- 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
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Contents As of July 11, 2007
Saturday, July 21, 2007
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
To read the rest of this article click here
Rare bird making home in Boulder
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
Friday, July 20, 2007
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
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
Sunday, July 01, 2007
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)