16. Level of agreement with willingness to pay for future services, where responses are 

collapsed into “agree,” disagree,” and “unsure” ................................................................26

17. Potential for conflict index for hypothetical future scenarios........................................30

18. Rappahannock River Valley community members’ acceptability of hypothetical future 

scenarios...........................................................................................................................30

Tables 

1. Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge community survey distribution and 

response rate. .....................................................................................................................7

2. Respondents’ county of residence. .................................................................................7

3. Demographics of respondents to community survey.......................................................8

4. Number of respondents who depend (or immediate family members depend) on 

industries for livelihood........................................................................................................9

5. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ knowledge regarding Rappahannock National 

Wildlife Refuge, National Wildlife Refuge System mission, and land acquisition. .............18

6. Correlation between Rappahannock River Valley residents’ willingness to pay a fee for 

services offered at Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge and desirability of 

future consumptive and nonconsumptive use services.....................................................26

7. Correlation between Rappahannock River Valley residents’ desire for specific future 

recreation services at Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge and overall 

willingness to pay a fee for services (fee scale). ...............................................................27

8. Factors and associated options comprising hypothetical future scenarios for land 

acquisition and management. ...........................................................................................28

iv
 

9. Hypothetical future scenarios presented in Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife 

Refuge Community Survey. ..............................................................................................29

10. Correlations and regression model with overall scenario acceptability. ......................31

11. Regression model with overall scenario acceptability. ................................................32

12. Regression models explaining variance in scenario acceptability...............................33

v
 

Acknowledgments 

This study was commissioned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast Regional 

Office. The study design and survey were developed collaboratively with staff from Rappahannock 

River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, the Northeast Regional Office, and U.S. Geological Survey 

researchers of the Fort Collins Science Center/Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch. We 

would like to thank refuge and Regional Office Staff for their contributions to this study. We would 

also like to thank Jerry Vaske, Colorado State University, for his consultation on statistical 

analyses. 

vi
 

Community Survey Results for 

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife 

Refuge: Completion Report 

By Natalie R. Sexton, Susan C. Stewart, and Lynne Koontz 

I believe that preserving land is of the utmost importance. The Northern Neck and its rivers are 

a jewel and it is still not too late to protect them from overdevelopment. 

Survey Respondent 

Introduction 

The National Wildlife Refuge System, established in 1903 and managed by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), is the largest system of lands in the world dedicated to the 

conservation of wildlife. There are over 547 refuges nationwide, encompassing 96.5 million acres. 

The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to “administer a national network of lands 

and waters for the conservation, management and, where appropriate, restoration of the fish, 

wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present 

and future generations of Americans.” Part of achieving this mission is the goal of fostering “...an 

understanding and instill appreciation of fish, wildlife, and plants, and their conservation, by 

providing the public with safe, high-quality, and compatible wildlife-dependent public use.” About 

98% of the system is open to the public, attracting nearly 40 million visitors annually. More than 25 

million people each year visit refuges to observe and photograph wildlife, 8 million to hunt and fish 

and more than half a million to participate in educational and interpretation programs (Uniak, 

2002). 

The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–57, USC668dd) 

is the guiding legislation for the management of these lands. The law identifies hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation as uses that 

should be given priority and provides a process for ensuring that these and other activities do not 

conflict with the management purpose and goals of the refuge. The act also requires the FWS to 

develop a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for every refuge by the year 2012. A refuge 

CCP outlines goals, objectives, and management strategies for the refuge for the next 15 years. It 

provides a vision and describes desired future conditions for the refuge. These goals and objectives 

have focused largely on habitat and wildlife management. Increasingly, however, refuges are 

including visitor services goals and objectives in their CCPs to ensure that visitor appreciation and 

support for fish and wildlife conservation is a part of the refuge’s long-term plan. 

Regardless of specific CCP goals and objectives, the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; Public Law 91–190:852–859.42, U.S.C. and as amended (P.L. 94–52 and P.L. 94–83) 42 

U.S.C. 4321–4347) mandates that the CCP for each refuge must contain an analysis of social and 

economic conditions (the affected environment) and evaluate social and economic impacts from 

likely management scenarios. In addition, public review and comment on alternatives for future 

1 
management are required. There are many reasons to obtain public input besides legal mandates, 

however. Public input provides baseline data on public/visitor use, experience, preferences, and 

expectations. It also can provide managers with a better understanding of public acceptability and 

concerns of alternatives/future changes that may be proposed in the CCP. This public participation 

process also facilitates the engagement of a variety of stakeholders in the refuge planning process. 

There is some evidence that planning processes that include a broad array of stakeholders 

produce more comprehensive plans that are more likely to be implemented and accepted by the 

public (Burby, 2003). The challenge is structuring public involvement in ways that are meaningful 

and productive for agencies and the broad array of stakeholders. 

Studies of public involvement processes in environmental decisionmaking have shown that 

participants evaluate these processes in terms of both process and outcome. Thus, stakeholders seek 

qualities such as accessibility and the quality of deliberation (process components) and the extent to 

which their participation is satisfying (outcome) (Halvorsen, 2003). An accessible process is one 

that provides a comfortable and convenient setting and is respectful of participants’ time. 

Deliberative processes include open discussion and a forum for respectful exchange of opinions; a 

deliberative process provides opportunities for learning. Finally, a satisfying process demonstrates 

that decision makers take public input seriously, and the results of citizen input are reflected in the 

final decision. It also demonstrates that there is transparency in the decisionmaking process. Other 

process-focused measures of success in public involvement include the presence of learning 

opportunities, the development of relationships among group members, and a sense of efficacy 

(McCool and Guthrie, 2001). 

Carr and Halvorsen (2001) drew on criteria proposed by Poisner (1996) to evaluate the 

effectiveness of public participation in environmental decisionmaking. One interesting finding of 

their research was that local participants in land-use decisions were not representative of the 

community. Women, young people, and those with lower income and education levels participated 

at a lower rate than their distribution in the community. The lesson is that public managers and 

planners must make special efforts to promote participation by a broad range of stakeholders, 

including those with traditionally lower rates of participation. 

In the CCP process, the public meeting is the forum primarily used to collect citizen input 

from community members, visitors, and potential visitors. This format can be inadequate for many 

reasons. Attendance at public meetings is often inconvenient or impossible for occasional visitors 

to refuges who frequently live long distances from the relevant FWS offices. In addition, those 

community members who most often attend meetings of this type may represent a vocal minority 

group that is usually not representative of the full range of community interests regarding the 

refuge. Also, the type of scientific baseline data that can be collected through this forum is limited. 

An Issues Workbook is another tool used by FWS for eliciting public response and participation 

early in the planning process. While the workbook can potentially elicit a broader distribution of 

input than the public meeting, responses many times represent a nonprobability or convenience 

sample (for example, the workbook is sent to available mailing lists) which is not selected from the 

entire population. This type of approach does not yield results that are representative of the entire 

population, however, due to the sampling approach. 

Another tool that can be used to collect baseline information and input is a visitor, 

community, or stakeholder survey. Conducting a survey is one way that the CCP planning team can 

reach out to the public and collect baseline data in support of their CCP in a way that can be 

generalized to an entire population. It is an effective supplement to a public meeting and (or) Issues 

Workbook when detailed, methodical information on visitor, community resident, or stakeholder 

populations is needed. Survey research applied to refuge planning can help managers characterize 

current visitor services and experiences. It can also help managers understand how current and 

2 
proposed management activities affect individuals in terms of their preference for services and 

experiences and identify potential changes in visitation patterns. Finally, high-quality public 

involvement processes may increase trust in government (Burby, 2003) and provide satisfaction in 

terms of both process and outcome for management and the public. 

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge (Rappahannock NWR or refuge) is 

located in east-central Virginia along the banks of the Rappahannock River. It is the newest of four 

refuges that comprise the Eastern Virginia Rivers National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The area 

between the Rappahannock and Potomac Rivers form the region known as the Northern Neck of 

Virginia. The Northern Neck region contains the counties of King George, Westmoreland, 

Lancaster, and Richmond, all which border the Rappahannock River Valley Refuge on the north 

and east. Caroline, Essex, and Middlesex Counties border the refuge to the south and west and are 

located in the region known as Virginia’s Middle Peninsula, bound by the Rappahannock and York 

Rivers. The refuge is within a few hours’ drive from the urban areas of Washington, D.C., 

Baltimore, Maryland, and Richmond and Norfolk, Virginia. 

Established in 1996, the goal of Rappahannock River Valley NWR is to protect important 

wetland and upland habitat along the river and its major tributaries. As of May 2005, a total of 

7,711 acres have been purchased from willing sellers or donated by refuge partners, including 

1,033 acres of conservation easements. The refuge offers wildlife observation, photography, 

fishing, environmental education, interpretation, and hunting opportunities. The Wilna Unit of the 

refuge hosts the first public use site—the Wilna Pond Outdoor Classroom—and wildlife 

observation, fishing, and canoe opportunities. 

Study Objectives 

This report provides a summary of results for the survey of residents of communities 

adjacent to Rappahannock River Valley NWR conducted from the spring through the summer in 

2006. This research was commissioned by the Northeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service in support of the Rappahannock River Valley NWR CCP and conducted by the Policy 

Analysis and Science Assistance Branch (PASA) of the U.S. Geological Survey/Fort Collins 

Science Center. 

The purpose of this study was to: 

• determine community preferences for wildlife-dependent recreation activities and services 

that could potentially be provided by the refuge in the future; 

• determine community knowledge and understanding of Rappahannock NWR’s purpose, the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and land-acquisition issues; 

• gain a broader understanding of community recreation use of the Rappahannock River; 

• provide insight into community communication and interaction regarding river issues; and 

• determine community preferences for land management on the refuge. 

Through meetings with planning, visitor services, and refuge staff, PASA developed a 

survey to collect data from the residents of communities adjacent to the refuge. 

3 
Methods 

In order to develop a survey that reflected the policy-relevant public use management issues 

to be addressed in the CCP planning process, we met with refuge staff in May of 2005. Detailed 

discussions were held with FWS refuge and regional office planning personnel. The purpose of the 

site visit was to better understand the refuge and the planning process so that we could design a 

survey that was best suited to obtain the information necessary to inform the CCP process. A 

second purpose of the site visit was to identify the population to be sampled. 

Based on these discussions, we developed preliminary surveys. The surveys were reviewed 

by FWS personnel, and their comments and suggestions were incorporated. The surveys were then 

peer reviewed and pretested for readability, clarity, and conciseness before being sent through the 

Office of Management and Budget for information collection approval (OMB #1028–0083). 

Population Sampled 

The community sampling area was identified by refuge staff, based on their knowledge of 

the area. The sampling polygon included census tracts in King George, Essex, Westmoreland, 

Richmond, Northumberland, Caroline, Lancaster, and Middlesex Counties (fig. 1). A random 

sample of residents within the sampling polygon was purchased from Marketing Systems Group, a 

national marketing research firm, and consisted of individuals from a listed household database 

(households listed in the white pages). 

The surveys were mailed to community residents in the spring of 2006 following a step-bystep procedure based on the Total Design Method (Dillman, 2000) which maximizes the quality 

and quantity of responses for mail and telephone surveys: 

• Survey packets included a cover letter explaining the study, the survey, a postage-paid 

return envelope, and an incentive (Rappahannock River Valley NWR refrigerator magnet). 

• One survey packet was sent to each resident in the sample. Over the course of the following 

7 weeks, one thank you/reminder postcard and two more survey packages were sent to those 

who had not responded. 

• Finally, a telephone follow up call with a subset of questions from the survey was made to 

all nonrespondents to address potential nonresponse biases (for example, potential 

differences between those who responded and those who did not). 

Weighting the Data 

We took steps to address potential for both nonresponse bias and sampling bias in our data 

sample. To address potential nonresponse biases, we telephoned all nonrespondents for whom we 

had telephone numbers (n = 277) and asked five key questions from the survey: whether or not they 

were aware of the refuge, how much they felt they knew about the refuge, number of years they had 

lived in the area, year they were born, and education level. A total of 56 nonrespondents answered 

these questions, 49 were deemed ineligible (no longer living at that address, deceased, and so 

forth), 37 refused, 5 sent in the survey, and 130 were not able to be reached, for a nonrespondent 

response rate of 27%. Meaningful statistical differences1 were found between respondents and 

nonrespondents on the following questions: aware of the refuge, number of years living in the area, 

 

1

Meaningful differences or relationships are defined as follows for this report: While statistical differences at p< .05 

may exist, in some cases the differences are not practically significant. Practical significance is defined by measures of 

association that indicate “typical” to “substantial” statistical differences in populations as opposed to “minimal” 

differences due to sample size. These minimal differences, while statistically significance, have no substantive 

differences in regard to application to population descriptions and thus are not reported. 

4 
and education. Nonrespondents were less likely to be aware of the refuge, had lived in the area a 

longer amount of time, and had completed fewer years of education. There was no difference 

between respondents and nonrespondents on age and sex or how much they felt they knew about 

the refuge. To address potential sampling bias, we compared age and sex distribution of our sample 

with U.S. Census data. The survey sample in general was older and had a greater representation of 

males. Data were then weighted accordingly to correct for these nonresponse and sampling biases 

that were found. 

Figure 1. Sampling area for Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

community survey. 

5 
Data Analysis and Measurement of Concepts 

Data were analyzed using SPSS 14.0. The first phase of data analysis involved running 

frequencies on all questions to gain a basic understanding of the percentages of people who 

answered in certain ways and the mean levels on key variables. Upon completion of the frequency 

analyses, the following scales were constructed and additional analyses run. 

Consumptive/Nonconsumptive Use Differences 

We did not ask detailed questions of respondents regarding visits to the refuge because the 

population sample for this survey was community residents, and because of the current limited 

visitor services offered on Rappahannock NWR. As a result, we did not have a way to characterize 

a resident as a typically consumptive or nonconsumptive use recreationist. However, we wanted to 

explore, to the extent possible, information about potential visitors in this way. In order to do this 

we did the following: Respondents were categorized as either hunters or nonhunters, based on their 

response to the activities they said they participate in along the Rappahannock River (Section 1, 

Question 1 of the survey). If a respondent said they participate in any one of the hunting activities 

listed, they were categorized as a hunter; otherwise they were categorized as a nonhunter. 

Second, we made two scales from Question 2 of Section 1 on the desirability of future 

services: desirability of consumptive use services and desirability of nonconsumptive use services. 

These two scales were developed as follows: A factor analysis on all the services listed identified 

two factors. Reliability analyses on these two factors indicated strong reliabilities, with 

consumptive activities having a Cronbach’s alpha of .93, and nonconsumptive activities having a 

Cronbach’s alpha of .95. Each scale was then created by averaging the desirability scores of the 

services in each scale. These two scales (desirability of consumptive use services and desirability of 

nonconsumptive use services) do not group respondents as consumptive or nonconsumptive users, 

but rather they are a relative measure of desirability of these types of services. 

Willingness to Pay Fees for Services 

We made a scale from Question 3 of Section 1 regarding willingness to pay fees for 

services. The three statements related to fee-paying were tested for reliability and found to have 

internal consistency that warranted the creation of a scale (Cronbach’s alpha2 = .82). The average 

of these three statements was taken to create the scale. 

 

Results 

Appendix A includes the summary data for all of the questions in the surveys, in the order 

that they appear in the survey. Appendix B of this report includes the survey. The body of the 

report focuses on the meaning of more in-depth analyses of the survey data and comparisons of the 

different samples. For this reason, frequency information in Appendix A is, for the most part, not 

repeated in this portion of the report. It will be useful to reference these appendices in conjunction 

with the report. Throughout this report, statistical differences and relationships are reported for 

meaningful differences or relationships. 

2

Cronbach’s alpha is a test of the internal consistency of a set of variables. This test is run prior to creating a scale from 

a set of variables in order to ensure that they correspond sufficiently to make a reliable scale (Nunnally and Bernstein, 

1994). 

6 
Response Rate 

Table 1 outlines the survey distribution and response rate for community residents. The 

overall response rate for community residents was what was expected, given the hypothesis that 

most residents are not aware of Rappahannock NWR. Though the response rate was less than the 

generally accepted 50% (Dillman, 2000), the sample size produced an acceptable margin of error 

(±5%) and the data were weighted for nonresponse and sampling biases (as described previously). 

Respondents were from all counties in which the refuge acquisition boundary lies, with the highest 

percentages coming from King George, Westmoreland, and Lancaster Counties (table 2). 

Table 1. Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge community survey distribution and 

response rate. 

Statistic Total 

Number of surveys distributed 1,200 

Undeliverable addresses 134 

Number of returned surveys 368 

Response rate 35% 

Confidence intervals 5 

Table 2. Respondents’ county of residence.

