Transcript MERGING SCIENCE AND POLICY: COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO …

TELLURIDE, TOM
CRUISE, AND LAND
USE CODES: Science,
Policy and Community
Response
Mark Williams
INSTAAR, 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 Bush
Precautionary Principle
Prudent 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 bulletproof
Good intentions not good enough
Committed stakeholders
Community consensus
INITIAL EFFORTS
San Miguel Planning Department proposed
“blue line” at 11,000’
Developers said they would sue
County attorney refused to back planning
department
“Blue line” was capricious and
arbitrary
Needed 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 ANALOGOUS
TO A WATERSHED
WATER QUALITY IN STREAMS AND
RIVERS IS THE END PRODUCT OF ALL
PROCESSES IN THE BASIN
METHODS
Mapped 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
1000
800
600
400
200
0
-200
TALUS
TUNDRA
FOREST
RIPARIAN
MINE
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
TALUS
TUNDRA
FOREST
RIPARIAN
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 DECISION
Decision 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 only
Lots of speakers, both pro and con
Lots of questions about the science:
sampling frequency, QA/QC, spatial
variability, credentials of researchers, etc
Another year of funding proposed
Action: 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 policy
Policy controls at the local level provide a
model to use at the global level
Biocomplexity 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!