How Much Recreational Development is Allowed in the Forest Preserve?

Andy | February 10, 2023

Most people probably agree it’s not the intent of the original drafters of the state consitution to allow totally unbridled development in the forest preserve. Article XIV Section 1 of the State Constitution states:

The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed. [… exceptions removed]

It’s pretty clear that on Forest Preserve lands that the following is totally inappropriate:

Commerical facilities, such as shopping or amusements.
Government facilities that are not primarily rustic in character (i.e. wooden administrative cabins and barns that lack plumbing and electricity)
Highly developed recreation facilities, such as large metal or concrete luge tracks, ski slopes
Asphalt roads, and those roads designed for movement of vehicles not exclusively for the forest preserve use, or for speeds greater then 25 MPH.

Controlling Principles Of Recreation in the Forest Preserve.

I think most people can agree forest Preserve must have an essentially wild character. Indeed, that is what the Court of Appeals upheld in Association for Protection of Adirondacks v MacDonald (253 N.Y. 234, affg 228 App Div 73, 1930), as I shared earlier this week. If you missed this earlier in the week, this case’s essence is cited in Balsam Anglers Club v. DEC (153 Misc. 2d 606, 1991).

Respondents adopted the UMP in furtherance of the Catskill Park State Land Master Plan, which was adopted in order to provide classifications and guidelines for the uniform protection and management of State-owned lands within the Catskill Forest Preserve. Under the UMP, respondents intend to construct a number of small parking areas providing access to trails and primitive campsites, to relocate certain trails to avoid private lands and to construct new trails within the Balsam Lake Mountain Wild Forest area. Since respondents must necessarily cut a certain number of seedlings, saplings and trees to complete such projects, petitioner contends that the UMP is in violation of article XIV, § 1 of the New York State Constitution. p>The Constitution provides, “[t]he lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed, or destroyed.” Petitioner contends that the cutting of as many as 2,000 “trees”, most of which are less than three inches diameter at breast height, constitutes the removal or destruction of timber.

This specific constitutional issue has rarely been litigated. The Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division in Association for Protection of Adirondacks v MacDonald (253 N.Y. 234, affg 228 App Div 73) addressed legislation authorizing the construction of a bobsled run within the Adirondack Forest Preserve for the 1932 Winter Olympics.

The Appellate Division addressed the legislative history of the New York State Constitution and found an intent to prevent any actions “which might convert this preserve into anything but a wilderness” (228 App Div, at 79). However, the Appellate Division found that the framers of the New York State Constitution obviously distinguished between “timber” and any form of tree or wood. They quoted the framers as stating, “[a]ny campers that cannot pick up something on the shores, that will not be timber, to warm themselves with, would better either carry in their fuel or stay out” (supra, at 78). (emphasis added)

The Appellate Division also discussed the 1915 Constitutional Convention which sought to change the wording of the New York State Constitution to “trees and timber” (supra, at 79). Thereafter, the Appellate Division found that the project involved “the cutting of 2,600 trees which must unquestionably be regarded as of `timber’ size” (supra, at 82).

Based upon an 609*609 agreed statement of facts, all 2,600 trees were in excess of 3 inches diameter at breast height, 480 trees were in excess of 8 inches and 33 trees were in excess of 20 inches. The project involved total clearing of between 4 and 5 acres, some of which constituted first growth hardwoods and involved the removal of some 60,000 board feet of timber. The Appellate Division held the legislation unconstitutional based both upon the substantial destruction of timber and the nature of the proposed project.

The citation of Helms v. Reid, 90 Misc. 2d 583 gives further incite into the Assocation for the Protection of Adirondacks vs McDonald case:

The major case interpreting the “forever wild” clause is Association for Protection of Adirondacks v MacDonald (228 App Div 73, supra). The question before that court was whether a statute passed by the Legislature providing for the construction of a bobsled run on forest preserve land and the necessary cutting of some 2,600 trees was violative of section 7 of article VII of the Constitution (presently art XIV, § 1). The Appellate Division had carefully traced the adoption of the forest preserve language and then made a careful inspection of the record from the 1894 Constitutional Convention where the “forever wild” clause language was adopted as a proposed amendment to the Constitution. The Appellate Divison concluded that the constitutional mandate was clear and in declaring the statute unconstitutional stated at page 81: “Giving to the phrase `forever kept as wild forest lands’ the significance which the term `wild forest’ bears, we must conclude that the idea intended was a health resort and playground with the attributes of a wild forest park as distinguished from other parks so common to our civilization. We must preserve it in its wild nature, its trees, its rocks, its streams. It was to be a great resort for the free use of all the people, but it was made a wild resort in which nature is given free rein. Its uses for health and pleasure must not be inconsistent 595*595 with its preservation as forest lands in a wild state. It must always retain the character of a wilderness. Hunting, fishing, tramping, mountain climbing, snowshoeing, skiing or skating find ideal setting in nature’s wilderness. It is essentially a quiet and healthful retreat from the turmoils and artificialities of a busy urban life. Breathing its pure air is invigorating to the sick. No artificial setting is required for any of these purposes. Sports which require a setting that is man-made are unmistakeably inconsistent with the preservation of these forest lands in the wild and natural state in which Providence has developed them.”

What About Developing More Modest Recreation Facilities in Forest Preserve?

Certainly building a bob sled run would have been a massive project with visible impacts on the mountain vistas where the timber was removed, the steel infrastructure of the bob sled run, and the general changes the wild forest character. But what about more minor projects, e.g.

Scenic Vista Cut Along Trails
Primative tent campsites, along lakes, streams, or in the woods.
Roadside campsites with vehicular access.
State Campgrounds with Flush Toilets and Showers.
Horse stalls and horse barns.
Construction of hiking trails that require the cutting of brush or a de minis amount of timber.
Construction of snowmobile trails that potentially could involve cutting a larger amount of timber.
Horse trails that require the cutting of brush or a de minis amount of timber.

The Case Law on Recreational Facilities in the Forest Preserve.

We learn in Helms v. Reid, 90 Misc. 2d 583 some of debates surrounding adoption of Article XIV Section 1 of the State Consitution, and how the Consitutional Convention of 1894 intended not to prohibit “all things necessary” to provide public access and not damage the forst preserve.

The Court of Appeals decision in MacDonald is of great importance and must necessarily be the guiding light in the analysis of the “forever wild” clause which this court must follow in rendering its opinion. At page 238 Judge CRANE states: “The words of the Constitution, like those of any other law, must receive a reasonable interpretation, considering the purpose and the object in view. (State of Ohio ex rel Popovici v. Agler, 280 U. S. 379.) Words are but symbols indicating ideas and are subject to contraction and expansion to meet the idea sought to be expressed; they register frequently according to association, or like the thermometer, by the atmosphere surrounding them. The purpose of the constitutional provision, as indicated by the debates in the Convention of 1894, was to prevent the cutting or destruction of the timber or the sale thereof, as had theretofore been permitted by legislation, to the injury and ruin of the Forest Preserve. To accomplish the end in view, it was thought necessary to close all gaps and openings in the law, and to prohibit any cutting or any removal of the trees and timber to a substantial extent.”

This language sets forth that the purpose of the “forever wild” clause was to prevent the commercial exploitation of the forest preserve which had previously been sanctioned by the Legislature, and it appears to be the court’s feeling that some cutting is permissible as long as it is not a substantial amount. Continuing on page 238: “The Adirondack Park was to be preserved, not destroyed. Therefore, all things necessary were permitted, such as measures to prevent forest fires, the repairs to roads and proper inspection, or the erection and maintenance of proper facilities for the use by the public which did not call for the removal of the timber to any material degree.”

This language indicates the court’s recognition of the fact that even though the Constitution was intended to protect and preserve our natural forest lands, such protection does not prohibit use and enjoyment of the areas by the people of the State. Such a principle is based upon the theory that the forest preserve was for the use and benefit of the people and was not to be an isolated area in which no man would wander. (People v Adirondack Ry. Co., 160 N.Y. 225, affd 176 US 335). (emphasis added)

While the Court never ruled on these matters in Helms, plantiff Herbert R. Helms cited that the State Conservation Department, made major changes and “man-made improvements” to the Adirondack Forest Preserve, over the past 50 years, many of them of questionable consitutional virtue under McDonald, abit never challenged in court.