County Respondents(%) 

King George 26 

Westmoreland 23 

Lancaster 17 

Richmond 9 

Caroline 7 

Essex 7 

Northumberland 6 

Middlesex 5 

n = 367 

Community Respondent Profile 

Profile information for the community residents of the Rappahannock River Valley are 

based on questions from Section 5 of the survey (table 3). 

The average age of respondents was 53, with most having completed high school and one 

year of college or technical school. This is commensurate with the average education level in the 

State’s population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2006). The average range of income for the study area was 

between $35,000 and $49,999, which is below the average income level for the State (U.S. Census 

Bureau, 2006). 

Respondents have lived in the Northern Neck or Middle Peninsula, on average, between 31 

and 32 years. Around half of respondents indicated their families have lived in the area at least two 

generations. On average, they have lived in the area for 21⁄2 generations, with 10% living in the area 

5 or more generations. In many cases, length of residency can have an effect on important variables 

such as knowledge and management preferences (Sexton and others, 2005). 

Only a small percentage of respondents or their immediate family members make a 

livelihood from industries that may have ties to refuge activity (fig. 2). Twenty-four percent of 

7 
respondents indicated that either they or their immediate family members depended on a natural 

resource-related industry such as farming, timber, fishing, shellfishing, or tourism and recreation 

for their livelihood (table 4). Many people indicated that they or an immediate family member 

depend on more than one of the industries listed. The data are broken down into the most common 

combinations or individual industries. Timber, farming, or a combination of the two comprised the 

largest number of individuals. 

Table 3. Demographics of respondents to community survey. 

Demographics Community 

Years lived in Northern Neck or Middle Peninsula 31.7 years 

Generations lived in Northern Neck or Middle Peninsula 2.6 

Gender 48% male/52% female 

Average age 53 

Average education level One year of college or technical school 

Average household income $50,000-74,999 

Race1

White 93% 

Black or African American 7% 

American Indian 1% 

Asian <1% 

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander <1% 

Ethnicity not Hispanic or Latino 100% 

1

 Respondents could check more than one race; race percentages are number of responses, not number of respondents. 

13% 10% 7% 7%

3%

77%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

Farming

Timber

Fishing

Shellfishing

Tourism/Recreation

None

Figure 2. Percentage of Rappahannock River Valley Community respondents (or 

immediate family members) who depend on industries for their livelihood. 

8 
Table 4. Number of respondents who depend (or immediate family members depend) on 

industries for livelihood. 

Industry n Industry n 

Timber 30 Farming only 15 

Farming 41 Farming and timber 13 

Fishing 21 Timber only 10 

Shellfish/crabbing 21 Fishing only 5 

Tourism/recreation 10 Tourism/recreation only 5 

Ranching 1 Fishing and crabbing 5 

None of these 240 Crabbing only 5 

Community Residents’ Recreation Experience along the Rappahannock River 

We asked community residents if they participated in specific recreation activities near their 

home. We then asked them to identify specifically where along the Rappahannock River they 

participated in those activities. For this task, respondents were given a map of the river, divided 

into four areas, consistent with resource concentration areas identified by refuge staff. 

Overall, the most frequently reported activities, and those that around half of respondents 

participate in, were self-guided nature/wildlife viewing, bird watching, boat fishing, and bank 

fishing (fig. 3). 

In terms of where residents participate in these activities, nonconsumptive use activities 

appear to be most common (fig. 4). In resource area A, the most frequented activities are 

nature/wildlife photography (60% of respondents who participate in this activity said they 

participate here), self-guided nature/wildlife viewing (54%), bank fishing (54%), bird watching 

(50%), and boat fishing (49%). 

In resource area B, as in area A, the most frequented activities include self-guided 

nature/wildlife viewing (50% of those who participate in the activity said they participate here), 

bird watching (42%), and boat fishing (42%). Additionally, either they or their children attend 

environmental field trips (58%) in this area and they hike (43%). 

In resource area C, as in area A and B, the most frequented activities include boat fishing 

(54%), self-guided nature/wildlife viewing (31%), and bird watching (30%). Additionally, they 

bank fish (34%) and photograph nature or wildlife (31%). 

In resource area D, as in area A, B, and C, the most frequented activities include boat 

fishing (52%) and self-guided nature/wildlife viewing (26%). Additionally, they participate in 

crabbing (40%), photograph nature or wildlife (24%), and bank fish (23%). 

While the majority of the possible activities across locations have overall participation of 

around 50%, environmental field trips, crabbing, and photography each have less than 50% 

participation (22%, 28%, and 38%, respectively). Other locations near the Rappahannock River 

where residents participate in these activities can be found in Table 3 in Appendix A. 

Community Communication, Civic Engagement, and Trust 

In communicating with the public, it is important to understand how individuals participate 

in natural resource decisionmaking and ways in which they commonly obtain information on these 

topics. It is also important to understand their familiarity and confidence in the managing 

9 
60%

50% 50%

50% 47% 47%

43%

40% 38%

30% 28%

23% 22% 21%

20% 18%

15% 14%

12%

10%

3%

0%

g

g

g

g

s

)

g

s

g

g

)

g

n

n

il

e

n

s)

n

n

s

n

in

i

i

in

a

i

g

ip

i

i

g

ms

ing

i

w

h

h

r

lif

b

r

k

o

t

p

s

 t

b

 t

a

ra

p

e

atc

ish

re

ild

a

 do

ld

unt

/d

a

vi

t fi

w

r

o

og

r

a

k f

u

/

/

e

ay

 h

l hun

e

o

 w

n

at

e

*C

w

l fi

K

y

 (w

pr

*T

lif

d

a

e

g

*B

r

B*

/N

tur

g (

ta

ng/

k

in

re

fow

ild

Bi

g

a

n

n

i

ur

t

r

n

e

ei

tu

e

*T

a

/W

in

 (

nt

m

no

at

e

ik

n

 hun

 n

r

hu

r

d

W

u

H

phy

ro

Ca

n

*

a

r

i

ee

at

r

e

v

e

D

tte

d n

tog

En

*

A

*D

de

hoP

guif-elS

Figure 3. Percentage of community residents of Rappahannock River Valley who 

participate in specific recreation activities near their home. (Activities with asterisks are 

considered consumptive use activities and those with no asterisk are considered 

nonconsumptive use activities.) 

organizations. In an effort to better understand these issues, we asked respondents about their 

engagement in natural resource issues, how much they rely on specific sources for news and 

information about natural resources along the Rappahannock River, and their familiarity and 

confidence with organizations that address natural resource issues along the river, including 

Rappahannock NWR. 

Communication 

Respondents were asked how much they rely on specific sources that fell into two 

categories of news and information about river resources: those sources that involve one-way 

communication (where information is transferred in one preassigned direction) and those that 

involve two-way communication (where there is an exchange of information which includes 

conveying and receiving of ideas). 

10 
Figure 4. Community participation in recreation activities along the Rappahannock River. 

Numbers are number of people who participate within each area along the river. Only the 

top five activities are listed. 

11 
While the majority of Rappahannock River Valley residents do rely on many common 

forms of one-way communication (for example, newspapers, magazines, printed information from 

government, TV, radio; fig. 5), mean scores suggest they to do not rely on these sources 

individually a great deal (fig. 6). The exception to this is newspapers, which residents rely on some, 

particularly the Freelance Star (27% of those who use newspapers indicated they read this paper) 

and the Rappahannock Record (26%). 

Interestingly, residents’ reliance on two-way communication is even less than one-way 

sources, with interactions with relatives, friends, or neighbors being the only noteworthy source 

(51% of residents rely on this source, mean = 2.4; fig. 6). 

When comparing hunters with nonhunters, hunters tend to rely more heavily on printed 

materials from government entities (F = 16.45, p<.001, η = .222)3and natural resource 

professionals (F = 22.78, p<.001, η = .256). Because hunters interact with game wardens and othe

staff of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, this should come as no surprise. 

Similarly, those finding consumptive use services more desirable tend to rely more heavily on 

two sources (r

r 

these 

4), 

 

4 = .24 and .26, respectively). Conversely, those residents finding nonconsumptive 

use services more desirable tend to rely more on printed materials from private entities (r = .2

displays and exhibits (r = .21), and interaction with refuge staff (r = .20).

3

The F-statistic is used in analysis of variance statistics with interval-level data to test for significant differences in 

means (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994).. Eta (η) is a measure of effect size, or the strength of the association between 

variables. It tells how much of the dependent variable can be explained by the independent variable (Snyder and 

Lawson, 1993). 

4

The “r” value is Pearson’s correlation, representing the degree to which two variables are related (Nunnally and 

Bernstein, 1994). 

12 
6%

8%

13%

18%

18%

19%

26%

36%

37%

40%

45%

46%

47%

51%

56%

73%

94%

92%

87%

82%

81%

81%

74%

64%

63%

61%

55%

54%

54%

49%

44%

27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Organizations such as the Rotary Club

Interaction with refuge staff

Presentations

Interaction with Soil and Water Conservation Districts or

County Extension Agent

Public hearings or meetings

Interactions with natural resource professionals

Internet/W ebsites/Electronic Newsletters

Information from private organizations or communtiy

groups

Displays or exhibits

Radio

TV

Printed information from government entities

Relatives, friends, or neighbors

Magazine articles

Newspapers

Rely on source Do not rely on source

Figure 5. Degree to which community residents of Rappahannock River Valley rely on 

sources for news and information about natural resources along the Rappahannock River. 

(Responses were collapsed from original 4-point scale, where 1 = source not used at all 

and 2 = not much represent were coded as “Do not rely on source,” and 3 = some and 4 

= a great deal represent were coded as “Rely on source.”) 

13 
123 Organizational meetings

Interactions with Refuge staff

Public hearings/meetings

Interactions with county agents

Presentations/Lectures

Interaction with NR professionals

Web/Internet

Printed info from private groups

Displays/Exhibits

Radio

Printed info from government

TV

Relatives/Friends

Magazines

Newspapers

4

A great 

deal 

Not at all Not much Some 

Figure 6. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ mean reliance on sources of information 

about natural resources along the Rappahannock River.

14 
15 

Civic Engagement in Natural Resource Decisionmaking 

Community residents have had limited involvement in natural resource issues over the past 

5 years (fig. 7), with only 50% of residents engaging in at least one of the activities listed. Of those, 

the mean number of activities was 1.5. There appear to be no differences in level of civic 

engagement between hunters and nonhunters, nor are there relationships between desirability of 

either consumptive or nonconsumptive use services and civic engagement. 

51%

32%

26%

20%

16%

13%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

None listed

Signed a petition

Attended a public meeting

Joined a special interest group

Contacted State or Federal agency

Contacted U.S. Senator or State Legislator

Wrote a letter to newspaper editor

Figure 7. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ engagement in natural resource 

decisionmaking.

Familiarity with and Confidence in Natural Resource Organizations 

Community residents have low familiarity with all key organizations involved in natural 

resource issues along the Rappahannock River (fig. 8). Interestingly, the organization they are the 

most familiar with received the lowest confidence rating (county government). All other 

organizations fell in the negative familiarity/positive confidence quadrant of the 

familiarity/confidence graph. While the lack of familiarity with these organizations may be 

disheartening to managing agencies such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, it appears opportunities 

do exist for positive public relations, as confidence is above the neutral mark. However, because 

there is limited understanding of the role, purpose, or mission with these groups, they may risk 

losing the “luke-warm” confidence that they have. These groups can work to improve public 

understanding of the organizational role, while at the same time building on the existing 

organizational confidence that exists (as opposed to having to simultaneously “mend fences”). 

Those respondents who found consumptive use services more desirable tend to be more 

familiar with State agencies (r = .21), though they did not have any more confidence in them. Those 

respondents who found nonconsumptive use services more desirable tend to have more confidence 

in land trusts (r = .24) and Rappahannock NWR (r = .24), though not more familiarity. There were 

no meaningful differences between hunters and nonhunters on either familiarity or confidence. 
3

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 1.5 2 2.5 3.5 4 4.5 5

Familiarity

Confidence

Nonprofit conservation groups Local and regional land trusts

Farm advocacy groups Rappahannock River Valley NWR

State agencies County government

Soil and Water Conservation Districts

Figure 8. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ familiarity and confidence of key 

organizations and agencies who address natural resource issues along the 

Rappahannock River. (Familiarity was measured using 4-point scale, where 1=not familiar 

and 4 = very familiar; this scale converted to 5-point scale for analysis. Confidence was 

measured using 5-point scale, where 1 = no confidence and 5 = great deal of confidence.) 

Concentrate on moving past 

history 

Good faith efforts to restore 

confidence 

Capitalize on public’s familiarity 

with organization 

“Brandname” recognition”

Build on general confidence to Keep up the good work 

improve familiarity 

Concentrate here: 

Inform/educate on purpose/mission 

Improve relations 

Provide good-faith efforts to 

improve confidence 

16 
Community Understanding of the Refuge 

An important component of this survey was to better understand community resident 

knowledge of refuge issues. Because of the newness of the refuge and its only having been open to 

the public since 2004, there was a perception by the refuge and planning staff that most residents 

were not aware of the refuge and did not clearly understand the refuge’s purpose and the mission of 

the refuge system. In addition, because the refuge is actively pursuing the acquirement of new lands 

within its acquisition boundary, either through conservation easements or full title purchase, staff 

wanted to know the level of knowledge residents had regarding issues surrounding land acquisition. 

Awareness 

About half of Rappahannock River Valley residents sampled were aware of Rappahannock 

NWR. Though not a meaningful statistical difference, hunters are more familiar than nonhunters 

(57% vs. 44%). Factors measured in the survey that contribute to awareness of the refuge include 

civic engagement in natural resource issues and participation in certain activities along the river. 

The more civic engagement activities residents had participated in over the past 5 years, the 

more aware they were of the refuge (F = 26.48, p<.001, η = .27). In particular, if residents had 

participated in the following activities, they were more likely to be aware of the refuge: contacted a 

State or Federal agency (73% vs. 45%; χ

2

= 13.415, Cramer’s V = .216), attended a public meeting 

(70% vs. 42%; χ

2

= 18.82, Cramer’s V = .24), and signed a petition (66% vs. 41%; χ

2

= 18.04, 

Cramer’s V = .24). 

Residents participating in the following activities along the Rappahannock River tend to be 

more aware of the refuge: waterfowl hunting (78% vs. 44%; χ

2

= 12.56, Cramer’s V = .21, bank 

fishing (58% vs. 38%; χ

2

= 12.23, Cramer’s V = .20),) self-guided wildlife viewing (65% vs. 32%; 

χ

2

= 33.98, Cramer’s V = .34), and birdwatching (58% vs. 38%; χ

2

= 12.58, Cramer’s V = .20). 

Though a less meaningful relationship, it is worth noting that those participating in hunting with 

dogs are more aware of the refuge (67% vs. 42%; χ

2

= 9.48, Cramer’s V = .18). 

Those aware of the refuge are also more familiar with all agencies involved in natural 

resource issues along the river (F = 14.70 – 165.33, p<.001, η = .21–.58) and have greater 

confidence in the refuge (F = 13.23, p<.001, η = .22). 

Knowledge 

On average, residents indicated they knew “very little” about Rappahannock NWR and its 

management before receiving the survey (on a 5-point scale, where 1 = not at all and 5 = a great 

deal), with 78% indicating they knew nothing or very little. Hunters reported knowing more than 

nonhunters, but their self-reported knowledge is still “very little,” on average. 

Residents objective, or actual, knowledge about the refuge purpose and National Refuge 

System mission is 72% (with 3.6 answers out of 5 correct, on average); this is in the “C” range if 

evaluating scores like one would for an academic test (table 5 and fig. 9). However, well over 

three-quarters of residents know the establishing purpose of the refuge and the primary mission of 

the National Wildlife Refuge System, and over half know more specific details about refuge 

mission and management. Though a “C” average indicates knowledge about refuge purpose and 

mission may be lacking, the broader information appears to be well understood. 

 

5

The Chi-square statistic (χ

2

) is a measure of differences between two nominal categorical variables (Nunnally and 

Bernstein, 1994). 

6

Cramer’s V is a measure of the degree of association between two nominal categorical variables, in this case, yes/no 

(Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). 

17 
Table 5. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ knowledge regarding Rappahannock 

National Wildlife Refuge, National Wildlife Refuge System mission, and land acquisition. 

(Respondents answered a series of True/False and multiple choice questions.) 

Question Correct 

(%) 

Refuge Purpose and Mission 

When looking to obtain land for the Refuge, wetland habitat is a high priority. (True) 91 

Rappahannock River NWR was originally established to protect migratory birds, wetlands, and 

endangered species.

87 

The primary mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to protect and improve fish and 

wildlife and their habitats.

