Public Radio International - The World
August 12, 2013
It’s a clear, breezy morning on the scrubby hills overlooking the Tijuana River Valley south of San Diego.
Border Patrol jeeps cruise the dirt roads that run up and down the hills along the fence that marks the US-Mexico border. One drags a makeshift rake behind it to comb the road, so agents can later spot fresh footprints.
Mike McCoy, a 71-year-old veterinarian, has spent more than half his life working to protect the estuary formed where this river meets the Pacific Ocean.
He's heading down toward a place called Smuggler’s Gulch.
“This was probably the most difficult cut for them, and the most problematic cut for us,” McCoy said.
By “us” he means the activists and local land managers who fought against a massive earth-moving project that filled in the deep gulch and built a road across it in 2009.
“Before (the road) was going down these switchbacks,” he said. “And that took a long time."
Now, he says, Border Patrol agents just fly right through.
Starting in the 1990s, this place became ground zero in the battle to secure the border.
Back then, hundreds of illegal immigrants swarmed down the hills nightly from Tijuana. The Army Corps of Engineers built a 10-foot high fence, but it wasn’t much of a deterrent. So in 1996, Congress authorized a triple-layer fence to be built along 14 miles of the border.
McCoy and other environmentalists challenged the project based on federal environmental laws.
“The fence, to me, was a real threat to what might occur in the estuary,” he said.
Conservationists worried especially that filling in Smuggler’s Gulch would disrupt the flow of water and change the estuary’s ecology.
And they succeeded in slowing down construction for years.
Then came 9/11, and Congress ordered a massive expansion of the fence project–from 14 miles to 700 miles along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Environmentalists challenged much of that as well, and again slowed construction in many spots.
Paul Ganster, of the Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias at San Diego State University, says that put the Department of Homeland Security in a tough spot.
“It was ordered by Congress to build so many miles of fence by a certain amount of time and they weren’t able to proceed to do this,” he said.
So Congress responded by giving DHS the right to waive all laws that could slow construction of the fence.
“And that removed a major tool of environmentalists and others opposed to the construction,” he said. “And it really removed a lot of the requirements for an open process, for public hearings, things that citizens and communities and environmentalists fought for, really from the '70s.”
Since then, DHS has waived dozens of federal and state laws to build new sections of the fence, some of it across protected land and habitat for endangered and threatened animals.
McCoy says deer and jaguar and Sonoran pronghorn are just some of the species being affected as the fences chop up their breeding grounds.
In some places, fencing has also contributed to flooding, erosion and destruction of habitat.
To date, about 650 miles of the nearly 2000-mile U.S.-Mexico border are fenced off.
But legislators concerned with border security say that’s still not enough.
Florida Republican Marco Rubio spoke on the Senate floor earlier this year in support of the border security component of the senate’s immigration bill. The bill called for hundreds of miles of more fencing, and it would give Homeland Security even more power to waive laws to build it.
“We have a sovereign right to protect out border. And we have a crisis on the southern border of the United States,” Rubio said at the time.
A handful of Democrats fought the waiver, led by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon.
Wyden told his colleagues, “Strengthening our immigration system should not come at the cost of throwing our environmental laws aside.”
And Wyden argued that the bill should at least include a sunset clause for the waiver.
But the environmental concerns didn’t get much traction. The bill passed the Senate by a wide margin.
Back in San Diego, Shawn Moran of the Border Patrol agents union says more fencing is a good thing. He says the San Diego fence has slowed illegal traffic here to a trickle. And adding hundreds of miles of new fencing probably would help by funneling illegal traffic into areas agents can control, he added.
“It’s not the answer to border security, but it is a primary tool that the border patrol has to slow down things,” he said.
Walking along the border, activist Mike McCoy admits that the environmental impact of all this fencing through the Tijuana River estuary hasn’t been “all bad.” Illegal crossers used to tromp through sensitive areas in the estuary. And he does understand the need for a secure border.
“I just think that we could’ve done better, biologically and ecologically, than what we did with this approach,” he said.
What really rankles McCoy is the supreme trump card held by one federal agency.
“It’s kind of my way or the highway type thing. And that’s not the way America worked to me. We all had a say in what went forward.”
The fate of the new environmental waiver, and the broader immigration bill that it’s part of, is uncertain. The House of Representatives has said it will write its own immigration reform bill, rather than take up the Senate’s bill.
But whatever happens in the Capitol, it’s likely that as the debate over immigration and border security gets louder, environmental concerns will remain barely a whisper.
http://www.pri.org/stories/science/environment/u-s-border-fence-skirts-environmental-review-14659.html
Showing posts with label waiver. Show all posts
Showing posts with label waiver. Show all posts
Monday, August 12, 2013
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
House votes to ease environmental rules for border agents
The Hill
June 19, 2012
by Pete Kasperowicz
The House voted Tuesday to ease more than a dozen environmental rules for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, to make it easier for them to patrol federally owned border land.
The provision was one of several in a land use bill that was made up of 14 different bills, some from Republicans, some from Democrats. The border agent provision was easily the most controversial, but despite Democratic opposition, the House approved the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, H.R. 2578, in a 232-188 vote.
The measure was ultimately supported by 16 Democrats in the final vote; 19 Republicans voted against it.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) was the chief defender of the border provisions, and argued, as he has in the past, that current environmental rules prohibit CBP agents from accessing huge areas of land that enjoys federal protections. He said this prevents any serious enforcement of the southern border, as illegal immigrants have no problem crossing through environmentally protected land.
"One of the ironies is our border patrol, which is tasked with securing our border, has almost unlimited rights to do what they need to do to protect our border on private property, and no one objects to it," Bishop said. "It is only on federal property that the federal border patrol is prohibited from doing its federal job."
Democrats sought to play up this language as an attempt to ignore environmental rules, and even expand unmanned drone use in the areas around border land.
"The GOP's 'drone zone' bill does not increase resources for border agents, but instead turns over our national resources to the Department of Homeland Security," Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said.
"Passing this bill does not increase the number of border patrol agents. It just ignores the protections against trampling on sovereign and sacred ground like tribal gravesides."
Bishop rejected this interpretation of the amendment. "It's cute, but it's also inaccurate," he said of Markey's presentation. But Bishop did offer an amendment to the bill that reduced the number of environmental laws that can be waived by CBP agents to 16, down from 36. That amendment was approved by voice vote.
At another moment in the debate, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) was arguing that a different section of the bill would allow for more logging along the Tongass River in Alaska, when she was interrupted by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who said millions of acres of forest land are already protected. That interruption led DeLauro, who never permitted Young to speak, to tell Young, "Just back off, OK?"
A full listing of the bills incorporated into H.R. 2578 can be seen here.
Immediately after the bill passed, members approved H.R. 2938, the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act, which would prevent a tribe in Arizona from developing a casino on their land. It needed a two-thirds majority to pass, and cleared that hurdle easily in a 343-78 vote.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/233619-house-votes-to-ease-environmental-rules-for-border-agents
June 19, 2012
by Pete Kasperowicz
The House voted Tuesday to ease more than a dozen environmental rules for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, to make it easier for them to patrol federally owned border land.
The provision was one of several in a land use bill that was made up of 14 different bills, some from Republicans, some from Democrats. The border agent provision was easily the most controversial, but despite Democratic opposition, the House approved the Conservation and Economic Growth Act, H.R. 2578, in a 232-188 vote.
The measure was ultimately supported by 16 Democrats in the final vote; 19 Republicans voted against it.
Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) was the chief defender of the border provisions, and argued, as he has in the past, that current environmental rules prohibit CBP agents from accessing huge areas of land that enjoys federal protections. He said this prevents any serious enforcement of the southern border, as illegal immigrants have no problem crossing through environmentally protected land.
"One of the ironies is our border patrol, which is tasked with securing our border, has almost unlimited rights to do what they need to do to protect our border on private property, and no one objects to it," Bishop said. "It is only on federal property that the federal border patrol is prohibited from doing its federal job."
Democrats sought to play up this language as an attempt to ignore environmental rules, and even expand unmanned drone use in the areas around border land.
"The GOP's 'drone zone' bill does not increase resources for border agents, but instead turns over our national resources to the Department of Homeland Security," Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) said.
"Passing this bill does not increase the number of border patrol agents. It just ignores the protections against trampling on sovereign and sacred ground like tribal gravesides."
Bishop rejected this interpretation of the amendment. "It's cute, but it's also inaccurate," he said of Markey's presentation. But Bishop did offer an amendment to the bill that reduced the number of environmental laws that can be waived by CBP agents to 16, down from 36. That amendment was approved by voice vote.
At another moment in the debate, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) was arguing that a different section of the bill would allow for more logging along the Tongass River in Alaska, when she was interrupted by Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), who said millions of acres of forest land are already protected. That interruption led DeLauro, who never permitted Young to speak, to tell Young, "Just back off, OK?"
A full listing of the bills incorporated into H.R. 2578 can be seen here.
Immediately after the bill passed, members approved H.R. 2938, the Gila Bend Indian Reservation Lands Replacement Clarification Act, which would prevent a tribe in Arizona from developing a casino on their land. It needed a two-thirds majority to pass, and cleared that hurdle easily in a 343-78 vote.
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/house/233619-house-votes-to-ease-environmental-rules-for-border-agents
Thursday, April 19, 2012
House Republicans back Homeland Security powers in border parks
Boston Herald
April 19, 2012
by Julie Cart
LOS ANGELES — House Republicans are backing legislation in Congress to give the Department of Homeland Security control of more than 50 national parks and forests within 100 miles of the U.S. borders.
The legislation involves a sweep of land along the frontier with Canada and Mexico, but exempts state land, private property and federal holdings used for mining, livestock grazing and timber harvesting. The new authority would carve through 54 national parks, including Joshua Tree, Saguaro, Acadia and Glacier.
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, sponsored by conservative Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, would give Border Patrol and Customs agents and other federal officials the right to suspend any federal law on land managed by the departments of Interior and Agriculture. It would give Homeland Security the right to conduct any activity or construct any facility required to secure the border.
Although stalled in the House and with little hope in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the legislation demonstrates the intentions of Republicans as the November elections approach.
Park advocates say the legislation overreaches, calling it unnecessary because Homeland Security already has the power to suspend laws that inhibit its operations. They say the bill will override 36 federal laws that protect cultural and historic sites, wildlife and valued landscapes.
"As American families head to their national parks, we want to sound the alarm about this shocking legislation," said Joan Anzelmo, a board member for the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. "We think the legislative proposal is a direct assault on our national parks. It would affect every aspect of the day-to-day park operations. It’s unprecedented in the history of the agency."
Some in Congress have argued that environmental laws such as the Wilderness Act, which prohibits motorized access to protected land, impede the ability of border agents to operate freely. Further, proponents say, the few federal departments and multiple jurisdictions along the border make coordination difficult.
But the Border Patrol told Congress last year that it had forged agreements with the National Park Service and other land managers and that the agencies have been working cooperatively. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified before Congress last month, saying the bill "is unnecessary, and it’s bad policy."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120419house_republicans_back_homeland_security_powers_in_border_parks/
April 19, 2012
by Julie Cart
LOS ANGELES — House Republicans are backing legislation in Congress to give the Department of Homeland Security control of more than 50 national parks and forests within 100 miles of the U.S. borders.
The legislation involves a sweep of land along the frontier with Canada and Mexico, but exempts state land, private property and federal holdings used for mining, livestock grazing and timber harvesting. The new authority would carve through 54 national parks, including Joshua Tree, Saguaro, Acadia and Glacier.
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, sponsored by conservative Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, would give Border Patrol and Customs agents and other federal officials the right to suspend any federal law on land managed by the departments of Interior and Agriculture. It would give Homeland Security the right to conduct any activity or construct any facility required to secure the border.
Although stalled in the House and with little hope in the Democratic-controlled Senate, the legislation demonstrates the intentions of Republicans as the November elections approach.
Park advocates say the legislation overreaches, calling it unnecessary because Homeland Security already has the power to suspend laws that inhibit its operations. They say the bill will override 36 federal laws that protect cultural and historic sites, wildlife and valued landscapes.
"As American families head to their national parks, we want to sound the alarm about this shocking legislation," said Joan Anzelmo, a board member for the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. "We think the legislative proposal is a direct assault on our national parks. It would affect every aspect of the day-to-day park operations. It’s unprecedented in the history of the agency."
Some in Congress have argued that environmental laws such as the Wilderness Act, which prohibits motorized access to protected land, impede the ability of border agents to operate freely. Further, proponents say, the few federal departments and multiple jurisdictions along the border make coordination difficult.
But the Border Patrol told Congress last year that it had forged agreements with the National Park Service and other land managers and that the agencies have been working cooperatively. Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano testified before Congress last month, saying the bill "is unnecessary, and it’s bad policy."
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/view/20120419house_republicans_back_homeland_security_powers_in_border_parks/
Friday, March 9, 2012
Napolitano Blasts Border Access Bill
Congressional Quarterly
March 8, 2012
By Jennifer Scholtes
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano leveled pointed criticism Thursday at a House border security bill, in a rare divergence from the administration’s usual policy of refraining from passing judgment on pending legislation.
Several Democratic lawmakers have already voiced opposition to the measure (HR 1505), which would give Customs and Border Protection the authority to patrol and set up physical infrastructure on federally protected land within 100 miles of the United States’ southern and northern borders. Officials from the Border Patrol have also told lawmakers that they don’t feel such legislation is necessary, as they have worked out access deals with the environmental agencies that manage the lands.
But Napolitano and other Cabinet officials make it a practice to keep mum on specific measures pending in Congress, making it somewhat unusual that she told the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee the bill “is unnecessary, and it’s bad policy.”
“We don’t need it for our immediate Border Patrol needs,” she said. “We already have an agreement with the Department of Interior. If we’re doing a chase or there are exigent circumstances, we can go onto lands without having to seek prior approval or any of that.”
And given the nature of those areas, the secretary said she believes it is “highly appropriate” to consult with the Interior Department in carrying out those missions. Through interdepartmental cooperation, DHS has been able to address patrolling needs such as setting up surveillance towers and constructing roads on public lands, she said.
In 2006, the two departments signed a memorandum of understanding to ensure that border agents get the access they need to apprehend drug traffickers and illegal immigrants trying to enter the United States through protected lands. But the Government Accountability Office has reported that such coordination has not always been a smooth process.
A report GAO released last year said that Border Patrol access to some federal lands along the southwestern border has been limited because of land management laws, according to many of the agents surveyed. Agents have sometimes been unable to obtain permits or permission to access areas in a timely manner because of delays due to environmental and historic property assessments, the report said.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, has argued that environmental laws should not take precedent over national security. Bishop’s measure, which the House Natural Resources Committee approved in October in a party-line vote, has attracted nearly 60 Republican cosponsors, but not a single Democratic supporter.
Lawmakers have introduced several related bills this Congress, including a measure (HR 1922) approved by the House Homeland Security Border and Maritime Subcommittee last June that would provide CBP access to federal lands for routine patrols and for deploying temporary tactical infrastructure.
A broad border security bill (HR 1507) introduced by Rep. Jeff Flake and a companion measure (S 803) being pushed by fellow Arizona Republican John McCain in the Senate include similar language. Their proposals stipulate that the Agriculture and Interior department would have to provide CBP personnel immediate access to federal lands for security activities.
Of those measures, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., said he finds the Bishop bill “the most egregious.” The legislation, which would bar the Interior and Agriculture departments from impeding, prohibiting or restricting DHS activities, would give DHS “unprecedented power to do as it sees fit” on lands near the northern border Montana shares with Canada, Tester said.
“I think a one-size-fits-all approach in this particular instance — we both know the northern border and the southern border are two different borders — it doesn’t fit well,” Tester said. “I don’t think it’s about catching bad guys, I think it’s about allowing governmental agents to build roads and watch towers and buildings in places where other agencies, even tribal units, would not have any input.”
March 8, 2012
By Jennifer Scholtes
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano leveled pointed criticism Thursday at a House border security bill, in a rare divergence from the administration’s usual policy of refraining from passing judgment on pending legislation.
Several Democratic lawmakers have already voiced opposition to the measure (HR 1505), which would give Customs and Border Protection the authority to patrol and set up physical infrastructure on federally protected land within 100 miles of the United States’ southern and northern borders. Officials from the Border Patrol have also told lawmakers that they don’t feel such legislation is necessary, as they have worked out access deals with the environmental agencies that manage the lands.
But Napolitano and other Cabinet officials make it a practice to keep mum on specific measures pending in Congress, making it somewhat unusual that she told the Senate Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee the bill “is unnecessary, and it’s bad policy.”
“We don’t need it for our immediate Border Patrol needs,” she said. “We already have an agreement with the Department of Interior. If we’re doing a chase or there are exigent circumstances, we can go onto lands without having to seek prior approval or any of that.”
