Showing posts with label nm. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nm. Show all posts
Friday, May 4, 2012
Monday, April 30, 2012
Climbing school
I’m taking the Los Alamos Mountaineers climbing school, which is very well run. It’s a blast, despite the fact that it often makes me feel like an out-of-shape blob who is terrified of heights.
I’ve been wondering if climbing would be a fun family activity, with Erin and then the kiddos once they’re old enough (the YMCA has climbing classes for kids as young as 4). I look forward to exploring this more after things calm down a bit post-birth.
Here we are setting up for the 4th outdoor class session, at The Gallows in White Rock Canyon. It turns out most of these routes were first ascended by my friend Walt Wehner and his friends in the 90’s.
A colleague of mine spotted 13 different kinds of wildflowers in White Rock Canyon the weekend before. I think I got to 8 or 9.
I’ve been wondering if climbing would be a fun family activity, with Erin and then the kiddos once they’re old enough (the YMCA has climbing classes for kids as young as 4). I look forward to exploring this more after things calm down a bit post-birth.
Here we are setting up for the 4th outdoor class session, at The Gallows in White Rock Canyon. It turns out most of these routes were first ascended by my friend Walt Wehner and his friends in the 90’s.
A colleague of mine spotted 13 different kinds of wildflowers in White Rock Canyon the weekend before. I think I got to 8 or 9.
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Cerro Colorado hike
On March 31, my dad and I and some LAMC folks hiked up Cerro Colorado, near Ojo Caliente.
Above is the summit. The area had been remarkably hard hit by the piñon die-off a few years ago, as you can see above. However, a decent number of tiny to small piñons seemed to be doing just fine. My hope is that they’ll stage a comeback in a way that is more resistant to the beetle plague.
Above is the summit. The area had been remarkably hard hit by the piñon die-off a few years ago, as you can see above. However, a decent number of tiny to small piñons seemed to be doing just fine. My hope is that they’ll stage a comeback in a way that is more resistant to the beetle plague.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Sandia Mountains hike
A few weeks back I went on a hike in the Sandias with some folks from LAMC, as part of a “Class 3 Scrambling” course.
Near our high point, looking northwest? The Jemez are just peeking over on the right horizon, while Cabezon is visible on the left horizon.
The tramway people are pretty serious about people not climbing the towers.
Near our high point, looking northwest? The Jemez are just peeking over on the right horizon, while Cabezon is visible on the left horizon.
The tramway people are pretty serious about people not climbing the towers.
Monday, April 2, 2012
A snowy April 2 in Los Alamos
This is the scene in our back yard as of an hour or so ago. That is, snowing heavily with 4-5" of accumulation in some places. I think it’s great. I believe I’ve mentioned before that the only acceptable weather conditions are blizzard and brilliantly sunny.
The branches covered in blossoms catch the snow best.
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Cave of the Winds revisited
A few days ago, I got a request from PEEC asking if they could use photos from my November post on Cave of the Winds. I said sure; they also wondered if I had photos of the cave entrance and inside the cave. I said no, but I’d be happy to go up and make some, which I did this morning. It was terrifically windy.
I watched this tree fall over. I considered turning around, but decided that since there weren’t too many trees, paying more attention to the few trees I was passing was enough to keep me reasonably safe. I didn’t see any more fresh falls.
Turn-off to Cave of the Winds.
Cave of the Winds entrance, looking east (downstream). The descent from the rim is quite steep and ends in a drop-off.
Cave entrance looking west (upstream).
Inside the cave. There is one main room and a few short side passages, and as far as I can tell, no bears (I checked).
I watched this tree fall over. I considered turning around, but decided that since there weren’t too many trees, paying more attention to the few trees I was passing was enough to keep me reasonably safe. I didn’t see any more fresh falls.
Turn-off to Cave of the Winds.
Cave of the Winds entrance, looking east (downstream). The descent from the rim is quite steep and ends in a drop-off.
Cave entrance looking west (upstream).
