Showing posts with label ocelot. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ocelot. Show all posts

Sunday, July 27, 2014

McAllen couple donates ranchland to help ocelots

The Monitor
July 27, 2014
Paula Ann Solis

The border fence running between Mexico and Texas has inadvertently blocked and damaged the Rio Grande Valley range of ocelots.
Urbanization and political boundaries pose a danger to this endangered cat and the future of wildlife. But a McAllen family has breathed new life into their survival by placing part of their land in the hands of an interested party, the United States government.
 
Celebrated land stewards Karen and Phil Hunke worked for more than a decade to transform thousands of acres in Hidalgo County, known as Tecolote Ranch, into a sanctuary for endangered plants and animals such as the ocelot.
 
In the Valley, where 95 percent of original Texas brush land has been cleared in the name of progress, their efforts are uncommon.
 
“Karen and I are just really committed to helping people learn and educating them about how you can conserve land and not over graze,” Hunke said. “You can aid wildlife at the same time and have cattle and make it work together.”
 
The Nature Conservancy, a nonprofit environmental group, took note of their commitment and successful maintenance of critical land during land inventories, Hunke said.
 
To take their progress one step further, the Hunkes sold 1,119 acres in June to the conservancy at a significantly reduced price, cutting their overall land value. But it was all in the name of nature and charity, Hunke said.
 
The land is near the intersection of Willacy, Hidalgo and Kenedy counties.
 
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service acquired the land for $3 million with funds the Department of Homeland Security reserved to combat the negative impacts of the border fence’s construction.

http://m.themonitor.com/news/local/mcallen-couple-donates-ranchland-to-help-ocelots/article_3afde3fa-1525-11e4-8c8c-001a4bcf6878.html?mode=jqm

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Sierra Club: More border walls is not the answer

Rio Grande Guardian June 22, 2013 by Steve Taylor HIDALGO, June 22 - The Sierra Club has denounced plans to build hundreds of miles of additional border walls, saying the only place left to add more barriers is through wildlife refuges and private property along the Rio Grande in Texas. In a statement, the group said America and its environment can’t afford another “Border Splurge.” So far, six hundred miles of walls have been built along the U.S.-Mexico border. “What we’ve learned,” the Sierra Club states, “is that that these barriers do not stop immigration – they only devastate wildlife and habitat while bisecting communities and costing taxpayers millions of dollars per mile.” Plans to build more border walls came via an amendment to the Senate immigration reform legislation authored by Republican U.S. Sens. John Hoeven of North Dakota and Bob Corker of Tennessee. The amendment, which has the backing of the so-called Gang of Eight U.S. senators, would require the construction of hundreds of miles of border walls, to be added to the existing 651 miles of fencing already built, in addition to a near doubling of the U.S Border Patrol by adding 20,000 agents. There would also be a lot more towers, cameras, sensors and drones. The additional border security could cost $48 billion over ten years. Dan Millis, of the Sierra Club Borderlands team, said the Sierra Club “strongly opposes this reckless and unrealistic proposal that would not only destroy habitat, cut off wildlife migration corridors and cause flooding, but also waste tens of billions of taxpayer dollars on technology we know has little impact on fixing our immigration system.” Millis pointed out that last year the U.S. government spent $18 billion on immigration enforcement - more than all other federal law enforcement combined. “Our borderlands are already overrun with excessive numbers of Border Patrol vehicles, agents, towers and buildings. We have more than 650 miles of border fence that only serve to bisect communities and devastate the borderlands environment. We already have a border splurge – we don’t need another one,” Millis said. Millis said the proposed doubling of the Border Patrol is precisely that, another border splurge. “While cutting basic services and environmental protections, they want to waste billions more building more fences. The truth is the only place left to build more fences is through wildlife refuges and private property along the Rio Grande in Texas, where Homeland Security estimates future wall construction projects to cost $9.4 million per mile. That means spending billions of dollars on hundreds of miles of fence that won’t do what they want it to do,” Millis said. “Our communities, our wildlife, and our borderlands can’t afford another border splurge, and neither can American taxpayers.” Another group that has come out strongly against the Corker-Hoeven amendment is CAMBIO, which stands for Campaign for an Accountable, Moral and Balanced Immigration Overhaul. Its members include the Border Network for Human Rights, the Southern Border Communities Coalition, the ACLU of New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights, and the Northern Borders Coalition. The group released the following joint statement in united opposition to the negotiated Senate deal: “This is a bad deal for U.S. taxpayers, but especially for those that live and work in the border region. While the flow of migration is at a historic low, excessive enforcement remains unchecked and unaccountable to communities in which Border Patrol and Customs and Border Protection operates. This proposal to increase enforcement without checks and balances is an example of excessive and wasteful government spending and represents an unnecessary expansion of the federal government's authority. “We know the effects that these provisions will have on the daily lives of all border residents. Our communities have endured the painful reality of unchecked and unaccountable enforcement operations, which have led to decreased civil liberties and civil rights protections, interruption of commerce and trade, constant surveillance in our neighborhoods, excessive and deadly use of force by Border Patrol agents, and the outright militarization of border communities. The senators need to be reminded that border communities are still part of this nation and that there should be no further militarization of our neighborhoods. In fact, there has been an immediate and overwhelming response from mayors, local elected officials, law enforcement leaders and faith leaders along the border in opposition to the proposal. “As border communities, we stand united in our resounding rejection of the Hoeven-Corker deal and urge the Senate to include accountability and oversight mechanisms to the already massive presence of border agents in our communities. This includes mandating lapel cameras for border agents, providing subpoena power to the DHS Border Oversight Task Force, applying geographic limits on warrantless Border Patrol stops in the southern border, and directing any increase in personnel to ports of entry where they are needed to facilitate trade that is fueling our economies. “The Hoeven-Corker proposal to increase the number of Border Patrol, add additional fencing, and spend trillions in technology is expensive, extreme and wasteful, particularly at a time when we need to improve our schools, fix our roads, and grow our economy. It is an assault on our system of checks and balances and seriously threatens the quality of life of border residents. Overhauling the nation's immigration process is urgently necessary, but this should not be done without proper consultation with those communities who must live with the effects of poorly thought-out policy. We cannot not remain silent as politicians on both sides of the aisle continue to treat border communities as an endlessly expendable trade-off for immigration reform.” Laredo Mayor Raul Salinas was one of the elected officials to welcome members of the Border Network for Human Rights when they participated in a caravan for immigration reform in Laredo on Tuesday. This week, Salinas has been in Las Vegas for the Conference of Mayors’ summer meeting. Salinas offered a resolution in support of comprehensive immigration reform that was approved by both the Conference of Mayors' Immigration Reform Task Force and its Criminal and Social Justice Committee. This committee is chaired by Houston Mayor Annise D. Parker. “I am grateful to Mayor Parker for carrying the resolution through her committee and I am prepared to carry the resolution on the floor of the Conference on Monday,” Salinas said. “Immigration reform is needed now more than ever, and I am pleased that the Congress and the GAO have now documented the Immigration Reform is not only the right thing to do, it will provide this nation a needed economic stimulus.” Vice President Joe Biden spoke about immigration reform at the Conference of Mayors event. “The math is pretty simple, if you bring people out of the shadows and you give them a start they add to the tax base. They start investing in the communities where they live and they begin to lay down roots,” Biden said. Salinas was pleased with the remarks Biden made. “Vice President Biden referenced research that documented that the majority of small business that are started today are started by immigrants. But, more than the research, I was pleased that the Conference of Mayors debuted a documentary on the DREAMERs. You don't need research to see the desire in those young people's eyes,” Salinas said. http://www.riograndeguardian.com/green_story.asp?story_no=25#.UcZRCFtF_7s.facebook

Saturday, January 26, 2013

South Texas border fence in limbo amid flooding, wildlife worries

E & E News
January 23, 2013
by April Reese

In south Texas, where the Rio Grande divides the United States from Mexico, three of the last remaining sections of border fence -- approved more than five years ago -- remain unbuilt.

Unlike many existing sections, those in limbo would be constructed within the floodplain. They would stretch a total of 7 miles and skim the southern edge of three Texas towns -- Roma, Rio Grande and Los Ebanos.

Mexican officials, border town mayors, environmental groups, residents and some congressional leaders remain concerned that those projects could potentially push Rio Grande floodwaters into Mexican towns and block wildlife corridors.

After languishing on the back burner for several years, the projects have advanced recently after receiving a needed stamp of approval from an international governmental body. But as many opponents have made clear, the fence Congress authorized in 2006 will not be completed without a major fight.

"I've lived here all my life," said Rio Grande City Mayor Ruben Villarreal, who has governed the city for five years. "The minute you manipulate anything along the river, it affects you, and how that will affect the community is a big concern. It's going to obstruct the natural flow of the water and obstruct wildlife."

