VWC Newsletter - February 1998
Public Meeting FEB. 25 Will Help Decide Future of Shenandoah Park & Valley
by Charles Pierce
A public briefing will be held at 7 p. m. on Wednesday, Feb. 25, at Lord Fairfax Community College by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to discuss the impact of pollution from a proposed new $76 million flat glass plant. The purpose of the briefing at the college on Rt. 11 in Middletown will be to provide information on the discharge of hundreds of tons of pollution expected if a new glass plant is built by Cardinal FG, a Minnesota company seeking to serve new markets in the Mid-Atlantic and Eastern regions of the United States. DEQ is now reviewing an application from Cardinal to build a 600-ton per day flat glass manufacturing plant at Kernstown, just south of Winchester on Rt. 11.
A continuous stream of hundreds of pound of pollutants would be hurled from the factory's 200-foot high stack every hour of every day, year in and year out. According to an official briefing notice from DEQ, these are the levels expected for specific pollutants:
However, most of the results of this major study are not expected to be available in time for the briefing on Feb. 25. DEQ is expected to have this information when it holds a formal public hearing on the Cardinal case in early April, also in Winchester. By this time, the Park Service and the Forest Service are expected to have enough data to decide whether the pollution load from Cardinal would have an adverse impact on the Federal lands.
If DEQ decides to ignore the adverse findings and issue a permit, the case can be appealed to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Cardinal win in this case could help open the way for more smoke stack industries to move to the Shenandoah Valley. Environmentalists are especially concerned about the impact of Cardinal's fumes on world famous Shenandoah National Park, which is already afflicted with severe air, water and other pollution.
Limited Moratorium Planned on Road Building in Roadless Areas
by Ernie Dickerman
In late January 1998, U.S. Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck announced a planned 18-month moratorium on any road building on 33 million acres of national forest lands which presently have no roads. This is an extraordinary and unprecedented action simultaneously covering many national forests scattered all over the nation. It responds to the demand of many environmental organizations and individuals that areas still without roads be kept closed to any road building. Under customary Forest Service practice new roads are usually built to open an area to timber harvesting; hence this moratorium for its duration will practically preclude logging within the 33 million acres. We express our gratitude and appreciation to Chief Dombeck for initiating this moratorium and consider it a highly progressive step in the right direction.
The usual waiting period for public comment and for modification of the initial proposal will be in effect. Deadline for comment is February 27, with individual comment to be addressed to Chief Mike Dombeck, U.S. Forest Service, Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20090.
Commendable as is this proposal, it clearly has its deficiencies in the opinion of many observers. It applies to only 33 million acres of the 191 million acres in the national forest system. Many individual national forests are excluded, most importantly being the Tongass in Alaska (America's largest by far), fifteen or so forests in the Pacific Northwest, and several in the South. From our point of view, a notable omission from the moratorium is the George Washington Forest in Virginia which has some 263,000 roadless acres (total acreage 1,050,000 acres). As expected of course, the timber industry and its allies have expressed vehement opposition to the moratorium simply because it would impose some restriction of logging, even though only temporarily.
What sort of comment to the Chief of the Forest Service (see paragraph two above) would be pertinent? We suggest that first of all he be thanked for this progressive action. Limited though it may be, it is a new, forward and needed improvement in Forest Service policy and practice. Let's encourage this new Chief!
In your comment you may want the moratorium to apply to all national forests everywhere. Certainly here in Virginia we want the roadless areas on the George Washington National Forest included. (The argument against inclusion of the GWNF is that its 1993 management plan adequately protects them; many of us who participated in development of the 1993 plan disagree and hold the moratorium is needed.) You may want the moratorium to prohibit not only road building but also prohibit all logging therein. Instead of going in effect for only 18 months, the moratorium should apply at least until the Forest Service establishes a new national policy that would limit road construction generally. Your comments of course will be your own and reflect your thinking on this fundamental proposal.
Wilderness Proposals Move Slowly, Steadily
By Ernie Dickerman
Wilderness action in Virginia is currently tied to the production of a new management plan for the Jefferson National Forest located in southwest Virginia. The Virginia Wilderness Committee is very much involved plus 8 or 10 local and regional organizations (including the Atlanta regional office of The Wilderness Society). Our mutual effort is directed to inducing the Forest Service to include in the new plan as finally written its formal recommendation supporting several specific wilderness proposals on the Jefferson Forest.
