Solar Works. Even in the North.

One of my primary interests in renewable energy. I'm particularly interested in solar photovoltaic energy (the kind with the panels), at both the residential and commercial scales. Here in Minnesota, we don't really have the kind of sun exposure required for some of the other forms (like those in the California and Arizona deserts that use mirrors to superheat molten salt), so solar panels are what we have.

There are some challenges that the solar industry faces here. We are very far north. The Twin Cities are at 45 degrees north and has a fairly cloudy outlook for much of the winter. It also gets a fair amount of snow. But that is not as big an obstacle as one might think. Germany has a similar cloud problem and is situated even farther north, yet it has used a combination of feed-in tariffs, incentives, and changes in the way energy is regulated and billed. This has led to a substantial growth in the solar sector. While it still relies on lignite coal (a very dirty fuel), it has shown that the proper economic, regulatory, and social conditions can lead to great success with solar in seemingly unlikely places. If they can do it there, we can do it here too. Panels can be cleared, and much snow melts or slips off due to the mounting angle. Increased panel efficiency has also allowed for more generation even on cloudy days. Besides, we have too good of a resource to pass up.

Fortunately, Minnesota's government has been proactive in pushing solar and other renewable energy development, including a strong statutory requirement for energy utilities with generation benchmarks for renewables and a separate solar-specific generation requirement. That, combined with the extension of the federal renewable energy investment tax credit (and the credit's revision to apply to projects begun, not online, by certain dates) mean Minnesota is on track for a big push into the solar photovoltaic realm. In fact, there are already a number of major projects that are getting quite far along in the development process including plans to partially power/offset electric use by Twin Cities Light Rail system and build a large solar farm to supply Xcel Energy.

The Chisago County solar development project is an exciting project in my opinion because it demonstrates several things: that solar can be produced even in the northeastern part of the state, that it is economically viable for the utility, and that it is economically valuable to the community (property taxes and lease income for solar are much higher than the going rates for agriculture in that marginal growing part of the state). Still, not everyone is happy. Some residents that were surrounded by solar leases had their homes bought out by the developers, but others who merely bordered it, or were boxed in on the sides by different developments, have been complaining. They weren't offered buyouts and are concerned about views. I tend to agree that they won't be much affected, especially with the planting and maintenance of a tree buffer, and the arrays are not noisy, polluting, or disruptive, so physical impairment of the use and enjoyment of their land should be minimal to none. It seems to me that this is another case of NIMBY-ism, though slightly more justified than the irrational windmill haters opposed to the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts. Still, they do have some marginal affect on their property interest (in their community's nature and their potential views, they seem to discount how panels can be interesting to watch, especially tracking ones, and the potential for increased birds and insects in the soon to be non-agriculture plant growth surrounding the panels). It is also not even clear that being near a solar project will harm property values because none of the area houses have yet been offered for sale, let alone sold on open market. This would bear watching in the future as a test, but there are lots of other factors that would need to be examined as well to tease out the possible effects of the solar site.

Other anti-solar movements, posing as neighborhood concern, have appeared in Sherburne County, where residents are trying to push a setback for solar arrays to hundreds of feet, essentially rendering the project uneconomical and killing it. While it is reasonable to have larger zoning setbacks when residential and commercial/industrial uses meet, it is not rational to push it to such an extent that a non-invasive, non-harmful, non-polluting use becomes impossible (i.e. it's not like they are building a loud, noisy, dusty, polluting cement factory). I don't know what direction the county zoning board will go, but I do hope that they opt for a number that still enables development of solar projects of sufficient size to be economical for the developer and meaningful for the state's energy needs.

