Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan February 2011

              Canaan Valley
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
February 2011
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Front cover:
Main Tract -Glade Run
Kent Mason
Nature study at Blackwater River
David Seals
American woodcock
Richard Baetsen/USFWS
Glade spurge
Ken Sturm/USFWS
Cheat Mountain salamander and eggs
Kent Mason
Back cover:
Main Tract -Glade Run
Kent Mason
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the principal Federal agency responsible for conserving,
protecting, and enhancing fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of
the American people. The Service manages the 150-million acre National Wildlife Refuge System
comprised of more than 550 national wildlife refuges and thousands of waterfowl production areas.
It also operates 70 national fish hatcheries and 81 ecological services field stations. The agency
enforces Federal wildlife laws, manages migratory bird populations, restores nationally significant
fisheries, conserves and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, administers the Endangered
Species Act, and helps foreign governments with their conservation efforts. It also oversees the
Federal Assistance Program which distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on
fishing and hunting equipment to State wildlife agencies.
Comprehensive Conservation Plans provide long term guidance for management decisions and
set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to accomplish refuge purposes and identify
the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program planning levels that are
sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for Service
strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment
for staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition.
This blue goose, designed by J.N.
“Ding” Darling, has become the
symbol of the National Wildlife
Refuge System.
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
February 2011
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Submitted by:
___________________________________________________ __________________________
Jonathan Schafl er Date
Refuge Manager
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Concurrence by:
___________________________________________________ __________________________
Daryle Lons Date
Refuge Supervisor, South
National Wildlife Refuge System
___________________________________________________ __________________________
Anthony D. Léger Date
Assistant Regional Director
National Wildlife Refuge System
Approved by:
___________________________________________________ __________________________
Marvin E. Moriarty Date
Regional Director, Region 5
i
Canaan Valley
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
February 2011
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge showcases the largest contiguous, high
elevation wetland complex in West Virginia and harbors a vast assemblage of
rare plants and animals normally associated with more northern latitudes. The
refuge conserves, protects, and manages a mosaic of wetland, forested, and
early successional habitat that supports migratory birds and threatened and
endangered species. As a steward of a significant portion of the headwaters, the
Refuge ensures the integrity of the natural resources of the upper Blackwater
River watershed. Refuge habitats and wildlife are conserved and managed
through research and collaboration with Federal, State, and local conservation
partners.
As an integral part of the surrounding community, the Refuge provides high
quality, safe, wholesome, and diverse opportunities for education and recreation,
especially hunting and wildlife observation. The refuge experience fosters public
interest in the beauty and unique character of Canaan Valley, an appreciation
of fish and wildlife ecology, plant ecology, and stewardship of the natural world.
Visitors develop a greater understanding and appreciation for the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System and refuge management programs, and for the
importance of protecting lands for wildlife conservation.
Refuge Vision
Statement
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
iii
Canaan Valley
National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
February 2011
Type of Action: Administrative
Lead Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service
Responsible Official: Marvin Moriarty, Regional Director, Region 5
For Further Information: Refuge Manager, Canaan Valley National Wildlife
6263 Appalachian Hwy.
Davis, WV 26260
Phone: 304/866-3858
Fax: 304/866-3852
Email: canaanvalley@fws.gov
Web: http://www.fws.gov/canaanvalley/
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the 16,193-acre Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
(Canaan Valley NWR) is the culmination of a planning effort involving West Virginia State agencies, local
partners, refuge neighbors, private landowners, the Canaan Valley NWR Friends Group, and the local
community. This CCP establishes 15-year management goals and objectives for wildlife and habitats, public
use, and administration and facilities.
Under this plan, we make improvements to the refuge’s biological and public use programs. We will balance the
conservation of a mixed-forest matrix landscape with the management of early successional habitats and the
protection of wetlands. We will also increase opportunities for hunting, fishing, environmental education and
interpretation on the refuge, and we will improve our outreach and visibility in the community through new or
enhanced partnerships. Finally, we will employ an adaptive management approach that includes adjusting our
objectives and strategies as a result of new information.
Summary
Chapters
Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Chapter 1 The Purpose of and Need for Action
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
The Purpose of and Need for Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-2
Regional Context and Project Analysis Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning . . . . . . 1-3
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-5
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-14
Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-Down” Plans) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-17
Refuge Vision Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-18
Refuge Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-19
Chapter 2 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process
Planning Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
Issues and Opportunities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3
Issues Outside the Scope of this Final CCP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-5
Plan Amendment and Revision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-8
Chapter 3 Affected Environment
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-1
Regional Economic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6
The Refuge and its Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-11
Vegetation and Habitat Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-16
Fisheries Habitats and Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-28
Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-30
Special Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
Public Access, Education and Recreational Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-38
Cultural Resources. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-47
Chapter 4 Management Direction and Implementation
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
Development of Refuge Goals, Objectives, and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
General Refuge Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-2
Refuge Goals, Objectives and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-16
Chapter 5 List of Preparers
Members of the Core Planning Team. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
Assistance from Other Service Personnel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-2
Glossary (including list of acronyms)
Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glos-1
Acronyms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Glos-12
Bibliography
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bibl-1
v
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
vi
Finding of Appropriateness—Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . B-1
Finding of Appropriateness—Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to Facilitate
Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-3
Finding of Appropriateness—Commercial Cross-Country Skiing and
Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-5
Finding of Appropriateness—Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . B-9
Finding of Appropriateness—Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses. . . . B-11
Finding of Appropriateness—Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management
Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-15
Finding of Appropriateness—Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat . . . B-19
Finding of Appropriateness—Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station . . . B-21
Finding of Appropriateness—Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel . . . . B-23
Compatibility Determination—Public Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-25
Compatibility Determination—Public Fishing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-45
Compatibility Determination—Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental
Education, and Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-59
Compatibility Determination—Bicycling to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . B-75
Compatibility Determination—Cross-Country Skiing and Snowshoeing to
Facilitate Priority Public Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-91
Compatibility Determination—Commercial Cross Country Skiing and
Snowshoeing to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-103
Compatibility Determination—Horseback Riding to Facilitate Priority
Public Uses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-119
Compatibility Determination—Vehicular Travel to Facilitate Priority Public Uses . . B-135
Compatibility Determination—Public Beaver Trapping for Habitat Management
Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-147
Compatibility Determination—Commercial Haying to Manage Grassland Habitat . B-159
Compatibility Determination—Maintenance and Use of NOAA Weather Station. . B-167
Compatibility Determination—Research Conducted by Non-Service Personnel . . B-173
Compatibility Determination—Maintenance of a Utility Right-of-Way . . . . . . . . . B-181
Appendixes
Appendix A Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Species of Conservation Concern at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge. . . . . . . A-1
Appendix B Findings of Appropriateness and Compatibility Determinations
Appendix C Wilderness Review
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Phase I – Wilderness Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1
Summary of Wilderness Inventory Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3
Appendix D Wild and Scenic River Review
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1
Phase I – Wild and Scenic River Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-3
vii
Appendix E Process for Establishing Refuge Focal Species and Priority Habitats for Management
under Alternative B
Introduction and Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1
Appendix F Refuge Operations and Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Management
Maintenance System (SAMMS)
Refuge Operations and Needs System (RONS) and Service Asset Management
Maintenance System (SAMMS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1
Appendix G Staffing Chart
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Final CCP Staff Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-1
Appendix H ESA Section 7 Consultation
Intra-Service Section 7 Biological Evaluation Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1
Appendix I Consultation and Coordination with Others
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1
Public Involvement Summary and Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1
Release of Draft CCP/EA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-4
Appendix J Summary of Public Comments and Service Responses on the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1
Summary of Comments Received . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-2
Appendix K Finding of No Significant Impact
Finding of No Significant Impact Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-1
Appendixes (cont.)
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and
its relationship to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. . . 2-2
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Local and regional population estimates and characteristics . . . . . . . 3-7
Table 3.2 2006 full-time and part-time employment for West Virginia,
Tucker County and Elkins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-8
Table 3.3 Income, unemployment and poverty estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-9
Table 3.4 Land acquisition history for Canaan Valley refuge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-13
Table 3.5 Refuge budgets from 2002 to 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-14
Table 3.6 Refuge revenue sharing payments for 2001 through 2007. . . . . . . . . . 3-15
Table 3.7 Habitat types within the current refuge acquisition boundary . . . . . . . 3-18
Table 3.8 Species and volume of hardwoods removed during 1998-2001
by Allegheny Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
Table 3.9 Species and volume of hardwoods removed during 1995-1997
by Allegheny Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-26
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Table of Contents
viii
Table A.1 Resources of Concern for Canaan Valley NWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1
Table A.2 Resource of Concern for Canaan Valley NWR-Migratory Birds. . . . . . A-6
Table A.3 Additional migratory birds comprising >1 percent of all captures
at AFBMO not listed in any plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-12
Table C.1 Wilderness Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-5
Table D.1 Classification Criteria for Wild, Scenic and Recreational River Area . . D-9
Table D.2 Eligible Rivers within the Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge . . . D-10
Table F.1 Refuge Operations and Needs System (RONS) database . . . . . . . . . . F-1
Table F.2 Service Asset Management Maintenance System (SAMMS) table
from Fiscal Year 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-2
List of Tables (cont.)
List of Maps
Map 1-1 Project Analysis Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4
Map 3-1 Existing Ownership Status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-12
Map 3-2 Existing Habitat Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-17
Map 3-3 Existing Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-39
Map 3-4 Existing Hunt Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-45
Map 4-1 Predicted Habitat Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-24
Map 4-2 Public Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-60
Map 4-3 Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-67
Map B-1 Public Hunting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-43
Map B-2 Public Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-57
Map C-1 Wilderness Inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-4
Map D-1 Wild and Scenic Rivers Inventory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-8
Chapter 1
The Purpose of and Need for Action
■ Introduction
■ The Purpose of and Need for Action
■ Regional Context and Project Analysis Area
■ The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates
Guiding Planning
■ T he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
■ Re fuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
■ Re fuge Operational Plans (“Step-Down” Plans)
■ Refuge Vision Statement
■ Refuge Goals
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need For Action 1-1
Introduction
This Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for the Canaan Valley National
Wildlife Refuge (refuge) was prepared pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Refuge Improvement Act)
(Public Law 105-57; 111 Stat. 1253). An Environmental Assessment (EA), as
required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), was prepared
with the draft CCP.
This final CCP presents the combination of management goals, objectives, and
strategies that we believe will best achieve our vision for the refuge; contribute
to the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System); achieve
refuge purposes; fulfill legal mandates; address key issues; incorporate sound
principles of fish and wildlife management, and serve the American public. This
CCP will guide management decisions and actions on the refuge over the next
15 years. It will also help us communicate our priorities to West Virginia’s natural
resource agency, our conservation partners, local communities, and the public. As
part of this process, we have met our requirements to coordinate with the State
wildlife and habitat conservation plans under the NWRSA, 16 U.S.C. 668dd(e)(3).
This CCP contains 5 chapters and 11 appendixes. Chapter 1, “Purpose of and
Need for Action,” sets the stage for chapters 2 through 5. It
■ describes the purpose of and need for a CCP
■ identifies national and regional mandates and plans that influenced this plan
■ highlights the purposes for which this refuge was established and presents its
land acquisition history, and
■ presents our vision and goals for the refuge.
Chapter 2, “Planning Process,” describes the planning process we followed,
including public and partner involvement in developing this final CCP.
Chapter 3, “Affected Environment,” describes the existing physical, biological,
and human environment in and around the refuge.
Chapter 4, “Management Direction and Implementation,” presents the actions,
goals, objectives, and strategies that will guide our decision-making and land
management. It also outlines the staffing and funding needed to accomplish that
management.
Chapter 5, “List of Preparers,” lists the members of the core planning team and
other Service personnel who assisted us.
Eleven appendixes provide additional documentation and information we used in
compiling this plan.
