Workshop Weighs Peak's Biological And Astronomical Value

Too late, scientists agree too little is known about an Arizona mountaintop set to become a haven for astrophysical research University of Washington anthropologist Don Grayson went to Tucson in October to take part in discussions concerning the history of mammals in the desert Southwest. He left believing that he had taken part in an autopsy. The victim was Mount Graham, a mountain slated to become the home of up to seven telescopes. Like many of the 50 participants in the "Workshop on the Biology of Mount Graham," Grayson found the discussion stimulating. But he wished the meeting had been held earlier, when it might have actually influenced the mountain's fate. The controversy over Mount Graham (The Scientist, Nov. 28, 1988, page 5) is more than a simple fight over the environmental impact of a new scientific project. For one thing, the debate pits one discipline against another. For another, it also points up the dearth of knowledge about assessing the effects of development on a complex ecosystem. In the fall of 1988, the U.S. Forest Service was evaluating the potential effects of development on the endangered red squirrel. University of Arizona officials, who support the use of the mountain as an observatory, convinced their state delegation that the evaluation was progressing too slowly. The result was federal legislation that bypasses the Endangered Species Act to allow construction of an observatory on top of the 10,000-foot Mount Graham. Many people, including Robert Hoffmann, assistant secretary of research at the Smithsonian Institution, believe there should have been more discussion about the biological impact of making the mountain an astronomical mecca. But he realizes now that he didn't act quickly enough. "We simply were asleep at the switch," he says. "It should have happened earlier. We did not anticipate the actions of the congressional delegation." "Our regret was the passage of the act," adds Ross Simons, deputy assistant secretary of research at the Smithsonian. "It prematurely cut off the legitimate debate of the regulatory process." Since the law's passage in October 1988, the Sierra Club, the National Audubon Society, the National Wildlife Federation, and Arizona conservation groups have sued the government. They want a halt to construction and an evaluation of its compliance with environmental laws. The meeting in Tucson was a chance to "get on record" the significance of habitats like Mount Graham, says Hoffmann. University officials say they also welcomed the three-day event, viewing it as a chance to gather as much information as possible to shape future management of the mountain. >From the perspective of conservationists, too many Southwestern mountaintops have been disturbed. Mount Graham, one of Arizona's higher and more southern peaks, is particularly important, they and biologists say. As was pointed out during this workshop, the peak is one of a series of "sky islands," relic mountain habitats isolated from similar habitats here. These islands have allowed species to evolve in isolation for 10,000 years. "The national importance is in the effect that Mount Graham or the other sky islands will have on the overall biological richness of the United States," says Hoffmann. "If it gets nibbled away, then one day we will have none left." Conference participants learned much about these sky islands, including the fact that they are not adequately protected from development. And science is in the forefront of much of that growth. Light pollution is driving astronomers to ever more remote sites. Unfortunately, this migration brings astronomers into conflict with biologists. "We're going to have a growing clash," predicts Simons, who is concerned that observatory sites are selected without adequate attention to environmental considerations. The university expects to put three telescopes on one of Mount Graham's peaks, and has plans to build four more. The three include one backed by a consortium of three U.S. universities and an Italian observatory that will be the world's largest. A second, small telescope is funded in part by the Vatican. The third is a 10-meter submillimeter telescope built in conjunction with the Max Planck Institute in West Germany. The Smithsonian is also weighing whether to build its next telescope on Mount Graham or on Mauna Loa in Hawaii. For years, astronomers have argued that Mount Graham was uniquely suited for an observatory. Indeed, a university plan developed in 1984 envisioned a dozen telescopes covering 60 acres on four separate peaks on the mountain. Since then the university has reduced the scope of the project and made concessions to minimize the impact of the telescopes on the environment, says astronomer Peter Strittmatter, director of the Steward Observatory, which is building the facility. The university will also spend about $100,000 a year to monitor the red squirrel population. But this workshop was the first attempt by scientists to assess the mountain's full biological value. While the participants welcomed the chance to provide input about future management and to learn about the mountain, some think the assessment comes too late. "It's kind of like putting the cart before the horse," says Chris C. Smith, professor of biology at Kansas State University. Like several of the participants, he faults the university for not having held a public forum years earlier. "It certainly would have been more appropriate," agrees Norm Smith, assistant unit leader of the Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. But Conrad Istock, head of ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona, says that