Connection Ecology: An Alternative to the War Between the Human and Natural Environments

Topic: Environmental Policy
Preserving the spirit of the West, in the face of rapid and continuing population growth, requires the building of the deep connections between the people and the land that they inhabit. Rather than lamenting, we should celebrate increasing human visits to natural areas because of the role that such visits play in maintaining the West's unique quality of life and the environmental protection constituency. The challenge is to develop and implement environmentally sound strategies for meeting the need for quality visitor experiences.

The focus of efforts to meet this challenge is, of necessity, the boundary which divides the West's natural areas from its rapidly growing urban population. It is here where most of the pressure for human visitation occurs and where the greatest opportunities exist for building or breaking human/environmental connections. In Colorado, these pressures are felt most acutely along the major intermountain highways and in the foothills to the west of metropolitan Denver and other "Front Range" cities. It is for places like this (as well as the West's great national parks and wilderness areas) that the Connection Ecology project has been working to develop planning tools for better balancing human and environmental interests.

Contents As of July 11, 2007

• Connection Ecology


• About the Connection Ecology Blog


• Connection Ecology: An Alternative to the War Betw...


• Scarlet tanager causing red alert


• Comment on Trail 13-14 Planning Eldorado Mountain



• Comments on Dowdy Draw / Flatirons Vista Parking


• Bald Eagles, Thriving, Settle Into Suburban Life


• Forest Service Bars Ski Film


• Dinosaur Tracks, What Are They For?


• It's "Both/And" NOT "Either/Or"


• OSMP Off-Trail Permits Now Required for 50 Yard Hi...


• Sustainable Environmentalism


• No Child Left Inside


• Understanding the Visitor Role in the Spread of In...


• Connection Ecology Blog Contents


• Connection Ecology: The Next Phase of the Environm...


• General Principles Underlying Boulder Outdoor Coal...


• Adaptive Management


• Environmental Damage / Human Presence


• Environmental Constituency


• US 36 Dispute Reveals OSMP Anti-people Bias


• Equitable Access Problems


• Research to "finds out" vs. research to "prove"


• Eldorado Mountain / Dowdy Draw


• Natural / Human History Destination Hikes


• Ecology Hikes


• Inspirational Viewpoints


• Natural / Human History Destination Hikes


• Demonstration Project Maps / Legend


• Proposed Marshall Mesa Interpretive Trail


• Fewer happy campers


• Where Gorillas and the Antelope Play


• National parks seeing fewer camping visits


• The “Social Trail” Problem: Myth or Reality?


• Role of Urban Wilderness


• Obligation to Provide Visitor Access


• Facts and Values


• The Overprotective Librarian Syndrome


• Visitor Pathway / Trail Types


• Cohabitation


• Role of Urban Wilderness


• Unconventional Environmental Connections


• User Fees / Sweat Equity Option


• Contents


• Definition


• An Alternative to the War Between the Human and Natural Environments


• Sustainable Environmentalism


• The Next Phase of the Environmental Movement?


• Original Connection Ecology Site

Off-Trail Visitation -- The Path Less Traveled By...

Increasingly, it is being argued that off-trail travel in natural areas is so destructive that it should always be prohibited. With respect to the draft Boulder OSMP Visitor Plan such proposed ban raises a number of questions.

• What exactly constitutes a trail?
• Are visitors to be exclusively limited to trails marked on the current edition of the official map?
• What about constructed, maintained, and heavily used secondary trails which are not on the map? The unmapped First/Second Flatiron trail, for example? Or, the Eldorado Springs to Shadow Canyon Trail?
• What about informal neighborhood access trails such as those in the Devil’s Thumb area? Are they to be closed to everyone? Everyone but neighbors and others "in the
  know"?
• What about rock climbers? The vast majority of rock climbing routes are not accessible official trails.
• What about photography and painting? Are artists to be restricted to the trails?
• How about "birders" or others engaged in nature study, geological exploration, or historical inquiry?
• What about folks who just want to sit and enjoy the many viewpoints found just a short distance off the official trails?
• What about visitors whose drive for solitude leads them to seek more private spots away from other visitors?
• What about people who just want to go exploring in an environmentally considerate way? (See Leave No Trace guidelines for off-trail travel below.)
• What limits are to be placed on off-trail travel for management and research purposes?
• Are there risks that people will take advantage of the visitation "vacuum" and engage in
  inappropriate activities (squatter's camps, for example) which would otherwise be reported and addressed?
• How will all of this be enforced? Will rangers be paid to routinely travel off trail to catch visitors who may be traveling off trail? Would this increase or decrease use?
• Will "big brother" enforcement become a source of resentment and hostility toward OSMP?
• Will such a ban leave OSMP open to the charge of converting "open space" to "closed space?"