Introduction
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 1-2 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Purpose of and Need for Action
Our goal, which is directly connected with the Refuge Improvement Act, is to
develop a CCP for the Canaan Valley refuge that best achieves the purposes,
vision, and goals of the refuge and best contributes to the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System); adheres to relevant Service policies and
mandates; addresses key public issues and conservation issues; and incorporates
sound principles of fish and wildlife science.
Developing a CCP is vital for the future management of every national wildlife
refuge. The purpose of this CCP is to provide strategic management direction for
the next 15 years by
■ providing a clear statement of desired future conditions for habitat, wildlife,
visitor services, staffing, and facilities;
■ providing State agencies, refuge neighbors, visitors, and partners with a clear
understanding for the reasons for management actions;
■ ensuring refuge management reflects the policies and goals of the Refuge
System and legal mandates;
■ ensuring the compatibility of current and future public use;
■ providing long-term continuity and direction for refuge management; and,
■ providing direction for staffing, operations, maintenance, and annual budget
requests.
There are several reasons why we need this CCP. First, the Refuge Improvement
Act requires us to write a CCP for every national wildlife refuge to help fulfill the
mission of the Refuge System.
Second, the refuge’s 1994 Station Management Plan is 15 years old. Since that
document’s publication, the refuge land base has grown significantly, and its
management priorities have evolved. The Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis), which
was Federally listed as endangered in 1967, and the Cheat Mountain salamander
(Plethodon nettingi), which was Federally listed as threatened in 1989, are both
found on the refuge and are now management priorities. The West Virginia
northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus fuscus) was removed from the
Federal list of endangered species in September 2008 but is still of management
concern since it also exists on the refuge.
Third, we have developed strong partnerships vital to our continued success, and
we must convey our vision for the refuge to those partners and the public.
All of these reasons clearly underscore the need for the strategic direction a CCP
provides. To help us resolve management issues and public concerns, our planning
process will incorporate input from natural resource agencies of West Virginia,
affected communities, individuals, organizations, our partners, and the public.
The Purpose of and
Need for Action
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need For Action 1-3
Regional Context and Project Analysis Area
The refuge, located in eastern Tucker County, West Virginia, sits in the Canaan
Valley, 3,200 feet above sea level in the Allegheny Mountains (see see map 1-1).
On September 11, 1994, 86 acres of land were purchased to establish the Canaan
Valley refuge. This was the 500th refuge created by the Service. More land was
acquired over the following years and the refuge grew to approximately 3,000
acres. In 2002 the Service bought 12,000 acres from Allegheny Power Systems,
bringing the refuge to its current size of about 16,193 acres.
Canaan Valley contains a wetlands complex of about 8,400 acres, making it the
largest wetlands system in West Virginia. Of these total wetlands, 5,573 acres are
located within the refuge.
The headwaters of the Little Blackwater River, 13 miles of the Blackwater River,
and many miles of other tributaries are also within the refuge boundaries.
Although the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 as
amended by the Refuge Improvement Act of 1997 and each refuge’s purpose
provide the foundation for management, the administration of national wildlife
refuges conforms to a variety of other Federal laws (including the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act (ESA), Wilderness Act, Archaeological
Resources Protection Act, National Historic Preservation Act), Executive Orders,
treaties, interstate compacts, and regulations pertaining to the conservation and
protection of natural and cultural resources. The section below describes some
of these policies and mandates that have played a critical role in our planning
process. The “Digest of Federal Resource Laws of Interest to the USFWS”
provides a full list (online at http://www.fws.gov/laws/Lawsdigest.html).
Regional Context and
Project Analysis Area
The Service and the
Refuge System Policies
and Mandates Guiding
Planning
Ken Sturm/USFWS
Freeland Tract Sign
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 1-4 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The Service and the Refuge System Policies and Mandates Guiding Planning Map 1-1
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need For Action 1-5
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
The Service, part of the Department of the Interior, administers the Refuge
System. The Service’s mission is
“Working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife
and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
American people.”
Congress entrusts the Service with the conservation and protection of national
resources such as migratory birds and fish, Federally listed endangered or
threatened species, inter-jurisdictional fish, and certain marine mammals. The
Service also manages national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries,
enforces Federal wildlife laws and international treaties on importing and
exporting wildlife, assists with State fish and wildlife programs, and helps other
countries develop wildlife conservation programs.
The Service manual contains the standing and continuing directives to implement
its authorities, responsibilities, and activities. You can access it at http://www.fws.
gov/policy/direct.html.
The Refuge System is the world’s largest collection of lands and waters set aside
specifically for conserving wildlife and protecting ecosystems. Over 550 national
wildlife refuges encompassing more than 150 million acres are part of the national
network today. Refuges are found in every state and several island territories.
Each year, more than 40 million visitors hunt, fish, observe and photograph
wildlife, or participate in environmental education or interpretation activities on
refuges.
In 1997, Congress passed the Refuge Improvement Act. That act establishes
a unifying mission for the Refuge System, a new process for determining
compatible public use activities on refuges, and the requirement to prepare CCPs
for all refuges. It states that first, the Refuge System must focus on wildlife
conservation. It further states that the mission of the Refuge System, coupled
with the purpose(s) for which a refuge was established, will provide the principal
management direction for that refuge.
The mission of the 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.” (Refuge
Improvement Act; Public Law 105-57)
In addition, the Service released its mission policy. Among its main points are
conserving a diversity of fish, wildlife, plants, and a network of their habitats;
conserving unique ecosystems within the nation; providing and enhancing
opportunities for compatible, wildlife-dependent recreation; and fostering public
understanding and appreciation of those resources.
Fulfilling the Promise
A yearlong process involving teams of Service employees who examined the
Refuge System within the framework of “Wildlife and Habitat, People and
Leadership” culminated with “Fulfilling the Promise: The National Wildlife
Refuge System,” a vision for the Refuge System. The first-ever Refuge System
Conference in Keystone, CO, in October 1998 was attended by every refuge
manager in the country, other Service employees, and scores of conservation
organizations. Many “Promises Teams” formed to develop strategies for
T he U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and its
Mission
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 1-6 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
implementing the 42 recommendations of the conference report. Information from
such teams as wildlife and habitat, goals and objectives, strategic growth of the
Refuge System, invasive species, and inventory and monitoring helped guide the
development of the goals, strategies, and actions in this final CCP.
Refuge System Planning Policy
This policy establishes requirements and guidance for Refuge System planning,
including CCPs and step-down management plans. It states that we will manage
all refuges in accordance with an approved CCP which, when implemented, will
achieve refuge purposes; help fulfill the Refuge System mission; maintain and,
where appropriate, restore the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge
System; help achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System
and the National Wild and Scenic River System; and conform to other mandates
[Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (602 FW 1,2,3)].
Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy
This policy provides a national framework and procedure for refuge managers to
follow in deciding whether uses are appropriate on a refuge. It also clarifies and
expands on the compatibility policy (603 FW 2.10D) by describing when refuge
managers should deny a proposed use without determining compatibility. When
we find a use is appropriate, we must then determine if the use is compatible
before we allow it on a refuge. This policy applies to all proposed and existing uses
in the Refuge System only when we have jurisdiction over the use, and does not
apply to refuge management activities or situations where reserved rights or legal
mandates provide we must allow certain uses (603 FW 1). Appendix B further
describes the Appropriate Refuge Uses Policy and describes its relationship to
the CCP process.
Compatibility Policy
Federal law and Service policy provide the direction and planning framework to
protect the Refuge System from incompatible or harmful human activities and
ensure that visitors can enjoy its lands and waters. The Refuge Improvement
Act is the key legislation regarding management of public uses and compatibility.
The act declares that all existing or proposed public uses of a refuge must be
compatible with refuge purpose(s). The refuge manager determines compatibility
after evaluating an activity’s potential impact on refuge resources, and ensuring
that it supports the Refuge System mission and does not materially detract from,
or interfere with, refuge purpose(s). The act also stipulates six wildlife-dependent
public uses that are to receive enhanced consideration in CCPs: hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. Compatibility determinations remain in effect for 10 or 15 years,
depending on whether the use is a priority public use, but may be revisited sooner
than the mandatory expiration date if new information reveals unacceptable
adverse impacts or safety concerns. The compatibility determinations for
the Canaan Valley refuge can be found in appendix B along with additional
information on the process.
Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health Policy
This policy provides guidance on maintaining or restoring the biological
integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the Refuge System, including
the protection of a broad spectrum of fish, wildlife, and habitat resources found
in refuge ecosystems. It provides refuge managers with a process for evaluating
the best management direction to prevent the additional degradation of
environmental conditions and to restore lost or severely degraded environmental
components. It also provides guidelines for dealing with external threats to
the biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of a refuge and its
ecosystem (601 FW 3).
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need For Action 1-7
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Policy
The Refuge Improvement Act establishes that compatible wildlife-dependent
recreational uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation) are the priority general public uses
of the Refuge System, and are to receive enhanced consideration over other public
uses in refuge planning and management. The Wildlife Dependent Recreation
Policy (605 FW 1) explains how we will provide visitors with opportunities for
those priority public uses on units of the Refuge System and how we will facilitate
them. We are incorporating this policy as Part 605, chapters 1-7, of the Service
Manual. Also, the General Guidelines for Wildlife-Dependent Recreation, as
written in the Service Manual, says we will strive to meet the following criteria
for a quality wildlife-dependent recreation program: 1) promotes safety of
participants, other visitors, and facilities; 2) promotes compliance with applicable
laws and regulations and responsible behavior; 3) minimizes or eliminates
conflict with fish and wildlife population or habitat goals or objectives in an
approved plan; 4) minimizes or eliminates conflicts with other compatible wildlife-dependent
recreation; 5) minimizes conflicts with neighboring landowners; 6)
promotes accessibility and availability to a broad spectrum of the American
people; 7) promotes resource stewardship and conservation; 8) promotes public
understanding and increases public appreciation of America��s natural resources
and our role in managing and conserving these resources; 9) provides reliable/
reasonable opportunities to experience wildlife; 10) uses facilities that are
accessible to people and blend into the natural setting; and 11) uses visitor
satisfaction to help define and evaluate programs.
Bird Conservation Region 28
North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) is a coalition of a great
number of governmental agencies, private organizations, academic organizations,
and private industry leaders in Canada, the United States, and Mexico. It was
formed to address the need for coordinated bird conservation that will benefit
“all birds in all habitats.” NABCI aims to ensure the long-term health of North
America’s native bird populations by increasing the effectiveness of existing
and new bird conservation initiatives, enhancing coordination among the
initiatives, and fostering greater cooperation among the continent’s three national
governments and their peoples.
NABCI���s approach to bird conservation is regionally based, biologically driven,
and landscape-oriented (NABCI 2000). It draws together the major bird
conservation plans already in existence for waterbirds, shorebirds, waterfowl, and
landbirds, fills in knowledge gaps, and builds a coalition of groups and agencies to
execute the plans.
Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) are ecologically distinct regions in North
America with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management
issues. The Canaan Valley refuge lies within BCR 28 (The Appalachian
Mountains). This region includes the Blue Ridge, the Ridge and Valley Region,
the Cumberland Plateau, the Ohio Hills, and the Allegheny Plateau. Ecologically
this is a transitional area, with forested ridges grading from primarily oak-hickory
forests in the south to northern hardwood forests further north. Pine-oak
woodlands and barrens and hemlock ravine forests are also important along
ridges, whereas bottomland and riparian forests are important in the valleys,
which are now largely cleared for agricultural and urban development. BCR 28
is further broken down into smaller physiographic regions by Partners in Flight
(see page 1-9).
The primary purposes of BCRs, proposed by the mapping team in 1998 and
approved in concept by the U.S. Committee in 1999, are to
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 1-8 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
■ facilitate communication among the bird conservation initiatives;
■ systematically and scientifically apportion the U.S. into conservation units;
■ facilitate a regional approach to bird conservation;
■ promote new, expanded, or restructured partnerships; and
■ identify overlapping or conflicting conservation priorities.
