Subject: Secure Border Initiative effects on research sites
From: "Dan Brocious" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 12:33:48 -0700

Mr. Phil Smith 
SBInet Chief Engineer
Secure Border Initiative
Arlington, Virginia 22209

Dear Mr. Smith,

Thank you for your positive response.

Perhaps we can start by my outlining concerns I am aware of for southern Arizona observatories and staff of other border state observatories may then add their specific concerns.

1.  Increased light in the night sky -- 
		a. One-half mile of stadium style lighting was added at Yuma/San Luis last month.
		b. The lighting at Bisbee/Naco has been extended to about 3.7 miles, increasing the number of light poles from 19 to 92.
		c. The Border Patrol has plans to build a permanent checkpoint on Interstate 19 at the highway's closest approach to the Whipple and MMT Observatories.

With regard to outdoor lighting, the greatest damage is done by light which leaves a lighting fixture above the horizontal plane.  This light goes directly to the night sky, overwhelming the starlight we try to study, and does no lighting work.  Not only does the uplight not help anyone to see, it can create blinding glare for an observer and is a waste of energy.  

Another consideration is the amount of light.  Even from the best shielded lighting fixture, an average of 10 to 15 percent of the downlight reflects off the ground and into the night sky.  Good lighting practice is to light to the task.  That is, use as much light as is needed, but no more.  The Outdoor Lighting Codes in areas surrounding observatories recognize this by placing limits on the overall amount of light that may be installed per acre.

The lighting experts on this email distribution can give you or your staff as much specific information about lighting fixtures and design as you wish.

2.	Radio emissions --
		1. The tethered aerostat (airborne radar) at Ft. Huachuca, Ariz., long-ago modified its transmission pattern to avoid interfering with radio telescopes at the Kitt Peak Observatory site.  I have heard second-hand that the plans are in the works to greatly increase the signal strength and possibly drop out the null zones in its transmission.

If true, this would directly affect radio telescopes sited on Kitt Peak and on Mount Graham.  If the signal strength is high enough, the radio waves could cause interference with the cameras and other electronics on optical telescopes as well.  Because of this, the NEXRAD weather radar located east of the Whipple and MMT Observatories blinks off its transmission when pointing at the observatories on Kitt Peak, Mt. Graham and Mt. Hopkins.  

The list here only describes the nature of our concerns.  We do not know the scope of SBI projects and, at this stage, you may not know either.  No matter, we do wish to work with you so that you can accomplish your task with the least harm to ours.  Please let us know the best way to proceed.

Regards,

Dan Brocious
Smithsonian Institution
Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Brocious
Smithsonian Institution
Whipple Observatory
P.O. Box 6369
Amado, AZ  85645  USA

520-670-5706  Voicemail
520-670-5714  Fax

----- Original message ----------------------------------------
From: "SMITH, CHARLES PHIL" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Received: 4/25/2007 5:42:02 AM
Subject: RE:  SBI effects on research sites

>I will be happy to work with you so that you understand what our program
>is doing and for us to understand your concerns.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dan Brocious [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 5:51 PM
>To: Smith, Charles PHIL
>Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>[email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked];
>[email-masked]; [email-masked];
>[email-masked]
>Subject: SBI effects on research sites

>Mr. Phil Smith 
>SBInet Chief Engineer
>Secure Border Initiative
>Arlington, Virginia 22209

>Dear Mr. Smith,

>Mr. Giddens has been good enough to refer my inquiry to you.  My
>original message is below.

>I wish to emphasize that not only do the staff members at every
>Southwestern observatory stand by to assist, but professionals of the
>lighting design community are ready to offer recommendations as well.

>We look forward to working with you.

>Regards,

>Dan Brocious
>Smithsonian Institution
>Whipple Observatory

>-------------------------------------------
>[original message]

>>The Smithsonian Institution's Fred Lawrence Whipple Observatory is one
>>of the many astronomical observatories along the U.S. southern border
>>that might be affected by the "virtual fence" and other installations
>>being constructed along the Mexican border.   As you may be aware,
>>artificial light in the night sky and radar transmissions can seriously
>>affect our research.  

>>All of the premier optical astronomy observatories in the continental
>>U.S. are in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.  Many are near
>>the border.  The Whipple Observatory, for example, is only 30 miles
>>north of the border town of Nogales, Arizona.

>>Our experience with local Border Patrol officials concerning lighting
>>and radio emissions have been generally positive over the years.

>>We would like to talk with your design teams to work out solutions so
>>that you may accomplish your mission while doing the least harm to
>>research facilities.  How may we set up these lines of communication?

>>Thank you for your attention.

>>Regards,

>Dan Brocious
>Smithsonian Institution
>Whipple Observatory