[email protected] To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], 06/24/2008 10:13 AM [email protected] cc: [email protected] Subject: gw plan revision
b sachau the scandal plagued us dept of agriculture fs wants to hurry into a plan for george washington national forest. i think all plans should be put off until the new administration comes into power in january 2009. there is no real reason to hurry this plan now under the god awful bush cheney anti environmental and decimation of our national lands administration. this plan should be held off until january 2009. it is very clear how this present administration has done nothing except utter devastation of all lands that are owned by national taxpayers. they have slashed and burned every single area they could for their lumber baron friends, their cattle rancher campaign donors, etc. the people are left with the end result of horrible environmental degradation on lands that they bled taxes for for eons. this plan should be put off and postponed. you can csend me a paper copy for further comment. b. sachau 15 elm st florham park nj07932
[Federal Register: June 24, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 122)][Notices] [Page 35632-35633]From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov][DOCID:fr24jn08-27] ------DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREForest ServiceRevision of Land Management Plan for the George Washington National Forest, Virginia and West VirginiaAGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.ACTION: Notice of adjustment for resuming the land management plan revision process------SUMMARY: The USDA, Forest Service is resuming preparation of the George Washington National Forest revised land management plan as directed by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Preparation of the revised plan was halted when the 2005 Forest Service planning rule was enjoined. A new planning rule (36 CFR Part 219 was adopted on April 21, 2008 allowing the planning process to be resumed. This notice resumes the plan revision process under the new 2008 planning rule. This notice also provides:1. An estimated schedule for the planning process;2. Request for additional public comments on the agency's draft Comprehensive Evaluation Report, and how the public can comment;[[Page 35633]]3. A list of documents available and how to get them;4. Who to contact for more information.DATES: This notice is effective on June 24, 2008. Comments on the draft Comprehensive Evaluation Report are requested to be postmarked or received by August 8, 2008. A series of public meetings will resume beginning in July 2008. The dates, times and locations of these meetings will be posted at our Internet Web site: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/. This information can also be obtained from the contact information below. More detailed information on the proposed schedule is in the Supplementary Information Section.ADDRESSES: Written comments on the need for change are being accepted. Send written comments to George Washington Plan Revision, George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, 5162 Valleypointe Parkway, Roanoke, Virginia 24019-3050. Electronic comments should include ``GW Plan Revision'' in the subject line and be sent to: [email protected] .Additional information on the GWNF Forest Plan is available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken Landgraf, Planning Staff Officer, or JoBeth Brown, Public Affairs Officer, George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, (540) 265-5100.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notification of initiation of plan revision process for the George Washington National Forest revised land management plan was provided in the Federal Register on February 15, 2007 [72 FR 7390]. The plan revision was initiated under the planning procedures contained in the 2005 Forest Service planning rule (36 CFR 219 (2005)). On March 30, 2007, the federal district court for the Northern District of California enjoined the Forest Service from implementing and using the 2005 planning rule until the agency provided notice and comment and conducted an assessment of the rule's effects on the environment and completed consultation under the Endangered Species Act. Revision of the George Washington National Forest revised land management plan under the (36 CFR 219 (2005)) rule was suspended in response t o the injunction. On April 21, 2008 the Forest Service adopted a new planning rule. This rule (36 CFR 219 (2008)) was adopted following completion of an environmental impact statement and consultation under the Endangered Species Act. This new planning rule explicitly allows the resumption of plan revisions started under the previous rule (36 CFR 219 (2005)) based on a finding that the revision process conforms to the new planning rule (36 CFR 219.14(b)(3)(ii)).Prior to injunction of the 2005 planning rule the George Washington National Forest had developed a draft Comprehensive Evaluation Report on the need for change. The Forest had just begun to engage the American public in a dialogue on what they thought needed to be changed from the 1993 revised Forest Plan. Only one series of public meetings had occurred during March 2007 prior to the injunction.Based primarily on the discussion above, I find that the planning actions taken prior to April 21, 2008 conform to the planning process of the 2008 planning rule and for that reason the plan revision process does not need to be restarted.The Need for ChangeThe GWNF Forest