All this raises a few more fundamental questions:

• What are the real environmental benefits that a closure policy would seek to achieve?
• Are the problems largely confined to heavily visited areas with braided trails, unsightly shortcuts, widespread vegetation trampling, and erosion in steep areas?
• Might these problems be better addressed through area specific measures such as social trail closure signs, shortcutting barriers, and cairned routes in steep areas (see below)?

---

Guidelines for Off-Trail Travel

One of the most sought-after pleasures of natural areas is the opportunity for quiet, solitude, adventure, and exploration. The days are gone when minimal population pressures make this goal easy to achieve. We have reached a point where (apart from cold and stormy times) the trails are full of people. Still solitary experiences continue to be available to anyone who wants to leave the trails. Still, off-trail travel presents an undeniable risk of environmental damage. The key to preserving options for solitary visitation is an expansion of the "leave no trace" ethic to include off-trail travel guidelines. The guidelines suggested below are based on the adaptation of the backcountry travel rules used in Arch's National Park to our local ecosystem. Here again the basic principle is simple, "leave no trace" apart, perhaps, for a few temporary footprints.

1. Don't call attention to yourself in ways which detract from the experiences of others.
2. Don't approach or harass wildlife.
3. Take established trails wherever possible. If you don't have a reason to leave the trail, don't.
4. Don't cut switchbacks and don't take braided trails which closely parallel existing trails.
5. Travel in small groups. Large groups can create new paths with astonishing speed.
6. If possible, stick to routes which are free of natural vegetation -- generally rock outcroppings, boulder fields, rocky slopes with plenty of stepping stones, and woodlands with minimal groundcover.
7. Avoid stepping on flowering plants at all stages of the reproductive cycle from developing flowers to mature seedpods.
8. Take well-developed game trails where available.
9. Don't walk in areas were the vegetation appears worn or weakened (especially incipient social trails).
10. Avoid times when the land is especially wet, muddy, and vulnerable.
11. Obviously, no smoking or fires.
12. Pick up any litter you find, you are traveling in areas which are not commonly patrolled.
13. Report destructive, hidden behavior (generally illegal camp sites with fires which threaten the park).
14. If you are breaking twigs, dislodging plants, or are kicking loose rocks and soil you should find a gentler route.

---

Steep Area Erosion Control
Perhaps the area's greatest environmental damage from existing visitor use is in steep, rock climber access areas not served by existing trails. In these areas the lack of a clearly defined route has led to a proliferation of braided, social trails as everyone tries to pick their own path through the complex terrain. Given the steepness of the terrain, it is easy for minor amounts of traffic to produce significant erosion problems. In these areas the use of cairns to identify the easiest and most environmentally sound route can dramatically reduce impacts while still providing access for rock climbers and others wanting a more challenging experience. The same technique could be used to inexpensively construct the many spur/viewpoint trails proposed here. It could also be used to construct the proposed Eldorado Mountain, and West Flagstaff trails.

Scarlet tanager causing red alert

This is a rare example of a much more constructive way to respond to rare wildlife in the Boulder area. Instead of closing the area, find a way to let people enjoy and appreciate something special. -- Guy Burgess

Rare bird making home in Boulder

Joe Prentice Camera Staff Writer
Friday, July 13, 2007

Bill Schmoker

The scarlet tanager usually doesn’t visit Boulder County, but one has taken up residence in Gregory Canyon.

