Post on 12-Jan-2016
TELLURIDE, TOM CRUISE, AND LAND USE CODES: Science, Policy and Community
Response
Mark WilliamsINSTAAR, Geography, ENVS and
Undergraduate Academy
SCIENCE AND POLICY
How much scientific certainty is needed before setting public policy?
Can scientists define important environmental thresholds to provide guidance for land use managers?
Should scientists even be involved in setting public policy?
SCIENCE AND POLICY: DIFFERENT APPROACHES
Science-driven policy“… an incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of climatic change …” George BushPrecautionary PrinciplePrudent legislation with perception of
public risk, in parallel with scientific research
TELLURIDE: New West
LEGACY OF EXTRACTIVE INDUSTRIES
RECREATION
TROPHY HOMES: A NEW ERA
LIFESTYLES OF THE
RICH AND FAMOUS
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Trophy homes: Tom Cruise, Oliver Stone
Ski area expansion
Increased recreational activities
All superimposed on extractive industries: mining, logging, etc.
HIGH-ELEVATION AREAS AT RISK
Scenic and recreational values of these high-elevation areas are what attracted people to Telluride in the first place
De facto protection because logistically too expensive to construct access roads and houses in this rugged, snowy, cold terrain
Money no longer limiting!
HOW TO PROTECT?
Balance restrictions with reasonable economic and recreational activities
Legal approach that is bulletproofGood intentions not good enough
Committed stakeholders
Community consensus
INITIAL EFFORTS
San Miguel Planning Department proposed “blue line” at 11,000’Developers said they would sueCounty attorney refused to back planning department
“Blue line” was capricious and arbitraryNeeded a new strategy
SCIENCE and POLICY
Planning department approached EPA for advice in developing “science-based” regulations.
EPA asked me to help
Initial grant was $10,000 from SMC; source money from EPA
Labor of love: subsidized by other grants
HOW DO WE MEET THIS CHALLENGE?
We use “good science”
What in hell is “good science”?
WATER QUALITY
Mom and apple pie-no one against good water quality
Streams are kidneys of an ecosystem
Water quality provides diagnostic indicator of ecosystem health
Indicators based on process-level research
KIDNEY ANALOGOUSTO A WATERSHED
WATER QUALITY IN STREAMS ANDRIVERS IS THE END PRODUCT OF ALL
PROCESSES IN THE BASIN
METHODSMapped landscape types in 18 headwater catchments
Collected water samples from subsets of each landscape type
Time series of water samples from test basins
Major solutes, pH, conductance, ANC
COLLABORATIVE EFFORT
Local citizens: watershed coalition
County government: San Miguel County planning department
State government: Colorado Health Department
Federal government: EPA
University scientists: CU-Boulder
LANDSCAPE APPROACH
High-elevation areas a mosaic of landscape types
Forested areas, meadows, tundra, talus, riparian zones, abandoned mines
Each landscape type differs in water quality
Avoids “one-size fits all” approach
Accounts for spatial heterogeneity
MINE
RIPARIAN
TUNDRA
FOREST
TALUS
AN
C (
mic
ro e
q/L
)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
RIPARIAN
TUNDRA
FOREST
TALUS
Nitr
ate
(mic
ro e
q/L)
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
SCIENCE FINDINGS
Nitrate concentrations vary by landscape type
Nitrate concentrations in talus and tunda are higher than in most pristine areas
Forested areas have low nitrate values
Disturbance will most likely elevate nitrate in talus and tundra, but not forests.
FROM GLOBAL TO LOCAL:Land use codes
Land use codes depends on local culture and local politics
Science can only advise
Nitrate as ecosystem indicator:Depends on the amount of “acceptable” perturbation
Ag, grazing, subdivisions will have different nitrate values than pristine area
“Acceptable” perturbation a local decision
TELLURIDE DECISIONDecision was made to try and keep high-elevation areas “pristine”.Inherent in this decision was a desire to maintain the economic benefits of a local population surrounded by “pristine” lands.
