Search Results for “photo line of green ” | Page 12

My Concerns with a Nine County Solid Waste Authority

Dear Decision Maker:

I am writing you to express my concerns with the Regional Solid Waste Management Authority Study, recently completed by Albany County. I became concerned with solid waste issues back in 2003 when I was a college student studying part-time at SUNY Albany, and stumbled upon the Albany Pine Bush, and discovered how wasteful our urban societies really are.

I grew up on my parents land out in Westerlo in Hilltowns of Albany County. We never had trash pick up, in part because we never had a lot of trash. My parents where working class, they struggled to find good paying work after the early-1990s recession. We grew or raised a lot of our food, burned and composted what “waste” we could on our little farm. It was a sin to toss a recyclable can or bottle in with the burnable trash, and food scraps and other organics wasn’t just something to be wasted in burn barrel. Some see a carved up animal carcass, I see valuable organic materials. On my parents farm, trips to transfer station where rare. We often took more home from the Westerlo transfer station, then we sent to the Albany landfill.

This was totally different then what I saw going on in the city, where food waste was “just garbage”, recycling was at best window dressing or a political statement, and people didn’t really care much about the impact of their garbage output. I saw this urban garbage was being dumped in beautiful Albany Pine Bush — are rare ecological oasis in an urban waste land. This landfill will close soon due to this wastefulness. I couldn’t believe city folk would even dream of tossing a valuable aluminum can in the trash.

Today, I also am very aggressive in avoiding waste myself, bringing organic waste out to my parents farm, and hauling the carefully separated recyclables and a minimal amount of trash to the Rupert Road Transfer Station a couple of times of year. I don’t have weekly trash pickup here. Just following what I learned growing up, I know it’s wrong to be wasteful and generate a lot of trash.

I believe we must change how we deal with waste in our cities.

Since becoming a resident of Town of Bethlehem in 2007, I have voted in all elections including primaries and school board, and are involved in numerous local political campaigns, particularly when there are true progressive leaders fighting to change our community for the better. I am an active member of Save the Pine Bush, and are constantly advocating for more conservation of the Albany Pine Bush, and for better recycling and especially organic waste recovery policies in our cities.

Below are my comments on the “Regional Solid Waste Management Authority Study”, please review them carefully. Thank you for your consideration! If you have questions, please don’t hesitate to call my cell at 518-281-9873 or email andy@andyarthur.org.

Sincerely,

Andy Arthur

“The policy of the state shall be to conserve and protect its natural resources and scenic beauty and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural lands for the production of food and other agricultural products.”
— Article XIV Section 4, NY State Constitution

Point 1: Study Should Analyze Best Way to Get to Zero Waste

Study spends too much time considering how to build and construct a disposal facility. There are more then adequate trash landfills and incinerators to dispose of waste within our state for the foreseeable future.
Study should define best practices for maximizing recycling and organics recovery, not disposal.
Many studies have shown that large disposal facilities — incinerators or landfills — are expensive to run and cannibalize recycling efforts.
If a solid waste agency builds a 1,000 ton per day incinerator or landfill, it will require that much trash. If it can’t find that amount of trash, it will reduce recycling efforts to have enough trash to fill the incinerator or landfill. This undermines efforts to get to zero waste or near zero waste by increasing recycling and composting of organic materials.
The study should include a 20-year plan similar to that of the recently submitted Albany Solid Waste Management Plan that proposes steady reductions in disposal of waste in favor of recycling.
The study should have a Zero Waste goal, where nearly all waste is recycled and organics are recovered. Many communities across the country have adopted a Zero Waste goal and are vastly more aggressive in recycling and organics recovery then what this study is proposing.

Point 2: Public Authorities Are Anti-democratic

The study fails to acknowledge the benefits of competition, and how having competing transfer stations or disposal facilities could lower disposal costs.
Authorities are anti-democratic. Citizens have the right to influence their leaders on what solid waste facilities are build and what solid waste laws are implemented. The study should not call for the authority to decide on disposal facilities — it’s up to elected officials to decide.
The lack of competition with an Authority will lead to large bureaucratic overhead, waste, fraud, and abuse.
Citizens and elected officials have a right to know ahead of time what kind of disposal facilities if any would be constructed prior to creation of an authority.
Local communities should have a voice in process and all decisions should be made by consensus of all communities. A large governmental body makes consensus impossible.
Communities named in an authority’s legislation are stuck in the authority until the legislature amends the law or allows it sunset, regardless of democratic choice. Any solid waste agency should be democratic in nature, and allow communities to freely join or leave it with sufficient notice (e.g. 90 days).

