United States Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, D.C. 20240
DEC 27 1994
Dr. Robin D. Silver
P.O. Box 39382
Phoenix, Arizona 85069
Dear Dr. Silver:
This is in response to your letter of December 4, 1991, addressed to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) office in Phoenix, Arizona, concerning
your Freedom of Information Act request pertaining to the Mt. Graham
investigation.
The FBI has requested that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provide you
with a partial response which consists of the document that originated in
this agency; namely the June 26, 1990, statement which was presented before
Congressional committees concerning Mt. Graham
observatory biological opinion procedural issues.
If you have any questions about the enclosed document, please contact me at
(703) 358-1943.
Sincerely,
James E. Pinkerton
Freedom of Information Act Officer
Enclosure
Copy to: Federal Bureau of Investigation
Phoenix Field Office
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
STATEMENT OF LESLEY A. FITZPATRICK, FISH AND WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST, U.S. FISH
AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES FIELD OFFICE, PHOENIX, ARIZONA,
BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS, HOUSE INTERIOR
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE, AND BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND
WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT, HOUSE MERCHANT MARINE AND
FISHERIES COMMITTEE, CONCERNING MT. GRAHAM INTERNATIONAL OBSERVATORY
BIOLOGICAL OPINION PROCEDURAL ISSUES
June 26, 1990
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Chairmen, my name is Lesley A. Fitzpatrick. I work for the Fish and
Wildlife Service in the Ecological Services Field Office in Phoenix, Arizona
as a Fish and Wildlife Biologist. For several years, my primary
responsibility in that office has been the implementation of the interagency
cooperation provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
In accordance with my responsibilities under Section 7, I became involved
with the Mt. Graham Astrophysical Observatory project in 1986. I was the
Fish and Wildlife Service biologist working with the Forest Service and
Arizona Game and Fish Department during the formal Section 7 consultations
on the Observatory in 1987 and 1988. I organized the consultation teams for
those consultations, arranged all meetings with the team and outside experts
and prepared the drafts of both the 1987 biological opinion that was never
issued and the biological opinion issued July 14, 1988. Since then I have
been working with the Forest Service in implementing the July 14th
biological opinion.
The Mt. Graham red squirrel was listed as endangered on June 3, 1987. From
informal consultation meetings and conversations with the Forest Service, I
knew they would request formal consultation on the Observatory as soon as
possible after the listing was complete. Prior to the Forest Service
request for formal consultation, I was informed by my supervisor, Sam
Spiller, that our Regional Office in Albuquerque wanted to ensure there was
an alternative allowing development of an Observatory in the Pinaleno
Mountains (Mt. Graham) in the biological opinion that would be developed.
If we could not so provide, the biological opinion would be prepared by
another office. After much discussion, I agreed to prepare an opinion
according to the Regional Office requirements in the belief that we would
prepare a biological opinion that provided the best protection available for
the red squirrel given the circumstances.
The conditions imposed upon the biological opinion by the Fish and Wildlife
Regional Office were inappropriate. The analysis of the information
available, including that in the biological assessment prepared by the
Forest Service, by the Fish and Wildlife Service had not been done when the
Region issued its conditions. Thus the conditions were not based on the
best available commercial and scientific data, the type of information the
regulations for Section 7 require be used in making a decision on a project
in a biological opinion. The condition also prevented the consultation team
from making a decision based solely on the biology of the red squirrel and
the effects of the Observatory upon the animal, as required by Section 7
regulations.
The 1987 draft opinion contained 4 reasonable and prudent alternatives to
the proposed 5 telescope Observatory. Three allowed for development in the
Pinaleno Mountains, two in areas of lower value red squirrel habitat, and
one adjacent to high value red squirrel habitat at High Peak. Allowing the
Observatory on High Peak required the preservation of Emerald Peak for red
squirrel habitat. The draft opinion sent by the Fish and Wildlife Service
Regional Office (Region 2) to the Forest Service on August 31, 1987, stated
that no astrophysical development could be considered for Emerald Peak
because effects of the action could not be reduced to a non-jeopardy situation.
