Stakeholder Evaluation for Canaan Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge: Completion Report 

By Natalie R. Sexton, Nina Burkardt, Margaret Earlene Swann, and Susan C. Stewart 

Open-File Report 2009-1030 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

U.S. Geological Survey
 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

KEN SALAZAR, Secretary 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director 

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia 2009 

This and other USGS information products are available at http://store.usgs.gov/ 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Box 25286, Denver Federal Center 

Denver, CO 80225 

To learn about the USGS and its information products visit http://www.usgs.gov/ 

1-888-ASK-USGS 

Suggested citation: 

Sexton, N.R., Burkardt, N., Swann, M.E., and Stewart, S.C., 2009, Stakeholder evaluation of Canaan Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge–completion report: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2009-1030, 66 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 

Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................................... v 

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

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge .............................................................................................................4 

Study Objectives.................................................................................................................................................4 

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

 Primer on Q-Methodology...............................................................................................................................5 

 Selecting the Statements................................................................................................................................6 

 Identifying Participants..................................................................................................................................10 

 Inviting Participants.......................................................................................................................................10 

 Meeting with Stakeholders............................................................................................................................12 

 The Q-Sort Exercise .................................................................................................................................12 

 The Followup Discussion ..........................................................................................................................12 

 Analyzing the Data........................................................................................................................................12 

Results..............................................................................................................................................................13 

 Stakeholder Perspectives .............................................................................................................................13 

 Perspective 1: Ecological Preservation.....................................................................................................14 

 Perspective 2: Recreational Access..........................................................................................................17 

 Perspective 3: Traditional Wildlife Management .......................................................................................19 

 Perspective 4: Wildlife First, Recreation Second ......................................................................................21 

 Perspective 5: Economic Development ....................................................................................................23 

 Areas of Consensus and Concern ................................................................................................................26 

 Areas of High Consensus/Low Concern ...................................................................................................27 

 Areas of High Consensus/High Concern ..................................................................................................28 

 Areas of Low Consensus/High Concern ...................................................................................................33 

 Suggested Solutions.....................................................................................................................................37 

 Watershed/Habitat ....................................................................................................................................38 

 Recreational Access .................................................................................................................................38 

 Hunting .....................................................................................................................................................42 

 Land Acquisition........................................................................................................................................44 

 Environmental Education ..........................................................................................................................45 

 Economic Development ............................................................................................................................47 

 Process.....................................................................................................................................................48 

Discussion ........................................................................................................................................................51 

 Use of Q-Methodology in Public Participation Decision Processes...............................................................51 

 Implications of the Stakeholder Evaluation Results ......................................................................................52 

 Areas of Likely Consensus are Opportunities for Collaboration................................................................52 

 Areas of Potential Conflict are Opportunities for Strategic Concentration.................................................52 

 Values are Important in Understanding Perspectives ...............................................................................53 

 Proposed Solutions Provide “Food for Thought”.......................................................................................53 

 It is Important to Understand the Decisionmaking Context .......................................................................53 

Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................54 

References Cited ..............................................................................................................................................54 

Appendix: Key Output from Stakeholder Evaluation Analysis and Timeline of CCP Development...................57 

iii
 

Figures 

1. Response sheet for Q-sort exercise conducted with stakeholders of Canaan Valley National Wildlife 

Refuge. .............................................................................................................................................................. 9

2. Model of consensus and concern for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge stakeholder evaluation.........27

3. Map showing access solutions and locations provided by 14 stakeholders................................................. 43

Tables 

1. Classes of participation formats often used by government agencies ........................................................... 3 

2. Statements for Canaan Valley stakeholder evaluation listed by key issue..................................................... 7 

3. List of stakeholder groups who were identified in the stakeholder evaluation for Canaan Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge................................................................................................................................................. 11 

4. Summary of stakeholder perspectives and values from Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge stakeholder 

evaluation ........................................................................................................................................................ 15 

5. Summary profile for Ecological Preservation perspective ............................................................................ 16 

6. Summary profile for Recreational Access Perspective ................................................................................ 18 

7. Summary profile for Traditional Wildlife Management Perspective.............................................................. 20 

8. Summary profile for Wildlife First, Recreation Second................................................................................. 22 

9. Summary profile for Economic Development Perspective ........................................................................... 25 

10. Statements of High Consensus/Low Concern by Perspective ................................................................... 29 

11. High Consensus/High Concern by Perspective ......................................................................................... 30 

12. Low Consensus/High Concern by Perspective .......................................................................................... 34 

13. Low Consensus between Perspectives ..................................................................................................... 37 

14. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding watershed/habitat ....................... 38 

15. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding access ........................................ 39

16. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding hunting..................................44

17. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding land acquisition........................... 45 

18. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding environmental education ............ 46 

19. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding development............................... 48 

20. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding process....................................... 50

iv
 

Acknowledgments 

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

Office. The stakeholder evaluation was developed collaboratively with staff from Canaan 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, and the stakeholders 

who participated in the evaluation. We would also like to thank Jessica Clement and Kathy Mattor 

for their consultation on the methodology used for this study, and Jessica Clement and Seth Tuler 

for their helpful reviews of this report. 

v
 

vi
 

Stakeholder Evaluation for Canaan Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge: Completion Report 

By Natalie Sexton1, Nina Burkardt1, Margaret Earlene Swann1, and Susan Stewart2

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 “to foster 

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” 

(Director’s Order #132–601 FW1). About 98 percent of the system is open to the public, attracting 

nearly 40 million visitors annually. More than 25 million people per 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 (Uniack, 1999). 

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 traditionally focused largely on habitat and wildlife management. Increasingly, however, 

refuges include visitor services goals and objectives in their CCPs to ensure that community and 

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 

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

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

 

1

 U.S. Geological Survey. 

2

 Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 

1
 

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

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

participation process also facilitates the engagement of a variety of stakeholders (defined as a party 

who affects or is affected by an organization’s actions) 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 (Beirele and Cayford, 2002; Burby, 2003). The challenge is structuring public participation 

in ways that are meaningful and productive for both agencies and the stakeholders. 

The outcomes of a public participation process depend strongly on the way the process is 

organized and carried out. The design of a public participation process can be guided by four 

principles to guarantee a higher quality of deliberation: 

• inclusiveness of participation, 

• collaborative problem formulation and process design, 

• transparency of the process, and 

• good-faith communication (Dietz and Stern, 2008) 

It is noted in the research literature that many successful public participation processes 

include both process components and outcome components (Chess and Purcell, 1999; Halvorsen, 

2003; Tuler and Webler, 1999). 

In regard to process, stakeholders seek accessibility to quality deliberation and full 

representation. They want a comfortable and convenient setting where processes are respectful of 

participants’ time and include open discussions where they can initiate dialogue, as well as 

challenge and defend claims. Access to the best available information is important as well as 

having opportunities for learning (Chess and Purcell, 1999; Webler and Tuler, 2000). 

In regard to outcomes, stakeholders need a sense of efficacy, to see that they have had the 

power to be effective in the public participation process. Decisionmakers need to show that they 

take public input seriously, and that the results of citizen input are reflected in the final decisions 

(McCool and Guthrie, 2001). 

Bradbury, Branch, and Malone (2003) reiterate these needed criteria for both process and 

outcome success in the evaluation framework for public participation programs. The authors add 

that these criteria feed off of each other, may enhance relationships among stakeholders, and 

contribute to the stakeholders’ ability to better provide informed input to decisions. 

There are many options for designing/formatting public participation processes, but there 

are no concrete must-do steps for processes that guarantee successful outcomes. Dietz and Stern 

(2008) recommend choosing processes (formats, procedures) that are driven by the above 

principles while always taking into consideration the context-specific challenges (table 1). 

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 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. 

2
 

Table 1. Classes of participation formats often used by government agencies (from Dietz and Stern, 2008). 

Format Type Breadth of Public Participation 

Information Exchange (used both to 

inform and consult) 

Includes public hearings, comment 

periods, scoping meetings, focus 

groups, workshops, open houses, and 

listening sessions

Open access; often oriented toward 

individual citizens, but often includes 

interest group representatives

Involvement 

Includes citizen panels, deliberative 

polling, charettes, some advisory 

committees, citizen juries, study 

groups, town meetings, future 

search conferences, and online 

deliberation)

Predefined group selected to represent 

diverse perspectives; may include 

individual citizens or group 

representatives 

Engagement (in both decisionmaking 

and collaborative action) 

Includes joint fact-finding, policy 

dialogues, negotiated rulemaking, blueribbon commissions, summits, 

community partnerships, and 

comanagement of projects or programs

Predefined to represent interested 

groups, sometimes geographically 

defined in the cases of partnerships or 

comanagement of projects to include 

stakeholders with local ecological 

knowledge 

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

participation early in the planning process. These workbooks are distributed to interested parties so 

they can provide written input on the CCP process. While the workbook can potentially gather 

broader 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, due to the sampling approach. 

A lesser used tool in CCP planning is a stakeholder evaluation. A stakeholder evaluation is 

one way that the CCP planning team can reach out to the public and collect information on 

community preferences and opinions. It is an effective supplement to a public meeting and(or) 

Issues Workbook when detailed, methodical information on stakeholder populations is needed. 

This type of research applied to refuge planning can help managers characterize current discourses 

and “conversations” around key topics related to refuge planning. It can also help managers 

understand how current and proposed management activities affect individuals in terms of their 

preference for services and experiences. 

The purpose of this study was to provide a more meaningful public participation process for 

the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge (henceforth Refuge). The U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) team of social scientists designed a stakeholder evaluation process that endeavored to meet 

the principles for higher quality public participation to improve the quality and legitimacy of 

decisions made regarding refuge’s long-term plan. The information from the stakeholder evaluation 

3
 

will aid the Refuge in development of their CCP as they strive to balance stakeholder desires with 

their charge to manage the unique wetlands and uplands of the Canaan Valley for wildlife 

conservation. 

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

Canaan Valley NWR is located in Tucker County, West Virginia, in the highest valley of its 

size east of the Rocky Mountains. Established in 1994, it was the 500th refuge in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge was established to preserve the unique wetlands and uplands 

of the high elevation valley. The 16,000-acre Refuge offers wildlife-dependent recreation 

opportunities, including wildlife observation and photography, hunting, fishing, environmental 

education, and nature programs. Climate and habitats in the valley are typical of areas much further 

north, with many plant and animal species at the southernmost edge of their ranges. The Refuge is 

home to at least four federally listed threatened or endangered species and is the largest single 

location for breeding snipe and migratory woodcock. Shorebirds, interior forest songbirds, raptors, 

and marsh birds also rely on the wetlands of the Refuge during spring and fall migration periods. 

Encompassing the headwaters of the Blackwater River, the area contains the largest freshwater 

wetlands in West Virginia. 

Study Objectives 

This report provides a summary of results for the stakeholder evaluation conducted for 

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge in winter 2006–2007. This research was commissioned by 

the Northeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in support of Canaan Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge and conducted by the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch (PASA) of 

the U.S. Geological Survey/Fort Collins Science Center. We met with Refuge and planning staff in 

May of 2006 to determine the Refuge information needs related to stakeholders and to clarify the 

objectives of the stakeholder evaluation. The following questions were identified: 

• Which Refuge management issues are most important, and to whom? 

• How do opinions about what is most important to stakeholders overlap or conflict? 

• Why do stakeholders emphasize specific issues, and what values are driving this? 

• What potential solutions do stakeholders have for addressing important issues? 

More specifically, the objectives of the stakeholder evaluation were to: 

• clarify issues and obtain more detailed information about stakeholder preferences, 

• allow stakeholders to prioritize issues from most important to least important, 

• gather input about why stakeholders prioritize as they do, and 

• provide means for stakeholders to become engaged in the planning process. 

Methods 

To answer these questions, we met with individuals involved in or having an interest in the 

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge planning process. The meeting consisted of two parts: 

(1) an exercise called Q-Sort (McKeown and Thomas, 1988) using Q-methodology followed by 

4
 

(2) an indepth followup discussion about the exercise and issues of concern. This included an

opportunity for participants to use a refuge map to outline specific access preferences using magic 

markers and pens.

Q-methodology is a stakeholder evaluation method aimed at prioritizing key issues, 

identifying prevailing perspectives that exist among stakeholders, and identifying areas of 

consensus (general agreement) and conflict (general disagreement). What makes Q-methodology 

an effective tool for evaluating stakeholder perspectives is that it is not necessary to engage a large 

number of individuals, so long as the group represents the diversity of stakeholder perspectives. An 

overview of this methodology is provided below. 

Primer on Q-Methodology 

It was once thought that an individual’s point of view was impossible to study precisely or 

systematically (McKeown and Thomas, 1988). However, Q-methodology allows a systematic and 

quantitative means to examine a complex problem from an individual’s point of view (Donner, 

2001). A key advantage of Q-methodology is that it allows respondents to communicate their own 

point of view (McKeown and Thomas, 1988). By employing this method with a diverse group of 

individuals, individual points of view are then “modeled” to reveal similar and dissimilar 

viewpoints on a topic of interest across the group of individuals. 

Typically, in a Q-methodology study, a group of individuals are presented with a set of 

statements about a topic of interest; then individuals are asked to rank order the statements from 

their own point of view. 

The key component of Q-methodology is sorting the statements (called a Q-sort). A Q-sort 

requires an individual to systematically rank-order a set of statements (for example, from strongly 

agree to strongly disagree) representing a range of viewpoints related to a particular issue or set of 

issues (Stephenson, 1978). The statements are opinion only (not fact), and the participant ranks the 

statements from his or her own point of view. The statements can be taken from actual oral or 

written communication of participants or from other sources. A comprehensive set of statements 

(usually hundreds) representing the full breadth of opinions is initially identified. This concourse of 

statements is then narrowed down to a manageable list that can be sorted by participants (usually 3–

5 dozen statements). This set of 3–5 dozen statements is given to each participant. Participants are 

asked to read through all of the statements carefully and then sort them in rank order, usually on a 

scale of strongly agree to strongly disagree (see response sheet in the Appendix). Unlike a survey, 

where respondents are asked to answer each question in isolation of the others, Q-sorting requires 

that respondents react to statements in relation to all other statements. This sorting is usually 

followed by a debriefing or interview where each participant is able to elaborate on his or her Qsort. 

The data analysis for Q-methodology can be completed using most statistical analysis 

software packages. There are also programs designed specifically for Q-methodology. Regardless 

of the program, the statistical-analysis procedures are not unique to Q-methodology. Correlations 

between observations (the participants’ Q-sorts) are derived, and a factor analysis is conducted.3

The factor analysis groups individual’s sorts that exhibit similar patterns of responses. Each factor 

represents an idealized sort for those individuals whose Q-sorts most closely align with that factor. 

 

3

 Factor analysis is a statistical data reduction technique that assumes that it is possible to explain the correlation among 

objects by some underlying “factor.” In Q-methodology, the objects are the individual’s Q-sorts. Please see Nunnally 

and Bernstein (1994) for more information on factor analysis and(or) McKeown and Thomas (1988) for more 

information on factor analysis as it applies to Q-methodology. 

5
 

We refer to these factor groupings as “perspectives” throughout this report. Unlike a survey where 

a representative sample is required to effectively interpret the results, in Q-methodology, the 

number of individuals who align with each perspective is not significant. 

Once participants are grouped (and unique perspectives identified), additional information 

can be gleaned from this analysis, including the defining characteristics (or statements) for each 

perspective, the key differences among perspectives, and areas of likely consensus and potential 

conflict among perspectives. The information from the debriefing or followup interview is helpful 

in further interpreting these results. 

Selecting the Statements 

In the stakeholder evaluation for Canaan Valley NWR, one of the first steps was to select 

the statements for the Q-sort. To the extent possible, we wanted the statements used for the Q-sort 

exercise to be based upon the respondents’ own communications so they could mirror the opinions 

of the stakeholders of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. We used several sources for 

statements: 

• Newspaper articles related to the Refuge from 1993–2006 from the Parson’s Advocate, 

Charleston Gazette, Intermountain, Huntington Herald-Dispatch, Cumberland Times-News, 

Gazette-Mail and Highland’s Voice;

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Canaan Valley NWR planning documents (for example, 

Station Management Plan and Compatibility Determinations); 

• Other pertinent brochures and information from such sources as Canaan Valley Institute, 

Friends of the 500th, and Outdoor America; 

• Public comments from Canaan Valley NWR CCP Open Houses; 

• Responses from the Canaan Valley NWR CCP Issues Workbook; and 

• Answers to the four questions we asked stakeholders in the stakeholder evaluation 

invitation. 

We methodically reviewed these sources using both a deductive and inductive approach. 

We looked for passages, statements, and quotes that were relevant to key issues identified as 

important considerations in the planning process by Refuge staff. We also looked for patterns in 

statements that represented other issues. Through this review, we collected 320 statements covering 

20 issues related to the Refuge’s planning and management. Through further review of the 

statements and issues, we refined the list of 20 issues to the following 7: 

• Watershed/Habitat Protection (with subcategories of watershed protection, species of 

interest, habitat management, and general preservation/protection), 

• Access (with subcategories of general access, trail connectivity, and mountain biking), 

• Hunting, 

• Land Acquisition, 

• Environmental Education, 

• Economic Development (with subcategories of real estate development and economic 

development through tourism), and 

6
 

• Process (which included all statements related to the planning process, communication, past 

history and relationship-building). 

Once these issues were refined, we selected statements from the 320 that best represented 

the range of opinion on each issue and were the most unambiguous and clear. We chose 47 

statements for the Q-sort (table 2). Though slight rewording of some statements was necessary for 

clarity, most statements were kept verbatim as they had appeared in their original source. Fortyseven statements were chosen because the ranking scheme was –5 to +5 with a forced normal 

distribution, meaning only a certain number of statements could be assigned to each number in the 

scale (see fig. 1). Two statements could be assigned to each extreme (+5 and –5), three statements 

for the next extreme, and the most statements (seven) could be placed in the neutral (0) category 

(fig. 1). 