If the sections in question are constructed, local officials and residents fear debris will build up along the fence, causing severe flooding and erosion.

At first, officials with the International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC), created to address water-related issues along the border, shared those concerns. But after alterations to the original plans, the agency has changed its mind, said Sally Spener, a foreign affairs officer with the United States' section of the IBWC, or the USIBWC.

"There was a new design that they came up with that did not cause a prohibitive obstruction," Spener said, referring to the Department of Homeland Security, which is charged with implementing the projects. "In other words, it wasn't a solid fence. It was a different design back in 2008."

The fence could also block wildlife from key migration corridors, environmental groups say.

Scott Nichols, who works for the Sierra Club's Borderlands Project and lives in the border town of McAllen, Texas, worries about the fence's impact on rare and endangered species, including the ocelot, whose population has dropped to about 100 breeding animals. If the fence is built, that will be one more barrier hemming in wildlife -- along with roads, buildings and other fencing.

The Department of Homeland Security has already constructed fence segments through prime wildlife areas, including the Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area and the South Texas Refuge Complex, over the objections of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The agencies, along with conservation groups, have worked for decades to purchase and restore habitat in the lower Rio Grande Valley, and the new fencing could severely undermine those efforts, Nichols and other conservationists say.

Villarreal said DHS and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) haven't paid enough attention to what the people who live along the border want.

"At some point, stop asking Washington and start asking border residents, and you'll find a solution," he said, "because we live on the river."

In the end, opponents' best hope of killing the fence in south Texas may be the congressional funding crunch. CBP says it currently does not have the money to pursue the project.

"There is no funding to build any additional fence at this time," said Bill Brooks, a spokesman for CBP's south Texas office. But many locals worry the money will be found in the next few years.

Of rivers and boundaries

Concerns about the fence date back to the late 2000s. In 2008, the IBWC, a binational government agency that deals with water-related border issues, warned DHS that the fence segments in Rio Grande City, Roma and Los Ebanos could potentially cause flooding and shift the international boundary.

Under a 1970 boundary treaty, IBWC -- both the agency's Mexican section and the U.S. section -- must ensure that projects built in the Rio Grande floodplain do not obstruct or deflect the river's flows or exacerbate flooding. In particular, IBWC officials worried that during rainstorms, debris would build up against the fence and turn it into a dam of sorts, diverting flows into Mexican communities (Land Letter, March 27, 2008).
But after consultants analyzing the potential effects of the fence on river flows revised their original model, USIBWC dropped their concerns.

The Mexican section of IBWC, however, remained unconvinced.

"The location, alignment and design of the proposed fence represent a clear obstruction of the Rio Grande hydraulic area, since in the towns of Rio Grande City and Roma, Texas, the fence would occupy nearly all of the hydraulic area on the U.S. side, causing deflection of flows toward the Mexican side," wrote Luis Antonio Rascon Mendoza, principal engineer for IBWC-Mexico, in a Dec. 13, 2011, letter to the USIBWC.

The fence would obstruct 60 to 70 percent of the hydraulic area, and considering the amount of debris that could pile up against the barrier, "the fence constitutes a serious obstruction and deflection of the Rio Grande flows toward Mexico," he wrote.

But last year, engineers for the USIBWC cleared the way for the project to proceed, concluding that the fence would not violate the 1970 boundary treaty.

"After an in-depth and thorough review, the USIBWC has concluded that the proposed fence project(s) will not cause significant deflection or obstruction of ... flood flows of the Rio Grande," USIBWC engineer John Merino wrote in a Feb. 3, 2012, letter responding to the concerns of the Mexican section of IBWC.

The fence would be constructed of 6-inch vertical bollard posts with 4-inch spaces in between. Computer models show that the amount of water that would be directed into Mexico by the fence is "within the threshold limits," partly because some of the flow would pass through the fence, Merino said.

Based on that information, the USIBWC notified the Department of Homeland Security that it had no objection to the three fence projects -- a necessary step for DHS to move forward.

Multiple attempts to reach a DHS representative familiar with the projects garnered no response. DHS has told IBWC it would come up with a plan to keep debris from piling up against the fence during storms.

It is unclear whether the Mexican section of IBWC remains concerned about the project. In a brief phone conversation, Mendoza referred an inquiry from Greenwire about Mexico's position on the project to a spokesperson, who did not respond to requests for comment in time for publication.

Despite the USIBWC's assurances, local opposition in the United States remains strong. At a meeting held by USIBWC in Rio Grande City late last summer, the majority of the crowd of residents and local officials questioned the agency's conclusions.

"How can you really tell us it's going to work 100 percent?" said Aleida Garcia, of Los Ebanos, a small community that lies within the floodplain, according to an Associated Press account of the Aug. 29, 2012, meeting. "Because we're talking about people, communities, families."

Jose Nuñez, supervisory civil engineer with USIBWC, said in response that "whether the fence is there or not, you're still in the floodplain," according to AP. He reiterated that the computer model used by the agency's engineers to analyze the project's hydrologic effects suggests that the fence will not create a significant obstruction.

The fence is unpopular in other areas of Texas, as well. In places where CBP tried to avoid building in the floodplain, the new 18-foot barrier has cut off landowners from some of their private property, including farmland. Some landowners have sued over DHS's use of eminent domain to allow construction through private property.

Securing the border?

The fence projects in limbo were authorized as part of a larger border reinforcement effort mandated under the Secure Fence Act of 2006. It called for construction of a total of about 700 miles of fence along sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, which spans 1,954 miles from Texas to California. The barrier was needed to "make the border more secure," President George W. Bush said in signing the legislation into law on Oct. 26, 2006.

Around the time the Secure Fence Act was passed, Congress also gave its stamp of approval to the Real ID Act, which allowed more than 30 environmental and cultural laws to be waived by the DHS secretary to expedite construction of the ambitious project. But the south Texas projects still have to comply with international treaties governing actions along the section of the Rio Grande that serves as the border there.

Critics maintain that in south Texas, there is no need for the fence in the first place. Nichols of the Sierra Club points to a June 2008 document drafted to address community concerns as evidence that the CBP itself believes the fence projects planned for south Texas would be overkill. CPB said in the document that at that time, it was able to "effectively control" that section of the border with boots on the ground.

But the agency went on to say it believed further reinforcements would be necessary if illegal activity increased in the Rio Grande Valley sector.

The number of apprehensions in the Rio Grande Valley actually dropped in the ensuing years, however.

According to data provided by CBP, apprehension of illegal border crossers has decreased almost every year since 2008. Apprehensions in the Rio Grande sector went from 134,186 in fiscal 2005 to 59,243 in fiscal 2011.
Some local officials, including Mayor Villarreal and U.S. Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas), whose district includes some of the area slated for the projects, have called for alternatives to the fence to secure the area, primarily by expanding the law enforcement presence.

"Let's get more money for our local sheriffs and police," Cuellar said in a video posted on his website after a DHS hearing on border security.

Villarreal, however, remains convinced the fence will be built within the next few years.

"I think we'll have to deal with the strong possibility that we'll have a fence to contend with," he said.

Friday, October 5, 2012

A Barrier for South Texas Wildlife

New York Times
October 4, 2012
by Melissa Gaskill

A line of 18-foot-high steel posts spaced four inches apart flank the entrance of part of one of the most biodiverse ecosystems in the United States, and one of the most endangered. Bifurcated by the fence is the Nature Conservancy’s Southmost Preserve near Brownsvillle, Tex., whose threatened species include the Southern yellow bat, the Texas tortoise and the ocelot, an endangered cat whose estimated American population is under 50. One of the few remaining stands of native sable palms in the United States grow there as well.

The posts are part of a 70-mile “pedestrian barrier” between Falcon Dam and the Gulf of Mexico that was built to deter illegal immigration and drug trafficking. It lies anywhere from hundreds of yards to several miles north of the border. Before construction started in 2009, experts expressed concern about the effects of the fence on so-called wildlife corridors in the Rio Grande Valley. Now they are taking stock of the impacts.

“All wildlife roam along corridors,” said Laura Huffman, director of the Texas branch of the Nature Conservancy. “These are nature’s highways. Any time you put an obstacle in a highway, it’s going to affect mobility, the ability of animals to move back and forth.”

At the Southmost Preserve, the bottom of the fence is pierced by 8-by-11-inch openings every 500 feet.These aren’t large enough for many animals, biologists say, nor were they positioned on the basis of existing data on wildlife corridors.

“Smaller animals – young coyotes, weasels, jackrabbits – can get through the holes, but larger animals can’t,” Ms. Huffman said. “The wall seems to have caused changes to movement patterns of many wildlife. We’re seeing tracks of deer and javelina where we weren’t before. I suspect they are having to follow along the fence to attempt crossings.”