And given the nature of those areas, the secretary said she believes it is “highly appropriate” to consult with the Interior Department in carrying out those missions. Through interdepartmental cooperation, DHS has been able to address patrolling needs such as setting up surveillance towers and constructing roads on public lands, she said.
In 2006, the two departments signed a memorandum of understanding to ensure that border agents get the access they need to apprehend drug traffickers and illegal immigrants trying to enter the United States through protected lands. But the Government Accountability Office has reported that such coordination has not always been a smooth process.
A report
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, has argued that environmental laws should not take precedent over national security. Bishop’s measure, which the House Natural Resources Committee approved in October in a party-line vote, has attracted nearly 60 Republican cosponsors, but not a single Democratic supporter.
Lawmakers have introduced several related bills this Congress, including a measure (HR 1922) approved by the House Homeland Security Border and Maritime Subcommittee last June that would provide CBP access to federal lands for routine patrols and for deploying temporary tactical infrastructure.
A broad border security bill (HR 1507) introduced by Rep. Jeff Flake and a companion measure (S 803) being pushed by fellow Arizona Republican John McCain in the Senate include similar language. Their proposals stipulate that the Agriculture and Interior department would have to provide CBP personnel immediate access to federal lands for security activities.
Of those measures, Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont., said he finds the Bishop bill “the most egregious.” The legislation, which would bar the Interior and Agriculture departments from impeding, prohibiting or restricting DHS activities, would give DHS “unprecedented power to do as it sees fit” on lands near the northern border Montana shares with Canada, Tester said.
“I think a one-size-fits-all approach in this particular instance — we both know the northern border and the southern border are two different borders — it doesn’t fit well,” Tester said. “I don’t think it’s about catching bad guys, I think it’s about allowing governmental agents to build roads and watch towers and buildings in places where other agencies, even tribal units, would not have any input.”
Thursday, January 26, 2012
Military engineers dig in to support Border Patrol
Nogales International
January 24, 2012
by Jonathan Clark
On Jan. 6, members of an Alaska-based Army airborne engineer brigade parachuted out of an Air Force plane at Fort Huachuca. Since then, they've been working to cut 0.7 miles of border access road through rugged terrain approximately three miles west of the Mariposa Port of Entry in Nogales.
Project organizers say the experience, from the parachute drop-in to the remote road-building and eventual departure on Feb. 27, mirrors the type of mission the 40 soldiers might conduct if they were deployed to a place like Afghanistan.
"This will prepare them for future deployments, especially in the areas of current contingency operations," said Armando Carrasco, spokesman for the Department of Defense's Joint Task Force North (JTF North), the agency that coordinated the mission.
Standing on a hilltop above the work site Friday as heavy machinery dug through a steep slope below her, mission commander Lt. Michelle Zak spoke of the difficulties of maneuvering large earth movers around the mountains, canyons and ravines of western Santa Cruz County.
"It's been challenging, but also a great opportunity for us to train," she said.This effort, along with other military road-building projects that have been conducted in the county in recent years, also provides a great opportunity for agents at the U.S. Border Patrol's Nogales Station to gain better access to some of their hardest-to-control areas.
"You've got to look at it as a win-win situation," said Agent Steven Passement, a spokesman for the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector.
"One, for the unit that's here and the units that will come, it's real-world training experience," he said. "And for us, we're getting infrastructure put in place that's going to be permanent.
"Those permanent roads, built with drainage culverts to keep them from washing out, helps agents responds faster to illegal activity in the area and provide aid more quickly to migrants in distress. What's more, Passement said, a better road surface means less wear-and-tear on Border Patrol vehicles, and therefore less expenditures on new tires, shock absorbers and struts.
Local residents and businesses are also benefiting from the arrangement. The current group of 40 engineers is staying at a local hotel and spending some of their pocket money at local establishments.
"I know a lot of the soldiers have been out on the town, and they've enjoyed the tacos that come from the trucks," Zak said.Rancher Dan Bell, who grazes cattle in the same section of Coronado National Forest lands where the road are being built, says he's seen an improvement in security in the area since the road-building began.
"Prior to these roads going in, there really wasn't any way to get to the border in a lot of these areas," Bell said. "It's allowed (Border Patrol) to actually get down to the border and patrol the actual border rather than a larger area that they'd have to hike or go into on horseback.
"The soldiers themselves are not engaged in any law enforcement activity while on the road-building projects, Carrasco said. That duty is left up to the Border Patrol.Environmental concernsSince the construction is taking place on National Forest land, the U.S. Forest Service has been included in the project planning, and an environmental monitor is on hand to make sure the project stays within the construction easement, said Maj. Chris Neels, mission planner for JTF North.
Even so, environmentalists like Jenny Neeley, conservation policy director at the Tucson-based Sky Island Alliance, say they are worried about the long-term effects of border-infrastructure projects that are conducted outside of federal environmental law. Since April 2008, the Department of Homeland Security has operated under a waiver that allows it to build border fencing and related infrastructure in the U.S. Southwest without having to adhere to more than 30 environmental regulations.
"We're extremely disappointed that none of it is subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act because of the existing waiver along the border," Neeley said. "Those roads are being installed without any oversight whatsoever, in terms of regulatory oversight or having to follow best practices."
Neeley said she hadn't seen the particular roads being built west of Nogales, but she said there have been numerous projects carried out under the waiver that have later led to erosion and flooding. She cited an example from the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, where rainwater runoff collapsed a 40-foot stretch of new border fence in August 2010 due to faulty design.
A Department of Homeland Security-sponsored public forum in December 2010 laid out the technical details and environmental analysis that had gone into the planning of the agency's border road and fence projects in and around Nogales. Still, Greg Gephart, program manager for tactical infrastructure for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, acknowledged that the projects would be conducted under the environmental waiver."The waiver doesn't mean we're throwing out all environmental considerations," Gephart said at the time. "It's just a method that allows us to expedite the construction."
‘Good feeling'
The 40 Army engineers currently deployed to Nogales work six days a week, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Even so, due to the terrain, theirs is the first of three phases necessary to complete the 0.7 miles of roadway.
What's more, military units are scheduled to execute four additional engineering missions in the Nogales area in support of the Border Patrol during the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
It's all organized by JTF North, based at Fort Bliss, Texas, which has been supporting federal law enforcement agencies along the Southwest border since 1989. Working as a liaison between law enforcement and all four branches of the military, JTF North has coordinated engineering missions that built and improved roads and installed border lighting, fencing and vehicle barriers in areas stretching from California to Texas.
The majority of the costs of the projects are paid for with Department of Defense counter-drug funds, JTF North says; the participating law enforcement agency covers only the cost of materials.
For example, Tucson-based Hertz Equipment Rental has been contracted to provide the heavy machinery for the current road effort, as well as training and maintenance. That's all covered by JTF North, Carrasco said.
As for the price tag for the 0.7-mile road project, Carrasco estimated $400,000 for Phases 1 and 2 and $350,000 for Phase 3 - a grand total of $1.15 million.Part of the expense includes the cost of housing the soldiers at an area hotel, which is also contracted to provide the team with a hot breakfast and dinner each day. (JTF North declined to name the hotel, citing security concerns.)"It also creates a good quality of life for them while they're deployed on this mission," he said. "Obviously they work very hard, so it's important that we also take care of them during their down time."
As for the military engineers, they say they are greatly appreciative of the good meals and soft beds - as well as the warm, sunny weather of Southern Arizona. After all, they left their home base in the middle of the frigid, snowy and daylight-deprived Alaska winter.
Specialist Nickalous Herd, a native of Atlanta, praised the "wonderful weather, wonderful people and wonderful state" as he stood at the worksite Friday under clear blue skies and 70-degree temperatures. And while the local terrain has been a challenge to work with, Herd said, he has also enjoyed its rugged beauty.
"It is beautiful, it is extremely beautiful here," he said.Sgt. Everell Gustave, a native of the Boston area, said the experience of coming to a new area and working under new conditions with new equipment has been an important skill-builder for his team, which, if deployed to Afghanistan, might parachute into a remote area to rebuild roads, supply routes and airstrips.
"It is definitely a good feeling for our guys. We are getting the training that we need to be successful anywhere around the world," Gustave said. "Helping out the Border Patrol is just a plus."
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/news/military-engineers-dig-in-to-support-border-patrol/article_9661a732-46a0-11e1-88a9-001871e3ce6c.html
January 24, 2012
by Jonathan Clark
On Jan. 6, members of an Alaska-based Army airborne engineer brigade parachuted out of an Air Force plane at Fort Huachuca. Since then, they've been working to cut 0.7 miles of border access road through rugged terrain approximately three miles west of the Mariposa Port of Entry in Nogales.
Project organizers say the experience, from the parachute drop-in to the remote road-building and eventual departure on Feb. 27, mirrors the type of mission the 40 soldiers might conduct if they were deployed to a place like Afghanistan.
"This will prepare them for future deployments, especially in the areas of current contingency operations," said Armando Carrasco, spokesman for the Department of Defense's Joint Task Force North (JTF North), the agency that coordinated the mission.
Standing on a hilltop above the work site Friday as heavy machinery dug through a steep slope below her, mission commander Lt. Michelle Zak spoke of the difficulties of maneuvering large earth movers around the mountains, canyons and ravines of western Santa Cruz County.
"It's been challenging, but also a great opportunity for us to train," she said.This effort, along with other military road-building projects that have been conducted in the county in recent years, also provides a great opportunity for agents at the U.S. Border Patrol's Nogales Station to gain better access to some of their hardest-to-control areas.
"You've got to look at it as a win-win situation," said Agent Steven Passement, a spokesman for the Border Patrol's Tucson Sector.
"One, for the unit that's here and the units that will come, it's real-world training experience," he said. "And for us, we're getting infrastructure put in place that's going to be permanent.
"Those permanent roads, built with drainage culverts to keep them from washing out, helps agents responds faster to illegal activity in the area and provide aid more quickly to migrants in distress. What's more, Passement said, a better road surface means less wear-and-tear on Border Patrol vehicles, and therefore less expenditures on new tires, shock absorbers and struts.
Local residents and businesses are also benefiting from the arrangement. The current group of 40 engineers is staying at a local hotel and spending some of their pocket money at local establishments.
"I know a lot of the soldiers have been out on the town, and they've enjoyed the tacos that come from the trucks," Zak said.Rancher Dan Bell, who grazes cattle in the same section of Coronado National Forest lands where the road are being built, says he's seen an improvement in security in the area since the road-building began.
"Prior to these roads going in, there really wasn't any way to get to the border in a lot of these areas," Bell said. "It's allowed (Border Patrol) to actually get down to the border and patrol the actual border rather than a larger area that they'd have to hike or go into on horseback.
"The soldiers themselves are not engaged in any law enforcement activity while on the road-building projects, Carrasco said. That duty is left up to the Border Patrol.Environmental concernsSince the construction is taking place on National Forest land, the U.S. Forest Service has been included in the project planning, and an environmental monitor is on hand to make sure the project stays within the construction easement, said Maj. Chris Neels, mission planner for JTF North.
Even so, environmentalists like Jenny Neeley, conservation policy director at the Tucson-based Sky Island Alliance, say they are worried about the long-term effects of border-infrastructure projects that are conducted outside of federal environmental law. Since April 2008, the Department of Homeland Security has operated under a waiver that allows it to build border fencing and related infrastructure in the U.S. Southwest without having to adhere to more than 30 environmental regulations.
"We're extremely disappointed that none of it is subject to review under the National Environmental Policy Act because of the existing waiver along the border," Neeley said. "Those roads are being installed without any oversight whatsoever, in terms of regulatory oversight or having to follow best practices."
Neeley said she hadn't seen the particular roads being built west of Nogales, but she said there have been numerous projects carried out under the waiver that have later led to erosion and flooding. She cited an example from the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, where rainwater runoff collapsed a 40-foot stretch of new border fence in August 2010 due to faulty design.
A Department of Homeland Security-sponsored public forum in December 2010 laid out the technical details and environmental analysis that had gone into the planning of the agency's border road and fence projects in and around Nogales. Still, Greg Gephart, program manager for tactical infrastructure for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, acknowledged that the projects would be conducted under the environmental waiver."The waiver doesn't mean we're throwing out all environmental considerations," Gephart said at the time. "It's just a method that allows us to expedite the construction."
‘Good feeling'
The 40 Army engineers currently deployed to Nogales work six days a week, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Even so, due to the terrain, theirs is the first of three phases necessary to complete the 0.7 miles of roadway.
What's more, military units are scheduled to execute four additional engineering missions in the Nogales area in support of the Border Patrol during the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
It's all organized by JTF North, based at Fort Bliss, Texas, which has been supporting federal law enforcement agencies along the Southwest border since 1989. Working as a liaison between law enforcement and all four branches of the military, JTF North has coordinated engineering missions that built and improved roads and installed border lighting, fencing and vehicle barriers in areas stretching from California to Texas.
The majority of the costs of the projects are paid for with Department of Defense counter-drug funds, JTF North says; the participating law enforcement agency covers only the cost of materials.
For example, Tucson-based Hertz Equipment Rental has been contracted to provide the heavy machinery for the current road effort, as well as training and maintenance. That's all covered by JTF North, Carrasco said.
As for the price tag for the 0.7-mile road project, Carrasco estimated $400,000 for Phases 1 and 2 and $350,000 for Phase 3 - a grand total of $1.15 million.Part of the expense includes the cost of housing the soldiers at an area hotel, which is also contracted to provide the team with a hot breakfast and dinner each day. (JTF North declined to name the hotel, citing security concerns.)"It also creates a good quality of life for them while they're deployed on this mission," he said. "Obviously they work very hard, so it's important that we also take care of them during their down time."
As for the military engineers, they say they are greatly appreciative of the good meals and soft beds - as well as the warm, sunny weather of Southern Arizona. After all, they left their home base in the middle of the frigid, snowy and daylight-deprived Alaska winter.
Specialist Nickalous Herd, a native of Atlanta, praised the "wonderful weather, wonderful people and wonderful state" as he stood at the worksite Friday under clear blue skies and 70-degree temperatures. And while the local terrain has been a challenge to work with, Herd said, he has also enjoyed its rugged beauty.
"It is beautiful, it is extremely beautiful here," he said.Sgt. Everell Gustave, a native of the Boston area, said the experience of coming to a new area and working under new conditions with new equipment has been an important skill-builder for his team, which, if deployed to Afghanistan, might parachute into a remote area to rebuild roads, supply routes and airstrips.
"It is definitely a good feeling for our guys. We are getting the training that we need to be successful anywhere around the world," Gustave said. "Helping out the Border Patrol is just a plus."
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/news/military-engineers-dig-in-to-support-border-patrol/article_9661a732-46a0-11e1-88a9-001871e3ce6c.html
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Wildlife: Border fences more effective against wildlife than illegal immigrants
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
January 1, 2012
by Scott Shalaway
For better or worse, wildlife populations pay no attention to human political borders. State lines certainly make no difference to coyotes or white-tailed deer crossing back and forth between Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Along the U.S.-Mexico border, it's a different story.
Walls and fences that stretch intermittently along the nearly 2,000-mile international border are intended to keep illegal immigrants out of the United States. Based on news reports, they are not terribly effective. Long, sophisticated tunnels seem easy to build. And a 2009 government report revealed that there had been 3,363 breaches of the fence January through May of that year.
But under the heading of "unintended consequences," border fences are proving to be very effective at disrupting the movements of wildlife. The current issue of The Wildlife Professional, a publication of The Wildlife Society, reports that endangered species such as jaguars, ocelots, Sonoran pronghorn and many smaller, less glamorous species are being disturbed.
In the name of homeland security, we seem to be doing our best to destroy border wildlife populations. In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act required portions of the fence to be cleared of all vegetation within 50 feet of either side of the fence. So even if animals try to find a way through the fence, they must do so without any cover.
In 2005, the Real ID Act authorized the waiver of any laws that might delay construction of barriers along the California border.
Consequently, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act have all been ignored in the name of national security.
And since passage of the Secure Fence Act in 2006, more than 30 federal laws, including the Clean Water Act and the Wilderness Act, have been waived.
The impact of waivers of environmental laws is still being studied, but it is clear that border wildlife populations are suffering. In one study using cameras and radio collars, bobcats influenced by fences moved their territories and experienced more collisions with highway traffic.
Fences restrict movement and gene flow and induce stress. Biologists fear that species with dwindling U.S. populations will suffer as access to Mexican populations disappears. Long-term survival of U.S. populations of larger species such as jaguars and ocelots is in doubt.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12001/1200330-140.stm
January 1, 2012
by Scott Shalaway
For better or worse, wildlife populations pay no attention to human political borders. State lines certainly make no difference to coyotes or white-tailed deer crossing back and forth between Pennsylvania and Ohio.
Along the U.S.-Mexico border, it's a different story.
Walls and fences that stretch intermittently along the nearly 2,000-mile international border are intended to keep illegal immigrants out of the United States. Based on news reports, they are not terribly effective. Long, sophisticated tunnels seem easy to build. And a 2009 government report revealed that there had been 3,363 breaches of the fence January through May of that year.