Point 3: Study Fails to Acknowledge Alternatives

The study does not analysis the effectiveness of a Solid Waste District similar to those in Vermont. A Solid Waste District would have no employees or bureaucracy, but is a consistent set of regulations and permitting guidelines administered by multiple towns.
The study fails to show what is wrong with the current ANSWERS structure. While the current ANSWERS disposal facility will close shortly, ANSWERS for many years has relied on communities contracting with private recycling brokers. Why can’t communities also contract with private disposal brokers, while maintaining a coordination of solid waste planning through the current ANSWERS board?
Citizens should be free to choose what hauler and disposal or recycling facility they use. Some may choose a landfill for disposal of their waste, while others seeking a more different option, may prefer extra to have waste hauled to an incinerator. The choice of disposal facility should be a key part of a any plan, to allow citizens weight costs and benefits of different facilities.
Consider creating a “Green Rating” system for trash haulers. Let consumers choose if what lower-value materials they wish to be recycled, and what kind of disposal facility they wish to pay for.

Point 4: Town of Colonie, 8 Other Counties Have Not Expressed Interest in this Proposed Authority

The study claims to be on behalf of a 9-county region. However, only ANSWERS Communities have given resolutions in support of this study, and most notably the Town of Colonie has not given a resolution of support of the study. No other town or county, has formally stated their support or opposition to creation of a regional authority. Why not?
Would Saratoga or Rensselaer Counties want to join the Authority, if they knew a massive 1,000 tons per day incinerator or landfill was going to built in their county, and all of the trash from Albany County through Otsego County was going to be hauled there?
If other counties and non-ANSWERS towns are interested in creating an authority, they should be at the table now, and their citizens and elected officials should be kept fully informed. All counties, all towns, and all regions MUST have regular meetings on this topic, and a full debate in each community must occur prior joining any solid waste agency.

Point 5: 9 County Regional Authority Would Ignore Need for Rural Area Flexibility, Differences in Urban vs Rural Waste Stream

Waste compositions varies by town and by county. Different regions have different disposal needs. For example, farmers and rural residents may burn or bury some of their wastes on site rather then needing a centralized facility. Wastes generated on a farm are significantly different then those generated by a commercial center or urban resident.
In rural communities, it may make sense to have town owned and operated source-separated organics composting facilities or even disposal facilities for non-toxic farm and household trash. Decentralized composting and disposal facilities (e.g. less then 20 tons per day) will have a far lower impact on surrounding communities then large facilities.
Recycling programs should be tailored towards large generators of waste in a community. An centralized authority could not adequately focus on need to recycle agricultural plastics and agricultural chemicals, while also focusing on recycling of urban organic wastes or electronic waste.

Point 6: Polluter Pays, No Taxpayer Subsidies

Any disposal program should operate without taxpayer subsidies. Polluter pays. There should be no volume discounts — a person who disposes 10 lbs of trash should pay the same proportional rate as a corporation who disposes of 200 tons of trash.
Those who do not use the services of ANSWERS should not pay for it. For example a farmer or rural resident who burns or buries non-toxic waste on their property, should not be charged for disposal of that waste. Those who compost on their property should not pay for commercial composting operations.
No taxpayer subsidies for waste disposal, all services administered by ANSWERS should come from those who seek to recycle or dispose of a material.