Bill Schmoker

The western tanager is the most common tanager in the region.

You've seen them around town. Visitors from afar, moseying about in brightly colored summer garb.

No, it's not Auntie Maude and Uncle Merle from Muskegon meandering on the mall. We're talking about tourists of the avian sort.

This summer, a spectacular wanderer from the East is causing a buzz among local birders. A male scarlet tanager has taken up residence in Gregory Canyon and has been seen regularly since at least the middle of June.

Tanagers are a group of vividly colored birds found mostly in South and Central America. There are about 250 species in the family Thraupidae (tanagers and their allies), but the taxonomy of the group is the subject of debate. For example, some argue the four members of the family that migrate regularly to the United States should more properly be grouped with the Cardinalidae (cardinals and related finches).

To read the rest of this article click here

Comments on Trail 13, 14 Planning Eldorado Mountain

This is a comment on your Trail 13/14 EM/DD TSA planning process that I would like entered into the official record.

First, I would like to thank the Open Space and Mountain Parks Department for arranging another one of its trail alignment, walk-through, field trips. I think that this is a vastly preferable way of gathering public input — one that could also be applied to other, more general policy discussions. The advantage of this process is that it permits and encourages multiple in-depth conversations and gets us out of the public meeting trap of simply exchanging "zinger" sound bites. In the course of a couple hours of walking together you learn a lot more about each other's views, a lot more about what you have in common, and the real nature of your disagreements. While agreement will certainly still be quite elusive, I think that this process focuses the debate much for more sharply on the real issues.

I don't think that you need to exactly walk the trail alignment, however. As you know, in the absence of a trail, these routes can be difficult going for many people. I think that you could get the same sort of in-depth feel for alternative trail alignments by allowing people avoid difficult and an environmentally damaging sections by taking detours which lead people to key viewpoints where they easily see the lines of flagging that mark the proposed trail alignment. Still, I think it's a good idea to walk the trail alignment wherever possible.

In terms of the general alignment for the new trail, I favor the eastern, #14 upper, "through the trees" option followed by the western, #13 lower, option across the wide open mesa top with big views. On some of the long sidehills it may, however, be appropriate to move the trail further up the slope to reduce exposure to the ultra mud of the Pierre Shale.

As I've argued many times before, I think that it's also important to include, at key spots along the trail, inspirational sitting points (with perhaps with strategically repositioned logs or sitting rocks) that would encourage people to sit for a moment and reflect upon and enjoy the area.

I also think that you need to add, on this trail (and other points around the entire OSMP system system) interpretive signs focused on helping people understand the magic of the place. While "don't do this" signs are, of course, needed, the focus of the interpretive signs I'm proposing would be much more positive and could play a critical role in helping people appreciate the poorly understood prairie (and, to a lesser extent, forest) ecosystems. In order to keep costs and visual clutter down, I think you could use very simple and small signs with numbers indicating that there's something interesting here and that you can find out what it is by downloading a brochure from the OSMP website (or picking on up at the trailhead.

A big topic of conversation on the field trip was the assertion that there were terrible environmental impacts associated with just about every option. While I'm all for limiting these impacts as much as possible, I think that you need to keep honestly asking yourself just how serious these impacts really are. There really ought to be in alignment that allows you to build this trail with only the most minor adverse environmental impacts — impacts that are far outweighed by visitor benefits and opportunities for building ecological connections between humans and the natural world.

-- Guy Burgess

Comments on Dowdy Draw / Flatirons Vista Parking

Please consider this a formal comment on OSMP plans for reconstructing the Flatirons Visita and Dowdy Draw trailheads.

I very much support and appreciate your efforts to make these trailheads more attractive and easier to use. Still, the big issue is one of capacity, especially with respect to Dowdy Draw.

As you know, capacity of this area has been a serious problem for a long time with lots of visitors parking illegally and countless others turned away on virtually every attractive weekend or holiday. In addition to generalized frustration with OSMP, the inadequacy of current parking increasingly jams visitors into a few high traffic areas (such as Chautauqua). This, in turn, leads to a significant degradation of the visitor experience while also placing extraordinary ecological pressure on some of the system's most prized areas.