The federal Fish and Wildlife Service has used cameras and collars to monitor bobcats in the Rio Grande Valley for more than 12 years. So far it has no evidence that bobcats are using the openings.
Ms. Huffman said the wall also seems to have changed some animals’ movement patterns. “We’re seeing tracks of deer and javelina where we weren’t before,” she said. “I suspect they are having to follow along the fence to attempt crossings.”

For the ocelot and the jaguarundi, another small cat, interbreeding between populations on both sides of the Rio Grande river is considered ciritical to maintaining genetic diversity.

Officials at the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which spans 90,000 acres in 115 separate units, have also expressed concern about the barrier’s effect on an already fragmented landscape.

“I don’t think the openings are effective — nobody does,” said Kelly McDowell, the Fish and Wildlife Service’s refuge supervisor for Oklahoma and Texas. She said it was unlikely that ocelots would even find them. “This is a heavy forest-dwelling species that stays in cover, and you’re talking about an area that is cleared out with roads on both sides,” she said. “As a wildlife biologist, I can’t say there is any likelihood that the openings will maintain the connectivity that we think a species like ocelot needs.”

When the barrier went up, Maxwell Pons, the Southmost Preserve’s manager, sprayed fox urine around the openings to help animals find them. But not all species would pick up on the scent, he said.

The barrier also bisects the Anacua Unit of the Texas Parks and Wildlife department’s Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area, isolating 48 acres on its south side. “The fence limits the travel of larger animals,” said the department’s regional director, Len Polasek. “It also prevents animals from getting to the river for water.”

When construction got under way, the department’s biologists identified species likely to be affected by the barrier; among them were 10 plants and animals on federal and state endangered lists, 23 on the state’s threatened list, and dozens of species of concern.

“The border fence and roads associated with it reduce ability of animals to move on the landscape,” said Jon Beckmann, a scientist with the Wildlife Conservation Society. “That isolates populations, which reduces genetic variation.”

Some sections of barrier in the Lower Rio Grand Valley are solid concrete walls intended to retain floodwaters, increasing the possibility that wildlife could be trapped in high water, environmentalists also point out. Even the post-style barrier can worsen flooding by trapping debris.

Mr. Beckmann said that many animals would be deterred from crossing anyway by the increased lighting and the vehicles of border guards and others traveling along the line of posts.

Mr. Pons and Ms. Huffman also worry what will happen to the Southmost Preserve’s native plant nursery, which has provided 70,000 seedlings of 16 trees and scrub to help restore native landscapes. “A lot of people had worked hard and put together a pretty remarkable mosaic of lands protected by state, federal and local agencies and organizations,” Ms. Huffman said.

Several studies support environmentalists’ arguments about the potentially destructive effect of the barriers. A 2009 study in the journal Conservation Biology suggested that the barrier would disrupt movement and distribution of ferruginous pygmy-owls, bighorn sheep and similar species. Another by scientists from the University of Texas and Yale identified three regions where wildlife was most at risk from pedestrian barriers: coastal California, Arizona’s Madrean Sky Island Archipelago and the Rio Grande Valley. (The barriers, mandated by the Secure Fence Act of 2006, extend intermittently across 650 miles of the border, from California to Texas.)

Still, Mr. Beckmann of the Wildlife Conservation Society says he remains optimistic that a solution will be found as the impacts are further documented. “If we get the right constituents together, we can address national security concerns and maintain functioning ecosystems at the same time,” he said. “It can be done. It’s just whether we as a nation decide it is something we want to do.”

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/a-barrier-for-south-texas-wildlife/

Monday, August 6, 2012

Government settles border fence land case in Texas

Associated Press / Houston Chronicle
August 6, 2012
by Christopher Sherman

McALLEN, Texas (AP) — The U.S. government paid almost $1 million Monday for part of a South Texas nature preserve taken for the border fence, ending nearly four years of litigation in one of the project's highest-profile condemnation cases.

The government deposited $978,650 with the court Monday, a month after notifying the judge it had reached a settlement with The Nature Conservancy and farmers who leased property there, according to court records. The settlement has not been finalized by the court.

The government took an 8.31-acre strip of land east of Brownsville for its fence, leaving most of the 1,000-acre property of sabal palms, oxbow lakes and citrus groves known as the Southmost Preserve in a no-man's land between the fence and the Rio Grande. The fence has already been constructed.

After going through a required mediation process recently, the two sides reached the agreement. If they had not, they would have had to argue the value of the condemnation in front of a jury.

Laura Huffman, The Nature Conservancy's state director, said the appraisals used in the mediation process included the value of the entire property and the buildings on it. The settlement reflected the estimated difference between the property's value without the fence and with it.

What the settlement doesn't include is the impact on the land's conservation value.

"This definitely fragments the land that's used by ocelots, for example," Huffman said. "And that's exactly the type of thing that you're trying to protect when you do this broad conservation is the habitat and the use of the habitat by the animals."

The organization is also moving the preserve's long-time manager, whose home was left between the fence and the river, off the property, Huffman said.

She said there were no immediate plans for the money, but a portion will be reimbursed to some who helped finance the land's original acquisition. Some of the land is leased to farmers and that will continue for now, she said.

The government has built about 650 miles of border barriers along the 1,954-mile U.S.-Mexico boundary.

The Rio Grande winds through South Texas, carving wide turns through rich farmland. The border fence was built in straight lines on or behind levees that protect against flooding, which left large tracts of land between fence and border.

In 2009, the government paid for about 300 mature sabal palms, a native species that once covered some 40,000 acres in South Texas and now exists only in pockets, to be moved and replanted elsewhere on the preserve and other properties to make way for the fence.

Thursday, September 23, 2010

FWS Southwest Director: People, Not Species, Toughest Part of Job

New York Times
September 23, 2010
by April Reese

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- It was late 2007, and the Department of Homeland Security's effort to block passage of drug smugglers and illegal immigrants into the United States from Mexico by building several hundred miles of new reinforced fencing along the border was in full tilt.

But when the project reached Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, comprising about 118,000 acres of southern Arizona, Homeland Security hit a snag.

Refuge manager Mitch Ellis informed DHS officials that he could not approve the fence project, planned for about a 1-mile stretch along the refuge's southern perimeter, because it would bisect habitat for the endangered jaguar and other species in violation of the Endangered Species Act.

Frustrated with Ellis's decision, which required approval from the Fish and Wildlife Service's Region 2 headquarters in Albuquerque, DHS took its case to Southwest Regional Director Benjamin Tuggle.

Tuggle, who was appointed to the Southwest post just before Congress mandated construction of the fence, came up with a compromise: FWS would give Homeland Security the refuge land it needed for the fence, but in return FWS would receive lands of comparable ecological value elsewhere in the area, of the service's choosing (Land Letter, Nov. 29, 2007).

The decision, which allowed DHS to avoid exercising a controversial waiver authority granted to it by Congress to bypass federal environmental laws to expedite construction of the border fence, was unpopular not only with environmental groups and some members of the public, but also with the refuge staff.

But the 56-year-old Tuggle, who has one of the toughest jobs in the agency, is not one to wilt in the face of a challenge.

That quality, he says, has served him well in his four and a half years as the commander of the a region that has proven to be a hotbed of politically thorny issues, he says.

'I learn where you're coming from'

On any given day, Tuggle, whose region stretches from Oklahoma to Arizona, could be contending with efforts to recover Mexican wolves, the development of oil and gas resources in prairie chicken habitat, illegal drug smuggling through refuge lands, or how to ensure the survival of endangered animals and plants along the border fence that is designed to be impenetrable to smugglers and illegal immigrants.

In fact, upon arriving in the Southwest after a stint as acting special assistant to the director in Washington, D.C., Tuggle set his sights on fixing the beleaguered Mexican wolf program, determined to bring the tiny population back from the brink amid a backdrop of vehement local opposition (Land Letter, May 13).

And he has proven himself unafraid to take a strong stand. Discussing the spate of recent illegal shootings of Mexican wolves, whose population dropped to 42 animals last year, Tuggle makes no bones about his view of the perpetrators.


"People who are shooting wolves are criminals," he said flatly, sitting at a table near the window of his expansive corner office in downtown Albuquerque. "I will do whatever it takes to handle that illegal activity."

Amid the books, native pottery and stuffed animals filling his large office bookcase is a pair of buttons: One, from Defenders of Wildlife, depicts a Mexican wolf with the words "Wanted Alive" printed underneath; the other depicts the New Mexico Cattle Growers' Association logo. In Tuggle's view, considering both perspectives is a critical part of doing his job.

"I'm a very good listener because that's the only way I learn where you're coming from," he said. "That's how you sustain a coalition."

Yet Tuggle still faces criticism from local officials and residents in the Mexican wolf recovery area, which straddles the New Mexico-Arizona border, that he does not listen well enough.