Point 7: Small is Beautiful

Study over states the benefits of scaling up facilities and bureaucracy.
Numerous political science studies show that larger bureaucracies are less efficient, more subject to waste, fraud, and abuse. If a bureaucracy employees hundreds of persons it is difficult to maximize productivity and keep employees from watching Youtube at work.
Avoiding the bureaucracy of an authority, by simply using existing structures reduces cost and waste.
Large landfills, trash incinerators, recycling plants are more polluting. While large facilities may have better pollution controls then small facilities, large facilities inherently release more pollution in aggregate, have more truck traffic, and more potential for serious harm.
A 1,000 tons per day incinerator puts out 1,000 tons per day of carbon dioxide. That’s 365,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide, that could be avoided — or possibly a multiple of the number, by increasing recycling or organics composting.
Ask yourself, would you prefer to live next door to a 20-tons per day unlined town landfill, only consisting of local household trash and farm waste, or a massive 1,000 tons per day incinerator burning unsorted and largely unregulated mixed waste next door? How about being downwind of a neighboring farm’s burn barrel vs living next to a 1,000 tons per day incinerator burning mixed waste from far away? Again, while some pollutants may be better controlled by a mega-facility, the reality is other pollutants will increase and be particularly burdensome to the host community.
No disposal or recycling facility should be larger then 100 tons per day, and all facilities should be decentralized and close to sources of waste generation. Where scale is necessary to overcome costs of pollution control, it must be as small as possible and use the least toxic processes possible.
A large incinerator or landfill would incur significant costs and would require a large amount of trash to be disposed on it. This would undermine attempts at expanding recycling efforts.
Least desirable facilities (incinerators, landfills, recycling plants, composting plants) should be spread over as many communities as possible to be fair and democratic. It should not just target poor rural or urban communities, but include facilities in wealthy suburban communities too.
No one community should have the burden of disposal of waste for a nine-county region. It is especially obscene to site a large disposal facility in a rural or farming region, where many farmers may have traditionally disposed of their own waste on-farm, and are not responsible for the entire region’s long-term solid waste problem.

Off-Street Urban Parking

I am a believer in off-street parking for all urban residents. I think single family or small apartment buildings offer more green space, and better protect people’s second largest investment — their automobile. On-street parking is troublesome for many reasons:

Cars get damaged from other cars parallel parking, accidents, vandalism.
Cars parked on-street take up room that could be used by pedestrians, bus lanes, bicyclists.
Cars parked on street have to drive around searching for a space.
Cars parked on street have to be moved every couple of days to allow for street cleaning and repair.

In contrast is the alternative off-street parking. Unlike some claim, providing off-street parking does not require people to be automobile dependent or even frequently use their automobile. Indeed, many more suburban areas like Albany or Delmar can provide an urban experience, not reliant on private automobiles.Good urban areas should include an off-street residential parking component:

Off street parking allows cars to sit for a weeks at a time, when they are unneccessary for urban trips made on foot, by bicycle, or by mass-transit.
It protects people’s investments in expensive automobiles while they are being used, and keeps people from having to move the automobiles for street cleaning.

At the same time, off-street parking should be intregrated with a quality urban environment, that allows automobiles to be largely reserved for recreational purposes.

Regular frequent transit within a couple of a blocks, with frequent trips to shops and other major employment.
Roads with side walks with trees to comfort the walker, and medians that are tree lined, to provide more beauty and enjoyment.
Small stores nearby to provide convience items, along with frequent bus service to larger shopping center for more specialized items and lower prices.

Off-street parking need not take up a lot of space. Off-street parking can be accomidated in many compact ways:

Short driveways/paths from alleys to garages behind houses.
Short driveways between houses, just long enough to get a couple of cars off the street.
Small areas next to houses, just large enough to park cars.

While it makes a lot of sense to have off-street parking for the primarily recreational automobile, on-street parking should be kept too for the visitor or even the secondary “beater” automobile. While most residences should have off-street parking, it makes sense to allow additional people to come, using private automobiles if they so choose, for occassional events.

My Comments on State Climate Action Plan

Climate Action Plan
NYSERDA
17 Columbia Circle
Albany, NY 12203-6399

Re: Climate Action Plan Interim Report

I am deeply concerned about the Climate Action Plan put forth by NYSERDA and other interested parties. Rather then advocating for sustainable, local communities, it advocates for large centralized facilities such as massive waste incinerators, massive power plants, and massive private automobile infrastructure.

Our over-reliance on such large centralized facilities, is largely responsible for environmental crisis we face. Climate Change Emissions are a symptom of our societys unsustainable nature. Its mother natures Engine Malfunction Light. The shocking changes, already underway in our ecosystem, demonstrate a multitude of problems that can not simply be fixed by sticking a better scrubber on our smoke stacks. Instead, we need a state that emphasizes sustainability, encourages sustainable acts, and builds infrastructure that gets us towards sustainability.