But under the heading of "unintended consequences," border fences are proving to be very effective at disrupting the movements of wildlife. The current issue of The Wildlife Professional, a publication of The Wildlife Society, reports that endangered species such as jaguars, ocelots, Sonoran pronghorn and many smaller, less glamorous species are being disturbed.
In the name of homeland security, we seem to be doing our best to destroy border wildlife populations. In 1996, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act required portions of the fence to be cleared of all vegetation within 50 feet of either side of the fence. So even if animals try to find a way through the fence, they must do so without any cover.
In 2005, the Real ID Act authorized the waiver of any laws that might delay construction of barriers along the California border.
Consequently, the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act have all been ignored in the name of national security.
And since passage of the Secure Fence Act in 2006, more than 30 federal laws, including the Clean Water Act and the Wilderness Act, have been waived.
The impact of waivers of environmental laws is still being studied, but it is clear that border wildlife populations are suffering. In one study using cameras and radio collars, bobcats influenced by fences moved their territories and experienced more collisions with highway traffic.
Fences restrict movement and gene flow and induce stress. Biologists fear that species with dwindling U.S. populations will suffer as access to Mexican populations disappears. Long-term survival of U.S. populations of larger species such as jaguars and ocelots is in doubt.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/12001/1200330-140.stm
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Environment key in border bill
San Antoanio Express-News
October 31, 2011
by Jason Buch
Both sides of a debate over a proposed law giving the Border Patrol more access to protected lands say they're trying to do what's right for the environment.
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act would waive laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act on federal lands within 100 miles of the border, affecting protected areas such as Big Bend National Park.
Environmentalists say the law could contribute to the decline of habitat for animals such as the endangered ocelot and jaguarundi, small wildcats whose range extends into South Texas. Proponents of the bill say restricting Border Patrol activity in federally protected borderlands just creates lanes for smugglers, who have no regard for the environment.
The act moved out of a House committee last month. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.
The bill by U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, allows the Border Patrol to build roads and other infrastructure on federally protected lands by waiving more than two dozen environmental and historical regulations. Agents are inhibited in some places by not being able to move freely through federal lands, said Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing agents.
“The amount of trash and damage illegals are causing far outweighs any damage that Border Patrol agents would do,” Moran said. “Our position is, if federal agencies or state agencies say the Border Patrol can't go through a certain area, then the cartels or the smugglers are going to find out about that and exploit it, and it's going to do more damage to that area.”
Rosalinda Huey, a spokeswoman for the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley, said the agency regularly works with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ensuring that it has access to protected lands.
In South Texas, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge and the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge would be affected. Those are important stopovers for migratory birds, said Scott Nicol, co-chairman of the Sierra Club's Borderland Team.
It's also important that the limited habitat left for the ocelot and jaguarundi be protected, he said. The cats rely on small strips of vegetation along the river to travel between larger pieces of habitat.
“The big issue is just that (the Border Patrol) should be operating within the rule of law,” Nicol said. “It's kind of absurd to say that to enforce immigration laws ... they can violate any other law they want to.”
Nicol said he sees the bill more as an attempt to erode environmental regulations than to secure the border.
“These bills are not even about border security, because these are things the Border Patrol has not even asked for,” he said. “These are more generalized attacks on environmental regulation. They're basically just using border security as a convenient excuse because the average person says, ‘Do whatever you want to secure the border.'”
But Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, said the bill was amended to only affect federal lands, limiting its impact on environmental regulations.
“By stopping the illegal activity along the border, we will protect American lives and preserve wilderness areas for future generations to enjoy,” Smith said in a statement.
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, a Democrat from Mercedes whose district includes some of the areas affected, said he'd need to see more evidence that the bill was needed before voting for it.
“I think we can allow the Border Patrol to do its work and at the same time protect our environment and our rare animals such as the jaguarundi, the ocelot and our migrating birds in deep South Texas,” Hinojosa said in a statement.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Environment-key-in-border-bill-2245425.php#ixzz1cSpbGBzI
October 31, 2011
by Jason Buch
Both sides of a debate over a proposed law giving the Border Patrol more access to protected lands say they're trying to do what's right for the environment.
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act would waive laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Air Act on federal lands within 100 miles of the border, affecting protected areas such as Big Bend National Park.
Environmentalists say the law could contribute to the decline of habitat for animals such as the endangered ocelot and jaguarundi, small wildcats whose range extends into South Texas. Proponents of the bill say restricting Border Patrol activity in federally protected borderlands just creates lanes for smugglers, who have no regard for the environment.
The act moved out of a House committee last month. Similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.
The bill by U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, allows the Border Patrol to build roads and other infrastructure on federally protected lands by waiving more than two dozen environmental and historical regulations. Agents are inhibited in some places by not being able to move freely through federal lands, said Shawn Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing agents.
“The amount of trash and damage illegals are causing far outweighs any damage that Border Patrol agents would do,” Moran said. “Our position is, if federal agencies or state agencies say the Border Patrol can't go through a certain area, then the cartels or the smugglers are going to find out about that and exploit it, and it's going to do more damage to that area.”
Rosalinda Huey, a spokeswoman for the Border Patrol in the Rio Grande Valley, said the agency regularly works with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, ensuring that it has access to protected lands.
In South Texas, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge and the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge would be affected. Those are important stopovers for migratory birds, said Scott Nicol, co-chairman of the Sierra Club's Borderland Team.
It's also important that the limited habitat left for the ocelot and jaguarundi be protected, he said. The cats rely on small strips of vegetation along the river to travel between larger pieces of habitat.
“The big issue is just that (the Border Patrol) should be operating within the rule of law,” Nicol said. “It's kind of absurd to say that to enforce immigration laws ... they can violate any other law they want to.”
Nicol said he sees the bill more as an attempt to erode environmental regulations than to secure the border.
“These bills are not even about border security, because these are things the Border Patrol has not even asked for,” he said. “These are more generalized attacks on environmental regulation. They're basically just using border security as a convenient excuse because the average person says, ‘Do whatever you want to secure the border.'”
But Rep. Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio, said the bill was amended to only affect federal lands, limiting its impact on environmental regulations.
“By stopping the illegal activity along the border, we will protect American lives and preserve wilderness areas for future generations to enjoy,” Smith said in a statement.
Rep. Rubén Hinojosa, a Democrat from Mercedes whose district includes some of the areas affected, said he'd need to see more evidence that the bill was needed before voting for it.
“I think we can allow the Border Patrol to do its work and at the same time protect our environment and our rare animals such as the jaguarundi, the ocelot and our migrating birds in deep South Texas,” Hinojosa said in a statement.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Environment-key-in-border-bill-2245425.php#ixzz1cSpbGBzI
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Lawmakers say environmental laws should be waived for Border Patrol operations
Los Angeles Times / Associated Press
October 27, 2011
WASHINGTON — Federal agents trying to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border say they’re hampered by laws that keep them from driving vehicles on huge swaths of land because it falls under U.S. environmental protection, leaving it to wildlife — and illegal immigrants and smugglers who can walk through the territory undisturbed.
A growing number of lawmakers are saying such restrictions have turned wilderness areas into highways for criminals. In recent weeks, three congressional panels, including two in the GOP-controlled House and one in the Democratic-controlled Senate, have moved to give the Border Patrol unfettered access to all federally managed lands within 100 miles of the border with Mexico.
Two of the panels expanded the legislation’s reach to include the border with Canada.
The votes signal a brewing battle in Congress that will determine whether border agents can disregard environmental protections as they do their job.
Dozens of environmental laws were waived for the building of the border fence, and activists say this is just another conservative attempt to find an excuse to do away with environmental protections.
But agents who have worked along the border say the laws crimp their power to secure the border.
Zack Taylor, a retired Border Patrol agent who lives about nine miles from the Arizona-Mexico border, said smugglers soon learn the areas that agents are least likely to frequent.
“The (smuggling) route stays on public lands from the border to Maricopa County,” Taylor said, referring to the state’s most populous county. “The smugglers have free rein. It has become a lawless area.”
Environmental groups said lawmakers lining up to support the legislation have routinely opposed the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and dozens of other laws, and they accused the lawmakers of using illegal immigration as the latest excuse to gut protections.
“For every problem that’s out there in society, there’s some extremists in Congress who say the solution is, ‘Well, let’s roll back the environmental laws, let’s open up the public lands,’” said Paul Spitler, spokesman for the Wilderness Society. “It doesn’t comport to reality, but it fits their mindset that it’s simply the environmental regulations that are holding back America.”
Nearly 40 percent of the land on the U.S.-Mexico border and about a quarter of the land on the U.S.-Canadian border is public land, including Big Bend National Park in Texas and Glacier National Park in Montana. Driving is prohibited on those parts of the land that are designated wilderness areas.
Wildlife officials say vehicle use can be particularly hazardous in the desert. Water gathers in the tire tracks instead of in natural pools and evaporates more quickly, leading to less vegetation and less available food. Some areas, such as Big Bend and the desert farther west, are deadly to traverse in certain months and immigrants and smugglers avoid them.
The wilderness areas also have other restrictions on development. Border patrol agents, for example, must get permission from other federal agencies before maintaining roads and installing surveillance equipment. Federal auditors found it can take months to get that permission.
“What the Border Patrol says they really need down there is not necessarily more manpower or money,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, whose bill easing the restrictions passed the House Natural Resources Committee along party lines. “They need more east-west access on those public lands.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sponsored an amendment that requires the Agriculture and Interior departments to give Border Patrol personnel immediate access to federal lands on the southern border for security activities, including for routine motorized patrols. The amendment passed a Senate committee with the support of five Democrats and eight Republicans.
McCain told colleagues that up to 100 people sit on mountaintops near the border serving as lookouts for smugglers, suggesting that improved law enforcement access on those mountains would deter the lookouts.
“What he says is absolutely true,” said Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who visited Arizona with McCain. “For the life of me, I can’t understand the hesitancy on the part of Interior or Agriculture to provide access to border security guards.”
Rep. Ben Quayle, R-Ariz., sponsored a similar amendment that extends the law to the Canadian border as well, and it passed by a voice vote, which is usually reserved for noncontroversial legislation.
During a House subcommittee hearing in April, Ron Vitiello, deputy chief of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, said he had “no complaints” about environmental laws.
But George McCubbin, president of the union that represents about 17,000 Border Patrol agents and support staff, likened current policy to telling city police officers they can’t patrol a particular neighborhood.
“If they want to get serious about this problem on the border, they can’t be restricting areas we go in,” said McCubbin, who works in Casa Grande, Ariz. “Don’t let us there and you have nothing but the bad element going through that area.”
The Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative arm, reported that supervisors at 17 of 26 Border Patrol stations along the Mexican border said access to federal lands had been limited because of environmental restrictions. Yet, the vast majority of the agents in charge also said that they were generally able to adjust their patrols without sacrificing effectiveness.
Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups cite the GAO’s findings in arguing against giving the Border Patrol authority to operate as it sees fit on federal lands.
“The record is clear. The problem this bill claims to be solving does not exist,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. “So, if this is not about border security, what is it about? It’s about undermining fundamental environmental protections for millions of Americans.”
Bishop said federal agents would be better stewards of sensitive lands than illegal immigrants and smugglers.
“What is so ironic is that the environmental degradation is not being done by the Border Patrol,” Bishop said. “It’s being done by the illegals who are coming across.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-government/lawmakers-say-environmental-laws-should-be-waived-for-border-patrol-operations/2011/10/27/gIQAcu4ALM_story.html
October 27, 2011
WASHINGTON — Federal agents trying to patrol the U.S.-Mexico border say they’re hampered by laws that keep them from driving vehicles on huge swaths of land because it falls under U.S. environmental protection, leaving it to wildlife — and illegal immigrants and smugglers who can walk through the territory undisturbed.
A growing number of lawmakers are saying such restrictions have turned wilderness areas into highways for criminals. In recent weeks, three congressional panels, including two in the GOP-controlled House and one in the Democratic-controlled Senate, have moved to give the Border Patrol unfettered access to all federally managed lands within 100 miles of the border with Mexico.
Two of the panels expanded the legislation’s reach to include the border with Canada.
The votes signal a brewing battle in Congress that will determine whether border agents can disregard environmental protections as they do their job.
Dozens of environmental laws were waived for the building of the border fence, and activists say this is just another conservative attempt to find an excuse to do away with environmental protections.
But agents who have worked along the border say the laws crimp their power to secure the border.
Zack Taylor, a retired Border Patrol agent who lives about nine miles from the Arizona-Mexico border, said smugglers soon learn the areas that agents are least likely to frequent.
“The (smuggling) route stays on public lands from the border to Maricopa County,” Taylor said, referring to the state’s most populous county. “The smugglers have free rein. It has become a lawless area.”
Environmental groups said lawmakers lining up to support the legislation have routinely opposed the Endangered Species Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and dozens of other laws, and they accused the lawmakers of using illegal immigration as the latest excuse to gut protections.
“For every problem that’s out there in society, there’s some extremists in Congress who say the solution is, ‘Well, let’s roll back the environmental laws, let’s open up the public lands,’” said Paul Spitler, spokesman for the Wilderness Society. “It doesn’t comport to reality, but it fits their mindset that it’s simply the environmental regulations that are holding back America.”
Nearly 40 percent of the land on the U.S.-Mexico border and about a quarter of the land on the U.S.-Canadian border is public land, including Big Bend National Park in Texas and Glacier National Park in Montana. Driving is prohibited on those parts of the land that are designated wilderness areas.
Wildlife officials say vehicle use can be particularly hazardous in the desert. Water gathers in the tire tracks instead of in natural pools and evaporates more quickly, leading to less vegetation and less available food. Some areas, such as Big Bend and the desert farther west, are deadly to traverse in certain months and immigrants and smugglers avoid them.
The wilderness areas also have other restrictions on development. Border patrol agents, for example, must get permission from other federal agencies before maintaining roads and installing surveillance equipment. Federal auditors found it can take months to get that permission.
“What the Border Patrol says they really need down there is not necessarily more manpower or money,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, whose bill easing the restrictions passed the House Natural Resources Committee along party lines. “They need more east-west access on those public lands.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., sponsored an amendment that requires the Agriculture and Interior departments to give Border Patrol personnel immediate access to federal lands on the southern border for security activities, including for routine motorized patrols. The amendment passed a Senate committee with the support of five Democrats and eight Republicans.
McCain told colleagues that up to 100 people sit on mountaintops near the border serving as lookouts for smugglers, suggesting that improved law enforcement access on those mountains would deter the lookouts.
“What he says is absolutely true,” said Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, who visited Arizona with McCain. “For the life of me, I can’t understand the hesitancy on the part of Interior or Agriculture to provide access to border security guards.”
Rep. Ben Quayle, R-Ariz., sponsored a similar amendment that extends the law to the Canadian border as well, and it passed by a voice vote, which is usually reserved for noncontroversial legislation.
During a House subcommittee hearing in April, Ron Vitiello, deputy chief of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol, said he had “no complaints” about environmental laws.
But George McCubbin, president of the union that represents about 17,000 Border Patrol agents and support staff, likened current policy to telling city police officers they can’t patrol a particular neighborhood.
“If they want to get serious about this problem on the border, they can’t be restricting areas we go in,” said McCubbin, who works in Casa Grande, Ariz. “Don’t let us there and you have nothing but the bad element going through that area.”
The Government Accountability Office, Congress’ investigative arm, reported that supervisors at 17 of 26 Border Patrol stations along the Mexican border said access to federal lands had been limited because of environmental restrictions. Yet, the vast majority of the agents in charge also said that they were generally able to adjust their patrols without sacrificing effectiveness.
Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups cite the GAO’s findings in arguing against giving the Border Patrol authority to operate as it sees fit on federal lands.
“The record is clear. The problem this bill claims to be solving does not exist,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz. “So, if this is not about border security, what is it about? It’s about undermining fundamental environmental protections for millions of Americans.”
Bishop said federal agents would be better stewards of sensitive lands than illegal immigrants and smugglers.
“What is so ironic is that the environmental degradation is not being done by the Border Patrol,” Bishop said. “It’s being done by the illegals who are coming across.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/federal-government/lawmakers-say-environmental-laws-should-be-waived-for-border-patrol-operations/2011/10/27/gIQAcu4ALM_story.html
Monday, October 24, 2011
Republican bill would allow Border Patrol to ignore environmental laws
McClatchy Newspapers / Kansas City Star
October 23, 2011
By ROB HOTAKAINEN
WASHINGTON -House Republicans want to give the U.S. Border Patrol unprecedented authority to ignore 36 environmental laws on federal land in a 100-mile zone along the Canadian and Mexican borders.
If the legislation is approved, the Border Patrol would not have to comply with the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and 32 other federal laws in such popular places as Olympic National Park, Glacier Park, the Great Lakes and the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area.
