Woodstock Proposal

[sailin]

Below please find the link to the Woodstock launch improvement proposal put forth by Patrick Terry. Please click on the link. Please take some time to review the proposal and then post comments, questions, concerns in this thread.

From Patrick Terry- "As a former general contractor, I think I am fully capable to offer the construction plans, documentation, and permits for a complete site renovation. I can financially support most of the reworking of the launch w/ 60 yards of ¾ blue stone and the equipment necessary for a world class groomed & packed area with 3ft x 20ft long fixed recycled rubber track for a HG takeoff runway.

A locally supplied stone drop at the parking area and a small slip-track loader (hired or rented) could manage the stone transfer & distribution over a 4 day period. It would take some additional rental equipment and a work crew of 4 or 5 a solid week to complete the entire renovation.

· Estimation on material & rental costs: ~ $5,500
· If contract labor was used, then add: ~ $3,800 (A local Woodstock contractor is willing to do the job)

Proper signage can be made and posted for the parking area and launch to increase awareness, safety compliance, and establishing rules for site use.

Further work to be considered: There will need to be two 12ft galvanized poles and wind indicators on each side of launch attached to concrete footings. It would be nice to have two telltale flags poles affixed high up in the trees at the back of launch as well. Both the main LZ and alternate would need wind socks set-ups. Indicators on top of the power line poles near the LZ would be nice as well.

The only amendment to my plan would be to use landscape fabric underlayment (prevent weeds & grass) and to include a 4” base layer of #3 stone rather than an overlay of 100% #1 crushed stone."


https://docs.google.com/a/vt.edu/open?i ... XV0ZkI5Nm8


Thanks,
Jon

[XCanytime]

First my intent is not to hijack this thread, but while this proposal is all well and good, right now I believe the more pressing issue is the state of the launch cube at HR. Eddie Miller told me recently that he is very concerned about a crack that exists on the southern quad of the cube. He said there is nothing under that quad piece supporting it and he doesn't even like to stand on it knowing that all the gravel below has been eroded away. Back in the fall of 2010 Dan Tuckwiller put together a proposal for redoing the HR launch, utilizing non-flammable material available from his employer Long Fence. After a yearlong sabbatical at Wills Wing Dan returned to Long Fence just over a year ago. Therefore, in theory, restarting should be seamless. Those are my thoughts. I do believe that improving the launch at Woodstock has merit, but IMHO the state of HR should be first in the issue stack. Sincerely, Bacil

[jyoder111]

Patrick Terry's proposal looks like a pretty serious overhall of the launch. I'm not sure how I'd feel about losing some of the stark natural element of Woodstock. However, having a smooth path, setup area, and launch area would be nice and provide a way for PG to use the site without those carpets that are there now. A manicured site brings more public attention to the sport. In general, this is a good thing I think.

What would the longterm upkeep costs and demands be?

These kinds of projects only happen when someone(s) is motivated to see it done, so it might be wise to capitalize on that, even if there are other projects that also could use attention (ie. High Rock).

my 2 cents,

Jesse

[CraginS]

I'm confused. Will the US Forest Service approve such an expansive improvement on the ridge as this?

Years ago, any of our discussions about Woodstock launch included concerns over Ranger approvals.

[Ward Odenwald]

I believe that improving both WS and HR launches simultaneously is possible. Could be a little naïve about this, but at first glance, both goals require different solutions and we already have different groups of expertise considering solutions that are unique to each site. I say we support and encourage both as best we can. Terry's WS proposal is a long-term fix and although more than just moving a couple of rocks and trimming the trees, it will certainly enhance safety for both PG and HG launches for years! Ward

[silverwings]

So how do you get to the proposal? it asks for a Virginia Tech name and password.

[dbodner]

I was able to view the document using my own Google account and password.

A lot of nice work went into this. My compliments to the chef.

Some comments:

1. It's not clear to me which, or how many, trees are being removed. It looks like a lot. The 3rd page references some specific trees to be removed, but I get the feeling there are more.

2. The 2nd page lists two boulders. Do they remain or go away?

3. While we're going for broke on removing trees, we might want to clean out the HG set-up area a bit toward the North. It looks like we might lose a couple of HG set-up spaces South of the current slot and perhaps at the top of the current slot.

[mcgowantk]

The proposal looks like it would create an exceptional launch.

