I sent a e-mail to Katie Donahue (District Ranger for the Lee District) to see where we are on our proposal from Jan.4th 2012 for the improvements on the woodstock launch. What follows is the latest update:
Hi Rich,
Cameron has been in Texas on a fire assignment for a few weeks, but we have been slowly digging up information about Hang Gliding sites and what needs to be considered for this one. I appreciate your eagerness to volunteer and get the work done, but based on what I've seen so far, I'm not sure we can promise to be ready by this flying season. I am sorry about the delay an we will keep you posted. Unfortunately, we have more high priority projects than we have people right now!
Katie
Update on Woodstock Launch
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Re: Update on Woodstock Launch
unfortunately, I think they are getting feedback on multiple pending projects. I believe its still going to happen just not as soon as we would like.
-
Ward Odenwald
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:51 pm
Re: Update on Woodstock Launch
I don’t think they have soured/turned against Rich’s suggestions for improving the site - overly cautious and understaffed, yes. Patience is the operative now. If there is anything that we can do to communicate to the Forest Ranger (in a soft, subtle way) that improving the WS launch is our most important goal - that I believe would be the most effective approach. Any additional pressure on our part now may just make improvements more difficult. Ward
Re: Update on Woodstock Launch
I apologize for not making it to the meeting I had prior commitments i couldn't change but I did watch the video of the meeting. let me clear up a couple of things. First, I think the degree of urgency to rectify or maintain the Woodstock launch is seriously under estimated by participants of last nights meeting. To suggest we should invest our political capital on Edinburgh gap vs. the Woodstock launch is completely wrong. I think we can all agree that the running area at Woodstock launch has been seriously compromised by erosion and as a result we are left with a fairly short and uneven surface to run on. I think accomplished pilots have not had an issue navigating this surface but...Woodstock is flown often by Hang 2's and new 3's and the current launch limits their safety window considerably .It is my belief, and the belief of other pilots that this needs to be improved as soon as possible. A serious accident at the Woodstock launch would compromise all efforts to move forward with the Forest Service including the opening of further launches. 2nd: I don't totally disagree with the idea that we have a long leash in regards to what we can do at the slot at Woodstock..but to do the improvements the right way will require the use of equipment and a Forest Service sign off would be necessity if equipment is needed ..Not having the Forest Service's sign off means in my mind we can expect only a minor fix to the problem ..It is also my belief that a major reason we have been delayed on moving forward with the Woodstock Launch is the Forest Service is evaluating their priorities one of which is the removal of this alien plant species that is growing in the Edinburgh Gap launch..With out a strong united voice from us (the Hang gliding and Para gliding community) I'm convinced they will move to do Edinburgh Gap first which will seriously delay placing Woodstock Launch on their schedule for serious improvements..
Re: Update on Woodstock Launch
Maybe we should offer to do some of this research for them? I would imagine they need to research policy and what has been done at other sites. Perhaps if CHGPA put together a portfolio demonstrating what has been sanctioned and implemented elsewhere it would remove much of the headache for them.but we have been slowly digging up information about Hang Gliding sites and what needs to be considered for this one
-
Ward Odenwald
- Posts: 987
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2009 7:51 pm
Re: Update on Woodstock Launch
Started listening to yesterday’s meeting via iphone after the site improvement discussion so Rich’s post this morning was a surprise given the importance of Woodstock. My guess is that most local/region 9 mountain pilots will agree with Rich’s comments and concerns. Right now, improving the Woodstock launch should be the only discussion that we are having with the Forest Service and once accomplished, then and only then should the development of other sites be considered. If necessary, to emphasize just how important launch improvements are relative to other projects we should put this priority to a CHGPA member vote or at least have everyone (via a short post on this thread) weigh in on what’s their “front burner” project for the Forest Service. This feedback should help RichH, Dan T and others focus their discussions with the Forest Service. Ward
Re: Update on Woodstock Launch
Both the Woodstock and Edith's Gap launch sites are on the USFS's books as ~'authorized hang gliding locations'. Does anyone have the actual language identifying the authorization and limitations? It would be helpful to know for certain what we are already permitted to do to maintain our sites before proceeding with further discussions with the USFS.