For instance, his office recently established an "interdiction fund" to pay ranchers for livestock lost to wolves and financially support other measures aimed at reducing wolf-livestock conflicts, such as hiring range riders to deter wolves. But some local officials have complained that the stakeholder group that will decide how the money is spent will be weighted in favor of conservationists (Land Letter, March 25).

But while people on both sides of the issue may disagree with Tuggle, they always know where he stands, said Eva Sargent, southwest program director for Defenders of Wildlife. "He's very sort of straight-talking, I think not only with us but with the ranchers and all the stakeholders," she said. "Even if you don't agree with what he says, ... you pretty much understand where he's coming from."

At times, FWS, as the agency responsible for upholding one of the most embattled environmental laws -- the Endangered Species Act -- also clashes with other federal agencies over projects that could harm protected wildlife and plants. The challenge is most evident in the Southwest, where border security has become a major policy issue, leading to the construction of hundreds of miles of new fence, including across ecologically important public lands.

In Texas and Arizona, where a string of wildlife refuges harbor some of the last vestiges of habitat for the ocelot, jaguar and other threatened and endangered species, Tuggle and his refuge managers have undertaken sensitive negotiations with Homeland Security officials to try to mitigate the damage from the fence.

"I think Dr. Tuggle has done a fair job," said Ellis, the former manager of Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, who now oversees the Southwest Arizona National Wildlife Refuge Complex, including the Kofa, Imperial and Cibola refuges. "I think it's very difficult trying to reconcile our agency's mission with the mission of the DHS. It's hard to have win-win situations."

That said, Ellis acknowledges that he and his supervisor do not always see eye to eye, as evidenced by their difference of opinion over the border fence project at Buenos Aires NWR.

"I would have liked to have seen FWS take a firmer stand and say with that particular pedestrian barrier, giving them a permit was not consistent with our laws," Ellis said. "The public needs to see we're at odds here."

Tuggle, who has a doctorate in zoology, said that while the science on a resource issue is usually clear, it is dealing with the divergent views among various interests that is challenging.

"Natural resource management is not difficult; people management is difficult," he said.

Ruffled agency feathers

That can extend to his own workforce as well. While Tuggle describes his management style as "open and inclusive," he has drawn criticism for failing to respect the expertise of his employees in the field.

"There's almost a kind of parental attitude toward the project leaders in the field," said one senior FWS field manager, who asked not to be named. "A very scolding tone at times. We've got some very experienced project leaders doing good work. But the impression they've gotten is, 'You guys in the field don't know what you're doing.' There's no trust."

Better communication from Region 2 headquarters would go a long way in resolving the problem, the field manager added.

Tuggle admitted that his decisions are not always popular with FWS employees. But, he added, field managers sometimes fail to understand other factors that must be taken into account in species decisions.


"That's a fair criticism," he said of the complaint that he sometimes contradicts his field staff. "There are a lot of times that recommendations come in from the field which don't comport with the reality of the decisions we have to make. I think I try to communicate about the decision, but they don't always like the decision. But I always respect their expertise."

Tuggle recalled a project proposed for Kofa National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona a few years ago. When an electric utility applied for a permit to run a power line through the refuge, along the route of an existing line, Tuggle approved the project, even though refuge officials opposed it.

"There were a lot of people who were very upset I made that decision," Tuggle said. "But I stand by it. That was one of the more controversial ones, but I think we negotiated it in a fair way."

Tuggle acknowledged that he can be tough at times, but said he sees himself as fair. "I'm not really a bullying type," he said. "I'd much rather get flies with sugar, not salt."

While Tuggle has drawn internal flak for decisions that contradict the recommendations of his staff, he also has a reputation for defending his employees when they are in the political hot seat.

Mike Hawkes, who retired as manager of Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge last May, said that when his staff drew fire for issuing littering citations to a humanitarian group that placed water jugs in the desert for illegal border crossers, Tuggle encouraged the staff to continue their enforcement efforts and "let the public go ahead and see us doing our jobs."

"He does seem to back up his field folks," Hawkes said. "He stuck his neck out and took the heat occasionally. If we decided to do something, he wouldn't back out of it for political reasons later on. He provided back-up."

Ellis agreed. "When issues are important and they need to be championed, he's stepped up, and he's taken some difficult issues forward," he said, citing a decision Tuggle made to cull mountain lions on Kofa National Wildlife Refuge to help conserve bighorn sheep (Land Letter, May 27). "When we need support at the regional level, he will take them on, and he's a good spokesperson for those issues."

Diversifying the ranks

When he is not negotiating the rough political terrain of endangered species and refuge management, Tuggle, who is African-American, is helping lead the charge to bring greater diversity to FWS and also to raise the profile of wildlife conservation within minority communities.

"I think there's a pool of people we haven't tapped that don't look like the rest of us that we need to bring in," he said. "We need to continue to help the new generation understand the gift that's been given to us so that they will inherit that stewardship sensibility."

FWS is doing more outreach to college students, encouraging them to apply for internships to explore conservation work, he said. The agency also visits minority communities to try to generate more interest in wildlife conservation and natural resource careers, he added.

Tuggle, who is known to hand out copies of Richard Louv's book "Last Child in the Woods," about the modern disconnect between children and nature, also strongly supports providing opportunities for city kids to get outside. Recalling that he developed his own love for the natural world during summer visits to his grandmother's house in Georgia, Tuggle said that exposure to flora and fauna is key in putting more children on the path to conservation and wildlife careers.

In fact, the very future of conservation in the United States may depend on it, he said.

"If you look at conservation in the world, the United States is the leader," he said. "If the U.S. has the best conservation ethic in the world, it's reflective of the people. And if the demographics of those people is changing ... there might be people who don't think endangered species are important, they might not think habitat is important. We need to get to those people right away, and help them understand that that's part of what makes this country great."

The country's public lands are part of its national heritage, and everyone has a stake in natural resource management, he added.

"It really is a patriotic issue," he said. "Because this country has been founded on the greatness of the resources of this country."

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/09/23/23greenwire-fws-southwest-director-people-not-species-toug-61265.html?pagewanted=2

Friday, September 3, 2010

Plan endorses protection for elusive ocelot

Arizona Daily Star
September 2, 2010
by Tony Davis

The U.S. should help the ocelot in Arizona and northern Mexico by protecting its best habitat and movement corridors, identifying major threats, and researching the cat's habitat needs, a new federal recovery plan says.

But the endangered cat could get help in this state from another human source - global warming over the next several decades, biologists familiar with the animal say.

The new U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recovery plan proposes spending about $60 million over at least the next six years to help out the ocelot in Arizona and Sonora and in the border region of south Texas. There, ocelots have had breeding populations, although their numbers are down to fewer than 25 today.

Authorities have confirmed records of only two ocelots in Arizona since 1964 - both in the past year.

Global warming could draw ocelots from northern Mexico, where they are much more common, according to cat experts from the University of Arizona, Northern Arizona University and the Sky Island Alliance, a Tucson conservation group. It's important to make this area hospitable to ocelots so they'll thrive under such conditions, they said.

"I think the chances are better than even that ocelots will expand into the U.S," said Paul Beier, an NAU wildlife ecology professor who sat on an expert team that worked with the service in preparing the recovery plan. "But are we talking about the next 30 or 50 or 10 years? I really don't know the answer. We are exceeding the most pessimistic projections for emissions of greenhouse gases," Beier said. "We're cranking it out, and the world is doing absolutely nothing to slow down that process. It will cause changes in the distribution of animals."

There is a possibility that ocelots have always been in Arizona in very low numbers, simply because it's so easy for rare animals to go undetected, said Melanie Culver, a U.S. Geological Survey geneticist who also worked on the recovery team. It's possible that the population will move north with climate change, said Culver, assistant leader of the Arizona Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at the University of Arizona.

The recovery plan is less optimistic, warning that drought and wildfires triggered by climate change could make the cats more vulnerable. "It's hard to predict right now with what is going to happen with climate change," said Brady McGee, a Fish and Wildlife Service biologist in Albuquerque. "The ocelot likes very dense and thick vegetation. If the temperature is going to increase in the Southwest, a lot of climatic models show it drying out as well."

Efforts to help ocelots also must consider the wall and fences that now mark much of the Arizona-Sonora border, the ocelot experts say. A part of that fencing - it's not clear how much - will prevent ocelots and many other animals from entering this country, although other parts could be open to the ocelots, experts said.

The Wildlife Service's McGee agreed that the border fence is a barrier to ocelots. He said the recovery plan addresses that issue to a limited extent - "maybe as much as we can at this time."

Ocelot records

• An ocelot has been found at an Indian archaeological site on the San Pedro River east of Redington Pass.

• In 1964, a picture was taken of an ocelot that was shot and killed in the Huachuca Mountains.

• During the next 55 years, more than a half-dozen other reliable reported ocelot sightings occurred in Southern Arizona.