As integrated bird conservation progresses in North America, BCRs should
ultimately function as one of the primary units within which biological foundation
issues are resolved, landscape configuration of sustainable habitats is designed,
and priority projects are originated.
North American Waterfowl Management Plan (update 2004)
This updated plan among the United States, Canada, and Mexico outlines their
strategy to sustain or restore waterfowl populations through habitat protection,
restoration, and enhancement. The 2004 update to the North American Waterfowl
Management Plan (NAWMP) outlines population goals for 14 species, species
groups, or races of ducks and 34 populations within 7 species of geese (NAWMP
2004). As with the original 1986 plan, its implementation will be accomplished
at the U.S. regional level in 11 habitat joint venture areas and three species
joint ventures: arctic goose, black duck, and sea duck. Habitat joint ventures
are the primary mechanisms for accomplishing plan objectives. Species joint
ventures are intended to assist plan implementation by improving scientific
information necessary to effectively manage waterfowl populations. Joint venture
partnerships involving Federal, State and provincial governments, tribal nations,
local businesses, conservation organizations, and individual citizens have been
assembled to facilitate and coordinate protecting habitat within the joint venture
areas. To implement the plan, these population goals have been translated
into habitat protection goals. The 2004 update includes the habitat protection
and restoration estimates (in acres) established by each habitat joint venture
partnership.
Canaan Valley refuge lies within the boundaries of the newly formed Appalachian
Mountains Joint Venture (AMJV). Until recently, the refuge was considered part
of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV), and it was the ACJV that we relied
upon for assistance during this planning process. However, in the future, we will
look to the AMJV for guidance on and suggestions for bird management options.
Originally, the ACJV focused on protecting and managing priority wetland
habitats for migration, wintering, and production of waterfowl, with special
consideration to black ducks. Benefits to other wildlife in the joint venture area
were also included, but were secondary to waterfowl. This goal has since been
expanded. Now the ACJV “is a partnership focused on the conservation of
habitat for native birds in the Atlantic Flyway of the United States from Maine
south to Puerto Rico.” (ACJV 2004). This broadened perspective is consistent
with other major national and continental bird conservation plans and the NABCI
discussed previously in this chapter. The ACJV coordinates planning and delivery
of bird habitat conservation in this area to improve efficiency and efficacy
of recovery and restoration efforts using a sound biological foundation. The
AMJV shares a similar methodology and mission: “to restore and sustain viable
populations of native birds and their habitats in the Appalachian Mountains Joint
Venture through effective, collaborative partnerships” (AMJV 2007).
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need For Action 1-9
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
You can access the various plans (including the NAWMP plan and updates) at
http://www.nawmp.ca/eng/pub_e.html. We used them as a basis for evaluating
waterfowl and other native bird management opportunities on the refuge.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 12, Mid-
Atlantic Ridge and Valley
In 1990, Partners in Flight (PIF) was conceived as a voluntary, international
coalition of government agencies, conservation organizations, academic
institutions, private industry, and other citizens dedicated to reversing the
trends of declining bird populations and to “keeping common birds common.”
The foundation of PIF’s long-term strategy for bird conservation is a series of
scientifically based bird conservation plans, using physiographic provinces as
planning units. The goal of each PIF plan is to ensure long-term maintenance of
healthy populations of native birds, primarily nongame landbirds. Within each
physiographic area, the plans rank bird species according to their conservation
priority, describe desired habitat conditions, develop biological objectives,
and recommend conservation actions. Habitat loss, population trends, and
vulnerability of a species and its habitats to regional and local threats are all
factors used in the priority ranking (Pashley et al. 2000).
Canaan Valley refuge lies in the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Valley Physiographic
Province, Bird Conservation Area (BCA) 12. The PIF Bird Conservation Plan
for the Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Valley (PIF 2003) provides a broad description of
the area and associated habitats, identifies priority bird species and habitats, and
describes habitat protection objectives (in acres) deemed necessary to support the
various bird species associated with each habitat. In addition, the plan outlines
other conservation recommendations and needs for bird species within the area.
In all, 50 priority breeding-species of birds have been identified for BCA 12.
Protecting these species will require a balanced mix of grasslands, shrub-scrub,
forested wetlands, non-forested wetlands, and forested uplands habitats.
The final Area 12 PIF plan is available at http://www.partnersinflight.org. We
referred to this plan as we considered management opportunities on the refuge
and to help compile a list of birds of conservation concern for appendix A, “Species
of Conservation Concern.”
Region 5 Birds of Conservation Concern (2008)
The Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) plan, updated every five years by our
Division of Migratory Birds, identifies nongame migratory birds that, without
conservation action, are likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA.
The BCC compiles the highest ranking species of conservation concern from these
major nongame bird conservation plans: PIF (species scoring >21), U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan (species ranking 4 or 5), and North American Waterbird
Conservation plan (species ranking 4 or 5). This report can be accessed online
at http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/SpecialTopics/
BCC2008/BCC2008.pdf.
We used the BCC list in compiling appendix A and to help us focus on which
species might warrant special management attention. We also used the final
Area 12 PIF plan to help generate the list of birds of conservation concern in
appendix A.
American Woodcock Conservation Plan (2008)
The American Woodcock Conservation Plan (Kelley & Williamson 2008)
emerged from the efforts of the Service, State wildlife management agencies,
and non-governmental organizations known as the Woodcock Task Force.
Significant declines in woodcock populations since the 1970s are largely due
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 1-10 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
to the loss of early successional habitat, as well as changes in land use and
forestry practices. The plan outlines recommendations for halting this decline in
woodcock populations and for returning them to densities which provide adequate
recreational opportunities. Overall, the plan’s objective is to increase populations
by increasing the amount of suitable habitat available.
We referenced this plan when writing goals and objectives for this CCP. The plan
is available for download on the Service’s Migratory Bird Division’s website at
http://www.timberdoodle.org/sites/default/files/woodcockPlan_0.pdf.
Regional Wetlands Concept Plan — Emergency Wetlands Resources Act
(Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, 16 U.S.C. 3901(b))
In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act to promote
the conservation of our nation’s wetlands. The Act directs the Department of the
Interior to develop a National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan identifying
the location and types of wetlands that should receive priority attention for
acquisition by Federal and State agencies using Land and Water Conservation
Fund appropriations.
In 1990, our Northeast Region completed a Regional Wetlands Concept Plan to
provide more specific information about wetlands resources in the Northeast. It
identifies 850 wetland sites that warrant consideration for acquisition to conserve
wetland values in our region (USFWS 1990b).
The Northeast Regional Wetlands Concept Plan identifies wetlands located
within the refuge, Canaan Valley, as well as Dobbins Slashings, and Elder Run
Bog which are both located in Tucker County. We used this plan to help identify
areas in need of long-term protection in the watershed, and to prioritize wetlands
habitat management on the refuge.
Eastern Brook Trout Conservation
There are multiple organizations concerned with the conservation of the eastern
brook trout, and two in particular have written plans and strategies which apply
to Canaan Valley.
The Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV) is an organization composed
of State and Federal agencies, regional and local governments, businesses,
conservation organizations, academia, scientific societies, and private citizens.
Their vision is “to ensure healthy, fishable brook trout populations throughout
their historic eastern United States range.”
Their conservation plan, written in November 2007, consists of four principal
goals and five key priorities which serve as the framework for the development of
State-level brook trout conservation action plans. These key priorities are to
■ protect brook trout populations across the eastern United States;
■ restore brook trout populations where original habitat conditions exist and
where habitats can be restored;
■ monitor and evaluate brook trout population responses to habitat protection,
enhancement, and restoration projects;
■ complete brook trout distribution and quantitative status assessments; and
■ increase regional fishing opportunities for wild brook trout.
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need For Action 1-11
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
The EBTJV conservation plan is online at http://www.easternbrooktrout.org/.
The State of West Virginia also developed a group, called the West Virginia
Brook Trout Conservation Group (Conservation Group) in 2006 to compile a
State conservation strategy which would focus resources, build partnerships, and
promote local action to restore brook trout habitat.
The Conservation Group is composed of individuals representing West Virginia
University, U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS), West Virginia Division of Natural
Resources (WVDNR), Trout Unlimited, the Freshwater Institute, U.S. Forest
Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They met from February to June
2006 to write the West Virginia Brook Trout Conservation Strategy (strategy).
The strategy outlines a conservation goal, as well as various conservation
priorities to be addressed. They further broke down the priorities into strategies
to be implemented. The goal of the Conservation Group is to “Implement
statewide strategies that protect, restore, and enhance healthy brook trout
populations in West Virginia.”
The listed priorities are:
■ habitat and population protection;
■ habitat and population restoration and enhancement;
■ assessment, monitoring and research;
■ outreach, partnerships, and capacity building; and
■ enhanced socio-economic value to the State.
The strategy written by the Conservation Group can be found online at
http://www.easternbrooktrout.org/.
Recovery Plan for the Cheat Mountain Salamander
On September 28, 1989, the Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon nettingi)
was listed as threatened on the Federal list of endangered and threatened wildlife
(USFWS 1991).
There are 80 disjunct populations of Cheat Mountain salamander throughout
the known range. To date, surveys have been conducted at 499 sites within
their range, with salamanders found in 80 disjunct populations. During surveys
conducted in 1980 and 1989, two known historical populations were found to be
extirpated, and during surveys in 1980, 1985, and 1989, fewer than ten specimens
were uncovered in 51 of the 68 sites.
Since its listing as a threatened species, the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service have required onsite surveys for the salamander on Federal
lands and in areas being considered for development. According to the recovery
plan, their recovery strategy began by obtaining an accurate overview of the
species by determining its total range and searching for additional populations.
More specific goals listed in the plan include:
■ define total range of the species;
■ survey additional areas within the known range to gain additional information
about the species’ distribution and abundance;
■ monitor known populations to determine their status, territoriality; home
range, environmental changes, and competitive pressure;
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 1-12 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
■ assess population characteristics;
■ determine the effects of human-induced habitat alterations; and
■ determine biological factors such as reproductive biology, growth rates, and
genetic variability among populations.
Canaan Valley refuge surveys for Cheat Mountain salamanders annually, and they
have been found on three separate locations on the refuge.
The Cheat Mountain salamander recovery plan is online at http://ecos.fws.gov/
docs/recovery_plan/910725.pdf.
Recovery Plan for the Indiana Bat
In 1967, the Federal Government listed the Indiana bat (Myotis sodalist) as
endangered because of declines in their numbers documented at their seven major
hibernacula in the Midwest (USFWS 2007a).
Canaan Valley refuge falls in an area with known summer and winter records
of the Indiana Bat. The refuge has conducted acoustical bat surveys since
2005. Additionally, surveys were performed in collaboration with the U.S.
Forest Service Northern Forest Research Station in 2003. The data collected
presented compelling evidence of this species foraging on refuge property, and
importantly, outside of migration periods. Evaluation of potential Indiana bat
use of the Canaan Valley will be a priority of the Canaan Valley refuge, and this
species should be considered as a likely occurrence in the southern portion of the
watershed, including the properties in Timberline Resort.
Cheat Mountain Salamander
Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need For Action 1-13
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and its Mission
The recovery plan for the Indiana bat can be viewed online: http://ecos.fws.gov/
docs/recovery_plan/070416.pdf.
Other Species of Concern
The West Virginia northern flying squirrel, which occurs in refuge forests,
was de-listed as an endangered species in September 2008. The squirrel has
been successfully trapped and monitored at one location on the refuge but is
expected to range throughout the higher elevations of the Kelly-Elkins Tract. The
Service developed a Red Spruce-Northern Hardwood Ecosystem Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) with multiple Federal, State and non-government
organization (NGO) partners. The vision of the MOU specifically includes the
need to “… provide functional habitat to sustain the viability of the West Virginia
northern flying squirrel…” (USFWS 2007b). As an active partner in the MOU,
the refuge will still consider the West Virginia northern flying squirrel a focal
species.
