November 2005

The Santo Domingo Pueblo
Pueblo land swap arrangement interweaves an interesting community of partners.

The last two articles of this column discussed the decades-old Dispersed Benefits Riddle, which is: “How can the dispersed benefits of aggregate extraction be applied to offset the environmental impacts on the local communities near the point of extraction?” The answer is found in discovering a means to provide local benefits to the communities that experience most of the problems associated with resource development. 

While the answer to the riddle may seem surprisingly simple, implementing the answer may be quite complex. Case in point.

The Santo Domingo Pueblo is between Albuquerque and Santa Fe, New Mexico, and was founded by Native Americans about 1700 A.D., after earlier pueblos were destroyed by floods.

During spring 2005, one of the United State’s largest aggregates producers, together with the Santo Domingo Pueblo, a private landowner, the Trust for Public Land (TPL), and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), carried out a complex land exchange. Each major participant in this agreement wanted something that another participant owned; and owned something that another participant wanted.

A private landowner owned a portion of land referred to as the Taos Valley Overlook. The land occupies part of a high desert mesa with great scenic value that offers spectacular views of the Rio Grande Gorge and the Sangre de Cristo Mountains. The property also provides critical habitat for the peregrine falcon, the bald eagle, and the threatened Southwestern willow flycatcher.

The BLM wanted to acquire and preserve that portion of the Taos lands — lands with environmental, scenic, and recreational value for all people in the region. And the BLM owned ancestral Santo Domingo Pueblo lands — lands of great importance to the Pueblo.

The Pueblo wanted to recover their ancestral lands — lands with many significant cultural sites that they wished to use and protect for future generations. And the Pueblo owned land underlain with gravel — a natural resource of importance to the aggregates company.

The aggregates company wanted to have access to that gravel. And the company had funds to purchase the Taos Overlook property and the desire to facilitate this land exchange.

The following summary does little justice to the complex, multiyear effort that resulted in the final land exchange:

The TPL negotiated an agreement to purchase a portion (161 acres) of the Taos Valley Overlook from the private owner. The aggregates producer purchased the property on behalf of the Pueblo. The Pueblo transferred that property and additional private lands in Santa Fe County to the BLM. In exchange, the BLM transferred 7,376 acres of ancestral lands to the Pueblo. In exchange for purchasing the Taos land for the Pueblo, the Pueblo leased a portion of its land to the aggregates producer for aggregates mining, with an agreement that the producer would operate the facility in an environmentally sensitive manner and would ultimately return the land to a natural state.

This land exchange, an outstanding example of cooperation, clearly created a multi-win situation. The Pueblo benefits from the return of ancestral lands, and the BLM and people throughout the region benefit from the acquisition of a portion of the Taos Valley Overlook. Although the aggregates company directly benefits from the mining lease, let’s not forget that everyone else also benefits from a new supply of natural aggregate that will be mined in an environmentally sensitive manner. AM

Note: This article was inspired by a presentation made by Vulcan Materials Co.’s Tom Lowry at the New Mexico Decision-Makers Conference 2005.

October 2005

Providing Benefits to the Local Community
A Colorado case study shows that the creation of ‘win-win’ situations
 can result in smoother permitting situations.

Last month, this column provided an answer to the dispersed benefit riddle: When a political entity is evaluating whether to allow development of an aggregate resource, how can the dispersed benefits of using that resource adequately be weighed in the local decision-making process? The answer to this is not found in devising a way to get the dispersed regional benefits considered in the local process. Instead, it’s found in providing benefits to the local community that experiences most of the problems associated with resource development.

For example, a major aggregate producer in Jefferson County, near Denver, submitted a proposal to enlarge its quarry. The company recognized that, to be successful, it had to offer the local community compensating, long-term advantages.

The company tendered a proposal that would adjust the boundary of its quarry to include 60 acres of land owned by the county. One of the proposal’s major challenges was the fact that the parcel was dedicated open space. The proposal represented a complicated transaction with wide ranging political, environmental, and philosophical implications.

Under this innovative proposal, the open space land was replaced with the following:

• One 20-acre parcel, zoned for commercial development;

• One 30-acre parcel, zoned for 212 residential dwelling units; and

• One 10-acre parcel of pristine, highly visible mountain property.

A major part of the transaction included a provision that, upon obtaining annexation and all necessary permits and zoning, the company would donate all of its land holdings (approximately 463 acres) on top of nearby North Table Mountain to the county for use as open space. That land had been on the community’s open space priority list for more than 30 years. In addition, the company gave the county the option to accept transfer of the quarry land upon completion of mining.