Plan was last revised in 1993. Planning regulations require that plans be revised at least every 15 years. The 1993 revision was a major effort that involved the participation of many stakeholders. The purpose of the current revision is to examine management direction that needs to change and determine how best to make those changes.Based upon new information acquired in the past year, the Forest Service has appended its initial Comprehensive Evaluation Report of February 2007 with social and economic conditions and trends. The George Washington National Forest is resuming its plan revision process by seeking additional public comments on the need to change the 1993 plan.Planning ScheduleAfter resumption of the planning process, the Forest Service will hold a series of public meetings. The Forest Supervisor will then determine which issues will be carried forward for further analysis in the revis ion process.Additional public meetings will then be held throughout the summer and fall of 2008 to discuss development of the Forest Plan components in response to the issues that will be carried forward for further analysis. In early spring of 2009 the Forest Service expects to release a Proposed Forest Plan for formal public review and comment. A notice will be published in the Federal Register that will begin an official 90-day comment period on the Proposed Forest Plan. The Forest Service will review the comments, hold additional public meeting(s), and then make any appropriate changes to the Proposed Forest Plan. Another notice will then be published in the Federal Register to begin a 30-day objection period. This is anticipated to be published in the summer or early fall of 2009. After any objections are resolved, the Forest Plan will be approved by the Forest Supervisor.Documents Available for ReviewA number of documents are available for review. These are available at the Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/r8/gwj/_. Additional documents will be added to this site throughout the planning process.How the Public Can Participate in the Planning ProcessA series of public meetings will be held beginning in July 2008. The planning process will emphasize those things that need to change from the 1993 Forest Plan. The focus of the current planning regulations is on establishing a collaborative approach to planning. Therefore, the best opportunity for dialogue is to participate in the discussions at the various public meetings to be held throughout the process. These meetings will all be announced on the GWNF Web site. A formal comment opportunity will be provided when the Proposed Forest Plan is completed.Only parties that participate in the planning process through the submission of written comments can submit an objection pursuant to 36 CFR 219.13(a).Responsible Off icialThe Forest Supervisor, George Washington & Jefferson National Forests, is the Responsible Official (36 CFR 219.2(b)(1)).Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1600-1614; 36 CFR 219.14; 73 FR 21468, April 21, 2008.Dated: June 16, 2008.Maureen Hyzer,Forest Supervisor.[FR Doc. E8-14292 Filed 6-23-08; 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 3410-11-P
************** Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
Get the Moviefone Toolbar. Showtimes, theaters, movie news, & more! "George Alderson" To:
Dear Forest Service:
Please include this message as our comment for the workshop series. We will be away on vacation during the entire period of the five workshops from July 14 to July 28. I (George) have visited the GWNF and have friends who have lived in communities near the forest. The GW is a very important part of our regional landscape. Maryland has no national forests, so we depend on our nearest ones the GW and Monongahela for recreation in a wild land setting.
We believe an environmental impact statement is needed to support this plan revision. The Bush administration has tried to get around the requirements of NEPA, but we believe their shortcut is doomed to failure. The EIS helps the public participate and understand the diverse impacts of forest plans.
We have the following suggestions for changes in the management of the GW:
1. More wilderness. I remember 35 years ago when the Forest Service said nothing east of the Mississippi could be considered for wilderness designation. Fortunately that overly cautious policy was rejected by the United States Congress. More wilderness is needed, and we hope to see some good wilderness recommendations in the forest plan revision. Wilderness is the best way to protect wild lands because it can't be revoked by the hasty decision of a political appointee, like what happened in 2003 when Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton abolished millions of acres of BLM wilderness inventory areas in the West. The statutory protection of wilderness is the best protection available.
2. Review Inventoried Roadless Areas. Determine whether any intrusions have degraded the roadless values of these areas, such as new roads or logging. The plan revision should tell how these areas will be managed to protect their wild character under the national Roadless Area Conservation Rule. Those qualified should be recommended for wilderness designation.
3. Reduce clearcut logging. The use of clearcut logging on the GW should be reduced, because it degrades the recreational value of the forest. The plan revision should provide for substitution of thinning and other low-impact silvicultural approaches, which have been used in western forests with great success.