Table 2. Statements for Canaan Valley stakeholder evaluation listed by key issue. Statement 

Number Statements 

Habitat/Watershed Protection

1 The Refuge should manage for recovery and restoration of the great forests that once covered the area. 

8 The control and eradication of invasive species should not be a high management priority for the Refuge. 

11 It is important to ensure the continued protection of the diverse wetland complex on the Refuge. 

17 

Since the Refuge comprises the largest wetland in West Virginia, monitoring and protecting water quality is of primary 

importance. 

18 

It is imperative that the Refuge find ways to increase deer harvesting to protect the fragile, significant and in some cases rare 

plant communities. 

20 The Refuge should help grassland bird populations recover and ensure their success in the future. 

23 The thing I value most about the Refuge is knowing the area will be preserved and better managed for grouse/woodcock. 

25 

The Refuge should be for wildlife and not a playground for tourists lured by the promise of being able to hike, bike, backpack,

or ski on land that once upon a time could be used by anyone. 

27 

It is important to maintain plant and animal habitat connections between Refuge lands and neighboring Monongahela National 

Forest and Canaan Valley State Park lands. 

35 

While the community wants the Refuge to be a shining example of why we need to protect and conserve our wildlife resources, 

the decisions and implementation of decisions have been contrary to this process. 

37 

The Refuge should do more to protect threatened and endangered species such as the Cheat Mountain salamander and the West 

Virginia northern flying squirrel. 

40 

By preserving wildlife resources the Refuge maintains the scenic beauty and quality of life valued by those who live, visit, or

vacation in the area. 

41 I value the role the Refuge plays in conserving and restoring West Virginia's streams and rivers. 

43 The most important problem facing the Refuge is keeping the "tree-huggers" from taking it over. 

44 

Wilderness designation should be obtained for portions of the Refuge to protect fragile environments and allow natural 

processes to restore the area. 

Access

6 

In some cases there are sections of trails that have been degraded to the point where use of mountain biking just shouldn't 

continue. 

12 Continuous, looped and easy trails should be provided on the Refuge. 

14 

A trail that crosses the valley is important because the close contact with our wetlands would be a moving experience that 

would help visitors care more for the resource. 

16 

I support biking corridors through the Refuge. These corridors are vitally important links in the recreational trail system that 

connects Tucker County's communities, parks, and forests. 

7
 

8

Table 2 (Continued). Statements for Canaan Valley stakeholder evaluation listed by key issue. 

Statement 

Number Statements 

Access

19 

It is important that any new trails the Refuge creates are compatible with the "wildlife first" mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge system. 

21 

Access to the Refuge should be improved through the restoration of historic railroad grades. These would allow a great variety 

of habitat to be seen without leaving the trail system, thereby avoiding damage to the bogs. 

22 

Bicyclists don't need access to the Refuge because they have plenty of other places in the county to ride—highways, roadways, 

state parks, national forests, and taxpayer-funded bike trails. 

24 I support low impact mountain biking on the Refuge. 

29 

I believe access through the Refuge creating a connected trail system will support exceptional recreational opportunities and 

will provide economic benefits to local businesses. 

30 

I strongly support the Refuge's purpose. It is important to continue to resist the desire of some locals to expand human activity 

on the Refuge and turn it into a National Forest "land of many uses." 

33 Minimizing the impact to wetlands should be the driving factor in determining access to the Refuge. 

38 I support a hiking trail crossing the valley that would connect Forest Service lands to Dolly Sods Wilderness Area. 

42 We need better access for all people (handicapped, families, elderly, and mainstream people) not just die-hard fitness types. 

45 

I support new ideas for providing reasonable access while protecting fragile ecosystems, for example, guided hikes by experts, 

fencing fragile areas near trails, building boardwalks, and/or a permit system for backcountry use. 

Hunting 

2 It is unfair that hunters using the Refuge have off-trail access, while other users must stay on the trails. 

3 The Refuge should increase the deer harvest by developing trails to make it easier for hunters to access the Refuge interior. 

5 Woodcock hunting should be banned on the Refuge. 

13 I would like to see more areas within the Refuge designated as nature viewing areas, with no hunting, fishing or dogs allowed. 

32 The thing I value most about this Refuge is that it is one of few places in the state to hunt woodcock. 

Process 

15 It is critical, as part of the Refuge planning process, to repair the deep-rooted mistrust of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 

26 The most important problem facing the Refuge is lack of funding to provide services. 

28 

The most important issue in this planning process is to establish a meaningful method of creating dialogue between the Refuge 

and the local community. 

36 

Refuge staff should meet with a committee of local interests on a regular basis to discuss and recommend solutions to issues 

before decisions are made so that local perspectives are integrated into the planning process. 

47 

It is important for the Refuge to provide the research, evidence, or logic behind management decisions. 

Economic Development

4 It is important to minimize development pressures in and around the Refuge to prevent loss of wildlife and plant habitat. 

9 

The Refuge is a key part of the economic development picture for the Canaan Valley, Tucker County, and the West Virginia 

Highlands because it supports local businesses and draws tourists from all over the world. 

10 Tucker County should not rely on tourism for all of its business; tourism should be balanced with industry. 

31 Development, rather than preservation, would be in the best interest of the valley. 

Land Acquisition

39 We will never have a decent tax base in our county if the government is not stopped from grabbing up all our land. 

46 I support the Refuge acquiring lands within the acquisition boundary to help protect wildlife habitats. 

Environmental Education

7 

One of the most important Refuge issues is the lack of an adequate visitor center and the lack of available Refuge personnel to

present programs or answer questions. 

34 The Refuge should provide more education about its unique habitats through self-guided and guided trail walks. 
9

Figure 1. Response sheet for Q-sort exercise conducted with stakeholders of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Re
 

Identifying Participants 

The next step in the stakeholder evaluation was to identify the key groups and individuals 

with an interest or role in the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge CCP process. We developed 

this initial list through an extensive search of Web sites, planning documents, and local newspaper 

articles from 2002–2005 related to the Refuge and its planning. A technique called snowball 

sampling was used to develop the stakeholder sample. As each Web site was considered and 

reviewed, any links to other Web sites were investigated. Once an individual stakeholder or 

stakeholder group was mentioned at least three times within any of these sources, they were 

considered part of the sample. Seven categories of stakeholders were identified: 

• individuals (not affiliated with a specific stakeholder group); 

• local businesses; 

• nongovernmental organizations;

• academia;

• Federal government (including FWS Regional and Refuge staff);

• State government; and 

• local government. 

For many of the stakeholder groups, we were able to identify the representative or 

representatives for each group. We “ground-truthed” this list with Refuge staff and collectively 

identified specific individuals for stakeholder groups for which we had been unable to identify a 

representative. We invited 100 identified stakeholders to meet with us one-on-one at Canaan Valley 

State Park (table 3). 

Inviting Participants 

We invited the 100 identified stakeholders to meet with us in late winter of 2007. 

Individuals were invited via e-mail (those without e-mail were invited via mail) and asked to 

participate in a stakeholder meeting where they would have an opportunity to clarify and prioritize 

issues and preferences for future Refuge management in a one-on-one setting. In this invitation, we 

also asked stakeholders to answer the following four questions related to Refuge planning. 

1. From your perspective, what are the most important issues that the Refuge should address in 

its planning process? 

2. For each issue you listed in Question 1, please tell us why this is an important issue to you. 

3. What opportunities do you think exist that could help resolve the issues you listed? 

4. In your opinion, what are the biggest obstacles to resolving the issues you listed? 

We followed a modified Dillman Method (Dillman, 2000; a method traditionally used for 

surveys to ensure high response rate) to follow up with those who did not respond initially to 

ensure that we had the greatest level of participation. This involved two followup invitations to 

nonrespondents and a final phone call followup. Stakeholders who responded were assigned a time 

to meet with us at the Canaan Valley State Park Conference Center. 

10
 

11

Table 3. List of stakeholder groups who were identified in the stakeholder evaluation for Canaan Valley 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Stakeholder Group # Invited Stakeholder Group # Invited 

Individuals 18 Academia and Other 5 

Local Businesses 19 Davis & Elkins College 

Timberline Home Owners Association Adams Blackwater Realty 

Davis High Valley Realty Federal Government 23 

Blackwater Bikes Canaan Valley NWR 

Bright Morning Inn Bed and Breakfast Environmental Protection Agency 

Canaan Valley Realty National Natural Landmark Program (NNLP) 

Highland Prospects NOAA Air Resources Laboratory 

Highland Scene Tours U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Landis Realty U.S. Congress 

Mountain Trail Rides U.S. Senate 

Mountaintop Realty USDA-FS, Fernow Experimental Station 

Sirianni's Café USDA National Forest: Monongahela National 

The Purple Fiddle Forest 

Timberline Four Seasons Resort U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Northeast 

Region Timberline Resort Realty 

Tucker County Rotary Club State Government 7 

White Grass Lodge (White Grass Touring Canaan Valley State Park 

Center) West Virginia Department of Environmental 

Windwood Resort Protection 

West Virginia Division of Natural Resources Nongovernmental Organizations 21 West Virginia Senate District Campaign for America's Wilderness West Virginia State Parks Canaan Valley Institute 

Friends of Blackwater Canyon/Friends of the Local Government 7 

Blackwater Town of Davis 

Friends of the 500th Town of Thomas 

Mountain Top Hunting Club Tucker County Chamber of Commerce 

National Audubon Society: West Virginia Tucker County Commission 

Chapter Tucker County Development Authority 

Ruffed Grouse Society Tucker County Planning Commission 

Sierra Club: West Virginia Chapter TOTAL 100

The Nature Conservancy 

Tucker County Trails 

Vandalia Heritage Foundation 

West Virginia Conservation Fund 

West Virginia Highlands Conservancy 

West Virginia Mountain Biking Association 

West Virginia Rivers Coalition 

West Virginia Wilderness Coalition 

Woodcock Limited 
Meeting with Stakeholders 

Of the 100 stakeholders invited, 63 (63 percent) participated. Nearly all stakeholders met 

with us at Canaan Valley State Park Conference Center February 28–March 3, 2007. We met with a 

small number of stakeholders who were not available during that timeframe by telephone in early 

Spring 2007. 

The Q-Sort Exercise 

To begin the process with each stakeholder, we introduced them to the purpose and 

instructions for the Q-sort exercise. Once instructions were given, we handed participants a set of 

47 small cards, each with one statement printed on it. We asked each participant to sort the cards by 

rank ordering them using a response sheet from +5, strongly agree, to –5, strongly disagree. Two 

statements could be assigned to each extreme (+5 and –5), three statements for the next extreme, 

and the most statements (seven) could be placed in the neutral category (see fig. 1). 

The Followup Discussion 

After each stakeholder completed the Q-sort exercise, we met with them in order to gain a 

richer understanding of their Q-sort and their opinions regarding Refuge issues. Conversations with 

stakeholders varied from 30 minutes to over 2 hours. These conversations were tape recorded (with 

permission), but not transcribed, for the purposes of clarification and consultation during the 

analysis phase of the study. During conversations, stakeholders were offered a Refuge map to mark 

their preferences and concerns. Through these conversations we wanted to learn: 

• The statements they most agree with and why. 

• The statements they most disagree with and why. 

• For those issues of most concern to them, the solutions they see to addressing those. 

• While deciding what statements they agreed or disagreed with, any trade-offs that were 

required. 

• Whether their concerns were adequately represented by the statements in the Q-sort. 

Analyzing the Data 

For the first part of our analysis, we used freeware PQMethod (Atkinson, 2002) to analyze 

stakeholders’ Q-sorts and identify dominant perspectives on the identified issues. To identify these 

perspectives, we ran a principal components factor analysis, using varimax orthogonal rotation (a 

rotation method that simplifies the interpretation of factors). We based the number of factors on the 

statistical significance of each factor and the amount of variance it explained.4

 Key output from the 

statistical analyses is included in the Appendix. 

In additional to the statistical analysis, we relied upon the information gleaned from the 

followup discussions to better describe each perspective. The statistical analysis provided us with 

the statements (and associated scores) that best characterize that perspective and the individuals 

that are most closely associated with that perspective. Information from the followup discussions 

 

4

 To be considered, a factor had to have an Eigen Value of 2.0 or above and contribute at least 5 percent individually to 

the explained variance of the solution. Please see Nunnally and Bernstein (1994) for more information on factor 

analysis and(or) McKeown and Thomas (1988) for more information on factor analysis as it applies to Q-methodology. 

12
provided us with a more qualitative understanding of the reason behind their points of view and the 

underlying values driving those perspectives. 

A second part of our analysis was to discern the values underlying each perspective. To 

accomplish this, we reviewed the taped followup discussions with stakeholders and the reasons 

given for why they ranked statements as they did. Through systematic examination of these 

responses, we identified a list of eight potential natural resource and environmental values, based 

on the work of King (1966) and Kellert (1993): 

• Aesthetic value — sees the beauty of nature and has an emotional attachment. 

• Moralistic value — has an ethical concern and a spiritual reverence for wildlife and nature. 

• Ecological/Scientific value — recognizes the interdependence of wildlife, habitats, and 

ecological processes in nature and the importance of studying these relationships. 

• Recreational value — benefits from directly interacting with wildlife and nature in the 

outdoors. 

• Social value — recognizes the societal benefits from wildlife and nature to quality of life. 

• Utilitarian value — views wildlife and nature for the benefit of humans. 

• Commercial value — considers the economic benefits or costs associated with wildlife and 

nature. 

• Negative value — holds negative emotions toward wildlife and nature. 

A third part our analysis was to identify areas of likely consensus and potential conflict, 

based on the ranking of statements across perspectives. This analysis is described in more detail in 

the Results. Lastly, we summarized possible solutions to key issues that stakeholders offered during 

followup discussions. 

Results 

Stakeholder Perspectives 

Five factors emerged from the data analysis. These five perspectives are summarized in 

table 4 and described in detail in the following sections. They represent the unique points of view 

or “conversations” around the key Refuge planning issues mentioned earlier in this report. While 

these perspectives are statistically unique, there is some overlap in the points of view represented 

by each of these perspectives (see the inter-factor correlations in the Appendix for the numerical 

correlations between perspectives). 

The five prevailing perspectives related to key Refuge issues are: 

• Ecological Preservation; 

• Recreational Access; 

• Traditional Wildlife Management; 

• Wildlife First, Recreation Second; and 

• Economic Development. 

Each perspective description is followed by a table that identifies the statements for which 

individuals within that perspective most agree (rated +3 to +5) and most disagree (–3 to –5). Also 

included in the table are additional statements that are distinguishing for that perspective 

13
(statements ranked significantly differently from other perspectives—for example, higher or lower 

than the overall average) and the predominant values for each perspective. 

In the appendix is a table of all of the statements in numerical order with the average scores 

for each perspective. This table is helpful for comparing statement scores across perspectives 

(Appendix, table A–4). 

Perspective 1: Ecological Preservation 

The 10 stakeholders in this perspective included five members of nongovernmental 

organizations, two representatives of the State government, two people representing the Federal 

government, and one stakeholder from the community at large. Table 5 summarizes the average 

ranking for key statements by this perspective. 

This perspective emphasizes protecting wildlife and habitats. Wetland protection is 

especially important, with stakeholders agreeing most strongly with statements related to the 

conservation, restoration, or protection of wetlands. This support does not appear to be Refugespecific, but is related more to the effect the Refuge might have on the health of wetlands outside 

its boundaries. Strong positive rankings of the statements “Since the Refuge comprises the largest 

wetland in West Virginia, monitoring and protecting water quality is of primary importance” 

(statement #17) and “I value the role the Refuge plays in conserving and restoring West Virginia’s 

streams and rivers” (#44) reflect this attitude. 

Stakeholders with this perspective feel it is important to maintain plant and habitat 

connections between Refuge lands and adjacent public lands. This perspective places a greater 

emphasis on managing for habitat and wildlife than on managing for recreational opportunities. 

Stakeholders in this group are not opposed to public access, but believe that “minimizing the 

impact to wetlands should be the driving factor in determining access” (#33). 

They do not support pursuing economic development at the expense of preservation. This 

sentiment is captured by a positive ranking of the statement, “It is important to minimize 

development pressures in and around the Refuge to prevent loss of wildlife and plant habitat” (#4). 

Hunting is not a high priority with this group. Followup discussions indicate that there is not 

an opposition to hunting per se, but that hunting issues are secondary to overall ecosystem 

management. Unlike other perspectives, this perspective did not agree that deer harvesting should 

be increased to protect fragile or rare plant communities. Stakeholders with this perspective 

disagree with statements emphasizing one type of hunting, for example, woodcock hunting, due to 

the emphasis on single species management. 

This group reports overall satisfaction with current opportunities for public input, and feels 

that a public forum is not the place for biological decisions to be made. 

Stakeholders with this perspective hold an ecological/scientific value related to wildlife and 

nature, with an emphasis on the benefit that wildlife and habitats contribute to the larger ecosystem 

and a desire to study these relationships. They also appear to value the aesthetic qualities of 

wildlife and nature, appreciating the beauty both provide and have a moralistic concern for and 

connection to wildlife and nature. This is evidenced by the positive ranking of the statement, “By 

preserving wildlife resources the Refuge maintains the scenic beauty and quality of life valued by 

those who live, visit, or vacation in the area” (#40). 

14
Table 4. Summary of stakeholder perspectives and values from Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

stakeholder evaluation. (Summary bullets based on 47 statements sorted by stakeholders.) 

Perspective This Perspective Agrees That... This Perspective Does Not Agree That... Valuesa

Ecological 

Preservation 

• The Refuge plays an important role in conserving, 

restoring, and protecting wetlands. 

• The Refuge needs to monitor and protect water 

quality that affects the region. 

• Wetland protection should be the driving force in 

determining access. 

• Monitoring and controlling invasive species is 

important. 

• Plant and habitat connections with other public lands 

are important. 

• Land acquisition is important to help protect wildlife 

habitats. 

• Federal land management is a problem; 

economic woes would be alleviated if more 

development were allowed. 

• Increasing access is more important than 

ecosystem health. 

• Managing for game and increasing hunting 

access is of paramount concern. 

Aesthetic 

Ecological/Scientific 

Moralistic 

Recreational 

Access 

• Trail connectivity to other public lands through use 

of a variety of old and or new trails, rails, and 

boardwalks is important. 

• Easy trails for young families, the elderly, and the 

disabled are important to the community. 