This land exchange was a true application of the mutual gains theory, which seeks to create a “win-win” situation for the community, the governmental entities, and the company involved in the project. The citizens and the county gained hundreds of acres of open space. The county has the future option to acquire the quarry land once quarrying and reclamation is completed.

The company was given ownership of 60 acres of previously dedicated open space land adjacent to the quarry and the right to extract aggregates. By doing so, the company doubled the life of the quarry and eliminated the need to start a new “greenfield” quarry elsewhere in the county. The company also guaranteed continued supply of aggregate to its existing on-site ready-mix and asphalt plants, and can continue to utilize its other equipment and infrastructure.

The proposal passed with no objections whatsoever, which is testament to the project planning.

As in most situations, expansion of the quarry will create dispersed benefits throughout the region. But this land swap also provides benefits to the local community and unraveled the dispersed benefits riddle.

Note: This article was condensed from USGS Open-File Report 03-121 Specification Aggregate Quarry Expansion — A Case Study Demonstrating Sustainable Management of Natural Aggregate Resources, by William H. Langer (USGS) and M.L. Tucker, (Lafarge North America Inc). It is available on the Web at:   http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr-03-121/ .

September 2005

Simple Solutions to Complex Riddles
Determining how to balance regional
 benefits and local impacts
creates a 20-year conundrum.

(e piph’ a ny) — noun — A sudden revelation of truth inspired by a seemingly trivial incident.

I recently experienced an epiphany, and it provided me with a simple answer to a complex riddle that has been plaguing the aggregates industry for more than two decades. I would like to share the riddle, the epiphany, and the answer to the riddle.

The riddle

Events leading to my epiphany began in 1983, when James R. Dunn made a presentation at the 18th Forum on the Geology of Industrial Minerals. His presentation was titled, “The Dispersed Benefit Riddle.”

The context of Jim’s riddle was the following: When aggregate resources are being developed, the benefits of development are dispersed throughout very large areas, whereas the local community where development occurs suffers most of the adverse consequences of resource development. The regional benefits are not usually considered in the local permitting process. If an environmentally sound aggregate extraction is denied at the local level, there usually are additional costs to the greater public and regional environment such as longer haul routes resulting in more truck traffic, noise, accidents, and more greenhouse gasses released to the atmosphere. 

The riddle is this: When a political entity is evaluating whether to allow development of an aggregate resource, how can the dispersed benefits of use of that resource be adequately weighed in the local decision-making process?

Nearly 10 years later (1992), at the Workshop on Industrial Minerals — Today and Tomorrow, Jim and I chatted about his riddle and lamented about how it had not yet been solved. During the next 10 or so years, I would discuss Jim’s riddle with numerous colleagues, always with the same disappointing outcome. The riddle seems as intractable as the Gordian Knot. 

The epiphany

This brings us to the year 2005 and the Decision-makers Field Conference — Mining in New Mexico. Almost half of the conference was devoted to presentations on aggregate mining and included visits to two localities: one that the conveners believed demonstrated the good, and one the not-so-good, way of mining aggregate.

One of the speakers from the aggregates industry made the very last comment of the conference. He made the simple statement that every community needs something, and it should be the goal of the local aggregate producer to identify that need and help the community achieve it.

That simple statement unraveled the “Dispersed Benefit Riddle” just as easily as Alexander the Great sliced his sword through the Gordian Knot. The years of puzzling about this were now over. I experienced a sudden revelation of truth inspired by a seemingly trivial incident — an epiphany.

The answer

As it turns out, the answer to Jim Dunn’s riddle — the question that has been plaguing the aggregates industry for more than two decades — is not found in devising a way to get the dispersed regional benefits considered in the local process. Instead, it is found in discovering a means to provide concentrated local benefits to the community that experiences most of the problems associated with resource development.

The best part is — it works. Aggregates Manager regularly contains articles about real-life examples where the industry has successfully worked with local communities to win their support. 

Meanwhile, I am looking for another riddle to solve. What other mystery shall I ponder for the next 20 years?

August 2005

Old Maps, New Digital Files,
 and the Rest of the Story
After being overshadowed by the glamour of bedrock, sand and gravel maps also make their digital debut.