Inside the cave. There is one main room and a few short side passages, and as far as I can tell, no bears (I checked).
Saturday, March 10, 2012
East Fork Trail hike
Last weekend, Erin and I went on a hike down the East Fork Trail with Amanda, Isaac, and their optimistically-named dog Thor.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Rendija Canyon in yellow and blue
One of the interesting things one can do in black and white photography is change which colors are represented in the final image. For example, the following two images are two interpretations of the same capture:
This one is a yellow “filter”; that is, the brightness in yellow has more influence on the final result than brightness in other colors. This is a fairly common treatment.
Back in the days of film, one had to make filter choices ahead of time and use actual pieces of colored glass. Now it’s all done in software.
This is a blue “filter”. These days it’s more unusual, but many of the first films responded only to blue, leading to the washed out skies look of photographs made with those films.
This one is a yellow “filter”; that is, the brightness in yellow has more influence on the final result than brightness in other colors. This is a fairly common treatment.
Back in the days of film, one had to make filter choices ahead of time and use actual pieces of colored glass. Now it’s all done in software.
This is a blue “filter”. These days it’s more unusual, but many of the first films responded only to blue, leading to the washed out skies look of photographs made with those films.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
White snow on black rocks
This photo was made on a White Rock Canyon hike back in December with Matt, Amanda, and Penelope. This boulder pit is directly off the Red Dot Trail.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Why forest people should support Option 2 of the golf course improvement/expansion
After several weeks off, the golf course issue is back again — there are a couple of public meetings soon, one on Wednesday for the Parks & Rec Board to consider the proposals, and another for the Capital Improvements Board to consider them (the final step before the County Council).
Anyway, you may recall that my initial position was that we shouldn’t cut down any trees at all to accommodate a golf course project. After being pretty thoroughly involved in the process, and talking with forest people as well as Andy Staples, the golf course architect, and seeing the new options emerge, I’ve changed my mind.
Specifically, I believe that people like myself who care a lot about forests and trails, and who do not care at all about golf, should nevertheless support Option 2. This option gives up a few acres of trees and puts golf on the rim of a canyon which right now is moderately secluded — which I don’t like, but I think supporting this option has more benefits than drawbacks.
Specifically, those benefits are: (a) it would make golfers much happier than Option 1 or leaving the layout unchanged, which means it would be a long-term solution and we won’t be having this same conversation again in 10 years, and (b) it builds political capital that will be valuable in seeking broader open space protections across the county (and conversely, opposing the project destroys political capital that we need). Also, we still get item B even if the plan fails!
You might ask: “Don’t we already have good de facto protection of open space in the county? And isn’t public opposition such that we can be fairly confident of blocking future development proposals?” The answers turn out to be no and no. For example, here are some development proposals from the past 20 years (compiled by Craig Martin, who is awesome; this list is an edited quote from his post in the Los Alamos Trails Facebook group):
Opposing what is a modest expansion, compared to what golfers would choose if they had their druthers, makes us look selfish and inflexible, given that the golf course is also open space (a lesser form of open space, in my opinion, but open space nonetheless). Previous efforts to build comprehensive open space protection have failed for exactly this reason.
Finally, I don’t have concerns about the cost of the project, especially since Option 2 is not much more expensive than Option 1: if one will fail on a cost basis, both will. We can afford it, quality infrastructure costs money, and it’s really decades of deferred maintenance, not a fancy new facility.
For these reasons, I believe we should support Option 2 and take advantage of the momentum this process has generated to create comprehensive protection for open space in Los Alamos County.
Anyway, you may recall that my initial position was that we shouldn’t cut down any trees at all to accommodate a golf course project. After being pretty thoroughly involved in the process, and talking with forest people as well as Andy Staples, the golf course architect, and seeing the new options emerge, I’ve changed my mind.
Specifically, I believe that people like myself who care a lot about forests and trails, and who do not care at all about golf, should nevertheless support Option 2. This option gives up a few acres of trees and puts golf on the rim of a canyon which right now is moderately secluded — which I don’t like, but I think supporting this option has more benefits than drawbacks.