The bald eagle, delisted in August 2007, uses the refuge during winter months and
migration. Bald eagles are still protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and
the Bald and Go lden Eagle Protection Act and remain a species of management
priority for the Service. Bald eagles use the refuge primarily from late fall to
early spring. Generally bald eagles observed are juveniles; however, adults are
seen each year. Up to six bald eagles have been observed together on the refuge at
one time. Typically eagles are seen singly during winter months foraging over the
wetland areas in the northern portion of the refuge. No known nesting occurs in
the vicinity of Canaan Valley.
Both the West Virginia northern flying squirrel and the bald eagle, although
delisted, remain priority species for Service protection and management.
West Virginia Wildlife Conservation Action Plan (West Virginia 2006)
State fish and wildlife agencies have been required to develop comprehensive
wildlife conservation strategies focusing on “species of greatest conservation
need” in order to be eligible for funds from the State wildlife grant program.
That program provides Federal funds to states for conservation efforts aimed at
preventing fish and wildlife populations from declining, reducing the potential for
these species to be listed as endangered.
West Virginia’s plan, called the West Virginia Wildlife Conservation Action Plan
(WVCAP), was revised several times; the latest revision occurred in 2006. The
WVCAP divides the State into three physiographic provinces. Canaan Valley
refuge is located in the landscape region known as the Western Allegheny
Plateau. The WVCAP further breaks down the map into various habitat types.
Canaan Valley lies mainly in the Red Spruce Forest and Northern Hardwood
Forests habitats.
In identifying the species in greatest need of conservation, the WVCAP compiles
information from concern lists created by a variety of different organizations,
including the Service, WVDNR, Natural Heritage Program, The World
Conservation Union, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of
Wild Flora and Fauna, West Virginia PIF, National Audubon Society, and others.
The Cheat Mountain salamander, West Virginia northern flying squirrel, and the
Indiana Bat are all identified as wildlife of greatest conservation need within the
Canaan Valley refuge landscape.
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 1-14 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
Refuges can be established by Congress through special legislation, by the
President through executive order, or administratively by the Secretary of the
Interior (delegated to the Director of the Service), who is authorized by congress
through legislation. Refuge System lands have been acquired under a variety of
legislative and administrative authorities.
The Service first considered establishing a national wildlife refuge in Canaan
Valley, Tucker County, West Virginia in 1961, when a biological survey of the
valley’s nationally significant wetlands and wildlife habitat was conducted.
Additional field reconnaissance was undertaken in 1976, and realty and biological
reconnaissance reports were prepared. In April 1977, the Director of the
Service selected a proposal for consideration and directed commencement of an
environmental impact review.
An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for the refuge
proposal in accordance with the requirements of NEPA. The EIS described the
proposed action and discussed its environmental impacts, unavoidable adverse
effects, the relationship between short-term use and long-term productivity, and
commitments of resources, as specified in Section 102 of NEPA. The EIS also
considered four alternatives to the proposed action.
Copies of the Draft EIS were provided to the public, appropriate Federal,
State, and local agencies for comment on March 24, 1978. Those comments were
reviewed and considered in finalizing the EIS. The Service concluded this project
planning/public review phase with the approval of the Final EIS on May 30, 1979.
With that action, the Service approved the establishment of the refuge, as
authorized and directed by the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 (16 U.S.C. 742a-742j),
as amended. Section 7(a) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 742f) authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior to take steps “required for the development, advancement,
management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources including,
but not limited to, research, development of existing facilities, and acquisition by
purchase or exchange of land and water or interests therein.” Section 7 (a)(1) of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, as amended, September 28,
1976, (16 U.S.C. 4601-9) provides authority to use Land and Water Conservation
Fund (LWCF) money for acquisition of refuge areas under paragraph (5) of
section 7(a) of the 1956 Act. This administrative action resulted in an approved
land acquisition boundary, encompassing 28,000 acres, within which lands could
be acquired for the refuge according to the policy described in the Proposed
Action section of the EIS.
The actual establishment of the refuge was delayed due to the proposal to create
a hydroelectric power project in the area that involved the major land ownerships
within the acquisition boundary. The largest single landholding within the
boundary consisted of a 15,000-acre tract owned by Allegheny Power Systems,
Inc./Monongahela Power Company. This tract includes a major portion of the
large unique wetland ecosystem and surrounding undeveloped lands located in the
central and northern portion of Canaan Valley.
Canaan Valley Refuge
Establishing Legislation
Refuge Purposes
and Land Acquisition
History
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need For Action 1-15
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
In April 1977, the Federal Power Commission (now Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, FERC) licensed Allegheny Power to construct the Davis Power
Project, a pumped storage hydroelectric project. The proposed power project
would have inundated approximately 4,400 acres of wetlands and about 2,900
acres of terrestrial habitat. On July 14, 1978, the power project permit, required
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was denied by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers because of the project’s extensive adverse impacts to wetlands.
A period of litigation ensued, involving several appeals. The situation was not
resolved until 1988, at which time the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to review a
U.S. Court of Appeals decision that a Clean Water Act permit was required [cert.
denied. 484 U.S. 816 (1987)]. On April 29, 1991, FERC granted Allegheny Power’s
request for a stay of the project license based, “… on the lack of viability of the
project.”
During this period, the Service did not proceed with acquisition of any lands or
request funding for that purpose. Public outreach, via field tours, presentations,
media contacts, etc., continued throughout the period. In 1991, the Service
proposed boundary modifications in the southern end of the refuge in response
to concerns expressed by local government officials and owners of developed
properties in the valley. Areas which were originally included within the project
boundary because of their biological importance were deleted because their
habitat value had been compromised as a result of development. These lands
were removed from the boundary since the Service had no interest in acquiring
developed lands, thereby reducing the total approved acquisition boundary to
24,000 acres.
With the U.S. Supreme Court ruling and the granting of the license stay, the
Service developed a final environmental assessment in 1994 to determine if any
substantial changes had been made to the proposed action, or if circumstances
or new information relevant to the environmental concerns were still within the
scope of the EIS. Based on that review and the Service’s determination that the
project modification and intervening developments were of minor effect on the
basic project, the Service determined that a supplemental environmental impact
statement would not be necessary. The Service therefore proceeded with the next
step in the refuge establishment process and submitted a request for funding.
The proposed refuge received renewed support from the WVDNR, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), many other agencies and conservation
organizations, and local governments and citizens.
Canaan Valley refuge was established when the Freeland Tract was purchased
on September 11, 1994. Through various purchases between 1994 and 2001, the
refuge slowly grew to just over 3,000 acres in size. In February 2002, the refuge
acquired just under 12,000 acres from Allegheny Power Systems, including
much of the wetlands in the central part of the valley. This purchase brought the
acreage of the refuge to 15,245.
The refuge was established to ensure the ecological integrity of Canaan Valley
and the continued availability of its wetland, botanical, and wildlife resources to
the citizens of West Virginia and the United States. It has the largest wetland
complex in both West Virginia and the central and southern Appalachians,
encompassing over 8,400 acres,. The wetland is listed as a priority for protection
under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of 1986, as implemented by the
Service’s Regional Wetlands Concept Plan, and considered by the State of West
Virginia as “the most important wetland in the State.”
Canaan Valley Refuge
Purposes
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 1-16 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Refuge Purposes and Land Acquisition History
The Service established the refuge for the following additional purposes and
under the following authorities:
“... for the development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection
of fish and wildlife resources...” (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956; 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)
(4));
“... the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in order to maintain the public
benefits they provide and to help fulfill international obligations contained
in various migratory bird treaties and conventions” (Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986; 16 U.S.C. 3901(b));
“... for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for
migratory birds.” 16 U.S.C. 715d (Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929).
Nature hike at Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Mary Konchar
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need For Action 1-17
Refuge Operational Plans (“Step-Down” Plans)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manual, Part 602, Chapter 4 (Refuge Planning
Policy) lists more than 25 step-down management plans that are generally
required on refuges. Those plans “step down” general goals and objectives to
specific strategies and implementation schedules. Some require annual revisions;
others are revised on a 5- to 10-year schedule. Some require additional NEPA
analysis, public involvement, and compatibility determinations before they can be
implemented.
The following step-down plans have been completed and approved as follows:
■ Hunt Management Plan (1997) revised 2007
■ Fire Management Plan (2005)
■ Fur Bearer Management Plan (2004)
■ Continuity of Operations Plan (2007)
■ Fire Prevention Plan (2007)
■ Hurricane Action Plan (2007)
■ Emergency Action Plan (2007)
■ HPAI: Avian Influenza Plan (2006)
■ Chronic Wasting Disease Plan (2006)
The following step-down plans need to be completed:
■ Visitor Services Plan
■ Habitat Management Plan
■ Fishing Plan
■ Inventory and Monitoring Plan
Refuge Operational
Plans (“Step-Down”
Plans)
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 1-18 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Refuge Vision Statement
Early in the planning process, our team developed the following vision statement
to provide a guiding philosophy and sense of purpose for our planning.
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
showcases the largest contiguous, high
elevation wetland complex in West Virginia
and harbors a vast assemblage of rare
plants and animals normally associated
with more northern latitudes. The refuge
conserves, protects, and manages a mosaic
of wetland, forested, and early successional
habitat that supports migratory birds
and threatened and endangered species.
As a steward of a significant portion
of the headwaters, the Refuge ensures
the integrity of the natural resources of
the upper Blackwater River watershed.
Refuge habitats and wildlife are conserved
and managed through research and
collaboration with Federal, State, and local
conservation partners.
As an integral part of the surrounding
community, the Refuge provides high
quality, safe, wholesome, and diverse
opportunities for education and recreation,
especially hunting and wildlife observation.
The refuge experience fosters public
interest in the beauty and unique character
of Canaan Valley, an appreciation of
fish and wildlife ecology, plant ecology,
and stewardship of the natural world.
Visitors develop a greater understanding
and appreciation for the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System and
refuge management programs, and for the
importance of protecting lands for wildlife
conservation.
R efuge Vision
Statement
Deer mouse tracks in the snow
Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 1. The Purpose of and Need For Action 1-19
Refuge Goals
Our planning team developed the following goals for the refuge after a review of
legal and policy guidelines, the Service mission, regional plans, refuge purposes,
our vision for the refuge, and public comments. All of these goals fully conform
with and support national and regional mandates and policies.
1) Maintain and perpetuate the ecological integrity of the Canaan Valley wetland
complex to ensure a healthy and diverse wetland ecosystem providing a full
range of natural processes, community types, and native fl oral and faunal
diversity.
2) Perpetuate the ecological integrity of upland northern hardwood and northern
hardwood-conifer forests to sustain native wildlife and plant communities
including species of conservation concern, to develop late-successional forest
characteristics, and to perpetuate the biological diversity and integrity of
upland forest ecosystems.
3) Provide and promote through active management a diversity of successional
habitats in upland and wetland-edge shrublands, grasslands, old fi elds, and
hardwood communities to sustain early successional and shrubland specialists
such as golden-winged warbler, American woodcock, brown thrasher, eastern
towhee, fi eld sparrow, and other species of concern.
4) Enable visitors of all abilities to enjoy opportunities for wildlife-dependent
recreation and education to enhance public appreciation, understanding, and
enjoyment of refuge habitats, wildlife, and cultural history.
5) Collaborate with partners to promote the natural resources of Canaan Valley
and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
Refuge Goals
Ken Sturm/USFWS
Canada geese
The Comprehensive Conservation
Planning Process
■ Planning Process
■ Is sues and Opportunities
■ Issues Outside the Scope of this Final CCP
■ Plan Amendment and Revision
Chapter 2
Female chalk-fronted corporal
Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 2. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 2-1
Planning Process
Service policy establishes an eight-step planning process that also facilitates
compliance with NEPA. Although that figure suggests those steps are discrete,
two or three steps can happen at the same time. Each of the eight steps is
described in detail in the planning policy and CCP training materials.