Last month, I described how two maps contained in Natural Aggregates of the Conterminous United States — U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1594 had been transformed from paper maps living in relative obscurity into digital files that can be loaded into your desktop GIS or CAD program. From there you can organize, analyze, and display the data to suit your personal needs. I prepared an example using the digital version of Plate 2 — the map showing potential sources of crushed stone. I did not give an example of how to use Plate 1 — the sand and gravel map.

Then the guilt set in. Most of my field studies have involved the study of sand and gravel, not bedrock. Yet, I forsook my long-time companion for the glitz of the bedrock. This article is my atonement.

Plate 1 of Bulletin 1594 shows general areas of sand and gravel and associated geographic regions. It is important to know which regions the sand and gravel deposits are associated with because the distribution and quality of the sand and gravel within a region is a reflection of the geology and physiography of that region.

Plate 1 is fairly simple, maybe too simple for its own good. Although the sand and gravel is shown in red, the rest of the map is in black and white. It is extremely difficult to visualize the data on the map. To do it justice, you have to color in the different physiographic units. But Bulletin 1594 was intended to be a scientific report, not a coloring book.

Well, throw away your crayons — your computer can color the map for you. The illustration on this page is a simple computer-generated color rendition of the once bland physiographic units. Sand and gravel is still shown in red, but glacial areas are now shown in green, large alluvial valleys in orange, coastal plains in blue, and regions of bedrock or residual weathering materials in tan. The sand and gravel units make much more sense with the color background. For example, notice how the ribbon of sand and gravel near the Atlantic Coast falls along the inner edge of the coastal plains.

Modern computer technology has given me, and anyone else with computer GIS capabilities, the opportunity to utilize the old paper maps from the 1980s in many new and different ways. Let your imagination run wild. And please, don’t forget the sand and gravel map!

July 2005

Old Maps, New Digital Files,
and Simple Science
Through advances in technologies, maps that once fell into obscurity can now be simplified and made available on a widespread basis.

Long, long ago, back in the early ’80s, I was making maps showing potential sources of crushed stone and sand and gravel throughout the contiguous 48 states. High-powered desktop computers were a thing of the future, and I was preparing my maps using pen and ink on frosty plastic sheets. The final maps I was working on then were published in 1988, packaged as two plates (oversized maps) with Natural Aggregates of the Conterminous United States — U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1594.

Those plates contained a large amount of information. Unfortunately, because they were only available as paper copies, manipulating information contained on the maps for use in other applications was extremely labor intensive. The maps were quite popular and were reprinted during 1993. But I fear that they have spent most of their lives in obscurity — tucked away in the pocket on the back of the bulletin, or hung on the wall only to serve as a pretty picture.

New digital files

Fast forward 15 or so years. High-powered computers are as commonplace today as cassette tape players were during the ’80s. Modern computer technology has breathed new life into Bulletin 1594. Both the report and the plates are now available as digital files that can be downloaded for free at http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/b1594/ . These files can be loaded into your desktop GIS or CAD program where, through the marvels of modern computer wizardry, you can organize, analyze, and display the data to suit your personal needs. 

Simple science

If you recall the article “Simplifying Science According to Lewis Carroll” (see Aggregates Manager, May 2005), it conveys that a good map should not be too complicated. Plate 2 (contained in Bulletin 1594) shows eight different bedrock units, each described with a smidgen of geologic jargon. That relatively undemanding map can be simplified even more by grouping bedrock units and modifying the geologic descriptions. For example, the map shown in Figure 1 is the result of grouping the eight units shown on Plate 2 into three rock units with one-word descriptions familiar to the aggregate industry — limestone (shown in blue), granite (in green), and traprock (in orange).

Modern computer technology has given these maps from the ’80s the potential to be used in many different ways. Let me know if you discover any simple applications for these new digital maps. I’m guessing there might be quite a few!

June 2005

Surfing for Simple Science
A World Wide Web of aggregate information is as close as the nearest computer.

The other evening, I was grilling up some shitake mushroom and cheese-stuffed burgers for dinner when my mind started to wander. “What would happen,” I wondered, “if the idea of simple science that I have been harping about in my AggMan articles catches on? Where would someone be able to find examples of simple descriptions of aggregate mining, geology, and so forth?”

After dinner (my wife, Pam, and I agreed — the burgers were not that good), I logged onto the Web. There literally is a world of information out there. If you don’t surf the Web, you ought to try it! If you do surf the Web, you probably know what I’m talking about. You may be familiar with the Web sites for your national and local aggregate organizations, their outreach effort, and their educational information. You might check out the Web sites for your favorite aggregate magazine. And you might see how your competitors present science in simple terms.