• A well designed bike corridor can exist within the 

Refuge when using science and new technologies. 

• Improved access will create appreciation of 

resources and support for Refuge. 

• Feasibility studies by experts are important. 

• The local community is eager to work as volunteers 

on building, monitoring, and maintaining trails. 

• Problems with poor communication and lack of trust 

must be addressed. 

• Tourism, especially when it depends on federal 

lands, is in the best economic interests of the Valley. 

• Mountain bikers have plenty of places to ride so 

they do not need access to the Refuge. 

• The “wildlife first” mission of the FWS should 

be the one and only guide for management 

decisions. 

• If trails are degraded, closing them is the best 

answer to the problem. 

• Federal land management is a problem; 

economic woes would be alleviated if more 

development were allowed. 

• Wilderness designation is desirable. 

Aesthetic 

Recreational 

Social 

Utilitarian 

Traditional 

Wildlife 

Management 

• The “wildlife first” mission of the FWS should guide 

management decisions. 

• The Refuge should manage for grouse and 

woodcock. 

• Deer harvest should be managed to protect Refuge 

resources. 

• Land acquisition to support management goals is 

important. 

• Improving access is acceptable, especially by 

railroad grades, as long as wildlife is protected. 

• Federal land management is a problem; economic 

woes would be alleviated if more development 

were allowed. 

• Wilderness designation is desirable. 

• Hunting should be limited in some parts of the 

Refuge. 

Ecological/Scientific 

Recreational 

Utilitarian 

Wildlife First, 

Recreation 

Second 

• The “wildlife first” mission of the FWS should guide 

management decisions. 

• Watershed and habitat protection are primary 

concerns. 

• Land acquisition to support management goals is 

important. 

• Reasonable access is acceptable, as long as resources 

are protected. 

• Communication and relationship building with the 

local community is important. 

• It is important for the Refuge to provide research and 

logic behind management decisions. 

• It is important to provide more education about the 

Refuge’s unique habitats. 

• Hunting, except for the purposes of managing 

deer populations, is a high priority. 

• Federal land management is a problem; 

economic woes would be alleviated if more 

development were allowed. 

• Biking corridors through the refuge are vitally 

important links in the recreational trail system 

that connects Tucker County. 

Aesthetic 

Ecological/Scientific 

Recreational 

Social 

Economic 

Development 

• Problems with poor communication and lack of trust 

must be addressed up front. 

• Tourism, especially when it depends on federal 

lands, is not in the best economic interests of the 

Valley—need to also pursue industry. 

• Access should be increased. 

• The Refuge plays an important role in protecting 

wetlands. 

• The Refuge should acquire more land. 

• The Refuge is under-funded. 

• The Refuge makes an important economic 

contribution to the Valley. 

Aesthetic 

Commercial 

Negative 

Utilitarian 

a Listing does not represent any order. 

15
Table 5. Summary profile for Ecological Preservation perspective. Statements listed include those rated as 

agree (+3 to +5) or disagree (–3 to –5) plus any distinguishing statements (in bold). Distinguishing statements 

are those ranked significantly different from other perspectives (higher or lower than overall average). 

 Statement 

Number Statements RankingScore 

41 

I value the role the Refuge plays in conserving and restoring West Virginia's 

streams and rivers. 5 

27 

It is important to maintain plant and animal habitat connections between Refuge 

lands and neighboring Monongahela National Forest and Canaan Valley State 

Park lands. 5 

1 

The Refuge should manage for recovery and restoration of the great forests that 

once covered the area. 4 

17 

Since the Refuge comprises the largest wetland in West Virginia, monitoring and 

protecting water quality is of primary importance. 4 

11 

It is important to ensure the continued protection of the diverse wetland complex on the 

Refuge. 4 

33 

Minimizing the impact to wetlands should be the driving factor in determining 

access to the Refuge. 3 

40 

By preserving wildlife resources the Refuge maintains the scenic beauty and quality of 

life valued by those who live, visit, or vacation in the area. 3 

30 

I strongly support the Refuge's purpose. It is important to continue to resist the desire of 

some locals to expand human activity on the Refuge and turn it into a National Forest 

"land of many uses." 3 

4 

It is important to minimize development pressures in and around the Refuge to prevent 

loss of wildlife and plant habitat. 3 

46 

I support the Refuge acquiring lands within the acquisition boundary to help 

protect wildlife habitats. 2 

15 

It is critical, as part of the Refuge planning process, to repair the deep-rooted 

mistrust of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. –2 

18 

It is imperative that the Refuge find ways to increase deer harvesting to protect the 

fragile, significant, and in some cases rare plant communities. –2 

36 

Refuge staff should meet with a committee of local interests on a regular basis to 

discuss and recommend solutions to issues before decisions are made so that local 

perspectives are integrated into the planning process. –3 

35 

While the community wants the Refuge to be a shining example of why we need to 

protect and conserve our wildlife resources, the decisions and implementation of 

decisions has been contrary to this process. –3 

23 

The thing I value most about the Refuge is knowing the area will be preserved and 

better managed for grouse/woodcock. –3 

3 

The Refuge should increase the deer harvest by developing trails to make it easier for 

hunters to access the Refuge interior. –3 

8 

The control and eradication of invasive species should not be a high management 

priority for the Refuge. –4 

32 

The thing I value most about this Refuge is that it is one of few places in the state to 

hunt woodcock. –4 

43 

The most important problem facing the Refuge is keeping the "tree-huggers" from 

taking it over. –5 

39 

We will never have a decent tax base in our county if the government is not stopped 

from grabbing up all our land. –5 

31 Development, rather than preservation, would be in the best interest of the valley. –5 

16
Perspective 2: Recreational Access 

The 14 stakeholders that most closely align with this perspective include three community 

members at large, nine local business owners, four representing recreational nonprofits, and one 

local government official. Table 6 summarizes the average ranking for key statements by this 

perspective. 

Stakeholders associated with this perspective place the greatest emphasis on recreational 

access to the Refuge. They are interested in creating a recreational corridor through the Refuge that 

connects to other public lands. They embrace a larger landscape perspective that includes trail 

connectivity, while supporting continuous, looped, and easy trails on the Refuge geared toward 

families, the elderly, and the disabled. There is a strong belief that increasing access could be 

designed to minimize impacts to wetlands. One stakeholder said, “I believe you can minimize 

impact on wetlands and have hiking, biking, horseback riding, and hunting, if we have good, welldesigned, well-built trails.” Followup discussions revealed a desire by many in this perspective to 

see feasibility studies by experts to determine best access choices. At the time of this research, a 

feasibility study had not been conducted. Also, they believe the use of new technologies to build 

and(or) improve trails could minimize impacts and allow the trails to be sustainable. 

For this group, trail connectivity is paramount and the refuge is seen as an essential hub for 

bike trail tourism in this region. But using new science and technologies is seen as a necessity if 

mountain biking is to be doable on the refuge, according to some. This group also strongly agrees 

with the statement, “I support biking corridors through the Refuge because these corridors are 

vitally important links in the recreational trail system that connects Tucker County’s communities, 

parks, and forests” (statement #16). This group most strongly disagrees with the statement, 

“Bicyclists don’t need access to the Refuge because they have plenty of other places in the county 

to ride” (#22). This Recreational Access perspective also agrees with the statement “A trail that 

crosses the valley is important because the close contact with our wetlands would be a moving 

experience that would help visitors care more for the resource” (#14) One stakeholder stated, “If 

people can’t see it, touch, or feel it in one way or another, they will have a hard time appreciating it, 

and they won’t care enough to protect it.” 

Secondary to access is meaningful participation in Refuge planning. As the current planning 

process proceeds, stakeholders in this group want to know what is happening and want a chance to 

share their ideas, concerns, and recommended solutions to issues before decisions are made. 

This perspective does not favor development. This is reflected by the negative ranking of 

the statement, “Development, rather than preservation, would be in the best interest of the valley” 

(#31). Also this group does not favor wilderness designation, “...to protect fragile environments 

and allow natural processes to restore the area” (#44). One participant’s statement, “Wildlife first 

but not wildlife only,” supports this. 

For most stakeholders holding this perspective, the desire for access is driven by their 

recreational value that emphasizes the physical and mental health benefits from outdoor activities. 

Most believe that outdoor experiences improve their quality of life (social value). Through outdoor 

recreation, they enjoy the aesthetic beauty of wildlife and nature. And many share the utilitarian

value of natural resources, using resources for human benefit and consumption. 

17
Table 6. Summary profile for Recreational Access Perspective. Statements listed include those rated as 

agree (+3 to +5) or disagree (-3 to -5) plus any distinguishing statements (in bold). Distinguishing statements 

are those ranked significantly different from other perspectives (higher or lower than overall average). 

 Statement 

Number Statements Ranking Score 

12 Continuous, looped, and easy trails should be provided on the Refuge. 5 

29 

I believe access through the Refuge creating a connected trail system will support 

exceptional recreational opportunities and will provide economic benefits to local 

businesses. 5 

16 

I support biking corridors through the Refuge. These corridors are vitally important 

links in the recreational trail system that connects Tucker County's communities, 

parks, and forests. 4 

21 

Access to the Refuge should be improved through the restoration of historic railroad grades. 

These would allow a great variety of habitat to be seen without leaving the trail system, 

thereby avoiding damage to the bogs. 4 

14 

A trail that crosses the valley is important because the close contact with our wetlands 

would be a moving experience that would help visitors care more for the resource. 4 

38 

I support a hiking trail crossing the valley that would connect Forest Service lands to Dolly 

Sods Wilderness Area. 3 

36 

Refuge staff should meet with a committee of local interests on a regular basis to 

discuss and recommend solutions to issues before decisions are made so that local 

perspectives are integrated into the planning process. 3 

15 

It is critical, as part of the Refuge planning process, to repair the deep-rooted mistrust of the 

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 3 

9 

The Refuge is a key part of the economic development picture for the Canaan Valley, 

Tucker County, and the West Virginia Highlands because it supports local businesses and 

draws tourists from all over the world. 3 

28 

The most important issue in this planning process is to establish a meaningful method 

of creating dialogue between the Refuge and the local community. 2 

42 

We need better access for all people (handicapped, families, elderly, and mainstream 

people) not just die-hard fitness types. 2 

19 

It is important that any new trails the Refuge creates are compatible with the “wildlife 

first” mission of the National Wildlife Refuge system. –2 

5 Woodcock hunting should be banned on the Refuge. –3 

39 

We will never have a decent tax base in our county if the government is not stopped from 

grabbing up all our land. –3 

43 

The most important problem facing the Refuge is keeping the "tree-huggers" from taking it 

over. –3 

44 

Wilderness designation should be obtained for portions of the Refuge to protect fragile 

environments and allow natural processes to restore the area. –3 

31 Development, rather than preservation, would be in the best interest of the valley. –4 

30 

I strongly support the Refuge's purpose. It is important to continue to resist the desire 

of some locals to expand human activity on the Refuge and turn it into a National 

Forest "land of many uses." –4 

6 

In some cases there are sections of trails that have been degraded to the point where 

use of mountain biking just shouldn't continue. –4 

25 

The Refuge should be for wildlife and not a playground for tourists lured by the 

promise of being able to hike, bike, backpack, or ski on land that once upon a time 

could be used by anyone. –5 

22 

Bicyclists don't need access to the Refuge because they have plenty of other places in 

the county to ride--highways, roadways, state parks, national forests, and taxpayerfunded bike trails. –5 

18
Perspective 3: Traditional Wildlife Management 

Five stakeholders were identified with the Traditional Wildlife Management perspective. 

They represent two nongovernmental organizations, two Federal government agencies, and one 

State government agency. Table 7 shows the average ranking of statements by this perspective. 

This perspective supports traditional wildlife management, with an emphasis on managing 

game species such as deer, grouse, and woodcock. Some stakeholders point to the fact that a 

foundational purpose of the Refuge is to protect woodcock habitat. Within this perspective there is 

more support for grassland management than for restoration of the great forests of the past. 

This perspective supports an increase in deer harvest (both for recreation and for protecting 

Refuge resources) and an increase in hunter access. Stakeholders in this group believe in the 

wildlife conservation mission of National Wildlife Refuge System, support the Refuge’s need to 

protect wetlands, and are in favor of land acquisition. They are not supportive of wilderness 

designation because they believe that current management practices provide adequate protection. 

Stakeholders in this group have varied opinions about Refuge recreational access. Most 

appear to value the recreational uses of the Refuge, though some believe those uses should be 

limited to those that directly support the Refuge mission. Others support increased access and 

believe if trails are properly constructed, recreational use will not damage Refuge resources: “If 

trails are properly built, all access is low impact.” Others suggest that a more extensive trail system 

will disperse users and result in less damage to the Refuge. Like those in Perspective 2, 

Recreational Access, some believe that involving community members in building and maintaining 

trails creates a core group of people who care about the trail system, will monitor use, and will 

informally patrol the trails. 

This group is concerned about development in the valley and does not believe that tourism 

is the answer to the area’s economic challenges. 

While they recognize there have been strained relationships between the Refuge and the 

community, people with this perspective feel Refuge decisions should be centered on scientific 

information and not necessarily focused on public wishes. 

This perspective holds a predominantly utilitarian value of natural resources, using 

resources for human benefit and consumption. Closely tied to this is a recreational value, as 

stakeholders benefit greatly from interacting with wildlife and nature in the outdoors. Additionally, 

this group holds ecological/scientific values toward wildlife and nature, recognizing an 

interdependence of wildlife with the larger ecosystem. 

19
Table 7. Summary profile for Traditional Wildlife Management Perspective. Bolded numbers indicate a 

distinguishing statement. Statements listed include those rated as agree (+3 to +5) or disagree (–3 to –5) plus 

any distinguishing statements (in bold). Distinguishing statements are those ranked significantly different from 

other perspectives (higher or lower than overall average). 

Statement 

Number Statements Ranking Score 

23 The thing I value most about the Refuge is knowing the area will be 

preserved and better managed for grouse/woodcock. 

5 

32 I strongly support the Refuge's purpose. It is important to continue to resist 

the desire of some locals to expand human activity on the Refuge and turn it 

into a National Forest "land of many uses." 

5 

46 I support the Refuge acquiring lands within the acquisition boundary to help 

protect wildlife habitats. 

4 

18 It is imperative that the Refuge find ways to increase deer harvesting to protect 

the fragile, significant and in some cases rare plant communities. 

4 

40 By preserving wildlife resources the Refuge maintains the scenic beauty and 

quality of life valued by those who live, visit, or vacation in the area. 

4 

21 Access to the Refuge should be improved through the restoration of historic 

railroad grades. These would allow a great variety of habitat to be seen without 

leaving the trail system, thereby avoiding damage to the bogs. 

3 

27 It is important to maintain plant and animal habitat connections between Refuge 

lands and neighboring Monongahela National Forest and Canaan Valley State 

Park lands. 

3 

19 It is important that any new trails the Refuge creates are compatible with the 

"wildlife first" mission of the National Wildlife Refuge system. 

3 

25 The Refuge should be for wildlife and not a playground for tourists lured by 

the promise of being able to hike, bike, backpack, or ski on land that once 

upon a time could be used by anyone. 

3 

43 The most important problem facing the Refuge is keeping the "treehuggers" from taking it over. 1 

15 It is critical, as part of the Refuge planning process, to repair the deeprooted mistrust of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 0 

1 The Refuge should manage for recovery and restoration of the great forests 

that once covered the area. 

–3 

2 It is unfair that hunters using the Refuge have off-trail access, while other users 

must stay on the trails. 

–3 

13 I would like to see more areas within the Refuge designated as nature 

viewing areas, with no hunting, fishing or dogs allowed. 

–3 

28 The most important issue in this planning process is to establish a meaningful 

method of creating dialogue between the Refuge and the local community. 

–3 

8 The control and eradication of invasive species should not be a high management 

priority for the Refuge. 

–4 

39 We will never have a decent tax base in our county if the government is not 

stopped from grabbing up all our land. 

–4 

44 Wilderness designation should be obtained for portions of the Refuge to 

protect fragile environments and allow natural processes to restore the area. 

–4 

5 Woodcock hunting should be banned on the Refuge. –5 

31 Development, rather than preservation, would be in the best interest of the valley. –5 

20
Perspective 4: Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

The 23 Q-sorts represented by this perspective include 10 stakeholders representing the 

Federal government, 4 representing nongovernmental organizations, 4 stakeholders from the 

community at large, 2 local business owners, 1 homeowner’s association, 1 State agency, and 1 

college. Table 8 shows the average ranking of statements by this perspective. 

As with the ecological preservation perspective, watershed and habitat are primary concerns 

associated with this perspective. Stakeholders in this group agree most strongly with protecting 

wetlands and water quality, acquiring lands within the Refuge acquisition boundary, and 

controlling invasive species. Stakeholders in this group also place importance on maintaining plant 

and habitat connections between Refuge lands and neighboring public lands. They feel to do this, it 

is important for the Refuge to acquire as much land in the acquisition boundary as they can in order 

to increase contiguous lands. 

What makes this group unique from other groups is that they also feel access on the Refuge 

is important, so long as resources can be protected and the Refuge mission can be upheld. They 

support... “new ideas for providing reasonable access while protecting fragile ecosystems...” 

(statement #45). They do not, however, agree with most statements related to mountain biking. In 

particular the statements “I support biking corridors through the Refuge. These corridors are vitally 

important links in the recreational trail system that connects Tucker County’s communities, parks, 

and forests” (#16), and “I support low impact mountain biking on the Refuge” (#24) were rated 

lower by this group than any other. However, followup discussions revealed more support for the 

idea of access for mountain bikes, so long as the reasons behind putting in trails were in line with 

the Refuge mission and any trail access could be constructed, used, and maintained in a way that 

was compatible with wildlife and wetland resources. There is a sense in this group that the Refuge 

needs to uphold their mission to protect wildlife, but should be more open to providing access, so 

people will support the Refuge and better appreciate the resources the Refuge protects. 