84 

The Refuge has been in existence for 10 years. (True) 65 

The Rappahannock River NWR is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. a 60 

The Refuge is supposed to provide for wildlife conservation and public recreation equally. (False) 55 

Land Acquisition and Ownership 

Conservation easements acquired by the Refuge allow most current land uses like farming and 

hunting to continue, but may restrict development. (True) 

88 

The number of acres planted in grain (corn, winter wheat, and soybeans has decreased 

significantly in the counties where the Refuge has purchased land). (False) 

70 

The National Wildlife Refuge System policy for obtaining land includes all methods except taking 

land from unwilling sellers through condemnation. b

68 

Public review is not required for the Refuge to purchase acreage from willing sellers beyond the 

originally approved acreage. (False) 

54 

The percentage of Refuge lands currently in conservation easements is about 15%. c

46 

When the Refuge was established, it was approved to protect up to 20,000 acres. d

44 

The percentage of the Refuge lands acquired through full ownership title purchase were previously 

agricultural lands is about 25%. e

41 

The approximate acreage of cropland adjacent to the Rappahannock River in Caroline, Essex, 

King George, Richmond, and Westmoreland counties is 155,000 acres. f

31 

The total current acreage of the Refuge, including conservation easements, is approximately 7,500 

acres. g

29 

a The second most often chosen answer was Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. (21%) 

b The second most often chosen answers were purchasing full ownership title from willing sellers. (14%) 

c The second most often chosen answer was about 30%. (31%) 

d The second most often chosen answer was 7,500. (27%) 

e The second most often chosen answer was less than 5%. (27%) 

f The second most often chosen answer was 300,000. (36%) 

g

 The second most often chosen answer was 13,000 acres (28%) and 20,000 acres. (28%) 

18 
19 

Objective Knowledge About Refuge Purpose

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

5/5 4/5 3/5 2/5 1/5 0/5

Number correct

Percent

Figure 9. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ actual knowledge of Rappahannock 

National Wildlife Refuge purpose and National Refuge System mission. 

Residents’ knowledge about land-acquisition issues was lower, with residents getting 4.2 

answers out of 9 correct, on average (a failing score of 47%; table 5 and fig. 10). Looking at the 

more general questions, however, nearly 90% of residents correctly stated that most existing land 

uses can continue to occur on conservation easements. Around two-thirds correctly stated that 

condemnation is not a policy for obtaining lands, though one out of seven residents does not 

recognize that purchasing land through full title is an employed method by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. Residents are much less certain about whether public review is required for land 

purchase. 

There is much uncertainty regarding agricultural lands. About half believe the acreage of 

cropland adjacent to the river is greater than the actual 155,000 acres. About one-third of residents 

have the misperception that the percentage of agricultural lands acquired through full ownership 

title purchase is greater than the actual 25% (about one-fourth think it is less). However, a little 

over two-thirds of residents correctly answered that the number of acres planted in grain in counties 

where the refuge has purchased land has not decreased. This would indicate while most do not 

believe the grain acreage has decreased, there is a misperception that available cropland is greater 

than it actually is. There is mixed perception on how much of that land the refuge has acquired 

(40% answering correctly (that it is 25%), 27% believing it is less, and 32% believing it is more). 

There is also much uncertainty about the refuge boundary and refuge land ownership. A 

little over half of residents think that the original acquisition boundary was less than the actual 

20,000 acres, though the same percentage believes the current acreage of the refuge is greater than 

the actual 7,500 acres. About half of residents correctly answered the percentage of refuge lands in 

easement (46% knew it was 15%), though about one-third think more land is in easement (30%). 
20 

Objective Knowledge About Land Acquisition

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

9/9 8/9 7/9 6/9 5/9 4/9 3/9 2/9 1/9

Number correct

Percent

Figure 10. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ actual knowledge of land acquisition 

and land ownership. 

Residents do not appear to know whether most activities are permitted or not permitted on 

the refuge (fig. 11). Nearly all residents, however, did correctly indicate that photography is 

permitted and about two-thirds know fishing is permitted. About two-thirds also know dogs off 

leash are not allowed on the refuge. Less than half know that collecting items such as artifacts, 

plants, or insects is not permitted and about one-third are not sure. Interestingly, only about onethird realize hunting is permitted on the refuge, with an equal number unsure if this activity is 

permitted or not. Residents seem the most ill-informed about beach use, horseback riding, and 

camping or picnicking, with only one-fourth or less realizing these activities are not permitted, a 

large percentage being unsure about beach use and horseback riding, and the majority believing 

camping and picnicking are allowed on the refuge. 

More nonhunters than hunters know that dogs are not permitted on the refuge without a 

leash, with about half of hunters (47%) believing they are allowed as compared to only 11% of 

nonhunters (χ2= 15.92, p ≤ .001, Cramer’s V = .23; fig. 12). Very few hunters were unsure about 

this rule, whereas about one-fourth (23%) of nonhunters were unsure. Conversely, more nonhunters 

incorrectly believe camping and picnicking are allowed (61% for nonhunters vs. 38% for hunters; 

χ2= 13.47, p = .001, Cramer’s V = .21). 

Additionally, those who were aware of the refuge before receiving the survey are more 

knowledgeable about the refuge (F=11.03, p = .001, η = .18). Those with more knowledge about 

refuge purpose and land acquisition tend to have higher confidence in the refuge (r = .28).
18%

20%

27%

33%

42%

43%

63%

63%

92%

56%

35%

37%

34%

21%

21%

9%

14%

27%

44%

36%

34%

36%

37%

29%

23%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Camping/Picnicking

Horseback riding

Beach use/Swimming

*Hunting

Plant and insect

collecting

Artifact

collecting/beach

combing

Dogs off leash

*Fishing

*Photography

Correct Answer Incorrect Answer Unsure

Figure 11. Rappahannock River Valley respondents’ knowledge of permitted activities on 

the Rappahannock National Wildlife Refuge. Asterisk indicates activities that are allowed 

on the refuge.

21 
Hunters

23%

47%

38%

47%

40%

6%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Camping/Picnicking

Dogs off leash

Correct Answ er Incorrect Answ er Unsure

Nonhunters

16%

66%

61%

11%

23%

23%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Camping/Picnicking

Dogs off leash

Correct Answ er Incorrect Answ er Unsure

Figure 12. Comparing hunters’ understanding of activities that are allowed or not allowed 

on Rappahannock National Wildlife Refuge to that of nonhunters. 

Community Preferences for Future Services 

We asked respondents to rate their desire (on a scale from 1 to 4, with 1 being not at all 

desirable and 4 being very desirable) for specific priority public use activities and services as 

identified by the Refuge Improvement Act and other compatible services that may be considered in 

the future (fig. 13). We then asked residents the general location they would prefer seeing each 

service offered (referring to a map divided into four areas, consistent with resource concentration 

areas identified by refuge staff). 

Educational information on historic sites had the highest mean desirability, followed by 

fishing opportunities, access for people with disabilities, viewing areas with information about 

wildlife habitats, restrooms, and a website with information about the refuge and its activities. 

The first two were uniformly desirable across all the areas listed on the accompanying map 

(fig. 14), while the latter three of the top five desirable services varied from location to location. 

The Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Services Review (2005) 

mentioned many of these activities under current conditions and recommendations. Two exceptions 

were educational information on historic sites and a website with information about the refuge and 

its activities. Findings suggest that in addition to environmental education, information on the 

historical nature of refuge sites would be well accepted by the community. The mean desirability of 

other services listed and prevalence of individuals who indicated high desirability for these indicate 

that the recommendations of the Visitor Services Review and Alternatives Matrix could be well 

received. 

The position of hunting opportunities in ranking of mean desirability should be noted. The 

four hunting activities that were suggested were not as highly desirable on average as other services 

mentioned, but this should not be interpreted as a low interest in hunting. Upon comparison of 

mean desirability scores, significant differences were found between hunters and nonhunters 

(fig. 15). 

22 
3.25

2.11

2.17

2.2

2.27

2.94

2.98

2.99

3.01

3.01

3.07

3.14

3.15

3.2

3.23

3.23

3.28

3.35

3.38

3.47

123

Other services

Waterfowl hunting opportunities

Turkey hunting opportunities

Small game hunting opportunities

Deer hunting opportunities

Visitor information/orientation center

Self-guided canoe trail

Hiking/walking trails with wildlife viewing opportunities

Opportunities to interact with Refuge staff

Special events

Outdoor education activities

Highway signs

W ater launches for nonmotorized crafts

Kiosks with information about the Refuge or its wildlife

Website with information about Refuge

Restrooms

Viewing areas with information about wildlife habitats

Access for people with disabilities

Fishing opportunities

Educational information on historic sites

4

Figure 13. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ mean desirability to see services 

offered by Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Responses were coded 

from 1 (not at all desirable) to 4 (very desirable). 

23 
Figure 14. Community desirability for recreation services along the Rappahannock River. 

Numbers are number of people who desire each service within each area along the river. 

Only the top five activities are listed.

24 
Turkey hunting 3.58 opportunities

F = 190.33; η = .68 

Deer hunting 3.55 opportunities

F = 188.43; η = .67 

Waterfowl hunting 3.55 opportunities

F = 131.64; η = .61 

Small game hunting 3.43 opportunities

F = 142.57; η = .62 

1234

Figure 15. Hunters’ mean desirability to see hunting activities offered by Rappahannock 

River Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Responses were coded from 1 (not at all desirable) 

to 4 (very desirable). 

Willingness to Pay Fees for Services 

Related to residents’ desirability for future services, we asked their willingness to pay for 

services. Though in principle, many (42%) believe they should not have to pay a fee to visit a 

National Wildlife Refuge and 35% are not sure, the majority are willing to pay fees for educational 

programs, special events, and maintenance of facilities they use (fig. 16). Only around 40% of 

residents would be willing to pay for hunting, fishing, or crabbing activities. 

There were interesting relationships between desirability of future services and willingness 

to pay fees (table 6). As desirability for nonconsumptive use services increased, willingness to pay 

fees for all services asked about, including consumptive use services (programs, maintenance of 

facilities and hunting/fishing/crabbing) increased. Conversely, as desirability for consumptive use 

services increased, willingness to pay fees increased for the consumptive use services of hunting, 

fishing, and crabbing activities. 

Overall willingness to pay fees for services (fee scale; see Data Analysis and Measurement 

of Concepts) was correlated with many of the nonconsumptive use services residents were asked 

about in the survey, yet none of the consumptive use services listed (table 7). It can be inferred 

from tables 6 and 7 that those desiring nonconsumptive use services are generally willing to pay 

fees for these services. 

In addition to the relationship between desirability of services and willingness to pay fees, 

knowledge about the refuge also appears to be related. For all three fee questions, as total 

knowledge increases, willingness to pay for services increases. A negative relationship was found 

between total knowledge and the statement “I should not have to pay to visit this refuge or any 

other national wildlife refuge,” (r = –.13) indicating those with less overall knowledge about the 

refuge are more likely to agree with the sentiment that they should not have to pay to visit a refuge. 

Relationships were found between willingness to pay a fee to support facility maintenance 

and familiarity with the refuge (r = .24) and confidence in the refuge to address natural resource 

issues along the Rappahannock River (r = .32). There was also a substantial correlation between 

willingness to pay for programs and confidence in the refuge (r = .33). Those with more confidence 

in the refuge are more willing to pay fees for facilities and programs. 

25 
42%

43%

51%

54%

35%

37%

28%

25%

23%

20%

21%

21%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I should not have to pay a fee to visit this

Refuge or any other national wildlife refuge.

I would be willing to pay a fee for activities on

the refuge such as hunting, fishing, or

crabbing.

I would be willing to pay a fee for an

educational or special event at the Refuge.

I would be willing to pay a fee to support

maintenance of the facilities I use on the

Refuge

Agree Disagree Unsure

Figure 16. Level of agreement with willingness to pay for future services, where 

responses are collapsed into “agree,” disagree,” and “unsure.” 

Table 6. Correlation between Rappahannock River Valley residents’ willingness to pay a 

fee for services offered at Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge and 

desirability of future consumptive and nonconsumptive use services. 

r 

Fee paying Nonconsumptive Consumptive 

Willing to pay a fee for activities on the Refuge such 

as hunting, fishing, or crabbing 

.29 .31 

Willing to pay a fee for an educational program or 

special event at the Refuge 

.38 

Willing to a pay a fee to support maintenance of 

facilities I use on the Refuge 

.37 

26 
Table 7. Correlation between Rappahannock River Valley residents’ desire for specific 

future recreation services at Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge and 

overall willingness to pay a fee for services (fee scale). 

Service r a

Water launches for nonmotorized crafts .42 

Self-guided canoe trail .42 

Special events .36 

Hiking/walking trails for wildlife viewing opportunities .35 

Visitor information/orientation center .33 

Opportunity to interact with Refuge staff .32 

Website with information about the Refuge and its activities .31 

Outdoor education activities .30 

Viewing areas with information about different wildlife habitats .30 

Educational information on historic sites .30 

a Desirability was coded from 1 “not at all desirable” to 4 “very desirable”. 

Community Preferences for Management of Refuge Lands 

Rappahannock River Valley NWR staff was interested in investigating community 

preferences for the acquisition and management of refuge lands. Because the management of lands 

inherently includes tradeoffs, the following tradeoff factors were identified as important community 

considerations for land acquisition and management: 

• access for hunting and fishing opportunities, 

• access for wildlife observation opportunities, 

• opportunities for development along rivers and creeks, 

• plantings in fields or crops under the control of the refuge, 

• the look of the overall refuge landscape, and 

• the options for acquisition of available land (within the refuge acquisition boundary). 

For each of these factors, different options were identified representing the possible range 

for that factor (table 8). For example, when looking at table 8 at the tradeoff for access for wildlife 

viewing opportunities, there are two options that might occur: access would increase, or access 

would remain the same. 

To present the potential options for land management in a way that would allow 

respondents to make decisions with those tradeoff factors in mind, hypothetical scenarios were 

constructed. First, all possible combinations of factors and options were entered into an orthogonal 

design process in SPSS 14.0 in order to obtain the combination of factors that would maximize the 

information obtained from respondents without needing to use all possible combinations. This 

design methodically chooses factors, but in some cases, the combinations chosen cannot exist in 

reality (for example, fields planted in trees and grasses for many different wildlife throughout the 

year and the landscape is orderly and cultivated). The unrealistic scenarios were removed from the 

27 
28 

Table 8. Factors and associated options comprising hypothetical future scenarios for land 

acquisition and management. 

Factors Options 

Access for hunting and 

fishing opportunities: 

 increases remains the same 

Access for wildlife 

observation opportunities: 

increases remains the same 

Development 

opportunities along rivers 

and creeks: 

 increase decrease 

Fields are planted with: crops that may be used by 

Canada geese and Mallards 

in winter 

trees and grasses for many 

different wildlife throughout 

the year 

The landscape is: orderly and cultivated wild and uncultivated 

Available land is: acquired by the Refuge with 

full ownership rights 

acquired by the Refuge with 

partial ownership rights 

(conservation easement) 

not acquired 

by the Refuge 

pool of potential scenarios, and the final survey included six scenarios (table 9). Respondents were 

asked to rate (on a 7-point scale) whether they found the scenario acceptable or unacceptable. A 

series of analyses was conducted to better understand community residents’ acceptability (or 

unacceptability) of the hypothetical scenarios and to gain insight into the factors having the greatest 

contribution to acceptability. 

Acceptability of Hypothetical Management Scenarios 

In an attempt to identify meaningful differences in agreement with these different scenarios, 

the “potential for conflict index” (PCI) was used (Manfredo, Vaske, and Teel, 2003). The PCI 

shows central tendency, dispersion, and form simultaneously and thus presents a concise indication 

of potential conflict for the scenario in question. The PCI is the ratio of scoring on either side of a 

neutral point. This analysis assumes that the greatest conflict would occur when responses are 

distributed between two extreme values on a scale (in this case, 50% strongly disagreeing and 50% 

strongly agreeing). This scenario would produce a PCI value of 1. If all responses were on one side 

of the neutral point (for example 100% agreeing), a PCI value of 0 would result. Graphically, a 

larger bubble represents a higher potential for conflict. In addition, the graph shows the distribution 

of the means (that is, where they fall on the agreement scale). 