Under the GOP plan, the Border Patrol would have free rein to do such things as build roads and offices, put up fences, set up surveillance equipment and sensors, and use aircraft and vehicles to patrol in all national parks, forests and federal land in the zone.
Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said the Border Patrol "has become encumbered with layers of environmental regulations," making it difficult to deal with drug smugglers, human traffickers and other criminals who are targeting public lands along the U.S. borders.
The committee passed the plan on a 26-17 party-line vote this month.
A vote by the full House is expected soon, though no date has been set, and similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.
In Washington state, where the zone would include nearly half the state, Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire is questioning why such a law is needed. She noted that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Border Patrol, has not asked for the change.
"The current approach, partnering with sister agencies - Interior and USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) - seems a reasonable approach," Gregoire said.
Environmental groups say they're alarmed by the proposal.
Jane Danowitz, the Pew Environment Group's director of public lands, called the plan a sweeping waiver of environmental laws that would allow a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands and hurt water quality.
"We're talking about waiving laws that protect habitat and clean air and clean water in national parks and other beloved places that Americans really cherish - and that belong to all of us," she said.
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee's subcommittee on forests and public lands Subcommittee and the bill's chief sponsor, said the legislation is needed because the Border Patrol does not have sufficient access to millions of acres of federally controlled land.
"The policies of the United States unfortunately and unwittingly make it easier for illegals to come across public lands," he said.
While the Border Patrol has access to federal lands, it must follow procedures set up by other agencies. The bill would change that by giving the Border Patrol immediate access to any federal land. And it would specifically bar the U.S. Department of Interior and the USDA from "impeding, prohibiting or restricting" any work done by the Border Patrol in the 100-mile zone. The law would expire in five years.
At a hearing of Bishop's subcommittee in July, the Obama administration said it the legislation is unnecessary.
Kim Thorsen, a deputy assistant secretary with the Department of Interior, said a better way to protect the border would be to use "the current approach of collaborating among departments and using the best expertise in each to solve problems."
"We also believe that these two objectives - securing our borders and conserving our federal lands - are not mutually exclusive," she said. "We are not faced with a choice between the two. Instead, we can - and should - do both."
John Leshy, a professor at the U.C. Hastings College of the Law, told the subcommittee that he questions whether such a law would be constitutional, calling the bill "the most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind I have ever seen."
"I firmly believe this legislation goes way, way beyond what is necessary and proper, in our constitutional system, to enforce the immigration laws," Leshy said.
Rep Edward Markey, D-Mass., the ranking minority member the Natural Resources Committee, called the bill shortsighted and "just nonsense."
"Expert after expert has explained to House Republicans that waiving all environmental protections affecting the air, water and entire ecosystems within 100 miles of our borders is not the answer to border security challenges, but they turned a deaf ear with this misguided legislation," Markey said.
Supporters of the legislation have enlisted support from a wide variety of groups, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, United Four-Wheel Drive Associations, the National Association of Police Organizations and the Motorcycle Industry Council. The motorcycle group said an unsecured border "that allows terrorists or other lawbreakers to roam our public lands represents a real threat to riders who wish to responsibly recreate near these lands."
At first, backers wanted to create a 100-mile zone that would extend around the entire nation. But as a compromise, they scaled back the proposal, dropping off federal land that borders the West and East coasts.
As a result, the zone would stretch from Washington to Maine in the north, and from California to Texas in the south.
The bill, which the GOP calls the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, is part of the 2010 "Pledge to America," in which Republicans vowed to give the Border Patrol more "tools and authorities to establish operational control" along the U.S. borders.
Hastings called it an attempt "to prioritize national security over bureaucratic red tape."
Danowitz said House Republicans are trying to use national security as a reason to weaken clean air and water laws, knowing that such proposals would never pass on their own. And she called the bill part of a GOP trend, representing one of many pieces of anti-environmental legislation moving in Hastings' committee and the GOP-led House.
"The number of proposals to roll back key environmental protections is so large that almost anything can happen," Danowitz said. "And this is largely going on without real public awareness. That combination is not a good one."
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/23/3224702/republican-bill-would-allow-border.html#ixzz1bhneiMNH
October 23, 2011
By ROB HOTAKAINEN
WASHINGTON -House Republicans want to give the U.S. Border Patrol unprecedented authority to ignore 36 environmental laws on federal land in a 100-mile zone along the Canadian and Mexican borders.
If the legislation is approved, the Border Patrol would not have to comply with the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act and 32 other federal laws in such popular places as Olympic National Park, Glacier Park, the Great Lakes and the Boundary Waters Wilderness Area.
Under the GOP plan, the Border Patrol would have free rein to do such things as build roads and offices, put up fences, set up surveillance equipment and sensors, and use aircraft and vehicles to patrol in all national parks, forests and federal land in the zone.
Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash., chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, said the Border Patrol "has become encumbered with layers of environmental regulations," making it difficult to deal with drug smugglers, human traffickers and other criminals who are targeting public lands along the U.S. borders.
The committee passed the plan on a 26-17 party-line vote this month.
A vote by the full House is expected soon, though no date has been set, and similar legislation has been introduced in the Senate.
In Washington state, where the zone would include nearly half the state, Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire is questioning why such a law is needed. She noted that the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the Border Patrol, has not asked for the change.
"The current approach, partnering with sister agencies - Interior and USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture) - seems a reasonable approach," Gregoire said.
Environmental groups say they're alarmed by the proposal.
Jane Danowitz, the Pew Environment Group's director of public lands, called the plan a sweeping waiver of environmental laws that would allow a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands and hurt water quality.
"We're talking about waiving laws that protect habitat and clean air and clean water in national parks and other beloved places that Americans really cherish - and that belong to all of us," she said.
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee's subcommittee on forests and public lands Subcommittee and the bill's chief sponsor, said the legislation is needed because the Border Patrol does not have sufficient access to millions of acres of federally controlled land.
"The policies of the United States unfortunately and unwittingly make it easier for illegals to come across public lands," he said.
While the Border Patrol has access to federal lands, it must follow procedures set up by other agencies. The bill would change that by giving the Border Patrol immediate access to any federal land. And it would specifically bar the U.S. Department of Interior and the USDA from "impeding, prohibiting or restricting" any work done by the Border Patrol in the 100-mile zone. The law would expire in five years.
At a hearing of Bishop's subcommittee in July, the Obama administration said it the legislation is unnecessary.
Kim Thorsen, a deputy assistant secretary with the Department of Interior, said a better way to protect the border would be to use "the current approach of collaborating among departments and using the best expertise in each to solve problems."
"We also believe that these two objectives - securing our borders and conserving our federal lands - are not mutually exclusive," she said. "We are not faced with a choice between the two. Instead, we can - and should - do both."
John Leshy, a professor at the U.C. Hastings College of the Law, told the subcommittee that he questions whether such a law would be constitutional, calling the bill "the most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind I have ever seen."
"I firmly believe this legislation goes way, way beyond what is necessary and proper, in our constitutional system, to enforce the immigration laws," Leshy said.
Rep Edward Markey, D-Mass., the ranking minority member the Natural Resources Committee, called the bill shortsighted and "just nonsense."
"Expert after expert has explained to House Republicans that waiving all environmental protections affecting the air, water and entire ecosystems within 100 miles of our borders is not the answer to border security challenges, but they turned a deaf ear with this misguided legislation," Markey said.
Supporters of the legislation have enlisted support from a wide variety of groups, including the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, United Four-Wheel Drive Associations, the National Association of Police Organizations and the Motorcycle Industry Council. The motorcycle group said an unsecured border "that allows terrorists or other lawbreakers to roam our public lands represents a real threat to riders who wish to responsibly recreate near these lands."
At first, backers wanted to create a 100-mile zone that would extend around the entire nation. But as a compromise, they scaled back the proposal, dropping off federal land that borders the West and East coasts.
As a result, the zone would stretch from Washington to Maine in the north, and from California to Texas in the south.
The bill, which the GOP calls the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, is part of the 2010 "Pledge to America," in which Republicans vowed to give the Border Patrol more "tools and authorities to establish operational control" along the U.S. borders.
Hastings called it an attempt "to prioritize national security over bureaucratic red tape."
Danowitz said House Republicans are trying to use national security as a reason to weaken clean air and water laws, knowing that such proposals would never pass on their own. And she called the bill part of a GOP trend, representing one of many pieces of anti-environmental legislation moving in Hastings' committee and the GOP-led House.
"The number of proposals to roll back key environmental protections is so large that almost anything can happen," Danowitz said. "And this is largely going on without real public awareness. That combination is not a good one."
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/10/23/3224702/republican-bill-would-allow-border.html#ixzz1bhneiMNH
Sunday, October 16, 2011
Bill before U.S. House would give Border Patrol unprecedented powers in Olympic National Park
Peninsula Daily News
October 16, 2011
By Paul Gottlieb
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Border Patrol could build roads in Olympic National Park and other wilderness areas without approval from the federal departments of Interior and Agriculture under legislation that has survived a key congressional committee's vote.
House leadership is deciding if the National Security and Lands Protection Act, approved 26-17 on Oct. 5 by the House Committee on Natural Resources, will go to the House floor for a vote, committee spokeswoman Crystal Feldman said Friday.
The bill, HR 1505, would grant broad new powers to U.S. Customs and Border Protection — the umbrella agency for the Border Patrol — within 100 miles of the northern border with Canada and southern border with Mexico.
Under the provisions of the bill, the agency would have “immediate access” to any public land managed by the federal government “for purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol and set up monitoring equipment).”
It allows the agency to waive the Endangered Species Act and three dozen other mostly environmental laws within that zone and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which guarantees access to religious sites and protection of “sacred objects.”
Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Bishop of Utah sponsored HR 1505 and chairs the Natural Resources Committee.
George Behan, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, whose constituency includes Clallam and Jefferson counties, said Friday that it's unlikely the bill will gain any traction.
“It's way too broad and is not expected to move anywhere other than [Bishop's] committee,” Behan said.
But it's created somewhat of a stir on the North Olympic Peninsula, where increased Border Patrol staffing and patrols sparked the formation of Port Angeles-based Stop the Checkpoints, which has picketed the site of a new, under-construction $5.7 million Border Patrol station two miles east of downtown Port Angeles.
“To me, this is like using the fear of immigration and terrorism to do away with environmental protections as part of the overall right-wing movement,” Lois Danks, the group's organizer, said last week.
Supporters of the proposed law said the legislation would put the Border Patrol on a level playing field with drug smugglers and human traffickers on the nation's southern border who have no regard for laws, environmental or otherwise, and can act with impunity in such regions as designated wilderness areas, where motorized transport is forbidden.
“Cartels have figured out that the Border Patrol can't maintain a routine presence on federal lands,” said Melissa Subbotin, spokeswoman for Bishop.
The bill seeks to achieve “operational control” over international land borders.
It would prevent the secretary of the interior, who manages Olympic National Park and other national parks, and the secretary of agriculture, who manages national forests — including Olympic National Forest — from blocking U.S. Customs and Border Protection's efforts to “achieve operational control” over a 100-mile band south of the Canadian border.
Operational control was defined by U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher, testifying Feb. 15 before the House Committee on Homeland Security, as “the ability to detect, identify, classify and then respond to and resolve illegal entries along our U.S. Borders.”
To that end, the Border Patrol would be allowed to conduct vehicle patrols of designated wilderness areas, where motorized vehicles are otherwise banned.
The Border Patrol now has vehicle access to existing roads in Olympic National Park, said Blaine Sector spokesman Richard Sinks.
Sinks said the Border Patrol maintains “situational awareness” of wilderness areas by working with the Forest Service, Department of Interior and county, state and tribal law enforcement agencies and “is continually analyzing the threat to and through the wilderness park areas.”
But what about building a road in Olympic National Park where there isn't one now?
Border Patrol spokeswoman Kerry Rogers said the agency does not comment on pending legislation.
And park officials have not yet studied the bill and its implications, park spokeswoman Barb Maynes said Friday.
The law would open up to Border Patrol vehicular activity to the 44,258-acre Buckhorn Wilderness Area, which abuts Olympic National Park's eastern boundary, and the 166,825-acre Brothers Wilderness Area in Olympic National Forest in Jefferson County — where motorized vehicle traffic is not allowed.
That doesn't sit well with the Washington Wilderness Coalition, whose conservation director called the legislation “an extreme kind of overreaction.”
“It's like heating your house with a flamethrower,” Tom Uniack said, fearful the legislation could open the door to more widespread abandonment of “cornerstone environmental laws.”
The legislation was not aimed at activities on the U.S.-Canadian border, Subbotin said.
“It was written specifically to address issues along the southern border, but it's hard to exclude the northern border,” she said.
“This would remove the checkerboard pattern of where the Border Patrol can and can't patrol.”
Funding for such projects as roads also could be an issue.
Congress “would still have to appropriate funds” for road-building projects, Feldman said.
“The only reason they would construct roads is if there is criminal activity going on,” she added.
“They would need to ensure operational control at the border if there is evidence of criminal activity.”
Asked how likely it is that the Border Patrol would waive environmental and land management laws along the northern border, Feldman said, “It's an unlikely site for large-scale illegal entry.”
If passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama, the law would sunset in five years.
“That does not change my concerns at all,” Uniack said.
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20111016/NEWS/310169986/bill-before-us-house-would-give-border-patrol-unprecedented-powers
October 16, 2011
By Paul Gottlieb
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Border Patrol could build roads in Olympic National Park and other wilderness areas without approval from the federal departments of Interior and Agriculture under legislation that has survived a key congressional committee's vote.
House leadership is deciding if the National Security and Lands Protection Act, approved 26-17 on Oct. 5 by the House Committee on Natural Resources, will go to the House floor for a vote, committee spokeswoman Crystal Feldman said Friday.
The bill, HR 1505, would grant broad new powers to U.S. Customs and Border Protection — the umbrella agency for the Border Patrol — within 100 miles of the northern border with Canada and southern border with Mexico.
Under the provisions of the bill, the agency would have “immediate access” to any public land managed by the federal government “for purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol and set up monitoring equipment).”
It allows the agency to waive the Endangered Species Act and three dozen other mostly environmental laws within that zone and the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, which guarantees access to religious sites and protection of “sacred objects.”
Republican U.S. Rep. Bob Bishop of Utah sponsored HR 1505 and chairs the Natural Resources Committee.
George Behan, a spokesman for U.S. Rep. Norm Dicks, whose constituency includes Clallam and Jefferson counties, said Friday that it's unlikely the bill will gain any traction.
“It's way too broad and is not expected to move anywhere other than [Bishop's] committee,” Behan said.
But it's created somewhat of a stir on the North Olympic Peninsula, where increased Border Patrol staffing and patrols sparked the formation of Port Angeles-based Stop the Checkpoints, which has picketed the site of a new, under-construction $5.7 million Border Patrol station two miles east of downtown Port Angeles.
“To me, this is like using the fear of immigration and terrorism to do away with environmental protections as part of the overall right-wing movement,” Lois Danks, the group's organizer, said last week.
Supporters of the proposed law said the legislation would put the Border Patrol on a level playing field with drug smugglers and human traffickers on the nation's southern border who have no regard for laws, environmental or otherwise, and can act with impunity in such regions as designated wilderness areas, where motorized transport is forbidden.
“Cartels have figured out that the Border Patrol can't maintain a routine presence on federal lands,” said Melissa Subbotin, spokeswoman for Bishop.
The bill seeks to achieve “operational control” over international land borders.
It would prevent the secretary of the interior, who manages Olympic National Park and other national parks, and the secretary of agriculture, who manages national forests — including Olympic National Forest — from blocking U.S. Customs and Border Protection's efforts to “achieve operational control” over a 100-mile band south of the Canadian border.
Operational control was defined by U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael Fisher, testifying Feb. 15 before the House Committee on Homeland Security, as “the ability to detect, identify, classify and then respond to and resolve illegal entries along our U.S. Borders.”
To that end, the Border Patrol would be allowed to conduct vehicle patrols of designated wilderness areas, where motorized vehicles are otherwise banned.
The Border Patrol now has vehicle access to existing roads in Olympic National Park, said Blaine Sector spokesman Richard Sinks.
Sinks said the Border Patrol maintains “situational awareness” of wilderness areas by working with the Forest Service, Department of Interior and county, state and tribal law enforcement agencies and “is continually analyzing the threat to and through the wilderness park areas.”
But what about building a road in Olympic National Park where there isn't one now?
Border Patrol spokeswoman Kerry Rogers said the agency does not comment on pending legislation.
And park officials have not yet studied the bill and its implications, park spokeswoman Barb Maynes said Friday.
The law would open up to Border Patrol vehicular activity to the 44,258-acre Buckhorn Wilderness Area, which abuts Olympic National Park's eastern boundary, and the 166,825-acre Brothers Wilderness Area in Olympic National Forest in Jefferson County — where motorized vehicle traffic is not allowed.
