SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT:
Rebuttal to U of V Astronomy Dept. Fact Sheet
Reply to the erroneous and misleading statements in the website of the University of Virginia astronomy department “Fact Sheet” [1] regarding the Mt. Graham telescope project.
By
The Mount Graham Coalition
P.O. Box 15451, Phoenix, AZ 85060
WWW.MOUNTGRAHAM.ORG
The University of Virginia (UVa) is considering joining the controversial Mt. Graham telescope project. A website “Fact Sheet” by the UVa astronomy department contains many factually incorrect or misleading statements. A reply is needed to set the record straight. [2]
“For reasons that come straight from the core of
the Apache’s rich and venerable culture, the Apache believe that Mount
Graham is essential for maintaining their traditional way of life and
the intricate rhythms of their roundly sacred universe.
The telescopes desecrate Mount Graham because they violate and
impugn the mountain’s “life” and all associated forms of life that have
existed for centuries on the mountain.”
[4]
Mt. Graham’s summit
is an ancient relict, virgin, spruce-fir forest, similar to those found
at the latitude of the Hudson Bay or the Yukon.
The mountain’s base is surrounded by the Sonoran and Chihuahuan
Deserts. To biologists it is
known as a “sky island.” Containing more life zones than any other solitary
U.S. mountain, eighteen plants and animals unique to the world have
evolved on its stormy, damp, cold, icy summit forest since glacial recession. This is the only place where the endangered
Mt. Graham Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus
hudsonicus grahamensis) lives-- down in some years to a few hundred
-- or less -- individuals.
To construct a
gigantic telescope complex on that most sacred and ecologically irreplaceable
summit, University of Arizona (UA) lobbyists went to Congress (1988).
In the final hours of the 1988 session, without hearings or debate
[5]
-- they slipped in a radical, unprecedented “rider.” This stealth bill was attached, ironically, to a bill called the
Arizona-Idaho Conservation Act (AICA).
[6]
UA lawyers have subsequently spent millions
in court, arguing that this “rider” exempts them from U.S. religious,
environmental, and cultural heritage protection laws!
1. UVa astronomy
department:
“Other organizations who have joined the LBT consortium
have been deluged by requests…designed to sabotage the addition of new
members…Much of the information they spread is false.”
Reply:
Our facts are supported with explicit references and citations to authority. The astronomers, instead, make numerous unverifiable
assertions and claims.
UVa should know that any institution of higher learning
should expect to be “deluged by requests” if that institution attempts
to align itself with a consortium that would attempt to short-circuit
and buy their way around the environmental, cultural heritage and religious
protection laws that protect the people of this nation.
2. UVa astronomy
department: “The
Congressional act in question did not exempt the project from
all environmental laws…
Reply: That is not true. The relevant section of the
Congressional Act in question, AICA, reads:
“Subject to the terms and conditions of…the
Biological Opinion, the requirements of section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act shall be deemed satisfied…” and… “the requirements of section
102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 shall be deemed
to have been satisfied.”
Any person even remotely familiar with reading Congressional
legislation knows “deemed satisfied” means that the legislation has
exempted the developer from any of the “terms and conditions”
of those federal environmental laws! Those laws include the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA).
[7]
UA lawyer David Todd, in Federal District Court, March
26, 1990, in Tucson, Arizona argued that the project was exempt
from environmental law:
“Congress felt this project
was significant enough to merit exemption from applicable environmental
statutes. Those laws include
the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.”
[8]
Judge Reinhardt to the UA lawyer, Dec. 13, 1990:
"And your position is basically that
what Congress was saying is we want you to build the three telescopes,
build those three without regard to any laws, we’ve made the decision,
everything else is taken care of.”
UA reply:
“That’s correct your Honor…Delay
the other four, they’re subject to normal environmental laws…The amendment
preserves NEPA and the Endangered Species Act processes only for the
remaining four scopes.”
[9]
Judge Alfredo Marquez to the UA lawyer, March 26, 1990:
“If the project “is having the effect of making
the species totally extinct…you are saying Congress has said to go ahead
with this project?”
UA reply:
If “it was going to kill every squirrel…[nothing]
could be done about it.”
[10]
The UA astronomers’ rider essentially underwrites the
same position regarding the Western Apaches’ culture, heritage and religion.
3. UVa astronomers:
“The project is still ‘subject to any subsequent
Biological Opinions issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.’”
Reply:
That statement is not true. UA
lawyers argued exactly the opposite to the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals-- namely, that no subsequent Biological Opinions
or squirrel studies could be allowed under the UA “rider:”
“The first three Mount Graham
telescopes are permanently exempt from the national environmental statutes,
a UA attorney maintained in a federal appeals court yesterday…Therefore,
the first phase of the multimillion-dollar international astronomy project
cannot
be delayed by additional studies of the endangered Mount Graham red
squirrel, Todd [UA lawyer] told a three-member panel of the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.”
[11]
“The judges asked more than
a dozen questions about the wording of the conservation act and the
Biological Opinion. They queried
the attorneys about the Fish and Wildlife committee’s Aug. 6 red squirrel
update, which recommended a new Biological Opinion.”
“What you’re saying is that Congress, through the act, said, ‘Go
ahead and build those three telescopes without these environmental laws?’
Judge Reinhardt said to the UA lawyer at one point. The UA lawyer agreed.”
[12]
The UA lawyer stated:
“Congress felt this project
was significant enough to merit exemption from applicable environmental
statutes…The whole purpose [of the 1988 Act] was to bring this process
to an end [and allowing a new squirrel study] makes no sense and reduces
what Congress did to nullity.”
[13]
NO ADDITIONAL OR CORRECTED U.S. BIOLOGICAL OPINIONS ALLOWED
Further documentation of the untruthfulness of the
UVa astronomers claim that the project was “subject to any subsequent
Biological Opinions” was reaffirmed Aug. 23, 1990.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Justice Department,
refused to allow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to release
a new Biological Opinion on Mount Graham, which USFWS said was needed.
“…due to the requirements of the Arizona-Idaho
Conservation Act of 1988 [the UA “rider”]…Congress provided that the
consultation requirements of section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
are deemed satisfied as to the construction of the three telescopes. Therefore, the U.S. Departments of Agriculture
and Justice have concluded that the Conservation Act does not provide
for additional consultation [to allow the desperately needed new Endangered
Species Act study] with the Fish and Wildlife Service at this time
regarding the impact of the three telescopes on the squirrel.”
[14]
USDA’s stated reason above was that UA’s Mt. Graham
telescope “rider” “deemed satisfied” the construction of all three telescopes—again
disproving the UVa astronomers’ erroneous claim that “deemed satisfied”
meant the project was subject to environmental law.