Equally important to this group is communication and relationship-building with the local 

community, including improved explanation of the management decisions. This group supports 

more and better environmental education efforts related to the Refuge so that community members 

better understand the Refuge’s purpose and the resources it protects. Strong positive rankings of the 

statements, “The most important issue in this planning process is to establish a meaningful method 

of creating dialogue between the Refuge and the local community” (#28) and “It is important for 

the Refuge to provide the research, evidence, or logic behind management decisions” (#47) reflect 

this attitude. Followup discussions further support this, with much discussion about the importance 

of maintaining and improving relationships with the community and that it is imperative that 

decisions made by the Refuge be defensible. 

Hunting is not a high priority for this perspective. While they do not agree that woodcock 

hunting should be banned, they also do not agree with the statement “The thing I value most about 

this Refuge is that it is one of few places in the state to hunt woodcock” (#32). They also do not 

agree that that “The Refuge should increase the deer harvest by developing trails to make it easier 

for hunters to access the Refuge interior” (#3). Followup discussions related to hunting were 

limited to increasing deer harvest, but through special hunts primarily for the purposes of 

controlling numbers and subsequently protecting fragile or rare plants communities. 

Additionally, stakeholders in this perspective do not see development, as compared with 

preservation, to be in the best interest of the Valley. They generally see the Refuge as part of the 

economic picture of the Valley and they believe that “By preserving wildlife resources the Refuge 

maintains the scenic beauty and quality of life valued by those who live, visit, or vacation in the 

21
area” (#40). However, there is less agreement among stakeholders of this group about the role the 

Refuge should play in promoting recreational tourism in the Valley. 

Lastly, this group rated the statement, “The Refuge should provide more education about its 

unique habitats through self-guided and guided trail walks” (#34), higher than any other group. 

Followup discussions further support this idea, with many members expressing the need for more 

and better environmental education and interpretation opportunities so community members better 

understand the Refuge’s purpose and the resources it protects. 

This perspective holds an ecological/scientific value related to wildlife and nature, with an 

emphasis on the benefit that wildlife and habitats contribute to the larger ecosystem and the 

importance of studying these relationships. Stakeholders in this group also value the aesthetic

qualities of the environment and have an appreciation for the beauty it provides. Similarly, they 

value nature and wildlife for the quality of life it provides society as a whole (social value). Finally, 

this group values the recreational interactions with wildlife and nature. 

Table 8. Summary profile for Wildlife First, Recreation Second. Bolded numbers indicate a distinguishing 

statement. Statements listed include those rated as agree (+3 to +5) or disagree (–3 to –5) plus any 

distinguishing statements (in bold). Distinguishing statements are those ranked significantly different from 

other perspectives (higher or lower than overall average). 

 Statement 

Number Statements Ranking Score 

11 

It is important to ensure the continued protection of the diverse wetland complex on the 

Refuge.

5 

46 

I support the Refuge acquiring lands within the acquisition boundary to help protect 

wildlife habitats. 

5 

28 

The most important issue in this planning process is to establish a meaningful method 

of creating dialogue between the Refuge and the local community.

4 

19 

It is important that any new trails the Refuge creates are compatible with the "wildlife 

first" mission of the National Wildlife Refuge system. 

4 

17 

Since the Refuge comprises the largest wetland in West Virginia, monitoring and 

protecting water quality is of primary importance.

4 

47 

It is important for the Refuge to provide the research, evidence, or logic behind 

management decisions.

3 

27 

It is important to maintain plant and animal habitat connections between Refuge lands 

and neighboring Monongahela National Forest and Canaan Valley State Park lands.

3 

40 

By preserving wildlife resources the Refuge maintains the scenic beauty and quality of 

life valued by those who live, visit, or vacation in the area.

3 

45 

I support new ideas for providing reasonable access while protecting fragile 

ecosystems, for example, guided hikes by experts, fencing fragile areas near trails, 

building boardwalks, and(or) a permit system for backcountry use.

3 

34 

The Refuge should provide more education about its unique habitats through selfguided and guided trail walks. 

2 

22
Table 8 (Continued). Summary profile for Wildlife First, Recreation Second. Bolded numbers indicate a 

distinguishing statement. Statements listed include those rated as agree (+3 to +5) or disagree (–3 to –5) plus 

any distinguishing statements (in bold). Distinguishing statements are those ranked significantly different from 

other perspectives (higher or lower than overall average). 

 Statement 

Number Statements Ranking Score 

33 

Minimizing the impact to wetlands should be the driving factor in determining 

access to the Refuge. 

2 

36 

Refuge staff should meet with a committee of local interests on a regular basis to 

discuss and recommend solutions to issues before decisions are made so that local 

perspectives are integrated into the planning process.

0 

24 I support low impact mountain biking on the Refuge.

–2 

3 

The Refuge should increase the deer harvest by developing trails to make it easier for 

hunters to access the Refuge interior. 

–3 

35 

While the community wants the Refuge to be a shining example of why we need to 

protect and conserve our wildlife resources, the decisions and implementation of 

decisions have been contrary to this process. 

–3 

32 

The thing I value most about this Refuge is that it is one of few places in the state to 

hunt woodcock.

–3 

16 

I support biking corridors through the Refuge. These corridors are vitally 

important links in the recreational trail system that connects Tucker County's 

communities, parks, and forests.

–3 

5 Woodcock hunting should be banned on the Refuge.

–4 

43 

The most important problem facing the Refuge is keeping the "tree-huggers" from 

taking it over.

–4 

39 

We will never have a decent tax base in our county if the government is not stopped 

from grabbing up all our land.

–4 

8 

The control and eradication of invasive species should not be a high management 

priority for the Refuge.

–5 

31 Development, rather than preservation, would be in the best interest of the valley.

–5 

Perspective 5: Economic Development 

Three of the Q-sorts were classified as the Economic Development perspective. These 

represented a County Planning Commission, a County Commission, a local homeowners’ 

association, and a local realty firm. One of the individuals identified themselves with two 

organizations. Table 9 shows rankings of statements for this perspective. 

While the effects of the Refuge on economic growth and development are the key issues for 

those in this perspective, the statements that are the most highly ranked focus on process and public 

involvement. Perspective 5 respondents indicate that “the most important issue in this planning 

process is to establish a meaningful method of creating dialogue between the Refuge and the local 

23
community” (statement #28) and that “Refuge staff should meet with a committee of local interests 

on a regular basis to discuss and recommend solutions to issues before decisions are made so that 

local perspectives are integrated into the planning process” (#36). In followup discussions, it 

appeared that some stakeholders in this perspective believe that the community was misled, 

initially, about the Refuge and what Refuge designation would mean for those who used the land. 

The desire for more participation is motivated by a desire to be an integral part of the process, and a 

belief that economic development issues should be important in the Refuge planning process but 

may not be adequately addressed without broad and ongoing public involvement. 

A central concern for stakeholders with this perspective is maintaining and improving the 

economic vitality of the Valley. This perspective supports development, particularly industrial 

development, and sees the Refuge and other public lands as impediments to growth. While 

stakeholders with this perspective believe some people are drawn to the area because of the Refuge 

and other public lands, in the long run the only way to ensure steady and high quality employment 

for local residents is to attract industry. This perspective does not support further land acquisition, 

believing it will harm the local economy by cutting off opportunities for economic development. 

As one respondent noted, “protecting wildlife and wetlands is a good thing (there are some pluses) 

but they are minimal compared to the damage to the economy.” 

Some in this group support Refuge mandates, and believe it is important for the Refuge to 

protect wetlands, but feel that the Refuge can do more to make itself attractive to tourists. The 

focus is on the ability of the Refuge to provide practical and concrete benefits to the local 

community, such as tourism dollars. 

This perspective also supports improved access to the Refuge. The reason for this seems to 

be that recreational access will attract more tourists, which will help the economy. Another 

suggestion from this perspective is to increase offerings of Refuge educational programs. Like 

those in the Recreational Access and Traditional Wildlife Management perspectives, this 

perspective supports the idea of restoring historic railroad grades to provide Refuge access. The 

people in this perspective do not agree that the Refuge is underfunded, and so do not see that as a 

reason for the lack of “marketing.” 

This perspective holds a commercial value toward wildlife and nature, valuing the 

environment for its economic contribution and ability to bring dollars to the local community. 

Similarly, this group values wildlife and nature for the benefit to humans (utilitarian value). 

Because of the view that natural resources in the area may be impediments to development (and 

potentially lost economic benefits to the Valley), stakeholders with this perspective sometimes hold 

a negative value toward wildlife and nature. Although those in this group are very interested in 

development and are not convinced that the Refuge can provide sufficient economic benefits, they 

live in the Valley because of its natural setting and beauty, and value the aesthetic quality of the 

Valley. 

24
Table 9. Summary profile for Economic Development Perspective. Statements listed include those rated as 

agree (+3 to +5) or disagree (-3 to -5) plus any distinguishing statements (in bold). Distinguishing statements 

are those ranked significantly different from other perspectives (higher or lower than overall average). 

Statement 

Number Statement Ranking Score 

28 The most important issue in this planning process is to establish a meaningful 

method of creating dialogue between the Refuge and the local community. 5 

36 

Refuge staff should meet with a committee of local interests on a regular 

basis to discuss and recommend solutions to issues before decisions are made 

so that local perspectives are integrated into the planning process. 

5 

10 Tucker County should not rely on tourism for all of its business; tourism 

should be balanced with industry. 4 

39 We will never have a decent tax base in our county if the government is not 

stopped from grabbing up all our land. 4 

21 

Access to the Refuge should be improved through the restoration of historic 

railroad grades. These would allow a great variety of habitat to be seen without 

leaving the trail system, thereby avoiding damage to the bogs 

4 

11 It is important to ensure the continued protection of the diverse wetland complex 

on the Refuge. 3 

15 It is critical, as part of the Refuge planning process, to repair the deep-rooted 

mistrust of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 3 

17 Since the Refuge comprises the largest wetland in West Virginia, monitoring and 

protecting water quality is of primary importance. 3 

18 It is imperative that the Refuge find ways to increase deer harvesting to protect 

the fragile, significant, and in some cases rare plant communities. 3 

16 

I support biking corridors through the Refuge. These corridors are vitally 

important links in the recreational trail system that connects Tucker 

County's communities, parks, and forests. 

2 

31 Development, rather than preservation, would be in the best interest of the 

valley. 1 

19 It is important that any new trails the Refuge creates are compatible with 

the "wildlife first" mission of the National Wildlife Refuge system. 1 

30 

I strongly support the Refuge's purpose. It is important to continue to resist 

the desire of some locals to expand human activity on the Refuge and turn it 

into a National Forest "land of many uses." 

–1 

40 By preserving wildlife resources the Refuge maintains the scenic beauty and 

quality of life valued by those who live, visit, or vacation in the area. –2 

27 

It is important to maintain plant and animal habitat connections between 

Refuge lands and neighboring Monongahela National Forest and Canaan 

Valley State Park lands. 

–2 

2 It is unfair that hunters using the Refuge have off-trail access, while other users 

must stay on the trails. –3 

22 

Bicyclists don't need access to the Refuge because they have plenty of other 

places in the county to ride--highways, roadways, state parks, national forests, 

and taxpayer-funded bike trails. 

–3 

32 The thing I value most about this Refuge is that it is one of few places in the state 

to hunt woodcock. –3 

41 I value the role the Refuge plays in conserving and restoring West Virginia's 

streams and rivers. –3 

25
Table 9 (Continued). Summary profile for Economic Development Perspective. Statements listed include 

those rated as agree (+3 to +5) or disagree (-3 to -5) plus any distinguishing statements (in bold). 

Distinguishing statements are those ranked significantly different from other perspectives (higher or lower than 

overall average). 

Statement 

Number Statement Ranking Score 

7 

One of the most important Refuge issues is the lack of an adequate visitor center 

and the lack of available Refuge personnel to present programs or answer 

questions. 

–4 

43 The most important problem facing the Refuge is keeping the "tree-huggers" 

from taking it over. –4 

46 I support the Refuge acquiring lands within the acquisition boundary to help 

protect wildlife habitats. –4 

9 

The Refuge is a key part of the economic development picture for the 

Canaan Valley, Tucker County, and the West Virginia Highlands because it 

supports local businesses and draws tourists from all over the world. 

–5 

26 The most important problem facing the Refuge is lack of funding to provide 

services. –5 

Areas of Consensus and Concern 

Consensus can be defined as “general agreement” or “the judgment arrived at by most of 

those concerned” (http://www.merriam-webster.com). We use this as a general definition, 

recognizing that in reality the disagreement of one party can make a decision untenable. This 

evaluation reveals areas of common ground and areas where conflict is more likely and additional 

work will be required to resolve differences. We identified the following categories of consensus 

and concern (fig. 2): 

• High Consensus/Low Concern — general agreement across perspectives; low importance of 

the issue. Statements in this category are likely to offer opportunities for good-faith efforts and 

low conflict. 

• High Consensus/High Concern — general agreement across perspectives; high importance 

of the issue; Statements in this category illustrate opportunities for collaboration, and 

conflict may be low. 

• Low Consensus/High Concern — general disagreement across perspectives; high 

importance of the issue. The highest levels of conflict are likely to center on these 

statements and managers may need to devote considerable attention to statements in this 

category. 

• Low Consensus/Low Concern — there were no statements in this category. 

Depending on the disparity or similarity of scores across perspectives, statements were 

assigned to one of the four categories. 

26
High 

Concern

Low

Concern

Low

Consensus

High

Consensus

Opportunities for

Collaboration

Low Conflict

Opportunities for

Good-faith Efforts

Low Conflict

Not Applicable; 

No Statements in

This Category

Strategic Concentration

Greater Potential for

Conflict

Figure 2. Model of consensus and concern for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

stakeholder evaluation. 

Areas of High Consensus/Low Concern 

The statements in Table 10 are “high consensus” because each perspective rated them 

similarly. They are “low concern” because the average stakeholder rankings were low (between +2 

and –2) across perspectives. Thus, stakeholders tend to have consensus on these statements, but 

they are not ranked as very important by any perspective. Conflict is likely to be relatively low, 

because stakeholders may divert their energy to more important issues. In some cases it is possible 

to take management actions that satisfy the needs articulated in the statements. If they are low-cost 

and noncontroversial, there can be benefit in addressing some of these as a sign of good faith. 

However, they must be prioritized so that things considered truly unimportant are not allocated 

resources that would be better used elsewhere. While managers may choose not to devote 

substantial resources to the high-consensus/low concern issues, it is helpful to understand the areas 

of agreement among the different perspectives. In some cases, “low concern” may indicate not a 

lack of interest, but a belief that current management practices are adequate and should be 

continued. 

During our conversations with stakeholders following the Q-sort exercise, we learned the 

reasons for high or low rankings of statements. For the watershed/habitat statements in this 

category (#20, #37), stakeholders indicated that they were not opposed to protection of grassland 

birds or certain endangered species, but that many other issues were more important to them, thus 

the relatively low rankings. Some noted that they did not think the Refuge needed to do “more” to 

protect threatened and endangered species; keeping management attention at the current level was 

adequate. Not surprisingly, those in the Ecological Preservation and Traditional Wildlife 

Management perspectives were somewhat more supportive of increased protection of these species. 

Access was a high-priority issue for many stakeholders, but not all of the access statements 

were of high concern. Recreational Access and Economic Development perspectives were more 

interested in low impact mountain biking than the other groups. 

The environmental education statement elicited reactions similar to the endangered species 

item. People either thought the Refuge was doing an adequate job of providing these services or 

did not believe it was an important issue, given the range of concerns in the planning process. 

27
28

One way of interpreting this category is to suggest that stakeholders agree that they are not 

concerned about these issues. However, as noted above, it is equally likely that respondents ranked 

these statements low because they believe the refuge is taking, or will take, specific management 

actions. These actions are important as stakeholders are satisfied with current management 

practices and may object to changes. 

Areas of High Consensus/High Concern 

Statements in Table 11 are “high consensus” because each perspective rated them similarly. 

They are “high concern” because the stakeholder rankings were high across perspectives. 

Specifically, statements were considered in this category if scores were between + 3 and +5 with no 

score lower than –1 or conversely, between –5 and –3 with no scores higher than +1. In some cases 

the statement was rated as neutral (–2 to +2) by a perspective, but was high (+3 to +5 or –3 to –5) 

for one or more perspectives. We included those statements in this category because while not all 

perspectives may have rated the statement as high, there was no outright dissent across 

perspectives. 

Eighteen statements representing five of the seven issue areas were categorized as high 

consensus/high concern. Stakeholders have strong opinions about these statements and it is likely 

that many will be attentive to how these issues are addressed in the CCP process. 

Table 11 shows that some of the statements were strongly supported or opposed across 

perspectives while others were less uniformly ranked. For most of the statements in the “high 

consensus/high concern” category, two or more perspectives show similar rankings. All 

perspectives disagreed with statement #8(“The control and eradication of invasive species should 

not be a high management priority for the Refuge”), and all but one disagreed with 

#31(“Development, rather than preservation, would be in the best interest of the valley”). For 

statement #31, Perspective 5 (Economic Development) was somewhat of an outlier, ranking that 

statement as +1. 

Several statements in this category stand out because, although they meet the rule for 

inclusion as high consensus, only one perspective ranked them highly. These are statements #6, 

#12, and #29. Each of these relates to some aspect of access to the Refuge, and was highly ranked 

only by the Recreational Access perspective. Thus, support may not be broad, but those with an 

interest in these access issues appear to be intensely interested and may work to advance their 

cause. The dynamics of the discussions around those issues may be determined by the level of 

opposition by other perspectives. It is not possible to determine whether those who ranked the 

statements lower are opposed, or simply indifferent, about these issues. 

Statements in this category suggest several approaches. First, some of the statements 

highlight areas that the Refuge already views as high priorities. In these cases, it is useful to know 

that there is consensus across perspectives that these issues are important. For example, statements 

relating to watershed and habitat protection concern the fundamental mission of the Refuge and 

appear to be important across perspectives. Some statements might indicate actions that the Refuge 

is already taking or could consider taking. In these cases, it is possible to communicate with the 

stakeholders that the Refuge is acting on what is viewed as important. Second, some issues are 

highly important to only one or two perspectives with others seemingly neutral. In these cases the 

Refuge can use this information to understand which perspectives are most interested and may be 

able to better understand motivations behind specific recommendations. Finally, there may be 

statements in this category that suggest actions that the Refuge cannot take, or that will not be high 

priorities despite their importance to some stakeholders. 
Table 10. Statements of High Consensus/Low Concern by Perspective (Statements appear in this category if scores were b

across perspectives.) 