The mean scores for most of the hypothetical scenarios were above the neutral point, 

indicating general acceptability. The scenario with the highest mean acceptability was Scenario 1, 

followed by Scenario 4 and Scenario 3 (fig. 17). All of these involved an increase in wildlife 

observation opportunities, a decrease in development, and the acquisition of available land by the 

refuge. Scenario 5 had the lowest mean acceptability rating and was the only hypothetical scenario 

in which development opportunities along rivers and creeks increased. The potential for conflict 

index scores for all scenarios are low, and there are no scenario bubbles that straddle the neutral 

line (fig. 17). This indicates a relative agreement among community members about the 

acceptability of the scenarios. Figure 18 displays the percentage of respondents who rated the 

scenarios as acceptable or unacceptable, or who were neutral in their opinions. 
Scenario 

Factor 1 2 3 4 5 Hunting and fishing opportunities 

Increase Remain the same Increase Remain the same Increase 

Wildlife observation opportunities 

Increase Increase Increase Increase Remain the same 

Development opportunities 

Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Increase 

Fields Corn and wheat used 

by Canada geese and Mallards in winter 

Trees and grasses for many different wildlife throughout the year 

Trees and grasses for many different wildlife throughout the year 

Trees and grasses for many different wildlife throughout the year 

Trees and grasses many different wilthroughout the yea

Landscape Orderly and cultivated Wild and uncultivated Wild and uncultivated Wild and uncultivated Wild and uncultivAvailable land Acquired by Refuge 

with full ownership rights 

Not acquired by Refuge 

Acquired by Refuge with partial ownership rights (conservation easement) 

Acquired by Refuge with partial ownership rights (conservation easement) 

Not acquired by R

Table 9. Hypothetical future scenarios presented in Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Comm

29 
30 

Figure 17. Potential for conflict index for hypothetical future scenarios. 

60%

20%

74%

72%

55%

71%

17%

61%

9%

12%

20%

12%

23%

19%

17%

17%

25%

17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Scenario 6

Scenario 5

Scenario 4

Scenario 3

Scenario 2

Scenario 1

Acceptable Unacceptable Neutral

Figure 18. Rappahannock River Valley community members’ acceptability of hypothetical 

future scenarios. 
Influence of Specific Factors on Scenario Acceptability 

Although the options within particular factors common among similarly acceptable 

scenarios might suggest certain factors that are influencing the scenarios’ acceptability, there was 

interest in investigating the driving factors more empirically. The data were manipulated to make 

each factor in a scenario become an individual dichotomous variable. Land acquisition was 

converted into three separate dichotomous variables, each representing an acquisition option. For 

example, “access for hunting and fishing opportunities” became an individual dichotomous variable 

in which “remains the same” was coded as 0 and “increases” was coded as 1. These conversions 

allowed the factors to be analyzed independently as separate variables. 

First, each factor was correlated with overall scenario acceptability (across all scenarios) in 

order to determine the relationship between each factor and acceptability and the direction of that 

relationship. All of the factors were significantly correlated with scenario acceptability, but some of 

the smaller correlations could be contributed to sample size (table 10). Development opportunities, 

the refuge not acquiring land, and wildlife observation opportunities were the most highly 

correlated with acceptability. The direction of the correlations, based on variable coding, indicate 

that acceptability increases as development opportunities decrease; the refuge acquires land; and 

wildlife observation opportunities increase. 

These three variables were then put into a regression analysis to determine the relative 

effect of each one on acceptability. The regression model was significant (F = 148.65, p< .001) 

with 19% of the variance in acceptability explained by these variables. The standardized regression 

coefficients showed that the most influential variable was development opportunities, followed by 

the refuge not acquiring land, and wildlife observation opportunities (table 10). 

Table 10. Correlations and regression model with overall scenario acceptability. 

Scenario Attribute r a Standardized 

beta a r

2

.19 

Development opportunities b .42 .27 

The refuge does not acquire available land c

–.32 –.13 

Wildlife observation opportunities d .31 .10 

a

 All correlations and standardized regression coefficients were significant at p< .001. 

b Variable was coded as 0 “increase” and 1 “decrease.”

c Variable was coded as 0 “available land is acquired” and 1 “available land is not acquired.”

d Variable was coded as 0 “remains the same” and 1 “increase.” 

Other Variables Influencing Scenario Acceptability 

We hypothesized the following variables (in addition to the scenario factors) would affect 

scenario acceptability: 

• length of time respondent had lived in the Northern Neck or Middle Peninsula, 

• knowledge about the refuge, 

• civic engagement, 

• confidence in Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, 

31 
• information obtained from one-way information sources, and 

• desirability of consumptive and nonconsumptive use services (scales). 

When all of these variables (along with the scenario factors) were put into a regression 

model to attempt to explain variance in overall scenario acceptability, the explained variance 

increased to 22% (from 19% in table 10). As previously held true, development opportunities, the 

refuge not acquiring land, and wildlife observation opportunities had the greatest effect on the 

model. Community members who had more knowledge about the refuge and found nonconsumptive services more desirable also had higher average overall scenario acceptability 

(table 11). 

The hypothesized model was also tested on each scenario (without the scenario factors, as 

this was statistically impossible). This was done in order to understand the variables that may have 

been affecting individual scenarios, since these relationships could not be tested previously. The 

model was significant for Scenarios 1, 3, 4, and 5 (table 12). Nine percent of the variance in 

acceptability for Scenario 1 was explained with civic engagement, the use of one-way information 

sources, length of residency in the area, and refuge knowledge figuring significantly in the model. 

The less civic engagement activities respondents engaged in, the more they used one-way 

information sources, the less time they had lived in the Northern Neck or Middle Peninsula, and the 

more knowledge about the refuge they had, the more acceptable they found Scenario 1. Community 

members’ acceptability of Scenario 3 increased as their use of one-way information and knowledge 

about the refuge increased and their level of civic engagement decreased. Scenario 4 was found to 

be more acceptable by people who had more confidence in the ability of Rappahannock River 

Valley NWR to address natural resource issues along the Rappahannock River, had more 

knowledge of the refuge, and had lived in the area a shorter amount of time. Finally, Scenario 5 

was more acceptable to people who participated less in civic engagement, had less confidence in 

the refuge, and had lived in the area longer. While the amounts of explained variance are small in 

these models, they give insight into other factors contributing to acceptance of hypothetical 

management scenarios. These variables may be useful in identifying segments of the community 

that would be more or less accepting of future management actions. 

Table 11. Regression model with overall scenario acceptability.

Scenario attribute/Independent variable Standardized 

β p r

2

.22 

Development opportunities a .29 < .001 

The refuge does not acquire available land b

–.12 < .001 

Wildlife observation opportunities c .11 .001 

Knowledge .08 .001 

Desirability of non-consumptive services .06 .01 

a Variable was coded as 0 “increase” and 1 “decrease.”

b Variable was coded as 0 “available land is acquired” and 1 “available land is not acquired.”

c Variable was coded as 0 “remains the same” and 1 “increase.” 

32 
Table 12. Regression models explaining variance in scenario acceptability. 

Scenario Significant variables entered Standardized 

β p r

2

Scenario 1 .09 

Civic engagement –.22 .001 

One-way information .16 .02 

Length of time in area –.14 .03 

Knowledge .13 .04 

Scenario 3 .08 

One-way information .20 .002 

Knowledge .17 .008 

Civic engagement –.15 .03 

Scenario 4 .15 

Confidence in RRVNWR .28 < .001 

Length of time in area –.17 .004 

Knowledge .14 .02 

Scenario 5 .08 

Civic engagement –.19 .004 

Length of time in area .14 .02 

Confidence in RRVNWR –.14 .03 

By and large, community members seem to be accepting of any scenario that does not 

include the increase of development opportunities but does include the increase of wildlife 

observation opportunities. They want the refuge to acquire land but do not seem to have a 

preference for whether the acquisition is through full title purchase or conservation easements. 

Overall, people who know more about the refuge, have confidence in the refuge’s ability to manage 

the land around the Rappahannock River, have lived in the area less time, and have a greater desire 

to see non-consumptive services offered are more accepting of scenarios that would match 

recommendations made in the Visitor Services Review and management alternative matrix. 

Respondents who were more accepting of Scenario 5, which included the increase of development 

opportunities and the refuge not acquiring available land had lived in the area longer and were less 

confident in the refuge’s ability to manage land along the river. 

Discussion of Key Findings 

Community Resident Profile 

Respondents have a long history in the area, having lived in the Northern Neck or Middle 

Peninsula, on average, between 31 and 32 years. About half of respondents indicated that their 

families have lived in the area at least two generations, and 10% stated that their families have been 

in the area five or more generations. The average age of respondents is 53 and most have completed 

high school and one year of college or technical school. Only 24 percent of respondents or their 

immediate family members make a livelihood from industries that may have ties to refuge activity. 

This percentage was representative of 74 respondents who have connections with a variety of 

combinations of the industries listed. It was hypothesized that knowledge about the refuge and the 

acceptability of management actions would be, in part, influenced by industry affiliations. There 

was, however, no effect of industry affiliations on either management actions or refuge knowledge. 

33 
Recreation Experience along the Rappahannock River 

Around half of the respondents participate in self-guided nature or wildlife viewing, boat 

fishing, bird watching, and bank fishing along the Rappahannock River. Less than one-fourth of 

respondents participate in hunting activities. Nonconsumptive activities fell into the top five most 

frequently reported activities in each of the four resource areas adjacent to the refuge administrative 

boundary. Boat fishing was the only consumptive use activity that was among the five most popular 

in all areas. Bank fishing was among the most popular in three out of the four areas, and crabbing 

was listed in the southern most portion of the Rappahannock River bordered by the refuge. This 

information can aid refuge personnel in understanding where services can be most useful if offered 

or expanded in the future. 

Communication about Natural Resources along the Rappahannock River 

Rappahannock River Valley respondents rely mostly on one-way communication sources 

for news and information about natural resources along the Rappahannock River: however, they do 

not rely on these sources much. The exception to this is newspapers, which respondents indicated 

they use “some” to “not much.” The most frequently used newspapers are the Freelance Star and 

the Rappahannock Record. The main source of two-way communication is interactions with 

relatives, friends, or neighbors. 

Hunters tend to rely more heavily on printed materials from government entities and natural 

resource professionals. This is most likely related to their interactions with game wardens and other 

staff of the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Similarly, those finding 

consumptive use services more desirable tend to rely more heavily on these two sources. 

Conversely, those respondents finding nonconsumptive use services more desirable tend to rely 

more on printed materials from private entities, displays and exhibits, and interaction with refuge 

staff. Knowing how residents communicate about natural resources along the river may allow 

refuge and planning staff to communicate more effectively with residents about key issues. Also, 

understanding differences in communication patterns between user groups can help to further 

effectively target communication and outreach efforts with those groups. 

Civic Engagement in Natural Resource Decisionmaking 

Community residents have had limited involvement in natural resource issues (civic 

engagement) over the past 5 years, with only 50% of respondents engaging in at least one of the 

activities listed. Civic engagement was a predictor in explaining support for the most acceptable 

scenario and least acceptable scenarios. The more civically engaged an individual was (the more 

activities they had participated in), the more likely they were to support scenarios involving an 

increase in wildlife viewing opportunities and a decrease in development, while the less civically 

engaged a person was, the more likely they were to support the scenario involving the increase in 

development opportunities. 

Familiarity with and Confidence in Natural Resource Organizations 

Overall, residents have low familiarity with the organizations involved in natural resource 

management along the Rappahannock River. They are most familiar with county government, but 

this is also the organization in which they have the least amount of confidence. Although they are 

not particularly familiar with the refuge (only around half were aware of it), there is indication of a 

fair amount of confidence in it. Hunters, especially waterfowl hunters, are more aware of the refuge 

than nonhunters. Among nonhunters, however, people who participate in bank fishing, self-guided 

34 
wildlife viewing, and bird watching are more likely to be familiar with the refuge. Those people 

who are more familiar with the refuge are more familiar with all organizations involved with 

natural resource issues along the Rappahannock River and have more confidence in the refuge. 

People who are more civically engaged in natural resource decisionmaking (for example, signed a 

petition, attended a public meeting, and so forth) were also more aware of the refuge. Similar to the 

finding with information sources, those people who have a greater desire for consumptive use 

activities are more familiar with State agencies, though they do not have more confidence in them 

than those desiring nonconsumptive uses. However, those people who find nonconsumptive uses 

more desirable do have more confidence in land trusts as well as in the refuge. The more 

confidence people have in the ability of Rappahannock NWR to manage resources along the river, 

the more accepting they are of scenarios for hypothetical future management that involve a 

decrease in development opportunities and the acquisition of available land by the refuge. These 

survey results show a clear connection between agency familiarity and confidence and acceptability 

of scenarios, indicating the importance for continued effective communication, education, and 

relationship-building by the refuge with the community. 

Community Understanding of the Refuge 

Generally, people feel that they know “very little” about Rappahannock NWR and its 

management. The average number of correct answers to questions regarding the refuge and its 

establishing purpose, land-acquisition policies, and its relationship to agricultural lands confirms 

this claim. Most people do know that the establishing purpose of the refuge was to protect 

migratory birds, wetlands, and endangered species. Most also know that the primary purpose of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System is to protect and improve fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

They are also aware that condemnation is not a policy for obtaining land, but one in seven was not 

aware that full title purchase of available property from willing sellers is an option. Most people 

know that photography and fishing are permitted on refuge lands and that dogs off leash are not. 

Only about one-third know that hunting is permitted on the refuge. There was some confusion as to 

whether collecting items such as artifacts, plants or insects, beach use, horseback riding, camping, 

or picnicking are allowed on the refuge, none of which is permitted. These results indicate that the 

refuge may consider enhancing outreach regarding these subjects, in particular the permissibility of 

certain activities on the refuge. 

Preferences for Future Services and Willingness to Pay Fees 

Educational information on historic sites, fishing opportunities, access for people with 

disabilities, viewing areas with information about wildlife habitats, restrooms, and a website with 

information about the refuge and its activities were ranked as most desirable by the most 

respondents. While on average hunting opportunities were not rated desirable, these activities were 

rated as the most desirable by hunters. Educational information on historic sites was the most 

desirable activity in each of the four resource areas listed on the map, followed universally by 

fishing opportunities. 

When asked about willingness to pay a fee for services offered by Rappahannock River 

Valley NWR, 42% indicated that they should not have to pay a fee to visit this or any refuge. 

However, the majority of respondents are willing to pay a fee for educational programs, special 

events, and maintenance of the facilities they use. People who know more about the refuge and 

those who rated nonconsumptive services and activities as desirable tend to be more willing to pay 

a fee for services. 

35 
Preferences for Management of Refuge Lands 

Most of the hypothetical future scenarios for management of refuge lands were deemed 

acceptable. The only scenario rated as unacceptable involved an increase in development 

opportunities. The most acceptable scenarios involve the refuge acquiring available land, although 

the distinction between acquisition through full ownership rights or conservation easements did not 

appear to make a difference in acceptability rating. These scenarios also involve an increase in 

access for wildlife viewing opportunities and a decrease in development opportunities along rivers 

and streams. 

Overall, community members do not appear to be in favor of increased development along 

rivers and streams and are supportive of having Rappahannock NWR acquire available land. They 

also feel positively about wildlife observation, as they are more accepting of situations that involve 

an increase in access for this opportunity as opposed to having access remain at current levels. This 

is in keeping with other survey results that indicate that residents find self-guided nature/wildlife 

viewing and bird watching important and find viewing areas with information about wildlife and 

habitats desirable. The look of the fields and surrounding landscape seems to be less important to 

residents than the assurance that development opportunities decrease, the refuge acquire land, and 

wildlife observation opportunities increase. 

Interestingly, those people who find nonconsumptive activities more desirable are more 

accepting of scenarios overall (and conversely less accepting of the scenario with increased 

development), as were residents who are more knowledgeable about the refuge. 

References 

Burby, R.J., 2003, Making plans that matter–Citizen involvement and government action: Journal 

of the American Planning Association, v. 69, no. 1, p. 33–49. 

Carr, D.S., and Halvorsen, K., 2001, An evaluation of three democratic, community-based 

approaches to citizen participation–Surveys, conversations with community groups, and 

community dinners: Society and Natural Resources, v. 14, p. 107–126. 

Dillman, D.A., 2000, Mail and internet surveys–The tailored design method, 2d edition: New York, 

John Wiley and Sons. 

Halvorsen, K.E., 2003, Assessing the effects of public participation: Public Administration Review, 

v. 63, no. 5, p. 535–543. 

Manfredo, M.J., Vaske, J.J., and Teel, T.L., 2003, The potential for conflict index–A graphic 

approach to practical significance of human dimensions research: Human Dimensions of 

Wildlife, v. 8, p. 219–228. 

McCool, S.F., and Guthrie, K., 2001, Mapping the dimensions of successful public participation in 

messy natural resources management situations: Society and Natural Resources, v. 14, p. 309–

323. 

Nunnally, J.C., and Bernstein, I., 1994, Psychometric theory, 3d edition: New York, McGraw-Hill, 

Inc. 

Poisner, J., 1996, A civic republican perspective on the National Environmental Policy Act’s 

process of citizen participation: Environmental Law, v. 26, p. 53–94. 

