Dear WV Highlands Conservancy Voice Editor:

I want to thank the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy for your support of the trail maintenance project in the Seneca Rocks and Seneca Creek area of the Monongahela National Forest. The project, which was in conjunction with AmeriCorps and the WV Trails Coalition, was ongoing from approximately May 24th to June 14th, 2001.

Thanks to all of those who collected trail condition reports and who volunteered their energy to help maintain our trails. A lot of hard work was accomplished in a short period of time. Our workforce raved about the accomplishments of this project.

Your group was an essential part of the success of this endeavor. I appreciate your enthusiasm and concern for our trail program. Thank you, also, for providing all of the meals for the AmeriCorp members. Without your financial support, we could not have supported this worthy resource.

I look forward to our continued partnership.

Sincerely,

Liz Schuppert, Ranger, Potomac District, Petersburg

July 23, 2001

Dear Mr. Reed,

As a member of the WVHC, I’m writing about an item that appeared in the most recent edition of The Highlands Voice (July 2001, volume 34, Number 7). On page 6, there’s an item about a backpack trip to Roaring Plains and Flatrock Plains jointly sponsored by WVHC and the Sierra Club.

As I read the trip report, I see that the party consisted of 19 people and two dogs!

From frequent trips to Dolly Sods Wilderness, I know that the maximum party size there is 10 people. I do not know if similar regulations exist at Flatrock/Roaring plains. However, there are good reasons for the party-size regulations in Dolly Sods. Similar practices should be followed by responsible visitors to Flatrock/ Roaring Plains regardless of the whether or not regulations are in place.

Simply put, large groups of hikers make too great an impact on the fragile wilderness. Where can 19 people possibly camp with enough

open space to set up enough tents? How much noise do they make? How much human waste do they leave behind? How much trail wear is created

when 19 people pass by? Are their pets disturbing other hikers or bothering wildlife? If you’ve ever been seeking solitude in the wilderness on a quiet, solo backpacking trip and been set upon by an

enormous group, you’ll know exactly what I am talking about. Or, if you’ve hoped to spend a quiet backcountry evening gazing at the stars and listening to the sounds of wildlife but instead had to listen to the adjacent campsite’s dog bark, you’ll also know what I mean.

Furthermore, all published guidelines for responsible and minimal impact wilderness travel suggest small group sizes.

Granted, Flatrock and Roaring Plains, being compromised by a pipeline, isn’t true wilderness. But, it is still a fragile, remote and beautiful area which should be accorded the same respect as the adjacent Wilderness of Dolly Sods.

WVHC and the Sierra Club should be ashamed of themselves for sponsoring a backpack trip with this many people. Certainly Bruce Sundquist should know better.

The fact that it was published in the Voice suggests, however, that nobody in charge has a clue about responsible group sizes. This is shameful for organizations that are in the business of wilderness

preservation. Publication also conveys the impression that it’s okay for a group of 19 people [and] two dogs to trudge off together into the

wilderness. It’s not okay. And WVHC should not be conveying to its readers the impression that it is.

One more thing. Those two dogs. I hope that they were leashed the entire time. Unleashed dogs (no matter how well mannered) have no

place on trails. They pose a hazard to other hikers and often harass wildlife. Some dog owners will claim that Fido has a right to romp freely through the wilderness, but those pet owners should be

reminded that dogs are domesticated animals, not wildlife. Therefore, dogs must be under the owner’s complete control at all times -- for the safety of the dog as well as out of courtesy to wildlife and other hikers. A leash is the only way to adequately control dogs on public trails. (By the way, I happen to love dogs, just so you don’t get the impression I’m some sort of chronic dog hater.)

I hope that, in the future, WVHC and Sierra Club will promote and encourage responsible, courteous backcountry travel. I see also in [the]Voice the schedule for Mountain Odyssey 2001. There are still a few events coming up. They would be a good time to start encouraging

responsible practices: small group sizes, no dogs.