FEDERAL INVESTIGATION REVEALS FRAUD IN PRO-TELESCOPE
BIOLOGICAL OPINION
The USFWS’ request for a new Biological Opinion as
required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act was the result of
the June 26, 1990 Congressional Hearing investigating the fraud involved
in the issuance of the July 14, 1988 Biological Opinion. The Director
of the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), the investigative arm of
Congress, testified that the UA “rider’s” Biological Opinion approving
construction was improper and “based on other than biological information.”
[15]
“First, the alternative of
locating three telescopes on Emerald Peak was not supported by the FWS
biologists preparing the Biological Opinion…They have since stated to
us that, in their opinion, constructing the facility on Emerald Peak is not biologically supportable
and will likely increase the threat to the squirrel, a species on the
brink of extinction.
“Second, the FWS Regional
Director informed us that he had no additional biological studies to
clearly support the Emerald Peak development alternative…Lastly, we
do not believe that it is appropriate for an FWS official [Michael Spear,
Regional Director, USFWS, Albuquerque, NM] to consider nonbiological
information in reaching an opinion that could jeopardize a species’
existence…We believed now as we did then that biological decisions should
be based on biological information. Weighing the risk of a species’ extinction
with the benefits of a project is a policy decision and should be left
to a high-level Endangered Species Committee…”
[16]
The Arizona Republic
headline described Mount Graham’s corrupted, professionally indefensible
Biological Opinion on which Congress allowed the UA “rider” as “fudged.”
[17]
The point here is, the Endangered Species Act does
not allow agency bureaucrats to unilaterally take the place of the special,
presidential, cabinet-level procedures of the Endangered Species Act
as they did on Mt. Graham. Nicknamed
the “God Squad” it is convened by the President and made up of the Secretaries
of Defense, Interior, Agriculture and the governor of the state involved.
Only they can have administrative control over the life or death
of a species. If that committee
decides, after holding public hearings, and open, due deliberation,
that economic development is more important than a species’ survival,
only then may it decide to allow the project to go forward.
During the Congressional investigation with the GAO,
Michael Spear, regional director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
testified to the GAO and Congress that he decided it was proper for
him to unilaterally approve the telescopes at the critical Emerald Peak
squirrel habitat because it was for telescopes and not a campground.
He said he made the conclusion that if it had been a campground
he would not have approved it.
4. UVa astronomers:
Reply: It is not true that it was “done in compliance
with environmental…law.” The reason UA was compelled to spend hundreds
of thousands of dollars lobbying to sneak in a “rider” without public
hearings in the final hours of the 1988 Congress was because of the
failure of those three years of agency studies to even minimally comply
with U.S. environmental and cultural laws. The various ways the “three
years and much effort” of Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service
studies failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Historic Management Act
(NHPA) and National Forest Management Act (NFMA) shall be pointed out
below.
NO ETHNOGRAPHIC STUDIES OR CONSULTATION BEFORE PERMITTING
THE TELESCOPES
No agency – neither the U.S. Forest Service, nor the
UA – did any cultural studies. This
has been repeatedly pointed out by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (see next section below). While the Forest Service did
cursory surveys on the ground for archaeological artifacts, (commonly
called “stones and bones” surveys), they deliberately avoided any cultural, ethnographic, and
ethnobotanical studies or consultations with the Western Apache tribes,
namely the San Carlos and White Mountain Apache tribes. This is required by the National Historic Preservation
Act (NHPA) and the federal trust responsibility law of the Forest Service
to the Apaches. This is evidenced by the egregious fact that the word
“Apache” does not appear in the body of either the Draft or the Final
Environmental Impact Statements (DEIS, FEIS) of the telescope project!
U.S. FOREST SERVICE SUPPRESSED APACHE FACTS DURING
PLANNING FOR THE TELESCOPE PROPOSAL
The Forest Service utterly failed in their duty to
respond to the following Jan. 19, 1987 testimony submitted in their
Draft Environmental Impact Statement:
“Mt. Graham is considered to be a sacred mountain to
members of the San Carlos Apache tribe.
Mt. Graham is still being used for certain religious rites by
these people. The proposed development
is viewed as potentially damaging to the Apache religion and the ceremonies
that take place there.
The Forest Service’s contact with the San Carlos Tribal
Council did not adequately identify these impacts. The astrophysical development can be viewed
as a violation of their religious freedom rights as Native Americans
by the San Carlos Apaches affected by it.
These impacts should be addressed.”
[18]
Robert Tippeconnic, the Coronado National Forest Supervisor,
later admitted that he knew all along that Mt. Graham was sacred to
the Apache people! Tippeconnic
supervised the publication of the project’s Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Statements and signed the Record of Decision for the telescope
complex. He made that admission to Phoenix
New Times reporter John Dougherty.
This interview occurred after the Forest Service and UA had succeeded
in federal court in having the Apache Survival Coalition lawsuit dismissed
for “waiting too long” to sue for enforcement of the NHPA and Apache
rights:
“Tippeconnic, who now works
in Washington, D.C., as the U.S. Forest Service’s national liaison with
Indian tribes, says he knew many traditional Apaches, considered Mount
Graham to be sacred, but would be reluctant to describe their feelings
to non-Indians. Yet
during planning, Tippeconnic’s office made no effort to solicit the
views of San Carlos Apaches, beyond writing a letter to the
tribal council to announce the proposed development.”
[19]
DETAILS OF THE 1990 INVESTIGATION THAT FOUND THE
CURRENT USFWS BIOLOGICAL OPINION WAS FRAUDULENT
In 1990, the GAO testimony to Congress (see above)
demonstrated the failure of the Fish and Wildlife Service to comply
with the requirements and protections of the Endangered Species Act.
The Draft Biological Opinion (BO) prepared for the USFS on August 31,
1987 would not have authorized a telescope complex within the high quality,
vulnerable, Emerald Peak squirrel habitat -- for the following reasons,
including:
“…impacts on Emerald Peak
could not be reduced below jeopardy with reasonable and prudent alternatives.”
“The 1987 Draft Biological
Opinion stated: “Emerald Peak, regardless of access, is an extremely
important red squirrel habitat. Placement
of a facility here would require clearing of spruce-fir habitats and
would adversely affect middens both directly and indirectly through
windthrow, solar drying and other effects. Destruction of habitat on
Emerald Peak for siting an observatory would have greater detrimental
impacts than the proposed siting on High Peak. Furthermore, those impacts on Emerald Peak
could not be reduced below jeopardy with reasonable and prudent alternatives.”