We began planning for Canaan Valley refuge in 2006. Our early meetings
consisted of getting acquainted with the planning process and collecting
information on natural resources and public use. We identified preliminary
issues and management concerns, and developed refuge vision statements and
preliminary goals. Figure 2.1 describes the steps of the planning process and how
it integrates NEPA compliance.
We hosted public open houses in October 2006 in Thomas, Parsons, and Elkins,
and in January 2007 in Canaan Valley. We then distributed a workbook and issues
survey to neighbors, visitors, and other interested parties during the fall and
winter of 2006. A total of 2,000 workbooks were sent out and 129 were returned
with comments. Our purpose was to provide local residents and other interested
individuals the opportunity to become involved in the comprehensive conservation
planning process. The responses we received on protecting resources and
providing public use helped influence our development of issues and alternatives.
Following the public open houses, we hosted a series of field meetings with
resource professionals from The Nature Conservancy, Canaan Valley Institute,
the U.S. Forest Service, WVDNR, National Park Service, and West Virginia
University, as well as recreational user groups to discuss some of the issues
related to public use and habitat management on Canaan Valley refuge.
Between January and July 2007, these specialist groups met to discuss rare
plant and natural community conservation, deer management, migratory bird
management, educational and interpretation opportunities and other wildlife-dependent
recreational uses of the refuge. These meetings helped refuge staff to
communicate with our State, Federal, and NGO partners concerning the direction
of the refuge over the next 15 years.
In the winter of 2007, the Service sponsored a stakeholder evaluation conducted
by the Policy Analysis and Science Assistance Branch of the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS). This provided us with a way to more fully understand community
preferences and opinions related to key topics in refuge planning.
We distributed newsletters in February 2008 and April 2009 to our entire mailing
list, updating everyone on our progress.
In May 2010, we distributed a newsletter announcing the upcoming release of the
draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment (draft
CCP/EA). On June 1, 2010, we published a Notice of Availability in the Federal
Register announcing the release of the draft CCP/EA, and thus began a 45-day
period of public review and comment. During that 45-day period, we held seven
public comment meetings: two on June 15 in Canaan Valley, WV; two on June 16 in
Parsons, WV; two on June 17 in Elkins, WV; and one on June 28 in Davis, WV. At
these meetings, refuge staff gave a short presentation highlighting the important
points of the draft CCP/EA, after which members of the public offered oral
comments on the document.
After the comment period closed on July 16, 2010, we then reviewed and analyzed
all of the written and oral comments. Appendix J summarizes those public
comments and our responses to them. In some cases, our response includes
modifications to alternative B, our preferred alternative. These modifications take
Planning Process
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 2-2 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Planning Process
the form of additions, corrections, or clarifications, which we have incorporated
into this final CCP.
Figure 2.1. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process and its
relationship to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
Our Regional Director has signed a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
(appendix K), which certifies that this final CCP has met agency compliance
requirements, and will achieve refuge purposes and help fulfill the Refuge
System mission. It also documents his determination that implementing this
CCP will not have a significant impact on the human environment and, therefore,
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required. We will make
these documents available to all interested parties. Implementation can begin
immediately.
We will evaluate our accomplishments under the CCP each year. More intensive
monitoring is proposed for each program area. If future monitoring or new
information results in the predication of a significant impact, it will require
additional analysis.
The Comprehensive
Conservation
Planning Process &
NEPA Compliance
A. Preplanning:
Plan the Plan
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁒􅈀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁓􅌀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀁎􄸀􀁅􄔀􀁅􄔀􀁄􄑅
E. Prepare Draft
Plan & NEPA
􀀤􂐀􀁏􄼀􀁃􄌀􀁕􅔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅑎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁁􄄀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁉􄤀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁒􅈀􀁁􄄀􀁆􄘀􀁔􅐀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀀣􂌀􀀣􂌀􀀰􃀀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁏􄼀􀁃􄌀􀁕􅔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀����􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀠
review
􀀤􂐀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀤􂐀􀁅􄔀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁌􄰀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀁁
Analyze
􀀡􂄀􀁌􄰀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅍎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁁􄄀􀁓􅌀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁒􅈀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁇􄜀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁏􄼀􀁆􄘀􀀀􀀠
􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀁏􄼀􀀀􀀡􂄀􀁃􄌀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁃􄌀􀁃􄌀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀀀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁖􅘀􀁉􄤀􀁒􅈀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀀀􀀠
􀁅􄔀􀁆􄘀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀁃􄌀􀁔􅐀􀁓􅌀
􀁳􇌀���􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀰􃀀􀁒􅈀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁓􅌀􀁅􄔀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀀡􂄀􀁃􄌀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀
􀀦􂘀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀰􃀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁁􄄀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀡􂄀􀁄􄐀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀁆
Final Plan
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀􀁐􅀀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁏􄼀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁄􄐀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁙􅤀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁆􄘀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁄􄐠
alternative
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁁􄄀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁉􄤀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁆􄘀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀀣􂌀􀀣􂌀􀀰􃀀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁄􄐀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁏􄼀􀁃��􀁕􅔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀁐􅀀􀁁􄄀􀁒􅈀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀁄􄐀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁔􅐀􀁒􅈀􀁉􄤀􀁂􄈀􀁕􅔀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀦􂘀􀀯􂼀􀀮􂸀􀀳􃌀􀀩􂤀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀀀􀀥􂔀􀀡􂄀􀀀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀀯􂼀􀀤􂐀􀀀􀁆􄘀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀀀􀀥􂔀􀀩􂤀􀀳􃌀
􀀣􂌀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀁅􄔀􀁖􅘀􀁉􄤀􀁅􄔀􀁗􅜀􀀀􀀶􃘀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁉􄤀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀀀
􀀳􃌀􀁔􅐀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀧􂜀􀁏􄼀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀁓􅌀􀀀
􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀤􂐀􀁅􄔀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀁒􅈀􀁍􄴀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁅􄔀􀀀
􀀳􃌀􀁉􄤀􀁇􄜀􀁎􄸀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀩􂤀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅍎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁄􄐀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀��􅤀􀀀􀁓􅌀􀁉􄤀􀁇􄜀􀁎􄸀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀
􀀧􂜀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀩􂤀􀁍􄴀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀰􃀀􀁌􄰀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀀌􀰀􀀀
􀀭􂴀􀁏􄼀􀁎􄸀􀁉􄤀􀁔􅐀􀁏􄼀􀁒􅈀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀥􂔀􀁖􅘀􀁁􄄀􀁌􄰀􀁕􅔀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄕎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀􀀀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁃􄌀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁌􄰀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀
􀀀􀀀􀁗􅜀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀀀􀁁􄄀􀁐􅀀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀁁􄄀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁅􄔀
􀀢􂈀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀩􂤀􀁎􄸀􀁉􄤀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁁􄄀􀁔􅐀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀰􃀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀
􀀩􂤀􀁎􄸀��􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁌􄰀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔􅐀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀
􀀳􃌀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁇􄝎
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁎􄸀􀁏􄼀􀁔􅐀􀁉􄤀􀁆􄘀􀁙􅤀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁌􄰀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀁓􅌀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁐􅀀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁔􅐀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁓􅌀􀁕􅔀􀁅􄔀􀁓􅌀
􀀨􂠀􀀎􀸀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀁅􄔀􀁖􅘀􀁉􄤀􀁅􄔀􀁗􅜀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀲􃈀􀁅􄔀􀁖􅘀􀁉􄤀􀁓􅌀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀁐
Plan
NEPA
􀁳􇌀􀀀􀀮􂸀􀀥􂔀􀀰􃀀􀀡􂄀􀀀􀁃􄌀􀁏􄼀􀁍􄴀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁁􄄀􀁎􄸀􀁃􄌀􀁅􄔀􀀀􀀆􀘀􀀀􀀀􀀠
􀁐􅀀􀁕􅔀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀀀􀁉􄤀􀁎􄸀􀁖􅘀􀁏􄼀􀁌􄰀􀁖􅘀􀁅􄔀􀁍􄴀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀁔��􀀀􀁗􅜀􀁈􄠀􀁅􄔀􀁎􄸀􀀀􀀠
􀁁􄄀􀁐􅀀􀁐􅀀􀁌􄰀􀁉􄤀􀁃􄌀􀁁􄄀􀁂􄈀􀁌􄰀􀁅􄔀
Chapter 2. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 2-3
Issues and Opportunities
From the issues workbook, public and focus group meetings, stakeholder
survey, and planning team discussions, we developed a list of issues, concerns,
opportunities, or other items requiring a management decision. We sorted them
into two categories:
These were unresolved public, partner, or Service concerns without obvious
solutions supported by all at the start of our planning process. Along with the
goals, the key issues formed the basis for developing and comparing the four
different management alternatives in the draft CCP/EA. The key issues listed
below also share this characteristic: The Service has the jurisdiction and the
authority to address them.
How will the refuge provide quality hunting and fishing opportunities for the
public?
Hunting and fishing are two of the priority public uses that receive enhanced
consideration in CCPs. Hunting and fishing are also historical, traditional, and
very popular activities in the Canaan Valley area, in the State of West Virginia
and in the Refuge System.
Fishing
The refuge previously had no approved fishing plan. The refuge allows anglers to
access fishing areas via established trails that are open to public use. Fishing in
these areas is conducted according to State regulation. The State regularly stocks
the Blackwater River along Rt. 32, along Timberline Road, and in Canaan Valley
Resort State Park. There are no special refuge regulations for fishing. Some
anglers would like to be allowed off-trail access on the refuge, just as hunters
are. Through the planning process, the Service has decided to officially open the
refuge to fishing. Refuge Goal 4 addresses this issue in more detail.
Hunting
Approximately 98 percent of the refuge is currently open to hunting, with most
seasons following the State seasons. In particular, the refuge has been concerned
about the large local deer population and its impact on refuge habitats. The refuge
has discussed several possibilities for increasing the deer harvest on the refuge,
including reassessing areas of the refuge that are either closed completely to deer
hunting or that are closed to rifle hunting. In West Virginia, many hunters use
all-terrain vehicles (ATVs) to access remote hunting areas and to haul deer out
of woods. The State has encouraged the refuge to consider this option, but ATVs
are not permitted on the refuge. Some hunters have favored the use of ATVs while
others have opposed it. Through the planning process, the refuge has worked
with partners to determine how to make some interior parts of the refuge more
accessible to hunters.
The refuge could also work with the State to develop special deer hunts on the
refuge that would further help reduce the refuge’s deer population. Addressing
the issue of deer overpopulation would support all five of the refuge’s goals and
would be integral to the success of several biological goals and objectives. Finally,
the refuge could work with other local landowners to help address the deer
population on neighboring lands. Refuge Goal 4 addresses our response to this
issue in detail.
How will the refuge provide quality wildlife observation and photography
opportunities for the public?
The refuge has 31 miles of roads and trails open for public use, and this final
CCP expands that trail system even further. This trail system provides access to
most habitat types in the valley. Trails are zoned for pedestrian access, biking,
horseback-riding, cross-country-skiing and snowshoeing. Pedestrian access is
permitted on all trails, but most of the other uses are only permitted on some
Is sues and
Opportunities
Key issues
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 2-4 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Issues and Opportunities
of the trails. All these uses support the six priority public uses. Refuge Goal 4
further explains how and where we expand the refuge’s trail system through the
final CCP.
How will the refuge address Camp 70/Delta Road access?
Camp 70 is a State road that is bordered by refuge land on both sides for the last
mile of its length. The road starts at Davis and enters the refuge in the northwest
corner, continuing for one mile until it ends at the Camp 70 Loop Trail. The
road was historically located on refuge-owned land. No maintenance has been
conducted by the West Virginia Department of Highways or refuge staff. Camp 70
is minimally maintained outside of the refuge boundary. The road is currently an
open public access route within the refuge’s trail system and is therefore open to
all foot, bicycle, horseback riding, and vehicle use. Because the road is under State
authority, its use is regulated by the State. Therefore all vehicles are permitted on
the road. However Camp 70 is an unimproved road that is in poor condition, and is
likely impassable without four-wheel-drive and high clearance.
There is interest from the community and stakeholders to keep Camp 70/Delta 13
and the connecting loop trail open to pedestrians, bicycling, horseback riding, and
vehicles. The refuge has expressed its desire to acquire this road so that it could
invest in improving the road’s condition. Goal 4 discusses our future plans for
Camp 70/Delta Road.