From a geologic perspective, the U.S. Geological Survey and the state geological surveys should also be on your list. Now, I do not want to imply any favoritism, but the North Carolina Geological Survey has a dynamite site with a very simply written description of aggregate mining. So does Wyoming. And Indiana. Indiana also has a great, simple discussion of karst. Florida describes its minerals and mining history in simple terms. The list of “simple science” Web articles goes on and on. You can access the USGS at www.usgs.gov. The state geological surveys may be accessed through the  Association of American State Geologists at www.kgs.ukans.edu/AASG/AASG.html.

Two other organizations that you might not be familiar with are the American Geological Institute and the Mineral Information Institute.

AGI (www.agiweb.org) plays a major role in geoscience education and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role the geosciences play in society’s use of resources and interaction with the environment. The AGI publishes a series of simply-written, non-technical reports. A newly-released book from the organization — Aggregate and the Environment — is available as a hard copy. Groundwater: A Primer is available in paperback. Two other reports of interest in this series include Water and the Environment and Living with Karst: A Fragile Foundation. Both are available for free as a downloadable pdf.

MII (www.mii.org) is dedicated to education about the science of minerals and other natural resources and about the importance of minerals in our everyday lives. The MII has excellent teachers’ packets that can be perused for simple explanations of geology and mineral resources. The MII also has slick posters about minerals and mining as well as an extensive section of photographs showing land conditions before and after reclamation.

One caution — check your Web sources very carefully. Some people post information on the Web as casually as a kid flipping burgers at the local fast food joint. I thought it would be interesting to compare how much water it takes to produce a ton of aggregate with how much water it takes to prepare some familiar item — like a burger. (Yes, I was cooking burgers when I got that inspiration, too!) I found figures on the Web ranging from 1 gallon to more than 1,000 gallons. None of the Web postings I viewed described how they arrived at their values. Were they referring to cooking the burger, or did they describe the water needed to grow the feed, raise the cattle, butcher the cow, process the meat, transport the burger, and so forth? I couldn’t tell.

Hey, I don’t even know if their figures included the pickle, ketchup, lettuce, and bun. I had no confidence that they really knew what they were writing about.

Pam’s response to all this: “You like simple science — I like simple burgers.”

May 2005

Simplifying Science
Lewis Carroll's fictional treatise applies to modern-day permitting situations.

Lewis Carroll’s  The Hunting of the Snark — An Agony in Eight Fits  (1891), is a nonsensical poem describing the happenings of a collection of wacko characters aboard a sailing ship headed on a wild goose chase to find an elusive monster called the snark. Perhaps it is like the process to hunt down that elusive permit for your next pit or quarry!

In Fit the Second — The Bellman’s Speech, Carroll describes an attempt to simplify science. 

He had bought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land;
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.

“What’s the good of Mercator’s North Poles and Equators,
Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?”
So the Bellman would cry, and the crew would reply
They are merely conventional signs! 

Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes!
But we’ve got our brave Captain to thank.”
(So the crew would protest) “that he’s bought us the best —
A perfect and absolute blank!”

One of the approaches to simplifying science, as Carroll’s poem demonstrates, is to make use of uncomplicated graphics. But Carroll’s map is a little too simple; most people are able to handle a bit more detail. For example, many people understand a high-quality road map: the routes that roads take, the type of road (different colors, line weights, and line patterns to denote interstate highway, state highway, rural route, and so forth), population centers and their size (areas of different sizes, shapes, and colors showing cities and towns and their general population), distances between cities and towns, rivers, and some points of interest such as parks. A road map contains just about the right amount of information, and is a good model to follow in preparing illustrations to describe science to non-technical audiences. Just use simple graphics and be sure to explain what is on the map, chart, poster, or other displays of information.

In Fit the Fourth — The Hunting, the man they called “Hi” spoke, 

“I said it in Hebrew —  I said it in Dutch — 
I said it in German and Greek:
But I wholly forgot (and it vexes me much)
That English is what you speak!” 

The lesson here? Speak the plain language of your audience and be concise. Try to avoid making unconscious use of assumptions, background knowledge, and jargon with which the audience is unfamiliar. Remember, you are an expert in the business but your audience probably is not. The audience might think that 57s is a variety of pickles; a jaw crusher is a dental tool; and C-131 is a type of vitamin.