Sincerely,

Rob Henning, Pittsburgh PA, July 31

Stop Dominion Power’s Greenbrier Pipeline Project

(letter to Judy Rodd, WVHC Sr. V-P)

Dear Ms. Rodd:

We spoke a few weeks ago by telephone concerning a plan by the Dominion Power Corporation to construct a high pressure gas pipeline across some of West Virginia’s most remote and mountainous areas.

Dominion had given the seemingly benign name of "Greenbrier Pipeline Project" to its plan. However, the project is neither benign nor green – except for the dollars that will enrich Dominion at the expense of the natural habitats of West Virginia.

The Greenbrier Pipeline Project will extend for 200 miles through three states (West Virginia, Virginia, and North Carolina), destroying millions of tons of plant biomass and huge numbers of animal and insect habitats in its path. Thereafter, Dominion will aggressively maintain its 200 miles of cleared pathway with tons of herbicides and a small army of vehicles continuously "maintaining" plant growth and inspecting its rightaway, which it will have, in the final analysis, stolen from the people of West Virginia.

We all had hoped that the days had long passed when a self anointed small privileged group in a corporate entity, whose only aim is economic gain, could set down and draw up a scheme like the Greenbrier Pipeline Project and destroy so much of the natural wild life heritage of the people of West Virginia. Even more disturbing is the fact that new energy technologies are rapidly developing that will make the pipeline obsolete in a few years. Dominion has no doubt calculated, that even thought the Greenbrier Pipeline Project might have a short life expectancy; it will still make a profit for the Corporation.

The proposed plan of Dominion calls for the pipeline to exit West Virginia and pass into the State of Virginia and her Jefferson National Forest over a West Virginia high plateau area with an elevation of over 4000 feet above sea level. This tract of land has not been timbered for well over half a century (most of the trees have exceeded 80 feet in height), and contains enormous populations of insects, birds, snakes, lizards, and shelled snails. This plateau contains a vast underground limestone aquatic reservoir that extends to just a few feet below the surface, transporting millions of gallons of what may be some of the purest water on earth. Any disturbance of this fragile system will pollute many square miles of underground water and destroy scores of unique habitats.

Dominion’s Greenbrier Pipeline Project is a very serious threat to some of West Virginia’s, and our planet’s, most irreplaceable remote mount- ainous areas, the very heart of her natural treasure. I sincerely hope that the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy will take a stand against the Project. I offer my assistance to any area of the Conservancy that may aid in achieving the ultimate abandonment of this poorly conceived corporate endeavor.

Very truly yours,

Jim Williams

New York City, July 11

Apology on poultry litter story

To the editor:

I wish to offer an apology to anyone who may have been offended by the tone or content of an article attributed to me in the July 2001 edition of the Voice. The story ran next to one titled "Big Chicken Joins with Big Coal" and described an effort in Preston County to reclaim minelands using poultry litter.

My remarks originated as an e-mail message in response to a news item on the project. My original e-mail was directed at one person and was an attempt to find out the rates and potential for impact of poultry litter application. Unfortunately, my off-the-cuff e-mail was later forwarded to a much larger group, and then showed up as the article in the Voice.

As I stated then, the normal agronomic rate of litter application is in the range of 10-25 tons per acre, but that there have been proposals in recent years for sewage sludge application to minelands at 500-800 tons per acre. This is the difference between a beneficial fertilizer application and an environmentally damaging overdose.

I have since learned that the rate applied was relatively low, 3 tons per acre, and corresponds to comparable rates of fertilizer application on such minelands.

Although, I still believe my questions are legitimate, I regret that this e-mail was published with such incomplete information and I regret the tone of the comments. I also regret the damage to the credibility of The Voice for a knee-jerk reaction that may have been unfounded. I hope that, in the future, publication of articles will await a better researched coverage of issues, and I will do my best to refrain from circulating pre-mature conclusions until my questions are answered.

Sincerely,

James Kotcon

West Virginia University, August 3