[20]
The USFWS scientific study (Biological Opinion -- BO)
opposing telescopes on Emerald Peak was unacceptable to UA’s astronomers. UA demanded a Biological Opinion placing the
project on Emerald Peak, regardless of the endangered species harms
it would inflict. The reason they wanted Emerald Peak was that it was
broad, flat, easily deforested and capable of being converted into a
city of telescopes. What UA failed to recognize, was that its flat
terrain made it very undesirable visibility for astronomy. Whether out of pride or arrogance, they simply
ignored the careful National Optical Astronomy Observatories (NOAO)
studies of 1984
[21]
and 1987
[22]
which pointed out that such flat topography was undesirable
for world-class astronomy. UA’s own belated 1992
[23]
studies described East Emerald Peak’s visibility
as “unsatisfactory” to “marginal,” and Emerald Peak as being even worse
due to its bad topography!
Political intimidation placed upon the USFWS personnel
in Phoenix and Albuquerque by Congressional and UA staff was severe
and unrelenting during the 2-3 year planning process. It culminated with UA officials meeting FWS officials in May 1988.
Two months later a procedurally and biologically flawed Biological Opinion
allowing a highly destructive Emerald Peak telescope project was issued.
This explains the “fraudulent” aspect of the Emerald
Peak Biological Opinion (BO) since the USFWS draft BO of Aug. 31, 1987
had declared astrophysical development at Emerald Peak would result
in a “jeopardy” Biological Opinion, that is, an irreconcilable risk
of extinction for the species.
Five months after the May 1988 meeting, UA’s precedent-setting
“rider” incorporating the “fudged,” or fraudulent Emerald Peak Biological
Opinion was unsuspectingly relied upon by Congress. UA lobbyists sneaked
it into their special rider legislation in the final hours of the legislative
session while the USFWS stood aside effectively gagged and bound by
UA’s political pressure thuggery.
FOREST SERVICE NEPA AND ESA WORK DEFICIENT AND NOT
IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE LAWS.
Under this climate of agency duress by congressional
staff, the 1986 and 1988 Mount Graham Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Statements were written. The NHPA and ESA studies failed to meet
even the most rudimentary requirements of those laws. UA was keenly
aware of this. They knew they would have to work outside the law, that
is, circumvent existing U.S. law.
These USFS and USFWS inadequacies included:
(1)
a range of meaningful alternatives as is required by NEPA and ESA,
(1)
deeply flawed failure to comply with the religious and cultural protection
provisions of the National Historic Management Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act. Until 2001 the USFS has stalled (for some
14 years) and failed to meet the requirements of NHPA. These should have been completed along with the Environmental Impact
Statement studies and before any chainsaws or bulldozers had arrived.
(1)
the provisions of the National Forest Management Act requiring the protection
of irreplaceable ecosystems such as the very small, vulnerable Hudsonian
forest “cradle of evolution” on the summit.
(1)
the fraudulent Emerald Peak Biological Opinion.
FOREST SERVICE FAILED TO CONSIDER OTHER MOUNTAINS
AS REQUIRED BY NEPA.
The failure of the USFS to comply with NEPA requirements
were stated in a letter from the U.S. Interior Department to the U.S.
Forest Service.
[24]
“The
major deficiency is the failure to adequately address practicable
alternatives that may be available on other mountains…
“The
Mt. Graham area is a nationally significant desert “sky island” ecosystem
with unique wildlife resources and associated public uses and economies…
“NEPA
requires that the proposed astrophysical project be analyzed with
all other reasonable alternatives within and outside the jurisdiction
of the lead agency, and therefore the DEIS needs to be corrected
to include all reasonable sites on Mt. Graham and other mountains…
“The
DEIS does not include potentially reasonable alternatives that would
allow the use of other sites on Mt. Graham and, more importantly, other
mountains with lesser wildlife values…Other sites are not beyond
the scope of this document since it does not uniformly represent
all appropriate land uses and therefore does not satisfy the responsibilities
of a land allocation document. Again,
if this DEIS is to address land use allocation responsibilities it needs
to represent all appropriate land uses and if the document is representing
the specific preferred alternative and the intent of a single use as
the title also indicates, the DEIS needs to examine all reasonable
alternatives on and off Mt. Graham…
“Appropriate
information on potential astrophysical sites (Lynds and Goad, 1984)
should be thoroughly evaluated in the DEIS…
“The
proposed astrophysical development would commit the Mt. Graham red squirrel
to an increased risk of extinction.
This is inconsistent with NEPA responsibilities when less damaging,
reasonable alternatives may exist on other locations on Mt. Graham or
on other mountains…
“The
DEIS does not adequately address all land uses in regard to land allocation
and associated alternatives analysis, and of further concern, the
DEIS does not provide adequate analysis of reasonable alternatives that
may occur on other mountains. The
Department recommends that these major deficiencies be corrected prior
to proceeding to ensure that a unique sky island biological resource
is not committed to selection as the preferred alternative when less
damaging reasonable alternatives may be available that could provide
for the astrophysical needs and avoid detrimental impacts to the unique
habitats on Mt. Graham.
“Failure
to incorporate all reasonable alternatives in the DEIS, including
those that may occur on other mountains, would not be in compliance
with the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA as needed for analysis of alternatives
[40CFS 1502.14 (a-c)]. If
these major issues are not addressed in the FEIS, the preferred alternative
could constitute a major unresolved resource conflict of national significance
and of sufficient magnitude that we may consider recommending referral
to CEQ under 40 CFR 1504 of these regulations.”
It was clear to UA that for their project to go forward
with hopelessly insufficient, inadequate, and legally corrupted studies,
this nation’s historic, landmark cultural and environmental laws (NHPA,
NEPA, ESA, NFMA) would have to be thrust aside in Congress.
THE FOREST SERVICE VIOLATED HISTORIC PRESERVATION
LAW
Three times Apache Medicinepeople and elders sued the
Forest Service for failing to comply in good faith with the NHPA. Twice, the courts ruled the Apaches should
have sued sooner, and dismissed their cases, but without making a decision
on the merits of their claims to enforce the NHPA.
[25]
A third NHPA enforcement suit by the
Mt. Graham Coalition and Apache cultural groups is currently in the
U.S. court of Appeals. At issue
is the Forest Service’s failure to comply with the NHPA section 106
pre-planning consultation requirements requiring the Aug. 1999 approval
of a new 23-mile long, 25,000-volt telescope powerline permit.
5. UVa astronomers:
“This was done
in compliance with…historical preservation law.”
Reply:
That statement is not true. In addition to the facts already presented
refuting that misleading claim, UA’s own lawyers repeatedly argued that
they were exempt from U.S. historical preservation law (National Historical
Preservation Act-NHPA). In fact, that is the primary legal issue that
is now before the U.S. Court of Appeals in Mt.
Graham Coalition, et al. V. McGee, et al. At issue is the legality
of the August 1999 USFS approval of the underground 25,000-volt, 23-mile
powerline construction and operation.