As one looks to a future of inevitable population growth, this can only get worse. So, at the very least, I believe that OSMP should incorporate into its plans the increased capacity needed to satisfy demand.

If you don't want to do this for ecological reasons, then you need to institute an open, public process for setting and justifying ecologically-based limits on the number of visitors. In setting limits, you should be able to demonstrate that the environmental benefits of visitation limits justify the adverse impacts of increased visitation in other parts of the system and reductions in the quality of the visitor experience. You also need to address the equity issues associated with the parking limits that favor "early birds" over "late comers" and may favor non-Boulder residents over Boulder residents. Giving the increased restrictions on off-trail visitor access associated with a new area management plan, I find it hard to believe that the area cannot withstand a 50% increase in available parking.

I also urge the Department to find some way to get around the problem of County limits on driveway traffic (75 in and out trips per day!). Since this limit implies one car in or out of every 10 minutes, I find it hard to believe that it's justified on traffic safety concerns. I strongly urge OSMP to find some way of getting around these limits, by either obtaining special permission from the County or, if necessary, constructing a second parking lot.

OSMP is in the process of substantially increasing the attractiveness of this area to potential visitors and you can expect a lot of hard feelings should these improvements be accompanied by parking facilities that turn away lots of visitors.

Guy Burgess

Bald Eagles, Thriving, Settle Into Suburban Life

OCALA, Fla., June 28 — Bald eagles, whose numbers dwindled to historic lows in the early 1960s, are again flourishing and no longer need the protections of the Endangered Species Act, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced Thursday.

For full article go to NYTimes

Forest Service Bars Ski Film

This is an extraordinary story of extreme overreaching on the part of the Forest Service and "Environmentally Correct" thinking. If you listen to the first clip you will hear the the Forect Service attempt to deny distribution of a film because of it does not reflect approved "wilderness values."


A film about the adventures of extreme skier Chris Davenport can't be shown. Davenport skied every Colorado fourteener in a year. But his film includes images of federal wilderness areas and violates the Wilderness Act. Mike Lamp speaks with Maribeth Gustafson, Supervisor of the White River National Forest.

Listen to Program


Aspen Man First to Ski All of State's Fourteeners

Extreme Skier Chris Davenport of Aspen has experienced Colorado in a way that no one else has. He's the first person to ski all of the state's fourteeners – 54 of them – in one year. He talks to Ryan Warner about his feat.

Listen to Interview

Dinosaur Tracks, What Are They For?

Near Boulder, Colorado there is a place where one can, quite literally, walk along the same sandy beach that the dinosaurs enjoyed. It has, of course, been turned to stone and tipped up at an angle by the forces that created the Rocky Mountains. It would now be hidden from view except for the fact that decades ago the area was quarried revealing a smooth sandstone slab with beautiful ripple marks and dinosaur footprints.

The question is should this special place be concealed from the public, or should the public be invited to take a walk along a "Dinosaur Beach?" On the one hand there is the danger that somebody might vandalize the footprint. On the other hand, this is a special place close to a major metropolitan area where people can experience the enormity of time in a way that you just can't do in a museum.

On the Klondike Bluffs trail near Moab, for example, better footprints are found in the middle of a jeep/mountain bike trail where they are clearly marked with rings of stones. There they are left alone and deeply enjoyed by far more visitors (with giant SUV's) than would ever visit this Boulder site. Surely, Boulder's visitors are at least as responsible.

Still, in Boulder, the decision has been to "protect the resource" and keep the people away.

What's the value in that? It's doubtful that scientists need it. They have been studying dinosaurs for decades and there are still mountains to be excavated that would yield better specimens if further research is needed.

The value of this place is in building human connections with the natural environment. And, that's the missed opportunity. Write the Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks department and ask them to change their mind.

In the meantime, here are some pictures. Still, it's not the same as being there. Can you find the track?