Specifically, those benefits are: (a) it would make golfers much happier than Option 1 or leaving the layout unchanged, which means it would be a long-term solution and we won’t be having this same conversation again in 10 years, and (b) it builds political capital that will be valuable in seeking broader open space protections across the county (and conversely, opposing the project destroys political capital that we need). Also, we still get item B even if the plan fails!
You might ask: “Don’t we already have good de facto protection of open space in the county? And isn’t public opposition such that we can be fairly confident of blocking future development proposals?” The answers turn out to be no and no. For example, here are some development proposals from the past 20 years (compiled by Craig Martin, who is awesome; this list is an edited quote from his post in the Los Alamos Trails Facebook group):
- A proposed “emergency access road” through the middle of open space on the White Rock Canyon Rim in Overlook Park.
- Housing on the Western Perimeter Tract above 48th Street where the Perimeter Trail traverses LA Mountain.
- A housing area and commercial uses on transfer lands (from DOE to the County) in Pueblo Canyon below Anderson Overlook.
- Housing development in lower Bayo Canyon.
- Expansion of housing into Rendija Canyon following transfer from DOE.
- A proposal to move the golf course into Rendija Canyon and develop housing at the current golf course.
- A proposal to move the stables into Rendija Canyon and develop housing at the stable area.
- Housing development on public land across from Pajarito School on Arizona Avenue.
- Development of Otowi Mesa, which is now Los Pueblos (the road and housing).
- The tip of “airport mesa”, now the Pajarito Cliffs Site.
- A proposed pipeline from the Rio Grande to White Rock through White Rock Canyon below the Overlook.
Opposing what is a modest expansion, compared to what golfers would choose if they had their druthers, makes us look selfish and inflexible, given that the golf course is also open space (a lesser form of open space, in my opinion, but open space nonetheless). Previous efforts to build comprehensive open space protection have failed for exactly this reason.
Finally, I don’t have concerns about the cost of the project, especially since Option 2 is not much more expensive than Option 1: if one will fail on a cost basis, both will. We can afford it, quality infrastructure costs money, and it’s really decades of deferred maintenance, not a fancy new facility.
For these reasons, I believe we should support Option 2 and take advantage of the momentum this process has generated to create comprehensive protection for open space in Los Alamos County.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Exploring Las Conchas burn area near Ponderosa Campground
Last Monday, Erin and I hiked from Ponderosa Campground to the rim of Frijoles Canyon, an area with significant damage from the Las Conchas fire.
This wash contained a large amount of rubble spread across a wide area.
A charred leaf which had drifted down onto the previous night’s snow.
This snag’s bark had been stripped off on the upstream side by flood water and debris flow.
Charred trees on the far side of Frijoles Canyon.
Ponderosa grove not far from the rim.
A large ponderosa killed by the fire.
This wash contained a large amount of rubble spread across a wide area.
A charred leaf which had drifted down onto the previous night’s snow.
This snag’s bark had been stripped off on the upstream side by flood water and debris flow.
Charred trees on the far side of Frijoles Canyon.
Ponderosa grove not far from the rim.
A large ponderosa killed by the fire.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Gonzales Canyon hike
On Friday, Erin and I walked down “Gonzalez Canyon” just north of Camino de Encantado on Barranca Mesa. We wanted to check out an apparent road bed that we had seen from across the canyon.
There are lots of “character trees” around Los Alamos, but this one really caught my eye. It is two independent trunks emerging from the ground, apparently merging, and then splitting again.
Trail on the north side of Gonzales Canyon.
Forts are awesome. I had a great time playing in forts in the woods when I was a kid. I’ve heard rumor that some folks want to prevent kids from building forts in the woods, to keep them pristine. That seems like a terrible idea to me — IMO a great way to build a love of the outdoors in children is to let them do childish things outside.