In this case, the coalition is enforcing the mandatory requirements
of the NHPA which were expressly avoided by the UA and the Forest Service
who claimed that the NHPA was “not applicable.”
Furthermore, the President’s Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation has repeatedly pointed out to the U.S. Forest Service their
failure to comply with NHPA, particularly in regard to the Large Binocular
Telescope:
“There
is no evidence that the Forest Service has addressed the potential that
Mt. Graham is a traditional cultural property, eligible for inclusion
in the National Register in considering the new telescope site.”
[26]
In 1998 and in 2001 the Advisory Council again pointed
out the continuing failure of the Coronado National Forest to comply
with the NHPA on Mt. Graham:
“In
a letter to our Executive Director, dated Nov. 1, 1996, you assured
us that in accordance with Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation
Act the Coronado was ‘currently planning, in conjunction with the University
of Arizona, to study the place of Mt. Graham in Apache Culture.’ Two
years later we see no evidence that such a study has been completed
or even initiated by the Forest Service.”
[27]
6. UVa astronomers:
“We
suspect that this act [UA’s Mt. Graham “rider”] of Congress was neither
the first nor the last of its kind…” “they [Natural Resources Defense
Council] list thirteen public laws…enacted under the 104th
Congress (1995-1996), some with multiple provisions, which except, exclude
or excuse certain activities from the various requirements of preexisting
environmental law.”
Reply: UVa astronomers
are declaring that since there were at least 13 public laws exempting
projects from U.S. environmental and cultural protection laws during
the anti-environmental Gingrich Congress in the mid 1990’s, this somehow
justifies UVa from complying with those laws. UVa astronomers would
be saying here that since various logging, mining, power, petrochemical
companies, and other polluters and developers circumvented our Nation’s
environmental and cultural protection laws, its O.K. for UVa to do it
too! This rationalization by UVa’s astronomers that two wrongs make
a right brings shame and dishonor to the students, faculty, administration
and alumni of UVa.
7. UVa astronomers:
“The cited study
[NOAO study rejecting astronomy sites on Mt. Graham] was carried out
on the basis of topographic maps alone.”
Reply:
That is not true. In fact, the
selection criteria for the NOAO/AURA (National Optical Astronomy Observatories/Association
of Universities for Research in Astronomy) study considered a number
of criteria: A. The Cartographic Base, B. The Geographic Limits, C.
Infrared Sky Brightness, D. City lights and atmospheric pollution (various
light-polluted near-urban areas were excluded), E. Land Jurisdiction
and Physical Access, F. Large-Scale
Topographic Setting, G. Local Site Topography, and H. Incompleteness
of Enumeration.
[28]
Both the 1984 Lynds and Goad study and the 1987 Merrill
and Forbes study
[29]
were financed by the Association
of Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA)
[30]
under NOAO funding.
The peer reviewed Lynds and Goad 1984 study evaluated 56 continental
U.S. sites and found 37 of those sites superior to Mt. Graham. UA’s
in-house, studies were not peer reviewed, nor were they published at
an independent source.
[31]
Mt. Graham was abandoned by NOAO/AURA for other places
more suitable for a large telescope in 1987 (Mauna Kea, Chile). For example, the Merrill/Forbes 1987 NOAO study
showed Mauna Kea superior to Mt. Graham in eleven out of twelve parameters.
Most importantly, it delineated: (1) the lower percentage of
nights suitable for astronomy on Mt. Graham (due to its summer monsoon
and winter snowstorm-plagued weather), and (2) underscored Mt. Graham’s
poorer “seeing” or visibility.
8. UVa astronomers:
“The top-ranked
site in Nevada is one to which no one has paid any further attention
in the ensuing twelve years.”
Reply: The top-ranked site, Mt. Wheeler, became a
National Park in 1986, well after Lynds’ study was completed. How could
anyone expect “further attention” to it. There is no call for this sophomoric
attempt to discredit NOAO’s peer-reviewed, published study.
Not until nine years after Lynds’ NOAO study, and six
years after Merrill’s NOAO study -- and five years after UA disastrously
lobbied Congress for a “marginal” to “unsatisfactory” site on Mt. Graham
-- did UA finally come around to completing their site selection studies. They discovered that both the 1988 UA “rider’s”
exempt-from-law Emerald Peak site, as well as UA’s illegal “Pearl Harbor
Day” Dec. 7, 1993 clear-cut site (on East Emerald Peak) were gravely
flawed sites in regard to their visibility (“seeing”). The UA site selection
process ignored what the NOAO/AURA studies had previously pointed out
regarding the importance of topography in computing astrophysical visibility
or “seeing.” UA’s Steward Observatory
July 1992,
[32]
October 1992,
[33]
1993,
[34]
and 1994
[35]
studies conceded UA’s disastrous failure to consider
Mt. Graham’s irrevocably flawed topographic problems.
Of some six sites the 1994 Cromwell/UA study considered
on Mt. Graham for their LBT, UA now belatedly admitted their horrendous
blunder. UA, it turned out,
had selected and lobbied Congress for the worst site (Emerald Peak)
in their 1988 UA under-the-table “rider”.
UA also studied high peak, where NOAO did their comparison
studies with Mauna Kea. UA described
High Peak as about half way between East Emerald Peak and Emerald Peak. East Emerald Peak “seeing” was in the “marginal”
or “unacceptable” category (according to which of UA’s 1992 Woolf and
Woolf-Strittmatter studies. Those
studies also showed the Emerald Peak site UA lobbied Congress for in
1988 as even worse than “unacceptable.”
UA’s Cromwell study noted that when the wind came from
the north at High Peak (which it seldom did), it produced laminar flow
and excellent “seeing” or visibility due to the steep contour of the
mountain at that point. This reaffirmed the siting blunder UA made in
ignoring the NOAO studies -- which pointed to the importance of topography
in site selection.
CURRENT LBT SITE REPEATEDLY RULED ILLEGAL BY FEDERAL
COURTS IN 1995
On a scale of “one” to “eight” with “one” having the
poorest “seeing” (visibility) and “eight” the best, UA studies
[36]
found they had disastrously lobbied Congress for
a “one” site. In an unlawful attempt to move from a worst possible “one”
site to a still admittedly disastrous “two” ranked site, they undertook
the at dawn, covert clear-cut operation of East Emerald Peak. The U.S.
District Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals both ruled that UA’s covert
deforestation of East Emerald Peak violated NEPA and ESA.
It did this by sprawling the observatory far outside the “cluster”
concept of the 1988 rider written by UA’s own lawyers.