Obviously we should be able to obtain the information from the USFS, but it seems more professional if we can find a copy on our own first.
Dan
Obviously we should be able to obtain the information from the USFS, but it seems more professional if we can find a copy on our own first.
Dan
Re: Update on Woodstock Launch
I had the opportunity to speak with a representative of the USFS today regarding the Edith's Gap and Woodstock initiatives. I think the conversation enabled us to clear up some possible misperceptions on both sides. Here's a brief synopsis of what I learned:
Edith's Gap; The need to properly contain/control the invasive species and address the concerns of other parties who have an interest in the locale will necessitate a coordination effort on behalf of all the interested parties. The USFS intends to put together such a session as soon as the have the means to do so. I was not given a targeted date and was advised that it would compete for their time with other high priority activities. I informed them that our intent was to provide the labor necessary to do the heavy lifting while they provided the labor and resources necessary to assure that the removal of the ailanthus was performed appropriately.
I also drew a distinction between Edith's Gap and Woodstock, particularly pointing out the fact that while Edith's Gap will require some physical participation by USFS employees, all we are asking for at Woodstock is permission to proceed.
Woodstock; It was clear that we have not adequately illustrated our exact intent at Woodstock. This is in part a result of the fact that we as a club have not coalesced on a single agreed upon plan for the project. It is incumbent upon us to do so.
The USFS would like to see drawings that are in sufficient detail to illustrate what we would like to accomplish. They did not consider the simple sketches that we previously provided to be sufficient. Rich H and I had previously discussed the need for drawings that are more comprehensive than the sketches that had been previously provided. He has declared that he can obtain them, but he will need a clear indication of what we as a club want and expect.
I believe that our Pulpit ground launch sites, as opposed to the elevated ramps, represents the ideal configuration for Woodstock. When I described the Pulpit site, (i.e. rock on the ground smoothly filling in the spaces between the existing natural features, long and wide enough to safely accommodate all our various PGs and HGs, without building elevated structures or concrete ramps,) he appeared to considerably warm up to the idea. When I told him that, unlike Edith's Gap, we were not asking for any investment in labor or equipment by the USFS, what we were asking for was simply approval to proceed, he warmed up even more.
I am optimistic that we can get approval to proceed with a relatively ambitious Woodstock improvement project provided that we clearly illustrate our intentions and do not make the project unnecessarily complex. I also think we should submit a plan that will fully meet our needs rather than propose a half step that we may consider to be inadequate in the foreseeable future.
Dan
Edith's Gap; The need to properly contain/control the invasive species and address the concerns of other parties who have an interest in the locale will necessitate a coordination effort on behalf of all the interested parties. The USFS intends to put together such a session as soon as the have the means to do so. I was not given a targeted date and was advised that it would compete for their time with other high priority activities. I informed them that our intent was to provide the labor necessary to do the heavy lifting while they provided the labor and resources necessary to assure that the removal of the ailanthus was performed appropriately.
I also drew a distinction between Edith's Gap and Woodstock, particularly pointing out the fact that while Edith's Gap will require some physical participation by USFS employees, all we are asking for at Woodstock is permission to proceed.
Woodstock; It was clear that we have not adequately illustrated our exact intent at Woodstock. This is in part a result of the fact that we as a club have not coalesced on a single agreed upon plan for the project. It is incumbent upon us to do so.
The USFS would like to see drawings that are in sufficient detail to illustrate what we would like to accomplish. They did not consider the simple sketches that we previously provided to be sufficient. Rich H and I had previously discussed the need for drawings that are more comprehensive than the sketches that had been previously provided. He has declared that he can obtain them, but he will need a clear indication of what we as a club want and expect.
I believe that our Pulpit ground launch sites, as opposed to the elevated ramps, represents the ideal configuration for Woodstock. When I described the Pulpit site, (i.e. rock on the ground smoothly filling in the spaces between the existing natural features, long and wide enough to safely accommodate all our various PGs and HGs, without building elevated structures or concrete ramps,) he appeared to considerably warm up to the idea. When I told him that, unlike Edith's Gap, we were not asking for any investment in labor or equipment by the USFS, what we were asking for was simply approval to proceed, he warmed up even more.