We weren’t exactly sure what to make of the “road bed”. It seemed too steep to be a road, yet too wide and too enthusiastically cut from the hillside to be just for a pipeline. (I don’t know if there’s anything in this particular trench, but lower down there was a manhole cover with running water inside.)
Looking toward the Sangres from just south of Los Pueblos.
Keep in mind this is the middle of town, folks. I still can’t get over that.
There are lots of “character trees” around Los Alamos, but this one really caught my eye. It is two independent trunks emerging from the ground, apparently merging, and then splitting again.
Trail on the north side of Gonzales Canyon.
Forts are awesome. I had a great time playing in forts in the woods when I was a kid. I’ve heard rumor that some folks want to prevent kids from building forts in the woods, to keep them pristine. That seems like a terrible idea to me — IMO a great way to build a love of the outdoors in children is to let them do childish things outside.
We weren’t exactly sure what to make of the “road bed”. It seemed too steep to be a road, yet too wide and too enthusiastically cut from the hillside to be just for a pipeline. (I don’t know if there’s anything in this particular trench, but lower down there was a manhole cover with running water inside.)
Looking toward the Sangres from just south of Los Pueblos.
Keep in mind this is the middle of town, folks. I still can’t get over that.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Another blog, OMG! And this one needs your help
I’m launching (or really re-launching — I took over earlier this month) another blog. This one is called Los Alamos Daily Photo and it’s a collaborative photo diary of Los Alamos related places, people, things, events, and whatever else you can think of. Please send me your photos! (Instructions over at LADP.)
Los Alamos weather forecast confusion
Today's weather forecast. Note particularly "chance of precipitation" for today and tomorrow versus the "Regional Forecast". There is also a Winter Weather Advisory that I have not shown.
This dissonance happens all the time.
This dissonance happens all the time.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Hell’s Hole chicken adventure
One of the most fun things to do during my high school years was to order some pizza, wrap it in a towel, and take it down Hell’s Hole (a rubble heap / lava tube cave in White Rock Canyon) to eat. Ben, I, and several of his friends set out yesterday to do this.
One complication: The pizza joint in White Rock did not open until an hour after the designated meeting time. So, Ben got a rotisserie chicken instead, which he presents proudly in the photo above.
Hell’s Hole is filled with remarkably sophisticated and classy graffiti. The colored tape is a technique I’m not familiar with.
One of our band emerging into the big room with a chicken.
Laying out the chicken and other lunch items. It was a pretty good lunch, but not quite as good as cave pizza.
One complication: The pizza joint in White Rock did not open until an hour after the designated meeting time. So, Ben got a rotisserie chicken instead, which he presents proudly in the photo above.
Hell’s Hole is filled with remarkably sophisticated and classy graffiti. The colored tape is a technique I’m not familiar with.
One of our band emerging into the big room with a chicken.
Laying out the chicken and other lunch items. It was a pretty good lunch, but not quite as good as cave pizza.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Camino Encantado loop
Yesterday, Erin and I walked a loop off Barranca Mesa and along Bayo Canyon, circumnavigating Camino Encantado. Much of this is along old roads, which is kind of cool. I checked a book on the topic out of the library and am looking forward to reading it.
In the homestead era, this road along a bench in Bayo Canyon was one of the principal routes up to the Pajarito Plateau. I suspect it looked much as it does now. There is a rather impressive drop a few feet to the right.
This is where one of the town’s sewer lines dives off the mesa.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Ashley Pond renovations?
![]() |
| Photo by 77krc@Flickr / CC-BY-NC-ND |
At the moment and for much as long as I can remember, Ashley Pond is a pretty lame pond. It’s basically a large concrete bathtub with ducks — no natural shoreline, water plants (aside from algae slime), or beaches of any kind. Depressing 1950’s suburbia to the max.
Anyway, there is a county project in the works to do some rebuilding. I hope this goes forward and the pond becomes more like a pond and less like a bathtub. As always, they’re taking comments; send yours to anne.laurent@lacnm.us. Be sure to mention robots.