the process of developing an environmental impact statement was really in the hands of the U.S. Forest Service when Congress acted. It would have been asking too much of the university, he says, to expect it to sponsor such a meeting while the assessment was under way. If nothing the workshop highlighted the need for greater scientific input in environmental assessments. "There's nothing in the EIS [environmental impact statement] that could pass the muster of peer review," says Istock. The participants decided that environmentalists need to work harder to make sure biological research is incorporated into conservation decisions. "In part, their message to the environmental community was that you blew it," says Simons. "They should have been more attentive to the problem. I think they could have lobbied a lot harder." Beyond a turf war between biology and astronomy, Mount Graham also represents "a classic case study of the clash between science and the regulatory process," says Simons. It's a case study with national implications. Too many biological assessments have been scientifically weak, say some scientists. The tendency for objections to be based on an alleged threat to an endangered species, in this case, the red squirrel, has obscured a sometimes more important issue - that of habitat protection and biodiversity. "The bigger and more important concern is the more general one of high subalpine mountain islands," says Hoffmann. "In many instances, there is no legal basis for attempting to deflect development. We wanted to establish a record of what we know about these places." The Smithsonian and the University of Arizona, the other sponsor, plan to publish the proceedings. Participants also talked about developing a management plan for the sky islands of the Southwest. "That could and may be the one positive outcome of all this," says Hoffmann. The sessions also revealed the frustrations that basic biologists sometimes feel when confronted with the political aspects of their science. At the opening session a man dressed as a bear began a filibuster as "the squirrel's representative," playing a tape protesting development on the mountain. He was muscled out of the room by conference organizers, who were later charged with assault by the protester. Then, throughout the session, questions from the audience brought home that the issue was not just a scientific one, but also one that involved science politics. "It reminded me of [past debates at] Berkeley," says Robert Sullivan, mammologist at the New Mexico Museum of Natural History, "and that was refreshing." Refreshing for some, but distressing for others. "There were questions for which there were no real answers," says Russell Davis, associate professor in ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of Arizona. "All those made the exchange of ideas between scientists difficult." Grayson, for one, became very upset. "I went there totally neutral," says Grayson, a professor of anthropology at the University of Washington. "I came back horrified with what the university had done. It's no better than the private sector." Sullivan, too, became more skeptical of the university's actions as the three-day meeting unfolded. "It was a good meeting, but we did not all feel good about what happened," says Sullivan. The scientists were skeptical of plans to monitor and protect the squirrel. They were critical that aggressive action had been taken without a better understanding of how tagging and feeding would affect the squirrels. "There was the sense that things had progressed more rapidly than they should have," says Sullivan. Adds Grayson, "I think the biology clearly indicated that what was best for the mountain was to leave the squirrel habitat alone." Larry Heaney, a mammologist at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago who was asked to evaluate what others were saying about Mount Graham, was also worried, not about the squirrel - its fate may have already been sealed - as much as about the environment. "I don't think they are taking all the appropriate actions now in terms of these ecosystems," he says. It's important to look at places in the context of the larger region, he says, before choosing a site for development. For its part, the university says its actions will prevent further environmental abuse. In the recent past, timber has been cut, hikers and hunters have roamed the forest floor, an exotic squirrel introduced as game has encroached on the red squirrel's territory, and a road that provides easy access to the peak has been built. "And we're not getting any help from the environmental organizations," says Istock. But others who attended the meeting disagree with his conclusion and say that it is impossible to know who can best manage the mountain. Now that the biologists have had their say, will their words affect the plans for Mount Graham? Michael Cusanovich, the university's vice president for research, told the participants that construction would proceed on schedule, leaving some of the participants to question the institution's integrity. "They didn't have the critical data; they still don't have it," says Sullivan. "But the snowball is rolling downhill at a rapid rate." In the end, the most important lesson may be that scientists who want to extend the frontiers of knowledge need to know more about the environments they plan to alter before they embark on their quest. "We do not know what the full impact of development will be," says Sullivan. "It has the potential to satisfy everyone. It also has the potential for disaster."

Workshop Weighs Peak's Biological And Astronomical Value

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of