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Services Review, 2005, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Sexton, N.R., Stewart, S.C., Koontz, L., Wundrock, K.D., 2005, Stakeholder survey results for 

Lake Umbagog National Wildlife Refuge–Completion Report, U.S. Geological Survey, OpenFile Report 2005–1378, 111 p. 

36 
Snyder, P., and Lawson, S., 1993, Evaluating results using corrected and uncorrected effect size 

estimates, Journal of Experimental Education, v. 61. no. 4, p. 334-349. 

Uniak, T., 2002, The Citizen's Wildlife Refuge Planning Handbook–Charting the future of 

conservation on the National Wildlife Refuge near you: Washington, D.C., : Defenders of 

Wildlife http://www.defenders.org/pubs/refuge00.html. 

U.S. Census Bureau, 2006, 2000 Census of Population and Housing, Washington, DC: U.S. Census 

Bureau. 

Verba, S., Lehman Schlozman, K., and Brady, H., 1995, Voice and equality–Civic voluntarism in 

American politics: Cambridge, Harvard University Press. 

37 
38
Appendix A: Frequency Results for Rappahannock River Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge Community Survey7

This appendix contains the information obtained from frequency counts of the raw data 

from the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge community survey. The order of 

the tables follows that of the questions in the survey, section by section. Verbatim end-of-survey 

comments are categorized at the end of the appendix.7

 

7

These data were weighted to account for nonresponse bias as well as for potential sampling bias. First, in order to 

correct for the sampling bias, data was compared to available U.S. Census data and weighted for age and sex. Second, 

in order to correct for the nonresponse bias, the data were weighted by the following variables: whether or not 

respondents were aware of the refuge, number of years living in the area, and education.

39
Section 1: Recreational activities and preference for recreation along the Rappahannock 

River. 

Question 1. Please indicate whether you currently participate in the following activities near your 

home and then tell us where you participate in each activity. 

Table 1. Percentage of respondents who participate in activities near their home. NOTE: 

Percentages are based on number who answered the question (e.g., for turkey hunting – of the 55 

who answered, 18 percent said they participated). 

Activity Respondents (%) n 

Self-guided nature/wildlife viewing 50 152 

Boat fishing 50 156 

Bird watching 47 146 

Bank fishing 47 143 

Hiking/nature trails 43 129 

Photography (nature/wildlife) 38 114 

Crabbing 28 85 

Deer hunting (without dogs) 23 69 

Environmental field trips (attended by you or your children) 22 65 

Canoeing/kayaking 21 62 

Turkey hunting 18 55 

Deer hunting (with dogs) 15 45 

Attend nature programs (guided bird walks, lectures, presentations) 14 43 

Waterfowl hunting 12 36 

Trapping 3 10 

40
50% 50%

47% 47%

43%

38%

28%

23% 22% 21%

18%

15% 14%

12%

3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

/Wildlife viewin Self-guided nature

g

Boat fishing

Bird watching

Bank fishing

ing/Nature trails

y (nature/wildlife

Hik

Photograph

)

Crabbing

unting (w/o dogs

Deer h

)

Enviro

C

Deer

nmental field trips

anoeing/Kayaking

Turkey hunting

 hunting (w/dogs)

Attend n

W

ature programs

aterfowl hunting

Trapping

Figure 1. Percentage of respondents who participate in activities near their home. 

41
Figure 2. Map included in survey for location. 

42
Table 2. Percentage of respondents selecting a specific location for each corresponding activity. 

NOTE: Percentages are based on number who answered the question (e.g., for turkey hunting – of 

the 51 who answered, 35 percent participate at location A, 45 percent at location B, etc.) 

Location 

Activity (% of respondents choosing each location) 

A B C D n 

Self-guided nature/wildlife viewing 54 50 31 26 136 

Boat fishing 49 42 54 52 118 

Bird watching 61 42 30 19 126 

Bank fishing 54 29 34 23 107 

Hiking/nature trails 49 43 28 21 103 

Photography (nature/wildlife) 60 36 31 24 110 

Crabbing 36 21 41 40 66 

Deer hunting (without dogs) 45 25 35 17 63 

Environmental field trips (attended by 

you or your children) 

45 58 38 26 70 

Canoeing/kayaking 38 39 24 37 53 

Turkey hunting 35 37 39 26 51 

Deer hunting (with dogs) 39 29 41 24 45 

Attend nature programs (guided bird 

walks, lectures, presentations) 

48 33 30 17 31 

Waterfowl hunting 35 45 31 31 43 

Trapping 27 40 23 18 18 

43
27%

35%

48%

39%

35%

38%

45%

45%

36%

60%

49%

54%

61%

49%

54%

40%

45%

33%

29%

37%

39%

58%

25%

21%

36%

43%

29%

42%

42%

50%

23%

31%

30%

41%

39%

24%

38%

35%

41%

31%

28%

34%

30%

54%

31%

18%

31%

17%

24%

26%

37%

26%

17%

40%

24%

21%

23%

19%

52%

26%

0% 50% 100%

Trapping

Waterfowl hunting

Attend nature programs

Deer hunting (w/dogs)

Turkey hunting

Canoeing/Kayaking

Environmental field trips

Deer hunting (w/o dogs)

Crabbing

Photography (nature/wildlife)

Hiking/Nature trails

Bank fishing

Bird watching

Boat fishing

Self-guided nature/Wildlife

viewing

Location A Location B Location C Location D

Figure 3. Percentage of respondents selecting a specific location for each corresponding activity. 

44
Table 3. Verbatim responses reported by more than five respondents for “elsewhere nearby” and 

number of people who wrote in each of the locations (Top 10 locations where at least five people 

described an “other location”). Lancaster County 

Potomac Home/Private property Caledon State Park Wicomico River Carrotomam River Fort AP Hill Rappahannock/ River/basin Chesapeake Bay Westmoreland Othera

n 

Bird watching - 3 13 6 5 - - - - - 46 73 

Photography - 3 8 3 5 - - - - - 33 52 

Hiking 7 - 3 8 - - - - - 6 36 60 

Environmental trips 4 - - 5 - - - - - 3 11 23 

Bank Fishing 2 9 3 - 2 - 3 - - - 35 52 

Boat Fishing 3 15 - - 4 4 2 3 9 - 29 69 

Deer Hunting 1 - 1 - - - - - - - 11 13 

Deer Hunting w/o Dogs 3 - 6 - - - 2 - - - 5 25 

Turkey Hunting 4 5 - - - - - 2 - - 7 18 

Waterfowl Hunting 5 - - - - - - - - - 3 8 

Wildlife Viewing 3 1 5 6 - 1 - - - - 40 56 

Canoeinga3 2 - - 2 4 - - 1 - 28 40 

Nature Programa1 - - 3 - - - - - - 10 14 

Crabbing 3 12 3 - 4 5 - - - - 28 55 

Trappinga 1 1 - - - - - - - - 3 5 

a

Other Locations reported by fewer than 5 respondents: Mattapuni River/York River, Lake Gaston, 

Lower Norneck-Ottoman, Urbana, Locust Hill, Colonial Beach, Corbin, King and Queen, Maryland, 

Fredericksburg, Belle Isle State Park, Hewlett/Hughlet Point, Fauquier County, Northumberland 

County, E&F, Dragon Run, Hull Creek, Shenandoah Park, Kilmarnock, Gloucester Point, 

Yeocomico River, Tuper Creek, Stafford County, Comorn, Richmond County, Appalachian Trail, 

Heritage Point, Nomini Bay Area.

45
Question 2: Tell us your desire to see each of the following services offered by Rappahannock 

River Valley NWR, then tell us the general location you would prefer seeing each service offered. 

Table 4. Desirability of services at Rappahannock NWR. 

Desirability (%) 

Service Very 

desirable 

Moderately 

desirable 

Somewhat 

desirable 

Not 

desirable 

No 

opinion n 

Fishing opportunities 56 18 7 8 11 306 

Educational information on 

historic sites 54 25 7 3 12 301 

Access for people with 

disabilities 50 16 9 6 19 305 

Restrooms 47 16 10 9 18 306 

Viewing areas with information 

about different wildlife habitats 44 23 13 3 16 301 

Kiosks or signs with 

information about the Refuge or 

its wildlife 

43 22 12 7 17 298 

Highway signs directing 

visitors to the Refuge 43 20 14 9 14 298 

Website with information about 

the refuge and its activities 43 19 8 9 21 272 

Hiking/walking trails for 

wildlife viewing opportunities 39 21 21 9 10 304 

Water launches for nonmotorized crafts (canoes, 

kayaks) 

38 17 7 10 29 300 

Outdoor education activities 36 23 18 6 17 292 

Self guided canoe trail 35 14 7 15 29 296 

Other services please specify 33 - 3 10 55 111 

Opportunities to interact with 

Refuge staff 29 22 15 7 28 263 

Visitor information/orientation 

center 28 27 19 7 19 288 

Special events (guided bird 

walks, lectures, presentations) 24 17 17 16 26 294 

Deer hunting opportunities 23 13 6 38 21 299 

Small game hunting 

opportunities 22 11 5 39 23 297 

Turkey hunting opportunities 20 13 3 40 24 297 

Waterfowl hunting 

opportunities 20 8 4 39 29 297 

46
Table 5. Mean desirability score for each service listed. 

Service Meana

SD n 

Educational information on historic sites 3.47 .77 266 

Fishing opportunities 3.38 .96 274 

Access for people with disabilities 3.35 .96 247 

Viewing areas with information about different wildlife habitats 3.28 .88 253 

Restrooms 3.23 1.05 252 

Website with information about the refuge and its activities 3.23 1.03 272 

Kiosks or signs with information about the Refuge or its wildlife 3.20 .97 248 

Water launches for nonmotorized crafts (canoes, kayaks) 3.15 1.08 214 

Highway signs directing visitors to the Refuge 3.14 1.03 256 

Outdoor education activities 3.07 .96 242 

Special events (guided bird walks, lectures, presentations) 3.01 .99 219 

Opportunities to interact with Refuge staff 3.01 .99 189 

Hiking/walking trails for wildlife viewing opportunities 2.99 1.04 275 

Self guided canoe trail 2.98 1.20 210 

Visitor information/orientation center 2.94 .96 234 

Deer hunting opportunities 2.27 1.32 236 

Small game hunting opportunities 2.20 1.33 229 

Turkey hunting opportunities 2.17 1.31 225 

Waterfowl hunting opportunities 2.11 1.33 210 

Other servicesb

3.25 1.27 50 a

Responses were coded on a scale from 1 (not at all desirable) to 4 (very desirable). 

b

ATV trails, hike/bike trails, RV and camping sites, guided tours, outings for children/special events, food services, 

wildlife and nature opportunities, additional hunting opportunities. 

47
27%

33%

33%

33%

36%

41%

49%

50%

55%

55%

59%

60%

63%

63%

64%

66%

67%

70%

75%

79%

43%

12%

43%

44%

43%

33%

22%

21%

26%

17%

24%

30%

23%

19%

19%

15%

17%

9%

15%

10%

29%

55%

24%

23%

21%

26%

29%

28%

19%

29%

17%

10%

14%

18%

17%

19%

16%

21%

11%

12%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Waterfowl hunting opportunities

Other services

Turkey hunting opportunities

Small game hunting opportunities

Deer hunting opportunities

Special events 

Self guided canoe trail

Opportunities to interact with Refuge staff

Visitor information/Orientation center

Water launches for nonmotorized crafts 

Outdoor education activities

Hiking/walking trails for wildlife viewing opportunities

Highway signs directing visitors to the Refuge

Restrooms

Kiosks or signs with information 

Access for people with disabilities

Viewing areas with information

Website with information about the refuge and its activities

Fishing opportunities

Educational information on historic sites

Desirable Undesirable No Opinion

Figure 4. Desirability of visitor services offered at Rappahannock NWR where responses are 

collapsed into “desirable,” “undesirable,” and “no opinion.” 

48
83%

63%

60%

63%

65%

62%

65%

60%

67%

59%

70%

67%

69%

65%

66%

68%

66%

70%

80%

56%

53%

56%

58%

50%

53%

51%

55%

48%

61%

57%

59%

59%

57%

57%

57%

66%

81%

60%

59%

55%

58%

60%

55%

53%

61%

51%

60%

58%

63%

62%

62%

65%

61%

63%

83%

54%

53%

55%

55%

46%

52%

44%

52%

47%

61%

55%

57%

55%

56%

59%

59%

60%

0% 50% 100%

Other services

Waterfowl hunting opportunities

Turkey hunting opportunities

Small game hunting opportunities

Deer hunting opportunities

Visitor information/Orientation center

Self guided canoe trail

Hiking/Walking trails for wildlife viewing opportunities

Special events 

Outdoor education activities

Highway signs directing visitors to the Refuge

Water launches for nonmotorized crafts 

Kiosks or signs with information 

Restrooms

Viewing areas with information

Access for people with disabilities

Fishing opportunities

Educational information on historic sites

Location A Location B Location C Location D

Figure 5. Percentage of respondents indicating desirability of activities at each location. 

49
Question 3: Willingness to pay for potential future services offered by Rappahannock River Valley 

NWR. 

Table 6. Level of agreement with statements about services offered at Rappahannock NWR. 

Statement Strongly 

agree (%) 

Agree 

(%) 

Unsure

(%) 

Disagree

(%) 

Strongly 

disagree 

(%) 

Meana

SD 

I would be willing to pay a 

fee for activities on the refuge 

such as hunting, fishing, or 

crabbing. 

11 32 20 18 19 2.98 1.30 

I would be willing to pay a 

fee for an educational or 

special events at the Refuge. 

9 42 21 13 15 3.17 1.22 

I would be willing to pay a 

fee to support maintenance of 

the facilities I use on the 

Refuge (such as canoe/kayak 

launch, trails, photo blinds, 

parking, restrooms) 

9 46 21 10 15 3.23 1.20 

I should not have to pay a fee 

to visit this Refuge or any 

other national wildlife refuge. 

22 21 23 24 11 3.17 1.32 

a

Responses were coded on a scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). 

50
42%

43%

51%

54%

35%

37%

28%

25%

23%

20%

21%

21%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I should not have to pay a fee to visit this

Refuge or any other national wildlife refuge.

I would be willing to pay a fee for activities

on the refuge such as hunting, fishing, or

crabbing.

I would be willing to pay a fee for an

educational or special event at the Refuge.

I would be willing to pay a fee to support

maintenance of the facilities I use on the

Refuge.

Agree Disagree Unsure

Figure 6. Level of agreement with willingness to pay for future services, where responses are 

collapsed into “agree,” disagree,” and “unsure.”

51
Section 2: Knowledge and understanding of Rappahannock River Valley NWR and the 

Rappahannock River. 

Question 1: Before receiving this survey, were you aware of Rappahannock River Valley NWR? 

Question 2: In general, how much do you feel you know about Rappahannock River Valley NWR 

and its management? 

Table 7. Respondent awareness of the refuge before receiving the survey and their self-assessed 

knowledge about the refuge and its management. 

% n 

Aware? 

Yes 48 157 

No 52 169 

How much do you feel you know? 

Nothing at all 38 38 

Very little 40 43 

Some 16 14 

A fair amount 5 5 

A great deal < 1 1 

52
Question 3 and 4: Knowledge questions. 

Table 8. Knowledge questions regarding Rappahannock River Valley NWR and the Rappahannock 

River. Rappahannock River Valley residents’ knowledge regarding Rappahannock NWR, National 

Wildlife Refuge System mission, and land acquisition. (Respondents answered a series of 

True/False and multiple choice questions). 

Question 

Correct 

(%) 

Refuge Purpose and Mission 

When looking to obtain land for the Refuge, wetland habitat is a high priority. (True) 91 

Rappahannock River NWR was originally established to protect migratory birds, 

wetlands, and endangered species. 

87 

The primary mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to protect and improve 

fish and wildlife and their habitats. 