Here are several proposals in your report that create grave concerns and there more sustainable, lower cost solutions. Most sustainable solutions are not high-tech or even expensive, but require changing both governmental policies and infrastructure in minor ways to promote more climate-friendly actions. Lets not follow the insane policies of the past, that have brought on this Climate Crisis!

Zero-Waste vs Garbage Incineration.

The Climate Action Plan is right to be concerned about fugitive methane emissions from landfills. The Plan suggests the construction of various forms of trash incinerators such as mass-burn or gasification or plasma-arc to eliminate organic waste from going into landfills. Yet, this is a very bad idea. Trash incinerators destroy valuable materials and recover minimal amounts of energy. Their smokestacks belch toxic materials into air, many compounds not yet fully understood. Waste materials that could be feedstock for industrial or agricultural purposes are destroyed in incinerators.

All forms of trash incinerators (be it refuse-derived fuel, mass-burn, gasification, or plasma-arc), take the carbon in garbage, combine it with oxygen, and release it directly in the air through a smoke stack as carbon dioxide. An average ton of garbage incinerated equals a ton of carbon dioxide in the air. It also represents many more tons of carbon dioxide in materials destroyed in the incinerator. Organic waste that could fertilize the ground are destroyed in incinerators, man-made materials like plastics burned in incinerators could be an industrial feedstock using a fraction of energy of new products.

Garbage Incinerators are expensive, the must always burn a full load to pay off their costs, always maximizing carbon emissions. The goal of any Climate Action Plan should NOT be to maximize carbon emissions! Garbage incineration is very expensive, it literally burns the publics cash, that could be used to improve recycling of technical materials and organics recovery through composting. Choose the sensible, cheaper alternative.

Rather then promote waste-incineration, the report should support a ban on organics disposal in landfills and incinerators, along with supporting Zero-Waste goals. The state should look towards minimizing waste, and recovering waste through recycling and source-separated organics processing such as anaerobic digestion or in-vessel composting. Reuse through secondary sales of used products should also be promoted. The Plan should call for garbage incinerators to be phased out, along with large landfills. Small, stable residual waste landfills are acceptable, only after all organic and usable technical materials are recovered first.

Cleaner Energy vs Nuclear Power.

The Climate Action Plan trumpets Nuclear Power as the solution for large amounts of carbon-free base-load power. As the report correctly notes, at all times the electrical grid must be supplied with sufficient sources of energy to keep the lights on. Nuclear Power is a problematic proposition, as it requires large amounts of heat-trapping HFC gases to process the fuel, is very expensive, creates dangerous waste byproducts, and puts millions of New Yorkers at risk of serious injury or death. A terrorist strike or serious mistake at a nuclear plant such as Indian Point could kill millions of New Yorkers and destroy vast acreage of land forever. There is no repository nuclear waste, all of it must be stored on site of nuclear plants for the foreseeable future.

Nuclear Power is very expensive. It literally burns the publics cash, that could be used to promote energy conservation, and bring new renewable sources of electricity online. A single nuclear plant is estimated to cost $5-10 billion dollars, money that could instead go to subsidize the purchase of solar cells on residential houses, wind turbines in rural areas, micro-hydro and anaerobic-digestion on farms, and small-hydro on rivers and streams. Money spent on nuclear plants could also help people better insulate their houses. Choose the sensible, cheaper alternative.

Conventional fossil-fuels and clean biomass systems, have an important role in filling in the gap between renewable sources of energy and the needs of electric grid. Fossil fuel plants should increasingly serve to meet peak load, and balance the fluctuation of renewable sources of energy, and not provide base load power. Natural gas plants are particularly good at generating power to meet peak demand as necessary. In addition, consider new pump storage plants like Gilboa Power Project, in an environmentally sensitive context. Consolidated Edisions Storm King Pump Storage was a terrible idea.

The Climate Action Plan should emphasize conservation of energy, renewable energy, and especially small-scale sources of renewable energy like solar and micro-hydro. Continue the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, tighten limits to force electricity companies to build more renewable sources. Further develop the smart-grid, and call for the aggressive promotion of Net Metering. The plan should call small scale electricity generation, being as common as heating systems in houses. Call for phasing out of all nuclear power, starting by closing Indian Point in 2012.

Burn Less Fossil Fuels vs Carbon Sequestration.