The first cause of action in the complaint sets forth the “forever wild” clause and then lists various uses undertaken within the forest preserve in the past and present by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (ENCON), which the plaintiffs contend destroy the wild forest nature of the preserve because they all entail cutting significant amounts of timber and over use of the forest preserve area. The purported misuses are as follows: construction of 42 or more public campsites; dirt access roads to these campsites, along with various outbuildings, facilities, boat launchings, sewage disposal systems and the maintenance thereof; construction of hundreds of lean-tos, trails, jeep trails, fire roads 587*587 and paved roads other than those specifically authorized by the Constitution; construction and maintenance of ranger stations, fire watch towers, telephone and electrical transmission lines, as well as other utility lines; construction of boat launchings, parking lots and tent platforms; overuse and misuse of backwoods causing unreasonable widening of trails, littering and defoliation of areas, and finally allowing private individuals to adversely possess forest preserve lands to the preclusion of other citizens.

Helms cites McDonald in saying limited development and recreation is allowed in the park, as long as it’s primarily primative in nature:

“What may be done in these forest lands to preserve them or to open them up for the use of the public, or what reasonable cutting or removal of timber may be necessitated in order to properly preserve the State Park, we are not at this time called upon to determine. What regulations may reasonably be made by the Commission for the use of the park by campers and those who seek recreation and health in the quiet and solitude of the north woods is not before us in this case. The Forest Preserve and the Adirondack Park within it are for the reasonable use and benefit of the public, as heretofore stated. A very considerable use may be made by campers and others without in any way interfering with this purpose of preserving them as wild forest lands. (See `The Problem of the Wilderness’ by Robert Marshall in `The Scientific Monthly’, Feb. 1930, p. 141.)”

Helms goes further to state:

If we assume that a constitutional amendment is not necessary for every use in the preserve which requires a cutting of timber, then we must apply our reasonableness standard to proposed uses. The question then becomes, who is to apply this standard?

It would appear that although the Constitution has deprived the Legislature of any power to authorize a cutting of timber in the forest preserve for commercial purposes, it has not deprived that body of its power with respect to public purposes. The MacDonald decision has allowed the Legislature the power to make reasonable regulations as to this public use and preservation, and such use and preservation must necessarily include some cutting of timber.

Since the Legislature still retains at least this limited authority, it may properly delegate this authority to the administrative agency best adapted to applying the principles heretofore enumerated. This is precisely what our Legislature has done by the creation of the Adirondack Park Agency. (emphasis added)

While ultimately Helms went on to decline an attempt to overturn float plane restrictions in newly designated “Wilderness” areas, first implemented by Governor Rockefeller’s Environmental Conservation Commissioner, Henry Diamond, it did include this important note:

In the discussion of the “forever wild” clause it was pointed out that the preserve was not to be closed to the public, but was to be held open for all of the public to enjoy in its natural wild state. Therefore, plaintiffs’ main theory is correct, and any regulation which arbitrarily restricts public access to or a reasonable public use of the lands in the preserve is violative of section 1 of article XIV.

The principle of limited development of the Adirondack and Catskill Forest Preserve, to enhance public access was upheld most recently in Balsam Lake Anglers Club v Department of Environmental Conservation (upheld on Appeal to 2nd Appelate Division). It states:

Respondents adopted the UMP in furtherance of the Catskill Park State Land Master Plan, which was adopted in order to provide classifications and guidelines for the uniform protection and management of State-owned lands within the Catskill Forest Preserve. Under the UMP, respondents intend to construct a number of small parking areas providing access to trails and primitive campsites, to relocate certain trails to avoid private lands and to construct new trails within the Balsam Lake Mountain Wild Forest area. Since respondents must necessarily cut a certain number of seedlings, saplings and trees to complete such projects, petitioner contends that the UMP is in violation of article XIV, § 1 of the New York State Constitution.

The Constitution provides, “[t]he lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed, or destroyed.” Petitioner contends that the cutting of as many as 2,000 “trees”, most of which are less than three inches diameter at breast height, constitutes the removal or destruction of timber.