That doesn't sit well with the Washington Wilderness Coalition, whose conservation director called the legislation “an extreme kind of overreaction.”
“It's like heating your house with a flamethrower,” Tom Uniack said, fearful the legislation could open the door to more widespread abandonment of “cornerstone environmental laws.”
The legislation was not aimed at activities on the U.S.-Canadian border, Subbotin said.
“It was written specifically to address issues along the southern border, but it's hard to exclude the northern border,” she said.
“This would remove the checkerboard pattern of where the Border Patrol can and can't patrol.”
Funding for such projects as roads also could be an issue.
Congress “would still have to appropriate funds” for road-building projects, Feldman said.
“The only reason they would construct roads is if there is criminal activity going on,” she added.
“They would need to ensure operational control at the border if there is evidence of criminal activity.”
Asked how likely it is that the Border Patrol would waive environmental and land management laws along the northern border, Feldman said, “It's an unlikely site for large-scale illegal entry.”
If passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama, the law would sunset in five years.
“That does not change my concerns at all,” Uniack said.
http://www.peninsuladailynews.com/article/20111016/NEWS/310169986/bill-before-us-house-would-give-border-patrol-unprecedented-powers
Monday, September 19, 2011
House measure would expand Homeland Security powers, waive environmental laws
Great Falls Tribune
September 18, 2011
by John S. Adams
HELENA — A controversial bill that would give the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented authority over federal lands within 100 miles of the United States' border is making its way through Congress.
The proposed measure, called the "National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act," would let Homeland Security waive 36 major federal environmental protection laws in order to facilitate border patrol activities on public lands.
Supporters of the bill say it would give U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents more control in securing the nation's borders. Opponents argue that the measure is overly broad and would give Homeland Security unchecked authority to disregard major environmental laws on public lands, including wilderness areas, national parks and wildlife refuges among others.
Congressman Denny Rehberg, one of the 49 Republican co-sponsors of the measure, said the bill is aimed at giving border patrol agents the tools they need to secure the border.
"This bill is about ending a dangerous turf war being waged between various federal government agencies — and it's a turf war that is threatening America's national security," Rehberg said. "The simple idea of the bill is to provide the border patrol with the same access on federal land that it currently has on state and private land. There is nothing about this bill that creates any new authority to intrude into the lives of Americans."
Critics, including Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, say House Resolution 1505 is on par with the Patriot Act and REAL ID, in terms of granting the federal government unprecedented and overreaching powers.
"It's a federal land grab at its worst," Tester said. "I just can't see how any lawmaker would think it's a good idea to allow the Department of Homeland Security to make sweeping decisions about our land and ignore our rights without any public accountability."
The bill would give the secretary of homeland security total operational authority over all federal lands within 100 miles of the U.S. international and maritime borders. Under the proposed law, DHS would have immediate access to, and control over, any public land managed by the federal government for "purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol and set up monitoring equipment)."
In Montana, the law would impact nearly the entire northern third of the state, including Glacier National Park; portions of the Kootenai and Flathead national forests; The Flathead, Blackfeet, Rocky Boy's, Fort Belknap and Fort Peck Indian reservations, the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, and tens of thousands of acres of Bureau of Land Management lands.
The measure also waives 36 major environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service Organic Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and the Clean Air Act.
Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler said the agency does not comment on the specifics of pending legislation.
Kim Thorsen, deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, security and emergency management at the U.S. Department of Interior, testified to the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands that the Obama administration opposes the measure.
"We recognize the significant ecological and cultural values of the extensive lands Interior agencies manage near the borders, and we strive to maintain their character and fulfill our mission to protect and preserve these assets on behalf of the American people," Thorsen said in written testimony to the committee. "We also believe that these two objectives — securing our borders and conserving our federal lands — are not mutually exclusive; we are not faced with a choice between the two, instead, we can — and should — do both."
According to Thorsen, HR 1505 would have a significant impact on the Interior Department's ability to carry out its mission to protect natural and cultural resources on federally managed and trust lands.
"As drafted, this bill could impact approximately 54 units of the national park system, 228 national wildlife refuges, 122 units of the National Wilderness Preservation System managed by Interior, and 87 units of BLM's National Landscape Conservation System, resulting in unintended damage to sensitive natural and cultural resources, including endangered species and wilderness," Thorsen wrote.
John Leshy, a University of California - Hastings, law professor and a former committee staffer, told the committee that compared with other legislation he has seen, HR 1505 is "the most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind."
"I have grave concerns, not only about its wisdom as a matter of policy, but also its constitutionality as a matter of law," Hastings told the committee.
He also said that under the bill, Homeland Security's actions would be immune from court review, except for constitutional claims.
Supporters of the measure say that's exactly the point.
Zack Taylor, vice chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, said the foundational components of border security are national security and public safety. He said no other laws — including environmental protection laws — should ever supersede those foundational principles.
"What has happened is the importance on the environment has come to rule everything else," Taylor said in an interview last week. "In our view, the people are more important than the porcupine or the wolverine or the wolf or the grizzly bear."
Jane Danowitz, director of U.S. Public Lands for the Pew Environment Group, said the measure is part of a "disturbing trend" in Congress to undo environmental regulations in the name of public safety or national security.
"Anti-environmental bills that would never pass under their own merits are now being recast as solutions to some of the country's most pressing problems," Danowitz said. "We all care about national security and protecting our borders, but waiving core conservation measures is not the way to do it."
Supporters say the criticisms of the bill are overblown.
"HR 1505 isn't about creating new enforcement authority. Rather, it's about making existing laws actually work as intended by alleviating the regulatory burden of certain environmental laws," Rehberg said.
Rehberg said the bill is not just about preventing terrorists from entering this country, it also is about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, drug smuggling and the abuse of public lands by criminals and drug cartels.
"At the end of the day, I never want to have to tell a Montana family that their loved one was killed by someone on drugs that got into our state because some federal bureaucrats couldn't work together to control the border," Rehberg said.
Tester said the bill has far greater implications than its supporters acknowledge.
"This is a whole lot worse than just granting agents access to certain federal lands. It gives one federal department the ability to run roughshod over the rights of law-abiding Americans and seize vast swaths of land we all own and use — with no public accountability," Tester said. "This nation is very capable of fighting terrorism without turning into a government police state, but that's exactly what this unpopular plan would do."
According to the bill's sponsor, Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop, the measure could see a mark-up before the end of the year.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20110919/NEWS01/109190303/House-measure-would-expand-Homeland-Security-powers-waive-environmental-laws?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFrontpage%7Cs
September 18, 2011
by John S. Adams
HELENA — A controversial bill that would give the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented authority over federal lands within 100 miles of the United States' border is making its way through Congress.
The proposed measure, called the "National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act," would let Homeland Security waive 36 major federal environmental protection laws in order to facilitate border patrol activities on public lands.
Supporters of the bill say it would give U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents more control in securing the nation's borders. Opponents argue that the measure is overly broad and would give Homeland Security unchecked authority to disregard major environmental laws on public lands, including wilderness areas, national parks and wildlife refuges among others.
Congressman Denny Rehberg, one of the 49 Republican co-sponsors of the measure, said the bill is aimed at giving border patrol agents the tools they need to secure the border.
"This bill is about ending a dangerous turf war being waged between various federal government agencies — and it's a turf war that is threatening America's national security," Rehberg said. "The simple idea of the bill is to provide the border patrol with the same access on federal land that it currently has on state and private land. There is nothing about this bill that creates any new authority to intrude into the lives of Americans."
Critics, including Democratic Sen. Jon Tester, say House Resolution 1505 is on par with the Patriot Act and REAL ID, in terms of granting the federal government unprecedented and overreaching powers.
"It's a federal land grab at its worst," Tester said. "I just can't see how any lawmaker would think it's a good idea to allow the Department of Homeland Security to make sweeping decisions about our land and ignore our rights without any public accountability."
The bill would give the secretary of homeland security total operational authority over all federal lands within 100 miles of the U.S. international and maritime borders. Under the proposed law, DHS would have immediate access to, and control over, any public land managed by the federal government for "purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol and set up monitoring equipment)."
In Montana, the law would impact nearly the entire northern third of the state, including Glacier National Park; portions of the Kootenai and Flathead national forests; The Flathead, Blackfeet, Rocky Boy's, Fort Belknap and Fort Peck Indian reservations, the Upper Missouri River Breaks National Monument, the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge, and tens of thousands of acres of Bureau of Land Management lands.
The measure also waives 36 major environmental laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service Organic Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the National Historic Preservation Act and the Clean Air Act.
Homeland Security spokesman Matt Chandler said the agency does not comment on the specifics of pending legislation.
Kim Thorsen, deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, security and emergency management at the U.S. Department of Interior, testified to the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands that the Obama administration opposes the measure.
"We recognize the significant ecological and cultural values of the extensive lands Interior agencies manage near the borders, and we strive to maintain their character and fulfill our mission to protect and preserve these assets on behalf of the American people," Thorsen said in written testimony to the committee. "We also believe that these two objectives — securing our borders and conserving our federal lands — are not mutually exclusive; we are not faced with a choice between the two, instead, we can — and should — do both."
According to Thorsen, HR 1505 would have a significant impact on the Interior Department's ability to carry out its mission to protect natural and cultural resources on federally managed and trust lands.
"As drafted, this bill could impact approximately 54 units of the national park system, 228 national wildlife refuges, 122 units of the National Wilderness Preservation System managed by Interior, and 87 units of BLM's National Landscape Conservation System, resulting in unintended damage to sensitive natural and cultural resources, including endangered species and wilderness," Thorsen wrote.
John Leshy, a University of California - Hastings, law professor and a former committee staffer, told the committee that compared with other legislation he has seen, HR 1505 is "the most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind."
"I have grave concerns, not only about its wisdom as a matter of policy, but also its constitutionality as a matter of law," Hastings told the committee.
He also said that under the bill, Homeland Security's actions would be immune from court review, except for constitutional claims.
Supporters of the measure say that's exactly the point.
Zack Taylor, vice chairman of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, said the foundational components of border security are national security and public safety. He said no other laws — including environmental protection laws — should ever supersede those foundational principles.
"What has happened is the importance on the environment has come to rule everything else," Taylor said in an interview last week. "In our view, the people are more important than the porcupine or the wolverine or the wolf or the grizzly bear."
Jane Danowitz, director of U.S. Public Lands for the Pew Environment Group, said the measure is part of a "disturbing trend" in Congress to undo environmental regulations in the name of public safety or national security.
"Anti-environmental bills that would never pass under their own merits are now being recast as solutions to some of the country's most pressing problems," Danowitz said. "We all care about national security and protecting our borders, but waiving core conservation measures is not the way to do it."
Supporters say the criticisms of the bill are overblown.
"HR 1505 isn't about creating new enforcement authority. Rather, it's about making existing laws actually work as intended by alleviating the regulatory burden of certain environmental laws," Rehberg said.
Rehberg said the bill is not just about preventing terrorists from entering this country, it also is about stemming the flow of illegal immigrants, drug smuggling and the abuse of public lands by criminals and drug cartels.
"At the end of the day, I never want to have to tell a Montana family that their loved one was killed by someone on drugs that got into our state because some federal bureaucrats couldn't work together to control the border," Rehberg said.
Tester said the bill has far greater implications than its supporters acknowledge.
"This is a whole lot worse than just granting agents access to certain federal lands. It gives one federal department the ability to run roughshod over the rights of law-abiding Americans and seize vast swaths of land we all own and use — with no public accountability," Tester said. "This nation is very capable of fighting terrorism without turning into a government police state, but that's exactly what this unpopular plan would do."
According to the bill's sponsor, Utah Republican Rep. Rob Bishop, the measure could see a mark-up before the end of the year.
http://www.greatfallstribune.com/article/20110919/NEWS01/109190303/House-measure-would-expand-Homeland-Security-powers-waive-environmental-laws?odyssey=mod%7Cnewswell%7Ctext%7CFrontpage%7Cs
Friday, September 16, 2011
Environmental waivers enter DHS bill amid growing opposition
E&E
September 16, 2011
by Annie Snider
Efforts to let the U.S. Border Patrol waive environmental laws on public lands along the border advanced this week in a Senate spending bill.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Wednesday introduced an amendment to the fiscal 2012 Homeland Security spending bill that would give Border Patrol agents free access to public lands within 300 miles of the border with Mexico. The committee approved a modified version, 13-4, that scaled the provision back to a 100-mile zone.
Randy Serraglio, a conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity based in Tucson, Ariz., said McCain's amendment and the whole issue of a conflict between between border security and environmental protections is a red herring.
"There's a motivation for politicians to grandstand on the issue," he said. "Unfortunately, what underlies this issue in general is a lot of ignorance and hysteria that's driven by misinformation."
Serraglio said the proposed exemptions could have a devastating effect on wildlife. In his region of Arizona, he points to jaguar, ocelot and Sonoran pronghorn as some of the sensitive species that could be affected.
Although worded differently, McCain's amendment closely follows a bill introduced earlier this year by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) that applies to the northern, southern and maritime borders. So far, the bill has attracted 49 co-sponsors.
Bishop and other supporters say environmental protections prevent Border Patrol agents from doing their jobs along the 40 percent of border land that is under federal management. Specifically, they point to the 4.3 million acres of wilderness areas where motorized vehicles are generally prohibited (Land Letter, July 14; Greenwire, April 18).
But in two studies completed last fall, the Government Accountability Office found that even when they caused delays, environmental protections were not a significant hindrance to security operations.
And at recent hearings, Border Patrol, Interior Department and Agriculture Department officials have denied that there is a problem.
"Does the Border Patrol face challenges with respect to operating around protected lands when they are in our enforcement zones? Yes," Ronald Vitiello, deputy chief of U.S. Border Patrol, told lawmakers in April. "But we have been able to establish practical solutions to allow for mission success."
Many of those solutions came from a 2006 memorandum of understanding between the Customs and Border Patrol and land managers that gives Border Patrol agents greater access. Most notably, it allows the Border Patrol free access in exigent circumstances, like when in hot pursuit.
But Republicans say the Obama administration is putting a nice face on a dangerous problem.
"You can't come before the American people and say everything is rosy and fine," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a co-sponsor of Bishop's bill, told administration officials in April. "The American people are dying. They are getting killed because we have holes in our security ... and we're putting border patrols out there and saying, 'Oh, go on horseback, go on foot,' because we'd much rather protect this little cactus."
Local concerns
Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee have brought southern ranchers to testify about the dangers of the border region during hearings on Bishop's bill. But Hugo Tureck, a rancher and former chairman of the Central Montana Resource Advisory Council, said that is not an issue in his region.
Moreover, Tureck, who has been closely following recent debate over the Interior Department's ability to designate national monuments on federal land, said he saw hypocrisy in the fact that some of the same lawmakers who co-sponsored Bishop's bill this week decried the Antiquities Act as a "land grab" (Greenwire, Sept. 13).
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) "is talking about how the government has come in the middle of the night and taken away landowners' rights, but then he goes and proposes a bill that gives an agency extreme powers with no oversight," said Tureck, who grazes cattle on public land in Coffee Creek, Mont.
Tureck plans to pen an opinion piece in his local paper to alert Montanans to the issue.
"Homeland Security could stop timber sales, snowmobiles, hunting, they could kick cattle off the land and build a fence wherever they want -- that's all given to them," Tureck said. "Montanans just cherish their public lands. That's why we're here."
'A fundamentally scary piece of legislation'
For John Leshy, a professor at the University of California's Hastings College of Law and a former Clinton administration solicitor for Interior, the problem with the border security bills is that they prevent DHS from being challenged in court.
"This is a fundamentally scary piece of legislation," Leshy said of Bishop's bill. "DHS basically gets a pass on judicial review. You can only challenge them on constitutional grounds, you can't challenge it as being inconsistent with any statute."
Leshy pointed to an exemption that Congress granted DHS in 1996 that was expanded. First, DHS had the right to waive the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act for the construction of 14 miles of fenceline along the Mexican border. Then, in 2005, the right expanded to 70 miles of fence and all environmental laws. A year later, Congress extended the waiver to 400 miles of fence construction.
"If you've got the power, you're eventually going to exercise it," Leshy said. "That's just a fact of human nature."
September 16, 2011
by Annie Snider
Efforts to let the U.S. Border Patrol waive environmental laws on public lands along the border advanced this week in a Senate spending bill.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Wednesday introduced an amendment to the fiscal 2012 Homeland Security spending bill that would give Border Patrol agents free access to public lands within 300 miles of the border with Mexico. The committee approved a modified version, 13-4, that scaled the provision back to a 100-mile zone.
Randy Serraglio, a conservation advocate for the Center for Biological Diversity based in Tucson, Ariz., said McCain's amendment and the whole issue of a conflict between between border security and environmental protections is a red herring.
"There's a motivation for politicians to grandstand on the issue," he said. "Unfortunately, what underlies this issue in general is a lot of ignorance and hysteria that's driven by misinformation."