The Climate Action Plan promotes Carbon Sequestration as a solution to carbon emissions from Power Plants. Carbon Sequestration is an unproven technology, in regions where it has been tested, there is growing evidence that carbon dioxide is peculating back up through the ground, damaging water supplies and being released back into the atmosphere. While this is seriously troubling, even more troubling is the amount of energy required to sequester carbon from power plants.

Current estimates suggest that 40% of a power plants energy is required to sequester carbon. That means 40% more coal must be mined, 40% more oil or gas must be removed from the earth. Carbon sequestration would mean 40% more landscapes would be defiled, 40% more water wells would be poisoned by hydrofracking, 40% more toxic non-carbon dioxide emissions would enter the air. From an broader environmental perspective, carbon sequestration will devastate habitats and accelerate the global decline of our plant. We should not burning more fossil-fuels just to sequester carbon.

With carbon sequestration, 40% more fossil fuel burned means 40% higher energy prices, not including the cost of actually sequestering the carbon. Money spent on mining all this extra coal or drilling for all this extra oil, could be better spent on conservation or renewable sources of power. Choose the sensible, cheaper alternative.

Instead the solution is make fossil fuels the energy source of last resort. Use lower-carbon fossil fuels like natural gas or oil rather then coal. Develop more renewable sources of power, use renewable sources to make up the majority of the base load. Use fossil fuel plants whenever necessary to make up the difference in electricity generation. Phase out fossil fuel plants, dont waste the public’s money on carbon sequestration.

Public Transit and Walkable Communities vs Electric Cars.

The Climate Action Plan triumphs Electric Cars as the preferred solution for transportation. The plan incorrectly argues that private automobiles must forever be the most common way people get around cities. Electric cars are a new technology, while promising, probably have benefits much over stated by the report. It is very energy intensive to move 1-2 tons of steel down the road, and electrical energy is very technically challenging to store in large quantities.

It is possible that in the future, batteries will be developed to allow private automobiles to make short-trips around town, like the Chevy Volt. Someday it may be possible to even power large pickup trucks like the Chevy Silverado electrically for a short distance around town. Yet, due to the difficulties of storing large amounts of electricity, and the length of time required to chemically store large amounts electric power in batteries, it should not be assumed that we will see an all-electric fleet of vehicles in the foreseeable future. Towing the power-boat to Adirondacks behind your Chevy Silverado, probably wont be powered all by electricity, even 50 years from now. Such technology seems unrealistic. The Climate Action Plan should realize cars will continue to get at least a significant portion of their energy from fossil fuels.

Moreover, electrical cars get their energy from some source. While we hope that source is renewable, like from solar cells on peoples houses, the reality is the vast amount of electricity to power an urban fleet of cars is likely to come from fossil-fuels for the foreseeable future. Electricity does not come from god. The Climate Plan should also reflect that many if not most electricity powering cars will come from fossil-fuels that generate carbon emissions, for decades to come. Private automobiles even electrically powered cars discriminate against the young and elderly, and the disabled. Rather then focus on this high tech proposal, the Plan should: Choose the sensible, cheaper alternative.

While electric cars are futuristic, the lowest cost and largest reductions in carbon emissions will come from building walkable communities and expanding and improving mass-transit. Make it so people can leave the Chevy Silverado parked in their driveway for day to day routines. As the Capital Region Transit Authority showed in Schenectady, simply modernizing bus timetables, based on current needs, can increase ridership by 20% while not increasing service. Adding new transit services is very cheap compared to building new superhighways. Building sidewalks can reduce the number of trips to the store in private cars. Giving tax incentives for retail to locate in cities, serviced by transit, can further reduce carbon emissions. Done right, building walkable communities, serviced by quality public transit, can reduce carbon emissions by private automobiles by 80% or more, with the existing fleet of cars and trucks. Parked cars release NO climate change gases nor do they require new freeways cut through animal habitats.

Good Transit vs High Speed Rail.

The Climate Action Plan calls for High Speed Rail. While a nice goal, one possibly to consider in the distant future, its more of a toy then a realistic plan. Save the high-speed rail models for your kids to play with on the living room floor. Most New Yorkers will probably never ride on a High Speed Rail line, even if it is built. Its a very expensive option, when simpler lower-cost options make much more sense. Choose the sensible, cheaper alternative.