Sunday, January 22, 2012
New golf course options and a tour of potentially impacted areas
Update 1/26: Craig learned some more concrete information about the plan details, which makes some of the content below a little misleading. I’ve added a few updates in-line.
The golf course improvement/expansion project continues. The result of the meetings two weeks ago is two new options (the previous lettered options are now off the table). Below are sketch maps of the new options, my comments, and some photos from a tour of the potentially impacted areas led by Craig Martin earlier today.
New Option 1
This option more or less rebuilds the course in place. Details matter, of course — there is some encroachment into the forest, both along the edges and into interior islands (for example, I worry about holes 4, 11, 15, and 16). But assuming the above accurately represents the actual tree loss, I could probably live with this.
The problem with this one is that it seems to have limited appeal to golfers, as far as I can tell. So if we do this, will we be having exactly the same discussion in ten years? I think everyone is much better served if we can come up with a true long-term solution. (Of course, if golfers are dissatisfied because it’s only a great community course rather than a “destination”, then I have pretty much no sympathy.)
New Option 2
This option has similar encroachment as Option 1, with two significant exceptions: Holes 4 and especially 17. Considered independently, this option is not acceptable. There is too much tree loss (we’ve just confirmed that some of these trees are 350 years old), and it totally changes the character of a secluded and remarkable viewpoint.
The upside is that the golfers seem to like this one. While Option 2 alone I could never support (simply reducing one’s demands is not a compromise; a true compromise has something in it for both sides), I believe we might make something of it. I do believe there’s a lot of value in an outcome that both sides are genuinely happy with, rather than an outcome which one side only grudgingly accepts. More on this later.
Today’s tour
Earlier today, Craig Martin generously led a tour of Option 2’s holes 17 and 4 to show folks what the impact on the ground might be. Unfortunately, all we had to go on was sketches like the ones above, so we had to do a fair amount of guessing. And there’s another layer of interpretation in my own descriptions below, so please don’t assume these are definitive.
Craig and his wife June spend a few hours flagging and staking before we arrived. Thus, you can go independently and check things out for yourself.
This is the tee area of Hole 17. I’m standing at the edge of what we think would be cleared; more or less all the visible trees from where I’m standing to the canyon rim (about 130 feet straight ahead) would be removed.
Update 1/26: Craig says: “The tee area for hole 17 is further to the south than I guessed, so fewer trees would have to be removed.” So some of the trees in this photo would go, but not all.
Same view point but angled more to the right. I think the two large trees at the right of the photo might be saved, but everything else between here and the rim would go, with perhaps less risk in the right 1/3 of the frame.
View from the tee area to the fairway on the other side of the canyon. It was unclear to us how many of the trees in the canyon would need to come down (the design team has proposed “topping” them, but any meaningful topping would kill the trees anyway).
Update 1/26: Branch removal would have a lighter touch than we thought; no trees in the canyon bottom are targeted for removal, and a couple would have branches removed but not enough to risk killing them.
View from the fairway area of Hole 17. I believe more or less all the trees between here and the canyon rim would go, along with a few more outside the right side of the frame.
Finally, this is the proposed Hole 4 under Option 2. Trees with pink flags would go; basically, count four trees in along the first row of trees and extend something that wide down to where the power lines turn right (hard to see in this photo, unfortunately).
Closing
In no particular order:
The golf course improvement/expansion project continues. The result of the meetings two weeks ago is two new options (the previous lettered options are now off the table). Below are sketch maps of the new options, my comments, and some photos from a tour of the potentially impacted areas led by Craig Martin earlier today.
New Option 1
This option more or less rebuilds the course in place. Details matter, of course — there is some encroachment into the forest, both along the edges and into interior islands (for example, I worry about holes 4, 11, 15, and 16). But assuming the above accurately represents the actual tree loss, I could probably live with this.