Developing this new Jefferson Forest management plan has now been going on for approaching two years. This business of forest planning has become a very complicated process, with increasing participation by citizens and their groups-which latter is all to the good. In fact, under Forest Supervisor Bill Damon's leadership, the forest staff is clearly taking a careful, thoughtful look at all elements of forest management and is making its data readily available to the public.
Very pleasingly the matter of recognizing and protecting old growth stands of trees (also called "ancient") is receiving close examination by the staff and their special values admitted. Special values? Most of us have long valued stands of mature, tall, large diameter trees on our national forest, for their aesthetic and their recreational values, plus their superior characteristics in providing food for various wildlife species, in ability to purify the air, in preventing erosion and at the same time enabling the soil to retain, then slowly release precipitation, in harboring increased microscopic life in the undisturbed soil (the basic element in the food chain), and other factors that biologists with their scientific understanding know. The likelihood is that the final Jefferson Forest plan will specifically identify numerous sites of old growth trees and give them some sort of special protective status.
Official establishment of a score or more of roadless areas-areas presently free of any roads is being pushed vigorously by citizen organizations in including VWC. Regrettably, new roads means logging of new areas on the forest, which commonly means reduction in other multiple uses, such as quality outdoor recreation, superior wildlife habitat, water conservation and accompanying purity of streams, and, additionally, a loss of high quality forest undisturbed by the works of man. There is increasing acceptance generally including in the Forest Service, that the values of outdoor recreation, wildlife, water conservation, purification of the air by the living forest, importantly exceed the value of timber harvest on our national forests. Indeed, the quantity of all timber commercially harvested on private land, both corporate and individual, is substantially greater than that from the national forests.
Returning to the subject of wilderness preservation, Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA9) is closely following the Jefferson Forest management plan process. It is too early to predict what he may ultimately be willing to do. Both he and most wilderness-oriented organizations agree there is no point to filing any wilderness bill in this 105th Congress. All of us know the attitude of this Congress with its Republican Party majority against the natural environment. Whether it will be worthwhile to file a Virginia wilderness bill in the next Congress (1999-2000) will importantly depend on the results of the coming 1998 congressional elections. Also, a determining factor will be how far along the pending Jefferson Forest management plan is by 1999.
Concerning active promotion of wilderness candidates on the George Washington Forest, as long as Rep. Robert Goodlatte, in whose Sixth Congressional district most of the George Washington lies, adamantly persists in refusing to consider any Wilderness Act proposal, there is no point to seeking introduction of a George Washington wilderness bill. Be that as it may, the Virginia Wilderness Committee has full descriptions and detailed maps for half a dozen wilderness proposals ready and waiting on the GWNF.
To tell the Forest Service what you want in the new Jefferson Forest management plan, please write to Forest Supervisor Bill Damon, George Washington/Jefferson National Forest, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, VA 24019. He has a sympathetic ear for the public point of view. As some of you know, he is a native of southwest Virginia and grew up on the Clinch Ranger District of the Jefferson Forest.
One solid truth holds. It pays for us all to stay alert, to have in hand an inventory of Virginia wilderness candidates as in fact we do complete with descriptions and maps, prepared to immediately spring into action when with enthusiasm, skill and drive we can expect to win! The day will come!
Membership:
Membership in the VWC is open to anyone who believes in the need for preservation of wilderness. To join, send a copy of a recent letter supporting wilderness written to a public official, OR send $5.00 or more per year to the VWC Treasurer, address below. The date opposite your name on the mailing label indicates when (month & year) you last made a contribution to VWC. Please check it and if the date is more than one year old, a new contribution from you will be warmly welcomed.
Officers:PRESIDENT Jim Murray 1601 Bentivar Farm Rd., Charlottesville, VA 22901 (804) 973-6693
VICE PRES Elizabeth Murray 1601 Bentivar Farm Rd., Charlottesville, VA 22901 (804) 973-6693
TREASURER Julie Simpson P.O. 11 E Monmouth, Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 662-7043
SECRETARY Lynn Cameron Rt. 1, Box 319, Mt. Crawford, VA 22841 (540) 234-6273.
by Charles Pierce
A public briefing will be held at 7 p. m. on Wednesday, Feb. 25, at Lord Fairfax Community College by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality to discuss the impact of pollution from a proposed new $76 million flat glass plant. The purpose of the briefing at the college on Rt. 11 in Middletown will be to provide information on the discharge of hundreds of tons of pollution expected if a new glass plant is built by Cardinal FG, a Minnesota company seeking to serve new markets in the Mid-Atlantic and Eastern regions of the United States. DEQ is now reviewing an application from Cardinal to build a 600-ton per day flat glass manufacturing plant at Kernstown, just south of Winchester on Rt. 11.
