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

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!