How will the refuge promote trail connectivity both on and off the refuge?
Despite the 31 miles of roads and trails open to the public on the refuge, there
is no east-west or north-south corridor that can take visitors from one end of
the refuge to the other. In some areas, sensitive wetlands and lack of continuous
refuge land ownership prevent connectivity. Some visitors have asked the refuge
to look at different options for connecting the refuge’s trails, such as converting
old railroad grades that bisect the refuge into public use trails. Visitors have also
asked that refuge trails be connected with trails on neighboring conservation
lands, such as Canaan Valley State Park.
Connecting trails, both on and off refuge, allows people to travel longer distances
for a more rigorous outdoor experience. Some people would also argue that
becoming part of a long distance trail system offers a higher quality recreational
experience. Longer, connected trails may also minimize the need for motorized
vehicles and could contribute to improving air quality. For example, people
from urban areas could come to the refuge to participate in multi-day hiking or
bicycling trips instead of traveling to more remote locations to have a similar kind
of experience. The issue of trail connectivity is addressed in Goal 4.
How will the refuge be managed to protect Federal trust resources?
The lack of suitable red spruce forest and the degraded and isolated condition of
the then existing spruce forest were the primary reasons for listing the Cheat
Mountain salamander and the West Virginia northern flying squirrel under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA). These conditions persist on refuge lands.
Although the squirrel has since recovered and has been delisted, the salamander
remains a Federally threatened species. Improving the size and connectivity of
red spruce forest on the refuge will help long term management and protection
of species with the highest need for conservation in the State, such as the
salamander and the squirrel. Furthermore, salamander populations have been
located on the southern end of the refuge, where White Grass Touring Center
(White Grass) operates a commercial cross-country skiing and snowshoeing
operation on refuge land. Research related to the salamander has shown that
logging roads and some hiking trails can serve as barriers to salamander
movement and therefore can result in inhibited genetic dispersal. The refuge is
Chapter 2. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 2-5
Issues Outside the Scope of this Final CCP
required by the ESA to improve and restore habitat for Federally listed species
when feasible. White Grass provides the largest single source of public use on
the refuge during the winter and likely during the entire year. Trails used by
White Grass have conditions more conducive to salamander movements (canopy
cover, not heavily traveled during spring and summer, vegetated) however habitat
improvement projects may be beneficial to the species. The refuge will ensure
that permitting public use on the refuge and in cooperation with White Grass
will not have any adverse effects to the Cheat Mountain salamander. Further we
hope to use White Grass as a conduit to increase the public’s understanding of the
salamander and other resources of concern the refuge protects and manages.
The Indiana bat is a Federally listed endangered species and a trust resource
of the Service. Primary foraging habitats include wetland and riparian areas,
bottomland forests and edge habitats. Acoustical recordings suggest Indiana bats
are using riparian corridors and beaver ponds on the refuge for summer foraging
habitat. The refuge will need to do additional surveys to learn more about the
bat’s presence, reproductive information, the types of refuge habitats used, and
the seasons they are using the refuge habitats. If Indiana bats are foraging and
roosting on the refuge then protecting, maintaining and improving habitat quality
on the refuge will contribute to the viability of the species and its recovery.
The issue of managing for Federal trust resources is further addressed in Goals 1
and 2.
How will the refuge manage for early successional habitats?
The decline of early successional and transitional forest habitat in the northeast
is concurrent with the decline of species dependent on this habitat type (Sauer
et al 2007, Fink et al 2006). On a regional scale, loss of small farms, increase of
commercial and residential development, suppression of historically important
disturbances such as fire, and decrease in large area clear-cutting contribute
to the loss of early successional habitat (Brooks 2003, Lorimer 2001, Trani et al
2001). The suite of birds reliant on this habitat type is of high conservation priority
in BCR 28 and the State (PIF 2003, WVDNR 2006) and includes American
woodcock, Eastern towhee, field sparrow, indigo bunting, and brown thrasher.
American woodcock is also a priority species of conservation concern and an
important management species for recreational hunters. As a species occurring
in Canaan Valley in greater concentration and abundance than other parts of the
State and as a priority species for management in founding documents, the refuge
identifies woodcock as an important management species.
The refuge is surrounded by forested lands including the Monongahela
National Forest (Dolly Sods Wilderness Area) and two State parks where early
successional habitat management is not the intent of management actions. In
contrast, the refuge’s extensive shrublands, old fields, and young forests currently
provide early successional and shrubland habitat that is scarce in the region,
State, and local area. Refer to Goal 3 for more information on how the refuge will
manage for early successional habitat under the final CCP.
South Rail Grade Crossing (Jack Neal’s Ford)
The refuge has conducted a series of evaluations to consider the use of the south
rail grade for a developed public use trail. Beginning in 2002 refuge staff worked
with a contract hydrologist and soil scientist to begin evaluating trail locations
for the refuge. In 2007 the refuge contracted with Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.
(VHB) to conduct an independent feasibility study to evaluate the potential of this
rail grade to be improved for use as a public use route on the refuge. This report is
available to the public on the planning website.
Issues Outside the
Scope of this Final CCP
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 2-6 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Issues Outside the Scope of this Final CCP
The refuge takes many factors into consideration when evaluating new trail
development. These include but are not limited to considerations of wildlife
disturbance, introduction of invasive plant species, infrastructure requirements,
required maintenance, wetland protection, soil stability and how a proposed trail
can help fulfill the priority public uses of the refuge system. One of the refuge’s
primary considerations is whether a trail can facilitate priority public uses with
minimal impact to the resource so as to prevent the use from detracting from the
purposes for which the refuge was established.
The Blackwater River crossing of this trail is highly eroded. The bare soil
conditions on the river banks require restoration to prevent continued
sedimentation of the river. VHB recommended a pedestrian foot bridge be
established to prevent future erosion of the river banks and to provide a safe
crossing over the Blackwater River under all conditions. Access to this site for
bridge construction is limited and would require filling of wetland areas needed
to bring equipment to the site. The construction of a bridge would be costly and
would require ongoing maintenance.
The western section of the South Rail Grade that crosses the valley and the
Blackwater River is extremely eroded after years of vehicle use and flooding. A
short section east of the river is generally more stable, however it is also isolated.
This would make it challenging to fill and to haul in equipment for building
substantial infrastructure, such as a boardwalk, which would be needed to
support public use with minimal impact to wetland plant communities and soils. In
a longer section leading up to the juncture where the South Rail Grade connects
to Middle Ridge, the trail is again highly eroded and has been flooded by beaver
activity in recent years. Beaver inundation along the southern portion of the grade
has also created weakened sections which show signs of erosion. This section
would also require significant infrastructure to make it suitable for public access
without causing continued wetland degradation.
Through the VHB study, the refuge determined that the one-time and ongoing
monetary and environmental costs to construct and maintain a sustainable
trail along the south rail grade crossing were far greater than the benefits to
the public of providing this additional public use. The refuge also determined
that similar habitats can be viewed from existing refuge trails including Camp
70, Brown Mountain Overlook, Freeland, South Glade Run Crossing and the
northern section of the Middle Valley Trail. The refuge also determined that
there are multiple opportunities to experience the refuge’s wetland habitats in
ways that do not impact those habitats nearly as much as a trail on the South
Rail Grade crossing would. The risks to the refuge’s biological resources through
construction, use, and maintenance of such a trail are substantial.
Given the above considerations, the refuge has concluded that this trail is not a
realistic or viable option for several reasons, but primarily because the old rail
grade is mostly gone and the proposed trail exists almost entirely on wetland
soils. It is the refuge’s opinion that development of a new trail corridor through
the heart of the largest wetland complex in the State of West Virginia would
ultimately compromise the purposes of the refuge and affect our ability to fulfill
obligations under the Biological Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental Health
Policy.
Competitive Races
The refuge periodically receives requests to use Forest Road (FR) 80 for
competitive foot, bike and other races because of its connections bridging the
Timberline/ Winterset areas, the national forest, and Freeland Road. FR 80 was
rebuilt in 2003 and can support car and light truck traffic. The impact to the road
itself from a foot or bike race and the supporting vehicles is likely to be small.
Chapter 2. The Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process 2-7
Issues Outside the Scope of this Final CCP
However, impacts from such events extend beyond the roadway and can include
litter and off-road travel from by-standers. Races are not a wildlife-dependent
use, and the presence of the participants, support personnel, and observers can
interfere with other users participating in wildlife-dependent recreation. In
addition, competitive races do not support any of the priority public uses, and
they do not contribute to the purposes of the refuge or the mission of the Refuge
System. Therefore, we will continue to deny requests for competitive races along
the length of FR 80.
Overnight Camping on the Refuge
Over the years, the refuge has received requests for overnight camping from
different groups of users. Hunters have requested overnight camping to facilitate
hunting, especially in the more remote areas of the refuge where greater hunting
pressure is needed to cull the deer population. Allowing hunters to camp may
increase the number of deer taken in the valley, but there are many other factors
that contribute to the refuge’s large deer population, such as neighboring lands
that are closed to hunting and are used by deer as a safe haven.
Hikers have also requested overnight camping to facilitate hiking longer
distances through neighboring conservation lands such as Canaan Valley Institute
and U.S. Forest Service lands. Other users claim that overnight camping would
allow visitors to experience the refuge at nighttime, therefore exposing the public
to different aspects of wildlife and their habitats such as mammal movements at
dusk, waterfowl roosting, and owls.
In regards to overnight camping, the refuge’s primary concern is the permanent
disturbance to soils and vegetation around camp sites. Trampling around camp
sites is well documented to increase soil compaction, reduce water infiltration, and
reduce vegetative cover. Furthermore, the long-term presence of people would
cause disturbance to nocturnal animals that rely on the cover of night to forage
and hunt. Finally, there would be sanitary issues such as how to deal with human
waste.
There are also numerous administrative and law enforcement issues associated
with overnight camping. Campers would likely require a special use permit, which
would further tax the limited administrative staff at the refuge. The numerous
law enforcement issues associated with camping include trash, illegal fires and
the creation of spur trails around campsites. It would probably take a full-time
law enforcement officer to monitor camp sites for these issues, and the refuge
currently only has one law enforcement officer. These additional duties would
place an onerous burden on the refuge and would detract from the resources
(funding and staff time) currently being used to support activities that contribute
to the refuge purposes and the mission of the Refuge System.
In summary, there are many issues related to overnight camping including law
enforcement, management of the program and potential habitat and wildlife
disturbance. Camping is not a priority public use and although it may facilitate
some of the priority public uses, the resources it takes to manage overnight
camping far outweigh the benefits from this activity. Additionally there are
numerous areas where camping is permitted in close proximity to refuge
property. Dispersed camping is permitted in the U.S. Forest Service land to
the east and west of refuge boundaries. Camping is also permitted on property
managed by the Canaan Valley Institute along Camp 70 Road outside of refuge
boundaries. Finally, developed campsites are located at the Canaan Valley State
Park and at Blackwater Falls State Park. These resources provide reasonable
overnight facilities that allow users to access the refuge during normal hours of
operation (one hour before sunrise to one hour after sunset).
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 2-8 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Plan Amendment and Revision
Periodic review of the CCP will be required to ensure that we are implementing
management actions and are meeting the objectives. Ongoing monitoring and
evaluation will be an important part of that process. Monitoring results or new
information may indicate the need to change our strategies.
At a minimum, CCPs will be fully revised every 15 years. We will follow the
procedures in Service policy and the requirements of NEPA for modifying the
CCP, its associated documents, and our management activities as needed.
Plan Amendment and
Revision
Affected Environment
■ Introduction
■ Physical Environment
■ Regional Economic Setting
■ The Refuge and its Resources
■ Vegetation and Habitat Resources
■ Fisheries Habitats and Resources
■ Wildlife
■ Special Uses
■ Public Access, Education and Recreational Opportunities
■ Cultural Resources
Chapter 3
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-1
Introduction
This chapter describes in detail the physical, cultural, socioeconomic, biological
and administrative environments of Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge
(Canaan Valley refuge; refuge) and its surrounding environs. It relates those
resources to our refuge goals and key management issues, and provides context
for our management direction, which we present in chapter 4.