4. Restrict ORVs. A few national forests have barred ORVs entirely. The GW should consider barring them. At present you have four ORV trails of 10 to 36 miles each. The plan revision should examine whether these are causing degradation of lands, waters, fish and wildlife habitat, and whether they are interfering with the enjoyment of the forest by other visitors who seek a quiet recreational experience such as picnicking, fishing, hiking, or camping. No ORVs should be allowed in Inventoried Roadless Areas or anywhere near wilderness areas, because their noise and impacts destroy wild land values that people seek on the GW.
5. Protect trail corridors. The lands visible from the Appalachian National Scenic Trail, Tuscarora Trail, and other major hiking trails should be protected in the plan revision by prohibiting clearcutting and new roads. The Forest Service should seek the advice of trail-building organizations such as Potomac Appalachian Trail Club and Appalachian Trail Conservancy.
Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
George & Frances Alderson 112 Hilton Avenue Baltimore, MD 21228 Email: [email protected] MarkC To: [email protected]
[My apologies : We did not use the required Subject line when this email was previously sent. So I am resending, in the event that you are making use of automatic filters to channel email to the appropriate parties.]
Included below is a text-only version of a letter that the Capital Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (CHGPA) intends to present to the representatives of the George Washington National Forest who attend the Monday, July 14th meeting in Woodstock, VA, regarding the 2008 Forest Plan Revision.
Our letter references several attachments that cannot be provided at this moment, but which **will** be available at the time of the meeting.
Please consider this an expression of interest on the part of the CHGPA. We would like to be placed on the schedule of speakers for the meeting, and provide our comments in their entirety.
Sincerely,
Mark Cavanaugh CHGPA Webmaster
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mark Cavanaugh CHGPA Webmaster 4606 Coachway Drive Rockville, MD 20852
George Washington Plan Revision George Washington & Jefferson National Forests 5162 Valleypointe Parkway Roanoke, VA 24019
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Mark Cavanaugh. I am a board member of the Capital Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (CHGPA) (Website: www.chgpa.org ), and I represent approximately 150 active hang–glider and paraglider pilots from the Washington DC, Virginia, and Maryland areas, and an additional 100 enthusiasts who support our sports. I am writing to voice our concerns about the 2008 Forest Plan Revision for the George Washington National Forest (GWNF), and the possibility that power-generating windmills could be constructed in the forest, given that the new plan includes a map titled ‘Areas Generally Suitable for Wind Generation Sites’.
Our statement regarding the Forest plan has three aims:
1) To convey the unique character of Massanutten Mountain that makes it so valued by our flying community. 2) To describe the impact that the construction of power-generating windmills in the George Washington National Forest could have on the hang gliding and paragliding pilots who use the Forest. 3) To emphasize the importance of well-founded cost/benefit analyses for any wind-generation projects that might be considered for the George Washington National Forest.
For over twenty years, our pilots have enjoyed silently soaring above the western side of Massanutten Mountain, which extends from Strasburg Virginia in the north to Harrisonburg Virginia in the south. For your reference we are providing a map, derived from the map of potential wind generation sites in the proposed 2008 Revision Plan, which indicates the portion of the Forest that we fly above (see Attachment #1) . Our launch site within the Forest is just east of the town of Woodstock, Virginia.
This mountain ridge is unique in the entire Mid-Atlantic area, for two reasons:
1) Massanutten’s western slopes form an unbroken soarable ridge nearly 50 miles in length that supports flights of many hours duration, with sights that include: the ‘Seven Bends’ of the Shenandoah River; an expansive vista of forested mountain slopes below; views of Signal Knob and other striking locations; and (to the east) the craggy profiles of the mountains in Shenandoah National Park. No flying site within 300 miles of the GWNF combines such geographic drama with the opportunities for extended soaring flight. 2) Due to the upwind presence of the Allegheny Front, wind conditions on Massanutten’s western slopes are often reduced to the point that HG & PG flight is safe and feasible. Given the frequency of strong frontal passages, especially in the spring and fall, this means that we can fly on many occasions that are un-flyable at any other location. In our experience, the wind velocities on Massanutten are 10mph to 15mph lower than at sites that lie beyond the Shenandoah valley. This behavior is so well-known to the soaring community that a term has been coined for it: The Woodstock Effect.