84 

The Refuge has been in existence for 10 years. (True) 65 

The Rappahannock River NWR is managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. a 60 

The Refuge is supposed to provide for wildlife conservation and public recreation 

equally. (False) 

55 

Land Acquisition and Ownership 

Conservation easements acquired by the Refuge allow most current land uses like 

farming and hunting to continue, but may restrict development. (True) 

88 

The number of acres planted in grain (corn, winter wheat, and soybeans has decreased 

significantly in the counties where the Refuge has purchased land. (False) 

70 

The National Wildlife Refuge System policy for obtaining land includes all methods 

except taking land from unwilling sellers through condemnation. b

68 

Public review is not required for the Refuge to purchase acreage from willing sellers 

beyond the originally approved acreage. (False) 

54 

The percentage of Refuge lands currently in conservation easements is about 15%. c 46 

When the Refuge was established, it was approved to protect up to 20,000 acres. d

44 

The percentage of the Refuge lands acquired through full ownership title purchase were 

previously agricultural lands is about 25%. e

41 

The approximate acreage of cropland adjacent to the Rappahannock River in Caroline, 

Essex, King George, Richmond, and Westmoreland counties is155,000 acres. f

31 

The total current acreage of the Refuge, including conservation easements, is 

approximately 7,500 acres. g

29 

a The second most often chosen answer was Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. (21%) b The second most often chosen answer was purchasing full ownership title from willing sellers. (14%) 

c The second most often chosen answer was about 30%. (31%) 

d The second most often chosen answer was 7,500. (27%) 

e The second most often chosen answer was less than 5%. (27%) 

f The second most often chosen answer was 300,000. (36%) 

g

 The second most often chosen answer was 13,000 acres (28%) and 20,000 acres. (28%)

53
Question 5: Which of the following actives do you think are allowed at Rappahannock River Valley 

NWR? 

9%

21%

22%

33%

35%

37%

56%

63%

92%

63%

43%

42%

34%

20%

27%

18%

14%

29%

37%

36%

34%

44%

36%

27%

23%

7%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Dogs off leash

Artifact

collecting/beach

combing

Plant and insect

collecting

Hunting

Horseback riding

Beach use/swimming

Camping/Picnicking

Fishing

Photography

Permitted Not Permitted Unsure

Figure 7. Respondents’ beliefs about whether or not activities are permitted on the refuge (n’s range from 

303 to 315).

54
Question 6: Familiarity and confidence with groups addressing natural resource issues along the 

Rappahannock River. 

Table 9. Levels of familiarity and confidence for each of the agencies listed. 

Familiarity (%) Confidence (%) 

Organization 

Not familiar 

Somewhat 

familiar 

Moderately 

familiar 

Very familiar 

n 

No confidence 

at all 

 Limited 

confidence 

Moderate 

confidence 

A great deal of 

confidence 

n 

Nonprofit conservation groups such as 

The Nature Conservancy and the 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

37 34 23 7 318 9 16 48 27 183 

Local and regional land trusts such as 

The Northern Neck Land Conservancy 

and the Middle Peninsula Land Trust 

71 21 7 1 311 18 31 42 9 98 

Farm advocacy groups such as the 

Virginia Farm Bureau Federation 41 28 19 12 312 9 32 45 15 155 

Rappahannock River National 

Wildlife Refuge 47 37 16 1 311 2 20 59 20 139 

State agencies such as the Department 

of Game and Inland Fisheries and the 

Department of Conservation and 

Recreation 

21 32 32 15 313 2 25 50 24 221 

County government such as the Board 

of Supervisors and the Planning 

Commission 

28 22 23 28 313 25 42 28 5 198 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 45 29 15 11 313 9 40 39 12 148 

Other 76 1 4 20 62 17 13 16 54 24 

55
Table 10. Other organizations and agencies listed by respondents in Question 6. 

Organizations/Agencies n 

Any & all government 1 

Army Corps of Engineers - Wetland Regulatory 1 

Audubon Society 1 

Ducks Unlimited 1 

Friends of Rappahannock 1 

Individual landowners 1 

Land developers; big builders 1 

Local citizens 1 

Real estate developers 1 

Trout Unlimited; C.C.A.; B.A.S.S. 1 

Table 11. Familiarity and confidence with organizations addressing natural resource issues along 

the Rappahannock River, with responses collapsed. 

Organization Not 

familiar (%) 

Familiar 

(%) 

No confidence 

in abilities (%) 

Confident in 

abilities (%) 

Rappahannock River National Wildlife 

Refuge 84 16 22 79 

Nonprofit conservation groups such as 

The Nature Conservancy and the 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

71 29 25 75 

State agencies such as the Department 

of Game and Inland Fisheries and the 

Department of Conservation and 

Recreation 

53 47 27 73 

Other 77 23 30 70 

Farm advocacy groups such as the 

Virginia Farm Bureau Federation 69 31 41 59 

Soil and Water Conservation Districts 74 26 49 51 

Local and regional land trusts such as 

The Northern Neck Land Conservancy 

and the Middle Peninsula Land Trust 

92 8 49 51 

County government such as the Board 

of Supervisors and the Planning 

Commission 

50 50 67 33 

56
Figure 8. Mean familiarity with organizations addressing natural resource issues along the 

Rappahannock River. Responses are coded on a 4-point scale from 1 “not familiar” to 4 “very 

familiar.” 

Great deal of 

confidence 

2.46

2.92

3.04

3.24

3.67

3.7

3.75

12345

County government

Local & regional land trusts

Soil and water conservation districts

Farm advocacy groups

Nonprofit conservation groups

State agencies

RRVNWR

Confidence

No confidence 

 at all 

Figure 9. Mean confidence with organizations addressing natural resource issues along the 

Rappahannock River. Responses are coded on a 5-point scale from 1 “no confidence at all” to 5 

“great deal of confidence.” 

1.39

1.70

1.93

2.01

2.00

123

Local & regional land trusts

RRVNWR

Soil and water conservation districts

Farm advocacy groups

Nonprofit conservation groups

2.41

2.50

4

State agencies

County government

Familiarity

Not familiar Very 

familiar

Somewhat 

familiar Moderately 

familiar

57
Section 3: Preferences for land management along the Rappahannock River. 

Table 12. Acceptability of land management options along the Rappahannock River. 

Land Management Options 

Highly 

unacceptabl

e (%) 

Moderately 

unacceptabl

e (%) 

Slightly 

unacceptabl

e (%) 

Neutral 

(%) 

Slightly 

acceptable 

(%) 

Moderately 

acceptable 

(%) 

Highly 

acceptable 

(%) 

Scenario 1 (n = 302) 4 3 6 17 12 26 33 

Hunting and fishing opportunities: increase

Wildlife observation opportunities: increase

Development opportunities: decrease

Fields: corn and wheat used by Canada Geese and Mallards in winter

Landscape: orderly and cultivated

Available land: acquired by Refuge with full ownership

Scenario 2 (n = 299) 5 6 9 25 20 27 9 

Hunting and fishing opportunities: remain the same

Wildlife observation opportunities: increase

Development opportunities: decrease

Fields: trees and grasses for many different wildlife throughout the year

Landscape: wild and uncultivated

Available land: not acquired by the Refuge 

Scenario 3 (n = 292) 5 3 4 17 23 32 14 

Hunting and fishing opportunities: increase

Wildlife observation opportunities: increase

Development opportunities: decrease

Fields: trees and grasses for many different wildlife throughout the year

Landscape: wild and uncultivated

Available land: acquired by Refuge with partial ownership rights (conservation easement)

Scenario 4 (n = 303) 4 3 2 17 20 36 19 

Hunting and fishing opportunities: remain the same

Wildlife observation opportunities: increase

Development opportunities: decrease

Fields: trees and grasses for many different wildlife throughout the year

Landscape: wild and uncultivated

Available land: acquired by Refuge with partial ownership rights (conservation easement)

Scenario 5 (n = 292) 28 21 13 19 8 9 3 

Hunting and fishing opportunities: increase

Wildlife observation opportunities: remain the same

Development opportunities: increase

Fields: trees and grasses for many different wildlife throughout the year

Landscape: wild and uncultivated

Available land: not acquired by the Refuge

58
Scenario 6 (n = 299) 8 4 4 23 18 31 11 

Hunting and fishing opportunities: remain the same

Wildlife observation opportunities: remain the same

Development opportunities: decrease

Fields: corn and wheat used by Canada Geese and Mallards in winter

Landscape: neat and cultivated

Available land: acquired by Refuge with partial ownership rights (conservation easement)

59
60%

20%

74%

72%

55%

71%

17%

61%

9%

12%

20%

12%

23%

19%

17%

17%

25%

17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Scenario 6

Scenario 5

Scenario 4

Scenario 3

Scenario 2

Scenario 1

Acceptable Unacceptable Neutral

Figure 10. Percentage of respondents rating land management options along the Rappahannock 

River as acceptable, unacceptable, or neutral. 

Table 13. Mean acceptability scores for scenarios for land management along the Rappahannock 

River. 

Scenario MeanaStandard Deviation 

Scenario 1 5.41 1.63 

Scenario 2 4.64 1.56 

Scenario 3 5.09 1.51 

Scenario 4 5.28 1.46 

Scenario 5 2.98 1.76 

Scenario 6 4.76 1.66 a

Responses were recoded from original scale so that 1 = highly unacceptable and 7 = highly acceptable. 

60
Section 4: Civic engagement and communication about natural resource issues. 

Question 1: Please indicate which activities you have participated in within the last 5 years related 

to natural resource issues. 

51%

32%

26%

20%

16%

13%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Have not engaged in any civic activities

Signed a petition

Attended a public meeting or hearing

Joined a special interest group

Contacted/wrote a State or Federal agency

Contacted/wrote a U.S. Senator/State Legislator

Wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper

Figure 11. Participation in natural resource decisionmaking.

Table 14. Participation in natural resource decisionmaking.

Activity Participation (%) 

Attended a public hearing or meeting. 26 

Signed a petition. 32 

Joined a special interest group. 20 

Contacted or wrote a U.S. Senator or State Legislator. 13 

Contacted or wrote a State or Federal agency. 16 

Wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper. 7 

Have not engaged in any civic activities. 51 

n = 317 

61
Table 15. Special interest groups respondents have joined. 

Group or organization n 

Hunting and Fishing Organizations 

B.A.S.S. (1) 

Bass Master (1) 

Delta Waterfowl (2) 

Ducks Unlimited (5) 

Federation of Fly Fishers (2) 

National Wild Turkey Federation (1) 

North American Hunting Club (1) 

National Rifle Association (8) 

Pheasants Forever (2) 

Trout Unlimited (2) 

Virginia Deer Hunter Assoc. (2) 

26 

National Environmental/Conservation Organizations 

Audubon Society (4) 

Defenders of Wildlife (1) 

Environmental (general) (2) 

Environmental Defense Fund (1) 

National Arbor Day Foundation (1) 

National Parks Conservation Assoc. (1) 

National Wildlife Federation (4) 

Natural Resources Defense Council (1) 

Nature Conservancy (8) 

Sierra Club (4) 

27 

Local and Regional Environmental Organizations 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation (11) 

Friends of Lancaster County (1) 

Mattspurinin River Group (1) 

Northern Neck Land Conservancy (5) 

Rappahannock River Valley NWR (1) 

Save the Bay (2) 

Scenic Virginia (1) 

Virginia Native Plant Society (1) 

Westmoreland Bird Club (1) 

Wildlife land Trust (1) 

25 

Animal Protection Organizations 

Animal Welfare League (1) 

ASPCA (2) 

Humane Society (3) 

International Fund For Animal Welfare (1) 

Izaak Walton League (2) 

PETA (3) 

SPCA (1) 

13 

Miscellaneous 

American Ratbone Rescues-Protectors of Peace & 

Tranquility for the Emmerton Area (1) 

Boy Scouts of America (1) 

Committee to Keep and Bear Arms (1) 

Concerned Citizens of Northumberland County (1) 

Farm Bureau (1) 

Reedville Fisherman’s Museum (1) 

RHA (1) 

The Colwell-Miller Faction (1)

8 

Outdoor Clubs and organizations 

Appalachian Trail Club (1) 

Boat US (1) 

Fishing Bay Yacht Club (1) 

Virginia Twin Rivers Watermen’s 

Association (1) 

4 

Civic Organizations 

Coles Point Community Organization (1) 

Lions Club (1) 

Ruritans (1) 

3 

62
Question 2: How much do you rely on the following sources for news and information about 

natural resources along the Rappahannock River? 

Table 16. Information sources respondents use for news and information about natural resources 

along the Rappahannock River. 

Sources 

A great 

deal 

(%) 

Some 

(%) 

Not 

much 

(%) 

Not 

at all 

(%) 

n 

Newspapers 36 36 11 16 305 

TV 17 29 33 21 309 

Relatives, friends, or neighbors 15 36 27 22 311 

Printed information from government entities 14 33 29 25 310 

Magazine articles 13 43 23 21 308 

Radio 13 32 26 29 306 

Internet/websites/electronic newsletters 11 25 24 40 301 

Printed information from private organizations or community 

groups 

8 29 29 34 304 

Public hearings or meetings 6 13 22 59 306 

Displays or exhibits 5 35 28 33 309 

Interactions with Soil and Water Conservation Districts or 

County Extension Agent 5 13 27 55 309 

Other 5 1 13 81 284 

Interactions with natural resource professionals (game 

wardens, foresters) 4 22 30 44 314 

Presentations or lectures 3 15 31 51 298 

Interactions with Refuge staff 3 10 21 66 305 

Organizations such as the Rotary Club, Ruritans, or Lions 

Club 3 4 21 71 308 

63
6%

8%

13%

18%

18%

19%

26%

36%

37%

40%

45%

46%

47%

51%

56%

73%

94%

92%

87%

82%

81%

81%

74%

64%

63%

61%

55%

54%

54%

49%

44%

27%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Other

Organizations such as the Rotary Club

Interaction with refuge staff

Presentations

Interaction with Soil and Water Conservation Districts or

County Extension Agent

Public hearings or meetings

Interactions with natural resource professionals

Internet/Websites/Electronic Newsletters

Information from private organizations or community

groups

Displays or exhibits

Radio

TV

Printed information from government entities

Relatives, friends, or neighbors

Magazine articles

Newspapers

Rely on source Do not rely on source

Figure 12. Information sources respondents use for news and information about natural resources 

along the Rappahannock River, with responses collapsed into “Rely on source,” and “Do not rely 

on source.” 

64
Table 17. Specific newspapers listed by respondents that they rely upon for news and information 

about natural resources along the Rappahannock River. 

Most frequently cited newspaper 

source used by respondents n 

Freelance Star 61 

Rappahannock Record 60 

Richmond Times Dispatch 35 

Northern Neck News 21 

King George Journal 12 

Westmoreland News 11 

Southside Sentinel 8 

Washington Post 6 

Other 6 

Caroline Progress 3 

Fredericksburg Paper 2 

The Daily Press 2 

Total 227 

65
Section 5: Demographics 

Question 1: How long have you lived in the Northern Neck or Middle Peninsula? 

Question 2: How many generations has your family lived in the Northern Neck or Middle 

Peninsula? 

Table 18. Amount of time respondents and family have lived in the Northern Neck or the Middle 

Peninsula. 

Years lived in the Northern Neck 

or the Middle Peninsulaa n 

Generations family lived in the 

Northern Neck or the Middle 

Peninsulab

n 

0–9 70 0 59 

10–24 65 1 58 

Over 25 190 2 29 

3 45 

4 41 

5 27 

> 5 26 

a

Mean = 31.68, SD 23.84 bMean 2.60, SD 2.24 

Question 3: Gender 

Table 19. Gender of respondents. 

Gender Respondents (%) 

Male 48 

Female 52 

n = 326 

Question 4: In what year were you born? 

Table 20. Percentage of respondents by age category. 

Age category Respondents (%) n 

18–21 < 1 1 

22–29 5 18 

30–39 8 29 

40–49 19 66 

50–64 39 136 

> 65 28 96 

n = 346 

Mean = 53.41, SD = 17.59 

66
Question 5: Do you or any of your immediate family members depend on the following industries 

for your/their economic livelihood? 

Table 21. Percentage of respondents (or immediate family members) who depend on industries for 

livelihood. 

Industry Respondents (%) 

Timber 10 

Farming 13 

Fishing 7 

Shellfish/crabbing 7 

Tourism/recreation 3 

Ranching < 1 

None of these 77 

n = 315 

Question 6 and 7: Race and ethnicity 

Table 22. Race and ethnicity of respondents. 

Ethnicity a Respondents (%) 

Hispanic or Latino - 

Not Hispanic or Latino 100 

Race b

White 93 

American Indian or Alaska Native 1 

Black or African American 7 

Asian < 1 

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander < 1 a 

n = 319 b 

n = 324 

Question 8: What is your highest year of formal schooling? 

Table 23. Level of education of respondents. 

Level of education Respondents (%) 

Less than high school 8 

High school 51 

College 32 

Advanced degree 10 

n = 326 

67
Question 9: What was your approximate total household income from all sources (before taxes) 

last year? 

Table 24. Household income of respondents. 

Income Respondents (%) 

Less than $10,000 5 

$10,000 to $14,999 5 

$15,000 to $24,999 8 

$25,000 to $34,999 9 

$35,000 to $49,999 17 

$50,000 to $74,999 22 

$75,000 to $99,999 12 

$100,000 to $149,999 18 

Over $150,000 4 

Median income $50,000 to $74,999 

Question 10: Would you like to receive information on any of the following? 

Table 25. Respondents’ desire for information regarding the refuge. 