Elements of the physical environment considered include climate, hydrology,
geology, soils, and contaminants.
The climate is cool and moist resulting from the geography and elevation of
the valley. Temperatures are lower than those recorded in the surrounding
areas. Canaan’s average annual temperature is 45°F. During the winter, the
temperatures in Canaan Valley are consistently below 38°F average and can reach
below -20°F on occasion. Summer temperatures average between 75°F and 80°F.
With an average elevation of 3,200 feet above sea level and mountains that ring the
valley, a frost pocket can develop where the cold moist air becomes trapped in the
valley. As a result, frost can occur throughout the summer months creating a brief
growing season more typical of areas farther north. Temperatures in the 20’s (F)
have been recorded in all summer months (Leffler 2002).
Due to the valley’s location along the ridge of the Allegheny Mountains,
precipitation is enhanced from orographic lifting events. Moist air is forced up
over the high ridge of the Alleghenies which creates heavier precipitation within
the valley than in surrounding areas. Annual precipitation in Canaan Valley
averages 55 inches. Precipitation is rather evenly distributed during the year, with
the driest months typically occurring in September and October. June is usually
the wettest month of the year typically averaging 5.4 inches of precipitation. On
average, 4.46 inches of precipitation fall each month. Out of the total precipitation,
a significant portion falls as snow in Canaan Valley. Annual snowfall on the valley
floor averaged 134 inches for the period of 1961-1990 (Leffler 2002).
Canaan Valley is currently the subject of an intensive climate study conducted by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Recent research
shows that the valley is impaired by both wet and dry sulfuric and nitric acid
precipitation as well as high levels of ozone pollution. Acid precipitation in the
Canaan Valley during the fall and winter of 2000-2001 averaged 4.3 – 4.4 pH.
Fresh water
The main water body in the Canaan Valley is the Blackwater River. The
headwaters of the Blackwater originate within the Canaan Valley Resort State
Park (State Park) and flow north exiting out of the valley on the western gap
between Canaan and Brown mountains. Cabin Mountain, forming the eastern
watershed boundary of the Valley, also forms the drainage divide between the
eastward-flowing Potomac and northwestward-flowing Cheat River.
In Canaan Valley the Blackwater River gradient is approximately 3.7 feet per
mile. Its gradient between Canaan Valley and Davis is approximately 17.6 feet
per mile. Annual average flow of the Blackwater River is 191 cubic feet per
second (cfs).
Tributaries to the Blackwater enter along its course through the valley and many
of them flow through the refuge. These tributaries include the Little Blackwater
River, Glade Run, the North Branch, Sand Run, Yokum Run, and Freeland Run.
Additionally, numerous unnamed small streams and springs feed the Blackwater
as it travels through the valley, adding to its size. The Blackwater River and its
major tributaries are low gradient streams on the refuge.
Introduction
Physical Environment
Climate
Hydrology
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 3-2 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Physical Environment
There are numerous springs and seeps throughout the refuge that create
wetlands and small ponds. Extensive wetland complexes occur in the northern
portion of the refuge. These wetlands comprise the largest wetland aggregation
in the State of West Virginia. Beaver activity has impounded drainages on the
refuge to create ponds of various sizes. Old beaver ponds have developed into
palustrine wetlands and bogs. Beaver ponds have increased over the years as
beaver populations swelled. Analysis of aerial photography found 113 beaver
ponds in 1945 and 222 in 2003 (Bonner 2005, 2009).
There are four ground water aquifer zones in Canaan Valley identified as the
Pottsville/Mauch Chunk, Greenbrier, Greenbrier/Pocono and Pocono. Wells
drilled in the valley range from 105 feet in the valley floor to over 260 feet in the
Pocono aquifer on the hilltops of the valley (Kozar 1995).
The importance of the North Branch was also studied by Kozar (1995) who
notes the 5.5 mi2 North Branch drainage was an important source for ground
water recharge for Canaan Valley due to its large drainage area. The southern
portion of the valley was found to have a more significant role in ground water
recharge compared to the north end of the valley. This was mostly attributed to
the permeability of the limestone geology that underlies certain drainages in the
southern end of the valley (Kozar 1995).
The majority of the fresh water used is withdrawn by the State Park and
Timberline Four Seasons Resort. The State Park pumped over 144 million gallons
of surface water from the Blackwater River for park operations during 1992
(including operation of the ski resort and golf course). Timberline Four Seasons
Resort used almost 9 million gallons of ground water and 50 million gallons of
surface water for operations and snow making during 1990. With increasing
development occurring in the southern portion of the valley, ground water use
through new well development continues to increase.
The refuge lies in the Canaan Valley watershed located in the high plateau zone
of the Allegheny Mountain section of the Appalachian Plateau physiographic
province (Gwinn, 1964). The average elevation of 3,200 feet above sea level coupled
with the 35,000 acre watershed makes this area the highest valley of its size east
of the Rocky Mountains. The average elevation for the ridges surrounding the
valley is 3,900 feet, although several peaks reach elevations in excess of 4,200 feet.
The Canaan Valley was formed by the erosion of the Blackwater Anticline.
This created the center “middle ridge” portion of the valley, formed by Pocono
sandstone which is the older sandstone formation in the valley. More erosive
rock in the center and edges of the valley created depressions surrounding the
middle Pocono sandstone ridge. These depressions are what have developed
into the wetland areas of the valley. Canaan is underlain by moderately dipping
sedimentary rock of the Pocono, Greenbrier, Mauch Chunk, and Pottsville Groups.
Pottsville sandstone forms the ridges surrounding the valley with the younger
sandstones, shale and coal of the Mauch Chunk and Pottsville groups lying
underneath. The Mauch Chunk seen in exposed sections of the valley as red,
fine grained shale occupies the lower slopes of Canaan and Cabin Mountains.
Greenbrier limestone underlies most of the valley creating unique wetland
communities where their buffering capacity influences water quality.
The soils of the valley were characterized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
1967 soil survey report into 19 series and five physiographic categories: uplands,
lower slopes, flood plains, and stream terraces and swamps (Losche and
Beverage, 1967). The upland sites are characterized as well-drained or excessively
Geology
Soils
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-3
Physical Environment
drained. The two major soil associations are Wet Terrace Land-Dekalb-Blago
Associations and the Dekalb-Calvin-Belmont Associations. The common soils
making up the upper, middle, and lower portions of sloping land and low hills
are Dekalb, Calvin, and Belmont. Mecksville soils are characterized as deep
and well-drained and tend to occur at the bases of mountain slopes in the valley
(Fortney 1975).
Soils in the lower flood plain, stream, and swamp areas are mostly poorly to
very poorly drained. The most common soil types in these areas are Blago and
Atkins, with Muck and Peat soils occurring most extensively in the Canaan Valley
(Fortney 1975). Wet Terrace Land soils include Blago and Atkins series soils as
well as other soils in undifferentiated land units. Similarly Muck and Peat soils
combine all organic soil types into one category for mapping purposes.
Canaan Valley contains the largest expanse of Wet Terrace Land and Muck and
Peat soils in Tucker County. These wetland soils are characterized as organic soils
that are either strongly or extremely acidic. Generally these organic soil layers
are two feet or more in thickness. Muck and Peat soils are generally flat with a
water table at or near the surface most of the year (Fortney 1975).
Little information exists for environmental contaminants on refuge property.
However, in May 2006, Kathleen Patnode, a Service environmental contaminants
specialist, conducted a site visit as part of the scheduled Contaminants
Assessment Process (CAP). The objective of the CAP is to identify any past,
current, or potential contaminants issues on the refuge and to recommend, where
necessary, corrective or preventative measures. She visited known or suspected
areas of concern and reviewed the property acquisition files for these areas.
For all but one area, previous evaluation was limited to a Phase I Contaminants
Survey prior to acquisition.
Areas evaluated include a water-pumping station adjacent to the Blackwater
River on the Reichle Tract, approximately ten capped natural gas well sites and
eight old hunting cabins on the Main Tract, several barn sites where agricultural
chemicals may have been stored, and three trash dumps on the Cortland, Reichle,
and Harper Tracts. Of these, Patnode felt that only the dump on the Reichle
Tract warranted further evaluation based on numerous drum carcasses, waste
indicative of automotive repairs, and waste present in a tributary. The refuge
plans to request funding to sample the soil, sediment, and water associated with
this dump to facilitate removal of the waste. All but two of the old hunting cabins
have been subsequently removed in a joint partnership between the refuge and
the WVDEP Rehabilitation Environmental Action Plan (REAP) program.
A Phase II Contaminants Survey was performed in 2000 for the active gas
well site on Tract 42 prior to the purchase. Diesel fuel oil, waste water (brine),
hydraulic fluid, and mercury were identified as potential contaminants. Samples
taken from immediately adjacent to and down gradient of the waste water storage
tank had low levels of petroleum hydrocarbons and mercury. Patnode noted that
an area of dead vegetation still exists between the storage tank and the wetland
which may be due to salt toxicity from the brine solution. To prevent migration
when the tank is emptied in the future, a berm should be installed around the tank
by the well operator.
The primary contamination concern for this refuge is the potential for spills and
waste associated with the current and future wells/pipelines or mines as most of
the property was purchased without mineral rights. A secondary concern is the
atmospheric deposition of pollutants from industries and coal-fired power plants
due to the topography, elevation, acid precipitation, and high potential for mercury
Environmental
Contaminants
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 3-4 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Physical Environment
methylation within the wetlands. A sample of stream salamanders analyzed for
metals contained selenium concentrations of risk for water shrew. Mercury in
these salamanders did not pose a risk, but methylation in streams is low compared
to wetlands. NOAA mercury deposition data should be evaluated to determine if
biota sampling in the wetlands is warranted.
Water Quality
The primary river draining the refuge is the Blackwater
River. Seven named tributaries and numerous smaller
streams exist throughout the refuge that flow into the
Blackwater as it makes its way from the headwaters in
the State Park to the Canaan-Brown Mountain gap where
it exits the valley and the refuge. The refuge contains the
headwaters area of the Little Blackwater River and Glade
Run as well as most of Idleman’s Run and Freeland Run.
Additionally, land acquisition in 2005 and 2008 protected
much of the North Branch River and Flat Run, important
tributaries and circumneutral wetland corridors in the south
end of the valley.
Increased development in the southern portion of the valley
has heightened concerns of water quality and availability in
the Blackwater River. Wastewater from recreational and
other developments is typically treated with aeration plants,
lagoons, or individual septic tanks. In 1998 there were
three wastewater facilities that discharged directly into
the Blackwater River. There were 12 additional wastewater
facilities that discharged directly into tributaries of the
Blackwater. Currently there are plans to create new
centralized, shared wastewater treatment facilities to
upgrade current systems and allow growth of developed
areas.
Ground water quality was described as being primarily
influenced by the mineral composition of the source
rock with septic discharges and agricultural land use
practices influencing it to a lesser extent (Chambers et al.
2002). Within ground water samples, commonly detected
contaminants were bacteria, radon, and manganese. However, most ground water
samples taken during a U.S. Geological Survey 1991 survey did not exceed U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards (Chambers et al. 2002).
With increasing development in the southern portion of the valley, more water
will be removed from the watershed. Importantly, surface waters removed
during the summer and fall low flow periods may impact aquatic resources.
According to Kozar (1995) “In excess of one-third of available surface water
resources is being used during low flow period” in the valley. Impacts of this use
are obvious on Idleman’s Run, which flows dry in late summer and early fall and
also harbors a productive brook trout fishery. A water diversion removes surface
water from the upper reaches of Idleman’s Run to supply water to an emergency
snow making pond at a development on Timberline Road. This exacerbates low
water flow, increased stream temperatures, and direct loss of habitat for brook
trout populations on the refuge during the fall breeding season. As development
increases in the valley, water resources will likely continue to be tapped and
impacted in both quantity and quality.