Finally, there is the issue of residential solar development. Some people can't put panels on their home because they rent, have an apartment, or have an unsuitable roof type or orientation. For them, the solution is to buy a share in a community solar garden. This is a Minnesota specific (so far as I can tell) solution whereby a person or entity buys a share of the power from a third party solar development that can then be applied toward his/her/its energy bill. This expands access to solar greatly, helps create a market for solar energy, and provides financing for additional development. For those who do have the financing, site suitability, and space for hosting their own solar, there are many programs and incentives for financing them including tax rebates, exemptions from property tax for the value of solar panels, and other possible incentives that vary by municipality. Financing can also often be achieved using PACE (Property Assessed Clean Energy) programs, where the cost of the array is added to the property tax assessment and paid off in installments at low interest over a number of years. And, to ensure that changes in the neighborhood don't impede established solar, Minnesota has created a statutory solar easement (there might be a common law one as well, but I'm not sure about Minnesota, other states definitely do) that guarantees a right to the sun for properly described panels, including the right to restrict the use of neighboring land that might impair that right.

As a fun thought experiment, I also pondered whether such a solar easement (express or implied) would be a property right subject to eminent domain. I believe it is because under a line of Supreme Court cases, while there is no longer a right to the sky infinitely, there is a right to as much of the sky as can reasonably be used by the occupant on the ground. This prevents airplanes (except low flying ones) from being trespassers, but it does create a right to build tall buildings, windmills, geothermal plants, gas flares, and other structures and developments that might require large amounts of overhead clearance. It also almost certainly would include a right to unimpeded access to the sun for an existing solar array (of any form) or solar heating element. If a neighbor built in a way that harmed it, that neighbor would be damaging your interest and you could likely enforce your easement (especially if recorded). If the government built in a similar way, it would have to compensate you, though what that compensation would ultimately consist of I couldn't begin to guess. There are so many things that could be considered (value of panels, value of the energy, value of future production, etc.) that it would be quite an interesting fight, one that would surely make it into textbooks, lecture circuits, and conferences around the country. I don't think it's happened yet, but with the amount of growth we are seeing in the solar industry, it's only a matter of time.

So, solar is a growth industry, and it's even growing here, in the seemingly unlikely northern state of Minnesota. We may not have the non-stop desert sun of Arizona and Southern California, but we do have an excellent resource and are only beginning to tap into its potential.

Reboot!

So, it's been a long time since I last published. This is due to a number of personal and professional reasons that I don't really want to get into, but there have been a lot of changes in my life. I got married, bought a house, and returned to school for another graduate degree. This time I am studying GIS (Geographic Information Science) at the University of Minnesota. My goal in this is to develop a strong analytical and technical skill set that I can combine with my legal training and policy knowledge to build a more successful and interesting career in land management/use, natural resources policy, environmental law, consulting, or renewable energy development.

I'm enjoying my return to academia (while also continuing to work). It's good being able to use my brain for things I'm actually interested in and to explore the realm of facts and ideas in a way that isn't just keeping it to myself or a small conversation group. I suppose that's why I initially started this blog, but things happen. I'm back now, though! So that's something.

Picking up on the school theme, that is the primary driver behind my return to active blogging. It hasn't been a lack of interest or ideas, just a combination of time, in person conversations with people substituting for posting on the same topic, and a few other obstacles that are no long relevant. Plus, one of my classes this semester is called Geography and Real Estate and one of the project options for it is to develop a blog about property and land issues in Minnesota. Well, I already have a blog and it is already largely focused on land and environmental issues. Why not discuss property as well? Property issues are really just another type of land use decision and all land use decisions are fundamentally environmental decisions. The built environment is just as much a part of our world and has just as strong an impact on people's health and well-being (possibly more if one never is able to leave the city), so I don't think I need to redirect or rededicate the blog's original purpose. And even if I did, it's my blog, so I can do it if I want to.