These features make Massanutten the premiere flying destination for every pilot in our association. We are providing a photo, taken by a local hang-glider pilot, which we hope will give you a sense of what we experience when flying above the Forest (see Attachment #2).
The construction of a wind farm for the purposes of power generation would have the most severe impact possible for our hang-gliding and paragliding community: it would effectively shut down the entire ridge to flight operations. Towers 400 feet tall with rotors 150 feet across (typical dimensions for windmills) simply are not compatible with safe soaring flight. Although flight altitudes vary, nearly every flight includes segments that are within several hundred feet of the mountain top.
But the impact on our community is just a small part of the picture. The development of power-generating windmills requires roads to be built; forest land to be cleared; foundation sites to be excavated, and a power grid to be established. These activities would result in a fundamental and irrevocable alteration to the nature of the George Washington National Forest, for current and future generations. Hikers, tourists, bird watchers, hunters, trail-runners, sightseers, mountain bikers, backpackers : All would experience a very different forest from what we know today.
A photo that illustrates some of these possible impacts is provided for your reference (Attachment #3). It depicts construction for the wind-farm project at Mars Hill, Maine. We suggest that you imagine the effect that this type of work would have on the current Forest. A very sobering comparison can be made by placing our Attachment #2 and the Mars Hill photo side-by-side.
Given the costs and impacts, the development of wind power within the Forest must yield real and tangible benefits to a broad audience, not just to those who might be involved in wind-farm design and construction. In particular, given the previously mentioned ‘Woodstock Effect’, we suggest that comprehensive wind velocity studies should be undertaken prior to any project’s approval, and that the resulting data should be made public, in the same spirit that these public meetings are being held.
To conclude, we urge in the strongest possible way that any decision in support of wind-generation projects within the George Washington National Forest be backed by rigorous scientific study and a comprehensive assessment of all recreational, environmental, aesthetic, and economic impacts.
Thank you for your time and attention, and for all your efforts in maintaining and preserving our forest resources.
Very truly yours,
Mark Cavanaugh Webmaster CHGPA
Planning.comments.f To: [email protected] [email protected] cc: s Subject: 07/15/2008 10:23 AM
Submitted by: Jarrett Hering
At: [email protected]
Remark: I am a frequent visitor to the GWNF and JNF. I enjoy this beautiful land both on foot as a hiker/backpacker and via my off-road SUV. I truly enjoy the abililty to use this land in many differnt ways and I look forward to the continued efforts to preserve this land, yet make it available to all outdoor enthusiasts.
I would like to see an area designated for off-road vehicles only, one that promotes the sport of safe off-roading while providing terrain that enables the public to challenge themselves and their equipment. At these sites, trash/garbage recepticals would be a great addition and promote a clean trail system. Even, trash bins at the entrance/exit of the main MVU trails would help keep litter off the trails and out of the forrest.
I hike and backpack thru the park systems and truly feel blessed to have such lands availabe to enjoy. I feel that some of the most beautiful forrest is in VA, the GWNF/JNF is proof. I feel that there are ample designated camping sites, however I would like to see additional potable water sources if possible. The trail systems are great with a variety of terrain and difficulty and in general the trail maintenance is up to par.
I would like to see continued effort to improve the parks and to help preserve our trail systems for both feet and tires. I enjoy all the parks have to offer and I look forward to my next visit. Thank you for hearing my comments.
Best regards, Jarrett Hering
Planning.comments.f To: [email protected] [email protected] cc: s Subject: 07/15/2008 10:53 AM
Submitted by: Dr. Jeff Bang
At: [email protected]
Remark: I\'m trying to keep track of OHV opportunitites in our national forests.
Planning.comments.f To: [email protected] [email protected] cc: s Subject: 07/15/2008 04:04 PM
Submitted by: jeremy graham
At: [email protected]
Remark: I would love to see more trails on the forest for 4x4\'s and jeeps. Harder trails like the jeep trail in craig county and dictums ridge in rockingham. I tow my truck from GA to PA going to trails cause their are no local trails but them two that are hard.