Average Scores f

Statement 

Number Statement 

Ecological 

Preservation 

Recreational 

Access 

Traditional 

Wildlife 

Mt 

Watershed/Habitat 

20 The Refuge should help grassland bird populations recover and ensure their success in the future. 1 0 2 37 

The Refuge should do more to protect threatened and endangered species 

such as the Cheat Mountain salamander and the West Virginia northern flying squirrel. 

2 –2 2 

Access

24 I support low impact mountain biking on the Refuge. 0 2 0 42 We need better access for all people (handicapped, families, elderly, and mainstream people) not just die-hard fitness types. –1 2 –1 

Environmental Education 

34 The Refuge should provide more education about its unique habitats through self-guided and guided trail walks. 1 1 –2 

29
Table 11. High Consensus/High Concern by Perspective. (Statements appear in this category if scores were between + 3 an

lower than –1 or conversely, between –5 and –3 with no scores higher than +1.) 

Statement 

Number Statement 

Ecological 

Preservation 

Recreational 

Access 

Traditional 

Wildlife 

Management` 

Watershed/Habitat 

8 The control and eradication of invasive species should not be a high management priority for the Refuge.a –4 –1 -4 

11 It is important to ensure the continued protection of the diverse wetland complex on the Refuge. 4 1 2 17 Since the Refuge comprises the largest wetland in West Virginia, monitoring and protecting water quality is of primary importance. 4 1 0 33 Minimizing the impact to wetlands should be the driving factor in determining access to the Refuge. 3 0 0 

Access

2 It is unfair that hunters using the Refuge have off-trail access, while other users must stay on the trails. 1 1 –3 6 In some cases there are sections of trails that have been degraded to the point where use of mountain biking just shouldn't continue. 1 –-4 –2 

12 Continuous, looped, and easy trails should be provided on the Refuge. 0 5 1 

a This is a negative statement. 

30
Table 11 (Continued). High Consensus/High Concern by Perspective. (Statements appear in this category if scores were be

no score lower than –1 or conversely, between –5 and –3 with no scores higher than +1.) 

Statement 

Number Statement 

Ecological 

Preservation 

Recreational 

Access 

Traditional 

Wildlife 

Management` 

14 

A trail that crosses the valley is important because the close contact with our wetlands would be a moving experience that would help visitors care more for the resource. 

–1 4 –1 

21 

Access to the Refuge should be improved through the restoration of historic railroad grades. These would allow a great variety of habitat to be seen without leaving the trail system, thereby avoiding damage to the bogs. 

0 4 3 

22 

Bicyclists don't need access to the Refuge because they have plenty of other places in the county to ride--highways, roadways, state parks, national forests, and taxpayer-funded bike trails.a

-1 –5 0 

29 

I believe access through the Refuge creating a connected trail system will support exceptional recreational opportunities and will provide economic benefits to local businesses. 

–1 5 0 

38 I support a hiking trail crossing the valley that would connect Forest Service lands to Dolly Sods Wilderness Area. 0 3 –1 45 

I support new ideas for providing reasonable access while protecting fragile ecosystems, for example, guided hikes by experts, fencing fragile areas near trails, building boardwalks, and(or) a permit system for backcountry use. 

1 0 1 

a This is a negative statement. 

31
32

Table 11 (Continued). High Consensus/High Concern by Perspective. (Statements appear in this category if scores were beno score lower than –1 or conversely, between –5 and –3 with no scores higher than +1.) 

Statement 

Number Statement 

Ecological 

Preservation 

Recreational 

Access 

Traditional 

Wildlife 

Management` 

Economic Development

4 It is important to minimize development pressures in and around the Refuge to prevent loss of wildlife and plant habitat. 3 –1 1 

31 Development, rather than preservation, would be in the best interest of the valley. –5 –4 –5 

Hunting

5 Woodcock hunting should be banned on the Refuge. –1 –3 –5 

13 I would like to see more areas within the Refuge designated as nature viewing areas, with no hunting, fishing, or dogs allowed. 0 –2 –3 

Environmental Education 

7 

One of the most important Refuge issues is the lack of an adequate visitor center and the lack of available Refuge personnel to present programs or answer questions. 

–2 0 –2 
Areas of Low Consensus/High Concern 

Statements in this category are “low consensus” because they were ranked differently across 

perspectives. They are “high concern” because the stakeholder rankings were high (whether 

stakeholders agreed or disagreed) across perspectives. Statements were assigned to this category if 

scores were between + 3 and +5 with at least one score lower than –1 or conversely, between –5 

and –3 with at least one score higher than +1 (table 12). The issues represented by these statements 

are those that may be most difficult to resolve because there is high potential for conflict. In some 

cases a statement was rated differently by only one perspective. We included those statements in 

this category because it is possible that one dissenting view will make an issue controversial and 

difficult to resolve even if broader stakeholder opinion is unified in another direction. 

One way to evaluate these results is to examine the difference between the highest and 

lowest scores, by statement, to see where the largest differences are found. The highest possible 

gap between high and low is 10, which would occur if one perspective ranked a statement at +5 and 

another ranked it at –5. No statements were in this category. However, three statements show a 

gap of 9 between highest and lowest ranking (highlighted in orange), and several others have gaps 

of 8 (highlighted in purple) or 7. The size of the gap is shown in the far right column of table 12. 

While there are limitations on what can be surmised from the gap, it may be a rough estimate of the 

potential for conflict for specific issues, and between specific perspectives. 

Several of the statements with the largest gaps are those that propose a specific Refuge 

management action. One interpretation is that while most perspectives are generally supportive of 

core Refuge principles—as indicated by the “high consensus/high concern” statements—there is 

much less agreement about the specifics. 

The theme of appropriate levels of involvement in the CCP process is evident, with some 

advocating much higher levels of community involvement than others. Those who ranked these 

statements highly feel strongly that local involvement in the decisionmaking process is key to 

obtaining public support, while those ranking these statements lower seem more confident that the 

Refuge has the necessary expertise to make what are, in their view, scientific judgments. 

For the three Economic Development statements in this category, the general pattern is that 

Perspectives 1 through 4 indicate similar views and Perspective 5 has a starkly opposite point of 

view. Combined with Perspective 5’s strong desire to be involved in the Refuge’s decisionmaking 

process this may be an indication of an influential point of view that will ask the Refuge to explain 

how it benefits the local community. At the very least, this Perspective might be expected to elevate 

this conversation in the planning process. 

33
Table 12. Low Consensus/High Concern by Perspective. (Shaded rows indicate statements with the lowest 

levels of consensus across perspectives.) Statement Number 

Statement 

Ecological Preservation Recreational Access Traditional Wildlife Management` Wildlife First, Recreation Second Economic Development Gap between highest and lowest score 

Watershed/Habitat 

1 

The Refuge should manage for recovery and 

restoration of the great forests that once covered 

the area. 4 0 –3 –1 –1 7 

23 

The thing I value most about the Refuge is 

knowing the area will be preserved and better 

managed for grouse/woodcock. –3 –2 5 –2 0 8 

25 

The Refuge should be for wildlife and not a 

playground for tourists lured by the promise of 

being able to hike, bike, backpack, or ski on land 

that once upon a time could be used by anyone. 0 –5 3 0 0 8 

27 

It is important to maintain plant and animal 

habitat connections between Refuge lands and 

neighboring Monongahela National Forest and 

Canaan Valley State Park lands. 5 2 3 3 –2 7 

40 

By preserving wildlife resources the Refuge 

maintains the scenic beauty and quality of life 

valued by those who live, visit, or vacation in the 

area. 3 1 4 3 –2 6 

41 

I value the role the Refuge plays in conserving 

and restoring West Virginia's streams and rivers. 5 1 1 2 –3 8 

44 

Wilderness designation should be obtained for 

portions of the Refuge to protect fragile 

environments and allow natural processes to 

restore the area. 2 –3 –4 0 1 6 

Hunting

3 

The Refuge should increase the deer harvest by 

developing trails to make it easier for hunters to 

access the Refuge interior. –3 0 2 –3 1 5 

18 

It is imperative that the Refuge find ways to 

increase deer harvesting to protect the fragile, 

significant, and in some cases rare plant 

communities. –2 –1 4 1 3 6 

32 

The thing I value most about this Refuge is that it 

is one of few places in the state to hunt 

woodcock. –4 –2 5 –3 –3 9 

34
Table 12 (Continued). Low Consensus/High Concern by Perspective. (Shaded rows indicate statements with 

the lowest levels of consensus across perspectives.) Statement Number 

Statement 

Ecological Preservation Recreational Access Traditional Wildlife Management` Wildlife First, Recreation Second Economic Development Gap between highest and lowest score 

Economic Development

9 

The Refuge is a key part of the economic 

development picture for the Canaan Valley, 

Tucker County, and the West Virginia Highlands 

because it supports local businesses and draws 

tourists from all over the world. 1 3 1 1 –5 8 

10 

Tucker County should not rely on tourism for all 

of its business; tourism should be balanced with 

industry. –2 –1 –1 –2 4 6 

39 

We will never have a decent tax base in our 

county if the government is not stopped from 

grabbing up all our land. –5 –3 –4 –4 4 9 

Process

28 

The most important issue in this planning process 

is to establish a meaningful method of creating 

dialogue between the Refuge and the local 

community. –2 2 –3 4 5 8 

36 

Refuge staff should meet with a committee of 

local interests on a regular basis to discuss and 

recommend solutions to issues before decisions 

are made so that local perspectives are integrated 

into the planning process. –3 3 –2 0 5 8 

47 

It is important for the Refuge to provide the 

research, evidence, or logic behind management 

decisions. 2 2 –2 3 0 5 

Access

16 

I support biking corridors through the Refuge. 

These corridors are vitally important links in the 

recreational trail system that connects Tucker 

County's communities, parks, and forests. –1 4 –1 –3 2 7 

35
Table 12 (Continued). Low Consensus/High Concern by Perspective. (Shaded rows indicate statements with 

the lowest levels of consensus across perspectives.) Statement Number 

Statement 

Ecological Preservation Recreational Access Traditional Wildlife Management` Wildlife First, Recreation Second Economic Development Gap between highest and lowest score 

19 

It is important that any new trails the Refuge 

creates are compatible with the "wildlife first" 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge system. 2 –2 3 4 1 6 

30 

I strongly support the Refuge's purpose. It is 

important to continue to resist the desire of some 

locals to expand human activity on the Refuge 

and turn it into a National Forest "land of many 

uses." 3 –4 2 2 –1 7 

Land Acquisition 

46 

I support the Refuge acquiring lands within the 

acquisition boundary to help protect wildlife 

habitats. 2 –1 4 5 –4 9 

In an effort to understand which perspectives are likely to have the most conflict with one 

another, we looked at each statement in the low consensus/high concern category to better 

understand the pattern of low consensus scores by perspective. For each statement in Table 12, we 

marked the highest and the lowest score, and then totaled the number of times that each perspective 

had either the highest or the lowest score. We then evaluated the pairs of highest and lowest (that is, 

for each statement on the list, which perspective ranked it lowest, and which ranked it highest?). 

Table 13 shows the distribution of the extreme scores. As shown in the TOTAL row, 

Perspective 1 (Ecological Preservation) ranked 12 statements in the low consensus/high concern list 

as either the highest or the lowest of the five perspectives. Perspective 2 (Recreational Access) was 

the extreme score for 5 statements; Perspective 3 (Traditional Wildlife Management) 11 statements; 

Perspective 4 (Wildlife First, Recreation Second) 6, and Perspective 5 (Economic Development) 

10. 

Table 13 shows multiple areas of potential conflict between perspectives 1 (Ecological 

Preservation) and 3 (Traditional Wildlife Management) because of strongly different ratings for 6 

statements in the low consensus/high concern list. Another area of potential conflict is between 

perspective 1 (Ecological Preservation) and perspective 5 (Economic Development) with 5 

statements showing a broad range of scores. 

As Table 13 shows, Perspectives 1, 3, and 5 are more often associated with the highest or 

lowest rankings of statements than are the other two perspectives. Perspective 2 weighed in most 

strongly on statements regarding access or local recreation and Perspective 4 on those focused on 

wildlife protection, with some emphasis on the importance of developing an open process for 

stakeholder involvement. 

Some of the statements in this category are reflections of values and do not necessarily 

express an opinion about specific management actions. For example, the statements show differing 

36
opinions about appropriate uses of the Refuge (Is it for hunting? Wildlife protection? Water 

quality protection?), the role and reach of the federal government, and the benefits of the Refuge to 

the local and regional economy. It is not surprising that the areas of highest disagreement are 

centered on values, and it is generally believed that negotiating about values is difficult. Three 

general approaches may be appropriate for resolving these differences. First, seek the areas of low 

consensus where the level of disagreement and the attachment to values seem relatively lower, and 

attempt to work on these issues. Success in resolving even one contentious issue may build trust 

among parties and lead to a willingness to negotiate other issues. Second, recognize the values that 

underlie these areas of contention and attempt to develop solutions that support a variety of values. 

It may be necessary to explain to stakeholders how proposed solutions support or express a specific 

value, and it is possible to craft solutions that satisfy a range of values. Third, consider how to work 

on issues where several perspectives seem aligned and one or two are in opposition. There may be 

potential to learn about the origin of the opposing points of view with the goal of mutual learning 

and, perhaps, diminish levels of conflict. 

Table 13. Low Consensus between Perspectives. Numbers in TOTAL row show the number of Low 

consensus/High concern statements for which the perspective (indicated in the row heading) had either the 

highest or lowest score. Numbers in cells show how the pairs of highest and lowest statements were 

distributed for each statement. 

Perspective 1- Ecological 

Preservation 

2-Recreational 

Access 

3- Traditional 

Wildlife 

Management 

4- Wildlife 

FirstRecreation 

Second 

5- Economic 

Development 

1- Ecological 

Preservation 1 6 0 5 

2- Recreational 

Access 1 1 2 1 

3- Traditional 

Wildlife 

Management 

6 1 2 2 

4- Wildlife FirstRecreation Second 0 2 2 2 

5- Economic 

Development 5 1 2 2 

TOTAL 12 5 11 6 10 

Suggested Solutions 

After stakeholders completed the Q-Sort, we asked them, “For those issues of most concern 

to you, what solutions do you see to addressing those?” Additionally, throughout the followup 

discussions, solutions were suggested by stakeholders. We summarized these by categorizing them 

by the key issues used throughout this assessment: land acquisition, hunting, watershed/habitat, 

environmental education, access, development, and process. For each issue, we identified themes of 

solutions and the specific perspective that suggested the solution. The specific solutions are 

summarized in tables 14–20. Some of these solutions were offered by one stakeholder and others 

were mentioned multiple stakeholders across perspectives. We did not evaluate these solutions in 

terms of feasibility, but present them without analysis. They may be helpful in stimulating 

37
thinking, identifying areas of common concern, initiating dialogue between managers and 

stakeholders, and providing input to decisionmakers about stakeholders’ ideas and points of view. 

Watershed/Habitat 

Solutions related to watershed and habitat management focused on improving coordination 

and partnerships and species management (table 14). Specifically, stakeholders feel that 

coordinating with other agencies to address wildlife and habitat issues and relying on outside 

experts is beneficial. 

Table 14. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding watershed/habitat. 

Theme Solution Perspective(s) Suggesting Solution 

Species Management

Use contraceptives on deer Ecological Preservation 

More beaver control at Freeland Road Ecological Preservation 

Minimize single species management Ecological Preservation 

Get rid of introduced spirea* by cutting twice in a season so alder 

and aspen will come back. Traditional Wildlife Management 

Coordination with Others

The refuge should rely on outside assistance for woodcock habitat 

management (research help to determine how to provide appropriate 

habitat) 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Refuge should work more with other regional and local 

landowners/land managers to manage the entire watershed Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Work with different groups in the valley to help ensure protecting 

water quality of the wetlands (for example, county commission 

hearings) 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Coordinate with other resource agencies to help address wildlife and 

habitat issues. U.S. Forest Service and West Virginia Department of 

Natural Resources have recently completed planning projects of 

their own which can help guide species and habitat priorities from a 

local and state perspective 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Hire more expert biologists to gather needed information for 

managers Ecological Preservation 

Gather input from experts, habitat mapping and literature, then have 

the discussions needed to determine how to balance habitat needs 

and where to manage for what. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

* Authors’ note: Meadowsweet spirea is a native plant in Canaan Valley. 

Recreational Access 

The largest number of suggested solutions relates to access (table 15). During followup 

discussions, 14 of the 63 participants described and then marked exact locations for their access 

solutions on refuge maps (fig. 3). It was evident that those who chose to use maps to pinpoint their 

solutions were familiar with the landscape of the refuge and were comfortable using maps. 

Researchers offered a full-color map that was provided by the refuge staff (1:54,000 scale). Colored 

magic markers and pens were provided so notes describing solution were written on maps along 

with marking location, for example: “Extending Swinging Bridge Trail with CVI collaboration so 

to connect with State Route 32. Would be nice loop out of Davis and back in.” In table 15 

participants’ identifying number for map and associated perspective are noted with solution: 

38
Wildlife First, Recreation Second (M85, 104.) All mapped solutions are included in table 15. 

Looking at all solutions two prominent themes surfaced: 

• Ways to protect resources while increasing access and increasing the variety of trails 

• Need for outside expert feasibility studies 

Recognizing the need to protect the fragile wetlands, solutions included using innovative 

combinations of existing railroad grades, existing roads/trails, and new trails or boardwalks along 

with the desire by some for reasonable off-trail use for all (not just hunters). Connectivity to other 

public lands was paramount to many. Others asked for shorter looped trails for the elderly, 

disabled, and young families. To ensure that the refuge creates well-planned sustainable trails that 

recognizes the fragile wetland resource, however, it is necessary that feasibility studies by experts 

be conducted to determine the best way to move forward with increasing access. 

Table 15. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding access. (M) indicates 

referenced map. 