• In November 2009, the Sky Island Alliance's remote camera photographed an ocelot in Cochise County.

• In April 2010, the Arizona Game and Fish Department reported that an ocelot killed by a vehicle was found on a highway near Globe. The department is waiting for a necropsy report on its origin.

• The Sky Island Alliance has photos of three northern Sonora ocelots. It has confirmed that another one was trapped and that a fifth ocelot was killed by a car in that area.

Ocelot recovery

One problem in setting up a recovery strategy for Arizona ocelots is that many things about the animal here still aren't known, said a Tucson biologist and cat specialist.

"What type of habitats do these cats like? Where do they move? When do they do it?" said Sergio Avila, a biologist for the Sky Island Alliance, a conservation group that has photographed ocelots in Arizona and northern Sonora. "It's really difficult to identify a certain type of habitat or vegetation for it. Even elevation - we don't know." Ocelots living in south Texas, in Mexico south of that, and in southern Sonora live in dense tropical thorn-scrub stands - a product of the areas' wet weather. Scientists have said that global warming could bring thorn-scrub into Arizona - if it is accompanied by robust monsoons. Today, climate experts are split over whether global warming will bring more or fewer summer storms. But in northern Sonora, the vegetation where ocelots have been found resembles grasslands and shrubs of Southern Arizona's mountains, except it's thicker down there, Avila said. "Do ocelots need thorn-scrub? We don't know," he said.

http://azstarnet.com/news/science/environment/article_a5729404-e6dc-5c6e-b941-b3a38c093588.html

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Final stretch of fence could close Southmost Preserve

Brownsville Herald
April 17, 2010
by Laura Tillman

Max Pons sees more wildlife in one day than most people see in months.

On Friday, Pons watched Black-bellied Whistling Ducks as they conducted reconnaissance to find the best place to build a nest.

He saw Altimira Orioles gathering food, walked along a stretch of sunflowers, Texas thistle, prickly poppies, and guinea grass, and kneeled down to pluck a sample of pepper grass as Indigo Buntings whipped through the air.

While many South Texans manage to get out to the area’s wildlife refuges a few days a month or year, Pons considers it a privilege to call The Nature Conservancy Southmost Preserve his workplace and his home for 18 years.

But after a court order granting possession of 8.31 acres of the land to the U.S. government for construction of 1.5 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border fence, Pons’ idyllic home may be no more. About 95 percent of the Nature Conservancy’s property will fall south of the fence, including one of the last two protected Sabal Palm groves in the United States.

As caretaker of the property, Pons’ home will fall behind the fence, along with the conservancy’s nursery.

“The border wall causes several unique damages and problems for the conservancy, including dangers to protected and rare species,” said Laura Huffman, the Texas director of The Nature Conservancy, an international nonprofit organization. “There are also security and access concerns for what will now be on the backside of the wall, including the Nature Conservancy operations and the home of the preserve manager and his family. A decision has not yet been made as to whether or not the Nature Conservancy can continue at this location.”

The stretch of border fence is among the last to be built in Brownsville, along with a half mile of fence in Lincoln Park, according to Army Corps of Engineers spokesperson Tara Dunlop. Engineers at the Nature Conservancy site said construction on the fence would start on Monday.

“We’re certainly disappointed,” said John Herron, Texas director of conservation for The Nature Conservancy. “We’re very concerned about how a fence will affect our ability to operate our preserve. I think we understand the concern about security and we certainly want to be supportive. But like any landowner we’re disappointed with the fact that the federal government has chosen to take the land.”

Pons takes care to talk with the Border Patrol agents, engineers, and construction staff who are now a regular presence in what remains his home and workplace. He chats with them about the wildlife, weather patterns, and the path of the fence.
“You’re just the messengers,” Pons said members of the Kiewit crew.

Pons walked along the segment of fence that has already been constructed near The Nature Conservancy property and came upon an old shed about 30 feet from the fence line.

“We were hoping they’d have to tear this shed down,” Pons said jokingly, pointing out the shed. “There’s a big bee population living in there they’d have to contend with.”

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/-111084--.html

Thursday, February 18, 2010

WILD ABOUT THESE CATS: State of ocelot population in Texas dire

February 18, 2010
Houston Chronicle
by Shannon Thompkins

The heavy aroma — an exotic combination of acrid, skunk-like odor and an almost cloying sweetness — caused Arturo Caso and Michael Tewes to exchange knowing smiles as they slowly, quietly and carefully pushed through a narrow opening in an otherwise impenetrable wall of clothes-shredding thornscrub.

To the two scientists, it was the unmistakable smell of success.

Proof squatted just a few yards deep in a thick tangle of brush on a hill above the Rio Soto la Marina in northeast Mexico.

In the shadows, a 23-pound spotted cat crouched inside a wire cage-trap, its amber eyes blazing as short, round ears atop its round head twitched.

The cat's coat, a stunning mix of gold, black, white and gray in splotches, streaks and stripes, was almost indistinguishable from the sun-dappled forest around it.

An ocelot!

After slowly backing out of the tangle, an obviously pleased Tewes whispered, “Smell that? That's ocelot scent — urine. They use it to mark their territory. Pretty distinctive, isn't it?”

Tewes would know. The 52-year-old Corpus Christi-area native has spent more than half of his life deeply involved with research and management of ocelots, medium-size wild felines that once ranged through much of south, central and east Texas but today are the most endangered mammal in the state.

Tewes has been working with ocelots since the early 1980s, when Texas may have held 100 or so of the sleek, secretive, knock-you-to-your-knees beautiful wild cats and understanding of their natural history was woefully thin.

“I saw my first (wild) ocelot on Texas Independence Day, March 2, 1982,” he said of his initial encounter with the almost wholly nocturnal felines.

Today, Dr. Tewes — regent professor, holder of the Frank Daniel Yturria Endowed Chair in Wild Cat Studies, and research scientist with the Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute at Texas A&M University-Kingsville — is arguably the world's most experienced expert on ocelots.

And Texas' ocelot population — the only ocelots remaining in the United States — has eroded to perhaps 50 animals.

A dire outlook in Texas
“Ocelots' situation in Texas is extremely dire,” Tewes said.

Lack of places to live is the overarching problem facing ocelots, considered by many to be the most beautiful wild cat in the Western Hemisphere.

The cats thrive only in habitat providing thick — really thick — cover. Large areas where woody vegetation — brush or trees — is so dense the leafy canopy shades 75-95 percent of the ground are the ocelot's niche.

But in Texas, that habitat has become almost as rare as the cats themselves. The miles of jungle-like tangles along rivers in the eastern half of the state and the nearly unbroken expanses of thick-set brushland in the lower Rio Grande Valley have vanished.

More than 95 percent of Texas' ocelot habitat has been converted to agricultural fields, rangeland or commercial forest. Most of what remains are tiny islands too small to support ocelots.

Texas' surviving handful of ocelots are confined to a couple of the larger remaining tracts of livable habitat in the Rio Grande Valley — one on the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge in Cameron County and the other on a private tract in adjacent Willacy County. Those two populations are struggling.

Surrounded by uninhabitable land, Texas' two ocelot populations can't grow. Those cats attempting to pioneer new areas wander into what, for an ocelot, is a wasteland and die from starvation, under the wheels of an automobile or from misadventure.

Long-term survival of Texas' ocelots depends on increasing the amount of habitat available to the cats and giving those animals travel corridors — strips of suitable habitat — connecting them to those scattered islands' suitable brushland.

But the cats face a looming threat in the short term.

Texas' ocelot population has fallen so low that inbreeding among the few remaining cats is rapidly eroding their genetic diversity. That genetic erosion invariably causes severe problems with reproduction and overall health.

“When you have an isolated population that small, it can't survive,” Tewes said. “They are in a death spiral.”

At the current rate of genetic erosion, Texas' isolated ocelots will suffer an inevitable population crash “probably in the next 20-40 years, and within 50 years, for sure,” Tewes said.

Perfect place for research
Texas' ocelot population desperately needs new blood. And that is what brought Tewes and fellow wild-cat scientists Arturo Caso and Sasha Carvajal-Villareal to the thorn-scrub-covered hills of central Tamaulipas earlier this month.

They are part of a cooperative effort between U.S. and Mexican scientists and officials, with crucial assistance of private landowners on both sides of the border, aimed at learning more about northeast Mexico's ocelot population and perhaps laying the groundwork for translocation of some of those Mexican cats to the Texas population.

Most of the effort is centered on the nearly 10,000 acres of dense Tamaulipan thornscrub on Rancho Caracol, a luxury wing-shooting resort in the rolling hills along the Rio Soto la Marina about 150 miles south of Brownsville.

Little more than a year ago, Rancho Caracol owner Barry Putegnat, a Rio Grande Valley native, contacted fellow Valley resident Frank Yturria about ocelots.