Planning.comments.f To: [email protected] [email protected] cc: s Subject: 07/16/2008 02:25 AM
Submitted by: David Kronenfeld
At: [email protected]
Remark: To Whom It May Concern,
First, I would like to emphasize what a wonderful job the USFS does in providing venues for the enjoyment of the GWNF. I have made use of almost all types of USFS facilities over the past five years including campgrounds, wilderness areas, and OHV trails. My principal concern is with the preservation of access to, and maintenance of, OHV trails. I would encourage the USFS to work jointly with local off-road associations to have more trail maintenance days. Additionally, I would love to see more emphasis on the Tread Lightly philosophy (i.e. signs at trailheads, etc.) and the presence of more trash receptacles at trailheads and exits. I would encourage the USFS to leave the Second Mtn./Rocky Run connector trail open and perhaps increase the date ranges for its use. By incorporating off-road associations into trail maintenance and increasing the number of available trails, I believe that illegal OHV use can be cut down significantly. Having frequented many areas of the GWNF, I often find that the markings on some trails, roads, etc. can be vague to confusing at best. I would encourage the USFS to make designated OHV trails, etc. more readily identifiable so that individuals have no excuse for trespassing or using an illegal trail. I love the GWNF and want to see it preserved, but I also want to see it used by local and out of town visitors; something that I know can be accomplished.
Sincerely,
David Kronenfeld
Planning.comments.f To: [email protected] [email protected] cc: s Subject: 07/16/2008 01:37 PM
Submitted by: Robert Donaldson
At: [email protected]
Remark: I would like to see the continuous operation of the already currently open high clearance vehicle trails as well as the creation of new high clearance vehicle trails and reopening of closed trails. Perhaps more refuse receptacles at trail heads. Also, more visible trail maps and notices so that closed areas remain closed and vehicles remain on proper trails. A playground of sorts for high clearance vehicles would be an excellent addition.
"GSWCO" To:
1. No Wilderness areas!! 2. A public shooting range. There are no ranges in Shenandoah, Rockingham,in Va. or Hardy W.Va..WHY? 3.Wildlife Habitat improvements. There is not enough food in the forest. I feel they need to replant a area that has been timbered with halzel nut or mountain olive trees. Something! The Game Department tells us that why yoou dont see many deer in GWNF. SO the deer go on private where the game dep. gives out demap tags to kill anything any time. 4. Prescribe burns in western shenandoah co. 5.Allow coyote hunting year round in the Forest. thank you!
Planning.comments.f To: [email protected] [email protected] cc: s Subject: 07/16/2008 09:12 PM
Submitted by: Mike Crandall
At: [email protected]
Remark: I think these plans need to include enhancing the fire road system. The threat of wildland fire is getting worse than ever. We have too much burn matter on the ground or standing dead. As our area grows in population the need for prudent fire safety management need to be addressed. I would hate our area to be in the news like the recent fires in California. In this thought process we have a volunteer force that we are not utilizing. The existing fire roads and access roads could be maintained by the various off road and atv groups. These groups could help make sure the roads stay open and help to manage them. I have been on some of the recent fires in the National forest and on Park land as well as private land as a volunteer. Proper access roads make my job both easer and safer in a fire situation. It would be easy to make this happen and would cost a lot less than one major fire.
Planning.comments.f To: [email protected] [email protected] cc: s Subject: 07/16/2008 10:13 PM
Submitted by: John Keeney
At: [email protected]
Remark: I would like to see access to Jeep trails and fire roads be restored for recreational use. Over the years, many have been blocked or gated. I know many who would travel to the forest spending money in near by towns. The roads don\'t need to be maintained.
Thanks, John
Planning.comments.f To: [email protected] [email protected] cc: s Subject: 07/18/2008 10:59 AM
Submitted by: A. P. Grice
At: [email protected]
Remark: Let me preface this by saying that I was an overseer for the Appalachian Trail for 17 years...and have driven off-road vehicles for more than twice as many years....
I think the matter of opening more - or closing more - off-highway routes is analogous to what the Park Service has been doing with primitive camping sites in the SNP. Many years ago, they tried to \'concentrate\' campers around shelters and whatnot, but later, when these popular spots began to show the increased impact, changed policies to \'distribute\' campers throughout the back country.