This specific constitutional issue has rarely been litigated. The Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division in Association for Protection of Adirondacks v MacDonald (253 N.Y. 234, affg 228 App Div 73) addressed legislation authorizing the construction of a bobsled run within the Adirondack Forest Preserve for the 1932 Winter Olympics. The Appellate Division addressed the legislative history of the New York State Constitution and found an intent to prevent any actions “which might convert this preserve into anything but a wilderness” (228 App Div, at 79). However, the Appellate Division found that the framers of the New York State Constitution obviously distinguished between “timber” and any form of tree or wood. They quoted the framers as stating, “[a]ny campers that cannot pick up something on the shores, that will not be timber, to warm themselves with, would better either carry in their fuel or stay out” (supra, at 78). The Appellate Division also discussed the 1915 Constitutional Convention which sought to change the wording of the New York State Constitution to “trees and timber” (supra, at 79). Thereafter, the Appellate Division found that the project involved “the cutting of 2,600 trees which must unquestionably be regarded as of `timber’ size” (supra, at 82). Based upon an 609*609 agreed statement of facts, all 2,600 trees were in excess of 3 inches diameter at breast height, 480 trees were in excess of 8 inches and 33 trees were in excess of 20 inches. The project involved total clearing of between 4 and 5 acres, some of which constituted first growth hardwoods and involved the removal of some 60,000 board feet of timber. The Appellate Division held the legislation unconstitutional based both upon the substantial destruction of timber and the nature of the proposed project.

The Court of Appeals in affirming the Appellate Division determination rejected the absolutist argument that not even a single tree or even fallen timber or deadwood could be removed and stated that the constitutional provision must be interpreted reasonably. “[A]ll things necessary were permitted, such as measures to prevent forest fires, the repairs to roads and proper inspection, or the erection and maintenance of proper facilities for the use by the public which did not call for the removal of the timber to any material degree. The Forest Preserve is preserved for the public; its benefits are for the people of the State as a whole. Whatever the advantages may be of having wild forest lands preserved in their natural state, the advantages are for every one within the State and for the use of the people of the State. Unless prohibited by the constitutional provision, this use and preservation are subject to the reasonable regulations of the Legislature” (supra, 253 NY, at 238-239). It is thus clear that the Court of Appeals determined that insubstantial and immaterial cutting of timber-sized trees was constitutionally authorized in order to facilitate public use of the forest preserve so long as such use is consistent with wild forest lands.

With respect to the relocation of the Hardenberg Neversink Trail challenged herein, petitioner contends that the amount of cutting is of constitutional dimension. The relocated trail is in excess of two miles long and is approximately six feet wide. With the trail approximately 80% completed, 73 trees of timber size, that is three inches or more, have been cut, including one nine-inch tree and one six-inch tree which was dead. The remaining trees are three, four or five inches in diameter. It is estimated by the court that the entire cutting, including trees not of timber size, that is, less than three inches, amounts to little more than one cord of firewood. The great majority of such cutting will be completely decomposed within a few years leaving no trace of their existence but 610*610 providing increased growth opportunity for the remaining trees in the forest.

It is therefore determined the amount of vegetation, seedlings, saplings and timber-sized trees destroyed so far in the construction of the relocated Hardenberg Neversink Trail is not constitutionally prohibited, nor is the number of trees planned to be removed to complete such relocation. While the actual route for the Millbrook Ridge Trail has not been chosen and it is not known how many trees, saplings, seedlings and other vegetation must be destroyed, it may be presumed that the Department of Environmental Conservation, pursuant to its regulations concerning the construction of trails and the destruction of trees and timber, will comply with the provisions of the New York State Constitution. In the event that the Department of Environmental Conservation does not comply, petitioner could certainly challenge the specific trail route or construction techniques at an appropriate time.

Petitioner also contends that the construction of new trails in the Balsam Lake Mountain Wild Forest area violates that portion of the New York State Constitution which requires that forest preserve lands “be forever kept as wild forest lands”, arguing that new trails will increase human activity, thereby necessarily making such areas less wild. Based upon the decisions of the Appellate Division and Court of Appeals in Association for Protection of Adirondacks v MacDonald (supra), it appears that the framers of the New York State Constitution intended not to prevent or hinder public use of the forest, but to allow forested areas to revert to their natural or wild state without human interference with the natural succession of different types of trees, selective cutting or thinning to “improve” the timber, or the harvesting of any mature timber. There is no indication of any intent to maintain the forest in an “absolutely” wild state with no organized human alteration or intervention at all.