So here's a recap/reintroduction/summary of what I hope to accomplish for new users (Hello Professor Squires!), repeat users (Hello Russian Search Engine Redirects, for some reason), and various webcrawling scripts:
I have a background in environmental history and science and have a degree in law with a focus on environmental and natural resources law with a particular interest in land use and resource management policy. This blog is really dedicated to exploring the social, environmental, political, economic, and occasionally philosophical aspects of news items, events, and scientific discoveries/announcements that in some was relate to public lands or the human environment (so, everything). I generally pull post ideas from the national media, though I do sometimes find local stories with a good hook (not hard being based in Minnesota, though they aren't always derived from here) or do research on general themes that I have been pondering for a while and decided to write up. I also like to write up summaries and reviews of parks that I visit, hence the name (there are a few that I've got coming, but I don't think I'll be doing all the ones I've been to since my last posting).

That's enough of an introduction for now. If you want to learn more about my thoughts and interests, please read through my posting history, it's not that long, or wait a few days. I've got more posts coming soon. It's for academic credit, so you know this time the promise has some heft!

Mille Lacs Kathio

Two weeks ago my boyfriend and I went camping in Minnesota's Mille Lacs Kathio State Park with our dog, Izzy. Located two hours north of the Twin Cities and about thirty minutes outside of  Brainerd, Kathio is conveniently located for a weekend excursion. We were there for a Thursday and Friday night in early May, when it can still be cold and rainy, so there weren't as many people as there might normally be in the full summer camping season, but the park has sizable campgrounds with numerous group and individual sites and has a large network of trails, so it can absorb a lot of people for its comparatively small size. However, if you, like us, want a more secluded experience, you definitely need to make reservations. There are only four hike-in "primitive" sites (pit toilet, fire grate, picnic table, and sand tent pad provided, so not the most primitive by the standards of other MN parks) and reservations are necessary to get the one you want. We wanted the Black Bass Lake site, which can be reached by trail or canoe, but it was not available both nights so we opted for the Glacial Ridge site, very pretty and on its own side loop trail unconnected to any other, so there was little chance of people wandering by.

The entire park stretches from the shore of Mille Lacs Lake, along a chain of smaller lakes, toward Onamie Lake, and is largely made up of marsh, bog, and other wetlands. it has upland trails, as well as paved trails for biking. Horses are also allowed in some areas and there is a designated lot for horse trailers. In the winter there is skiing and snowshoeing. We learned the hard way that trails marked for skiers but not labeled on the "summer" trail map are impassable when not covered with snow. We did see some beautiful wetland plants but were unable to get through to our destination and had to turn around. Fortunately the entire trail system in the park consists of interconnected loops and rings so it isn't hard to find a new path. Numbered intersection markers make it easy to navigate for those with less experience handling a map.

There are also a handful of historical and natural interpretive sites in the park. The historical ones trace human occupation from the first recorded inhabitants all the way through squatters in the 1920s. It is common to see Native American artifacts and sites (the area was an important source of wild rice) treated as important archeological data, including trash piles. It takes some mental adjustment to view evidence of more recent occupation such as foundations (some with concrete), evidence of gardens (lilacs), and modern trash (discarded steel and car parts), with the same amount of historical importance. As a former history major I a bit embarrassed to admit this, but I still found it odd at first. I completely understand, after all, we want to understand an area's entire history and all people's relationship with it (a relationship that is constant and ongoing and continues to be shaped even by the visitors and parks department that manages the sites), but even for someone trained in historical thought it takes a bit of prodding to recall that we are all still participants in, as well as observers of, both the historical and natural record. So, while it is odd being asked not to disturb old mufflers and cans you may encounter (please do disturb and dispose of modern ones), it serves as a reminder of our place and continuing role in the construction, meaning, and value of these places.

The park also has an observation tower that can be climbed in good weather. This is definitely worthwhile, but is not for those who have a fear of heights. It is about a hundred feet high and leads to an enclosed (with windows) observation platform big enough for a handful of people at a time. It allows for a survey of the entire park landscape, enabling the viewer to see the drainage of Mille Lacs Lake through the Rum River and the chain of lakes. In fall or early spring I imagine it is particularly stunning. Unfortunately it is possible to see the nearby casino, but that is only in one direction.