I think the same applies to OHV trails in the GWNF....lessen impact on the few trails that are open by opening more, especially one that are historic or have in use for centuries. It is also vitally important to get various off-road clubs involved in the maintenance of these trails. Post the \'ownership\' of each at the trailhead. There will be far fewer \'problems\' with trail damage and littering.
"James S. Josefson" To: "[email protected]"
Jim Josefson Shenandoah Valley Trout Unlimited 18 W. High St. Stuarts Draft, VA 24477
George Washington Plan Revision George Washington & Jefferson National Forests 5162 Valleypointe Parkway Roanoke, VA 24019
Dear GW Plan Revision Committee,
I write to submit the following comment to the Geoerge Washington Plan Revision process.
The GW Plan Revision should maximize the maintance and recovery of brook trout and brook trout habitat, especially in the headwaters of the North River and South River, including:
1. 2. 3.
4.
5.
6.
Sincerely,
Jim Josefson
Planning.comments.f To: [email protected] [email protected] cc: s Subject: 07/28/2008 03:15 PM
Submitted by: William Burt
At: [email protected]
Remark: I strongly oppose the installation of windmill power generation farms in the George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. Some of my reasons are outlined below:
REASONS FOR PROTESTING THE PROLIFERATION OF WIND FARMS
DISTRUCTION OF NATURAL BEAUTY.
Like a scratch on a classic painting, 400 ft. high wind power generators interfere with the benefits of gazing upon nature, unmolested by human influence. These benefits include aesthetic enjoyment, a healthful calming effect, and replenishment of the soul. To gage the adverse effects of one significant wind farm, one that would replace one nuclear reactor, the view of people living within the 14,250 square mile area adjacent to such a wind farm would be disrupted. This assumes a stretch of destroyed mountain top of 194 miles, the expanse required to produce the equivalent wattage of one reactor, and 400 ft. towers perched atop 500 ft. mountain ranges, visible from as far away as 36.75 miles.
DISTRUCTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
The deforestation involved in constructing a typical wind farm offsets a lot of its environmental benefits. First 60 foot wide swaths of forest have to be cut down to build the roads needed to accommodate the one million pound cranes that erect the towers. In addition, each wind mill requires about an acre of felled forest. The permanent loss of these CO absorbing trees and expense of energy needed to construct the wind farm, are no friends of the environment. That windmills are hazards to migrating birds is well known. Finally, there is no such thing as free energy. The natural flow of air over the terrain near these massive wind farms has to be altered to some extent by the absorption of energy by the windmills. This could have a negative effect on the air quality in the local region. The flushing effect that cleans the air in valleys down stream from the wind farm would be reduced, encouraging stagnant air.
ECONOMICS
Wind farms adversely affect local property values. The Victoria (Australia) State Government is amending its planning laws to alert potential home buyers of planned wind farm locations (attachment 1). This is to protect potential home buyers from being unpleasantly surprised by a wind farm sprouting up next door, thus ruining the aesthetic value of their new home. Chatham-Kent and Erie Beach (England) residents state that they would have “never purchased their dream home --- if they knew wind turbines --- “ (Attachment 2). The Scottish Government was persuaded by some 2,400 objectors to reject a wind farm project near Pentland Hills on the basis of “serious detrimental impact --- on the local environment (Attachment 3).
MORAL
It is just plane morally wrong to cause considerable disruption of the lives of those people adversely affected by the encroachment of wind farms for the minor benefit of those power consumers in the far away cities. Why not build wind farms atop the high-rises in the cities, where the power in consumed?
"Carol Lena Miller" To:
I mailed a letter with comments for the GW Forest Plan Revision.
However, I forgot to include this very important comment:
I oppose the Marshall Run Timber Sale in the Beech Lick Knob roadless area. Beech Lick Knob is perhaps the largest un-inventoried roadless area left on the GW and needs to be added to the roadless inventory. The area contains extensive old-growth (as documented by SELC); we should not build roads and should not log in this area. The agency should manage it as a "special area" which is not suitable for timber harvesting and new road-building.