Serraglio said the proposed exemptions could have a devastating effect on wildlife. In his region of Arizona, he points to jaguar, ocelot and Sonoran pronghorn as some of the sensitive species that could be affected.
Although worded differently, McCain's amendment closely follows a bill introduced earlier this year by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) that applies to the northern, southern and maritime borders. So far, the bill has attracted 49 co-sponsors.
Bishop and other supporters say environmental protections prevent Border Patrol agents from doing their jobs along the 40 percent of border land that is under federal management. Specifically, they point to the 4.3 million acres of wilderness areas where motorized vehicles are generally prohibited (Land Letter, July 14; Greenwire, April 18).
But in two studies completed last fall, the Government Accountability Office found that even when they caused delays, environmental protections were not a significant hindrance to security operations.
And at recent hearings, Border Patrol, Interior Department and Agriculture Department officials have denied that there is a problem.
"Does the Border Patrol face challenges with respect to operating around protected lands when they are in our enforcement zones? Yes," Ronald Vitiello, deputy chief of U.S. Border Patrol, told lawmakers in April. "But we have been able to establish practical solutions to allow for mission success."
Many of those solutions came from a 2006 memorandum of understanding between the Customs and Border Patrol and land managers that gives Border Patrol agents greater access. Most notably, it allows the Border Patrol free access in exigent circumstances, like when in hot pursuit.
But Republicans say the Obama administration is putting a nice face on a dangerous problem.
"You can't come before the American people and say everything is rosy and fine," Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), a co-sponsor of Bishop's bill, told administration officials in April. "The American people are dying. They are getting killed because we have holes in our security ... and we're putting border patrols out there and saying, 'Oh, go on horseback, go on foot,' because we'd much rather protect this little cactus."
Local concerns
Republicans on the House Natural Resources Committee have brought southern ranchers to testify about the dangers of the border region during hearings on Bishop's bill. But Hugo Tureck, a rancher and former chairman of the Central Montana Resource Advisory Council, said that is not an issue in his region.
Moreover, Tureck, who has been closely following recent debate over the Interior Department's ability to designate national monuments on federal land, said he saw hypocrisy in the fact that some of the same lawmakers who co-sponsored Bishop's bill this week decried the Antiquities Act as a "land grab" (Greenwire, Sept. 13).
Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.) "is talking about how the government has come in the middle of the night and taken away landowners' rights, but then he goes and proposes a bill that gives an agency extreme powers with no oversight," said Tureck, who grazes cattle on public land in Coffee Creek, Mont.
Tureck plans to pen an opinion piece in his local paper to alert Montanans to the issue.
"Homeland Security could stop timber sales, snowmobiles, hunting, they could kick cattle off the land and build a fence wherever they want -- that's all given to them," Tureck said. "Montanans just cherish their public lands. That's why we're here."
'A fundamentally scary piece of legislation'
For John Leshy, a professor at the University of California's Hastings College of Law and a former Clinton administration solicitor for Interior, the problem with the border security bills is that they prevent DHS from being challenged in court.
"This is a fundamentally scary piece of legislation," Leshy said of Bishop's bill. "DHS basically gets a pass on judicial review. You can only challenge them on constitutional grounds, you can't challenge it as being inconsistent with any statute."
Leshy pointed to an exemption that Congress granted DHS in 1996 that was expanded. First, DHS had the right to waive the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act for the construction of 14 miles of fenceline along the Mexican border. Then, in 2005, the right expanded to 70 miles of fence and all environmental laws. A year later, Congress extended the waiver to 400 miles of fence construction.
"If you've got the power, you're eventually going to exercise it," Leshy said. "That's just a fact of human nature."
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Critics blast proposal while supporters decry limitations
Nogales International / Cronkite News
July 12, 2011
by Matthew Trotter
A bill that would grant the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented access to federal lands near the border was sharply criticized Friday for giving the department unchecked authority.
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act would let DHS waive 36 environmental-protection laws for patrol activities within 100 miles of U.S. borders.
Opponents of the legislation went so far as to call the bill, HR 1505, “particularly stupid” during Friday’s hearing of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. They called it overly broad and said it opened the door for DHS to completely disregard environmental-protection laws.
“1505 may succeed in decreasing immigration, but only because the water, air and environments of border communities will be so degraded, no one will want to come here,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat who represents Nogales and Rio Rico in Congress.
John Leshy, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings, testified that the legislation would make DHS “immune from review by the courts, except for constitutional claims.”
Supporters of the bill, however, said the current setup — a memorandum of understanding between DHS and federal land-management agencies — makes it impossible for Border Patrol to do its job.
“There’s a problem here in that Border Patrol is being restricted,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, the bill’s sponsor. “They are not the problem.”
The memorandum of understanding requires Border Patrol officials to get permission from land-management agencies before conducting operations on federal lands, from maintaining roads to installing surveillance systems.
Claude Guyant, founder of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, said the current system is an unnecessary distraction.
“Border Patrol’s focus must be on preventing illegal entry,” said Guyant.
While Border Patrol agents have the discretion to bend some rules in emergency situations, they typically have to comply with all laws affecting an area they want to access. In designated wilderness areas, for example, that would mean traveling only on foot or horseback.
Kim Thorsen, an Interior Department law enforcement official, testified that Border Patrol agents do have the latitude to do their jobs under the current setup.
“There is absolutely no restriction for Border Patrol to pursue anyone anywhere on federal lands,” said Thorsen, the Interior deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, security and emergency management.
In April, the Government Accountability Office reported the agreement had its flaws and the agencies were not always in full cooperation, but that most of the supervising officers surveyed said federal land laws were not affecting their areas’ security.
But Gary Thrasher, a veterinarian and rancher from Hereford, Ariz., told the committee he’s witnessed the impact of federal land laws on border security.
Thrasher, an Arizona Cattle Growers Association board member, said that more than once he’s had immigrants “crawl through the cat door” to spend the night in his locked barn.
Republicans on the committee said the bill was an attempt at keeping citizens like Thrasher safe, not a way of granting DHS unlimited power.
“All we’re trying to do is protect our nation, protect the people of the United States,” said Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho.
Leshy — referencing the unchecked power of the British king who moved the U.S. to declare its independence — said those who oppose the bill are also trying to protect the people.
“1505 would make DHS the George III of our age,” he said.
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/articles/2011/07/12/news/doc4e1c6544b68f1146229745.txt
July 12, 2011
by Matthew Trotter
A bill that would grant the Department of Homeland Security unprecedented access to federal lands near the border was sharply criticized Friday for giving the department unchecked authority.
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act would let DHS waive 36 environmental-protection laws for patrol activities within 100 miles of U.S. borders.
Opponents of the legislation went so far as to call the bill, HR 1505, “particularly stupid” during Friday’s hearing of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands. They called it overly broad and said it opened the door for DHS to completely disregard environmental-protection laws.
“1505 may succeed in decreasing immigration, but only because the water, air and environments of border communities will be so degraded, no one will want to come here,” said Rep. Raul Grijalva, a Democrat who represents Nogales and Rio Rico in Congress.
John Leshy, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings, testified that the legislation would make DHS “immune from review by the courts, except for constitutional claims.”
Supporters of the bill, however, said the current setup — a memorandum of understanding between DHS and federal land-management agencies — makes it impossible for Border Patrol to do its job.
“There’s a problem here in that Border Patrol is being restricted,” said Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, the bill’s sponsor. “They are not the problem.”
The memorandum of understanding requires Border Patrol officials to get permission from land-management agencies before conducting operations on federal lands, from maintaining roads to installing surveillance systems.
Claude Guyant, founder of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, said the current system is an unnecessary distraction.
“Border Patrol’s focus must be on preventing illegal entry,” said Guyant.
While Border Patrol agents have the discretion to bend some rules in emergency situations, they typically have to comply with all laws affecting an area they want to access. In designated wilderness areas, for example, that would mean traveling only on foot or horseback.
Kim Thorsen, an Interior Department law enforcement official, testified that Border Patrol agents do have the latitude to do their jobs under the current setup.
“There is absolutely no restriction for Border Patrol to pursue anyone anywhere on federal lands,” said Thorsen, the Interior deputy assistant secretary for law enforcement, security and emergency management.
In April, the Government Accountability Office reported the agreement had its flaws and the agencies were not always in full cooperation, but that most of the supervising officers surveyed said federal land laws were not affecting their areas’ security.
But Gary Thrasher, a veterinarian and rancher from Hereford, Ariz., told the committee he’s witnessed the impact of federal land laws on border security.
Thrasher, an Arizona Cattle Growers Association board member, said that more than once he’s had immigrants “crawl through the cat door” to spend the night in his locked barn.
Republicans on the committee said the bill was an attempt at keeping citizens like Thrasher safe, not a way of granting DHS unlimited power.
“All we’re trying to do is protect our nation, protect the people of the United States,” said Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho.
Leshy — referencing the unchecked power of the British king who moved the U.S. to declare its independence — said those who oppose the bill are also trying to protect the people.
“1505 would make DHS the George III of our age,” he said.
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/articles/2011/07/12/news/doc4e1c6544b68f1146229745.txt
Bill proposes Homeland Security takeover of National Seashore, coastal locations
Cape Cod Day
July 14, 2011
by Kaimi Rose Lum
PROVINCETOWN — A bill proposing to give the Dept. of Homeland Security ultimate control over federal lands located along maritime and international borders, including Cape Cod National Seashore, is making its rounds in the U.S. House of Representatives.
HR Bill 1505, the “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act,” would force the Secretary of the Interior to cede authority of coastal public lands, as well as lands located along the borders of Canada and Mexico, to the Secretary of Homeland Security when the latter sees fit. It would give the Dept. of Homeland Security the ability to construct roads and fences, deploy patrol vehicles and set up “monitoring equipment” in the National Seashore with impunity. And it would waive the need for the Dept. of Homeland Security to comply with environmental laws in areas within 100 miles of a coastline or international border.
The laws from which the Dept. of Homeland Security would be exempt include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and virtually every other piece of environmental legislation passed by Congress.
Rep. Rob Bishop, a Republican from Utah, introduced the bill in April. It was referred to the House committees on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Homeland Security, and on Friday, July 8, had its first hearing before the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, of which Bishop is chair.
Although it’s in its early phases, the proposed law has already met with strong criticism from Lynn Scarlett, a former deputy Interior secretary under President George W. Bush. And a spokesperson for Congressman William Keating (10th District) said Tuesday that the bill was in need of further clarification.
“While HR 1505 is just starting to be reviewed by the appropriate committees and as such, is subject to extensive modification, Congressman Keating believes the legislation in its current form needs to be clarified so as to appropriately assess the border security risk levels of various locations throughout the country and balance our national security against other vital protections, such as environmental safeguards, which should not be discarded haphazardly,” said Lauren Amendolaro, communications director for Keating.
Keating currently sits on the House committee on Homeland Security.
The Pew Environment Group has condemned the bill, calling it a “sweeping waiver of the nation’s bedrock environmental and land management laws” that has little to do with accomplishing the goal of national security.
“Instead, the proposed legislation would give unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands, impair downstream water quality and restrict activities such as hunting, fishing and grazing. It would leave Congress and the public without a voice, even though at stake are hundreds of popular destinations,” including Glacier National Park, the Great Lakes, the California coastline and Cape Cod, said Jane Danowitz, director of U.S. public lands for the Pew Environment Group.
Areas in which environmental laws would be waived under the proposed law include the entire border of Alaska, most of Puerto Rico, all of Hawaii and all of Florida. Other national parks that be would affected include Olympic National Park and Mt. Rainer National Park in Washington, Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico, Big Bend National Park in Texas, Acadia National Park in Maine and Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina.
The text of the bill states that its purpose is to “prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/capecod/visitor_guide/cape_cod_national_seashore/x593341642/Bill-proposes-Homeland-Security-takeover-of-National-Seashore-coastal-locations#axzz1ScNmMvJI
July 14, 2011
by Kaimi Rose Lum
PROVINCETOWN — A bill proposing to give the Dept. of Homeland Security ultimate control over federal lands located along maritime and international borders, including Cape Cod National Seashore, is making its rounds in the U.S. House of Representatives.
HR Bill 1505, the “National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act,” would force the Secretary of the Interior to cede authority of coastal public lands, as well as lands located along the borders of Canada and Mexico, to the Secretary of Homeland Security when the latter sees fit. It would give the Dept. of Homeland Security the ability to construct roads and fences, deploy patrol vehicles and set up “monitoring equipment” in the National Seashore with impunity. And it would waive the need for the Dept. of Homeland Security to comply with environmental laws in areas within 100 miles of a coastline or international border.
The laws from which the Dept. of Homeland Security would be exempt include the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Air Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and virtually every other piece of environmental legislation passed by Congress.
Rep. Rob Bishop, a Republican from Utah, introduced the bill in April. It was referred to the House committees on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Homeland Security, and on Friday, July 8, had its first hearing before the subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, of which Bishop is chair.
Although it’s in its early phases, the proposed law has already met with strong criticism from Lynn Scarlett, a former deputy Interior secretary under President George W. Bush. And a spokesperson for Congressman William Keating (10th District) said Tuesday that the bill was in need of further clarification.
“While HR 1505 is just starting to be reviewed by the appropriate committees and as such, is subject to extensive modification, Congressman Keating believes the legislation in its current form needs to be clarified so as to appropriately assess the border security risk levels of various locations throughout the country and balance our national security against other vital protections, such as environmental safeguards, which should not be discarded haphazardly,” said Lauren Amendolaro, communications director for Keating.
Keating currently sits on the House committee on Homeland Security.
The Pew Environment Group has condemned the bill, calling it a “sweeping waiver of the nation’s bedrock environmental and land management laws” that has little to do with accomplishing the goal of national security.
“Instead, the proposed legislation would give unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands, impair downstream water quality and restrict activities such as hunting, fishing and grazing. It would leave Congress and the public without a voice, even though at stake are hundreds of popular destinations,” including Glacier National Park, the Great Lakes, the California coastline and Cape Cod, said Jane Danowitz, director of U.S. public lands for the Pew Environment Group.
Areas in which environmental laws would be waived under the proposed law include the entire border of Alaska, most of Puerto Rico, all of Hawaii and all of Florida. Other national parks that be would affected include Olympic National Park and Mt. Rainer National Park in Washington, Carlsbad Caverns in New Mexico, Big Bend National Park in Texas, Acadia National Park in Maine and Cape Hatteras National Seashore in North Carolina.
The text of the bill states that its purpose is to “prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.”
http://www.wickedlocal.com/capecod/visitor_guide/cape_cod_national_seashore/x593341642/Bill-proposes-Homeland-Security-takeover-of-National-Seashore-coastal-locations#axzz1ScNmMvJI
Congress' border security bill could have big impact in Maine
Sun Journal
July 14
by Steve Mistler
Environmentalists and the state's congressional delegation are closely monitoring a controversial bill that would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to waive dozens of federal environmental laws along the nation's borders and coastline.
If enacted as written, the legislation could have a significant impact in Maine. The proposed broadening of Homeland Security power would allow the agency to conduct activities across the entire state while avoiding any one of 36 federal environmental regulations, including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
The legislation is born of congressional lawmakers' concerns over illegal immigration and increased calls to tighten border and coastal security.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who in April argued that a "turf war" between land managers and Homeland Security prevented border patrol agents from effectively enforcing the southern border with Mexico.
But the proposal also includes a 100-mile waiver belt that wraps around the nation's northern and southern borders and its coastline. The zone engulfs several entire states, including Maine.
Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environmental Group, based in Washington, D.C., said the bill would allow DHS to unilaterally waive 36 core environmental laws without consulting state or federal agencies.
"People in Maine, certainly people in the country, think that our borders should be safe and secure," Danowitz said. "But this, a sweeping waiver of environmental laws, doesn’t seem to be the way to accomplish this goal."
Jane West of the Conservation Law Foundation said the bill could have a wide range of consequences, including the impairment of hunting and fishing habitat.
"Imagine if the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was completely waived for the North Woods," West said. "Nesting eagles now could potentially have their habitat completely destroyed because Homeland Security deems that a fence may be appropriate for that particular area."
Opponents also note that DHS already has authority to bypass federal environmental laws through a 2006 memorandum of understanding drafted under President George W. Bush.
According to Danowitz, the memo includes checks and balances not present in the federal bill, H.R. 1505.
Rep. Bishop said during the bill's April 15 hearing that bureaucracy among agencies prevented the U.S. Border Patrol from moving quickly to plug holes in the border or to install surveillance and security equipment.
Bishop cited one case in which it took four months for Border Patrol to obtain a waiver from the required land manager to install a mobile surveillance camera. The result, he said, was a porous border where violence and drug and human trafficking were rampant — arguments he attempted to reinforce with a video set to foreboding music.
"People are being assaulted, raped and murdered on American land," Bishop said.