Passenger rail service needs to be reliable and on-time. The state should consider the cost-effectiveness of creating a moderate-speed rail service, that uses dedicated track. Trains running consistently at 50-100 MPH may be fast enough, as long as stops are limited, and the service is reliable. The biggest problem with Amtrak currently is trains are often late or delayed due to freight trains on the tracks. Its also important to connect trains and airplanes with transit. Should railroads go right up to airports? Airports, especially Upstate, have almost no public transit service to and from them. Railroads have more access to transit, but in many cases its limited or indirect. Consider bundling train boarding passes with bus passes, for the last mile. Improving inter-model transportation should be vastly more important then high-speed rail.

Most people will still not use the passenger railroad, except on rare occasion. Most travel is intra-city, best serviced by streetcars or buses. Streetcars or trolleys that are electrically powered, preferably by renewable energy, are a very smart climate change solution. Most cities had them prior to 1950. Consider making streetcars fare-free to minimize boarding delays and maximizing their use. Buses in the short-run may be the most cost-effective service, but in the long-term, electric trolleys are quieter, faster, and dont burn foul smelling diesel.

Impacts of Fugitive Emissions and Non-Climate Impacts of Natural Gas vs Cleaner Fossil Fuels.

Natural gas has a great potential to be a lower-carbon source of fossil fuels to fill in the gap when renewable energy cant meet all of the needs of electric grid. It burns very cleanly and efficiently, with minimal toxic emissions, and less carbon dioxide per unit of energy generated compared to other fossil fuels. Yet not only does burning natural gas release climate change gases, the natural gas (methane) is a potent greenhouse gas. The Climate Action Plan should account for fugitive emissions and emissions associated with drilling for natural gas.

High-volume hydrofracking is particularly worrisome when it comes to potential fugitive gases and those emissions relating to the drilling of wells. In addition, serious concerns have been raised about the regulation of gas drilling, in recent years, by state and federal governments. A slightly cooler climate is not an acceptable trade-off for polluted ground water or seriously defiled landscapes.

The Plan needs to carefully balance natural gas, and fully quantity its dangers to the climate. While it seems like Natural Gas is the most climate sensitive fuel compared to carbon-intensive coal (with its own methane emissions problems), its use needs to be constrained like all fossil-fuels to simply meet the needs that can not otherwise be met by renewable energy. All sources of energy have their problems, and all have some carbon footprint, and its important that they be carefully measured in the plan.

Local Solutions vs Global Solutions.

To often, the Climate Action Plan advocates for the wrong kind of solutions to reduce Climate Change Gas Emissions in our state. Our state faces an unprecedented fiscal crisis, and insisting on the most expensive solutions to reduce Climate Change Emissions ensures failure. Smaller, human scale solutions to Climate Change Emissions like better public transit service and sidewalks might be hard to measure, but they not only reduce emissions, but also make our communities more desirable.

Here are a few other small ideas the report should consider:

Agriculture: More on farm generation of electric power — dairies in particular are very energy intensive. More farmers markets in every neighborhood. Less regulation of farm operations to promote more farming. More slaughterhouses and processors. Many farmers have to truck cattle hundreds of miles, lots of GHG associated with that, discourages local food. More processors that buy local food.

Industrial: Increase recycling from residential and commercial sources to provide relatively clean feedstocks to plants. Develop more local recycling plants. Require industries to maximize their energy efficiency.

Residential: More education on benefits of off-the-grid living, net-metering, and other sources of electricity generated on site. More education, promotion, tax breaks for increasing insulation and energy efficiency. Tighten building standards further. Offer more convenient recycling options for a wider variety of wastes.

Commercial: Have tough efficiency standards for new buildings. Give tax breaks to businesses located on trunk lines of bus services. Mandate commercial recycling of waste.

Transportation: More trains and bus services, consider bringing back Streetcars and Trolleys. Mandating inter-connected streets and sidewalks

Thank you for consideration of my comments. If you need further clarifications on my ideas for improving the Climate Action Plan, feel free to contact me at andy -a-t- andyarthur.org or by phone at 518-281-9873.

Sincerely,

Andy Arthur
15A Elm Ave
Delmar, NY 12054

Growing Up in the Shadow of Mountains

There are relatively few people who can say that they grew up in the shadow of the mountains. The mountains loomed large over the town I grew up, showing their large footprint as the rose out of the land just south of the town where I went to Elementary and High School.