Yturria, whose family has extensive land holdings in Texas' ocelot range and has played a huge role in protecting what's left of the state's ocelot population, put Putegnat in touch with Tewes.

“I told Dr. Tewes we had ocelots on Rancho Caracol and if he was interested in studying them, we'd help any way we could,” Putegnat said.

“I really didn't think there would be many cats down there — some, but not a lot,” Tewes said. “I was pleasantly proven wrong.”

Tewes, Caso and Carvajal-Villareal, in cooperation with Mexican officials, set about surveying the cat population on the tract last spring. They set 40 remote-sensing “game” cameras along game trails and overlooking water holes.

The results were “amazing,” Tewes said. Rancho Caracol held a very healthy population of ocelots. And more. The tract, surrounded by thousands of acres of thornscrub, was the home of five species of wild cats — ocelot, bobcat, jaguarundi, cougar and jaguar.

An ambitious research project to document the ocelot population in the region was launched. The major thrust would be aimed at capturing as many ocelots as possible, fitting them with radio collars and tracking them over a year or more to determine their home ranges, yielding insight into their population density.

The ultimate goal is to show that the population of ocelots in the region is large enough and healthy enough that it would not be harmed by taking a few of those cats — three or four a year for a few years — and releasing them into the two genetically moribund Texas ocelot populations.

The project's early phase has been successful. Cameras have recorded 34 individual ocelots on the Rancho Caracol tract — almost as many ocelots as in all of Texas — and 11 have been captured and fitted with radio collars.

Caso and Carvajal-Villareal hope within a year or so to have the data they need to make a case for a translocation program.

“We learn a lot from every one of these cats,” Caso said, as he and other scientists fit one of the captured ocelots with a radio collar, took body measurements, and collected hair and blood samples for DNA profiles. “They are amazing, beautiful animals.”

Like anyone who sees an ocelot, Caso can't help but turn poetic when talking about these lithe, lethal creatures whose multicolored, splotched and spotted and streaked coats are perfectly designed for blending into their impossibly tangled, sun-dappled world.

“They are like smoke,” Caso said, watching a released ocelot stride into a wall of thornscrub and vanishing as though walking through a one-way mirror.

Those Mexican cats and the work scientists such as Caso and Tewes are doing in Mexico may well help Texas' fading ocelot population avoid disappearing like a very real wisp of smoke.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/outdoors/6872569.html

Friday, December 4, 2009

No Border Wall group backs GNEB's letter to Obama

Rio Grande Guardian
December 4, 2009


WESLACO, Dec. 4 - The No Border Wall coalition has backed recommendations about the border fence issue that were sent to President Obama by the Good Neighbor Environmental Board.


The GNEB advises the President on environmental issues that impact the border. In a letter sent to Obama on Dec. 2, the group offered 12 recommendations, including the repeal of the Real ID Act's waiver provision, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act, a review by the International Boundary Water Commission, and environmental monitoring and mitigation.


“No Border Wall agrees fully with all of these recommendations, and views their implementation as a good start towards rectifying some of the damage that border walls have done,” No Border Wall coalition spokesman Scott Nicol told the Guardian.


Here are the 12 recommendations contained in the letter:


1) Require that all border security infrastructure projects fully comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as well as all other laws including environmental, historic, and archeological preservation laws.


2) Work with Congress to amend the REAL ID Act of 2005 to remove the provisions allowing the Secretary of Homeland Security to waive legal requirements.


3) Fully incorporate adequate environmental review, public participation, and scientific analysis into the design and implementation of all border security infrastructure projects.


4) Facilitate review by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) of projects that may cause deflection or obstruction of the normal flow of rivers or their flood flows, ensuring continued compliance with the 1970 Boundary Treaty between the U.S. and Mexico and other international agreements.


5) Systematically monitor the entire fence and supporting infrastructure for effects resulting from its construction and develop actions to modify, redesign, or mitigate the negative outcomes realized or anticipated by the existing construction.


6) Provide sufficient annual funding via the DHS budget for monitoring, research, and mitigation of the environmental impacts of the border fence.


7) Obtain adequate local stakeholder input for all fence construction, mitigation, and maintenance as well as for associated infrastructure projects, including access roads.


8) In sensitive rural areas that are important wildlife corridors, use barriers and technology that prevent vehicular traffic, control pedestrian incursion, and allow wildlife movement.


9) Aggressively explore the use of information and remote sensing technologies that will enhance border security while reducing the physical footprint of interdiction activities along the border.


10) Ensure adequate funding to DHS/Customs and Border Protection for ongoing training for border security personnel about the local natural environment and significant natural and cultural resources.


11) Identify and implement best management practices to prevent and mitigate the erosion resulting from fence construction and associated infrastructure.


12) Charge the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the binational environmental effects of the border fence and associated infrastructure.

The letter is available here:
http://www.riograndeguardian.com/storypage/storyassets/uploaded5434091204-Good_Neighbor_Obama_letter.pdf

http://www.riograndeguardian.com/rggnews_story.asp?story_no=18

Federal border panel makes recommendations

San diego Union Tribune
December 4, 2009
by Sandra Dibble

San Diego — An independent federal advisory committee is urging the Obama administration to monitor the environmental impact of U.S. border fence and take steps to restore damaged areas.

In a letter sent yesterday, the Good Neighbor Environmental Board made 12 recommendations aimed at protecting the environment along the 1,951-mile U.S.-Mexico border as the fence is extended in several areas.

“We feel that the Obama administration is very open to hearing about environmental concerns of the border region,” said board Chairman Paul Ganster, who is also director of the Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias at San Diego State University. “We’re taking this opportunity to convey our advice on what we feel is a critical environmental issue.”

Created by federal legislation in 1992, the board is made up of 24 appointed members who serve on a voluntary basis and come from government, the private sector, nonprofit groups and academia. The board examines environmental and infrastructure issues along the border, and forwards findings to Congress and the president.

To read the letter, go to http://bit.ly/8XlMiV.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2009/dec/04/federal-border-panel-makes-recommendations/

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Reflecting on the Wall: Barriers threaten environmental protection in the Southwest

Harvard Crimson
November 12, 2009
by Patrick Behrer

This week marks the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. As we recognize the historic occasion of East Germany’s opening, America quietly completes construction of its own wall. The southern border barrier between the United States and Mexico covers 670 miles of southwestern desert between Mexico and the four states it borders. Like the Berlin Wall, the border wall is emblematic of much more than just a boundary between countries. Cutting indiscriminately across ecologically-priceless land, it has become a symbol of governmental disregard for environmental protection.

The Bush Administration began the project in 2006 as the most recent attempt to stem the tide of illegal immigration, and it now nears completion; at 630 of 670 miles completed, Obama shows no signs that he intends to halt construction of the final portions. Humanitarians and budget hawks have blasted the wall as ineffective and enormously costly. With a final price tag of more than $4 billion and $6.5 billion in estimated maintenance expenses over the next 20 years, the direct, measured costs alone are immense. However, to discuss the project’s environmental impact, one must recognize the systematic neglect of environmental laws that occurred during its construction.

The Real ID Act of 2005 allowed the Department of Homeland Security to construct infrastructure along our nation’s borders with immunity from all government laws and regulations. Using the power granted under this act, the Secretary waived the impact assessment requirements of both the Endangered Species Act and National Environmental Protection Act. Thus, the border wall’s construction—which took place on some of the most ecologically valuable land in the country—went ahead without any consideration of its impact on the native species that call this area home.

Not surprisingly, this wall has wreaked havoc on the ecosystems of the area. It cuts off migration routes for species such as the Sonoma Pronghorn, already endangered, whose population has crashed to as few as 31 individuals. If congress had not exempted the border patrol from the ESA, this damage would have been sufficient to stop or dramatically alter the construction plans. Instead, building the wall has categorically ignored environmental damage and, as a result, threatened the survival of the only known pair of breeding jaguars in the United States.

Are environmental concerns sufficient reasons to stop this construction? Perhaps not. There are severe economic and social costs to unchecked illegal immigration. However, the wall should not have received blanket exemption from environmental regulation. The Obama administration claims it will step up to the plate to combat global climate change, yet their silent acquiescence to the destruction of the southwestern desert throws this commitment into question.

These may seem unrelated and, thus, some might understand how the Administration can separate climate change policy from broader environmental concerns. Their logic: Climate change is a global threat while the wall only damages a small section of desert. However, this view ignores the reality that the southwestern desert is a globally unique and important biosphere recognized by both The Nature Conservancy and the United Nations. Indeed, the wall threatens the San Pedro River, one of TNC’s eight “Last Great Places” in the world. Climate change is an issue so large that addressing it will entail broad behavioral changes—this, in turn, requires a new environmental consciousness. We cannot flip a switch and fix climate change, as it remains too pervasive for easy solutions. Only by considering the environmental impacts associated with all of our actions can we to truly address this global crisis.

