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!