In Fit the Fifth — The Beaver’s Lesson, the Butcher explained to the Beaver, 

“Taking Three as the subject to reason about — 
A convenient number to state — 
We add Seven, and Ten, and then multiply out
By One Thousand diminished by Eight.
“The result we proceed to divide, as you see,
By Nine Hundred and Ninety Two:
Then subtract Seventeen, and the answer must be Exactly and perfectly true.
“The method employed I would gladly explain,
While I have it so clear in my head,
If I had but the time and you had but the brain — 
But much yet remains to be said.  

Your audience might not be familiar with mathematical equations, but do not treat them like they have no brains. Instead, tailor your communication style with respect, clarity, and simplicity. Put equations into words and explain what they mean. Take care with mathematical notation; the plus, minus, multiply, and divide signs probably are enough for most non-technical listeners. 

Still in Fit the Fifth, the Butcher said, 

“In one moment I’ve seen what has hitherto been
Enveloped in absolute mystery,
And without extra charge I will give you at large
A Lesson in Natural History. ”
In his genial way he proceeded to say
(Forgetting all laws of propriety,
And that giving instruction, without introduction,
Would have caused quite a thrill in Society),  

The Butcher ignored convention when he explained natural history to the Beaver. Do likewise. Try using analogies or simple comparisons. For example, slamming a door, hammering a nail, and kids jumping all create more vibrations in a house than a quarry blast within acceptable limits. 

What does this simple approach get you? According to Carroll, 

While the Beaver confessed, with affectionate looks
More eloquent even than tears,
It had learned in ten minutes far more than all books
Would have taught it in seventy years.

April 2005

The Road from Toowoomba
Australia's innovative plan for preserving key resource areas — including aggregates.

Toowoomba, Queensland, is one of the places that Andy Stephens took me to visit on a recent trip to Australia. Andy works with the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines. During the morning, Andy and other folks from DNR&M made a public presentation at Toowoomba to describe the Key Resource Area concept. KRA is an innovative method of protecting aggregate resources (and other minerals) from encroachment by non-compatible land uses.

Later, we enjoyed a scrumptious seafood buffet. After way too much food, we got in the car and headed back to Jindalee. While on the road, I was nodding off, but was startled back to consciousness by the sound of the car running off the road.

We had left the paved highway and were now zooming along a gravel road; miles and miles of nothing but ironbark trees. Then, in the middle of nowhere, we stopped the car. Andy jumped out of the car, ran into the woods, picked up something, and gleefully returned with a fist-sized piece of rock. “This is greenstone!” he proclaimed. “It makes great road base, asphalt, and concrete. This is some of the best rock in this part of Queensland!”

It was, indeed, good-looking rock. But there was more to this location than first met the eye. We had stopped at the Mount Cross Key Resource Area, which was one of the topics of discussion at the earlier meeting.

The state of Queensland has recognized that aggregate deposits are essential to the state’s economy. However, encroaching development has complicated the extraction of those resources, so the KRA concept was devised to protect regionally significant resources.

A KRA includes the aggregate resources, associated processing areas, and haulage routes. It includes a separation area to protect the resource and haul route from potential incompatible land uses. In addition, a KRA is subjected to a preliminary evaluation to determine if there are potential adverse social, cultural, or environmental situations that would conflict with resource extraction. Passing those tests, an area is nominated for approval.

The state planning policy recommends that once a KRA is approved, it be incorporated into the relevant local government planning scheme. Thereafter, any increase in land use density that requires development approval will be evaluated to determine whether or not the proposed use can be carried out without detriment to existing aggregate extraction activities or future access to the resource and to determine if the proposed activity is suitable for an extractive industry area.

KRAs are delineated primarily over land zoned for rural purposes, and designation does not imply any loss of existing rights to continue rural activities as permitted under the existing planning scheme. However, KRAs are areas where increased rights for intensification of settlement or development are generally not appropriate or should only be allowed with conditions that protect the aggregate resources.

The proposed state planning policy identifies 98 extractive resource deposits as KRAs. And even though the policy has not yet been adopted, many local governments throughout Queensland have already adopted KRAs into their planning schemes.

In summary, a KRA is a place where quarrying, in a strategic planning sense, is the most appropriate use for that land. Thus, it is an area where protection from increased density of development is justified to allow future consideration for resource development.