However, my understanding is that the Forest Service would need to give us a permit for the work and that is not likely to happen in the short term.

I also question whether the funds should be used for this purpose. We have spent a several thousand recently on High Rock and the cube is about to fall apart, rending the site unlaunchable. High Rock should be our first priority.

Lastly, the launch at Woodstock is not in that bad a shape. It would be nice to shore up the launch run and that should be possible for a much smaller amount. In my opinion, the blown launches I have witnessed have been due to poor launch technique - not a poor launch.

I would pass on this proposal until after we buy an LZ.

my two cents

Tom McGowan

[davidtheamazing1]

Thank you all for feedback and for raising concerns about HR. We don't have to discuss logistical limitations at this stage because we need to finalize our concept, and once we have done so receiving approval is going to be the task at hand.

Regarding approval from the Forest Service, it is my understanding the they focus on responsible/sustainable utilization of the land as a public resource, more so than strictly conserving trees.

In agreement with what has been posted, I think our club can manage both sites (and maintenance projects) simultaneously, even if it takes a multi-year effort of members taking an active role to pitch in.

Back to the topic:
My first thought on the plans... totally awesome! I am a bit worried about the "windsocks" on the map. I would certainly not want to launch towards a metal pole. I think a flagpole above the launch area is a good idea, but in general it seems that the weather is too harsh for us to plan on having a permanent wind indicator of sufficient sensitivity.

If I were a GW forest manager looking this over, my first question would be: how does this plan jive with the existing site? Might be good to include a site survey or at least a google earth/arial diagraming where the new plan sits in relation to the existing site. The diagram would hopefully be close enough to specifically point out which trees and rocks would need to be chopped.

[sailin]

Compliments to Patrick Terry for the detail and effort involved in this proposal.

Although I support "improving" the Woodstock launch, I do not think the scope of this proposal is appropriate for Woodstock. Woodstock is a beautiful, rustic, mountain site that I would hate to see over-developed. Even though the launch set up that Patrick details in his proposal sounds great, I think it would be out of place on the US Forest Service land that we share with so many other users, and that over looks the valley and bends of the river. Improving/repairing the runway with some sort of least intrusive material would be about all I would support at this point.

Thanks,
Jon

[eggzkitz]

Without weighing in on the HR vs WS discussion, or the ovall merits of this WS proposal (although it is impressive), would it be possible to include a windtalker on the fire tower?

[Dan T]

Suggestion:

1) Let's strip the two big poles out of Patrick Terry's proposal and give him the green light to take the "concept" drawings to the USFS to get their take on it. This will tell us the realm of the possible without committing club funds or other resources. (I do suggest that we don't approach the USFS until after we have cleaned the carpet out of the slot and it has been evident from the road for a while that we have removed it.)

2) Let's close the loop with the Foundation for Free Flight (FFF) to determine how much funding they are able to contribute to the project. We can use Patrick's design drawings to describe our "best case" scenario for the site improvement. We should also revisit Patrick's generous offer to contribute to funding the Woodstock launch improvement with his own funds. Patrick's offer is conditioned upon the final design. So we will have to complete that step first.

3) Once we get a take from the USFS on the realm of the possible and the FFFs plus Patrick's willingness and ability to contribute funding to the project we will have a good idea of the funding demands required of the club. Then we can decide if a Woodstock launch improvement is where we want to spend our club funds.

Patrick has made us a very generous offer. I don't think he is going to keep it out there forever. We should figure out whether or not we should take him up on it before the opportunity passes. Let's do what we can now to find out if we can and should proceed.

[Dan T]

In my opinion the club's investment priorities should be:

#1 - Secure a permanent LZ or LZ rights at the Pulpit. We already own the launch. If we lose the LZ's we've effectively lost the launch.

#2 - Secure a permanent LZ or LZ rights at High Rock - Our launch rights are fairly secure there. However our ability to maintain landing rights at High Rock over the long term are tenuous at best. Without a secure LZ it doesn't make a lot of sense to spend a lot of money improving the cube. However it certainly makes a lot of sense to spend some money for an adequate relatively short term solution.

#3 - Fix the cube at High Rock, provided that we have some assurance that we will have a place to land for the foreseeable future.