Theme Solution Perspective(s) Suggesting Solution 

General Access

More access will provide unique experiences giving the public the 

ability to enjoy more interesting and unusual places on the refuge so 

appreciation of resource can occur. 

Recreational Access 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Use combinations of existing railroad grades, existing roads/trails, 

and new trails or boardwalks in sensitive areas. Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Open some parts of the uplands to all and increase number of trails 

around periphery of refuge. Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Open areas where anyone can go off-trail at certain times of year. Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Provide more and better handicapped access. Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Protecting Resources

I support new ideas for reasonable access while protecting fragile 

wetlands. 

Ecological Preservation 

Recreational Access 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Wildlife first, but not wildlife only. Need to provide access. It is so 

important to community, even if there are minimal impacts in a 

particular area. These solutions may not be cheap 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Keep the northern part undeveloped both in terms of trails and 

development because of intact undeveloped habitat Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Open some trails to low impact mountain biking but close trails 

when weather dictates or to restore damaged trails. Traditional Wildlife Management 

Evaluate opportunities for dispersed access for nonconsumptive use. 

May be ways to minimize impact through restricted areas, certain 

times of the year, less sensitive areas. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Economic Development 

Hunter Access

Provide better hunter access either through opening some old roads 

seasonally OR providing a shuttle to drop off/pick up hunters 

Recreational Access 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Improve access for hunting by improving roads (use materials that 

don't promote spread of invasive species) and then gating the road—

only open it during hunting season; 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

39
Table 15 (Continued). Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding access. (M) 

indicates referenced map. 

Theme Solution Perspective(s) Suggesting Solution 

Connectivity

Have one central trail to go across the valley and linkages or loops 

off of that. Loops to create circuits. Recreational Access 

Provide cross-refuge trails both N–S and E–W. Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Trail to get up to Dolly Sods. Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

If you could put in a trail that provided access to Big 6 uses and 

could connect it to adjoining lands that would be great. But not ok 

just to make a trail simply for the purposes of connecting up 

different lands. Not a good enough reason. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Research on Feasibility

Contract for a feasibility study to look at restoring old rail grades as 

trails. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Economic Development 

Research mountain biking impacts relative to hiking impacts on 

trails. Economic Development 

Research new techniques for trail sustainability. Work with experts. 

Recreational Access 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Refuge should look into the feasibility of providing trail connectivity 

and off-trail access. It is important to the community. Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Investigate feasibility of building a walkway through the wetlands. Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Work on Trails

Local community will work with refuge staff on trail building, 

monitoring, and maintenance. 

Recreational Access 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Volunteer organizations could help fund trail work projects and 

conduct maintenance on trails. Recreational Access 

Hire professionals to build mountain bike multi-use trails and use 

locals. Recreational Access 

Use T21 (State Alternative Transportation) funds for building trails Traditional Wildlife Management 

Signage

Well signed trails needed. This is critical when allowing seasonal 

restrictions. 

Recreational Access 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Have refuge designate and clearly mark trails and roads that are easy 

access for disabled hunters or elderly; such as Cortland Road where 

it crosses over the river and also Timberline Road where it crosses 

over the river. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Improve signage for boaters entering Upper Blackwater by Swinging 

Bridge. Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Boardwalks

Build boardwalks to provide access to elderly, disabled, and young 

families. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Economic Development 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Make Freeland boardwalk the public face of the Refuge Ecological Preservation 

Enhance access and the ability of the public to enjoy the refuge more 

than they can now. Places along Cortland Rd. and Timberline Rd. 

could be made into interpretive trails with boardwalk. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Recreational Access (M23) 

40
Table 15 (Continued). Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding access. (M) 

indicates referenced map. 

Theme Solution Perspective(s) Suggesting Solution 

Railroads

Restore railroad grades. 

Recreational Access 

Traditional Wildlife Management (M56) 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second, 

(M102) 

Economic Development 

Permit hiking and cross country skiing over old railroad grades, I 

like this because you are not creating a new trail; using what is 

there is good. 

Economic Development (M101) 

Upgrade northernmost railroad grade to get access to A Frame 

road. 

Recreational Access (M56) 

Traditional Wildlife Management (M85) 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second (M48, 

102,104) 

Rail grade across big bog at Jack Mills Ford Recreational Access 

Jeep Trail that is close to cotton grass bogs would make a nice trail 

to open. Railroad bed or pontoon boardwalk could be handicap 

accessible. If refuge OK'd, money could be raised. 

Recreational Access 

Connection on old rail grade at very north end. If money was not 

a problem, solution could be found easily—a raised walkway 

above the bog that would provide foot access showing the biggest 

bog in West Virginia. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second (M48) 

Rail Trail Corridor from Camp 70 to Freeland Road. Recreational Access (M43) 

Trails

Timberline

 Build a trail from the back entrance of Timberline (along the 

river). Traditional Wildlife Management 

Have road going across fields to Timberline Rd when it's not a 

sensitive time. Recreational Access 

Provide access through Timberline. Recreational Access (M56) 

Beall

 Would support building bridge to connect Beall and Blackwater 

View Trail 

Ecological Preservation (M60,85) 

Traditional Wildlife Management (M84) 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

(M48,104) 

Access needed at Old Carwell place behind Beall's Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Camp 70

 Consider connecting Camp 70 Loop with Brown Mtn. Overlook 

trail Recreational Access (M106) 

Cortland

 Need a trail from Cortland Rd. to the Beall access. Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Places along Cortland Rd. and Timberline Rd. could be made into 

interpretive trails, maybe with boardwalks. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

(M1,23) 

Have refuge designate and clearly mark trails and roads that are 

easy access for disabled hunters or elderly; such as Cortland Road 

where it crosses over the river. 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Provide reasonable biking access on Cortland Road or Freeland 

tract. Provide a low-key experience for families, not extreme 

sport experience. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second (M1) 

41
Table 15 (Continued). Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding access. (M) 

indicates referenced map. 

Theme Solution Perspective(s) Suggesting Solution 

Middle Ridge

 Upgrade Middle Ridge Trail to allow for better deer harvest. Traditional Wildlife Management (M103) 

Need alternative to get to Middle Ridge without going through 

emergency gate. Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Ridge trail development is OK but not down in the wetlands. Traditional Wildlife Management 

Repair degraded Sand Run Trail at Middle Valley Recreational Access (M56) 

Swinging Bridge 

Extending Swinging Bridge Trail with CVI collaboration so to 

connect with State Route 32. Would be nice loop out of Davis and 

back in. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second (M85, 

104) 

Add trail to east of Swinging Bridge Trail Traditional Wildlife Management (M103) 

White Grass Cross Country 

Encourage more education by refuge on trails here. Continue 

White Grass Agreement. Very positive relationship Ecological Preservation M60 

Look at ways to lessen impacts on T and E habitat, dispersed use M106 

Concern for Wetlands 

 No trails in wetlands Traditional Wildlife Management 

(M48,101,84) 

No new trails over wetlands in north 1/3 of refuge Ecological Preservation (M60,101) 

Acquisition Boundary 

Extend acquisition boundary 

Traditional Wildlife Management (M85) 

Ecological Preservation (M85) 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

(M48,104) 

Hunting 

Two themes emerged for solutions to hunting issues: 

• habitat management as it relates to hunting, and 

• modifications or additions to current hunting programs (table 16). 

In particular, some stakeholders would like to see an increase in deer harvest in areas adjacent to 

the Refuge. They feel this could be achieved through working with Canaan Valley State Park and 

Timberline Homeowners to allow hunting in those places. Additionally, some stakeholders 

suggested designating the Refuge as a special hunt area (for example, youth hunt, archery, “earn a 

buck”) to further control deer populations. 

42
43

Figure 3. Map showing access solutions and locations provided by 14 stakeholders.
Table 16. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding hunting. 

Theme Solution Perspective(s) Suggesting Solution 

Habitat Management

Develop food plots on the refuge to lure deer in so they can be 

hunted (plant annual grasses that won't persist). Traditional Wildlife Management 

Manage for woodcock by burning, cutting, and disturbing soil to 

guarantee early successional habitat. Traditional Wildlife Management 

Modify Hunt/Special Hunt

Stop bear dog use. It is unnecessary, inhumane and unsporting. Ecological Preservation 

Increase the deer harvest by working with Canaan Valley State Park 

and Timberline Homeowners to see if they will allow hunting; 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

For safety sake consider drawings for hunting permits for a certain 

week because too many woodcock hunters make it unsafe. Traditional Wildlife Management 

Consider an antlerless deer season to increase deer harvest Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Work to designate refuge as a special hunt area. Refuge could then 

have more control over harvest and increase harvest. Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Establish special hunts on refuge (for example, 

youth/archery/muzzle); earn a buck program (kill a doe and then can 

get a buck) 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Land Acquisition 

There were three themes that emerged from the suggested solutions regarding land 

acquisition: 

• administrative boundary, 

• partnerships, and 

• Acquisition details (table 17). 

Some stakeholders feel that the administrative boundary should be expanded to include 

additional lands, particularly to the north of the current boundary. Stakeholders suggested increased 

partnerships with nonprofit organizations to work on land deals and land exchanges. Finally, some 

specific recommendations were made regarding the types of land that could be the focus of 

acquisitions, in particular an emphasis on wetlands rather than uplands. 

Six of the fourteen suggested solutions were contributed by individuals representing 

Perspective 4 (Wildlife First, Recreation Second). This is not surprising, because land acquisition 

potentially benefits wildlife and provides more areas for recreation. Another feature of the 

suggestions from Perspective 4 is that several mention the importance of partnering with other 

organizations to acquire additional lands. 

Perspective 2 (Recreational Access) is the only perspective that did not provide specific 

land acquisition suggestions. Acquisition may be an issue of secondary importance to this 

perspective—more land without increased access may not be attractive. 

44
Table 17. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding land acquisition. 

Theme Solution Perspective(s) Suggesting Solution 

Administrative Boundary

Consider pursuing legislation to expand "possible" boundaries 

to include watershed boundaries. North area has wilderness 

potential but not within boundaries. 

Ecological Preservation 

Purchase additional large acreage from Forest Service and 

private sector to increase size of refuge acquisition area so 

future use by so many can be accommodated 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Consider addition of property north of current acquisition 

boundary up to A Frame Road as new official acquisition 

boundary. It is important that this area be protected. 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Work to have Dobbins Slashings Bog (65 acres) included in 

refuge acquisition area so it can be purchased by Refuge if it 

goes on the market. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Partnerships

Increase conservation easements; Trust for Public Land is active 

on Monongahela National Forest. Is there more opportunity for 

this on refuge whereby land can be acquired at a future date? 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Partner more with Sierra Club (c4 groups) and other NGO's; 

they can lobby and try to get $ for land acquisition 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Work with Conservation Fund, TNC, private land owners (for 

example, Bob Orders and other Timberline residents) so that 

land can be purchased immediately until refuge can purchase. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Consider making some land exchanges, for example, a) acreage 

next to ski area intended for a golf course and b) land on 

Cortland Road 

Economic Development 

Acquisition Details

Protect enough unique habitat to make a difference Ecological Preservation 

Purchase property that is dead center on the refuge map that is 

west of Blackwater View Trail. 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Work to acquire top four acquisition priorities as this will 

solidify the refuge 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Purchase land if it comes available, regardless of the priority Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Stop growth of refuge Economic Development 

Acquire low wetlands, but let the higher desirable uplands be 

developed. 

Economic Development 

Environmental Education 

Four themes emerged from suggested solutions related to environmental education: 

• staffing, 

• message, 

• programs, and 

• interpretive materials and information (table 18). 

Some stakeholders feel that there should be more reliance on refuge staff and less reliance on 

volunteers to staff the visitor contact station and to provide education and interpretation. As far as 

45
the environmental education messages that are delivered to visitors, some stakeholders feel that an 

emphasis on the mission of the refuge system (and how this differs from other land management 

agencies) is important. They also feel that educating children on the uniqueness of the refuge 

resources is important, not only so they recognize the value of the refuge, but also that they 

understand that the refuge is accessible and “open” to visitors. Several suggestions were made 

about new program opportunities, similar to ones that have been offered in the past (for example, 

Rachael Carson plays, photography class, etc.). Along those lines, stakeholders made suggestions 

for interpretive materials and signage ranging from working with real estate offices and local 

establishments to provide brochures, to erecting interpretive signs in specific areas. 

Table 18. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding environmental education. 

Theme Solution Perspective Suggesting Solution 

Staffing

Hire additional refuge staff for outdoor education programs Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Rely more on staff (not volunteers) to provide education and 

interpretation and staff visitor contact station 

Traditional Wildlife 

Management 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Staff visitor contact station on weekends, holidays, and during 

hunting season with refuge staff 

Traditional Wildlife 

Management 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Hire staff with more sympathy for recreation Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Hire an ORP for the refuge who will comply with FWS visitor and 

economic projections of the 1993 WVU Economic Report Recreational Access 

Message

Show community uniqueness of the resource through more outreach 

and programs. 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Educate people about the refuge mission and its uniqueness and how 

it differs from other land management agencies. 

Recreational Access 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Increase outreach programs with kids so they can see/know that they 

can come to the refuge and that visiting is not forbidden 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Educate community about water quality and refuge’s role in that Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Educate people about why they should stay on trails (as opposed to a 

heavy regulatory hand) Recreational Access 

Consult with local mountain bikers, especially those known to have 

an environmental focus, to learn more about environmentally 

sensitive recreation. 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

46
Table 18 (Continued). Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding environmental 

education. 

Theme Solution Perspective Suggesting Solution 

Programs

Provide guided refuge walks at a greater variety of times Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Provide more opportunities for the community to come to the refuge 

(for example, like the photography class) 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Work with schools and CV State Park to run multi-day school 

environmental education events (the students could lodge at the Park) 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Consider a Refuge information night at Highland Prospects. Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Additional programs like Rachael Carson plays in schools Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Encourage more education by refuge on White Grass cross county 

trails. This is a great opportunity to educate. Recreational Access 

Interpretive materials/information

Provide maps that show access for all federal and state lands in the 

area so people know where to go and have information about the 

trails 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Erect an interpretive sign overlooking the wetlands/beaver pond 

areas 

Recreational Access 

Put up more kiosks to educate public because education leads to love 

of resource and then public will want to protect resource 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Put up a sign near the office on the road that tells whether the visitor 

center is open or not 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Consider a double entrance into the office, so that if people see the 

sign, they can enter in 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Work with real estate agencies to put refuge brochures in the houses 

that are being shown. 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Put Refuge brochures in the local establishments Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Build a new interpretive center with more interactive elements (like 

Cranberry Glades Nature Area) 

Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second 

Economic Development 

Three themes are apparent in the solutions offered on development: 

• “smart” development, 

• estimating and communicating the economic benefit of the Refuge, and 

• community issues (table 19). 

When stakeholders mention smart development, they focus on both economic issues and on 

environmental concerns. One suggestion is that the Refuge be an active participant in monitoring 

water quality effects of increased development. Other participants indicate that they would like to 

know how much tourism contributes to the local economy so that there is a better sense of whether, 

and how much, to promote tourism. Some feel that the Refuge could do a better job of promoting 

itself, and might work more closely with local and county economic development agencies to do 

47
so, as it could increase the tourism from which many local businesses could benefit. These 

thoughts are a reflection of the ongoing discussion in the community about what type of 

development will likely bring economic health to the Valley. Some believe that the Refuge brings 

economic benefits to the valley, while others are not convinced and urge an emphasis on industrial 

and commercial development. 

There is some concern about maintenance equipment purchased by the Refuge, and 

suggestions that the Refuge let people know how those purchases benefit the community. Others 

suggest that local contractors should be hired for Refuge work. 

Only Perspective 1, Ecological Preservation, does not provide any solutions related to 

economic development—but this perspective ranks statements regarding development very low, 

and approaches questions of Refuge management from an aesthetic, ecological/scientific, and 

moralistic value orientation. 

Table 19. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding development. 

Theme Solution Perspective(s) Suggesting Solution 

Smart development

If development must occur, do it in a smart way. For example, 

cottage industries 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

With new development, ensure water-treatment facilities are high 

quality and that the Refuge can ensure discharge quality 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Estimating and communicating the economic benefit of the 

refuge

Determine how much money comes into Tucker County from 

tourism; this would help the county determine how aggressively to 

pursue new service industry 

Economic Development 

Encourage businesses that promote tourism to help tax base Traditional Wildlife Management 

Figure out how to work with county economic development 

people to promote the Refuge. The county could capitalize on the 

presence of the Refuge by designing special events. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Communicate with local community about the economic benefits 

provided by the Refuge 

Recreational Access 

Address the wastefulness of the equipment; make it known what 

the Refuge is using the equipment for; explain how it is benefitting 

the community. 

Recreational Access 

Economic Development 

Community issues

Hire locals for contracts Recreational Access 

Economic Development 

Donate Refuge property along Hwy. 32 for an Urgent Care 

medical clinic 

Economic Development 

Process 

The second largest number of suggested solutions related to the decisionmaking process. 

Stakeholders across all perspectives offered solutions around the four themes of: 

• the Refuge staff, 

• communication with the community 

• the research process, and 

• interagency coordination (table 20). 

48
In the followup discussions, stakeholders had many comments about the Refuge staff. At 

the time of our research, the Refuge manager had retired and no decision had been made about a 

permanent manager. Stakeholders were anxious to see the position filled and were hoping to have 

a new manager who had good communication skills, would listen to local concerns and ideas, and 

was interested in being part of the community. They suggested that the manager and other Refuge 

staff should live in the valley and spend time integrating themselves into the community. There 

were some suggestions that Refuge staff be trained in communication and public relations, and that 

the staff rely less on volunteers and be more willing to work weekends when visitation is likely to 

be highest. 

Good communication is very important to stakeholders. Some made specific suggestions 

such as “go to county commissioner meetings,” and “develop a partners program to work with local 

landowners.” Many feel that past decision processes have eroded the trust between the community 

and the Refuge and that much work must be done to repair that trust—with open and frequent 

communication being the first step. Others urge the Refuge and other federal agencies to find a 

better way to communicate the policies and rules that guide planning processes. 

Some stakeholders talked about their lack of understanding of the research conducted on the 

Refuge. There were several suggestions that the Refuge be more open in explaining the purpose of 

research, and that outside contractors be hired to conduct some research because there might be 

important research questions that are outside of the scope of expertise of current Refuge staff. 