Information on: Yes (%) 

Refuge Friends Group 22 

Refuge volunteer opportunities 21 

Information about future refuge planning activities 37 

Information about refuge programs and events 70 

Results from this study 83 

n = 255 

68
Verbatim Responses at End of Survey 

(Categories were created after review of comments. Many comments are repeated under 

more than one category.) 

Visitation and Recreation Use 

 I generally favor increased hunting opportunities, less development, and a 

more natural look for the vegetation. 

 Create a large refuge for hunting, fishing and tourism. 

 Bank fishing is limited in the Essex area. Years ago there was a pier by the 

Downing Bridge where many people including myself went to fish and crab. I 

also remember hunting as a youngster and maybe walking the woods for 2 or 3 

days before I would even see a deer. Now with increased building, farming, and 

tree farming, it is nothing to see deer right at my back door or anywhere along 

the road. Their habitat is dwindling greatly every day. Development is going to 

happen but it's a shame it is at the cost of wildlife. 

 We are heavy public boat ramp users and keep a large boat in the water on 

the Rappahannock. Any facilities that would help boaters would be nice; also 

duck blinds on a rental or lottery basis would be nice. Our primary boat use is 

fishing, fresh and saltwater. 

 I am an animal lover. I do not like to see any animal hurt or killed even for 

hunting but I understand that hunting is necessary especially when you think 

about the deer population. It would be nice to have a place to go in your own 

home town where you can safely walk or ride a trail, go horseback riding, do 

some fishing and just take in nature as it was intended for. I would be willing to 

pay a fee for that and I think a lot of other people would also. You'd be surprised 

as to the number of people that do not have or get the opportunity to experience 

these things. When I was little I would spend a lot of time outdoors doing just 

that and I loved it and still do. Just being outside and watching nature at its best 

is satisfying enough for me. I don't have to be doing anything, besides it would 

be good for the children as well, put them more in touch with nature, learning 

about nature, then maybe some of the children would not be so afraid of 

animals and so forth. My answer may not be right but I know what a lot of 

people like and they like the outdoors as well. 

 A mountain bike trail (i.e. gravel-not paved) would be great. It would attract 

bikers from far away! 

 I have joined the R.R.V.N.W.R. within the last month. Since I'm retired I have 

time to volunteer. Greg, at the refuge, says a canoe dock in Rappahannock is 

in the works. I plan to be available. I'd like to see an A.T.V. trail open to the 

public sometime, with a reasonable user fee, of course. 

69
 ATV and dirt bike opportunities should be increased-once wildlife become 

accustomed to them they simply move out of the way and continue with their 

daily business (I've seen this numerous times sitting in a deer stand and 

watched deer move to a better vantage point to watch the bikes then go right 

back to their daily business once the bikes passed). 

 I prefer to visit refuges instead of national parks because they are wild and 

uncultivated. Photography is my hobby. 

 I checked hunting & fishing as I have children who live in Rocky Mount, VA, 

who might like to hunt or fish in your refuge. 

 A number of years ago my husband & I had a 20 ft boat with an outboard 

motor, and we went as far up the Rappahannock River as we cared to go to 

Fredericksburg. It was a beautiful trip, the trees were beautiful and the eagles 

were a joy to watch. Sincerely hope plans will be wonderful for everyone to 

enjoy. The beautiful parts of nature are its Rappahannock River that can only be 

enjoyed in Virginia. 

 I live in Northern Northumberland County and have little reason to visit or use 

the Refuge-given the limited access and facilities there. This region lacks 

any serious hiking/nature trails, although there are thousands of natural 

areas. Hiking is a minimally invasive activity, but apparently not important to the 

Management. 

 I would like to see all the hunting & fishing opportunities possible. 

 I actually have only walked the Cat Point Creek trail from Menokeie; went on a 

bird walk at Hull Spring Farm with Sandy Spenser; and on the Nature Walk at 

George Washington's birthplace. Also attended Northern Neck Audubon when 

presentation was given on Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge. 

 I enjoy bird watching, photography, biking, canoeing, and other activities 

listed, but I have no idea what is currently available; hence, no idea as to what 

might be needed. 

 Hunting opportunities should be closely monitored & controlled, perhaps only 

when overpopulation becomes a problem. 

 Stop deer hunting with dogs. I have never seen a group of people so 

disrespectful of landowners' rights and so full of a feeling of entitlement to 

damage property, litter, and be a general nuisance on the roadways of the 

Northern Neck. It makes me ashamed at times to call myself a sportsman 

knowing that I am grouped with these truly common/ignorant people. 

70
 Why can't we keep sharks teeth we find and driftwood!! On our beaches in 

Wakefield Park and surrounding areas. 

 Just a note regarding combining hunting & fishing-I have no interest in hunting 

whatsoever. 

 I have fished and crabbed the Potomac River and Potomac Creek. This was 

what my father and his father did and my son is doing now. Unlike my father 

and grandfather it was only part time for me as my son its part time. So I know 

more about the Potomac. Lived on a place that had 4 miles of shoreline for 26 

years. Family still own Belle Plains on the creek. 

Development/Preservation 

 Development-I wish we could stop it & turn things back. Animals have no 

place to go anymore, very little food sources remain, more to fear now, and 

they-animals-are better to be surrounded by all the development & what it has 

brought. Our beauty trees, flowers, greenery, fields, farms, etc)are no longer 

around us. We outsource everything. Even human food sources are no longer 

available. Farmers didn't look for new opportunities to continue their farming in 

these changing times. Instead they feared & shut down/sold out. Any 

opportunity to have someone interested in preservation & cleaning up for 

future generations needs to be taken seriously. 

 I generally favor increased hunting opportunities, less development, and a 

more natural look for the vegetation. 

 Zero population growth for humans in Northern Neck and Mid Pen. Buffer zones 

from river. Stop development on the water. Increase tourism. No industry. 

 Bank fishing is limited in the Essex area. Years ago there was a pier by the 

Downing Bridge where many people including myself went to fish and crab. I 

also remember hunting as a youngster and maybe walking the woods for 2 or 3 

days before I would even see a deer. Now with increased building, farming, 

and tree farming, it is nothing to see deer right at my back door or anywhere 

along the road. Their habitat is dwindling greatly every day. Development is 

going to happen but it's a shame it is at the cost of wildlife. 

 Leave it alone. Too many people screwing up the Bay. "It's not nice to mess 

with Mother Nature." A waste of tax dollars. 

 I lived on a farm most of my life so I take a great deal on keeping land as 

natural as possible. I love to be outdoors and do activities but not at the 

expense of the land. 

71
 I feel that the land owner has the least control and say on what is done with 

the land. Groups-special interest-and such as yours-have too much control and 

say as to what is done with land. I have a small stream running through the 

back of my land. I could not cut timber off X on both sides of the stream. It 

ended up being a sizeable area and only I continue to pay taxes on this area. 

That screams, "Wrong," to me. 

 Bikes make great walking trails for everyone to use and although they may do 

some destruction in places like creek crossings and hill climbs after the springs 

of non-use nature will take the trail back over and no-one will ever know it was 

there. Thank you 

 I have visited refuges all over the east coast, I prefer to visit refuges instead of 

national parks because they are wild and uncultivated. 

 I believe that preserving land is of the utmost importance. The Northern Neck 

and its rivers are a jewel and it is still not too late to protect them from 

overdevelopment. I also think that locking up the land by purchasing it is the 

most fail-safe method of preservation. But short of this conservation 

easements and agreements will have to do. 

 The Wildlife Refuge is the only way to control humans from destroying all 

nature's environment. 

 I think it is very important that we keep our natural resources protected. The 

earth depends on us to do this. Animals are very important to me. 

 The problem, as I see it, with the protection of our dwindling natural resources 

lies within the lack of public awareness. 

 I am very supportive of conservation and very interested in environmental 

issues. 

 I would like to see the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge add 

more land to encompass both sides of the Rappahannock River from start all 

the way to the bay to protect our precious wildlife so generations to come can 

enjoy it. 

 The Rappahannock and my small portion of it mean more to me than 

anywhere else on earth. ...I would like to take this opportunity to call your 

attention to a small piece of this area which is so remote that few even know of 

it. On old maps it appears as Perch Creek, but it would now be known as Perch 

Lagoon since the neck of land separating it from Manrito Creek washed out a 

few years ago. This area badly needs to be protected from power boats, 

especially these new small jet boats. Not only is this a sensitive area, there are 

snags just below the surface (locust or cedar mostly) which are like bayonets. 

72
 When this refuge was proposed, we supported their statement that this would 

be a waterfowl refuge-when the plans were changed to emphasize other 

wildlife beyond the resident-abandon agriculture for grass fields and treesforcing higher concentrations of Canada Geese on local farmer's wheat fieldsthe F&WLS lost local support of many local landowners-particularly the 

agricultural community. 

 I am in favor of any ways that will help preserve our beloved Northern Neck. 

 I would like to conserve any and all refuges, but some of your questions were 

unknown to me or my wife. I am interested in learning more about it and what it 

has to offer the community in terms of both conservation and recreation. Limited 

knowledge 

 The United States government already owns 671,759,297.7 acres of our land. 

That is a total of 29.6% of all U.S. land. I think that's enough, only 2.4 percent 

are used for military purposes. We already have state parks with hiking trails, 

and ample areas of forest for bird watching. Most of our rivers and streams are 

open to the public, with free ramps, giving everyone free access. I am 

concerned that our government may become too Communistic, wanting to own 

all U.S. land. The truth is U.S. citizens cannot compete with the United States 

government, when it comes to bidding on property that's for sale. The 

government that governs least, governs best, in a free society. 

Services/Facilities 

 I generally favor increased hunting opportunities, less development, and a 

more natural look for the vegetation. ... I have not heard much about the 

programs you offer nor have I seen many signs that depict the boundaries of the 

refuge or where the access points are. 

 Create a large refuge for hunting, fishing and tourism. 

 Bank fishing is limited in the Essex area. Years ago there was a pier by the 

Downing Bridge where many people including myself went to fish and crab. I 

also remember hunting as a youngster and maybe walking the woods for 2 or 3 

days before I would even see a deer. Now with increased building, farming, and 

tree farming, it is nothing to see deer right at my back door or anywhere along 

the road. Their habitat is dwindling greatly every day. Development is going to 

happen but it's a shame it is at the cost of wildlife. 

 I would be interested in events for children. 

73
 We are heavy public boat ramp users and keep a large boat in the water on the 

Rappahannock. Any facilities that would help boaters would be nice, also duck 

blinds on a rental or lottery basis would be nice. Our primary boat use is fishing, 

fresh and saltwater. 

 It would be nice to have a place to go in your own home town where you can 

safely walk or ride a trail, go horseback riding, do some fishing and just take in 

nature as it was intended for. I would be willing to pay a fee for that and I think 

a lot of other people would also. 

 There should be consistency with services offered-do not agree spending 

dollars on public landings for small H2O craft-many small marinas & public 

access throughout region. 

 A mountain bike trail (i.e. gravel-not paved) would be great. It would attract 

bikers from far away! 

 While I understand this is not one of your goals, I'd like to have public A.T.V. 

trails opened, with user fee, of course, because now, there are none. 

 ATV and dirt bike opportunities should be increased-once wildlife become 

accustomed to them they simply move out of the way and continue with their 

daily business (I've seen this numerous times sitting in a deer stand and 

watched deer move to a better vantage point to watch the bikes then go right 

back to their daily business once the bikes passed). 

 I am looking for conservation projects suitable for Boy Scout & Eagle projects 

or for Boy Scout and Cub Scout community service. 

 Need more boat launches. 

Expansion/Acquisition 

 I favor expansion of the refuge, especially on lands adjacent to the river. I have 

not heard much about the programs you offer nor have I seen many signs that 

depict the boundaries of the refuge or where the access points are. 

 Need to expand refuge as much as possible as fast as possible as a filter for 

Chesapeake Bay and water improvement. 

 I feel that the land owner has the least control and say on what is done with the 

land. Groups-special interest-and such as yours-have too much control and say 

as to what is done with land. I have a small stream running through the back of 

my land. I could not cut timber off X on both sides of the stream. It ended up 

being a sizeable area and I and only I continue to pay taxes on this area. That 

screams, "wrong" to me. This is what frightens me. I don't trust that your group 

74
has the power to cause change that land owners can't control. I pay taxes on 

land on both sides of a stream that goes through my land and I have no control 

or say over this land. NOT RICH! 

 The Northern Neck and its rivers is a jewel and it is still not too late to protect 

them from overdevelopment. I also think that locking up the land by 

purchasing it is the most fail-safe method of preservation. But short of this 

conservation easements and agreements will have to do. 

 I would like to see the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge add 

more land to encompass both sides of the Rappahannock River from start all 

the way to the bay to protect our precious wildlife so generations to come can 

enjoy it. 

 The United States government already owns 671,759,297.7 acres of our 

land. That is a total of 29.6% of all U.S. land. I think that's enough, only 2.4 

percent are used for military purposes. We already have state parks with hiking 

trails, and ample areas of forest for bird watching. Most of our rivers and 

streams are open to the public, with free ramps, giving everyone free access. I 

am concerned that our government may become too Communistic, wanting to 

own all U.S. land. The truth is U.S. citizens cannot compete with the United 

States government, when it comes to bidding on property that's for sale. The 

government that governs least, governs best, in a free society. 

Refuge Staff/Management in general 

 U.S. Congress must fund the programs-more money. (2) Actually, this refuge is 

for posterity-the future-one of the best investments by our government. (3) 

Management should not be either totally cultivated fields or left wild-a mixed 

approach is best. Thank you. Sec. 3, Scenario 6. What about a hybrid 

management - some cultivated and some wild?

 All of the people that I have met that are associated with the refuge have been 

very good listeners to my knowledge and my opinions of the Rappahannock 

River, its fish, birds, wildlife, phragmites, etc. and I appreciate that. I feel that the 

intentions of the Refuge are good as well as necessary. 

 Since I'm retired I have time to volunteer. Greg, at the refuge, says a canoe 

dock in Rappahannock is in the works. I plan to be available. I'd like to see an 

A.T.V. trail open to the public sometime, with a reasonable user fee, of course. 

I'm looking forward to being of service. On behalf of Cub Scout Pack 255, Oak 

Grove, Virginia, thanks for the kids fishing day, 3 June '06. Great experience for 

kids. 

75
 At any rate, I believe you are providing a service to me, wildlife, and future 

generations. Good boy! Don't stop before the miracle happens. Thank you 

kindly! 

 Are you aware of the newly formed authority in the Northern Neck charged 

with securing public access sites? FYI. 

 Much of this questionnaire sounds as if USFWS wants to become a recreation 

agency in competition with Parks & state/US Forests. 

 Our household had never heard of the RRV until receiving this questionnaire. 

This week was also our first experience staying in a National Park. If you folks 

can do as wonderful a job as these folks do--with the limited financial 

resources they have-you'll have tremendous success. 

Wildlife/Habitat Management 

 Management should not be either totally cultivated fields or left wild-a mixed 

approach is best. Thank you. Sec. 3, Scenario 6. What about a hybrid 

management - some cultivated and some wild?

 Animals have no place to go anymore, very little food sources remain, more 

to fear now, and they-animals-are better to be surrounded by all the 

development & what it has brought. 

 Leave it alone. Too many people screwing up the Bay. "It's not nice to mess 

with Mother Nature." 

 I lived on a farm most of my life so I take a great deal on keeping land as 

natural as possible. I love to be outdoors and do activities but not at the 

expense of the land. 

 A number of years ago my husband & I had a 20 ft boat with an outboard motor, 

and we went as far up the Rappahannock River as we cared to go to 

Fredericksburg. It was a beautiful trip, the trees were beautiful and the eagles 

were a joy to watch. Sincerely hope plans will be wonderful for everyone to 

enjoy. The beautiful parts of nature are its Rappahannock River that can only be 

enjoyed in Virginia. 

 I would like to take this opportunity to call your attention to a small piece of this 

area which is so remote that few even know of it. On old maps it appears as 

Perch Creek, but it would now be known as Perch Lagoon since the neck of 

land separating it from Manrito Creek washed out a few years ago. This area 

badly needs to be protected from power boats, especially these new small jet 

76
boats. Not only is this a sensitive area, there are snags just below the surface 

(locust or cedar mostly) which are like bayonets. 

 I'm also curious about the "grass fields;" I don't recall the early explorers of this 

area reporting any extensive upland grassed areas-only marsh & further south 

Cone Breaks- e.g. the "Green Sea" on the NC/VA line in Chesapeake & the 

Dismal Swamp area-any references? 

 Why can't we keep sharks teeth we find and driftwood!! On our beaches in 

Wakefield Park and surrounding areas. 

 Just a note regarding combining hunting & fishing-I have no interest in 

hunting whatsoever. 