The consultation was halted on September 17, 1987, by the Forest Service
after discussions with the University of Arizona concerning the available
alternatives. We were informed by the Forest Service that for the
University of Arizona's purposes, none of the alternatives provided for a
viable Observatory facility. The Forest Service agreed to request a
suspension of consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service if the
University of Arizona would provide the Forest Service with the minimum
viable observatory plan. The University of Arizona agreed to do this and
the consultation was suspended.
The minimum viable observatory plan contained 7 telescopes on 2 peaks, High
and Emerald. An expanded biological assessment was developed by the Forest
Service and consultation was reinitiated with the Fish and Wildlife Service
on February 17, 1988. The consultation team determined that the jeopardy to
the red squirrel from use of both High and Emerald Peaks could not be
allowed under the Endangered Species Act. Alternative developed by the team
would have allowed development on High Peak and peaks with lesser value to
the red squirrel. Development on Emerald Peak was only discussed as
possible after at least 10 years of biological research on the red squirrel
and its habitat showed that development could safely be accommodated there.
Discussions between the Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix Ecological
Services Field Office and Regional Office from 15 April to 18 May, 1988, did
not find any biological base to allow an observatory to be sited on Emerald
Peak. In the Phoenix Ecological Services Field Office, we were still
operating under the conditions from 1987 that there had to be a development
alternative in the Pinalenos.
During late May 1988, I prepared materials that I thought were for briefing
purposes for the Fish and Wildlife Director, Congressional aides, and
University of Arizona. After the June 3, 1988, meeting between the Regional
Director Fish and Wildlife Service, Regional Forester-Forest Service and
University of Arizona, the protective stand against development on Emerald
Peak disappeared. I was directed by the Fish and Wildlife Service-Regional
Office to analyze an Emerald Peak only alternative with a new road access.
The benefits to the squirrel from this alternative were to come from
long-term reforestation of the existing roads. We pointed out to our
Regional Office, the risks associated in trading short-term losses for
long-term gains, especially on a species we knew so little about. It may be
truly said that I did not come out and say, to the Regional Office, no you
can't build this alternative. However, this seemed to be the only
development alternative that was acceptable to the University of Arizona of
any that had been developed and the requirement from our Regional Office to
provide for a development alternative still existed.
The final biological opinion had three alternatives: no development in the
Pinalenos, High Peak with studies prior to a commitment on Emerald and
Emerald Peak alone with a staggered construction plan three telescopes now
four later with funding for studies of the red squirrel and its habitat. As
many protective measures as could be developed were included in the Emerald
Peak alternative to provide the best margin of safety available under the
circumstances. Biologically, the Emerald Peak alternative was highly
questionable, especially given the uncertainty about habitat conditions,
population demographics, and environmental fluctuations and other basic
biological information about the red squirrel. The features were the best
concepts to protect the red squirrel and its habitat that we could develop
under the circumstances, but we had no real way of knowing if they would be
adequate.
In my opinion the Emerald Peak alternative was not developed to eliminate
the jeopardy to the red squirrel; it was developed to provide the University
of Arizona with an acceptable development alternative. A reasonable and
prudent alternative under the regulations is to provide for a project that
does not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. In a
biologically bases biological opinion, the Emerald Peak alternative would
not have appeared,
The limited information gained over the last two years only serves to
strengthen the case against the Emerald Peak alternative. The red squirrel
population is very sensitive to the environmental fluctuations of its
habitat and in critical periods, the loss or degradation of habitats becomes
more important. There is little habitat on Mt. Graham that can provide the
red squirrel with the resources it needs now, and further losses may well
have profound impacts on populations long before the reforested areas can
make up for those losses. To make a biologically sound decision on siting
the Mt. Graham International Observatory, we must understand the Pinalenos,
not just the red squirrel, but the entire ecosystem upon which it depends.
###
Mail converted by
MHonArc 1.1.0