While there aren't any stunning vistas in the park, there is lots of natural beauty as well as a large number of wild flowers and wetland species.

Jack-in-the-Pulpit

Marsh Marigold

Yellow Trillium

Horsetail

A beaver lodge (didn't see the beaver)

Sound and Light

Just a short post (and apologies for not posting in a while, it has been a busy month looks to continue being busy for the next few weeks but that really shouldn't be an excuse) on things that are both important and frequently overlooked: sound and darkness. When one thinks of nature, the first things that come to mind are often landscapes, sometimes animals or plants, but the idea is almost always dominated by the visual. In fact, many people probably think of nature as a place where it is silent, only realizing that it is actually filled with myriad noises of its own, from the wind and water to the sound of insects, birds, and other animals, all of which contribute to the soundscape (and not in the cheesy, "sounds of nature" relaxation tape way).

What got me thinking about this topic was a profile I read about a month ago about Davyd Betchkal and other members of the Denali National Park sound capture team. Their goal is to record a month's worth of sound from around the park and despite the remoteness of the location and the fact that they have been at it for six years, they still have only 36 days of audio without combustion engines. Some sites have recorded as many as 78 planes in a 24 hour period. Another captures some kind of motor  every 17 minutes. While human activities undoubtedly affect wildlife, it is unclear if there is a minimum level of disturbance that can coexist with a healthy, "natural" ecosystem and soundscape. Part of why it is so difficult to determine is because it is so difficult to record days without disturbance, let alone multiple days at once. It is hard to know what to change when there isn't even a well-defined baseline to use for comparison. Combine that with the inherent uncertainty behind observation (the Observer Effect and the Uncertainty Principle can be particularly pronounced when dealing with sounds and wildlife for obvious reasons) and it can seem like an almost impossible task.

As difficult as the task the Denali recorders have set for themselves may be, it is an important one and when I read about it I immediately was reminded of Maya Lin's beautiful and ambitious, multi-media memorial/exhibit/installation/activism called What is Missing? This piece, at home on the internet but partnered with organizations and individuals worldwide, is meant to draw attention to the disappearance of species from the planet, in part by using audio and video pieces to highlight what is or, more often, isn't there. We don't often think about the world in terms of what used to be or what is absent, but this piece forces us to confront that and urges action to prevent a world where all the sounds (and sights and smells and ecological contributions) are limited to just a handful of the most common, most opportunistic, or most invasive species.

While it isn't exactly the same, I would say that a similar idea relates to darkness. Darkness isn't actually dark, at least not in the open wilderness (caves are different), but it is important. Light pollution, like sound pollution, separates us from the world around us, concentrating our attention on the ground level experience and reducing our awareness of the greater world and universe around us. There is something about being able to look into a truly dark sky and see to incomprehensible distances that changes one's outlook, I would say for the better, and opens the mind to the existence of things and people beyond the immediate experience. While urban areas will always have light pollution, there is much that can be done to reduce it so that safety concerns are still satisfied but the ugly brown glow blotting out the sky and spreading over the horizon is minimized.

So those are my quick thoughts on sound and light. I know I haven't done them justice but I hope that just by talking about them I can help bring them out of the background, where they are often upstaged by the showier, more breathtaking scenery.

Bonneville Power, Wind, and Surplus Energy

When people think of the Pacific Northwest they may think of Seattle and Portland and their associated populace. They may also think of volcanoes, the spotted owl, old-growth temperate rain forest, or the perpetual battles over dams and salmon in the Columbia-Snake watershed. While there are many things to be said about all of those topics, today I mean to discuss something that less associated with the region (in large part because it is generally an issue only in the sparsely populated Eastern regions of Washington and Oregon), wind power.