While the bill's opponents concede there are problems on the southern border, they are concerned about the breadth of DHS empowerment in H.R. 1505.
Former Clinton administration Department of Interior Solicitor General John Leshy told lawmakers in April that the bill was the "most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind."
Leshy said the bill effectively would allow Homeland Security, armed with 200,000 employees and a $55 billion budget, to "do what they want, without any advance notice, check, or process." He said such activity might include building fences, barracks or support equipment that would restrict the public's recreational and commercial activities.
Environmentalists hope the ranging impacts will be scaled back as the bill makes its way through Congress. However, West, with the Conservation Law Foundation, worried about the Washington political climate.
"Right now, it’s popular to cut the head off anything that looks green, especially when you throw in that immigration dynamic," West said.
Most of the state's congressional delegation have responded cautiously to H.R. 1505.
Earlier this year, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called for tighter border security along the northern border. Collins cited a Government Accountability Office report that called for additional oversight and coordination between U.S. and Canadian authorities to prevent drug trafficking and other illegal activity.
In a written statement, Collins said gaps in border security made the country vulnerable to criminal activity and terrorism, but added that "securing our borders and protecting our environment need not be conflicting goals."
Collins also cited testimony from President Barack Obama's administration that securing the border would result in less harm to the environment.
That argument was also made by Bishop, who said in April, "It's not national security that threatens our environment. It's a lack of national security that threatens our environment."
U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said in a written statement that securing the country's "porous borders" while protecting the environment were not mutually exclusive goals.
U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud, D-Maine, was more critical of the legislation, saying that he wasn't sure it solved the problem of border security. He encouraged better cooperation among the agencies.
U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, opposed the bill outright.
"I just don’t see how protecting endangered species and clean water stands in the way of national security," Pingree wrote in a statement.
She added, “We should certainly do everything to tighten our borders and make sure agencies are working together. But that doesn’t mean we should give Homeland Security the power to damage our environment and our way of life while they do it.”
http://www.sunjournal.com/state/story/1058998
July 14
by Steve Mistler
Environmentalists and the state's congressional delegation are closely monitoring a controversial bill that would give the Department of Homeland Security the authority to waive dozens of federal environmental laws along the nation's borders and coastline.
If enacted as written, the legislation could have a significant impact in Maine. The proposed broadening of Homeland Security power would allow the agency to conduct activities across the entire state while avoiding any one of 36 federal environmental regulations, including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
The legislation is born of congressional lawmakers' concerns over illegal immigration and increased calls to tighten border and coastal security.
The bill was introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who in April argued that a "turf war" between land managers and Homeland Security prevented border patrol agents from effectively enforcing the southern border with Mexico.
But the proposal also includes a 100-mile waiver belt that wraps around the nation's northern and southern borders and its coastline. The zone engulfs several entire states, including Maine.
Jane Danowitz of the Pew Environmental Group, based in Washington, D.C., said the bill would allow DHS to unilaterally waive 36 core environmental laws without consulting state or federal agencies.
"People in Maine, certainly people in the country, think that our borders should be safe and secure," Danowitz said. "But this, a sweeping waiver of environmental laws, doesn’t seem to be the way to accomplish this goal."
Jane West of the Conservation Law Foundation said the bill could have a wide range of consequences, including the impairment of hunting and fishing habitat.
"Imagine if the Migratory Bird Treaty Act was completely waived for the North Woods," West said. "Nesting eagles now could potentially have their habitat completely destroyed because Homeland Security deems that a fence may be appropriate for that particular area."
Opponents also note that DHS already has authority to bypass federal environmental laws through a 2006 memorandum of understanding drafted under President George W. Bush.
According to Danowitz, the memo includes checks and balances not present in the federal bill, H.R. 1505.
Rep. Bishop said during the bill's April 15 hearing that bureaucracy among agencies prevented the U.S. Border Patrol from moving quickly to plug holes in the border or to install surveillance and security equipment.
Bishop cited one case in which it took four months for Border Patrol to obtain a waiver from the required land manager to install a mobile surveillance camera. The result, he said, was a porous border where violence and drug and human trafficking were rampant — arguments he attempted to reinforce with a video set to foreboding music.
"People are being assaulted, raped and murdered on American land," Bishop said.
While the bill's opponents concede there are problems on the southern border, they are concerned about the breadth of DHS empowerment in H.R. 1505.
Former Clinton administration Department of Interior Solicitor General John Leshy told lawmakers in April that the bill was the "most breathtakingly extreme legislative proposal of its kind."
Leshy said the bill effectively would allow Homeland Security, armed with 200,000 employees and a $55 billion budget, to "do what they want, without any advance notice, check, or process." He said such activity might include building fences, barracks or support equipment that would restrict the public's recreational and commercial activities.
Environmentalists hope the ranging impacts will be scaled back as the bill makes its way through Congress. However, West, with the Conservation Law Foundation, worried about the Washington political climate.
"Right now, it’s popular to cut the head off anything that looks green, especially when you throw in that immigration dynamic," West said.
Most of the state's congressional delegation have responded cautiously to H.R. 1505.
Earlier this year, U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, called for tighter border security along the northern border. Collins cited a Government Accountability Office report that called for additional oversight and coordination between U.S. and Canadian authorities to prevent drug trafficking and other illegal activity.
In a written statement, Collins said gaps in border security made the country vulnerable to criminal activity and terrorism, but added that "securing our borders and protecting our environment need not be conflicting goals."
Collins also cited testimony from President Barack Obama's administration that securing the border would result in less harm to the environment.
That argument was also made by Bishop, who said in April, "It's not national security that threatens our environment. It's a lack of national security that threatens our environment."
U.S. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, said in a written statement that securing the country's "porous borders" while protecting the environment were not mutually exclusive goals.
U.S. Rep. Mike Michaud, D-Maine, was more critical of the legislation, saying that he wasn't sure it solved the problem of border security. He encouraged better cooperation among the agencies.
U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine, opposed the bill outright.
"I just don’t see how protecting endangered species and clean water stands in the way of national security," Pingree wrote in a statement.
She added, “We should certainly do everything to tighten our borders and make sure agencies are working together. But that doesn’t mean we should give Homeland Security the power to damage our environment and our way of life while they do it.”
http://www.sunjournal.com/state/story/1058998
Pew skewers border-security bill that would roll back environmental laws on public lands
Colorado Independent
July 8, 2011
by David O. Williams
Pew Environment Group officials on Thursday said a proposed U.S. House bill aimed at increasing border security gives “unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands …”
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act (H.R. 1505), debated Thursday by the House Natural Resources Committee, would allow the Department of Homeland Security to override 36 environmental laws and other types of laws governing the management of federal, state and private lands within 100 miles of the United States border and coastline.
“While we strongly support making America’s borders more secure, this sweeping waiver of the nation’s bedrock environmental and land management laws has little to do with accomplishing that goal,” said Jane Danowitz, Pew Environment Group’s director of U.S. public lands.
Introduced in April by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, H.R. 1505 would “prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.”
Bishop is chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, and his bill would apply to 10 states in their entirety, including all of Hawaii and Florida (see detailed Pew map).
“The proposed legislation would give unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands, impair downstream water quality and restrict activities such as hunting, fishing and grazing. It would leave Congress and the public without a voice, even though at stake are hundreds of popular destinations including Glacier National Park, the Florida Everglades and beaches along Cape Cod, the Great Lakes and the California coastline,” Danowitz said.
All in the name of border security, the bill would waive the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Wilderness Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, National Park Service Organic Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
“We urge lawmakers to reject this and any future attempt to undercut fundamental environmental protections that have been on the books for decades,” Danowitz concluded.
http://coloradoindependent.com/93440/pew-skewers-border-security-bill-that-would-roll-back-environmental-laws-on-public-lands
July 8, 2011
by David O. Williams
Pew Environment Group officials on Thursday said a proposed U.S. House bill aimed at increasing border security gives “unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands …”
The National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act (H.R. 1505), debated Thursday by the House Natural Resources Committee, would allow the Department of Homeland Security to override 36 environmental laws and other types of laws governing the management of federal, state and private lands within 100 miles of the United States border and coastline.
“While we strongly support making America’s borders more secure, this sweeping waiver of the nation’s bedrock environmental and land management laws has little to do with accomplishing that goal,” said Jane Danowitz, Pew Environment Group’s director of U.S. public lands.
Introduced in April by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, H.R. 1505 would “prohibit the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture from taking action on public lands which impede border security on such lands, and for other purposes.”
Bishop is chairman of the House Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands, and his bill would apply to 10 states in their entirety, including all of Hawaii and Florida (see detailed Pew map).
“The proposed legislation would give unprecedented authority to a single federal agency to destroy wildlife habitat and wetlands, impair downstream water quality and restrict activities such as hunting, fishing and grazing. It would leave Congress and the public without a voice, even though at stake are hundreds of popular destinations including Glacier National Park, the Florida Everglades and beaches along Cape Cod, the Great Lakes and the California coastline,” Danowitz said.
All in the name of border security, the bill would waive the National Environmental Policy Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Wilderness Act, Federal Land Policy and Management Act, National Park Service Organic Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
“We urge lawmakers to reject this and any future attempt to undercut fundamental environmental protections that have been on the books for decades,” Danowitz concluded.
http://coloradoindependent.com/93440/pew-skewers-border-security-bill-that-would-roll-back-environmental-laws-on-public-lands
Wednesday, July 13, 2011
SCC opposes move to back DHS environmental waiver
Nogales International
July 12, 2011
by Jonathan Clark
A proposal for the upcoming meeting of the National Association of Counties would see the organization support a bill that seeks to waive environmental laws on certain federal lands in the name of border security. But the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors is critical of the plan, and passed a resolution last week urging the association not to back it.
The pending legislation, known as the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, or HR 1505, would exempt the Department of Homeland Security and its subordinate agencies from more than 30 environmental regulations on federal lands within 100 miles of any U.S. border or coastline.
The pending legislation, known as the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, or HR 1505, would exempt the Department of Homeland Security and its subordinate agencies from more than 30 environmental regulations on federal lands within 100 miles of any U.S. border or coastline. A resolution sponsored by five county officials from Utah and Arizona would have the National Association of Counties (NACo) urge Congress to pass the measure during its annual conference starting July 15 in Portland, Ore.
But by a 2-1 vote, the local board of supervisors passed its own resolution on July 6 to oppose the move. Supervisor John Maynard, who introduced the resolution, said that among other problems, HR 1505 raises questions of fairness.
“If law enforcement in the state of Arizona, or for that matter in our county or sheriff’s department, has to follow regulations, then I feel the officers in the federal government should have to follow those same regulations,” he said.
As for the proposed NACo resolution, Maynard noted that is not sponsored by any official from a border county (the Arizona sponsors are from Maricopa and Navajo counties), and he said that 100 miles of regulation-free access is too much.
“A half-mile within the border, anybody can build a road and do what they need to do, and maybe that’s part of the environment that we need to sacrifice for the situation we’re in,” he said. “But I think 100 miles is really excessive.”
What’s more, Maynard said, federal authorities are already doing a good job within the current parameters.
“The Department of Homeland Security, I quite frankly think, has improved significantly the work they are doing on the U.S.-Mexico border,” he said.
Supervisor Rudy Molera joined Maynard in voting to oppose the NACo resolution.
“We have so much wildlife and plant life that is protected right near the border, and it’s critical that we take care of it,” Molera said.
Dissenting Supervisor Manuel Ruiz said he had mixed feelings. While he understands the importance of protecting the environment, he said, smuggling activity in protected areas is also causing a lot of environmental damage.
Ruiz also expressed concern that current regulations are hindering the Border Patrol’s law enforcement efforts.
The bill
According to HR 1505, “The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have immediate access to any public land managed by the Federal Government ... for purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol, and set up monitoring equipment).”
Under the current rules, the Department of Homeland Security must conduct environmental impact studies before building roads or other infrastructure on public lands (a 2008 waiver excuses DHS of this requirement for the purpose of building border fencing and related access roads). Protected wilderness areas – like the 7,420-acre Pajarita Wilderness in the Coronado National Forest, approximately 15 miles west of Nogales – are generally off limits to motorized vehicles, but a memorandum of understanding in place since 2006 allows law enforcement agencies such as the Border Patrol to use vehicles on protected lands if they are in the midst of a pursuit.
Otherwise, they need special permission from the managing agency to conduct vehicular patrols or set up surveillance equipment.
In a news release announcing HR 1505, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) and the bill’s four other sponsors, all Republicans, accused federal land managers of “using environmental regulations to prevent Border Patrol from accessing portions of the 20.7 million acres along the U.S. southern border and over 1,000 miles of the U.S.-Canada border.”
“As a result, our federal lands have become a highway open to criminals, drug smugglers, human traffickers and potentially terrorists,” the news release said. “This has led to escalated violence and also caused destruction of the environment.”
The U.S. Forest Service did not immediately respond to questions about its relationship with the Border Patrol on Coronado National Forest lands. But prepared testimony from Jim Pena of the U.S. Forest Service for a hearing Friday on HR 1505 said the 2006 memorandum had helped to increase interagency cooperation in the area.
“USFS has routinely and expeditiously approved requests by DHS for forward operating bases, fixed and mobile surveillance structures, and road maintenance in the Coronado National Forest,” his statement read.
Local voices
Dan Bell, who runs a cattle ranch west of Nogales and leases grazing land from the U.S. Forest Service, said he doesn’t think the Border Patrol has the access it needs to properly secure the area. He said an exemption from federal environmental law would help.
“The Border Patrol is just not able to get to the border and so to get the infrastructure that needs to be put in place, the exemptions are important,” Bell said.
Environmental restrictions, he said, “just add another process that they have to go through, and there’s a lot of paralysis involved in that. It just gets bound up in process and nothing gets accomplished – or it takes a very long time to get things accomplished.”
But Wendy Russell said she and the other members of her conservation group Patagonia Area Resource Alliance, or PARA, “don’t want to see the land and wildlife sacrificed in the impossible task to secure the border.”
“We also don’t want to see where we live turned into a war zone by Homeland Security,” she said, adding that an environmental waiver for DHS would set a “dangerous precedent.”
“What other exceptions will be next? It’s the top of a slippery slope,” Russell said.
“We can not protect our homeland by degrading it,” said Ben Lomeli, a volunteer with the group Friends of the Santa Cruz River, who called measures like HR 1505 and an expanded border fence “band-aids to the symptom of a much larger underlying problem.”
“We need to recognize that this border represents what is probably the steepest economic gradient in the world,” Lomeli said. “A comprehensive reform of immigration laws is the only sustainable solution.”
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/articles/2011/07/12/news/doc4e1c652690e71672308548.txt
July 12, 2011
by Jonathan Clark
A proposal for the upcoming meeting of the National Association of Counties would see the organization support a bill that seeks to waive environmental laws on certain federal lands in the name of border security. But the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors is critical of the plan, and passed a resolution last week urging the association not to back it.
The pending legislation, known as the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, or HR 1505, would exempt the Department of Homeland Security and its subordinate agencies from more than 30 environmental regulations on federal lands within 100 miles of any U.S. border or coastline.
The pending legislation, known as the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act, or HR 1505, would exempt the Department of Homeland Security and its subordinate agencies from more than 30 environmental regulations on federal lands within 100 miles of any U.S. border or coastline. A resolution sponsored by five county officials from Utah and Arizona would have the National Association of Counties (NACo) urge Congress to pass the measure during its annual conference starting July 15 in Portland, Ore.
But by a 2-1 vote, the local board of supervisors passed its own resolution on July 6 to oppose the move. Supervisor John Maynard, who introduced the resolution, said that among other problems, HR 1505 raises questions of fairness.
“If law enforcement in the state of Arizona, or for that matter in our county or sheriff’s department, has to follow regulations, then I feel the officers in the federal government should have to follow those same regulations,” he said.
As for the proposed NACo resolution, Maynard noted that is not sponsored by any official from a border county (the Arizona sponsors are from Maricopa and Navajo counties), and he said that 100 miles of regulation-free access is too much.
“A half-mile within the border, anybody can build a road and do what they need to do, and maybe that’s part of the environment that we need to sacrifice for the situation we’re in,” he said. “But I think 100 miles is really excessive.”
What’s more, Maynard said, federal authorities are already doing a good job within the current parameters.
“The Department of Homeland Security, I quite frankly think, has improved significantly the work they are doing on the U.S.-Mexico border,” he said.
Supervisor Rudy Molera joined Maynard in voting to oppose the NACo resolution.
“We have so much wildlife and plant life that is protected right near the border, and it’s critical that we take care of it,” Molera said.
Dissenting Supervisor Manuel Ruiz said he had mixed feelings. While he understands the importance of protecting the environment, he said, smuggling activity in protected areas is also causing a lot of environmental damage.
Ruiz also expressed concern that current regulations are hindering the Border Patrol’s law enforcement efforts.