It's "Both/And" NOT "Either/Or"

It's not either environmental protection or more environmental recreation. Its both environmental protection and environmental recreation The key is to develop creative ways of maximizing recreational opportunities while minimizing environmental costs.

This principle, of course, extends to the planet as a whole. It's not either environmental protection or human development and prosperity it must be both environmental protection and human development and prosperity. This is a moral as well as a practical question. If the environmental movement allows its interests to be framed as antithetical human interests, then humans will vote their interests and we really will have an environmental catastrophe.

In the absence of such a balancing process the environmental movement boils down to the following phrase:

"Protect the environment, drop dead (in an environmentally responsible way)."

OSMP Off-Trail Permits Now Required for 50 Yard Hikes

The City of Boulder's Open Space and Mountain Parks (OSMP) Department has just instituted a new permitting system for off-trail travel on what will eventually be 35-50% percent of OSMP land. While the permitting system represents an improvement over earlier efforts to completely close these areas, the system, as currently structured, falls short of the Department's commitment (embodied in its Visitor Master Plan) to employ the "least restrictive" policies for achieving its environmental protection objectives.

One of the camera angles that now requires a permit.

Requiring permits for significant off-trail excursions makes some sense. It allows OPSMP to advise visitors on low-impact travel techniques, warn them about especially sensitive areas, and track visitation. However, since these areas are already very lightly visited, it seems doubtful that all the hassle and expense will yield significant environmental benefits.

The bigger problem, however, is the department's decision to require permits for VERY short diversions (less the 100 yards) from what is fundamentally an on-trail trip. Under the current rules, for example, you'll have to pretty much sit on the trail and enjoy your lunch as people walk by. If you don't want to be (literally) underfoot and if you want to enjoy a little privacy and solitude, you'll need to get a permit, in advance.

You also better have access to the Web. Otherwise, you'll have to send a letter or make a trip to an OSMP office (during business hours), which may take longer than your hike. If you choose to ignore these rules, you're at their mercy. They can fine you $1000.

That's not all. You'll need a permit if you want to take a picture, but the angle from the trail isn't quite right. You'll need a permit if you want to get a better look at the Western Tanager that just flew into the tree down the hill. You'll need a permit if you hike to the top of Long Canyon and you want to walk across the road and admire the view of the Indian Peaks from the clearing 50 yards off the road.

You'll also need a permit if you take the trail around the North Side of Flagstaff or up Green Mountain and want to scamper a few yards out to one of the viewpoints. And, the way the maps are currently written, you'll need a permit to check out the view at Stoney Point.

There are also ominous hints that if too many permits are requested during the first, experimental year of the program, then OSMP will start limiting the number available. Surely the miniscule environmental impact of giving users access to a 100-yard corridor on each side of the trail would be outweighed by improvements in the quality of the visitor experience.

Still, there is one bright spot. Exemptions are granted to heed the "call of nature" (which is never really defined). It seems to me that heeding the "call of the wild" and the "call of nature" are pretty much the same thing. So, maybe we don't have to follow the rules after all.

All joking aside, OSMP's on-trail requirement is a deliberate decision reflecting misplaced priorities. I respectfully ask the City Council to ask OSMP to amend those policies.

Sustainable Environmentalism

The relentless growth of human settlements and the accompanying expansion into natural areas has led many in the environmental movement to view human society as something of a cancer which is growing on, and rapidly destroying, the natural environment. This way of framing the problem tends to see the environmental movement as a desperate effort to strengthen the barriers which protect the natural environment from human encroachment. In keeping with the cancer analogy, this view sees environmental protection as, quite literally, a fight for survival in which human society is the enemy. The political manifestation of this view is the contemporary conservation movement which is motivated by a philosophy which I call "separation ecology."

Unfortunately, it is an approach which fails the test of sustainability and equity. If people are increasingly separated from their environment then, sooner or later, they are likely to start asking why they should favor environmental protection measures. While alarmist (and often overstated) rhetoric about impending ecological collapse and altruistic appeals to protect natural species for their own sake may answer some of these concerns, the long-term trend is likely to be a continuing erosion of the core environmental constituency. In other words, it is unrealistic to expect to be able to sustain long-term, public support for environmental objectives if the public finds itself increasingly denied the benefits of environmental protection.