While I lived most of my first 25-years of my life on my parents eight-acres, playing in the woods and in the creek, I went to school in Greenville, which is about 15 miles from the northern-most range of the Catskills. Those mountains loom large over the town as one proceeds south on the two-lane NY Route 32. At times, they look as though they must almost reach up to the sky, as high exists in the world.

They are an impressive feature. A routine feature to anybody who lives out by Greenville and sees them everyday, but still one that leaves a lasting impression on oneself. When I was younger I might have hiked the mountains a few times, but I never spent an extended period up there. I certainly could not have identified every peak from memory or been able to look up and know what it look likes on down. Today I can.

When I was younger I probably should have asked more questions and respected those mountains more. I should have paid more attention, and spent more time hiking them. Yet I didn’t. Regardless, those mountains, constantly hanging over the Greenville skyline had a persist ant impact on my life.

Pine Cobble

Two weekends ago, I went for a hike up Pine Cobble outside Williamstown, MA. This is the first time I’ve really been hiking in the Berkshires, formally, and not just on the New York-Massachusetts line on the Taconic Crest Trail. That said, the Taconic Crest trails runs on such a high ridge compared to the rest of the Taconics, and is closer to the height of the Berkshires, that it is probably in the Berkshires and not the Taconics, regardless of where the state line may rest.

The Pine Cobble starts off a steep road that has the Pine Cobble private development on it. It’s not a gated community, but as close as one can get to it. The parking is limited here, with a lot for seven cars, so if it’s full, as it was on this beautiful Sunday morning on labor day, you will be forced to park on the shoulder.

There is a six-inch asphalt curb you have to jump to get on the grass sholder, but if you have a truck, it shouldn’t be a problem. They didn’t give me a ticket, and lots other did it, so I guess it’s legal. They do have a sign, just past the parking lot, as you go into the development, that says NO PARKING on ROADWAY and it’s posted, but downhill from the lot, seems okay.

The trail head is very well signed. The entire trail is well worn, and the occassional Williamstown Trail Blazes makes it easy to follow the trail.

Parts of the trail are either relatively smooth or steep and rocky. It’s called Pine Cobble, so you would expect to be walking on a lot of rock cobble. It’s not nice small stuff, but big enough that you have to keep a careful eye on where you step.

Three quarters of the way to the top there is this oak tree with three shoots up that provides a perfect little pool where water accumulates throughout the year. It’s quite neat looking. Talking to other people, this is actually quite a common occurance with a certain type of oak.

A top Pine Cobble, looking at East Mountain.

You’ve almost made it to the top of Pine Cobble. Once you’ve checked it, make sure to take the trail up East Mountain for a 1/2 mile to get some awesome westerly views.

Here is the summit of Pine Cobble. It’s not the most impressive summit, and indeed the best views are along the edges of Pine Cobble, where there are several to be enjoyed.

Looking down at North Adams from Pine Cobble. The city’s high rises are surrounded by the mountains that form Hoosic Valley where the river runs north through Williamstown, Pownal, Vermont, and ultimately Rensselear County, New York into the Hudson.

Here is the Pownal Valley, where the Hoosic River heads up through the corner of Vermont and back into New York State.

West from Pine Cobble, you can see the last range of the Taconics / first of Berkshires, where Berlin Mountain and Mount Raimer. Also in the foreground is a little bit of Williamstown.

On East Mountain there are these exciting views of that same range, but with the addition of lots of bright white marble rock, cairns, and at least on this blue day, a deep blue sky.

When you reach the top of East Mountain, there is sections of the Appalachian Trail that remind me a lot of the look of Albany Pine Bush, minus the sandy soils. The Berlin Mountain range in the distance pull some kind of emotion into my heart, just like looking at the Heldebergs from the Albany Pine Bush.

The Applachian Trail sign on East Mountain.

At the Massachussets and Vermont (Green Mountain National Forest & Long Trail) border.

A beautiful day for sure.

Here is a map of the hike.

Sugar Hill Firetower & State Horse Camp

The final night of my Finger Lakes Trip I spent the night up at Sugar Hill State Forest, a series of 9,500 acres of state land, popular for horse owners. This parcel has two main camping areas, about 90 miles of horse trails, 3 lean-tos geared to equine users, and one nice new lean-to that is accessible solely by foot.

