Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: MONDAY, June 14, 1993 TAG: 9308250337
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: WAYNE ALLEN
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Located about 10 miles east of Buena Vista, the Mount Pleasant area consists of 8,500 rugged acres in the George Washington National Forest that is free from most man-made structures and influences. Among its many attributes are four mountain peaks rising more than 4,000 feet; spectacular mountain scenery, including 360-degree views; cascading trout streams; mature forest habitat for species such as black bear and wild turkey, and rarest of all, the remnants of old-growth forest, with centuries-old oak and tulip poplar measuring 4 to 6 feet in diameter.
The Mount Pleasant campaign is directed at Rep. Robert Goodlatte, who must introduce and/or support legislation designating the area as wilderness. The Amherst County Board of Supervisors has emphatically voiced its opinion on the issue by unanimously voting on three different occasions to support the Mount Pleasant proposal. Signatures from more than 2,300 citizens of the 6th District have been presented to Goodlatte urging him to introduce legislation designating the area as wilderness. The Amherst New Era-Progress and The News & Advance in Lynchburg both have endorsed the proposal.
With such widespread local support for Mount Pleasant, it seems obvious that Goodlatte would readily agree to introduce the necessary legislation. Unfortunately, this has not happened for two principal reasons: 1) the congressman stated during last fall's election campaign that there was no need for any additional wilderness areas in Virginia, and 2) opposition from the president of a large pulp and paper company located in Amherst County.
Why is Goodlatte opposed to the concept of wilderness? He has stated a number of concerns with potential problems arising from restrictions contained in the Wilderness Act of 1964, which established the National Wilderness Preservation System. The purpose of the act was ``to secure for the American people of present and future generations the benefits of an enduring resource of wilderness.'' To protect the integrity of areas designated under the act, Congress imposed certain restrictions on uses allowed within wilderness, such as prohibiting permanent roads. It is these restrictions that form the basis of the congressman's concerns about the Mount Pleasant proposal, which range from the inability to control fires, insects and diseases to overly stringent air-quality standards.
But the Wilderness Act addresses all of Goodlatte's concerns either directly, as with the statement ``... such measures may be taken as may be necessary in the control of fire, insects and diseases ... ,'' or indirectly through those management practices that are consistent with the intent of the act.
On the issue of air quality, the congressman feels that high air-quality standards over the Mount Pleasant area could negatively affect local industrial development. The Mount Pleasant proposal calls for a Class II air-quality designation, which is no different from that of downtown Richmond, Washington, D.C., or any other U.S. urban area.
With regard to the possibility of redesignation, no wilderness areas in the Eastern United States have received the more stringent Class I air-quality designation in the past 16 years.
The Amherst County Board of Supervisors has stated that one of the main reasons for its strong support of the Mount Pleasant proposal is the opportunity to permanently protect the principal source of the county's public water supply, the headwaters of the Buffalo River. The board is correct in its assessment that only through wilderness protection can the water supply be assured the strongest safeguards against deterioration from such activities as logging and road construction and maintenance.
The vehement opposition to the Mount Pleasant proposal from Charles Chandler, president and chief operating officer of Virginia Fibre Corp., is difficult to understand. Chandler has stated that Virginia Fibre has no interest in logging on any land in the Mount Pleasant area. If this is true, why is Chandler going to extraordinary lengths to stop the proposal?
In a March 25 column against the Mount Pleasant proposal in the Amherst New Era-Progress, Chandler wrote: ``Abandoning a forest to wilderness is comparable to saying to a human, `We're abandoning you, and will not use our knowledge and scientific methods to keep you healthy or to maximize your productivity.'''
We certainly hope that Goodlatte does not share Chandler's rather unique view of forest ecology. For the record, it should be noted that Chandler held a fund-raiser for candidate Goodlatte in last fall's election campaign.
I was encouraged to hear that Goodlatte spent some time recently hiking the trails of the Mount Pleasant area. I would like to think that the scenic, ecological and geological attributes of the area would be enough to convince him of the merits of its inclusion in the Wilderness Preservation System.
I would also like to think that the voices of thousands of citizens in the 6th District would carry more weight than the misdirected fears of representatives from a self-serving industry.
The emphatic support for Mount Pleasant from the people of the Amherst County area has so far not been enough. Goodlatte should know that constituents from other parts of the 6th District also support permanently protecting this small portion of Virginia's natural heritage.
\ Wayne Allen is vice chairman of the Roanoke River Group of the Sierra Club.
by CNB