The Court of Appeals specifically held that facilities consistent with the nature of the forest preserve could be constructed for the use by the public, including camping and hiking. Such use facilitated by the construction of new trails or increasing parking and camping areas will almost certainly degrade the pristine quality of certain areas of the forest preserve. While it may be desirable to initiate a policy to refrain from actions which will have the effect of increasing human activity, such issues are not of constitutional dimension unless significant cutting of timber is involved. Accordingly, it is declared that the Unit Management Plan adopted for the Balsam Lake Mountain Wild Forest area does not violate the provisions of article XIV of the New York State Constitution.

What is the Standard Held This Cases?

Over the years, the courts have created a certain principles on recreation facilities in Adirondacks. Distilled down, one can probably agree that courts in NY State hold:

Any project to be constructed in forest preserve must cut as few trees as possible, particularly of timber-grade trees, those larger then 3″ in diameter. Any project requiring significant timber cuts are unconstitutional.
There is a clear preference towards development of facilities in natural meadows and brushy areas, locating paths, trails, and roads on existing old woods road rather then cutting new roadways or trails through the woods.
Limited timber cutting is allowed for essentially wild forest purposes, such as campsites and trail location. It must be as limited as practical.
Any developed facilities must be rustic in nature (wood, painted brown), and must exist solely to complement forest preserve uses such as primative camping, hiking, hunting and fishing.
Intensive use areas are allowed, such as developed state campgrounds or firetowers, but they can not change the forest character or require the excessive removal of timber.

… the courts have sought a balance between recreational demands and keeping the primarily wild nature of forests wild.

True Believers

Andy | September 20, 2012

I was looking at the coal company advertisements that the “Quit Coal” project put up. Basically, those advertisements criticize “aggressive” regulations put forward by the government, and policies pursued by Congress to control air pollution. Not surprisingly, the folks that worked in corporations did not want to be told how to run their business, much less do something that would put uncertainty in their business.

Some will say that coal companies were actively spreading lies and falsehoods. Or did they actually believe in what they were advertising — a statement of belief of reality as it appeared to a coal power plant operator? Certainly many of the pollution control technologies of early 1970s were not to the point where well tested or even scaled up. A coal power plant operator, who always operated their plant one way, did not want to deal with the risk of changing operating methods and technologies.

Some will claim that coal-fired power plant operators were mostly motivated by greed. Yet, if you look at historically, did the clean air equipment on power plants actually cost that much — especially compared to existing revenue? Most upgrades to power plants were covered by small increases in electric rates, granted by public service commissions. If anything, more pollution controls meant more employees, and more opportunities for companies to profit because now operated more complex power plants in a regulated market that fixed their profit above cost.

In retrospect, the coal power industry is run by people who believe their mission — to provide inexpensive electricity, using proven technologies. These people who are resistant to change, because they don’t always understand what it will mean in the future.

The lessons of coal advertising is three fold:

Most people don’t actively lie due to moral conscience, nor do the corporations that represent the aggregation of people lie due to threat to litigation
People and corporations that make them up are highly resistant to change, because they fear the unknown and potential costs of unknown, even if the costs really don’t prove to be significant over the long run.
Government has an important role in setting emissions and efficiency standards, to force corporations, which represent large aggregations of people, to take calculated risks to improve their environmental preformance.

What Happened To Industry in Upstate New York

Andy | July 27, 2012

In almost every Upstate New York city, and small town that surround them, it’s a pretty sad story economically. There is little industry left, most of the jobs are at places that provide social services like healthcare and education. These “social service” businesses are largely subsidized by the state and federal governments, and provide money for consumers to go to Walmart, McDonalds, and other chain retail places, that provide affordable products that are almost entirely imported to the local area. The chain retail places in turn create more jobs, for limited wage.