The environmental movement should also be about more than simple preservation. It has an interest in promoting human quality of life among a broad spectrum of the population, not just an elite few. It is not enough for environmental connections to be reserved for the wealthy and environmental activists who know how to take advantage of the system. The connection ecology project offers a new way of thinking about the environmental movement -- one which fosters both environmental protection and human quality of life.

No Child Left Inside

This article appeared in The Economist on Feb 8, 2007. It summarizes the alarming fall in various measures of National Park visitation. This trend, if it continues, threatens the sustainability of the environmental movement and marks, in my view, a significant deterioration in human quality of life. A primary goal of this blog is the exploration of strategies for overcoming this problem.

Feb 8th 2007
SAN FRANCISCO
From The Economist print edition

Put down that Xbox, young man

TO THE alarm of environmentalists and park managers alike, interest in the great outdoors seems to be tailing off among young Americans. The country's extensive system of national parks includes some of the most photographed and best preserved landscapes on earth—like Yosemite Valley in California, the crenellated Teton Range in Wyoming, Old Faithful geyser in Yellowstone National Park or the white edifice of Mount Rainier in Washington state. But attendance at the parks is falling. Between 1995 and 2005, overnight stays in them declined 20% overall, and camping and backcountry stays dropped by 24%, according to statistics compiled by the National Parks Service.

No park, it seems, is immune to the decline: even in Yosemite, one of the system's oldest parks and probably its best known, the number of visitors dropped 17% over the ten-year period. The number of visitors to Death Valley, an easy drive from vigorously growing Las Vegas, went down 28% over the same span. In some of the system's remoter parks, such as Lava Beds National Monument near the California-Oregon border, site of much fighting in an Indian war of 1872-73, the number of daily visitors is down to ten or fewer.

The importance of this decline can hardly be over-estimated for big environmental organisations such as the Sierra Club: they have depended on what one expert calls “a transcendent experience in nature”, usually in childhood, to gain new members and thus remain powerful lobbyists for environmental causes. “The political implications are enormous,” says Richard Louv, a writer whose most recent book, “Last Child in the Woods: Saving Our Children from Nature-Deficit Disorder”, describes the social, psychological and even spiritual ramifications of a dearth of outdoors experience for a generation raised on electronic, rather than natural, stimulation and entertainment.

Read entire article

Understanding the Visitor Role in the Spread of Invasive Plants: A Modest Research Proposal

Much of the OSMP management debate focuses around the threat that hikers (as well as dogs and horses) may or may not pose to efforts to control the spread of invasive species. It seems to me that there is a simple, joint fact-finding process that we could all go through to clarify this issue.

First, we need a short list of invasive species that are the posing a significant threat to Open Space. Next, we need to identify at least one location where each species is getting out of control. Over the course of a year we would then need a fact-finding team to repeatedly visit each location to determine when seeds are and are not a susceptible to human dispersal. One could also walk through each area with typical types of clothing and then examine how many of the offending seeds each person picks up. This would enable us to identify kinds of clothes that limit the collection of seeds (such as the wearing of ankle gaitors to limit “sock prickers”). We could also determine what kinds of seeds are likely to fall off on a hike and hat kinds are likely to be transported back home where they don’t pose a threat. Similar tests could be done on dogs and horses.

The resulting information could then be used to separate necessary from unnecessary restrictions.

Connection Ecology Blog Contents

• OSMP Off-Trail Permits Now Required for 50 Yard Hi...


• Sustainable Environmentalism


• Connection Ecology


• About the Connection Ecology Blog


• No Child Left Inside


• Connection Ecology: An Alternative to the War Betw...


• Understanding the Visitor Role in the Spread of In...


• Connection Ecology: The Next Phase of the Environm...


• General Principles Underlying Boulder Outdoor Coal...