You don’t see signs like this located in downtown Albany.

This is all conveniently located about 15 miles from Watkins Glen, at the headwaters of Townsend and Glen Creeks that make up the water that flows through the Glen.

While I didn’t spend a lot of time going around and grabbing pictures of the Horse Camp, I did take some pictures and have some from when I visited this area during the previous summer. This was in part because the last day was rather gray, with heavy rain at times, and I was frankly quite tired.

There also is a firetower at the main horse camp area, which is filled with RVs, horse trailers, and horses during the summer weekends. This is shown below:

View Hikes of 2009 in a larger map

Here is the fire tower:

Here is the main horse camp, with new bathroom facilities including flush toilets. This was installed two years ago due to the popularity of the horse camp and contamination concerns by the overuse of the conventional pit privy.

Horses tied up. I took this last year, when they where still building the replacement bathroom for the pit privy, and therefore the porta-potties.

Some wildflowers noticed along a short walk…

A bed of fog over Kueka Lake from the Firetower from last year.

Thunder clouds approaching from the west from the Firetower. It was not of course thundering when I was on the tower. I’m not that stupid.

Descending the firetower, looking east towards Seneca Lake.

Rather then camping at the main horse camp, where there where several people set up with horses, I decided to camp at the lower area, which is much less popular, but as nice if not nicer.

They still have lots of things for the horse owner to use.

In the evening it started to rain. It didn’t bother me much, as I had the tarp over my truck and the picnic table, and thanks to the cement base under the table, there was no mud or muck to get kicked up.

This was my camping arrangements, as seen in the morning. Not bad, especially for a free campsite.

Making some coffee in the morning. I drank an incredible amount of coffee during this week.

Where I camped, after everything was all packed on up.

Farms from off Six Nations Hill in the rain, looking south.

Maps from the DEC of Six Nations Horse Camp:

I drove the following route on Day 3 of the Finger Lakes Trip, in yellow. The loop is where the firetower and main horse camp is. Following the green line due south, takes you to the southern horse camp where I spent the night camping.

View Finger Lakes Trip June 2009 in a larger map

Day 4 I visited Corning and checked out Big Flats, which is now unfortunately little more then suburbanite crap. Corning was kind of neat, except that it started to pour when was down there. I then drove down to Sayre, PA, and through northern Pennsylvania so I could pick up some fireworks for the forth of July. I probably could have come right back into the state, but I certainly didn’t want to be followed by undercover cops, with my fireworks (yes, I’m a little paranoid).

Rural Pennsylvania was quite pretty, except for the heavy rain and the fact that Route 706 was so damn narrow and twisty. When I got back to NY, I really appreciated how much better our state’s roads really are. I drove back via I-88, occasionally hopping back on Route 7 for some additional variety to my trip. I got home around 4 PM.

View Finger Lakes Trip June 2009 in a larger map

The green line follows my return trip. It took about 6 1/2 hours, including stops in Corning and other places.

Watkins Glen

I happened to be driving through Watkins Glen on my trip from the Finger Lakes National Forest to Sugar Hill State Horse camp, so I figured I would take a walk up the trail once again. I’ve been there before, but I figured this would be a chance to get photos when the light was better.

The last time I was there it was early in the morning. This proved to be a problem for photograhpy, without a tripod, because it was so dark in there. It was much lighter in the middle of the day, abit much more crowded. It also was a very humid day out there.

In several sections of Watkins Glen the trail cuts through caves to get around mountain faces, then emereges out to the most beautifully lit green areas.

The trail follows the edge of the Glen, crossing it several times on beautiful stone bridges.

The trail is beautifully designed and a pleasure to walk, although on a humid day like today, it was pretty hot, despite being largely in the shade.

The trail goes under several waterfalls, and after the week’s rainy days, it was pretty wet in spots.

And almost magical scene in Watkins Glen. This whole area somewhat spirtual feeling, especially on the backdrop of such rich greens.

When you reach the top of the glen, the waterfalls become farther appart and less steep and the creek is relatively flat.

At the top of the Glen is this old railroad bridge. It appears the line is actively used; it would be neat to capture a train going over the Glen. Maybe someday.

Here is a map of the trail I walked in Watkins Glen.