A continuous stream of hundreds of pound of pollutants would be hurled from the factory's 200-foot high stack every hour of every day, year in and year out. According to an official briefing notice from DEQ, these are the levels expected for specific pollutants:
- Nitrogen oxides - 767 tons per year (TPY)
- Sulfur dioxide - 222 TPY
- Carbon monoxide - 99 TPY
- Ozone - 11 TPY
- Particulates - 177 TPY
However, most of the results of this major study are not expected to be available in time for the briefing on Feb. 25. DEQ is expected to have this information when it holds a formal public hearing on the Cardinal case in early April, also in Winchester. By this time, the Park Service and the Forest Service are expected to have enough data to decide whether the pollution load from Cardinal would have an adverse impact on the Federal lands.
If DEQ decides to ignore the adverse findings and issue a permit, the case can be appealed to the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. A Cardinal win in this case could help open the way for more smoke stack industries to move to the Shenandoah Valley. Environmentalists are especially concerned about the impact of Cardinal's fumes on world famous Shenandoah National Park, which is already afflicted with severe air, water and other pollution.
Limited Moratorium Planned on Road Building in Roadless Areas
by Ernie Dickerman
In late January 1998, U.S. Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck announced a planned 18-month moratorium on any road building on 33 million acres of national forest lands which presently have no roads. This is an extraordinary and unprecedented action simultaneously covering many national forests scattered all over the nation. It responds to the demand of many environmental organizations and individuals that areas still without roads be kept closed to any road building. Under customary Forest Service practice new roads are usually built to open an area to timber harvesting; hence this moratorium for its duration will practically preclude logging within the 33 million acres. We express our gratitude and appreciation to Chief Dombeck for initiating this moratorium and consider it a highly progressive step in the right direction.
The usual waiting period for public comment and for modification of the initial proposal will be in effect. Deadline for comment is February 27, with individual comment to be addressed to Chief Mike Dombeck, U.S. Forest Service, Independence Avenue, Washington, DC 20090.
Commendable as is this proposal, it clearly has its deficiencies in the opinion of many observers. It applies to only 33 million acres of the 191 million acres in the national forest system. Many individual national forests are excluded, most importantly being the Tongass in Alaska (America's largest by far), fifteen or so forests in the Pacific Northwest, and several in the South. From our point of view, a notable omission from the moratorium is the George Washington Forest in Virginia which has some 263,000 roadless acres (total acreage 1,050,000 acres). As expected of course, the timber industry and its allies have expressed vehement opposition to the moratorium simply because it would impose some restriction of logging, even though only temporarily.
What sort of comment to the Chief of the Forest Service (see paragraph two above) would be pertinent? We suggest that first of all he be thanked for this progressive action. Limited though it may be, it is a new, forward and needed improvement in Forest Service policy and practice. Let's encourage this new Chief!
In your comment you may want the moratorium to apply to all national forests everywhere. Certainly here in Virginia we want the roadless areas on the George Washington National Forest included. (The argument against inclusion of the GWNF is that its 1993 management plan adequately protects them; many of us who participated in development of the 1993 plan disagree and hold the moratorium is needed.) You may want the moratorium to prohibit not only road building but also prohibit all logging therein. Instead of going in effect for only 18 months, the moratorium should apply at least until the Forest Service establishes a new national policy that would limit road construction generally. Your comments of course will be your own and reflect your thinking on this fundamental proposal.
Wilderness Proposals Move Slowly, Steadily
By Ernie Dickerman
Wilderness action in Virginia is currently tied to the production of a new management plan for the Jefferson National Forest located in southwest Virginia. The Virginia Wilderness Committee is very much involved plus 8 or 10 local and regional organizations (including the Atlanta regional office of The Wilderness Society). Our mutual effort is directed to inducing the Forest Service to include in the new plan as finally written its formal recommendation supporting several specific wilderness proposals on the Jefferson Forest.