• Adaptive Management


• Environmental Damage / Human Presence


• Environmental Constituency


• US 36 Dispute Reveals OSMP Anti-people Bias


• Equitable Access Problems


• Research to "finds out" vs. research to "prove"


• Eldorado Mountain / Dowdy Draw


• The Original Boulder Open Space Poster


• Natural / Human History Destination Hikes


• Ecology Hikes


• Inspirational Viewpoints


• Natural / Human History Destination Hikes


• Demonstration Project Maps / Legend


• Proposed Marshall Mesa Interpretive Trail


• Fewer happy campers


• Where Gorillas and the Antelope Play


• National parks seeing fewer camping visits


• The “Social Trail” Problem: Myth or Reality?


• Role of Urban Wilderness


• Obligation to Provide Visitor Access


• Facts and Values


• The Overprotective Librarian Syndrome


• Visitor Pathway / Trail Types


• Unconventional Environmental Connections


• Cohabitation


• Role of Urban Wilderness


• Unconventional Environmental Connections


• User Fees / Sweat Equity Option

Connection Ecology: The Next Phase of the Environmental Movement?

To date, the environmental movement has gone through three phases. The challenges of continuing population growth are now demanding that the movement enter a fourth. We call it "connection ecology." Without a move toward connection ecology, proliferating access restrictions will increasingly separate people from their natural environment, undermining human quality of life and the environmental constituency. These four phases are briefly summarized below.

Phase I: Legacy Parks (The Establishment of Yellowstone through Mission 66)
Guiding Principle: "...conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." -- The Organic Act which guides the National Park Service

Accomplishments: Yellowstone; Rocky Mountain; Arches; National Forest lands, campgrounds, and trails; Boulder Mountain Parks, etc. Today the vast majority of natural area visits are to these legacy sites. It's hard to imagine where the environmental movement would be without them.

Shortcomings: Weak understanding of complex eco-dynamics, failure to protect non-park lands, overly commercial focus.

Phase II: Outrage and Revolution (Silent Spring through the Energy Crisis)
Guiding Principle: Opposition to the widespread pillage and looting of the environment.

Accomplishments: Clean Air and Water Acts, the Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental Policy Act, Wilderness Act, Endangered Species Act, other key environmental statutes and agencies. Defeat or pro-environmental modification of countless major projects (Glenwood Canyon, Vail Pass, oil shale, Rocky Flats, nuclear power, Marble and Bridge Canyons...)

Shortcomings: Difficulty in dealing with the "close call" environmental issues where the benefits may not outweigh the costs. The environmental movement's opposition to anything that might adversely affect the environment may have led to over-reaching and the strengthening of backlash movements (such as Wise Use).

Phase III: Hold the Line/Separation Ecology (1980/90's--present)
Guiding Principle: "Earth First. No compromise in defense of mother earth." Opposition to "industrial tourism."

Accomplishments: Expanded open space programs, wetland and endangered species protection.

Shortcomings: Undervalues human visitation. Inadequate consideration given to the costs of environmental protection. Doesn't search for visitation/protection win-win. Contributes to excessive pressure on legacy parks. Diminishes visitor experiences. Increases separation between humans and the natural environment.

Phase IV: Connection (Coexistence) Ecology (The next step, I hope)
Guiding Principles: Earth and people connected, both valued.

Accomplishments: Encourages and accommodates human visitation. Innovative, win-win visitation/protection solutions. Builds quality of life for all citizens. Builds environmental constituency.

Likely Shortcomings: Accepts some environmental risk and damage. Will require repair and restoration.

General Principles Underlying Boulder Outdoor Coalition Trail Recommendations for Eldorado Mountain and Doudy Draw TSA

Note: This post was written at an earlier stage in the ongoing public debate over Boulder Open Space and Mountain Parks policies. While somewhat dated, the post still raises important issues which are still relevant.

1. Comparable Trail Densities — The trail densities should be somewhat lower than trail densities of comparable HCAs and Nas.

2. Equitable Treatment of User Groups — In recognition of the many different visitor constituencies within our community we believe that the trail development plan should provide "something for everyone" and should not favor some groups at the expense of others.