While many are probably aware of the presence of dams in the region and their importance to regional electricity generation (and their effect on endangered salmon), it is less well known that there is a growing wind energy sector in the high desert areas of central Washington and Oregon. While both hydropower and wind are generally thought of as "renewable" resources because they do not emit carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases, most dams are not as environmentally friendly as they are sometimes portrayed (and have a host of complications and serious effects on river health and aquatic animals and plants), though they are on the whole more desirable than coal-fired plants. In the Pacific Northwest the relationship between dams and wild salmon is particularly fraught, with long-running legal challenges and battling scientific evaluations pushing back and forth over which dams should be re-worked, which decommissioned and removed, and how much water must be allowed to flow through to facilitate both up- and down-stream migration of the anadramous fish. When America's inadequate and aging electric grid and an expanding wind sector get dragged into it as well it only serves to complicate all the issues further, but provides a valuable example of why we need to upgrade to a smart grid that is connected to a more diffuse electric generation system.

This particular issue began last spring when the Columbia River had unusually high water levels and the Bonneville Power Administration claimed that it needed to let more water through its generators than normal in order to keep river conditions suitable for newly hatched salmon fry heading downriver to the sea. Because of the way dams are designed, this meant any water let through the generators had to be used to generate electricity (spillways would not have worked in these circumstances the agency claimed because they would have caused too much turbulence for the fry to tolerate). This led to BPA hydropower surging into the grid which would have been overloaded had the agency not ordered local wind projects to suspend operations in an inversion of the usual order of operations (in which dams release more water to generate power during times when the atmosphere is too still). This, naturally, upset the wind project owners, especially since BPA did not make any efforts to direct surplus wind power to fossil fuel driven plants in the grid area, a practice called negative pricing, that is common in other areas of the country.

Now there has been a resolution to the dispute. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruled that the BPA was wrong in its actions and was required to rewrite its rules for handling future occurrences of surplus power. How the monetary damages will be distributed between the wind producers and BPA has not yet been finalized.

While having a truly national energy grid would be greatly helpful in eliminating these sorts of situations, where local production is so great that it threatens to overwhelm the system and cannot be exported because of transmission bottlenecks or other issues, that will not completely solve the problem or eliminate conflicts or risk. Denmark has had problems where its large coastal wind installations have generated so much power the nation's grid cannot absorb it all and it must actually pay its neighbors to take it off its hands. While this is rare in the United States and Canada, it can occur and is common in some areas (as I mentioned above). A national grid run by a unified, central system (whether governmental, intergovernmental, public-private partnership, or concerted private action) will largely eliminate the need for such practices except under the most exigent circumstances (though people still need to agree that power lines can and should be built and then decide where to put them so that they are effective but also do the least harm to both the built and natural environments). Additionally, we must continue to invest in research on ways to store energy produced during daylight or windy hours for use during off-hours that might still have high demands from consumers. This must include traditional ideas of storage like batteries as well as research on more innovative ideas like molten salt reserves, thermal gradients, repurposing, and other methods that may not yet have been devised. And, to show that I am not vilifying BPA, I'll finish by recognizing some of the innovative work it is doing in this area. While that doesn't excuse their behavior (and I feel justified saying that since the FERC smacked them down), or get them out of vigilant monitoring, there are far worse environmental and economic actors out there, especially in the realm of energy production. And it goes to show how complicated things can get when you start combining incredibly powerful and important agencies and laws with unexpected circumstances and infrastructure devised to serve the needs of a bygone era.

Arches

So over New Year's my boyfriend and I went out to Arches National Park in the Red Rocks country of southern Utah. And it was beautiful and relaxing and immensely enjoyable. Far nicer than going to an overcrowded bar and paying way too much for drinks. While there were far more people than I would have expected for the middle of winter, the park was by no means crowded. In fact it was quite easy to avoid people entirely by taking trails that were even moderately difficult or by getting started for the day at sunrise while others waited for it to get warmer. (The weather in December and January is generally quite nice, highs in the 40s and lows in the 20s, much nicer than the regular 100+ days present in the summer season). While I often started the day with several layers, and finished it the same way, once I started hiking and the sun got higher I quickly shed them for lighter gear. Much more pleasant and easier to try to get warm than stay cool, though the dry air, even when cold, dehydrates you faster than you realize.

