Huge effort at sampling public opinions -- I appreciate that.  

But something is missing -- citizens, DCR, Virginia officials employees -- surely we all know that there is an urgency about protecting our land and all that live upon it.  "Ecological resiliency" may mean that to someone,  but hardly a phrase to express concern.  Recreation among trees is nice, wonderful even, but what are the threats to those trees?  And what is the value of those trees to much more than casual recreation -- shouldn't DCR include battling against the threats as important component of the VOP?  Trees' absorption of carbon, especially old trees, for example.  If that aspect of forestry isn't recognized, then trail-building can destroy the oldest trees without another thought.  The VOP should have a conscience.  Its grants should support projects based on that conscience, not just what a majority think is fun. (I do know the plan is more than "fun" but it fits that charge more closely than it should.)

The threats of global warming should be obvious, not just lurking un-mentioned in the background.  "Resiliency" as a single word doesn't quite indicate the complex issues involved.

A different issue: Dark skies are a particular interest of mine.  It's fine to encourage Dark Skies parks, but encouraging full-cutoff light fixtures in all our public buildings would go much further in reducing light pollution. Local governments' lighting ordinances and projects could use state support.

Finally, something to guide the public that picks up the VOP in how to use it would be helpful.  

Thank you for seeking out public comments.