The bill
According to HR 1505, “The Secretary of Homeland Security shall have immediate access to any public land managed by the Federal Government ... for purposes of conducting activities that assist in securing the border (including access to maintain and construct roads, construct a fence, use vehicles to patrol, and set up monitoring equipment).”
Under the current rules, the Department of Homeland Security must conduct environmental impact studies before building roads or other infrastructure on public lands (a 2008 waiver excuses DHS of this requirement for the purpose of building border fencing and related access roads). Protected wilderness areas – like the 7,420-acre Pajarita Wilderness in the Coronado National Forest, approximately 15 miles west of Nogales – are generally off limits to motorized vehicles, but a memorandum of understanding in place since 2006 allows law enforcement agencies such as the Border Patrol to use vehicles on protected lands if they are in the midst of a pursuit.
Otherwise, they need special permission from the managing agency to conduct vehicular patrols or set up surveillance equipment.
In a news release announcing HR 1505, Rep. Rob Bishop (R-UT) and the bill’s four other sponsors, all Republicans, accused federal land managers of “using environmental regulations to prevent Border Patrol from accessing portions of the 20.7 million acres along the U.S. southern border and over 1,000 miles of the U.S.-Canada border.”
“As a result, our federal lands have become a highway open to criminals, drug smugglers, human traffickers and potentially terrorists,” the news release said. “This has led to escalated violence and also caused destruction of the environment.”
The U.S. Forest Service did not immediately respond to questions about its relationship with the Border Patrol on Coronado National Forest lands. But prepared testimony from Jim Pena of the U.S. Forest Service for a hearing Friday on HR 1505 said the 2006 memorandum had helped to increase interagency cooperation in the area.
“USFS has routinely and expeditiously approved requests by DHS for forward operating bases, fixed and mobile surveillance structures, and road maintenance in the Coronado National Forest,” his statement read.
Local voices
Dan Bell, who runs a cattle ranch west of Nogales and leases grazing land from the U.S. Forest Service, said he doesn’t think the Border Patrol has the access it needs to properly secure the area. He said an exemption from federal environmental law would help.
“The Border Patrol is just not able to get to the border and so to get the infrastructure that needs to be put in place, the exemptions are important,” Bell said.
Environmental restrictions, he said, “just add another process that they have to go through, and there’s a lot of paralysis involved in that. It just gets bound up in process and nothing gets accomplished – or it takes a very long time to get things accomplished.”
But Wendy Russell said she and the other members of her conservation group Patagonia Area Resource Alliance, or PARA, “don’t want to see the land and wildlife sacrificed in the impossible task to secure the border.”
“We also don’t want to see where we live turned into a war zone by Homeland Security,” she said, adding that an environmental waiver for DHS would set a “dangerous precedent.”
“What other exceptions will be next? It’s the top of a slippery slope,” Russell said.
“We can not protect our homeland by degrading it,” said Ben Lomeli, a volunteer with the group Friends of the Santa Cruz River, who called measures like HR 1505 and an expanded border fence “band-aids to the symptom of a much larger underlying problem.”
“We need to recognize that this border represents what is probably the steepest economic gradient in the world,” Lomeli said. “A comprehensive reform of immigration laws is the only sustainable solution.”
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/articles/2011/07/12/news/doc4e1c652690e71672308548.txt
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Border Fences Pose Threats to Wildlife on U.S.-Mexico Border, Study Shows
Texas Science
University of Texas Austin
July 11, 2011
by Lee Clippard
AUSTIN, Texas—Current and proposed border fences pose significant threats to wildlife populations, with those animals living in border regions along the Texas Gulf and California coasts showing some of the greatest vulnerability, a new study from The University of Texas at Austin shows.
“Our study is the first comprehensive analysis of threats to species across the entire U.S.-Mexico border,” says Jesse Lasky, a graduate student in the laboratory of Tim Keitt, associate professor of integrative biology. “The scale at which these fences stretch across the landscape is large, so it’s important for us to also have a large- scale view of their effects across the continent.”
Among the species at risk include four species listed as threatened globally or by both the U.S. and Mexico, and another 23 with small range sizes. The animals include the Arroyo toad, the California red-legged frog and the jaguarundi.
“We were able to identify a list of animal species that are most at risk and should be prioritized and monitored for change,” says Lasky. “We’re hoping this helps point decision-makers towards the animals to look at first when making priorities for conservation.”
Most at risk of extinction are smaller populations of wildlife that occur in more specialized habitats, the study shows. Even animals that may appear to have large ranges may live in isolated habitats within those ranges that can be heavily disturbed by border fences. Human population growth along the border also poses threats to the wildlife.
Lasky says when the ranges of these animals are separated by barriers, including border fences and roads, the animals’ ability to move is limited. The isolated populations are then more vulnerable to unforeseen disturbances, such as a hurricane or fire, which can wipe out an entire population. The isolation also increases inbreeding depression, which means the animals have limited opportunities to mix their genes with others and accumulate harmful mutations.
The study analyzed the ranges of 313 non-flying mammals, reptiles and amphibians and identified three major regions where wildlife is most vulnerable: the high human population areas of coastal California and coastal Texas and the unique “sky island” Madrean archipelago habitat in southeastern Arizona.
These regions have high numbers of vulnerable species. Some species in California have barriers that block as much as 75 percent of their ranges.
“The U.S.-Mexico border spans regions of extraordinary biological diversity as well as intense human impacts,” says Keitt. “Loss of biological diversity can have negative impacts on the ecosystem services that are the basis of our life-support system.”
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is waived from environmental regulations when building security infrastructure. There are about 650 miles of border fences and human migration barriers along the border.
The study, by Lasky, Keitt and coauthor Walter Jetz, an associate professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Yale University, appeared May 3 online in the journal Diversity and Distributions.
http://web5.cns.utexas.edu/news/2011/07/border-fences-threaten-wildlife/
University of Texas Austin
July 11, 2011
by Lee Clippard
AUSTIN, Texas—Current and proposed border fences pose significant threats to wildlife populations, with those animals living in border regions along the Texas Gulf and California coasts showing some of the greatest vulnerability, a new study from The University of Texas at Austin shows.
“Our study is the first comprehensive analysis of threats to species across the entire U.S.-Mexico border,” says Jesse Lasky, a graduate student in the laboratory of Tim Keitt, associate professor of integrative biology. “The scale at which these fences stretch across the landscape is large, so it’s important for us to also have a large- scale view of their effects across the continent.”
Among the species at risk include four species listed as threatened globally or by both the U.S. and Mexico, and another 23 with small range sizes. The animals include the Arroyo toad, the California red-legged frog and the jaguarundi.
“We were able to identify a list of animal species that are most at risk and should be prioritized and monitored for change,” says Lasky. “We’re hoping this helps point decision-makers towards the animals to look at first when making priorities for conservation.”
Most at risk of extinction are smaller populations of wildlife that occur in more specialized habitats, the study shows. Even animals that may appear to have large ranges may live in isolated habitats within those ranges that can be heavily disturbed by border fences. Human population growth along the border also poses threats to the wildlife.
Lasky says when the ranges of these animals are separated by barriers, including border fences and roads, the animals’ ability to move is limited. The isolated populations are then more vulnerable to unforeseen disturbances, such as a hurricane or fire, which can wipe out an entire population. The isolation also increases inbreeding depression, which means the animals have limited opportunities to mix their genes with others and accumulate harmful mutations.
The study analyzed the ranges of 313 non-flying mammals, reptiles and amphibians and identified three major regions where wildlife is most vulnerable: the high human population areas of coastal California and coastal Texas and the unique “sky island” Madrean archipelago habitat in southeastern Arizona.
These regions have high numbers of vulnerable species. Some species in California have barriers that block as much as 75 percent of their ranges.
“The U.S.-Mexico border spans regions of extraordinary biological diversity as well as intense human impacts,” says Keitt. “Loss of biological diversity can have negative impacts on the ecosystem services that are the basis of our life-support system.”
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security is waived from environmental regulations when building security infrastructure. There are about 650 miles of border fences and human migration barriers along the border.
The study, by Lasky, Keitt and coauthor Walter Jetz, an associate professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Yale University, appeared May 3 online in the journal Diversity and Distributions.
http://web5.cns.utexas.edu/news/2011/07/border-fences-threaten-wildlife/
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Environmental waiver in hand, agency boosts its stewardship
Nogales International
December 24, 2010
by Jonathan Clark
A Department of Homeland Security-sponsored public forum last week on an upcoming border fence and road-building project in Nogales looked pretty much like any meeting that a federal agency might hold as part of its National Environmental Protection Act requirements.
Engineers and experts manned poster displays that described the technical details of the projects and detailed the ways that issues like water quality, biological resources, soils and geology would be taken into account. Meanwhile, a team of stenographers and court reporters stood at the ready to document citizen concerns.
“The reason we’re here is we want your input, we want information from you,” said Greg Gephart program manager for tactical infrastructure for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at the start of the Dec. 14 meeting at the Holiday Inn Express.
We want to know what your concerns are on the projects, recommendations on how to do it differently, or how to do it better,” Gephart said, adding that those concerns and recommendations would be incorporated into the environmental planning documents for the project.
But whether CBP/Border Patrol follows any of the recommendations – or obeys federal environmental law during the planning or execution of the projects – is essentially optional.
For the past two-and-a-half years, the agency has been operating under a waiver that allows it to build border fencing and related infrastructure in the U.S. Southwest without having to adhere to more than 30 environmental laws. Then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced the waiver in April 2008 to allow the Border Patrol to skip the environmental review process and speed up its fence-building efforts.
“The waiver doesn’t mean we’re throwing out all environmental considerations,” Gephart said. “It’s just a method that allows us to expedite the construction.”
But that hurry-up approach worries local resident Carolyn Wemlinger, who attended last week’s meeting to express her concerns about the effects the fence-building effort might have on local hydrology. Wemlinger, who lives in the Kino Springs area, said she’s worried that the 2.8 miles of concrete-anchored, bollard-style fencing planned for central Nogales could exacerbate flooding problems by creating dams above ground and blockages below.
“They say they’re going to start in 2011, and they’re going to do all these impact reports. How are they going to have time? And is the public going to get to see those before they start?” she asked.
“I think it’s going to have a tremendous impact on the environment; we can see the impact on the environment out where we are, where the wall already exists,” Wemlinger said. “There are some environmental needs that I haven’t heard addressed. I want the (Border Patrol) agents to be safe and to be able to do their job, but you cannot tell me that it’s not going to have an impact on wildlife, on flora, on fauna.”
Jenny Neeley, conservation policy director for the environmental advocacy group Sky Island Alliance, said she wasn’t sure how much project planners would listen to concerns like Wemilnger’s. But if Homeland Security is genuinely interested in environmental impact and citizen participation, she said, there’s an easy way to prove it.
“If they truly wanted public involvement and public input, that is exactly what the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed to do,” Neeley said. “And that’s what we would really like the Border Patrol to be doing: to be working inside of federal environmental law, like every single other agency in the federal government.”
Checkpoint past
Waiver or no waiver, Keith Graves, district ranger at the Coronado National Forest’s Nogales Ranger District, is confident in CBP/Border Patrol’s approach. “Their environmental compliance process is right up there with anything anyone has done under NEPA,” he said.
But grass-roots advocates say CBP/Border Patrol’s track record shows that environmental concerns receive mostly lip service as the agency pursues its primary mission of bolstering border security.
“We’ve gone through it in the north part of the county with the checkpoint,” said Sherry Sass, president of Friends of Santa Cruz River. “We’ve gone through rounds and rounds with the Border Patrol on the checkpoint. And that seems to be what happens; there’s a lot of talk, and then they do what they’re going to do anyway.”
A lackluster effort to publicize last week’s meeting also demonstrates CBP/Border Patrol’s level of interest in soliciting environmental feedback, the critics say. Indeed, the Nogales International only learned about the event from a packet of information forwarded by an aide at U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ office. It then took phone calls to four different CBP spokespeople in Tucson and Washington, D.C. to confirm the meeting in time for a same-day preview article.
Attendance at the Dec. 14 meeting barely broke double figures. And while Gephart said citizens can submit feedback on the projects through Dec. 30, at the website BorderFencePlanning.com, as of Dec. 20, the address redirected browsers to a non-interactive, general information CBP page titled “TI Environmental Stewardship.”
“I think it’s pretty telling that we didn’t even know about (the Dec. 14 meeting),” Neeley said. “We didn’t even know about a meeting they had with stakeholders and we obviously consider ourselves to be a pretty big stakeholder.”
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/articles/2010/12/24/news/doc4d13cf394dac4215065411.txt
December 24, 2010
by Jonathan Clark
A Department of Homeland Security-sponsored public forum last week on an upcoming border fence and road-building project in Nogales looked pretty much like any meeting that a federal agency might hold as part of its National Environmental Protection Act requirements.
Engineers and experts manned poster displays that described the technical details of the projects and detailed the ways that issues like water quality, biological resources, soils and geology would be taken into account. Meanwhile, a team of stenographers and court reporters stood at the ready to document citizen concerns.
“The reason we’re here is we want your input, we want information from you,” said Greg Gephart program manager for tactical infrastructure for U.S. Customs and Border Protection, at the start of the Dec. 14 meeting at the Holiday Inn Express.
We want to know what your concerns are on the projects, recommendations on how to do it differently, or how to do it better,” Gephart said, adding that those concerns and recommendations would be incorporated into the environmental planning documents for the project.
But whether CBP/Border Patrol follows any of the recommendations – or obeys federal environmental law during the planning or execution of the projects – is essentially optional.
For the past two-and-a-half years, the agency has been operating under a waiver that allows it to build border fencing and related infrastructure in the U.S. Southwest without having to adhere to more than 30 environmental laws. Then-Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced the waiver in April 2008 to allow the Border Patrol to skip the environmental review process and speed up its fence-building efforts.
“The waiver doesn’t mean we’re throwing out all environmental considerations,” Gephart said. “It’s just a method that allows us to expedite the construction.”
But that hurry-up approach worries local resident Carolyn Wemlinger, who attended last week’s meeting to express her concerns about the effects the fence-building effort might have on local hydrology. Wemlinger, who lives in the Kino Springs area, said she’s worried that the 2.8 miles of concrete-anchored, bollard-style fencing planned for central Nogales could exacerbate flooding problems by creating dams above ground and blockages below.
“They say they’re going to start in 2011, and they’re going to do all these impact reports. How are they going to have time? And is the public going to get to see those before they start?” she asked.
“I think it’s going to have a tremendous impact on the environment; we can see the impact on the environment out where we are, where the wall already exists,” Wemlinger said. “There are some environmental needs that I haven’t heard addressed. I want the (Border Patrol) agents to be safe and to be able to do their job, but you cannot tell me that it’s not going to have an impact on wildlife, on flora, on fauna.”
Jenny Neeley, conservation policy director for the environmental advocacy group Sky Island Alliance, said she wasn’t sure how much project planners would listen to concerns like Wemilnger’s. But if Homeland Security is genuinely interested in environmental impact and citizen participation, she said, there’s an easy way to prove it.
“If they truly wanted public involvement and public input, that is exactly what the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was passed to do,” Neeley said. “And that’s what we would really like the Border Patrol to be doing: to be working inside of federal environmental law, like every single other agency in the federal government.”
Checkpoint past
Waiver or no waiver, Keith Graves, district ranger at the Coronado National Forest’s Nogales Ranger District, is confident in CBP/Border Patrol’s approach. “Their environmental compliance process is right up there with anything anyone has done under NEPA,” he said.
But grass-roots advocates say CBP/Border Patrol’s track record shows that environmental concerns receive mostly lip service as the agency pursues its primary mission of bolstering border security.
“We’ve gone through it in the north part of the county with the checkpoint,” said Sherry Sass, president of Friends of Santa Cruz River. “We’ve gone through rounds and rounds with the Border Patrol on the checkpoint. And that seems to be what happens; there’s a lot of talk, and then they do what they’re going to do anyway.”
A lackluster effort to publicize last week’s meeting also demonstrates CBP/Border Patrol’s level of interest in soliciting environmental feedback, the critics say. Indeed, the Nogales International only learned about the event from a packet of information forwarded by an aide at U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ office. It then took phone calls to four different CBP spokespeople in Tucson and Washington, D.C. to confirm the meeting in time for a same-day preview article.
Attendance at the Dec. 14 meeting barely broke double figures. And while Gephart said citizens can submit feedback on the projects through Dec. 30, at the website BorderFencePlanning.com, as of Dec. 20, the address redirected browsers to a non-interactive, general information CBP page titled “TI Environmental Stewardship.”
“I think it’s pretty telling that we didn’t even know about (the Dec. 14 meeting),” Neeley said. “We didn’t even know about a meeting they had with stakeholders and we obviously consider ourselves to be a pretty big stakeholder.”
http://www.nogalesinternational.com/articles/2010/12/24/news/doc4d13cf394dac4215065411.txt
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)