While we didn't slip and fall this sign is quite accurate, the rocks are very slippery.

For a park that is only three hours from Salt Lake and six from Denver and has a high yearly attendance, going at a time that minimizes crowds certainly is a priority. This is another point in favor of going in the off-season. Many trails are loops or out-and-back and therefore quite prone to congestion and crowding. As it was there was one place, Delicate Arch (famous from Utah's license plate) where the number of people all wanting to get photographed with the formation almost prevented us from getting a quality picture (I snuck mine in during the only 30 second window no one was standing in it). The rest of the park generally had some people, we were only alone on our early hikes, though there was none of the traffic or half-mile car lines waiting to park at some trailheads that some road signs indicated could occur during summer.

 

Delicate Arch

The amenities in the park are quite good. A new visitor center has excellent and interactive geology and wildlife exhibits that are accessible to kids but not boring to adults. There are also, during summer, numerous ranger-led programs including tours of the Fiery Furnace area of the park (off-limits without a special permit and inadvisable to those without knowledge of the area due to its maze-like nature and the fragility of the desert soils). Sadly we were not able to hike in the Fiery Furnace or do backcountry camping or hiking. Those will have to wait until our next visit, perhaps one that will add Colorado National Monument and Canyonlands, both nearby. There is only one campground that is first come, first served in the winter and by reservation in summer. It is quite beautiful (the best views are from the sites 20-25) but could be improved by better enforcement of park policies and the separation of trailers/RVs from tents, but those are minor issues in the grand scheme and were addressed more fully in my most recent post.

Part of the Fiery Furnace

In addition to its stunning geology the park also has the standard desert flora and fauna (we didn't see any rare ones but did see plenty of critters and the beautifully weathered desert plants, especially Utah juniper). It also has easily accessible prehistoric petroglyphs and rock art, as well as markings made by Spanish explorers and settlers. Unfortunately these are faded now because they were vandalized in the 1980s and the restoration process reduced their vibrancy. Still, well worth seeing (and a surprise to us).

Seeing cacti covered with snow was unexpected.

Junipers are long-lived and self-prune dramatically to conserve water leading to their beautiful, weathered appearance.

 

Some of the petroglyphs at Arches

It really doesn't do much justice to the park to describe it or even to post pictures, particularly since when you are there almost everything you see is so stunning you feel the need to photograph it. Indeed, it is difficult at times to put the camera away and just appreciate the place for what it is, but I did manage to do that at least a few times while I was there. I'll post a few more pictures of my trip but you'll just have to go for yourself.

Sunset from our campsite

The famous Landscape Arch

The spectacular Double Arch with Andrew for scale

Me looking off during a break on the Dark Angel trail

Campground Etiquette

On my New Year's trip to Arches National Park I stayed in the only campground in the park. It has nice, well-maintained, spacious sites with spectacular views. They are pretty close together, though some are semi-sheltered by large rocks and juniper trees. In the winter it is only half open, but at peak season it could easily have 300 people or more at any time. As it was, the available spaces were almost filled every night. It also had trash disposal and some recycling collection as well as modern bathrooms with dishwashing space. Unfortunately it also is a mixed tent/RV/trailer site with no designated areas for different types of camping and, at least in winter, little to no enforcement of noise and generator curfews. This significantly detracted from the overall experience, especially since we had initially planned on trying to get a backcountry permit at the park office. They are available but there aren't any designated sites or areas and in the winter we didn't want to deal with that without doing a bit more research. Perhaps next time we are out there.