The reason for UA’s covert action was to immediately
cut down all of the trees in one day before Native American or environmental
lawyers could find out about it, much less have time to seek an injunction
to protect that sacred Apache peak and the fragile, irreplaceable old-growth
boreal forest ecosystem. As mentioned, this action violated the provisions
of the very “rider” legislation UA lobbyists had written. Despite UA’s
multiple appeals in federal courts, UA was found in violation repeatedly
in those courts in July 1994, August 1994, April 1995 and July 1995.
Next, UA put their lobbyists back to work. In the final moments of the 1996 Congress,
they once again slipped through another exemption rider without hearings
or public testimony, circumventing the cultural, environmental and Native
American religious protection laws of this country.
To enable UA to make space at the last minute for inserting
their exemption rider into the appropriation bill, the Arizona delegation
had a provision deleted from the Omnibus Appropriations Bill. It would have provided the Indian Health Service
with funding for an HIV/AIDS study for Indians.
[37]
Now
UVa would not only be part of desecrating a Native American sacred place. They would also deprive Native Americans of
HIV/AIDS medical care. So
much for the willful conduct of the universities and astronomers associated
with this notorious project. They
would operate at the expense of others – even though openings at non-destructive,
world-class telescope sites come on line worldwide with regularity. In the past fourteen years since the notorious
anti-Indian, anti-environmental 1988 rider was sneaked through Congress,
ten (TEN) world-class, 8-meter
or larger telescopes have been constructed, installed and seen first
light. Even after 14 years of
begging and pleading for partners worldwide, UA has been unable to fully
subscribe collaborators for their environmental and cultural outrage. UA is now groveling for partnerships with UVa
and U. of Minnesota.
9. UVa astronomers:
UVa astronomers refute the claim that “Every other university” has rejected Mt. Graham and points to OSU
and Notre Dame participation.
Reply:
UVa astronomers are creating another “straw man” argument. At the time of that Mt. Graham Coalition quotation
in 1993-94 every U.S. university had either abandoned their plans to
participate in Mt. Graham or rejected the project outright. Ohio State,
after quitting the project in 1991 and facing a million-dollar penalty
to the consortium, later rejoined and recovered their million dollar
jeopardy. Notre Dame’s complicity was not unexpected since the Vatican
already had, without hesitation, erected a 1.8-meter telescope on the
Apache sacred mountain in 1991-92.
The Vatican did this despite having received many letters of
protest from the San Carlos tribal council and Apache cultural leaders
-- as well as citizens worldwide.
The Vatican also approved the filing of courtroom affidavits
(Apache Survival Coalition vs.
USA/USFS) by two Jesuit priests against the traditional Apache
people. They declared the mountain not sacred.
[38]
Father George Coyne, Director of the Vatican Observatory
[39]
described the Apache and environmental people opposed
to their telescope, as “…a religiosity
to which I cannot subscribe and which must be suppressed with all the
force that we can muster.”
MT. GRAHAM TELESCOPES REJECTED BY NOAO AND THE ASSOCIATION
OF UNIVERSITIES FOR RESEARCH IN ASTRONOMY
What UVa astronomers neglect to tell their website
readers is that Mt. Graham, as a telescope site, was rejected and abandoned
by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories
(NOAO) and the Association of
Universities for Research in Astronomy (AURA) in 1987. NOAO/AURA had proposed to build the “National
New Technology Telescope” consisting of four 8-meter mirrors on Mt.
Graham. But they abandoned Mt. Graham after completion of their 1984
and 1987 studies. These studies showed the clear superiority
of Chile and Hawaii. AURA is made up of the leading astronomy universities
in the western hemisphere including UC Oakland, Chicago, Cal Tech, Colorado,
Harvard, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa State, Johns Hopkins, Maryland,
MIT, Michigan, New York Stony Brook, Penn State, Princeton, Texas, Washington,
Wisconsin-Madison, Yale and others.
Other institutions also specifically rejecting Mt.
Graham included Harvard/Smithsonian Institution in 1991,
[40]
U. of Toronto in 1994, Michigan State in 1994,
[41]
U. of Pittsburgh in 1994, U. of Texas, in late 80’s,
U. of Chicago in late 80’s, and Georgia State in 1995.
Mt. Graham’s cultural, environmental and scientific liabilities
were responsible for those rejections, -- not funding, as has been claimed
by project proponents.
For example, the City Council of Pittsburgh passed
a resolution citing: “environmental
problems and the religious and cultural value of the mountain to the
San Carlos Apache” and “this project tarnishes the image of the Pittsburgh community…”
[42]
The University of Pittsburgh Administration newsletter,
April 14, 1994, stated that “The
site in South America…was clearly better than anywhere in the continental
U.S…The astronomy department considered such factors as weather statistics
and “seeing” statistics...”
Michigan State, on rejecting participation on Mt. Graham
on March 17, 1994 stated: “…the
Mount Graham project has stirred controversy over environmental and
Native American issues…We have made our decision on what we believe
to be in the overall best interests, both financial and academic of
Michigan State University.”
WORLD-CLASS TELESCOPES COME ON LINE REGULARLY FOR
ANY SCHOOL WITH THE FUNDS. ALSO VIEWING TIME CAN BE PURCHASED IF YOU
HAVE FUNDS.
The University of Florida, after being courted for
some ten years by UA, last year opted for the 10.4-meter Gran Telescopio
Canarias in the Canary Islands. The LBT, after 15 years of evasion of
U.S. environmental and Native American cultural protection laws, continuous
UA mirror lab delays, breakdowns, fabrication problems, telescope siting
blunders, illegal mountaintop site clear-cutting, and lawsuit delays,
still has financial partner vacancies.
Universities regularly join partnerships with world-class
telescopes. The problem universities have is finding the funding needed. UA has been frantically and desperately looking
for partners since 1986. In
1988 UA’s lobbyists told Congress they would lose their Italian and
German partners if Congress did not hastily pass legislation short-circuiting
the environmental and Native American cultural reviews needed to legally
complete the project.
If a university has the funding, viewing time and partnerships
will become available at world-class telescopes worldwide. With $10
million in funds now available, UVa is positioned to pursue many options.
In the 15 years since UA has been begging and pleading
for partners to invest in their environmental and Native American holocaust,
TEN 8-meter or larger world-class
telescopes have been fully financed, constructed, installed, and have
seen first light:
(1) Keck I, 10-meter, 1990, Hawaii;
(2) Keck II, 10-meters, 1996, Hawaii;
(3) Hobby-Eberly, 9.2-meters, 1999, Texas;
(4) Subaru 8.3-meters, 1999, Hawaii;
(5) Very Large Telescope, Antu, 8.2-meters, 1998, Chile;
(6) Very Large Telescope, Keuyen, 8.2-meters, 1999, Chile;
(7) Very Large Telescope, Melipai, 8.2-meters, 2000, Chile;
(8) Very Large Telescope, Yepun, 8.2-meters, 2000, Chile;
(9) Gemini North, 8.1-meters, 2000, Hawaii;
(10) Gemini South, 8.1-meters,
2000, Chile.