Thank you, Carol Lena Miller 4939 Ottobine Rd. Dayton, VA 22821
Planning.comments.f To: [email protected] [email protected] cc: s Subject: 08/04/2008 11:36 PM
Submitted by: Coastal Canoeists, David Bernard, Conservation Chair
At: [email protected]
Remark: Coastal Canoeists is a Virginia-based club for recreational canoeists and kayakers. We have about 400 members in Virginia and some nearby states. Our name comes from our founders, the naval architects and marine engineers of Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Company. We paddle all over, especially on Virginia and other southeastern whitewater streams.
Coastal Canoeists takes a great interest in the national forests of Virginia. Most of the streams we paddle originate in these forests. Our interests are served if the forests are managed so as to protect water quality above short-term commercial interests. Clean clear water is not only more enjoyable to paddle, it is also a great benefit and safer to be able to see the rocks under the surface.
Forests should be managed to recognize that providing clean water and natural space for recreation are more economically valuable to surrounding communities than some traditional activities such as commercial logging.
Of course we recreational paddlers are not the only ones who will benefit from making clean water the priority. Aquatic life from the mountain streams to the Chesapeake Bay will benefit, as will those who depend on water withdrawals and who enjoy water recreation farther downstream.
Some conservation groups make a priority of protecting and restoring roadless areas in the national forest. That is OK with us so long as it does not sacrifice reasonable access to upstream putins on certain small streams.
"Virginia Tyack" To:
To whom it may concern: I am a Master Naturalist and fully support the “Forests for the Future” plan and roadless area conservation to protect our irreplaceable forest heritage.
Thank you, Virginia Tyack bruce ritchie To: [email protected]
I have attending your meeting at Hot Springs on July 28 and expressed my concern that the new GW forest plan seems vague and without backbone. For example, the listing of water quality, biological diversity, recreation, resources(logging/minerals) does not state a clear priority of values, and would allow that recreation COULD take priority over water quality or biological diversity. It bothers me that there is no clearly articulated priority of values. Logging operations should not occur where soil organic matter levels are not maintained or increased. Many believe our soils were at 5% Organic Matter (humic fraction by weight) before the New World was settled by whites. How do our forests compare to this now? Because I live on the German River, two minutes walking time from the Beech Lick Knob roadless area, I am also concerned about the proposed wind turbines that are being considered. Though wind turbines could be a valuable part of our country's move toward intelligent and frugal conservation of our resources, it could also be (in my late grampa Warren Turner's term) "A FART IN A WINDSTORM." To jeapordize our national forest and the animals/birds that live there, and still continue our nation's wasteful gluttenous resource consumption would be to "throw pearls before swine." I would like to know that you (forest service) have more concern for your role as stewards of God's precious creation than to allow such a thing to happen. On the other hand, if our nation can turn it's ways around, and learn to not waste it's resources, then wind turbines that are carefully placed and operated might help save our air and be a value to the nation. Please put some substance and backbone into your plan, and clearly articulate a priority of values that places your preservation goals (water quality,biological diversity)above logging and recreation goals. Require that these forests are sustainable(healthy) first, and then consider other goals as secondary. sincerely, Bruce w. Ritchie 24234 german river rd. criders, va. 22820
Planning.comments.f To: [email protected] [email protected] cc: s Subject: 08/06/2008 12:31 PM
Submitted by: Mark Miller
At: [email protected]
Remark: Howdy planners,
While at the Hot Springs meeting there was some confusion about what was acceptable and unacceptable management pratices in roadless areas. I was wondering if you could address this issue in the frequently asked question section. Specifically the confusion was what types of timber harvesting is allowed in a roadless area. There was a belief that most any tpye of harvesting is acceptable as long as there is a road. I am not sure this is correct but I am hot sure. Therefore, it would be prudent to help clarify the issue.
Many thanks and keep up the good work.
Mark Miller
"Johnson, Jennifer" To:
Dear Mr. Landgraf:
There needs to be more emphasis on environmental and economic assessment in our planning for the largest national forest east of the Mississippi.
Our drinking water, which is in shorter and shorter supply, needs to be protected in EVERY WAY. Allowing logging and road-building in the GWNF is going to destroy our biggest protection again water degradation.
In addition, I think it's extremely important that we keep Virginia wild for our future generations. There are so many children who are completely cut off from the wilderness and we can't sacrifice our forests before they have a chance to reconnect with it.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Johnson 630 Park St. Charlottesville, VA 22902