3. Variable Length Options — People want to spend different amount of time and travel different. distances. Quality options should range from short to long with connection to adjacent Open Space Tracts (including Jefferson County OS).

4. Fine-tuning of Trail Alignments — Our proposed trails are approximate. We expect final alignments will be determined by local conditions including such things as soil types and the need to avoid locally sensitive areas (such as nesting sites).

5. Importance of Quality Trails — As we try to limit increasingly limit visitor presence to a small number of trails, it's increasingly important of these trails be designed to maximize the visitor experience. They should deliberately seeking to identify and provide access to quality destinations including inspirational viewpoints and areas of historical or geological interest. The trails should also be constructs so that "getting there is at least half the fun" with trails designed to meet the needs of all user groupsTrails rooted for their scenic value are more desirable than those that simply follow routes of convenience (e.g. old access roads for high-voltage power lines). . Loop trails are also
widely seen as contributing as providing a more attractive user experience.

6. Visitor Restrictions — In general, environmental protection and user conflict resolution measures should employ the least restrictive method of achieving each objective. In addition, the process should be transparent with the environmental objectives and alternative strategies for achieving those objectives clearly and publically stated. The same principle should apply to efforts to address potential user conflicts.

7. Access — Parking facilities should be adequate to meet the demand. Inadequate parking which turns significant numbers of users away should be viewed and justified as a "restriction."

Adaptive Management

It's obvious that a great deal of uncertainty exists regarding the resilience of ecosystems and the impact of various human visitation options. In the face of such uncertainty one has two basic options. One can implement an extremely cautious management plan -- one that essentially excludes visitors from an entire area. While this would obviously minimize the risks associated with human visitation, it's highly probable (but not certain) that the environmental benefits of such an approach would be quite small, at least as compared with a modest, environmentally sensitive human visitation program. Taking the most conservative approach possible would still be the obvious choice, except for the fact that there are real costs associated with unnecessary visitor restrictions. These include, for example, diminished public understanding of prairie and other ecosystems, reduced public support for open space programs, and human quality of life impacts.

It is these costs which are pressuring OSMP land managers to look for ways of simultaneously pursuing both recreational and preservation objectives. In short, they are in the politically difficult position of having to decide how cautious is too cautious.

Under such circumstances is common for the parties to wish that they knew more. Better science would reduce uncertainties in the corresponding level of needed caution. It would allow land managers allow greater visitation while simultaneously maintaining or even strengthening the level of environmental protection.

The good news is that there is a practical and inexpensive strategy for reducing uncertainty. It is based on the fundamental principle that the longer you look into the future the greater the level of uncertainty. To date the visitor planning has focused on long-term decisions with the apparent goal of crafting a series of policies which would not have to be continually reviewed. To my knowledge there was little planning and budgeting for impact monitoring and the prompt mitigation of unanticipated adverse impacts. If you're going to manage this way, you it have to have very large safety margins which, in turn, force unnecessary and controversial visitor restrictions.

An alternative, adaptive management strategy would focus more attention on short-term decisions and include funding for the continued monitoring of visitation and environmental impacts. It would have the money needed to be able to identify environmental problems as they arise and then promptly take appropriate corrective measures. It would be able to act before problems got out of hand and while mitigation options were still feasible and affordable. Similarly rewarding new visitor opportunities to be added based upon visitor suggestions and continuing environmental assessments.

For example, in areas where there are concerns that visitors might allow the seeds of invasive species to "hitchhike" on their clothing, the visitor plan could include funding a systematic search for invasive species at the earliest stages of the flowering season---when they are easily identifiable and before they've had a chance to reproduce. Any plants that are found could be destroyed and if the number of invasive plants is significantly greater than those found in the control area then a broader area closure might be implemented.

As another example, in areas where there is concern that human visitation might scare away nesting birds, the area could be closed until each year's nests are firmly established. Areas without active nests could then be reopened with the entire area opened once they the nesting season concludes. Area wide closures could then be reinstituted at the beginning of the next nesting season. An area can also be monitored for the emergence of unwanted social trails with incipient trails closed before there is significant vegetation damage.