Several mentioned that they would like to see more communication and cooperation among 

the federal, state, and local land management entities in the Valley. Interestingly, most of these 

suggestions came from those in the Ecological Preservation or the Wildlife First, Recreation 

Second perspectives. 

Finally, we received a few general suggestions to sell unused maintenance equipment and to 

“move forward, don’t live in the past.” 

It is interesting that the Economic Development perspective ranked the statements about 

process very highly, but did not provide many specific solutions to those problems in the followup 

interviews despite a reported feeling of dissatisfaction with opportunities for public involvement. 

This is difficult to interpret. 

Several of the suggested solutions are offered by two or more perspectives, and the most 

common multiple-perspective solutions include the Recreational Access perspective and the 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second perspective. 

Overall, these suggestions provide a snapshot of stakeholder expectations of Refuge staff 

and the manner in which the planning process is conducted. 

49
Table 20. Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding process. 

Theme Solution Perspective(s) Suggesting Solution 

The Refuge staff

Hire a proactive Refuge manager who is a “gregarious, open, honest, 

intuitive, person whose primary focus is to infiltrate the community.” 

Recreational Access 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Provide Refuge staff with training in communication and public 

relations. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second

Refuge staff should understand that by local standards their wages are 

high; complaints about funding constraints are not well received 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Refuge staff should work weekends, when the bulk of visitation 

occurs. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Refuge staff should live in the valley and be part of the community Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Recreational Access 

Ecological Preservation 

Move the Refuge to another region; current RO leadership will not 

take responsibility for past mistakes or future decisions 

Recreational Access 

Communication with community

Local community shouldn’t dictate, but there should be “informed 

consent” (public understands what you are doing, you provide logic) 

Recreational Access 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Look for common ground between old-timers and new comers Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Refuge must respond to public concerns; not just token efforts at 

public involvement with no follow up. 

Recreational Access 

Involved staff should pay attention to history so that the long-term 

involvement of the community can be honored 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Go to county commissioner meetings once a year or so—give 

presentation; offer Refuge tours. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Hold a Refuge information night at Highland Prospects Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Use the public input from the 2002 Compatibility Determinations in 

this planning process—many letters were received. 

Recreational Access 

Real estate agencies could put Refuge brochures in houses that are 

being shown. Also brochures should be in local establishments. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Have a refuge representative on the steering committee for the 

strategic planning team for the community visioning process 

Economic Development 

Survey skiers at White Grass for their input. There are thousands of 

skiers every year that are important users of the refuge. 

Ecological Preservation 

Hire local high school students to work on trails; would be a great 

way to have positive impact on community. Having photos of kids 

working in local papers is important 

Economic Development 

Refuge staff should connect with Rotary and Lions clubs; if key 

people are informed they can help community understand. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Refuge should develop a partners program to work with local 

landowners. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Interact more with the Friends group; to ease mistrust hold more 

stakeholder meetings 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Access and habitat management will be framed by Refuge’s policy 

and management decisions, but must include proper involvement with 

refuge users and local businesses. So meet with local committee on a 

regular basis. 

Traditional Wildlife Management 

Communicate refuge responsibilities, beyond refuge decisionmaking, 

but long standing regulations and guiding legislation. Do this 

through electronic media and one-on-one discussions. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Ecological Preservation 

50
Table 20 (Continued). Suggested solutions offered by Canaan Valley stakeholders regarding process. 

Theme Solution Perspective(s) Suggesting Solution 

Research process

Critical to provide the logic and research behind decisions and make 

things as transparent and clear as possible. Some ways to do this 

include having research done by outside parties and publish it to the 

public 

Recreational Access 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Inter-agency coordination

Communicate and partner with other land management agencies 

(Federal, State, local, NGOs) on common issues 

Ecological Preservation 

For special-use recreation events, need more “federal agency” 

management; work together and more coordination to ensure habitat 

protection across administrative boundaries 

Ecological Preservation 

The Refuge should compromise a little since they are in the middle of 

a major tourist destination—all the federal and state land managers 

should work together to reach some agreement on public use and 

access issues. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Co-planning with other groups (for example, Tucker County Trails 

grant to work on Refuge roads and trails); blowing their own horn on 

these "successes" would go far. Maybe have others write things about 

the good works they are doing. 

Wildlife First, Recreation Second 

Discussion 

Use of Q-Methodology in Public Participation Decision Processes 

We chose Q-methodology in concert with followup discussions and solution maps for the 

stakeholder evaluation as a way to enhance the public participation process for the Canaan Valley 

NWR CCP planning process. 

Q-methodology is a stakeholder evaluation method aimed at prioritizing key issues, 

identifying prevailing perspectives that exist among stakeholders, and identifying areas of 

consensus (general agreement) and conflict (general disagreement). What makes Q-methodology 

an effective tool for evaluating stakeholder perspectives is that it is not necessary to engage a large 

number of individuals, so long as the group represents the diversity of stakeholder perspectives. 

During the Q-sort exercise, many participants recognized their own words or other 

community members’ jargon in the deck of statements that they ranked. There was general 

agreement that the statements represented the “full conversation” of values, interests and concerns. 

The followup interviews further allowed participants to develop trust that the process was a 

competent way to document their concerns. 

The solutions maps added a hands-on approach for visualizing specific solutions, in 

particular regarding access concerns. Those who chose to mark their solutions on a map clearly 

favored this medium. As the conversations continued in the followup discussions with maps in 

hand, many creative solutions were suggested. 

One objective of this stakeholder evaluation was to provide a means for stakeholders to 

become more engaged in the planning process. From anecdotal feedback from stakeholders and 

refuge staff, it appears this specific process may have encouraged increased communication and a 

sense of legitimacy. 

51
Implications of the Stakeholder Evaluation Results 

Areas of Likely Consensus are Opportunities for Collaboration 

A strong thread of consensus appeared during followup discussions. These areas of 

consensus are good starting points for moving forward. It was apparent that there was broad 

support across perspectives on some key issues even though the reasons for the importance of the 

issues may be different. 

The high consensus on key aspects of watershed and habitat protection included: controlling 

invasive species, wetland protection, and water quality monitoring and protection. This is because 

both those with a utilitarian value orientation and an ecological or aesthetic orientation understand 

the importance of a healthy ecosystem. Whether the primary interest is in human uses of 

ecosystem services or the needs of a broader array of species, protecting water quality is a high 

priority for many. 

There is also high consensus on some aspects regarding access. While some perspectives 

favor more access than others, there is much agreement about improving basic access, by building a 

more connected trail system or restoring historic railroad grades. In particular, there was a strong 

thread of consensus revealed during followup discussions regarding the restoration of the railroad 

beds. 

Areas of Potential Conflict are Opportunities for Strategic Concentration 

There are some issues for which consensus is not high and resolution will be more 

challenging, requiring a more strategic approach. For example, while there is general agreement 

that increased access to the Refuge would engender appreciation and support, there is less 

agreement on the extent of that access. Some participants suggested feasibility studies to assist with 

access decisions. At the time of our research, a feasibility study had not been conducted. Since that 

time, the refuge contracted for an access feasibility study regarding upgrading the northern and(or) 

southern railroad grade. The refuge will consider the results of the access study as they develop the 

CCP. 

There is not consensus about the degree to which the Refuge affects (or could affect the 

local economy). Strong beliefs on both ends of this discussion may benefit from suggestions made 

by a few participants to conduct an economic analysis of the Refuge’s input to the local and 

regional economy. 

While most agree that improved communications and interactions by Refuge staff 

throughout the planning process are important, opinions on the nature and extent of community 

involvement in Refuge decisions were diverse. There was much concern about process, but little 

agreement on how public involvement should be structured. Across perspectives, most agree that 

public input is important and that good communication is essential. The differences among 

perspectives revolve around how the public might be involved, and the degree to which their input 

will be relied upon in the decisionmaking process. Because there is high interest in these questions, 

it is important to develop a shared understanding of the process that includes detail about when and 

how public involvement can occur and how input will be used. This includes discussion of the 

opportunities and constraints of the planning process. Table 1 in this report could be used as a 

resource for further discussion and public participation planning. Another reference that could be 

used is a timeline developed by the Refuge that depicts planning stages and shows when public 

involvement is needed (see Appendix). The important point is to design a process that is as 

transparent as possible to promote high-quality participation and develop trust among stakeholders. 

52
There is an opportunity for more indepth exploration where lack of consensus is apparent. 

This is the place where strategic concentration is most needed in order to understand the differences 

in opinion and the underlying values associated with those differences. 

Values are Important in Understanding Perspectives 

Although we did not conduct a structured assessment of values held by the stakeholders, we 

did evaluate the “whys” behind their Q-sorts discussed in followup interviews. This information 

provided insight into the predominant values likely held by each perspective regarding natural 

resources and the environment. Values are an expression of basic beliefs held by an individual 

(Manfredo, Teel, and Bright, 2003). Sometimes, differences in values across stakeholders regarding 

land management can be attributed to differences between longtime residents and newcomers to a 

community (Krannich and Smith, 1998; McCool and Martin, 1994). Canaan Valley is an area that 

has seen changes in the predominant economic sectors in recent years and in the influx of new 

residents into the community. Many stakeholders expressed concerns that additional changes in 

land use and local economy were likely with the construction of Corridor H. These deep seated, 

difficult to change values will continue to underlie the discussions regarding Refuge management. 

However, understanding these values and the “why” behind preferences is important. As this 

evaluation revealed, differing values do not always mean differing preferences. Sometimes 

stakeholders have consensus on issues for very different reasons (for example, the importance of 

water quality for the Ecological Preservation and the Economic Development Perspectives or the 

consensus on some aspects of access across all perspectives). As the Refuge moves forward in this 

planning process, it is important to continue the discussions that reveal the values and reasons 

behind stakeholders’ opinions and preferences. 

Proposed Solutions Provide “Food for Thought” 

We asked participants in the Q-sort to provide solutions for the problems they identified. 

Many shared their ideas, and some reflected deep involvement and years of history in the area. 

Although the solutions varied in their substance and level of detail, they came from a variety of 

perspectives, and some were quite specific. These solutions will be useful both in the planning 

process and as the new CCP is implemented. While not all of the solutions are possible to 

implement, they show innovative and creative approaches that may be helpful to the Refuge. When 

it is time to implement the details of the plan, the solutions may be a resource for providing specific 

strategies for implementation. By incorporating stakeholders’ ideas into the development of the 

plan and implementation of changes in management, those stakeholders will be motivated to 

engage in future decision processes. 

It is Important to Understand the Decisionmaking Context 

As part of this discussion, it is important to address the decision space of the Refuge. A 

decision space is the set of possible decisions that are allowed for a community decision process. 

The decisions that the Refuge makes regarding its management must be in accord with the reasons 

it was established and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Canaan Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge was established to “preserve its unique wetlands and to protect the fish and 

wildlife resources of the Valley.” The mission of the Refuge System is wildlife conservation. These 

two aspects clearly shape the decision space for the Refuge. However, there is room for 

collaboration within this space, since most stakeholders seem to recognize that “Wildlife First” 

53
does not mean “Wildlife Only.” An important part of collaborating within this decision space is 

good communication and a transparent process. 

Conclusion 

This stakeholder evaluation provides stakeholders, including FWS planners and Refuge 

staff, with important information on the diversity of perspectives regarding Refuge management, 

and the values underlying these perspectives. This detailed information can potentially improve the 

substantive quality of the CCP, because it clarifies and quantifies stakeholder interests and 

perspectives, and identifies areas of consensus as well as areas of potential conflict. 

The five stakeholder perspectives provide a better understanding of the “conversations” 

regarding key Refuge issues for all stakeholders. Because human values are the basis for these 

perspectives, there is no right or wrong perspective. It may be helpful for decisionmakers to 

understand the value basis of each perspective so that support or opposition to management options 

can be better understood. Anticipating stakeholder reactions and crafting solutions that satisfy 

diverse stakeholders may be possible when values are clarified and considered. 

The purpose of this study was to provide a more meaningful public participation process 

that would improve the quality and legitimacy of decisions to be made for the 2010 CCP for the 

refuge. The continued use of high quality deliberative processes when possible can encourage and 

enable all involved to stay involved. 

References Cited 

Atkinson, J., 2002, PQMethod–2.11:Manhattan, KS, Kansas State University. 

Beierle, T.C., 1998, Public participation in environmental decisions—An evaluation framework 

using social goals: Discussion Paper 99–06, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., 31 p. 

Beirele, T.C., and Cayford, J., 2002, Democracy in practice—Public participation in environmental 

decisions: Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C. 

Bradbury, J.A., Branch, K.M., and Malone, E.L., 2003, An evaluation of DOE–EM public 

participation programs: Richland, WA, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

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

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

Chess, C., and Purcell, K., 1999, Public participation and the environment—Do we know what 

works? Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 33, no. 16, p. 2,685–2,692. 

Dietz, T., and Stern, P.C., 2008, Public participation in environmental assessment and decision 

making: The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 305 p. 

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

York, John Wiley and sons. 

Donner, J.C., 2001, Using Q-sorts in participatory processes—An introduction to the methodology, 

in Krueger, R.A., Casey, M.A., Donner, J., Kirsch, S., Maack, J.N., eds., Social analysis—

Selected tools and techniques: The World Bank, Washington, D.C., p. 24–49 

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

vol. 63, no. 5, p. 535–543. 

Kellert, S.R., 1993, The biological basis for human values of nature, in Kellert, S.R., and Wilson, 

E.O., eds., The biophilia hypothesis: Shearwater-Island, Washington. 

King, R.T., 1966, Wildlife and man: New York Conservationist, vol. 20, p. 8–11. 

54
Krannich, R.S., and Smith, M.D., 1998, Local perceptions of public lands natural resources 

management in the rural west—Toward improved understanding of the “revolt in the West”: 

Society and Natural Resources, vol. 11, 677–695. 

Manfredo, M.J., Teel, T.L., and Bright, A.D., 2003, Why are public values toward wildlife 

changing? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, vol. 8 p. 287–306. 

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

messy natural resources management situations: Society and Natural Resources, vol. 14, p. 309–

323. 

McCool, S.F., and Martin, S.R., 1994, Community attachment and attitudes toward tourism 

development: Journal of Travel Research, vol. 22 p. 29–34. 

McKeown, B.F., and Thomas, D.B., 1988. Q methodology: Sage Publications, Newbury Park, 

Calif. 

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, vol. 26, p. 53–94. 

Stephenson, W., 1978, Concourse theory of communication: Communication, vol. 3, p. 21–40. 

Tuler, S., and Webler, T., 1999, Voices from the forest—What participants expect of a public 

participation process: Society and Natural Resources, vol. 12, p. 437–453. 

Uniack, T., 1999, The Citizen's Wildlife Refuge Planning Handbook–Charting the future of 

conservation on the National Wildlife Refuge near you: Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, 

D.C., accessed 12/17/08 at 

http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/habitat_conservation/fede

ral_lands/citizen's_wildlife_refuge_planning_handbook.pdf?ht= 

Verba, S., Lehman Schlozman, K., and Brady, H., 1995, Voice and equality—Civic voluntarism in 

American politics, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.: Harvard University Press. 

Webler, T., and Tuler, S., 2000, Fairness and competence in citizen participation—Theoretical 

reflections from a case study: Administration and Society, vol. 32, no. 5, p. 566–595. 