Endeavors like the border wall demonstrate very clearly that this new consciousness does not yet exist. Unfortunately, this project has not occurred in isolation. The U.S. Navy conducts sonar testing that has little practical benefit but inflicts proven, lethal affects on marine mammals. Until the government shows a willingness to seriously consider environmental costs in all its decisions, the commitment to fight climate change is little more than empty words.
The fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago signaled a sea change in international policy and kick started a period of unprecedented global openness. While the border wall does not have this same public resonance, stopping its construction would be a first step toward creating a new environmental consciousness within the U.S. government. This sea change would prove no less significant than that which occurred after the fall in Germany. The last 20 years have seen international barriers shrink on an unprecedented scale; the next 20 must see environmental consciousness of the same scale.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2009/11/12/wall-environmental-change-climate/?dsq=22863606#comment-22863606

Wednesday, September 23, 2009

Rodriguez files bill to address ecological impacts of border wall

Rio Grande Guardian
September 22, 2009
by Steve Taylor

WESLACO, Sept. 22 - U.S. Congressman Ciro Rodriguez has filed legislation to identify and address the ecological impacts of fencing along the border.

The Healthy Borderlands Act of 2009 requires the Department of Homeland Security Secretary to develop a mitigation plan to begin to address ecological impacts of border fencing.

The move has been welcomed by No Border Wall, but the environmental pressure group said more needs to be done.

“Our borderlands are rich in natural and cultural resources, but they also can be places for illegal activity,” said Rodriguez, D-San Antonio, in a news release issued Tuesday. “This bill is the next logical step in protecting the ecological integrity of our borders while also pursuing the measures necessary to secure our borders and defend our communities.”

Rodriguez represents a larger portion of the U.S.-Mexico border region than any other member of Congress. His district runs from El Paso to Eagle Pass.

Rodriguez pointed out that as things currently stand DHS has no program to continuously monitor and mitigate environmental impacts. He said that as a member of the House Appropriations Committee he worked to provide $50 million in fiscal year 2009 to mitigate environmental impacts.

While DHS has agreed to work with the Department of Interior on environmental impacts, it has not initiated a plan to utilize these funds, Rodriguez said. An additional $40 million was approved in the House for fiscal year 2010. In order to ensure these funds go toward fixing and preventing environmental damage caused by border security efforts, a long-term program must be in place, he said.

Rodriguez said the mitigation plan will be science-based, incorporate extensive monitoring protocol and be developed in conjunction with state and tribal wildlife agencies and authorities.
Robert L. Bendick, director of U.S. Government Relations for The Nature Conservancy, applauded the filing of the bill.

“This Act will establish a comprehensive, science-based and collaborative approach to ensuring that the ecological impacts of border security measures along our international borders will be comprehensively monitored and that action will be taken to mitigate any such ecological impacts,” Bendick said. “We believe the Act should be supported on a broad, bipartisan basis and look forward to its speedy enactment.”

Rodriguez said the bill specifically authorizes DHS funding to be spent on private, state, tribal or federal lands for the purpose of mitigation and allows for those funds to be transferred to other federal agencies as needed.

Scott Nicol, a co-founder of the No Border Wall Coalition, said it was “great to see” that Rodriguez in continuing to support border communities, both human and ecological.

“As a result of former DHS Secretary Chertoff's Real ID Act waiver, which brushed aside federal laws including the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act, tremendous environmental damage that would normally be illegal has been done to our borderlands,” Nicol said. “Representative Rodriguez' bill, if passed, will mark a first step towards mitigating some small portion of that damage.” Nicol said it is important to recognize the fact that the extinction of species is permanent. It is impossible to mitigate the loss of the ocelot or Sonoran pronghorn, for example.

“The boulders blasted from the slopes of mountains in the Otay Mountain Wilderness Area that now clog the Tijuana River can not be put back in place,” Nicol said. “We should do what we can to lessen the border wall's impacts, but we must be aware that no amount of money will restore the borderlands to their pre-wall state.” Nicol said No Border Wall supports the Healthy Borderlands Act of 2009. However, he said stopping Congress from including a key amendment by U.S. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, in the DHS appropriations bill is even more important. The amendment calls for hundreds of miles of new border walls. “So long as section 102 of the Real ID Act allows for the waiving of all laws - not just those that relate to the environment - border wall construction will be able to proceed no matter how devastating the cost,” Nicol said.

“Some in Congress still seem to be wedded to the border wall's symbolism, despite the Government Accounting Office report released this week that found no evidence that the wall has any impact at all.”

As an example, Nicol cited an amendment to the Department of the Interior's appropriations bill introduced just this week by U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Oklahoma. The provision would amend H.R. 2996 to prohibit the use of funds to “impede, prohibit, or restrict activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security to achieve operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the United States.”

http://www.riograndeguardian.com/rggnews_story.asp?story_no=25

Thursday, September 3, 2009

The border wall blocks a natural migration

Austin-American Statesman
September 3, 2009
by John Young

PRESCOTT, Ariz. — "It's no wasteland."

No, not this mountainous berg where seemingly everyone over 65 wants to live.

Sergio Avila-Villegas is talking about the U.S.-Mexico border, which bobcats, ocelots, jaguars, mountain lions, black bears and so much more inhabit.

Avila-Villegas, a biologist with the Sky Island Alliance, is a lonely voice pointing out how political forces in America are subdividing a biome in disastrous ways.

At a colloquium at Prescott College, he described how the ongoing construction of the U.S. border wall brings ecological devastation — most particularly among the species that migrate and otherwise reside in a region with only natural barriers.

This is made possible in fast-track fashion because Congress and the Bush administration strip-mined environmental safeguards from the legislation enabling the border fence. Congress also removed all fiscal common sense from the hysteria-derived gambit, as some segments south of San Diego cost $21 million a mile.

That underlines a message Avila-Villegas wants people to understand: "It's a wall. It's not a fence."

It's a wall that not only blocks animal migration and destroys habitat. Its furious dust-raising construction causes air and water pollution. It also diverts rivers and floodwaters.

Ah, but does it divert migration of Mexicans entering our nation illegally? In some cases, yes. In other cases, a medieval device called a ladder foils Washington's greatest designs.

The amazing thing about this is that the Bush administration sought to justify it, at least in part, on ecological reasoning.

Just look, said then-Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff, at all the trash left by the non-Americans crossing the border. A wall will stop that and save the environment, he said.

But: Just in case a wall would cause other environmental effects far more long-lasting than sandwich wrappers in the sun, Republicans inserted in the Real I.D. Act of 2005 — the immigration grab-bag that included this monstrosity — a pretty puppy called Section 102. It allows Homeland Security to waive all standard environmental safeguards associated with giant infrastructure projects like this.

That means that the 30-plus species of mammals in the region in question, as well as the owls, migratory birds and more, are all at risk. Federal policies typically take such matters into consideration. Not in this case.

But it's a wasteland — no? Hot, dry, inhospitable to creatures in Bermuda shorts?

What it is, as least in the borderlands of Arizona, is "one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world," Avila-Villegas said. It is where a tropical ecosystem shakes hands with a temperate North American cousin. Don't be misled by the hulking presence of the Sonoran and Chihuahan deserts. The area teems with life. And we are destroying it.

People can always outwit wall-builders. But nature has problems with obstructions. Avila-Villegas shows sobering photos of how flood waters surging up against the wall dividing the border town of Nogales caused homes on the Mexican side to be submerged.

Just the price of — what? Do we assume that such walls really accomplish what they seek to do?

People living in the border areas point out the futility in trying to wall off the border. For one thing the terrain is too unforgiving in many places. For another, as observed day after day, what jaguars and ocelots can't master, wily human beings will as they seek to feed their families. It's the cats who will starve, or turn their attention to cattle or human beings to put food in their mouths.

The border wall may be America's greatest boondoggle in terms of cost and benefits. So, why does it proceed?

Why, particularly, when the administration and Congress behind it are consigned to the dust. This Congress can put a stop to it. It ought to based on fiscal concerns alone. At minimum, it needs to yank out the provision which treats environmental protection as wholly alien.

http://www.statesman.com/opinion/content/editorial/stories/2009/09/04/0904young_edit.html

Friday, July 24, 2009

Dozens of lawmakers write to Napolitano with concerns about impact of border barriers

Rio Grande Guardian
July 24, 2009
by Steve Taylor and Joey Gomez

McALLEN, July 24 - Forty three members of Congress have sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano voicing concern over the “mounting” environmental and societal impact of the border wall and other security barriers.

The lawmakers have asked the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to cooperate with other applicable agencies to create and fund a “robust border-wide environmental monitoring program” and to provide “sufficient mitigation funding” for damage caused by border security infrastructure and enforcement activities along the Southwest border region.