In April 1998 the $85 million, 10.4-meter Gran Telescopio
Canarias partnership was offered. It is now fully subscribed by the
Universidad Autonoma de Mexico, the Instituto de Astrofisica of the
Canary Is., and the University of Florida.
It is scheduled for first light in 2003.
In June 1998 the $20 million, 9.1-meter South African
Large Telescope partnership was offered. It is now fully subscribed
and partners include universities in South Africa, Poland, Rutgers,
Munich, Wisconsin, Canterbury (New Zealand), North Carolina, Dartmouth,
Carnegie-Mellon, and six UK universities. First light is expected in
2004
10. UVa astronomers:
“Neither the
Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the
National Wildlife Federation, the Nature Conservancy, nor the Wilderness
Society are parties to that [current Mt. Graham lawsuit].”
Reply: On
the contrary, all of those four organizations are on record as absolutely
opposing the entire telescope project on Mt. Graham.
[43]
We challenge UVa astronomers to present evidence
that any of those organizations have reversed their opposition to this
project. On Nov. 8, 1991 those organizations presented
the following opposition resolution:
“…representing fifteen Native
American and eleven American environmental organizations do hereby request
that the above mentioned consortium immediately stop any further construction
works on Mt. Graham, remove the said telescope project to another site
which will not impact upon Native American religious practices or the
environment…”
NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS AND U.S. CHURCH
GROUPS OPPOSE THE MT. GRAHAM TELESCOPES.
Four resolutions in 1993, 1995, 1999, and 2001, voted
upon at the National Congress of American Indians representing essentially
all U.S. tribes, strongly opposed this sacrilege and asked for the relocation
of the project. Resolutions
opposing the project have also been issued by the National Council of
Churches’ Racial Justice Working Group (1995), the Unitarian Church
(1997), all U.S. Apache tribes and tribal governments in Arizona and
nationwide.
The most confused claim is UVa’s statement that The
Nature Conservancy (TNC) is not a partner in the current Mt. Graham
litigation! UVa astronomers failed to understand that TNC is an organization
whose mission is often to obtain private land for conservation.
It does not focus on environmentalist advocacy litigation based
upon violations of NEPA/ESA/NHPA/NFMA legal issues -- which TNC will
tell anyone, are fully addressed by its colleagues in the nation’s many
other conservation and preservation groups.
11. UVa astronomers:
“…One should
also be concerned with…pristine environments or endangered species on
Mauna Kea or…Chile.”
Reply: While that is an overstatement of the obvious, any beginning biology student could explain that there are infinitely more biota in the high rainfall, spruce-fir forest of Mount Graham than on the dry Chilean Atacama Desert or the xeric, rock-strewn tundra summit of Mauna Kea. There are 18 plants and animals unique to the world that have evolved on Mt. Graham’s Galapagos-like, “sky island” Hudsonian forest summit ecosystem. These include three mammals, three flowering species, three unique mollusks and many arthropods. Many species on Mt. Graham remain to be identified.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service pointed out that
the telescope project was located in the heart of the “best” 472 acres
of the Mt. Graham Red Squirrel’s critical habitat, namely, the flattest,
most fully canopied portion of Mt. Graham’s summit Hudsonian (boreal)
forest. The FWS Biological Opinion states that the
3-scope project “permanently destroys” 47 acres or 10% of the squirrel’s
“best” 472 acres of intact, canopied habitat through indirect and direct
ecological effects. Indirect
effects include habitat desiccation and fragmentation of the adjacent
forest. Would one destroy 10% of America’s best farmland,
let alone 10% of the best habitat of one of the most endangered mammals
in North America?
Prior to the construction of the UA’s all-weather telescope
access road to the summit telescope area, this was a pristine, undeveloped
Hudsonian forest gem and cradle of evolution.
It was unaffected by the various prior human developments farther
down at the lower elevations on the mountain such as the summer cabins,
antennas, campgrounds, etc. That
the astronomers habitually pretend to confuse the pristine,
summit boreal forest with the developed,
lower altitude, non-boreal forest ecosystems on the mountains
shows their unwillingness to address in a scholarly and scientific manner
the simplest facts of this mountain’s biogeography.
12. UVa astronomers:
“The Forest Service
and the telescope project have continued to show concern and respect
for the views of the San Carlos Apache Tribe about Mount Graham.”
Reply:
First of all, UVa was not involved in any of the previous 15 years of
the Mt. Graham saga --- so they have no first-hand knowledge of the
history of the Apaches and the Mt. Graham telescopes.
Second, the Forest Service and the UA have continued to ignore
the lawful rights and strenuous objections of the San Carlos and White
Mountain Apaches. Third, there has been over a decade of obfuscation
and delay from 1987 up until 2001 by the Forest Service and UA – in
their refusal to comply with the cultural and religious protection provisions
of NHPA and NEPA. This has been described previously.
It is shocking to consider that neither the 1986 Draft
nor the 1988 Final Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS, FEIS) included
the word “Apache” in their text. Equally reprehensible was the USFS
failure to respond to the public testimony submitted in the FEIS, Jan.
19, 1987, which duly informed USFS that the mountain was currently being
used by the Apache as a sacred site etc.
[44]
UA AND FOREST SUPERVISOR SUPPRESSED PRIOR KNOWLEDGE
OF APACHES AND MT. GRAHAM.
Supervisor of the Coronado National Forest at the time
of the NEPA studies, Robert Tippeconnic, revealed in an interview with
an Arizona reporter (1993) that he had known all along that the mountain
was sacred to the Apache, and deliberately did nothing about
it:
“The information was even
ignored by former Coronado
National Forest Supervisor Robert Tippeconnic, a Comanche who
was raised on the White Mountain Apache Reservation.
Tippeconnic, who now works in Washington, D.C. as the U.S. Forest
Service’s national liaison with Indian tribes, says he knew many traditional Apaches considered Mount Graham to be
sacred, but would be reluctant to describe their feelings to
non-Indians. Yet during the
NEPA planning process, Tippeconnic’s office made no effort to solicit the views of San Carlos Apaches, beyond
writing a letter to the tribal council to announce the proposed development.”
[45]
The fact that there has been no real USFS/UA “concern
and respect for the views of the Apache” is further evidenced by the
refusal of those two entities to consult with anthropologists and Apache
scholars Keith Basso, Elizabeth Brandt, Charles Kaut and others.