The problem with this one is that it seems to have limited appeal to golfers, as far as I can tell. So if we do this, will we be having exactly the same discussion in ten years? I think everyone is much better served if we can come up with a true long-term solution. (Of course, if golfers are dissatisfied because it’s only a great community course rather than a “destination”, then I have pretty much no sympathy.)
New Option 2
This option has similar encroachment as Option 1, with two significant exceptions: Holes 4 and especially 17. Considered independently, this option is not acceptable. There is too much tree loss (we’ve just confirmed that some of these trees are 350 years old), and it totally changes the character of a secluded and remarkable viewpoint.
The upside is that the golfers seem to like this one. While Option 2 alone I could never support (simply reducing one’s demands is not a compromise; a true compromise has something in it for both sides), I believe we might make something of it. I do believe there’s a lot of value in an outcome that both sides are genuinely happy with, rather than an outcome which one side only grudgingly accepts. More on this later.
Today’s tour
Earlier today, Craig Martin generously led a tour of Option 2’s holes 17 and 4 to show folks what the impact on the ground might be. Unfortunately, all we had to go on was sketches like the ones above, so we had to do a fair amount of guessing. And there’s another layer of interpretation in my own descriptions below, so please don’t assume these are definitive.
Craig and his wife June spend a few hours flagging and staking before we arrived. Thus, you can go independently and check things out for yourself.
This is the tee area of Hole 17. I’m standing at the edge of what we think would be cleared; more or less all the visible trees from where I’m standing to the canyon rim (about 130 feet straight ahead) would be removed.
Update 1/26: Craig says: “The tee area for hole 17 is further to the south than I guessed, so fewer trees would have to be removed.” So some of the trees in this photo would go, but not all.
Same view point but angled more to the right. I think the two large trees at the right of the photo might be saved, but everything else between here and the rim would go, with perhaps less risk in the right 1/3 of the frame.
View from the tee area to the fairway on the other side of the canyon. It was unclear to us how many of the trees in the canyon would need to come down (the design team has proposed “topping” them, but any meaningful topping would kill the trees anyway).
Update 1/26: Branch removal would have a lighter touch than we thought; no trees in the canyon bottom are targeted for removal, and a couple would have branches removed but not enough to risk killing them.
View from the fairway area of Hole 17. I believe more or less all the trees between here and the canyon rim would go, along with a few more outside the right side of the frame.
Finally, this is the proposed Hole 4 under Option 2. Trees with pink flags would go; basically, count four trees in along the first row of trees and extend something that wide down to where the power lines turn right (hard to see in this photo, unfortunately).
Closing
In no particular order:
- One thing that became very clear during this tour is that details matter a lot. The forest is not amorphous; it’s a collection of individual trees. Thus, trees need to be analyzed for removal or preservation as individuals, and there needs to be room for on-the-ground negotiation regarding individual trees. Forest people must be intimately involved in these decisions, and minimization of tree loss must be a priority at all stages.
- As I mentioned, I don’t like Option 2. But, if there were something added to the deal which was of sufficient value to forest people like myself, I could live with it. Things that have been proposed which are of no value IMO are infrastructure (I don’t need any to walk in the woods) and planting native vegetation (does not replace mature ponderosas). What would be of value to me is additional open space protections in the county. The key is additional — the new protections would have to go significantly beyond the de facto protections currently enforced by public opinion as well as what we could expect to achieve without giving up forest for the golf course.
- One other thing that I think would be super cool, particularly as someone with children on the way, is mini golf. I wonder if there’s a way to fit that in without additional tree loss. That would make the course much more of a community place than a golfer place.
- Finally, I haven’t addressed the financial issues (the cost of these changes may approach $10 million); I don’t personally object to spending the money, but I’ve heard a lot of griping about it. I should also add that I’m still skeptical of the safety argument and completely unconvinced that any realistic golf course in Los Alamos can really be a regional draw.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)


















































