From: steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Steinn Sigurdsson)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: E-Link: Mt. Graham: UPitt Protest (Press Release)
Date: 12 Dec 92 19:34:11
Organization: Lick Observatory/UCO
	<STEINLY.92Dec10105729@topaz.ucsc.edu>
	<1992Dec10.215914.89492@watson.ibm.com>
	<wf_Bqlu00iUz43IfR8@andrew.cmu.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: topaz.ucsc.edu
In-reply-to: env-link+@andrew.cmu.edu's message of 11 Dec 92 08:28:01 GMT

In article <wf_Bqlu00iUz43IfR8@andrew.cmu.edu> env-link+@andrew.cmu.edu (Student Enviro-Link) writes:


   >In article <STEINLY.92Dec10105729@topaz.ucsc.edu>
   steinly@topaz.ucsc.edu (Stein
   >n Sigurdsson) writes:
   >> I'd go so far as to argue that not only does in not threaten the squirrels
   >> in any way, it is actually one of the best protections the Mt Graham
   >> ecosystem could get as it precludes other damaging developments proposed
   >> for the mountain.

   >Clearly the safest outcome for the squirrel is for Mt Graham to be made a
   >conservation area and the observatory be put on another mountain.  Its
   >possible that the observatory (with appropriate precautions) will not endanger
   >the suirrel, but I'd like to see expert opinion on this.  Impact is tricky to
   >judge in small eco-systems like this as subtle effects can produce
   catastrophe.

   Actually, from the numerous environmental impact statements that have
   been done for the project (both independent and university studies) have
   shown that the project will directly impact the prime habitat of the Mt.
   Graham Red Squirrel.  Here is why:

   The roads that are being built to the sites are (naturally) along the
   flattest routes possible.  These flat areas are the food gathering sites
   for the squirrels.  The pine cones and other food do not roll down the
   steep slopes to either side.  If you look at the geography of the
   mountain, you will see that the top of it is a knife-edge type ridge
   with very steep slopes to either side.  The roads and sites have to be
   built on flat (or semi-flat) areas, and the proposed and existing
   building sites for roads and structures occupy an estimated 80% of the
   squirrels' feeding grounds.

This is false. _Before_ the telescope project there were, I
understand, _three_ roads up the mountain, all of which were
to be closed last time I saw the proposals and replaced by a single
road. Thus the observatory construction would make the mountain
ecosystem contiguous again.
One study did a worst case impact by _assuming_ the mountain top
site centred on the squirrels range, and then allocated a very wide
buffer zone around all human areas where it was assumed no squirrels
would feed or breed - however, the squirrels range is centred well
below the peak and squirrels will happily breed and feed within a few
yards of the buildings. After construction started the squirrel
population _increased_.

   The telescopes themselves are not all that bad, unfortunately this is a
   COMPLEX of telescopes (radio, optical, etc) that take up quite a surface
   area on the top of the mountain. Please don't think that this is "just a
   telescope" and that there can be no damage.  Also, when you factor in
   the impact of the project, remember the miles and miles of roads that
   need to go to and from the site.  

   These roads also leave lots of open spaces across which the squirrels
   need to travel.  This keeps them wide open for predatory attacks.  If
   the project were to be abandoned, the best thing that could happen is
   that trees would be felled across the road, and the entire mountain
   would be abandoned.

In your dreams. If nothing else it will be a hiking area. With the
observatory there they'll try to close off the slopes below the
peak to prevent light pollution at the observatory thus leaving the
bulk of the mountain off limits to humans and protected. The peak
itself where the observatory is is small, the buildings are few
and it is not a prolific part of the mountain.

   Also, somebody had made the statement, "A telescope is better than what
   other projects were planned for the mountain."  Praytell, what other
   projects have been proposed?  (besides of course a nature preserve)

No-one to my knowledge planned a nature preserve there until after the
observatory objections started. I recall the Forest Service wanted 
a snow-mobile park, and a small bible camp on the mid-slope wanted
to expand into a larger camp. 
I destroyed my notes on all this two years ago when the (I thought)
the last law suit was dismissed, any UoA people out there with up to
date status of the project?


I do not speak for UC, UCSC, UCO or Lick.

*  Steinn Sigurdsson   			Lick Observatory      	*
*  steinly@lick.ucsc.edu		"standard disclaimer"  	*
*  Some people think they're really clever			*
*  Smash your head against the wall            Specials, 1979	*