ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Saturday, August 10, 1996 TAG: 9608120111
SECTION: CURRENT PAGE: NRV-1 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: ROBERT FREIS STAFF WRITER
NOTE: Also ran in Metro edition.
Seven years after it began, a contentious effort to relocate part of the Appalachian Trail through the industrial valley between Pearis and Peters mountains in Giles County remains unresolved.
More than 15 different modifications to the back-country footpath's route near the sprawling Hoechst-Celanese Corp. plant have been considered without a decision. Now the U.S. Forest Service is asking for opinions - through the end of this month - about the latest round of proposals, including an option to leave the trail where it is.
None of the three primary options will be able to avoid a briar patch of disagreements that has grown since the study of moving the trail first arose in 1989.
Some Giles County citizens say they don't want a new trail route near their property. Pearisburg says it doesn't want hikers redirected to Narrows. Representatives of the Appalachian Trail Conference don't agree on alternative routes, either.
At this point the Forest Service - apparently not wanting to get into the fray - says it doesn't have an opinion, at least not until Forest Supervisor William Damon makes the ultimate decision on where the trail will go.
That ruling will occur sometime after the 30-day comment period expires at the end of this month. Until then, the future course of the trail will remain up in the air.
The selection a new trail route began as part of what the Forest Service calls an "Optimal Review Process." The idea is twofold: determine the best potential back-country route for the Appalachian Trail and obtain a corridor of land to protect the footpath.
Along the seven miles of trail in question, the major issues have been where to cross the New River and how to avoid the Celanese complex. Presently the trail crosses the river via a narrow walkway on the busy U.S. 460 bridge and passes across the highway from the plant and its smokestacks.
After reviewing and rejecting a number of detours, the Forest Service has whittled the choices down to three major alternatives: reroute the trail so it would cross the New River on the Virginia 61 bridge and travel through Narrows; continue to use the U.S. 460 bridge river crossing but avoid the Celanese plant by a new trail on a wide eastern arc near the Clendennin community, or leave the trail where it is with some relatively minor course modifications.
Among the alternatives, costs to buy land and build new trail vary widely from zero to more than $850,000. More controversial are Forest Service estimates that about 300 acres of land could be transferred from private to public ownership if the trail is rerouted.
Some landowners who live in Narrows and along Clendennin Creek say they don't want the trail nearby. They cite loss of privacy and security concerns generated by recent acts of violence involving trail users in other areas.
Of greatest concern to some is the prospect of having part of their land taken by condemnation, one of the methods the government has used to assemble a protected corridor for the Appalachian Trail.
Also, the Rev. Eddie Kendall said members of church congregations in Narrows and Clendennin fear a trail reroute might limit their access to a traditional spot where river baptisms have been performed.
Hoechst-Celanese - Giles County's largest employer - has expressed concerns that relocation of the trail near its facility might complicate opportunities for plant expansion.
And Pearisburg says it opposes any relocation that would divert hikers to Narrows. The Forest Service estimates that 650 hikers who come off the present trail route spend about $32,500 annually in Pearisburg's motels, restaurants and stores. The town says it doesn't want to lose them or their revenue.
Randi Lemmon, Narrows'' community planning consultant, says the town doesn't want to take Appalachian Trail hikers away from Pearisburg. However, he said a new hiking trail to Narrows would advance efforts to build a new riverside park.
As a compromise, Lemmon suggested building the western alternative route as a side trail from the main Appalachian Trail to Narrows.
Finally, there is disagreement over new trail routes within the Appalachian Trail Conference, the organization that manages and maintains the footpath.
A representative of the federal office that acquires land for the trail corridor has expressed a preference for he eastern reroute that would take the trail away from the Hoechst-Celanese plant and near Clendennin.
However, the Kanawha Trail Club, a West Virginia-based trail maintaining organization that belongs to the Appalachian Trail Conference, opposes that relocation and says the trail ought to be left where it is.
Trail users, landowners, citizens, local governments and organization have the rest of the month to offer an opinion about the issue. Comments may be made in writing to the Forest Service's Blacksburg Ranger District office at 110 Southpark Drive, Blacksburg, 24060, or by calling (540) 552-4641.
Copies of the latest 25-page environmental assessment of the trail relocation can also be requested there.
Staff writer Clayton Braddock contributed to this article.
LENGTH: Medium: 92 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: Map by Robert Lunsford. color.by CNB