Woodstock Proposal

[RichH]

What John mentions is true..that is why over a year ago we discussed doing modest improvements to the launch site in an effort to make the footing more secure, and to try to reduce erosion ..as well as hopefully create a longer running area..We also discussed taking down a minimum of trees all of which could have been accomplished within the District Rangers authority.. Creating a more ambitious plan risks the involvement in others outside the District Rangers Office which in my experience could take a long time to get approved. My advice ..1.Tailor any plan to one that can be accomplished within the District Rangers office...2. Keep any plan in keeping with the Forest Management Objectives..3. Do some now in the hopes we can do more later..I think its time we stop kicking this can down the road or we risk losing one of the best sites on the east coast...Rich Hiegel

[deveil]

"...Tyler knows John McAllister well..."

Probably a most critical factor in any such equation…credibility, that is. IMHO

(inside Or outside the beltway)

[Dan T]

Here is the USFS follow up to my earlier correspondence. I'd like to point out a few important points:

If we can keep it under the $2,500 threshold that invokes the "excellence by design review" process the whole approval might go faster.
Can someone get in touch with John McAllister and let him know that Tyler is trying to reach him?
Tyler has asked for a picture of the slot with carpets in it. I don't think that means we should put carpets back in it. I think we are much better off by perhaps showing a picture of what it looked like when we were using the carpets and what it looks like now without them.

Dan

----------



Dan,

Thanks for all the information. I have a much better grasp now. It is significant that you state the Woodstock site is “one of the finest flying sites in the country” and we would like keep that resource here on the Lee RD. The carpet is an unacceptable fix for unsafe conditions and we would definitely like to have it removed. We could use a picture of the site with the carpet to illustrate the need for safety improvements to the site. I will try to get one taken this week or next or if you have one you can provide that would be great too. In my opinion, an ideal fix would remove the need for carpet to ever be hauled out there again.

So, after a little asking around, it does not sound like this project should be a huge deal or take years to accomplish. We do have to go through an “Excellence by Design” process that is intended to ensure we have thought through the project sufficiently and have anticipated any consequences (environmental or otherwise).

That process will require a written proposal complete with pictures and drawings that illustrate exactly what is proposed. If your club has decided to go with the proposal John has put forward I can work with him to get this proposal written.



A few of things to keep in mind for this proposal.

1. There is a $2500.00 threshold under which the project is “Routine” and perhaps not subject to the Excellence by Design Review Process. It is hard to get much done on top of a mountain for less than $2500.00 though so I kind of anticipate the cost will exceed this.

2. There are limits to what volunteers can do with motorized equipment on the National Forest. This may affect the ability to easily get soil to the site. I will need to find out specifics on this but we might find a work around.

3. The type of soil and vegetation established will have to be carefully considered. Non Native Invasive plants are a big problem on the forest and we do not want to encourage them. Herbicide spraying to control unwanted plants should be part of this project.

4. The club will be responsible for the expenses and labor for this project. The district will provide support in any way we can but money is tight right now.



So the next step might be for me to get together with John for a site visit or to at least get him on the phone to discuss. We could also look at the Edith Gap site which has been recently worked on but, still needs a good bit of attention. I don’t have an e-mail address for John so if you would like to forward this to him (assuming you have his e-mail) he can respond directly. If you would like to visit the site(s) with me that would be great too. I’m not sure where you live. I am going to be on this detail for about 3 months so the sooner we get started the better. I would like to get a proposal submitted before I leave. I am looking forward to working with your club to improve your launch sites here on the Lee. Tyler

[deveil]

I'm sure that everyone is relieved and pleased to see that the vibe is good.
a thanks to John and Dan for that, eh?

[markc]

Much discussion of the proposal for improving the Woodstock launch occurred during the Spring 2013 CHGPA meeting. I learned/re-learned several important things during that meeting:

1) Aside from Bill's Hill (which is very rarely flyable), there are no flying sites managed by CHGPA that are solidly "friendly" for new PG pilots. The Pulpit is technical because of its location between the two HG ramps. High Rock is completely out (at least right now). Woodstock is a narrow slot launch, with unfriendly rock outcrops in both the canopy-inflation area and down the slope. So the options for a new P-2 in these parts are seriously limited.

2) If this situation is to be addressed at Woodstock, the slot needs to be at least 2 PG-canopies in width. This would give newer PG pilots (and everyone, for that matter!) the lateral space that they need to deal with crossing winds in the slot.

3) Remediation of rock outcrops helps *all* pilots, both PG and HG. Although PGers might be somewhat more at risk of an impact (picture what's needed to keep a canopy overhead, as a PG pilot shifts around within the slot), the reality is that everyone benefits from the removal of solid & unforgiving objects. Plus, the airflow is more uniform when there are no obstacles.

So.... I really *DO* get all of this. And I'm in favor of improvements to the launch site, absolutely.

HOWEVER....

I ALSO want to see the natural and unique character of Woodstock preserved! I've been flying the site for nearly 20 years, and at this point, I get nearly as much enjoyment watching sunset/moonrise from launch as I do from the air. What's my worry? After a great day of flying, after heading up to launch at the end of the day, that I'll feel like I am :

a) Sitting in the middle of an astro-turfed football field (of whatever color, black or grey or brown or green).

b) Sitting in the middle of a gravel parking lot.

I *strongly* urge those who are planning the improvement to consider the natural appeal of the site, and to do whatever it takes to preserve its appeal for decades yet to come.

During the meeting, I heard some people express concern that launch-improvement solutions which included grasses or other native plants could be problematic, because they would require maintenance.

Really? That's an issue???? Perhaps for some.... But I will fight for such a solution, if the alternatives are astroturf or a parking lot.

There are all kinds of really cool possibilities here, involving tiered/terraced landscaping, and multiple types of surfaces in different parts of the slot. They might not be the cheapest... But come on, we're talking about the "Seven Bends of the Shenandoah River", and an area which is enjoyed by far more than just our flying community.

MarkC

[deveil]

If that were put in front of me as a petition I, personally, would sign it.

That's about as precise and succinct as I can be, I suppose.

I thank Mark for composing and posting that because for me it captures and addresses both the practical and the emotional.


And

I was wondering where that "Voice" had disappeared to.

hmmm… Mark as the new Joni Mitchell…can he sing?


And

performing as the Hallelujah Chorus (seeking additional members), garyDevan


And

maintenance schmaintance - sign me up - been there, done that, been doing it.