Developing this new Jefferson Forest management plan has now been going on for approaching two years. This business of forest planning has become a very complicated process, with increasing participation by citizens and their groups-which latter is all to the good. In fact, under Forest Supervisor Bill Damon's leadership, the forest staff is clearly taking a careful, thoughtful look at all elements of forest management and is making its data readily available to the public.
Very pleasingly the matter of recognizing and protecting old growth stands of trees (also called "ancient") is receiving close examination by the staff and their special values admitted. Special values? Most of us have long valued stands of mature, tall, large diameter trees on our national forest, for their aesthetic and their recreational values, plus their superior characteristics in providing food for various wildlife species, in ability to purify the air, in preventing erosion and at the same time enabling the soil to retain, then slowly release precipitation, in harboring increased microscopic life in the undisturbed soil (the basic element in the food chain), and other factors that biologists with their scientific understanding know. The likelihood is that the final Jefferson Forest plan will specifically identify numerous sites of old growth trees and give them some sort of special protective status.
Official establishment of a score or more of roadless areas-areas presently free of any roads is being pushed vigorously by citizen organizations in including VWC. Regrettably, new roads means logging of new areas on the forest, which commonly means reduction in other multiple uses, such as quality outdoor recreation, superior wildlife habitat, water conservation and accompanying purity of streams, and, additionally, a loss of high quality forest undisturbed by the works of man. There is increasing acceptance generally including in the Forest Service, that the values of outdoor recreation, wildlife, water conservation, purification of the air by the living forest, importantly exceed the value of timber harvest on our national forests. Indeed, the quantity of all timber commercially harvested on private land, both corporate and individual, is substantially greater than that from the national forests.
Returning to the subject of wilderness preservation, Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA9) is closely following the Jefferson Forest management plan process. It is too early to predict what he may ultimately be willing to do. Both he and most wilderness-oriented organizations agree there is no point to filing any wilderness bill in this 105th Congress. All of us know the attitude of this Congress with its Republican Party majority against the natural environment. Whether it will be worthwhile to file a Virginia wilderness bill in the next Congress (1999-2000) will importantly depend on the results of the coming 1998 congressional elections. Also, a determining factor will be how far along the pending Jefferson Forest management plan is by 1999.
Concerning active promotion of wilderness candidates on the George Washington Forest, as long as Rep. Robert Goodlatte, in whose Sixth Congressional district most of the George Washington lies, adamantly persists in refusing to consider any Wilderness Act proposal, there is no point to seeking introduction of a George Washington wilderness bill. Be that as it may, the Virginia Wilderness Committee has full descriptions and detailed maps for half a dozen wilderness proposals ready and waiting on the GWNF.
To tell the Forest Service what you want in the new Jefferson Forest management plan, please write to Forest Supervisor Bill Damon, George Washington/Jefferson National Forest, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, VA 24019. He has a sympathetic ear for the public point of view. As some of you know, he is a native of southwest Virginia and grew up on the Clinch Ranger District of the Jefferson Forest.
One solid truth holds. It pays for us all to stay alert, to have in hand an inventory of Virginia wilderness candidates as in fact we do complete with descriptions and maps, prepared to immediately spring into action when with enthusiasm, skill and drive we can expect to win! The day will come!
Membership:
Membership in the VWC is open to anyone who believes in the need for preservation of wilderness. To join, send a copy of a recent letter supporting wilderness written to a public official, OR send $5.00 or more per year to the VWC Treasurer, address below. The date opposite your name on the mailing label indicates when (month & year) you last made a contribution to VWC. Please check it and if the date is more than one year old, a new contribution from you will be warmly welcomed.
Officers:PRESIDENT Jim Murray 1601 Bentivar Farm Rd., Charlottesville, VA 22901 (804) 973-6693
VICE PRES Elizabeth Murray 1601 Bentivar Farm Rd., Charlottesville, VA 22901 (804) 973-6693
TREASURER Julie Simpson P.O. 11 E Monmouth, Winchester, VA 22601 (540) 662-7043
SECRETARY Lynn Cameron Rt. 1, Box 319, Mt. Crawford, VA 22841 (540) 234-6273.