district court in Tucson rejected claims by the Sierra Club that the squirrel monitoring program was flawed and reauthorized the initiation of construction.(16) With the environmental law options effectively closed, the groups in opposition to the MGIO began to mobilize the San Carlos Apache Tribe by claiming that Mount Graham is a sacred mountain protected under the American Indians Religious Freedom Act of 1978.
district court in Phoenix denied the Apache Survival Coalition's request for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order for the MGIO project.
Efforts to quantify the dollar transaction costs associated with the MGIO environmental conflict have been difficult.
The Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, the University of Arizona, and the opponents of the MGIO did not draw upon these models of conflict resolution nor the siting experiences of other public and private organizations.
Both proponents and opponents used this biological uncertainty to build their cases for or against the MGIO, effectively "capturing" federal employees and their agencies in this conflict.
The MGIO case would seem to support these last two findings; it was the very siting of the observatory on Mount Graham that attracted the human sponsorship and resources to list the MGRS as endangered.
See Rhodes and Wilson (1991) for a more detailed chronology of the MGIO siting process.
11 Although the opposition to the MGIO project focused most of its efforts on the MGRS, it soon became clear that cutting old-growth trees, disturbing a unique ecosystem, and limiting access to the summit for hikers and hunters were equally important issues.