“It is the Secretary’s responsibility to protect the homeland, not selectively destroy our environment,” said Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, D-Ariz., one of the 43 members of Congress to sign the letter.

Grijalva, who convened a congressional hearing about the border wall at the University of Texas at Brownsville last year, said a review is necessary to “quantify, compensate for and avoid the negative consequences of border security infrastructure and operations.” He said border communities are “open to working on behalf of security - not a selective security, but rather one that includes habitat, national, border, and regional security.”

Grijalva described the hundreds of miles of border fencing constructed by DHS as a “massive federal project.” He said the project has had “serious consequences upon natural and cultural public resources, and has caused hardship for private land owners, whose lands have been condemned and livelihoods have been disrupted.”

Scott Nicol, a co-founder of the No Border Wall group, pointed out that U.S. Fish and Wildlife estimates that 60 percent of their National Wildlife Refuge tracts in south Texas will be impacted by the border wall. The South Texas tracts were established, in part, for the protection of endangered species such as the ocelot and jaguarondi.

“We are pleased to hear that 43 members of Congress are stepping up to the plate and attempting to correct some of the environmental damage that the border wall has done. If former Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff had not been given the power to waive all laws, this would have been addressed before wall construction began. Chertoff used the Real ID Act to waive the National Environmental Policy Act, along with 35 other federal laws, stopping the usual Environmental Impact Statement process in its tracks,” Nicol told the Guardian.

“Before the first bulldozer dug into the earth to clear a path for the wall, many of its impacts had been predicted. The Environmental Protection Agency warned that blasting in California's Otay Mountain Wilderness Area would dump thousands of tons of rock and sediment into the Tijuana River. Defenders of Wildlife issued a report on the Arizona wall's impacts on the ability of endangered Sonoran pronghorn to migrate. U.S. Fish and Wildlife told DHS that Hidalgo County's levee-border wall would be incompatible with the mission of the wildlife refuges that it would slice through.”

The letter from the members of Congress has this to say about the environmental impact of the border wall in south Texas:

“In south Texas, private land owners and agricultural interests have significant tracts of land that have been or will be isolated to the south of border fencing. Yet, DHS has only offered compensation for the exact footprint of the infrastructure – failure to recognize or compensate for fiscal losses of property value and accessibility caused by the construction of border fencing.”

Nicol said the monitoring and mitigation program that the members of Congress are calling for would be a “good first step towards bringing scientific rigor to an understanding of the wall's impacts.” However, he said the No Border Wall group is concerned that DHS will ignore its findings, “just as they ignored the Environmental Protection Agency, Defenders of Wildlife, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife.”

Nicol said this is the reason that no individual or agency should be given the power to “brush aside” the law.

“While this letter marks an important first step, the real solution would be to take back the power granted to DHS by the Real ID Act,” Nicol said.

“With more wall construction called for in Senator DeMint's amendment, and the likelihood that walls will be included in the upcoming comprehensive immigration reform bill, it is important to recognize the terrible toll that walls have already taken on the environment of the border. It is even more important that members of Congress work to prevent any more from being built.”

The move by the lawmakers won immediate praise from the Sierra Club.

“We applaud the representatives who have taken a stand on behalf of the communities and wildlife of the borderlands,” said Michael Degnan, associate representative for the Sierra Club in Washington, D.C. “We agree with these members of Congress and firmly believe that the Department of Homeland Security should, at the very least, work to repair the damage caused by its border walls and security activities.”

Degnan pointed out that the Homeland Security Appropriations bill that passed out of the U.S. House last month included an additional $40 million for borderlands monitoring and mitigation, but that the Senate version did not.

“As you conduct your evaluation of border security initiatives, we encourage you to consider the importance of monitoring, mitigation, and environmental training for border security personnel in order to quantify, compensate for and avoid the negative consequences of border security infrastructure and operations,” the 43 members of Congress wrote.

Every one of the 43 members of Congress that signed the letter are Democrats. Only one Texas border member failed to sign the letter, Rep. Henry Cuellar, D-Laredo.

The 43 members of Congress are:

Max Baca, CA
Earl Blumenauer, OR
Lois Capps, CA
Clarke, NY
Steve Cohen, Tenn.
Susan Davis, CA
Norm Dicks, Wash.
Anna Eshoo, CA
Sam Farr, CA
Bob Filner, CA
Gabrielle Giffords, Ariz.
Charlie Gonzalez, TX
Raul Grijalva, Ariz.
Luis Gutierrez, IL
Maurice Hinchey, NY
Rubén Hinojosa, TX
Rush Holt, NJ
Sheila Jackson Lee, TX
Dennis Kucinich, OH
Barbara Lee, CA
Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Edward Markey, Mass.
Michael Michaud, Maine
Jim Moran, VA,
Grace Napolitano, CA
John Olver, Mass.
Solomon Ortiz, TX
Ed Pastor, Ariz.
Donald Payne, NJ
Jared Polis, CO,
Mike Quigley, IL.
Silvestre Reyes, TX
Ciro Rodriguez, TX
Steve Rothman, NJ
Gregorio Sablan, Northern Mariana Islands
Linda Sanchez, CA
Loretta Sanchez, CA
Jan Schakowsky, IL.
José Serrano, NY
Jackie Speier, CA
Pete Stark, CA
Maxine Waters, CA
Henry Waxman, CA

Here is a copy of the letter:

July 23:

Dear Secretary Napolitano,

We write to you today with concern regarding mounting environmental and societal impacts related to border security infrastructure and operations. As you conduct your evaluation of border security initiatives, we encourage you to consider the importance of monitoring, mitigation, and environmental training for border security personnel in order to quantify, compensate for and avoid the negative consequences of border security infrastructure and operations. We ask that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cooperate with other applicable agencies to create and fund a robust border-wide environmental monitoring program and to provide sufficient mitigation funding for damage caused by border security infrastructure and enforcement activities.

As you are aware, hundreds of miles of new border fences and patrol roads have been constructed by DHS along the U.S.-Mexico border in the past several years. This massive federal project has had deleterious consequences upon natural and cultural public resources, and has caused hardship for private land owners, whose lands have been condemned and livelihoods have been disrupted. Considerable annual maintenance operations will be required for border fencing. The Congressional Budget Office estimates annual maintenance costs will amount to 15 percent of initial construction costs, which are averaging $3 million per mile. In addition, with DHS adding significantly more Border Patrol personnel, it is becoming increasingly important that impacts related to off-road vehicles, low-level flights and other interdiction activities be quantified and mitigated for, and that DHS provide training for its personnel in techniques to minimize damage to sensitive resources during enforcement activities.

We understand that in 2008 DHS allocated up to $50 million to the Department of the Interior (DOI) for border fence mitigation. It is our understanding this money will be utilized primarily for off-site mitigation targeted to benefit security infrastructure projects. We believe this first round of mitigation for threatened and endangered species, along with the memorandum of agreement signed by DHS and DOI, demonstrate a positive commitment to mitigating negative impacts. However, there are numerous impacts across the border caused by both security infrastructure and operations that will require significantly more resources to properly monitor and mitigate.

For example, the National Park Service issued a report in August, 2008 confirming that border fencing astride the Lukeville Port of Entry has exacerbated seasonal flooding and has caused accelerated scouring and erosion on the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument – threatening to permanently alter the hydrology of the area if modifications are not made to rectify the inadequate design. A similar problem was identified at the DeConcini Port of Entry, where tunnel barrier and fence-exacerbated flooding caused extensive property and infrastructure damage in Nogales, Mexico. There are also serious concerns related to border infrastructure construction-induced siltation and resulting degradation of sensitive habitats of the Tijuana River Estuary and the San Pedro River, located in southern California and Arizona, respectively. In south Texas, private land owners and agricultural interests have significant tracts of land that have been or will be isolated to the south of border fencing. Yet, DHS has only offered compensation for the exact footprint of the infrastructure – failure to recognize or compensate for fiscal losses of property value and accessibility caused by the construction of border fencing.

To date, there has been a lack of scientifically-based monitoring to quantify the environmental impacts of border security infrastructure and operations. Information from monitoring will provide objective data on impacts, so that efforts to avoid impacts and mitigate for unavoidable impacts can be targeted appropriately. It is our understanding that such a pilot program has been proposed and is to be led by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). We understand the initiation of this program is pending a memorandum of agreement between DIIS and DOI. We are concerned that this monitoring program, currently in a conceptual stage, is not being implemented fast enough; ongoing acute and cumulative impacts continue to go unmonitored. We urge you to ensure that DHS is an active partner in establishing this program and in utilizing the information derived from it to inform a robust, multi-year border mitigation fund.

We appreciate your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,

http://riograndeguardian.com/rggnews_story.asp?story_no=25