Unless you happen to live in the vicinity, you are going to need to stay somewhere when you visit a park. Generally the options are camping in some form in the park, camping at a BLM, Forest Service, or state park in the area, or staying at a hotel in a nearby community. In the case of Arches, all are options and the town of Moab is actually a neat place, at least in the winter when it isn't overrun by tourists. It even has identifiable local businesses and eateries that actual residents support. However, many people, myself included, view camping as a major reason for visiting a park and an essential part of the experience. While sleeping in a tent and cooking on a stove or fire is real camping, it is not for everyone and there are different degrees of alternatives. Some involve elaborate tent cities and grills. Others involve unpowered camper trailers or truck bed campers. Some people use RVs or powered trailers. All of them do have conceivable uses and some people actually do other things in a park besides sit in or around their vehicles (though I did see some who appeared to spend the entire time in their trailer). But there are some guidelines people should follow to maximize the enjoyment of everyone that come down to basic courtesy and common sense.

• Keep the electronics to a minimum. Yes, I know you really want to listen to the Cowboys game or have a dance party or watch a movie on your laptop, but you can do that at home, or in a motel, or anywhere else. You may not appreciate the experience and the location, but there are many others around you who are trying. Don't disrupt them, and if you cannot last, keep it quiet and use headphones.
• On the same topic, lots of the ridiculous things you might have brought and inexplicably find essential require power. If you use your car or a generator please try to park in a cluster with others in a similar situation and leave at least part of the campground free for those who want a quieter experience and absolutely abide by the posted curfews for shutoff. Yes, it's a drag having to use a flashlight or firelight or even sit in the dark or sleep once the sun goes down, but that's part of the deal. There are great stars in the world's darker places, try looking at them.
• Please keep your pets on leash and clean up after them. I love and own dogs and have gone camping with them, but in a campground even the best behaved ones can create a problem if not controlled, especially if there are several. They love playing and exploring and it can quickly create a culture where other polices slip, waste accumulates, and the quality of the campground deteriorates. Campgrounds, especially in parks, are often islands in a sensitive ecosystem. While many people don't take warnings about fragile soils seriously, animals have no awareness of it whatsoever, nor do they have any reservation about digging or hunting indigenous wildlife. As for the people who have cats in their campers, that's just weird.
• Get your kids involved. Good for you bringing your kids out to experience the natural world, even in one of its Disneyfied, theme park forms. Now try to build an appreciation by getting them to engage with different aspects of the experience. Star gazing. Fire building. Assembling a campsite. Cooking on a stove. Taking nature walks (at Arches there is a great one that essentially leaves from the campground and can take all day if you do it in its entirety, another one gives you a few hours). Get them to do things they couldn't or wouldn't do at home. Kudos to the family that brought their bikes with them so they could take the road through the red rocks. That was much better behavior than our neighbors at the campground who brought their gymboree in their pickup and let their kids watch DVDs all night (probably to alleviate the screaming fury that resulted from any dissatisfaction).
• Clean up after yourself. At Arches the campground was generally pretty clean but I've been to some where there is garbage everywhere (don't burn it, for a lot of reasons) and it is repulsive. Additionally, just because something is food doesn't mean it is "natural" and doesn't mean it will "compost." Composting takes time and some things will not decompose in all ecosystems. You also don't want to attract animals to campgrounds. They can be nuisances and it can be unsafe for people and for the animals (many get hit by cars after being attracted to food). It is also bad to get them acculturated to human food in some seasons only to have it disappear later in the year.
•  Finally, everyone likes sex, but if you must have sex in a campground, remember that it is a semi-public space and you are in close proximity to others with very little sound barrier, so have some discretion. Loud, screaming sex is generally inappropriate for such a campground. If you want to engage in that, pick a remote, backcountry site or a hotel.

So there are some general rules of etiquette for large campgrounds. It's not exhaustive and not particularly original, but you would be shocked how many people don't realize that they are doing anything inconsiderate at all. Perhaps this will help.

P.S. Despite our immediate neighbors, the rest of the experience in the Arches campground was fantastic and I give it (in its winter form) a solid four stars, segregating tents from RVs and enforcing generator limits are the only major things I'd change.