USFS REFUSES TO GIVE APACHE AND OTHERS ADVANCE NOTICE
OF THEIR COVERT, SURPRISE DEFORESTATION OF EAST EMERALD PEAK
Unbelievably disrespectful was the Forest Service’s
failure to give due notice to the Apaches in advance of the UA’s notorious,
at dawn, “Pearl Harbor” Dec. 7, 1993 clear-cut of East Emerald Peak. USFS sent out by mail on Friday afternoon Dec.
4, 1993 a letter to the Apaches that UA was going to clear-cut the summit
forest of East Emerald Peak on Tuesday.
The covert leveling of the summit of East Emerald Peak was not
simply illegal. It was an egregious
attack against the U.S. Native American and environmental community.
Authorization for deforestation of East Emerald Peak was to be found
nowhere in (1) the UA congressional “rider,” (2) the Biological Opinion,
or (3) either environmental impact statement.
The Forest Service’ Friday letter did not say anything
about the Apache Indians being given time to consult or communicate
with the Forest Service about the site clearing. The USFS essentially
told to the Apache: we are going to immediately clear-cut a new
peak on your sacred mountain which the University of Arizona wants,
and, if you don’t like it -- tough!
These after-the-fact USFS notification letters were
mailed to two Apache cultural organizations on the reservation (the
Apache Survival Coalition, and Apaches for Cultural Preservation), and
to the San Carlos tribal Chairman. By the time the mail was delivered,
the summit tree-felling was complete.
Of course, the UA/USFS intent all along was to prevent Apache
or environmental lawyers from having time to file an injunction on that
action.
If any person thinks the USFS is an impartial, objective
and fair agency, think again. Not
only did environmentalists not receive the insulting two-day notice
letter of the UA’s surprise, at-dawn clear-cut. As already mentioned,
for over ten years USFS has stalled, delayed and fought against listing
Mt. Graham as a Traditional Cultural Property under NHPA.
The Supervisor of the Coronado knew, all along, that the mountain
was sacred, yet the word “Apache” did not appear once in the DEIS and
FEIS for this mountain which is three miles from the Apache reservation
boundary, and was formerly reservation land, and tribal homeland for
centuries before that.
THE COVERT CLEAR-CUT OF EAST EMERALD PEAK WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND ILLEGAL BY BOTH DISTRICT AND APPEALS COURTS. [46]
After losing
a series of federal court cases in July 29, 1994, Aug. 23, 1994, April
24, 1995, and July 25, 1995 UA admitted that there were other sites
for their Large Binocular Telescope:
“Astronomers lost another
Mount Graham legal battle yesterday, and a UA vice president said it
may soon be time to consider alternative telescope sites outside the
country.
“If the university appeals yesterday’s decision and loses again, ‘We certainly would then pursue alternatives outside the U.S.,’
“‘This is a vitally important
project, and the project can function in any number of places,’ he
said of the Large Binocular Telescope.’
“‘The project is not site-specific…’
“‘We’re elated,’ said Robin
Silver…‘The real question is when will the university start acknowledging
that it’s time to move on, find an alternative site, and start behaving
like a university should; respecting preservation of special places
and Indian people.’”
[47]
The Vatican had earlier conceded there were other sites
other than Mt. Graham:
“Father Coyne, speaking from
his office in Castel Gandolfo, Italy, said that he is aware of other
possible sites that are ‘very viable and they’re in Arizona.’”
[48]
“Father Coyne said that if
building on Mount Graham becomes an impossibility, the Vatican Observatory
would seek another site for the telescope. ‘We will build the telescope
regardless of the outcome of this.
There will be other ways to do it and we have other possibilities
that we’re not even exploring…’”
[49]
Response to the many courtroom losses by the University
of Arizona to the environmental and Native American plaintiffs was summarized
in an editorial in the Phoenix
Gazette in 1995:
“The University of Arizona
has suffered its most stunning defeat of the last decade. It didn’t happen on the basketball court: it didn’t happen on the
football field – it happened in a court of law.
“Seven years ago the Arizona
congressional delegation pushed through federal legislation that exempted
the UofA from the National Environmental Policy Act and all other environmental
laws, including the Endangered Species Act.
That action allowed telescope construction on a mountain that
not only is environmentally sensitive, especially its population of
red squirrels, but also held sacred by the Apaches.
“But in the rush to build
on the mountain, the university made a significant error in the site
of the $60-million Large Binocular Telescope.
“UofA scientists simply didn’t
do their homework. Using flawed
data when selecting the original site, they chose the worst of six possible
mountain locations.
“But with the help of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Service, the university
managed to fudge the difference between east and west as mentioned in
the law. It obtained permission to build on a new site
(in an area that has had more squirrels in each year of the preceding
six years of study) that increases the cluster’s perimeter of land disturbed
– its “footprint” – as well as peripheral damage – its “edge effect”
– cumulative forest destruction…
“Now the issue shifts from
geography to biology. If the
project is to continue where the UofA wants it to continue, the Forest
Service will have to consider, among other things, the traditional cultural
properties of the Apaches – the sort of information that requires talking
to them, not simply surveying the ground for archeological finds as
did the Forest Service on Mount Graham in the past.
“It is the Apaches, the squirrels
and the law that have won. At
least for a while, the mountain can take a deep breath and savor the
victory, the importance of which it alone fully understands.”
[50]
Regrettably the long withheld cultural and environmental
studies never went forward because UA slipped another “rider” through
Congress, again short-circuiting U.S. environmental, cultural and religious
protection laws. Does UVa want to be part of this cultural outrage?
ASTRONOMERS DEMAND APACHES GET PERMITS TO PRAY.
On October 1997 UA astronomers issued a requirement
that any Apache who wished to pray on the mountain, or gather sacred
materials etc. must first apply for a permit from the University of
Arizona astronomy department. The
UA mandated that Apache “prayer permits:”
“…must be made in writing
at least two business days prior to the date requested for access. The request should be made to the Mt. Graham
Observatory office in Safford, attention John Ratje, Site Manager.”
[51]
UA police arrested an Apache who had been praying on
the mountain in September 1997. UA
lawyers argued that he was guilty of criminal trespass for walking on
the access road to the summit. The
access road is entirely located on U.S. Forest Service land but UA claims
it is “their” road and “their” private domain since they built it. UA lawyers lost in the state of Arizona Court in their prosecution
against the Apache who had been praying in the State of Arizona Court.
They have not apologized to the Apache nor withdrawn their demand
that Apaches get prayer permits.
13. UVa astronomers:
“70% OF THE 1,000 TRIBAL MEMBERS ARE CHRISTIANS…WE DO NOT BELIEVE IT SHOULD
BE POSSIBLE WITHIN THE TRIBE FOR A SMALL GROUP OF TRADITIONALISTS…TO
DICTATE THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY.”