55
56
57

Appendix: Key Output from Stakeholder Evaluation Analysis and Timeline of 

CCP Development 
58
Table A–1. Unrotated Factor Matrix 

 Factors 

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 

 SORTS 

 1 99 0.7319 -0.0985 0.1780 0.1505 -0.1608 -0.1985 -0.1680 -0.1956 

 2 94 0.8192 0.0093 0.0381 0.1177 0.1785 0.3224 -0.0820 -0.1120 

 3 97 0.7977 0.1136 0.0392 0.0971 -0.1079 -0.0308 0.1965 -0.0201 

 4 102 0.6291 -0.5274 0.2127 0.1243 0.0598 0.2061 0.1575 -0.0012 

 5 103 0.6145 -0.0715 0.3707 -0.3989 -0.1139 -0.2103 0.0916 -0.2039 

 6 104 0.7771 0.1102 0.1240 0.0523 -0.1374 0.1760 0.0410 -0.0599 

 7 105 0.6302 -0.3695 -0.2111 0.1294 -0.2988 0.1568 0.0567 -0.0456 

 8 106 0.7149 -0.3532 0.1726 0.1614 -0.2096 -0.1450 -0.0429 0.1038 

 9 107 0.6863 -0.4400 0.0816 0.0825 0.0791 -0.2248 -0.0237 -0.1599 

 10 1 0.7016 -0.0380 0.1788 0.2336 0.1507 -0.2602 -0.1288 -0.0962 

 11 12 0.2510 -0.1542 0.5465 -0.4850 -0.0702 0.1391 -0.1545 -0.2537 

 12 15 0.8146 -0.0756 -0.0946 -0.1891 0.1358 -0.2844 0.1018 -0.0788 

 13 17 0.3976 -0.0718 0.3147 0.5902 0.0927 0.1616 -0.1023 -0.0540 

 14 19 -0.0928 0.7752 -0.1060 -0.1616 0.1373 -0.0997 0.2298 0.0120 

 15 21 -0.0386 0.7471 0.2209 0.0989 -0.0512 -0.0441 -0.2226 0.0627 

 16 23 0.1517 0.6151 0.0657 -0.0701 0.1116 -0.0885 0.4251 0.3073 

 17 26 -0.2830 0.4149 0.0043 0.5022 -0.0888 0.3448 0.1839 -0.0483 

 18 27 0.4648 0.7262 -0.1218 -0.0720 -0.1053 0.0074 -0.1097 -0.0918 

 19 31 0.6303 0.4862 -0.0164 0.4181 0.2207 0.0345 0.0057 -0.0716 

 20 32 0.0456 0.7214 0.2954 -0.0997 0.2107 0.1205 0.1406 0.1334 

 21 33 0.5360 0.4494 -0.3663 -0.3325 -0.0771 0.1593 -0.1541 -0.0388 

 22 38 0.6900 0.0738 0.0566 0.0123 -0.1744 0.1547 0.3680 -0.2060 

 23 40 0.3622 0.4753 -0.3613 0.0312 -0.0969 0.2195 0.1262 -0.4348 

 24 41 0.7092 -0.2359 -0.3145 -0.1784 -0.1899 0.1127 -0.0417 0.0503 

 25 46 0.6309 0.0190 0.1019 0.0721 -0.2841 0.1338 -0.2374 0.3450 

 26 48 0.5323 0.0997 -0.0715 -0.0063 -0.3529 -0.2167 -0.2783 0.1897 

 27 53 0.3609 0.6019 -0.0816 0.1777 0.2352 -0.0820 -0.2440 -0.1815 

 28 55 0.6629 -0.5063 -0.2570 0.0546 0.0285 0.0428 0.0704 0.1149 

 29 56 0.2188 0.8038 -0.0100 -0.0422 -0.1291 0.0250 -0.1091 -0.2219 

 30 58 0.6241 0.0751 -0.2656 -0.0251 0.5157 -0.0089 -0.1870 -0.1265 

 31 59 0.7021 -0.4792 0.2137 0.0777 0.0105 -0.0328 -0.1947 0.0452 

 32 61 0.6395 0.1969 -0.2738 0.0476 -0.1246 -0.3424 0.2022 0.1539 

 33 67 0.6686 0.2098 0.2130 0.2780 -0.1682 0.0295 -0.1542 0.0212 

 34 68 0.5185 -0.6057 -0.2477 0.0638 0.0057 0.1373 0.0152 -0.0647 

 35 71 0.6214 0.3927 -0.1057 0.0785 -0.2614 -0.0147 0.2166 0.0322 

 36 72 0.2611 0.7671 -0.0440 -0.1373 0.0869 0.0220 -0.0371 0.1645 

 37 73 0.7838 -0.1761 -0.3183 -0.0944 0.1435 0.1868 0.0349 0.0744 

 38 74 0.5007 0.6074 -0.1904 -0.1132 0.1205 0.3122 -0.1139 0.1614 

 39 76 0.3928 0.6477 0.0955 0.0118 -0.0287 -0.2359 -0.1775 -0.0048 

 40 79 0.3914 0.3612 0.4214 -0.2555 0.0601 -0.0466 0.3055 0.2853 

 41 82 0.7498 -0.1147 -0.0576 -0.1073 -0.0833 -0.2680 0.1643 -0.1958 

 42 83 0.6592 -0.1606 -0.0956 0.0723 0.1783 -0.0652 0.1993 0.1717 

 43 84 0.2117 -0.2331 0.4077 -0.2181 0.5361 -0.0567 -0.2423 0.0955 

 44 85 0.1739 0.4297 0.5312 -0.3386 -0.1903 0.1446 -0.0439 -0.1691 

 45 88 0.5037 -0.4866 -0.1583 -0.2956 0.2663 0.2883 0.0359 -0.0788 

 46 69 0.6700 0.3133 0.1327 0.1139 0.1033 -0.0237 -0.1720 0.2624 

 47 109 0.6978 -0.0922 0.4268 0.2147 -0.1638 0.0014 0.0238 0.0793 

 48 110 0.6412 0.1836 0.3538 -0.0816 0.1106 0.2495 0.1131 0.1527 

 49 111 0.7622 -0.4131 -0.0336 -0.1035 0.0583 -0.0879 0.1098 0.0875 

 50 4 0.2962 -0.3620 0.6328 -0.2443 0.0210 0.2018 0.0838 -0.0190 

 51 57 0.3707 0.7280 -0.1766 -0.2392 -0.0126 -0.1196 -0.1070 -0.1087 

 52 100 0.7043 -0.0371 0.0087 0.1829 0.0379 -0.1921 0.1861 -0.0659 

 53 60 0.7420 -0.3389 -0.3277 0.0115 0.3000 -0.0358 -0.0899 0.1083 

 54 47 0.7909 0.1369 -0.1621 -0.2417 0.1570 -0.0407 0.0878 -0.1273 

 55 91 -0.1693 0.4734 0.2529 0.5476 0.2869 -0.0516 0.1698 -0.1485 

 56 101 0.6409 0.1824 -0.2738 -0.0658 -0.1790 0.2072 -0.1965 0.2557 

 Eigenvalues 18.6257 9.8235 3.5258 2.6730 1.9475 1.6142 1.5562 1.3728 

 % expl.Var. 33 18 6 5 3 3 3 2 

59
Table A–2. Factor Matrix with an X Indicating a Defining Sort 

 Loadings 

 QSORT 1 2 3 4 5 

 

 1 99 0.2166 0.0731 0.1680 0.7370X 0.0438 

 2 94 0.5045 0.2481 0.1301 0.5932X 0.1832 

 3 97 0.2861 0.3192 0.0920 0.6925X 0.0106 

 4 102 0.4277 -0.3380 0.2537 0.6018X 0.1197 

 5 103 0.2174 0.1364 0.6157X 0.4478 -0.2162 

 6 104 0.2326 0.3051 0.1770 0.6889X -0.0038 

 7 105 0.3311 -0.1707 -0.1444 0.6828X -0.2419 

 8 106 0.2591 -0.1731 0.1664 0.7815X -0.0135 

 9 107 0.5063 -0.2157 0.1802 0.5877X 0.0609 

 10 1 0.3546 0.1301 0.1546 0.5898X 0.2975 

 11 12 0.0222 -0.0537 0.7520X 0.1562 -0.1797 

 12 15 0.6275X 0.2321 0.1986 0.4821 -0.1141 

 13 17 0.0294 -0.0747 0.0014 0.5459 0.5610X 

 14 19 -0.1341 0.7404X -0.0458 -0.3101 0.0357 

 15 21 -0.4079 0.6339X 0.0505 -0.0213 0.2230 

 16 23 -0.0595 0.6291X 0.0887 -0.0269 0.1232 

 17 26 -0.4556 0.2058 -0.3729 -0.0359 0.3494X 

 18 27 0.0169 0.8329X -0.0415 0.2698 -0.0774 

 19 31 0.2305 0.5911X -0.1451 0.4737 0.4576 

 20 32 -0.1785 0.6810X 0.2744 -0.1399 0.2712 

 21 33 0.3225 0.6731X -0.0507 0.2048 -0.3720 

 22 38 0.2119 0.2565 0.1288 0.6174X -0.0825 

 23 40 0.1247 0.5803X -0.2878 0.2154 -0.1281 

 24 41 0.5103 0.0500 -0.0327 0.5417X -0.4098 

 25 46 0.0975 0.1638 0.1093 0.6611X -0.0961 

 26 48 0.0661 0.2367 -0.0157 0.5491X -0.2467 

 27 53 0.1391 0.6656X -0.1137 0.1444 0.2999 

 28 55 0.6314X -0.2439 -0.0777 0.5331 -0.1314 

 29 56 -0.2081 0.8097X -0.0219 0.1134 -0.0106 

 30 58 0.7463X 0.3355 -0.0215 0.1695 0.1833 

 31 59 0.4310 -0.2672 0.2835 0.6580X 0.0632 

 32 61 0.3058 0.3918 -0.1632 0.4965X -0.1426 

 33 67 0.0352 0.3132 0.0890 0.7084X 0.1816 

 34 68 0.5659X -0.3844 -0.0967 0.4503 -0.1448 

 35 71 0.0712 0.5321 -0.0840 0.5642X -0.1113 

 36 72 -0.0043 0.8256X 0.0448 0.0061 0.0362 

 37 73 0.7201X 0.1403 -0.0289 0.4642 -0.1468 

 38 74 0.2522 0.7664X -0.0266 0.1773 -0.0124 

 39 76 -0.0585 0.7045X 0.0863 0.2567 0.1036 

 40 79 0.0124 0.4527 0.5280X 0.2039 0.0687 

 41 82 0.4358 0.1408 0.1430 0.5784X -0.1801 

 42 83 0.5393X 0.0651 0.0345 0.4512 0.0808 

 43 84 0.3997 -0.1205 0.5731X -0.0758 0.3031 

 44 85 -0.3085 0.4315 0.5847X 0.1352 -0.0808 

 45 88 0.7247X -0.2079 0.2022 0.1808 -0.1786 

 46 69 0.2412 0.4679 0.1485 0.4923X 0.2164 

 47 109 0.0761 0.0283 0.3214 0.7784X 0.1862 

 48 110 0.2239 0.3467 0.4394 0.4470X 0.1603 

 49 111 0.6154X -0.1243 0.2030 0.5626 -0.1218 

 50 4 0.0797 -0.2762 0.7193X 0.2783 0.0442 

 51 57 0.0838 0.8478X 0.0061 0.0811 -0.1536 

 52 100 0.3682 0.1514 0.0339 0.5970X 0.1273 

 53 60 0.8271X -0.0279 -0.0703 0.4160 -0.0046 

 54 47 0.5994X 0.4402 0.1584 0.3965 -0.1352 

 55 91 -0.2948 0.2870 -0.1351 -0.0744 0.7112X 

 56 101 0.3031 0.3938 -0.1051 0.4825X -0.2542 

 % expl.Var. 14 18 7 21 5 

60
61

Table A–3. Correlations Between Factor Scores 

 1 2 3 4 5 

 1 1.0000 0.1002 0.2664 0.7662 -0.2273 

 2 0.1002 1.0000 0.0819 0.2697 0.2476 

 3 0.2664 0.0819 1.0000 0.4435 -0.1166 

 4 0.7662 0.2697 0.4435 1.0000 0.0380 

 5 -0.2273 0.2476 -0.1166 0.0380 1.0000 
62

Table A–4. Statements used in the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge stakeholder evaluation and the average rankings 

Perspectives 

Statement 

Number Statements 

Ecological 

Preservation 

n=10 

Recreational 

Access 

n=14 

Traditional 

Wildlife 

Management 

n=6 

1 

The Refuge should manage for recovery and restoration of the great forests that once covered the area. 4 0 -3 

2 

It is unfair that hunters using the Refuge have off-trail access, while other users must stay on 

the trails. 1 1 -3 

3 

The Refuge should increase the deer harvest by developing trails to make it easier for hunters 

to access the Refuge interior. -3 0 2 

4 

Important to minimize development pressures in and around the Refuge to prevent loss of 

wildlife and plant habitat. 3 -1 1 

5 Woodcock hunting should be banned on the Refuge. -1 -3 -5 6 

In some cases there are sections of trails that have been degraded to the point where use of 

mountain biking just shouldn't continue. 1 -4 -2 

7 

One of the most important Refuge issues is the lack of an adequate visitor center and the lack of available Refuge personnel to present programs or answer questions. -2 0 -2 

8 

The control and eradication of invasive species should not be a high management priority for 

the Refuge. -4 -1 -4 

9 

The Refuge is a key part of the economic development picture for the Canaan Valley, Tucker 

County, and the West Virginia Highlands because it supports local businesses and draws tourists from all over the world. 1 3 1 

10 

Tucker County should not rely on tourism for all of its business; tourism should be balanced 

with industry. -2 -1 -1 

11 

It is important to ensure the continued protection of the diverse wetland complex on the 

Refuge. 4 1 2 

12 Continuous, looped and easy trails should be provided on the Refuge. 0 5 1 13 

I would like to see more areas within the Refuge designated as nature viewing areas, with no 

hunting, fishing or dogs allowed. 0 -2 -3 

14 

A trail that crosses the valley is important because the close contact with our wetlands would 

be a moving experience that would help visitors care more for the resource. -1 4 -1 

15 

It is critical, as part of the Refuge planning process, to repair the deep-rooted mistrust 

of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. -2 3 0 

16 

I support biking corridors through the Refuge. These corridors are vitally important links in the recreational trail system that connects Tucker County's communities, 

parks, and forests. -1 4 -1 

17 

Since the Refuge comprises the largest wetland in West Virginia, monitoring and protecting water quality is of primary importance. 4 1 0 

18 

It is imperative that the Refuge find ways to increase deer harvesting to protect the fragile, significant and in some cases rare plant communities. -2 -1 4 

19 

It is important that any new trails the Refuge creates are compatible with the "wildlife first" mission of the National Wildlife Refuge system. 2 -2 3 

20 

The Refuge should help grassland bird populations recover and ensure their success 

in the future. 1 0 2 
63

Table A–4 (Continued).

Perspectives 

Statement 

Number Statements 

Ecological 

Preservation 

n=10 

Recreational 

Access 

n=14 

Traditional 

Wildlife 

Management

n=6 

21 

Access to the Refuge should be improved through the restoration of historic railroad grades. 

These would allow a great variety of habitat to be seen without leaving the trail system, thereby avoiding damage to the bogs. 0 4 3 

22 

Bicyclists don't need access to the Refuge because they have plenty of other places in the 

county to ride--highways, roadways, state parks, national forests, and taxpayer-funded bike 

trails. -1 -5 0 

23 

The thing I value most about the Refuge is knowing the area will be preserved and better 

managed for grouse/woodcock. -3 -2 5 

24 I support low impact mountain biking on the Refuge. 0 2 0 25 

The Refuge should be for wildlife and not a playground for tourists lured by the promise of 

being able to hike, bike, backpack, or ski on land that once upon a time could be used by anyone. 0 -5 3 

26 The most important problem facing the Refuge is lack of funding to provide services. 0 -1 0 27 

It is important to maintain plant and animal habitat connections between Refuge lands and 

neighboring Monongahela National Forest and Canaan Valley State Park lands. 

5 2 3 

28 

The most important issue in this planning process is to establish a meaningful method of 

creating dialogue between the Refuge and the local community. -2 2 -3 

29 

I believe access through the Refuge creating a connected trail system will support exceptional recreational opportunities and will provide economic benefits to local businesses. -1 5 0 

30 

I strongly support the Refuge's purpose. It is important to continue to resist the desire of some 

locals to expand human activity on the Refuge and turn it into a National Forest "land of many uses." 3 -4 2 

31 Development, rather than preservation, would be in the best interest of the valley. -5 -4 -5 32 

The thing I value most about this Refuge is that it is one of few places in the state to hunt 

woodcock. -4 -2 5 

33 

Minimizing the impact to wetlands should be the driving factor in determining access to the 

Refuge. 3 0 0 

34 

The Refuge should provide more education about its unique habitats through self-guided and guided trail walks. 1 1 -2 

35 

While the community wants the Refuge to be a shining example of why we need to protect and 

conserve our wildlife resources, the decisions and implementation of decisions has been contrary to this process. -3 0 -1 

36 

Refuge staff should meet with a committee of local interests on a regular basis to discuss and 

recommend solutions to issues before decisions are made so that local perspectives are integrated into the planning process. -3 3 -2 

37 

The Refuge should do more to protect threatened and endangered species such as the Cheat 

Mountain salamander and the West Virginia northern flying squirrel. 2 -2 2 
64

Table A–4. (Continued). 

Perspectives 

Statement 

Number Statements 

Ecological 

Preservation 

n=10 

Recreational 

Access 

n=14 

Traditional 

Wildlife 

Management

n=6 

38 

I support a hiking trail crossing the valley that would connect Forest Service lands to Dolly 

Sods Wilderness Area. 0 3 -1 

39 

We will never have a decent tax base in our county if the government is not stopped from 

grabbing up all our land. -5 -3 -4 

40 

By preserving wildlife resources the Refuge maintains the scenic beauty and quality of life 

valued by those who live, visit, or vacation in the area. 3 1 4 

41 

I value the role the Refuge plays in conserving and restoring West Virginia's streams and rivers. 5 1 1 

42 

We need better access for all people (handicapped, families, elderly, and mainstream people) 

not just die-hard fitness types. -1 2 -1 

43 

The most important problem facing the Refuge is keeping the "tree-huggers" from taking it over. -4 -3 1 

44 

Wilderness designation should be obtained for portions of the Refuge to protect fragile 

environments and allow natural processes to restore the area. 2 -3 -4 

45 

I support new ideas for providing reasonable access while protecting fragile ecosystems, for example, guided hikes by experts, fencing fragile areas near trails, building boardwalks, and/or 

a permit system for backcountry use. 1 0 1 

46 

I support the Refuge acquiring lands within the acquisition boundary to help protect wildlife habitats. 2 -1 4 

47 

It is important for the Refuge to provide the research, evidence, or logic behind management 

decisions. 

2 2 -2 
Core Planning Team Members:

• Jonathan Schafler

• Beth Goldstein

• Ken Sturm

• Leah Ceperley

• Keith Kranz

• Jackie Burns

A S O N

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

USGS Reporting

Results of Q Sort

to Stakeholders

USGS Q Sort

Exercise

Public Scoping

Meeting

Issues 

Workbook

3 Open 

Houses

Expert Input:

Rare Plant 

Communities

Expert Input:

Migratory Birds

Expert Input:

Deer Management

Expert Input:

Visitor Services

Interpretation, Education,

& Public Access Discussions

Public Land

Worker Group

Started

Cross-Valley Access

Feasibility Study by VHB

Core Planning Team

• Develops goals, objectives 

and strategies

• Develops alternatives

• Analysis of consequences

CCP Draft

Submitted for 

Review

Updates of CCP by Jonathan

Tucker County Commissioners

WV Master Naturalists

Timberline Homeowners

Timberline 4 Seasons Resort

Tucker County Trails

CV Public Service District

Canaan Valley Institute

Elkins Rotary

Davis Rotary

Tucker County Board of Educ.

CV State Park

USDA Forest Service

Friends of the 500th

Mayor of Davis

Mayor of Thomas

D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M

USFWS Review 

of Draft CCP

Draft CCP Public Meeting 

and 30 Day Public Input

Final CCP 

Approved and 

Released 

Writing Draft CCP by Core Planning Team Analysis of Public Comments 

Final Revisions to Draft CCP

Final 

USFWS 

Review

Final CCP Report 

Submitted to 

USFWS

65

Figure A–1. Timeline of CCP Development 
Publishing support provided by: 

Denver Publishing Service Center 

For more information concerning this publication, contact: 

Center Director, USGS Fort Collins Science Center 

2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. C 

Fort Collins, CO 80526-8118 

(970)226-9398 

Or visit the Fort Collins Science Center Web site at: 

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/ 

66