Downtowns are largely left in ruin, with small local businesses unable to compete for employee’s limited wages, being spent at the chain retails on the outskirts of the Upstate cities. Downtowns are not automotive friendly, suffering from congestion, noise, and limited parking. Where downtowns have been victims of government sponsored “urban renewal” of 1960s and 1970s, cities are often left with overbuilt expressways, that produce air pollution and noise. Many urban renewal projects were poorly designed, with ugly “modern” buildings and highway ramps, that don’t fit into communities but instead are standard designs drawn up in Albany and New York City.

Businesses left Upstate New York for many reasons…

One of the most important was the change in the economy — fueled by cheap fossil fuels — that encouraged centralization around large urban areas. Scaling up, in many cases, around large urban areas made it possible to make more product or economic activity in a large urban area, rather then smaller businesses spread out across more rural areas. Why have small plants spread out over large areas, when you could have a centralized facility that produced more product at less cost and with greater control of the final product?

The second major reason that is too often New York State policy is driven by urban liberals and ideologues, outside of the field of regulation, that imposes impossible conditions on businesses. While health, safety, and welfare is important of employees, and environmental pollution must be controlled, regulations and laws relating to businesses need to make sense and be relevant, and not just written in a state office building in Albany, without paying attention to the needs of specific industries.

The third reason is the state spends too much time courting large businesses to move into the state, without paying much time to local businesess, that meet local needs. There is an official policy to attract large employeers, and to hand out pork to them, while ignoring small but important businesses. Politicians are happy to hand out state dollars to businesses, but too often unwilling to get into the nitty-gritty of what is neccessary for businesses to succes in state. There is tons of money to hand out, but with little thought of consequences. Communities are ignored in favor of state-wide policies, handed down by Albany.

What are the solutions …

1) Home Rule.

The state needs to bring back greater home rule at all levels of government. Regions of state need to have more self-goverence, from the local government up to regional branches of state government, such as Department of Environmental Conservation Regional Offices. To the greatest extent possible, regulations and policies should be tailored to meet individual parts of state.

2) Better Downtowns and Less Sprawl.

The state needs to do better at helping small communities. They need to rebuild downtowns, but not just pour money into them. They need to do community scaled improvements, that slow traffic downtown, provide adaquate downtown parking, while creating bypasses around downtowns, so through traffic need not slow down or congest downtown streets. Building bypasses through downtowns, as seen in places like Amsterdam or Little Falls, is only a recipe for diaster.

The state should also eliminate subsidies to suburban sprawl on the edge of cities. The state in constructing bypasses should take steps to discourage big boxes stores to locate along the bypasses. Suburban sprawl businesses, if desired, should come without special tax breaks, as they are already profitable. People want Walmart to provide inexpensive products and provide jobs, but not at the taxpayer dollars.

3) Encourage Import-Replacing Businesses.

The state also needs to actively encourage import-replacing businesses. Upstate cities need not just businesses that manufacture needed products, but businesses that provide products that meet local needs. Farmers markets are a great example, but the state needs to find ways to get local farms to produce affordable products that are able to service local needs (and export in addition). Likewise, we need to be developing our energy resources like wind, water, solar, along with oil and gas reserves, not just for export, but also to service local needs. Manufacturing products that service local needs, besides export is important.

Too often the big businesses the state induces to upstate communities, do not sell any of their products locally. A business that exports only, or exports primarily does little service the community. Such a community spends it’s hard earned dollars by importing products, rather then making them at home. The multiplier effect, and much of the economic value, is lost when a product is solely exported. Often with export-only economies, both the people and land are exploited for distant, urban gain of the wealthy, rather then investing in local communities.

If a biomass power plant provides electricity, and steam for a local community, using waste wood or farm waste waste, then all of the benefit remains in the community. Chances are such production is sustainable, as local needs are less like to exceed the carrying capacity of the landscape. It also keeps all of the money locally. Projects like this should be encouraged by state — in contrast to wind farms that only export their product.

4) Encourage the Arts and Education.

New York does a good job at encoraging arts and education. Yet, the state needs to do it in ways that benefit the local community, and not well segregated state universities and distant people. Communities need flexibility to spend the money, to ensure that local arts and music are benefiting local people.