Development types reasonably happy
“Pristine” lands maintained environmental integrity
Tree-huggers happy.
LAND USE CODES
Maximum building footprint of 800 sq ft
No septic tanks
No fertilization
Maximum road width of 10 feet
No winter plowing
BUILDING FOOTPRINT
As scientists, we cannot defend 800 sq ft versus 1200 sq ft
However, we can defend no buildings as the optimum solution to maintain pristine values
However, no buildings would be a “takings”
Permitting construction removes “takings”
Allowable size then a legal issue, based on the argument that no construction is the ideal solution
MITIGATION
Once the public accepted (sort of) the science and rationale behind the land use codes, they asked to mitigate problems
Mitigation involves benchmarks such as specific nitrate concentrations in monitoring wells
The county argued no, because the mitigation measures themselves would reduce scenic and other values that contribute to “pristineness”
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Public workshops
Public presentations to planning department
Public meeting with BOCC
Newspaper, radio announcements
Notified all landowners by mail
TALKING POINTS WITH THE PUBLIC
The “who cares” question
Avoid use of terms such as “good”, “bad”, “unhealthy,”, etc
Land-use codes a political and cultural decision, not scientific
We focused on whether to maintain these areas in a “pristine state”.
Editorial: POWER OF MAPS
We made 3’x4’ maps of each watershed, 18 maps in total
Each map had the sensitive areas
Overlayed private parcels
People spent hours pouring over the maps
I really think that the maps were the biggest selling point
BOCC Presentation on 6 May
Standing room onlyLots of speakers, both pro and conLots of questions about the science: sampling frequency, QA/QC, spatial variability, credentials of researchers, etcAnother year of funding proposedAction: tabled with written comments from public over two week span
LETTER FROM LETICIA FERRER
I would like to encourage you to adopt the Watershed Protection Area Amendments. The proposed amendments are reasonable and fair. They are based on sound science and accurate testing.
RECLA VENTURES LETTER
“The quandary that I find myself in is not only the laughable 800 square foot stipulation but a conflict of the new regulations with my present course of action: reclamation as monitored by the DMG, EPA …”
CEO of mining company
LETTER FROM IDARADO MINE
The proposed amendments are misleading when they use scientific sounding terms like “Ecological sensitivity”, “ecologically important groundwaters”, “ecological values of watershed basins”. These terms are undefined and are essentially vague and meaningless.
CONSULTANT ATTACK ON SCIENCE: I
The science and mapping approach is too broad brush
WE RESPONDED: Not so. Our research team explicitly recognizes the spatial heterogeneity of headwater catchments. Furthermore, this research design avoided a one-size-fits all approach.
CONSULTANT ATTACK ON SCIENCE: II
Studies were too narrow in approach
This completely contradicts item one above, e.g. that the study was “too broad-brushed”. The consultants have contradicted themselves. The study may be too broad or too narrow, but it cannot be both.
CONSULTANT ATTACK ON SCIENCE: III
Interpretations made by INSTAAR are scientifically debatable and not rooted in actual field testing and observations.
Not true. Our objections of ecological sensitivity were based on field measurements of three parameters: (a) trace metals; (b) acidification; and © eutrophication.
3 June 1998
Land use code amendments adopted by the Board of County Commissioners
We could not pass those codes today; new BOCC
MODEL
Researchers successfully worked with local stakeholders.Scientists successfully translated research results into public policyPolicy controls at the local level provide a model to use at the global levelBiocomplexity Grant: Greater Yellowstone Area: wolves, elk, humans and snow
WATER QUALITY DIAGNOSTIC OF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
Underutilized
Calibrate for different landuse scenarios
TRAIINING
Collection of water samples is simple
Minimal training
Volunteers acceptable
Minimal equipment
TAKE HOME MESSAGE
Top-down regulations don’t work
Community involvement essential
Public disclosure imperative
Opponents put up less of a fight if they feel that they’ve been consulted
KNOW THE SCIENCE!