Limited Knowledge about the Refuge 

 We know of and would like to visit the Refuge. We can never find an entrance. 

Is there? 

 I would like to conserve any and all refuges, but some of your questions were 

unknown to me or my wife. I am interested in learning more about it and what 

it has to offer the community in terms of both conservation and recreation. 

 Our household had never heard of the RRV until receiving this questionnaire. 

This week was also our first experience staying in a National Park. If you folks 

can do as wonderful a job as these folks do--with the limited financial resources 

they have-you'll have tremendous success. Move to services and facilities or 

limited knowledge. 

 I am glad for the opportunity to participate in this survey because until now I had

very little knowledge of the refuge. I am interested in learning more about it 

and what it has to offer the community in terms of both conservation and 

recreation. 

 I am glad to learn of this refuge and look forward to learning more about this 

refuge. 

 I have not heard much about the programs you offer nor have I seen many 

signs that depict the boundaries of the refuge or where the access points are. 

 I know nothing about the Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

nor have I seen information or public education regarding it. If you increase 

public awareness, I'm sure there would be increased interest. 

77
78
Appendix B: Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Community Survey 

79
Rappahannock River Valley

National Wildlife Refuge

Community Survey

Please Read This First

This survey is an effort to gather information from local community members for Rappahannock River 

Valley National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge is developing a long-term plan for the lands it manages 

and needs your input! This plan will define the refuge management goals and objectives for the next 

15 years. The study will specifically outline such programs as wildlife habitat management, public use 

and access, and land protection. By better understanding the community’s opinions and understanding 

of Refuge issues, the Refuge can do a better job. Even if you have not heard of the Refuge or feel 

you are not that familiar with it, the Refuge would still like to hear from you. 

Cat Point Creek: Photo courtesy of Sandy Spencer, USFWS.

80
Section 1—Please tell us about your recreational activity and your preferences for 

recreation along the Rappahannock River. 

Enclosed with this survey is a map of the Rappahannock River Valley. On the map are 4 locations identified 

as A, B, C, and D. Please refer to this map to answer both questions 1 and 2.

1. Please indicate whether you currently participate in the following activities near your home by first circling 

“yes” or “no” on the left. Then, tell us specifically where you participate in each activity by circling all letters 

on the right that apply. If you participate in the activity elsewhere nearby, circle “Elsewhere nearby” and 

write the location where you participate in the activity in the space provided. 

Participate Location (See map insert; please circle all that apply)

Yes No Bird watching A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Photography (nature/wildlife) A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Hiking/Nature trails A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Environmental field trips (attended by 

you or your children) A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Bank fishing A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Boat fishing A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Deer hunting (with dogs) A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Deer hunting (without dogs) A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Turkey hunting A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Waterfowl hunting A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Self-guided nature/Wildlife viewing A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Canoeing/Kayaking A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Attend nature programs (guided bird 

walks, lectures, presentations) A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Crabbing A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

Yes No Trapping A B C D Elsewhere nearby (please specify below)

__________________________________

81
2. This question has two parts. First, tell us your desire to see each of the following services offered by 

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge by circling the number on the left that corresponds 

with your answer. Then, tell us the general location you would prefer seeing each service offered by 

circling the letter on the right that corresponds with your answer. 

Desirability

(Please circle only one.) Not at all Desirable Somewhat Desirable Moderately Desirable Very Desirable

No Opinion

Location 

(See map insert; 

please circle all that 

apply.)

1 2 3 4 5 Hiking/Walking trails for wildlife viewing opportunities A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Restrooms A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Outdoor education activities A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Access for people with disabilities A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Visitor information/Orientation center A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Deer hunting opportunities A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Small game hunting opportunities A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Turkey hunting opportunities A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Waterfowl hunting opportunities A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Fishing opportunities A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Kiosks or signs with information about the Refuge or its wildlife A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Viewing areas with information about different wildlife habitats A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Highway signs directing visitors to the Refuge A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Water launches for nonmotorized crafts (canoes, kayaks) A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Self-guided canoe trail A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Educational information on historical sites A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Special events (guided bird walks, lectures, presentations) A B C D

1 2 3 4 5 Website with information about the Refuge and its activities ----Not applicable----

1 2 3 4 5 Opportunity to interact with Refuge staff ----Not applicable----

1 2 3 4 5 Other services (Please specify) 

__________________________________________ A B C D

82
3. In thinking about services that may be offered in the future by Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife 

Refuge, please read each statement below and circle the number that corresponds to your level of agreement.

Statement Strongly

Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly

Agree

I would be willing to pay a fee for activities on the Refuge 

such as hunting, fishing, or crabbing. 1 2 3 4 5

I would be willing to pay a fee for an educational program 

or special event at the Refuge. 1 2 3 4 5

I would be willing to pay a fee to support maintenance of 

the facilities I use on the Refuge (such as canoe/kayak 

launch, trails, photo blind, parking, restrooms).

1 2 3 4 5

I should not have to pay a fee to visit this Refuge or any 

other national wildlife refuge. 1 2 3 4 5

Section 2 — Please tell us about your understanding of Rappahannock River Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge and the Rappahannock River.

In order to communicate effectively with local community members, it is important that we understand 

what is commonly known about the Refuge and the Rappahannock River Valley and how people interact in 

their community on river-related issues.

1. Before receiving this survey, were you aware of Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge?

Yes  No

2. In general, how much do you feel you know about Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge and 

its management? Please check one.

 Nothing at all  Very little  Some A fair amount A great deal

3. For each question or statement below, please check the one box that you feel most accurately represents the 

correct answer.

a. The Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife 

Refuge was originally established to:

 Protect migratory birds, wetlands, and 

endangered species

 Protect water quality

 Provide camping and picnicking opportunities

 Protect wildlife with no public use permitted

b. The primary mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System is:

 To provide recreation opportunities for the 

public

 To protect and improve fish and wildlife and 

their habitats

 To manage the nation’s water resources

 To preserve cultural resources

c. The Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife 

Refuge is managed by:

 Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries

 The National Park Service 

 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 They are self-managing

d. The National Wildlife Refuge System policy for 

obtaining land includes all methods except:

 Purchasing full ownership title to a property 

from willing sellers

 Purchasing partial ownership rights to a 

property (conservation easement)

 Acquiring land through exchanges and donations

 Taking land from unwilling sellers through 

condemnation

83
h. What percentage of Refuge lands are currently in 

conservation easements?

 Less than 1%

 About 15%

 About 30%

 About 60%

i. What is the approximate acreage of cropland adjacent 

to the Rappahannock River in Caroline, Essex, King 

George, Richmond, and Westmoreland counties?

 475,000 acres

 300,000 acres

 155,000 acres

 50,000 acres

e. The total current acreage of the Refuge, including 

conservation easements, is approximately:

 1,000 acres

 7,500 acres

 13,000 acres

 20,000 acres

f. When the Refuge was established, it was 

approved to protect up to ______ acres?

 20,000 acres

 13,000 acres

 7,500 acres

 1,000 acres

g. What percentage of the Refuge lands acquired 

through full ownership title purchase were 

previously agricultural lands?

 Less than 5%

 About 25%

 About 50%

 About 75%

4. Please indicate whether you think each of the following statements about Rappahannock River Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge is true or false by checking the appropriate box.

True False

The Refuge is supposed to provide for wildlife conservation and public recreation equally.  

The Refuge has been in existence for 10 years.  

Public review is not required for the Refuge to purchase acreage from willing sellers beyond the 

originally approved total acreage.  

When looking to obtain additional land for the Refuge, wetland habitat is a high priority.  

Conservation easements acquired by the Refuge allow most current land uses like farming and hunting 

to continue, but may restrict development.  

The number of acres planted in grain (corn, winter wheat, and soybeans) has decreased significantly in 

the counties where the Refuge has purchased land.  

84
5. Which of the following activities do you think are allowed at Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife 

Refuge? Please check the box that matches your answer.

6. Many organizations and agencies address natural resource issues along the Rappahannock River. We would 

like to know your level of familiarity with the groups listed below and your confidence in their ability to 

address these issues. Please circle the numbers on the right and the left that correspond with your answer.

Familiarity Confidence

Not FamiliarSomewhat FamiliarModerately FamiliarVery FamiliarNo Confidence at AllLimited ConfidenceNo OpinionModerate ConfidenceGreat Deal of Confidence

1 2 3 4 Nonprofit conservation groups such as The Nature 

Conservancy and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 Local and regional land trusts such as The Northern Neck 

Land Conservancy and the Middle Penninsula Land Trust 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 Farm advocacy groups such as the Virginia Farm Bureau 

Federation 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4

State agencies such as the Department of Game and 

Inland Fisheries and the Department of Conservation and 

Recreation

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 County government such as the Board of Supervisors and 

the Planning Commission 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 Soil and Water Conservation Districts 1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 Other (please specify) ________________________ 1 2 3 4 5

Activity Permitted on the 

Refuge

Not permitted on the 

Refuge Unsure

Photography   

Hunting   

Fishing   

Horseback riding   

Camping/Picnicking   

Beach use/Swimming   

Dogs off leash   

Plant and insect collecting   

Artifact collecting/Beach combing   

85
Section 3 — Please tell us your preferences for land management along the 

Rappahannock River.

There are many ways that lands within the Refuge boundary (see map) can be managed. Below are 6 

hypothetical scenarios that describe potential effects of Refuge management. These effects include:

● Access for hunting and fishing opportunities increases or remains the same

● Access for wildlife observation opportunities increases or remains the same

● Opportunities for development along rivers and creeks increase or decrease

● Fields are planted with crops that may be used by Canada geese and Mallards in winter or with trees 

and grasses for many different wildlife throughout the year

● The landscape is orderly and cultivated or wild and uncultivated

● Available land is acquired by the Refuge with full ownership rights, partial ownership rights 

(conservation easement), or available land is not acquired by the Refuge 

Please read each scenario and rate how acceptable you find it by circling a number on the scale below it. 

Although the scenarios may seem very similar, each is different and should be rated independently. 

Scenario 1 

● Hunting and fishing opportunities: increase

● Wildlife observation opportunities: increase

● Development opportunities: decrease

● Fields: corn and wheat used by Canada Geese and Mallards in winter

● Landscape: orderly and cultivated

● Available land: acquired by Refuge with full ownership rights

Highly

Acceptable

Moderately 

Acceptable

Slightly

Acceptable Neutral SlightlyUnacceptable

Moderately 

Unacceptable

Highly

Unacceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scenario 2

● Hunting and fishing opportunities: remain the same

● Wildlife observation opportunities: increase

● Development opportunities: decrease

● Fields: trees and grasses for many different wildlife throughout the year

● Landscape: wild and uncultivated

● Available land: not acquired by the Refuge

Highly

Acceptable

Moderately 

Acceptable

Slightly

Acceptable Neutral SlightlyUnacceptable

Moderately 

Unacceptable

Highly

Unacceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

86
Scenario 3

● Hunting and fishing opportunities: increase 

● Wildlife observation opportunities: increase

● Development opportunities: decrease

● Fields: trees and grasses for many different wildlife throughout the year

● Landscape: wild and uncultivated

● Available land: acquired by Refuge with partial ownership rights (conservation easement)

Highly

Acceptable

Moderately 

Acceptable

Slightly

Acceptable Neutral SlightlyUnacceptable

Moderately 

Unacceptable

Highly

Unacceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scenario 4

● Hunting and fishing opportunities: remain the same

● Wildlife observation opportunities: increase

● Development opportunities: decrease

● Fields: trees and grasses for many different wildlife throughout the year

● Landscape: wild and uncultivated

● Available land: acquired by Refuge with partial ownership rights (conservation easement)

Highly

Acceptable

Moderately 

Acceptable

Slightly

Acceptable Neutral SlightlyUnacceptable

Moderately 

Unacceptable

Highly

Unacceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Scenario 5 

● Hunting and fishing opportunities: increase

● Wildlife observation opportunities: remain the same

● Development opportunities: increase

● Fields: trees and grasses for many different wildlife throughout the year

● Landscape: wild and uncultivated

● Available land: not acquired by the Refuge

Highly

Acceptable

Moderately 

Acceptable

Slightly

Acceptable Neutral SlightlyUnacceptable

Moderately 

Unacceptable

Highly

Unacceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

87
Section 4 — Please tell us how you participate in and communicate about natural 

resource issues. 

1. We would like to understand how community members participate in local or regional natural resource or 

environmental issues. Please indicate which of the activities you have participated in within the last 5 years 

related to environmental or natural resource issues. Please check all that apply.

 Attended a public hearing or meeting

 Contacted or wrote a state/federal agency

 Contacted or wrote a U.S. Senator, member of Congress, or State Legislator

 Wrote a letter to the editor of a newspaper

 Signed a petition

 Joined a special interest group (such as an environmental, sportsman’s, animal rights, or 

agricultural organization)

If you joined any special interest group, please list the organization(s) below

 __________________________ ____________________________

 __________________________ ____________________________

 I have not engaged in any of the activities listed above.

Scenario 6

● Hunting and fishing opportunities: remain the same

● Wildlife observation opportunities: remain the same

● Development opportunities: decrease

● Fields: corn and wheat used by Canada Geese and Mallards in winter

● Landscape: orderly and cultivated

● Available land: acquired by Refuge with partial ownership rights (conservation easement)

Highly

Acceptable

Moderately 

Acceptable

Slightly

Acceptable Neutral SlightlyUnacceptable

Moderately 

Unacceptable

Highly

Unacceptable

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

88
2. How much do you rely on the following sources for news and information about natural resources along the 

Rappahannock River? For each source, circle the number that best corresponds with your use.

Section 5 — Please tell us something about yourself. 

These last few questions will help us make sure the information provided represents local community 

members. These questions are necessary to ensure the results are statistically valid. Know that your 

answers will not be associated with you individually in any way.

1. How long have you lived in the Northern Neck or Middle Peninsula? _____ years

2. How many generations has your family lived in the Northern Neck or Middle Peninsula? _____ generations

3. Are you?  Male  Female

4. In what year were you born? _______ (YYYY)

5. Do you or any of your immediate family members depend on the following industries for your/their 

economic livelihood? Please check all that apply.

Sources Not 

At All

Not 

Much Some A Great 

Deal

Magazine articles 1 2 3 4

Newspapers (specify which one) _______________________________________ 1 2 3 4

Printed information from government entities such as the USDA Farm Service 

Agency, County Extension Office, Virginia Department of Game and Inland 

Fisheries, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1 2 3 4

Printed information from private organizations or community groups such as the 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation or Corn Growers Association 1 2 3 4

Internet/Websites/Electronic newsletters 1 2 3 4

Radio 1 2 3 4

TV 1 2 3 4

Displays or exhibits 1 2 3 4

Presentations or lectures 1 2 3 4

Relatives, friends, or neighbors 1 2 3 4

Interactions with Refuge staff 1 2 3 4

Interactions with natural resource professionals (game wardens, foresters) 1 2 3 4

Interactions with Soil and Water Conservation Districts or

County Extension Agent 1 2 3 4

Organization meetings such as Rotary Club, Ruritans, Lions Club 1 2 3 4

Public hearings or meetings 1 2 3 4

Other (please specify) ______________________________________________ 1 2 3 4

 Timber  Ranching  Shellfishing/Crabbing  None of these

 Farming  Fishing  Tourism/Recreation

89
6. What ethnicity do you consider yourself? Please select one.

  Hispanic or Latino  Not Hispanic or Latino

7. Please choose the racial category or categories with which you most closely identify? 

8. What is your highest year of formal schooling? Please circle only one.

9. What was your approximate total household income from all sources (before taxes) last year? 

Please check one.

 less than $10,000  $25,000-$34,999  $75,000-$99,999

 $10,000-$14,999  $35,000-$49,999  $100,000-$149,999

 $15,000-$24,999  $50,000-$74,999  $150,000 and above

10. Would you like to receive information on any of the following? Please check all that apply.

Thank you for completing the survey. There is space for any 

additional comments you may have on the next page.

 American Indian or Alaska Native  Asian

 White  Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

 Black or African American

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+

(elementary) (jr. high or middle) (high school) (college or

technical school)

(graduate or

professional school)

 Refuge Friends Group  Information about Refuge programs and events

 Refuge Volunteer opportunities  Results from this study

 Information about Refuge planning activities

90
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT STATEMENT: A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Public burden for the collection 

of this information is estimated to average 25 minutes per response. Comments regarding this collection of information should be 

directed to: Desk Officer for the Interior Department, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Washington, DC 20503; and the Bureau Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS160, 

Reston, Virginia 20192.

OMB Control Number: 1028-0083, Expiration Date: 04/30/2009

Comments?

Please write any additional comments about the Rappahannock River Valley or 

Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge in the space below.

91