… local jobs for local people.

Why I Like Mapping

Andy | January 31, 2012

Doing GIS Mapping has become quite the hobby of mine. Especially when it comes to generating maps of public lands, I am endlessly fascinated by exploring the lands that we, the public own.

Rendering maps is mostly about loading layers, and zooming in. Yet, the effort to put together a map teaches you a little bit about the land you are rendering and its features. Mapping can teach you about a land where you have never been before, and prepare you and interest you in a future trip.there. Mapping requires you to pay attention to the landscape, correcting invalid data, and trying to create the best possible presentation of the landscape’s natural and man-made features.

Even when you’ve never been on a piece of land, making a map can teach you much about the landscape and how it’s laid out. A map can tell you many details both by the features on the map and the implied features that you calcuate based on the relation of one land form to another piece of land.

A map makes it possible to better understand a piece of land, without ever putting a foot on it. While maps aren’t always accurate, and sometimes they can be confusing on an unfamiliar piece of land, they do provide context. Maps are a great source of exploring the unknown and unfamiliar.

I’ll Be Age 67 in 2050

Andy | September 19, 2011

Folks in my age group under Social Security can retire at Age 67 if they so please. While I don’t know if I will retire at Age 67, I generally believe that Social Security will be fixed by that point, and that will be an option if I so choose. I hope I have the finanical savings and a pension at that point to supplement social security if that’s what I want, or choose to continue to work if work is my passion and I feel that I am doing good for society by continuing to work.

The year 2050 is an interesting one. It’s a popular round number taken up by political pundits and futurists trying to predict the future.

Bill McKibbean and the 350 people insist that humanity must reduce it’s carbon outputs by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050, also known as the 350 ppm by 2050 goal. Others insist that there will be no Social Security in 2050, or that fossil fuels will run out by 2050, or that the world will be otherwise awful dark and bleak in 2050. Some like James Howard Kunstler think the year 2050 will be one of mass suffering and misery, as humanity fails to move away from it’s excessive use of fossil fuels and international commerence.

More hopeful futurists look at 2050 as era of great progress, an age of great equality, and technocratic success. Transportation will be automated and run on clean electricity generated from renewable sources that won’t harm the planet. Flying cars will wisk you to your destination! People will overcome their evil ways, and war will be obsolete. Humans will be healthier and avoid much of the suffering that is the norm of the day. Poverty will be a thing of the past.

I suspect both predictions will be look increadibly dated by the time I’m ready to enter retirement and my golden years. After all, the year of 2050 is about as far away as the year 1972. Since 1972, the world has not choked and died from smog or excessive development. There are still vast areas of open lands, forests, and farm land. Yet, there are still pollution problems, and we have yet to enter an age of golden prosperty. 39 years later, still a lot of people are still suffering, but things have gotten better for many people.

I truly believe that world is not coming to an end. I also don’t believe the world of 2050 will be vastly different then today, even if fashions change as do technologies. Some things will become easier, and maybe more automated, but the world will look remarkably like today.

My Concerns with a Nine County Solid Waste Authority

Andy | July 12, 2011

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.

Kayaking Woodhull Lake

Andy | June 27, 2011

To get to Woodhull Lake, you have to take McKeever Road from NY 28 in McKeever (1/2 mile before it crosses the Moose River, then drive back about 6 miles on a dirt truck trail known as Wolf Lake Landing Road. You put in at Wolf Lakes Landing, which is named after one of the lakes that Woodhull Lake covered when it was dammed up to form a larger lake to provide water supply to the Erie Canal.

While the road is fairly well maintained one-lane gravel truck trail, one creek crossing is a bit eroded from the rains of 2011. There are roughly 6 designated roadside campsites along the road, with minimal to no facilities that you can camp at. You can drive all but an 1/8th of a mile up to Woodhull Lake, where the road is gated off, from there you have to carry your kayak or canoe to the lake on the gravel road. Consider using wheels on your kayak to assist on this portage.

Here is a map of Woodhull Lake. Consider clicking on it, for a high-resolution map that you can print up, put in a plastic bag and use on the trip like I did. It works really well like this, and I think this map prints out to be nice and high resolution, especially if you have a color printer.