The plan itself is only three pages long and is written without jargon. People can understand the plan. It is so simple that the DNR&M described it and answered questions about it during one short meeting.

That allowed ample time for lunch and what I assumed would be a peaceful nap on the road to Jindalee.

March 2005

Maps That Are Worth a Thousand Words
Color-coded maps demonstrate the need to protect our
 remaining aggregate resources.

A couple of weeks after returning from our trip to Australia, my wife, Pam, and I decided we needed a trip to the high country of Colorado. We loaded our dogs Lucy and Rosie into the van and drove a couple hours up to the Continental Divide at the top of Loveland Pass — altitude 11,991 feet.

While we were enjoying our Colorado mountain high, we began reminiscing about our visit to the Great Dividing Range in Australia. Andy and Jo-Anne Stephens, our hosts, tour guides, and newfound friends, took us on a trip from Jindalee (near Brisbane) to Toowoomba, Queensland, which sits atop the Great Dividing Range at an altitude of about 2,300 feet. It’s quite different from Loveland Pass.

Pam and Jo-Anne’s mission was to visit some antique shops and gardens. Andy’s mission was to preside over a meeting to present the draft Queensland state planning policy for protecting aggregate and other extractive resources. I was there to observe what Andy and his crew from the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines had to say about the plan and to see how the local folks took to it.

In the first of this series of articles, I described a meeting where science was seriously obfuscated by techno-speak. The meeting at Toowoomba differed from that other meeting almost as much as the Great Dividing Range at Toowoomba differs from the Continental Divide at Loveland Pass. The Toowoomba presentation was neat, simple, and free of jargon.

One key element was that the DNR&M folks described not only the plan, but also the need for the plan. This presentation could have been fraught with switchbacks and dropoffs. Instead, they had devised three simple maps to demonstrate the need for the plan. Those maps are shown above. The simple way they described the maps is paraphrased below:

The purple areas on the first map show the distribution of potential crushed stone resources in a small part of Queensland. It looks promising. There should be no problem finding rock for our children and our children’s children. But is that true?

After removing from consideration the areas that have constraints on possible quarries due to conservation tenures, the picture now looks like the middle map. The green areas that were removed show national parks, conservation parks, and state forests. Oh well, there is still a lot of purple showing plenty of land with prospective rocks! Or is there?

It takes about 250 acres (about 100 hectares) for a small quarry and buffer. If we remove all land parcels smaller than 250 acres (red areas), the picture looks like the bottom map. There are practically no stone resources left. And those areas left are still subject to a host of other constraints, such as poor rock quality, landowner refusal to sell, engineering problems, and visual amenity.

Simply put — these maps are worth a thousand words. They clearly demonstrate the need to protect our remaining aggregate resources!

The meeting at Toowoomba — what a ride — not frightening at all!

February 2005

Simplifying Science — Simply Put 

Ockham’s Razor is a scientific tool for
 both sides of the globe. 

After flying nearly 18 hours from Colorado to Brisbane, Australia, when I awoke early the next day, I surveyed the room and noticed the book, Ockham’s Razor, on the bookshelf nearby. The book, which contained short, scientific essays written in non-technical terms, caught my attention because I had scribbled Ockham’s Razor on a note back in Colorado as a reminder for a future article on how to simplify the results of scientific studies. The coincidence became even more astonishing when I read the table of contents and noticed a short story by Eric Magnusson titled, Helping Non-Scientists Check Out Scientific Conclusions. 

Ockham’s Razor is the principle proposed by William of Ockham (c. 1285-1349): “Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate,” which can be translated from Latin as, “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” In many cases, this is interpreted as, “Other things being equal, the simpler of two explanations is to be preferred.” In his essay, Magnusson proposes a simple way of conveying scientific information to non-scientists. Magnusson describes how this system could be applied to the justice system, but I have restated his recommendations as they might apply to a presentation to an approving authority such as a hearing of county commissioners.

Magnusson begins with the following three statements: We need a better way of conveying risk to non-scientists because we never have all the answer; decision makers can follow logical arguments, provided you do not befuddle them with jargon; and the problem is especially intense in adversarial situations where one side tries to prove the other wrong.

Next, Magnusson lays out a simple approach to help non-scientists check out scientific conclusions. Each factor to be presented is described on a chart given the title of the factor. For example, there would be separate charts titled, “Noise,” “Dust,” “Vibrations,” “Ground Water,” “Surface Water,” and so forth.