Water quality analysis has been conducted primarily in the main stem of the
Blackwater River within Canaan Valley. Early testing (1970’s) was conducted to
Lower Idleman’s Run
Ken Sturm/USFWS
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-5
Physical Environment
develop base line conditions to measure change against if the hydroelectric project
was completed by Allegheny Power. Testing was also conducted to evaluate
impacts to water quality by developments such as the State Park and Timberline
Four Seasons Resort.
Most recently, water quality has been studied by the USGS and the West Virginia
Division of Environmental Protection for the development of total maximum
daily load limits. The Blackwater River was found to have dissolved oxygen
limit levels below the recommended as a State minimum for a trout fishery
(6.0mg/l). This problem was attributed primarily to municipal point sources in
the valley; however beaver ponds and wetlands upstream from the sampling site
have also been implicated in reducing dissolved oxygen levels in the Blackwater
(Environmental Protection Agency 1998).
The Service and USGS conducted a study of the effects of off-road vehicle use on
water quality of the Blackwater River in 1993. This particular study was designed
around an off-road vehicle race which brought hundreds of participants into the
Canaan Valley and lower Blackwater River drainage. Samples were collected
before, during, and after the race and analyzed for dissolved oxygen, suspended
sediment, fecal bacteria concentrations, pH, and turbidity. This study found
increases in suspended sediment concentrations, turbidity, and fecal bacteria
concentrations related to the off-road vehicle activities, particularly around camp
areas, within the Blackwater River. (USFWS 1993).
According to Snyder et al. (2002) acid rain may be having an important impact
on stream quality in Canaan Valley. Due to the sandstone geology in the higher
elevation streams and the low pH of precipitation (3.86-4.41 in 1995-1996), it was
estimated that almost half of all streams and ponds in Canaan Valley would not
support brook trout (Snyder et al. 2002). According to some studies, the lower
limit of brook trout embryo and hatchling survival is a pH of 4.5. Streams that
occur in the lower elevations of the valley can be influenced by the Greenbrier
limestone which can offset and buffer low pH waters and create suitable brook
trout habitat.
Unexploded Ordnance
The presence of unexploded ordnance — left over from military training activities
during World War II — on refuge property was thought possible due to the
confirmed presence of ordnance in both the Dolly Sods Wilderness area to the
east of the refuge and the Canaan Valley Institute property to the west of the
refuge. This possibility was confirmed when a live 105mm artillery round was
found by a hunter on refuge property during the spring of 2007. After consultation
with the Army Corps of Engineers and a review of historic maps, it became
evident that the target areas used by the military during the war included areas
now part of the Canaan Valley refuge, well down slope from the ridgeline closer to
the Dolly Sods Wilderness Area.
The extent of what is now the refuge that was actually used for target practice
activities is unknown. The only information available is in historical maps
indicating potential target areas and the actual live round found in 2007. No
other ordnance has been found; however, the Army Corps of Engineers has not
yet conducted a comprehensive sweep of known bombing target areas on refuge
property.
The refuge currently partners with NOAA to provide a site location for an air
monitoring station. The station, located on the Beall Tract of the refuge, is part
of the Atmospheric Integrated Research Monitoring Network and is part of the
National Atmospheric Deposition Program. The purpose of this monitoring site is
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 3-6 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Regional Economic Setting
to collect data on atmospheric wet and dry deposition along with other air quality
data. The station has been operational on refuge property since 2000.
Monitoring activities include ozone levels in the Canaan Valley. Overall air
quality is good, with no current criteria pollutants exceedances, but of recent
concern is ground level ozone which has exceeded the EPA 8-hr standard (75
ppb) for safe health levels on 1-5 days per year from 1995 to present. Ozone has
been cited as not only important in protecting human health but also as a direct
threat to vegetation and plant communities in the eastern United States (U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1996). Ozone levels were found to be in excess
of the 8 hour standard (>0.08ppm) in Canaan Valley during the years 1995-1999
at a monitoring site on Bearden Knob on the southwestern side of the valley.
Additionally the levels of ozone detected at this site exceeded levels considered
harmful to wide ranges of vegetative communities (Edwards et al. 2004).
The Canaan Valley region is a unique mountain valley, with habitats, plants, and
animals typically found at higher latitudes. The refuge works to preserve unique
wetlands and uplands of this high elevation, moist valley (USFWS 2006b). Canaan
Valley refuge is located in Tucker County, West Virginia, in the northeastern
portion of the State known as the Potomac Highlands Region. In 1994, with the
purchase of 86 acres, Canaan Valley refuge became the nation’s 500th refuge.
Currently, the refuge consists of over 16,000 acres. Over 8,932 additional acres
are within its acquisition boundary. The acquisition boundary encompasses
most of the wetlands and unique habitats of the valley. Acquisition will continue,
dependent on willing sellers and availability of funds.
The refuge is within a few hours’ drive of several large metropolitan areas
including Pittsburgh and Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., Baltimore,
Maryland, and Charlottesville and Richmond, Virginia (Tucker County
Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2008). For the purposes of an economic impact
analysis, a region (and its economy) is typically defined as all counties within a
30–60 mile radius of the impact area. Only spending that takes place within this
local area is included as stimulating changes in economic activity. The size of
the region influences both the amount of spending captured and the multiplier
effects. While the refuge is located in Tucker County, the city of Elkins (located
in adjacent Randolph County) is economically important to the refuge as well.
Most of the refuge personnel live in Elkins, and approximately twenty five percent
of the refuge non-salary purchases are made in Elkins. Randolph County is the
largest county in West Virginia with a total area of 1,040 square miles (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2008). Elkins is located in the northern tip of Randolph County,
34 miles southwest of the refuge. The refuge’s economic ties to Randolph County
do not extend past Elkins. Based on the relative self-containment in terms of
retail trade, Tucker County and the city of Elkins were assumed to comprise the
local economic region for this analysis.
Population
Table 3.1 shows the population estimates and trends for the regional area and
communities near the refuge. In 2000, the city of Elkins and Tucker County
were similar in terms of population size with 7,032 residents in Elkins and
only a few hundred more (7,321) in Tucker County (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).
Davis, Thomas, and Parsons are the principal communities in Tucker County
located near the refuge. In 2000, Tucker County was the third least populated
county in the State and accounted for less than one percent of the State’s total
population (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). The town of Parsons was the only
community that resembled the State’s 0.8 percent population growth rate, with
a 0.7 percent population increase from 1990-2000 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).
Elkins and Tucker County experienced population declines of approximately
5 percent between 1990-2000 while the smaller communities of Davis and Thomas
experienced larger declines of over 21 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).
Regional Economic
Setting
Chapter 3. Affected Environment 3-7
Regional Economic Setting
Table 3.1. Local and regional population estimates and characteristics.
Population in 2000
Population
change (%)
Residents
Persons per
square mile Median age 1990 to 2000
West Virginia 1,808,344 75.1 38.9 +0.8
Tucker County 7,321 17.5 42.0 -5.3
communities near refuge
Elkins (Randolph County) 7,032 2,207.7 38.8 -5.5
Davis (Tucker County) 624 546.0 41.5 -21.9
Thomas (Tucker County) 452 753.6 47.8 -21.1
Parsons (Tucker County) 1,463 1,332.5 39.9 +0.7
Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2008), Census 2000 Summary File (SF-1)
The city of Elkins is located in the heart of West Virginia’s Mountain Highlands
and serves as the recreation gateway community to the Monongahela National
Forest with nearby access to the refuge, State parks, forests, and natural
landmarks (City of Elkins, 2008). Situated on a bend in the Tygart Valley River,
Elkins was founded by Senators Henry Gassaway Davis and Stephen B. Elkins
in 1890 and became the Randolph county seat in 1899 (City of Elkins, 2008).
Historically, the area was dominated by agriculture (West Virginia Rails-to-
Trails Council, 2002). The senators were responsible for bringing the WV Central
and Pittsburgh Railway into Elkins which opened the surrounding territory
to development (City of Elkins, 2008). The completion of the railway in the late
1890’s made extraction of the large reserves of coal, limestone, shale, and timber
resources possible and encouraged industrial development of the area (West
Virginia Rails-to-Trails Council, 2002).
Approximately 41 percent of Tucker County, known as the “Top of the Mountain
State,” is publicly owned land. Parsons, the county seat, is located on the Shaver’s
Fork of the Cheat River and is home to 1,463 residents. The town was incorporated
in 1893 and named for Ward Parsons, a pioneer who owned the land on which the
town was built (West Virginia Rails-to-Trails Council, 2002). Davis, the highest
incorporated town in the State at an elevation of 3,200, consists of 624 residents.
The town has a longstanding tradition with the lumber industry and was known in
its early years as “Canada,” due to its dense forest of spruce and hardwoods (Town
of Davis, West Virginia, 2006). Thomas, home to 452 residents is only 2.5 miles from
Davis. Like many towns in the region, Thomas has its roots in the coal industry. By
1892, Davis Coal and Coke was one of the largest coal plants in the world, employing
1,600 people in Thomas (Tucker County Convention and Visitors Bureau, 2006).
The Census Bureau (2008) reports that in 2000, West Virginia’s population
consisted of 95 percent white persons not of Hispanic or Latino origin. Tucker
County (98.9 percent), and the communities of Elkins (96.9 percent), Davis
(97.9 percent), Thomas (98.7 percent) and Parsons (99 percent) all had averages
greater than the State average in 2000. The percentage of residents identifying
themselves as Black or African American, American Indian or Native Alaskan,
and Asian was 2.2 percent in Elkins and less than 0.5 percent in Tucker County
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Ancestry patterns across Elkins, Davis, Thomas
and Parsons were similar to each other with heavy German, Irish and English
influences (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008).
Approximately 71.5 percent of West Virginia residents 25 years and older are
high school graduates. Tucker County (75.4 percent) and the communities of
Elkins (79.5 percent), Davis (76.7 percent), Thomas (84.5 percent) and Parsons
Canaan Valley National Wildlife 3-8 Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Regional Economic Setting
(77.4 percent) all displayed rates greater than the State average. In 2000, the
percentage of residents who held a bachelor or advanced degree was 14.8 percent
for the State of West Virginia while the national average was 24.4 percent (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2008). Elkins (23.4 percent) exceeded the State average while
Tucker County (10.5 percent) and the communities of Davis (9.4 percent), Thomas
(10.1 percent), and Parsons (11.8 percent). were all less then the State average (U.S.
Census Bureau, 2008).
Employment and Income
Employment estimates (2006) for Elkins, Tucker County, and the State of West
Virginia are shown in Table 3.2. Generally, Elkins and Tucker County resembled
the State’s percentage of employment in each industry. Two main differences were
that the employment in the accommodation and food industry in Tucker County
was almost 10 percent higher than the State average and Elkins employment in
educational, health and social services industries was over 14 percent higher than
the State average. Government employment accounted for almost 17 percent of
West Virginia’s total employment in 2006, a greater percentage than any other
sector. Government was also the largest employer in Tucker County and the
second largest employer in Elkins in 2006. In 2006, construction, manufacturing,
retail trade and the finance, insurance, real estate, and information industries
were other main industries providing employment in Tucker County. Other
main industries providing employment in Elkins in 2006 were retail trade and
the arts, entertainment, recreation, and accommodation and food services
(U.S. Census, 2008).
Table 3.2. 2006 full-time and part-time employment for West Virginia, Tucker County and Elkins
West
Virginia
Tucker
County Elkins**
Total non-farm employment (jobs) 860,554 3,697 5,791
Percent of Employment by Industry
Ag, forestry, fi sh & hunting 0.5% (D)* 2.5%
Mining & Utilities 4.4% (D)* —**
Construction 6.6% 8.1% 5.3%
Manufacturing 7.1% 8.2% 10%
Wholesale trade 3.1% (D)* 3%
Transportation & warehous