Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, February 11, 1992 TAG: 9202110295
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B1 EDITION: NEW RIVER VALLEY
SOURCE: GREG EDWARDS NEW RIVER VALLEY BUREAU
DATELINE: CHRISTIANSBURG LENGTH: Medium
SCENIC-RIVER PROPOSAL FAILS
Responding to an outpouring of opposition, the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors voted down scenic river designation for the Little River on Monday night.The river proposal was one of two tough environmental issues facing the board. The supervisors were also set to reconsider its support of the proposed direct-link smart road between Blacksburg and Roanoke.
Opponents to a proposal to designate a 27-mile stretch of the river in Floyd, Montgomery and Pulaski counties as a state scenic river packed a public hearing on the issue. Eleven people spoke against the idea and received the most applause from the overflow crowd; six spoke for it; and two asked the board to give the matter more study.
Opponents to the designation argued that scenic-river status will only lead to government interference with their property rights and that landowners are already adequately protecting the river.
They presented the supervisors with petitions containing the names of 107 Montgomery County landowners and 63 Floyd County landowners who opposed the designation.
But Lynda Coyle, a member of the New River Valley Preservation League, argued that the designation would actually take power away from the state and give it to the landowners.
Tracy Wilkins, a landowner on the river in both Floyd and Montgomery counties urged the supervisors to wait before making a decision until landowners had a chance to study the idea more.
The designation might be a good idea, he said. "I'm looking for all the power I can get to keep the river like it is."
But following the hearing, District B Supervisor Nick Rush asked the board to turn back the idea "so these people can rest easy." The board agreed with him on a 6-1 vote with only Blacksburg Supervisors Jim Moore failing to go along.
A state official had said scenic-river designation would give landowners more control over what happens along the river. An advisory committee of landowners would make recommendations about public and private projects along the river, including dams, subdivisions, and industries.
The section proposed for designation flows through Floyd, Pulaski and Montgomery counties, from the Virginia 8 bridge to the Little River dam.
Floyd County's supervisors have already said they oppose scenic-river designation. Pulaski County has requested more information from the state.
Following the river vote, several residents spoke to the board against the proposed direct link road between Blacksburg and Roanoke.
Reconsideration of the county's support of the road was placed on Monday night's agenda at the request of Rush, through whose District B much of the road would run. During his campaign last fall, Rush said he was opposed to the road.
Ann Phillipi, speaking for the New River Environmental Coalition and the local Sierra Club, offered the board a petition with 850 names of direct-link opponents.
In March 1990, the board endorsed the construction of the direct link along a route known as Alternative 6. At the same time the board had supported construction of a bypass of the congested U.S. 460 corridor called Alternate 3A. The 3A bypass would run parallel to U.S. 460 and connect the Christiansburg and Blacksburg 460 bypasses.
Laura Davis, an opponent, told the supervisors that 3A makes the direct link a "redundant road," which will cause significant environmental damage.
The proposed route of the direct link would connect with 3A near the south end of the Blacksburg industrial park. It would proceed southeast from there, through the Ellett Valley - where it would interchange with Virginia 723. It would then roughly follow Virginia 641 and intersect with I-81 north of the 641 underpass.
The plan is to use the link as a laboratory for the study of "smart-road" technology being developed at Virginia Tech. Such technology is aimed at making travel safer by alerting drivers to road conditions ahead.
Supporters say the road will encourage economic development along its route.
The supervisors were to consider a resolution suggesting that the Transportation Department should give further consideration to incorporating the smart-road technology into Alternate 3A instead.