Each chart consists of a series of seven stacked boxes connected from top to bottom by arrows. Beside each box is a simple question written without jargon. You move from one box to the next as each question is adequately answered.

The seven questions are the following: (1.) Did the experts explain the technique so that I can understand it? (2.) Did the experts reach an acceptable level of accuracy with this technique? (3.) Are there other techniques to approach the issue?  Have these techniques been eliminated? (4.) What is the final conclusion? (5.) What is the risk if the conclusion is wrong? (6.) How will the risk be addressed? (7.) Is the risk acceptable?

As I was translating the Magnusson essay into terms useful to the aggregate industry, I recalled one of the latest public hearings I attended, such as the one described last month.  In some situations, the decision makers sat with their eyes glazed over while many of the applicant’s scientists bored them with numbing technical details of their studies. In other situations, the decision makers looked similarly perplexed while some of the opposition scientists described far-fetched scenarios that defied geological principles.

Both situations could have been avoided if the testimony had been subjected to the Magnusson process. The scientists on both sides of the issue must use clear, understandable terms and must make a convincing argument. This simple approach ensures that the decision makers are satisfied with their understanding of the process, the conclusions, and the risks. If the decision makers are being flummoxed by technical language, they can point to the proper box on the chart where they are having difficulties. Of course, it is possible that only one of two sides of an issue will be pleased if evidence is really reliable. The other side might prefer to have the decision makers confused by the presentations and could take steps to bring it about.

Magnusson did not say if the approach had successfully been applied. I have not seen it in use. But modified as suggested, or in some other manner to fit your specific situation, it might help non-scientists check out scientific conclusions.

As my wife, Pam, awoke, I told her the whole story, including the part about the note. Her response? “Looks like Ockham’s Razor followed us nearly half way around the globe. That’s prophetic!” But following the advice of William of Ockham, other things being equal, I credited that to simply pure coincidence.

January 2005

Failure to Communicate 

Simply put, some things are just a failure to communicate — no matter how science fits into a plot or what the data show. 

What we have here is...failure to communicate.”

You might recognize this quote from the movie Cool Hand Luke (1967). It was spoken by Captain, a nefarious prison warden, just before subjecting Luke, a nonconforming prisoner, to some rather cruel punishment. Ultimately, Luke was murdered. But don’t worry, it was only play acting.

And speaking of play acting, one of my friends from the consulting geology business recently told me that the public hearing process is “nothing but play acting.” The troupe that gives the best performance wins.

Keep in mind that the commissioners — the government approving officials — were elected officials with no scientific background. Even so, some of the actors described their scientific findings like they were lecturing to a classroom full of Ph.D. candidates. They presented charts, tables, and diagrams so complex and so full of jargon that they were gobbledygook to practically everyone in the room. If only the speakers had looked up, they would have seen that the commissioners were on the verge of falling asleep.

Along a similar tack, some scientists and engineers resorted to describing their credentials and credibility. Their theme was, “Trust me — I am a professional.” Obviously, the findings of this group of experts, regardless of how good they may have been, did not get expressed during the narrative.

Some people in the audience expressed concern about issues that were unlikely or impossible to occur. Nonetheless, it was obvious some of them really believed in the boogeyman they were describing. Some of their fears were fueled by a few of the scientists and engineers who described mind-boggling hazards that were supported by absolutely no evidence. Strangely enough, the applicant did not challenge any of the unsupported contentions. One can only assume that many of the listeners believed the testimony, further supporting their misperceptions.

Throughout the entire play there were only a handful of good scientific performances. These generally were made by scientific thespians who made their presentations as though they were addressing an eighth-grade science class. They used simple, clear illustrations that described the data that were collected, the methodologies used to collect and analyze the data, and their conclusions drawn from the data. The commissioners leaned forward in their seats, focused on the discussions, and asked reasonable questions of the speakers.

As the final act approached, it became obvious that there were huge gaps in the scientific data; questions remained to be asked and answered. But it was time for the final curtain.

The commissioners spoke. Whether the commissioners said “Yeah” or “Nay” is irrelevant. Their written resolution was based on science, and from my perspective, their decision reflected a fair representation of the science as it was presented in the hearings. But from my perspective the scientific information was not well presented. One can only speculate whether or not the outcome would have been different if the science had been presented more fully and more clearly.

So, what we have here is...failure to communicate. The next few “Carved in Stone” columns will explore methods of effectively communicating science — simply put.