Positioned to Capture
Marlinton · Davis · Parsons · Durbin · Bruceton Mills · Albright
Strongest existing commercial and infrastructure base. Front-of-house towns for the corridor. Marlinton is the standout: 5 mapped assets, 2 outfitters, municipal water.
Invest Before Scaling
Cass · Arbovale · White Sulphur Springs · Hambleton
Real recreation draws but thin or fragile infrastructure. Cass and Arbovale have no municipal water system. White Sulphur Springs sits on karst. Infrastructure investment should precede tourism scaling.
Infrastructure First
Hillsboro · Aurora · Bartow · Huntersville · Harman
Hillsboro and Aurora score 6 on pressure — both on karst, no municipal CWS, yet Droop Mountain and Cathedral SP pull visitor traffic. Foundational capacity investment is the priority.
Stable Baseline
Kingwood · Terra Alta · Rowlesburg · Thomas · Masontown · Green Bank · others
Stable but largely outside trail-driven tourism scope. Municipal water, moderate business base, off karst. Lower trail exposure overall.
What it measures
Readiness to capture visitor spending — a town's combination of nearby
recreation draws, existing commercial infrastructure, and outfitter presence.
Higher = more to build on.
Score components
+2
per mapped recreation asset nearby
State parks/forests, NF wilderness areas, NWR, NRA, private resort facilities within ~10 mi of corridor
+2
any in-corridor outfitter present
Guide services, outfitters, or commercial recreation operators with a corridor address
+0–3
existing business density tier
0 = <10/sq mi · 1 = 10–30/sq mi · 2 = 30–60/sq mi · 3 = >60/sq mi (proxy for visitor-economy absorption capacity)
Threshold
≥ 5
classified as high opportunity (top half of quadrant grid)
Recreation asset proximity is hand-coded from project analysis, not a
computed GIS distance join. Asset list covers major mapped public lands
and commercial facilities along the corridor.
What it measures
Vulnerability to tourism-driven stress — fragmented water infrastructure,
thin commercial base, and geological risk factors that compound under
growth. Higher = less capacity to absorb increased visitation.
Score components
+2
3 or more water systems serving <100 people
Fragmented private/transient systems (TNCWS) indicate no central capacity backbone; dozens of small separate systems rather than one monitored municipal system
+2
no municipal community water system (CWS)
No locally-owned CWS at all — town relies entirely on private wells and small private systems; growth demand has no central system to route to
+1
fewer than 10 existing businesses
Thin commercial base limits capacity to absorb visitor volume or provide basic visitor services
+2
town sits on mapped karst geology
WVGES 1968 karst-formations layer (via DOE EDX): limestone/dolomite formations with sinkholes and subterranean drainage where contamination travels fast and is hard to trace. Compounds any water-capacity concern with environmental risk.
Threshold
≥ 3
classified as high pressure (bottom half of quadrant grid)
Karst status is a polygon-intersection test against town boundaries using
a 1968-derived generalized map — treat as "flagged for further look," not a
definitive parcel-level finding. Water system data from EPA SDWIS.