#4 - Improve the launch at Woodstock - We have a secure LZ at Woodstock. The kind of launch improvement that Patrick Terry is proposing would make Woodstock a World Class flying mountain flying site capable of hosting World Class fly-ins and comps. The Europeans have proven that investing in high quality flying sites brings substantial returns to their communities. The USFS has a different culture than the National Parks Service. They might be completely on board with professional quality launch improvement proposal. This is especially true if we can get Woodstock and the surrounding communities on board with us. We should not assume otherwise.

Dan Tomlinson
Director USHPA Region 9

[stevek]

It is very ambitious. Too ambitious in my view. I am sure we would need a permit to do something like that and we would probably never get it. But we might be able to get informal permission, not a permit, to simply bring in dirt and plant grass. I think we should at least ask the Forest Service about that.

[sailin]

I like the soil and grass idea with some tree maintenance. As I have said before, in the case of Woodstock, less is better. Let's do our best to keep it as natural as possible.

Jon

[mcgowantk]

I agree that the McAllister proposal makes the most sense and could be done without asking for an environmental assessment by the National Forest. An improvement along the lines suggested by John could be a great help to paraglider pilots at the least cost. The bigger project is too ambitious for now.

Tom McGowan

[mingram]

Some people don't like the look or slippy nature of gravel. I just talked with John McAllister and he thinks we should use soil and sod. I suggested dark canvas tarp or turf on top of gravel, but his thought is that would degrade with wind/UV exposure. John is planning to get an estimate on soil/sod and will get back to me.

Matt

[dbodner]

Doesn't sod need to be watered and maintained regularly for the first few weeks or months to keep it from dying?

And it wouldn't shock me if the Forest Service would view grass as an invasive species.

[mingram]

Haha! Yeah, good points. I hadn't thought of that. There's no easy way to bring water in.

How about we get a jackhammer and break up the boulders instead of trying to cover them up? Anyone know if that's possible?

[rlweber]

Gary Smith had floated a similar idea many moons ago and said he had the jack hammer to do the job. It was thought the air hose could be brought in from the parking lot near the bottom of the the slot.

Randy

[garys]

I have three jack hammers. One is on loan from Bruce Engen and it is a 90 lb pneumatic breaker that requires a tow behind air compressor to run. Have one of those but it has not run in a couple years so it will need some work to get it running. I think the compressor could be backed down the lower road and air lines run up the hill to do the hammering. I have an 75 lb electric breaker hammer that can be run with a small hand carried generator. Not as effective as the pneumatic hammer but it is effective if you can get the chissel in a seam in the rock and work the seam. Even the pneumatic hammer would have a tough time with the real solid rocks like the one right at launch. I think to tackle the solid rocks we will have to use a rotary hammer drill and carbide tipped masonry bits to drill a series of deep holes across the top of the rock then steel wedges to split the rocks open. Or drill the holes horizontal to the ground and split the rock off flush with the ground. I have a mid to large size rotary hammer and about four different size carbide tipped masonry bits that we can experiment with. I would love to do in the rock right at launch. It makes self launching a pita. I can drag the hammers down to WS any time. Preferrably in the cool weather though. Just need someone to bring a generator. Gary

[mingram]

Sweet!

[deveil]

" need ... a generator"

got two

[John Harper]

Well I hate to make people mad and I understand that a lot of people want to make the launch at Woodstock a perfect grass slope but we need to be careful messing with the forest service. Apparently we have already upset them with the way the carpet looked on launch. There have been many crashes at Woodstock where rescue has been called to help if we keep sticking out or asking to much at some point a ranger may decide we are to much trouble or even a liability and close the site completely. And trying to convince rangers we need to do this for safety is just telling then its unsafe. One important thing we need to remember we are not the only people to use that mountain they do not need us we need them. We can't afford to piss anyone off.

[Dan T]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we do this without getting their approval first.

The USFS is a "Land of Many Uses" culture. The National Parks Service (NPS) appears to have become a "land of nobody uses" culture. Let's take a sensibly modest proposal to USFS and see what they have to say. Let's not assume that we will get the same response from them that we would from the NPS.

The carpet is rolled up and out of the way. I checked out the big dumpsters on the Fort Valley side of the hill. The sign at the entrance says "video surveillance in place, household trash only, no dumping" (of this and that and ending with) "carpet." The nearest city dump is closed on Sunday.