Reply:
UVa astronomers are stating here that they will disregard and withhold
the First Amendment rights and the freedom of religion protection which
minorities in this nation have under the U.S. Constitution. UVa astronomers would willfully sacrifice traditional Apaches to
the “tyranny of the majority” -- as the great writers of democracy have
described it – in pursuit of academic self-gratification.
Let us assume it is reasonable for UVa to advocate
trampling the minority rights of that 30% number which UVa claims are
non-Christian -- on the White Mountain and San Carlos Reservations. This represents a failure to recognize the rights of those Apache
living today who have retained the traditions, customs and beliefs which
have been with them since time immemorial.
For example, most Apache participate in one of the
most profoundly sacred and spiritual events of the Apache people, their
Sunrise Dance. Participation
in this event is widespread despite the fact that some of the Christian
denominations on the reservations discourage their members’ participation
in these ceremonies – seeing them as “pagan” rituals.
The Mountain Spirits or Gaahn,
which live at special mountains such as Mt. Graham, preside at these
ceremonies. They bring to the
Apache changing-woman the Apache lifeway. The Gaahn
or so-called mountain spirits are present as entities which are masked. Their identity is not for discussion. The BIA
allowed the first openly public Sunrise Dance in San Carlos in 1937. Prior to that they were performed in secret
away from non-Apache eyes.
A large number of the sacred prayer songs of the Medicinepeople
at these ceremonies refer to Dzil
Nchaa Si’an. Dzil Nchaa Si’an starts only 3 miles from the present reservation
boundary. It was tribal homeland
for centuries prior to the U.S. military conquest. Mt. Graham, while
part of the tribal homeland for centuries, was removed from the reservation
boundary in 1873, two years after the reservation boundaries were established. Mt. Graham and some six other portions of the
reservation were unilaterally and systematically removed and given to
White settlers who took over these lands for their rich natural resources.
UVa astronomers erroneously state that there are “1000
tribal members” of the San Carlos Reservation. This twenty-four fold mathematical error by Ph.D. astronomers is
difficult to understand, however, it is consistent with the other erroneous
statements UVa astronomers make about Apache traditions and beliefs,
and the biogeography of Mt. Graham. There are 11,800 individuals enrolled
as San Carlos Apache Reservation and the 12,000 members of the White
Mountain Apache Tribe. The tribes share a contiguous boundary. Their
members share equally in opposition to the telescope desecration on
Dzil Nchaa Si’an. The White
Mountain tribal and cultural leaders, like those at the San Carlos Reservation,
have stated their opposition to the desecration of Dzil Nchaa Si’an (Mt. Graham).
[52]
Ramon Riley, Cultural Resources Director, White Mountain
Apache Tribe on Nov. 8, 1995 wrote to R. Kudritzki, Chair., German Council
of Astronomers of Munich, Germany:
“Elders will not give you answers until they know and trust you—until
they see you are coming from the heart.
You have to work within the patience of elders and not expect
answers immediately. Everything
you do must have respect. My
mother told me that Mt. Graham is one of the sacred mountains, one of
the 4 chief mountains…Because of herbs…Crown Dancers, and other power,
these mountains teach us… They and the stars guide us.
People have been praying to the mountains north and south and using these
places since time immemorial. We
have been denied access to these places in the name of money. Those are our mountains. They are all-important to us. To me, what I have heard ever since I can remember,
is that these are sacred places…We go to the mountains because they
bring us closer to God. I worry
that much reliance is being placed on asking direct questions and expecting
elders to confront sensitive matters, when this is not our way.” “…the
observatory project has significantly harmed our already damaged culture
in a profound and almost unforgivable way.”
In
a letter to Ohio State U. Pres. Gordon Gee Ramon Riley on Jan. 8 1997
wrote:
“…the long term
health of Apache people and our cultures depend in a very real way on
the physical and visual integrity of our ancestral landscapes…no good
can come from an observatory built on institutional arrogance and aggressive
contempt for divergent values and perspectives.”
Dallas
Massey, Tribal Chairman of the White Mountain Apache Tribe wrote to
President Casteen of the U. of Virginia and President Yudof of the U.
of Minnesota:
“I write to ensure
that you hear directly from an Apache leader about the Mount Graham
telescope project. Despite what
may be related by some astronomers and public relations consultants,
I want you to understand that Mount Graham (the mountains we refer to
as Dzil Nchaa Si An) is one of our holiest and most sacred mountains.
Apache elders and cultural specialists have clearly and consistently
advised all who have listened that this mountain should not be disturbed
for research or commercial purposes.
Please take heed.
“The White Mountain
Apache Tribal Council has insisted upon full and unbiased recognition
of the central importance that Dzil Nchaa Si An has in Apache Culture
and History. If you are willing
to understand the lessons from our culture and history then the University
of Virginia (Minnesota) will avoid any and all association with the
telescope project, thus avoiding additional damage to Apache people,
and Apache culture, and our sacred mountain.”
[53]
14. UVa astronomers:
“…the Mount Graham
issue is being exploited by a small group of activists.”
Reply:
The claim by UVa astronomers that the San Carlos and White Mountain
Apache are being exploited by a “small group of activists” is patronizing
to the 20,000 some enrolled Western Apache people.
Such a statement implies the Apache people are unable to make
their own decisions, and select who are their friends and who are not
their friends. Since 1989, numerous resolutions, declarations, and letters
from the San Carlos and White Mountain Apache Tribal governments and
Apache cultural leaders have stated – and re-stated -- the Apache opposition
to the telescope desecration. Witness
the over 50 pages of documents, pleadings, prayers, demonstrations,
sacred runs etc. of the Western Apache people (in the “Record
of Apache Opposition…” available from the Mount Graham Coalition).
15. UVa astronomers:
“We are skeptical
of the claim that Mount Graham has more life zones and vegetative communities
than any other U.S. Mountain…We suspect that among Mount Rainier…Mt.
Whitney…Mt. McKinley…etc…etc…there is a mountain likely to exceed Mount
Graham…”
Reply:
Dr. Peter Warshall, President, Scientists for the Preservation of Mount
Graham replies:
“That is nonsense. Mt. Rainier is easily more studied than Mt.
Graham and does not have the same number of vertical communities because
of its higher latitudes. In
fact, that is true for all the peaks except perhaps Mauna Kea.
What makes Mt. Graham distinct from them all is its: (1) position
in the Madrean Archipelago; (2) being at the confluence of the subtropical
and Nearctic Flora and Fauna as well as the Plains and Desert Grasslands;
(3) as well as riparian habitats in desert; (4) as well as height; (5)
as well as pocket habitats like the Cienegas.”
“And for the UVa astronomers to say that about Mt. McKinley shows complete ignorance and shallow rhetoric. Any freshman biologist knows that the higher the latitude, the