I am optimistic that we can get approval to proceed with a relatively ambitious Woodstock improvement project provided that we clearly illustrate our intentions and do not make the project unnecessarily complex. I also think we should submit a plan that will fully meet our needs rather than propose a half step that we may consider to be inadequate in the foreseeable future.
Dan
Re: Update on Woodstock Launch
Dan
That is very good news! I really hope we go for a widened slot at Woodstock with a nice gravel surface for PG and HG, like we have at the Pulpit.
A similar gravel surface at Edith's gap would not only be functional but also help to meet USFS desires:
John
john @ hopkinson . org
That is very good news! I really hope we go for a widened slot at Woodstock with a nice gravel surface for PG and HG, like we have at the Pulpit.
A similar gravel surface at Edith's gap would not only be functional but also help to meet USFS desires:
- Did you know that this invasive species is shade intolerant, so that is why it likes clearings? Even with cutting and poisoning the stumps, it likes to come back from the roots, so future follow-up treatments are required to ensure eradication. A sound layer of rock and gravel (as at the Pulpit launch) (perhaps with weedblock cloth as a base) would shade the ground and provide an unwelcoming surface for the plants, while providing a stable and low maintenance surface for the Club's use. Use of such a simple, low-key and low complexity natural material such as stone and gravel should appeal to USFS and would not 'denature' the sites. Using it at Edith's Gap could inhibit recurrance of the tree there and at Woodstock might help stop possible future attemps at it establishing there.
- The entire plan (wish list) and the reasons for it, noting any incremental approaches possible. That way, if they can only give half a loaf, they know what half will work.
The benefits to the user and how it accords with the government's interest
The cost and responsibilites (who will do and pay for what and how many and what type of government resources are requested)
The schedule for the project (not when it will occur, but how long it will take and who must do what)
A detailed and a separate high-level project summary. The high level one is often used for them to explain the project to their bosses.
John
john @ hopkinson . org
John Hopkinson
John at Hopkinson .org
John at Hopkinson .org
Re: Update on Woodstock Launch
Excellent points John.
I think there are two things we can do now to move the Woodstock initiative ahead. First we can collectively decide what we want to do at Woodstock and are willing to fund, and then we can produce drawings that are sufficiently detailed to explain our intent.
One of the persons assisting me in this initiative had a person with drafting skills lined up to do the drawings on a voluntary basis. Unfortunately it appears that this person is no longer available so we need to look elsewhere. Is there someone in the club skillful enough at this sort of thing to produce an "artists concept" of what we intend the Woodstock launch to look like and willing to do it?
If so, please raise your hand and let us know. I've used the term "artists concept" because I don't think the USFS requires engineered level drawings but they have informed me that they need more detail than we have previously provided.
We need to come to terms on what we want to do there pretty quickly. I believe that at a minimum it should include a suitably sized rock pad built to the construction standards we achieved at the Pulpit and a modest widening of the slot, particularly near the top. Suitably sized means big enough that you can run off it at a modest angle and still have both the width and length to get airborne without leaving the pad or intersecting the trees.
We should also address the question of whether or not the existing contour is sufficient to justify building a launch "pad" without elevating the upper end.
Dan
I think there are two things we can do now to move the Woodstock initiative ahead. First we can collectively decide what we want to do at Woodstock and are willing to fund, and then we can produce drawings that are sufficiently detailed to explain our intent.
One of the persons assisting me in this initiative had a person with drafting skills lined up to do the drawings on a voluntary basis. Unfortunately it appears that this person is no longer available so we need to look elsewhere. Is there someone in the club skillful enough at this sort of thing to produce an "artists concept" of what we intend the Woodstock launch to look like and willing to do it?
If so, please raise your hand and let us know. I've used the term "artists concept" because I don't think the USFS requires engineered level drawings but they have informed me that they need more detail than we have previously provided.
We need to come to terms on what we want to do there pretty quickly. I believe that at a minimum it should include a suitably sized rock pad built to the construction standards we achieved at the Pulpit and a modest widening of the slot, particularly near the top. Suitably sized means big enough that you can run off it at a modest angle and still have both the width and length to get airborne without leaving the pad or intersecting the trees.
We should also address the question of whether or not the existing contour is sufficient to justify building a launch "pad" without elevating the upper end.
Dan