May 1, 2012
Houston Chronicle
by Tony Freemantle
Imagine sitting on a rock at Big Bend National Park gazing out over the Rio Grande at the Santa Elena Canyon on a clear day, Mexico so close you could reach out and touch it. Immemorial silence cloaks the soaring cliffs, broken only by the caw of a raven above and the rustle of the reeds in the river.
Then imagine the buzzy whine of a Customs and Border Protection four-wheeler patrolling the sandy banks, or the growl of a grader carving a road into the Chihuahuan Desert to a forward operating base, or a government helicopter bristling with surveillance equipment hovering overhead.
Hard to imagine?
A bill making its way through Congress would, in the interests of national security, bequeath to the Department of Homeland Security complete control of all federal lands in a coast-to-coast zone 100 miles south of the Canadian border and 100 miles north of the Mexican border from California to the Gulf of Mexico.
The bill, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop of Utah with strong Republican support, is being touted as a necessary step in securing the nation's borders. But it is also being roundly condemned as a thinly veiled attempt to "gut a century's worth" of environmental laws aimed at preserving public lands, historic sites and national monuments.
In essence, the National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act gives DHS, or more specifically U.S. Customs and Border Protection, authority to build fences, roads and operating bases, to use aircraft and to install surveillance equipment and sensors in some of the most pristine, environmentally sensitive lands in the nation - including Big Bend and Guadalupe national parks and Padre Island National Seashore in Texas.
And to clear the way for its stewardship of public lands, the agency would be exempt from compliance with more than 30 environmental laws - among them the National Environmental Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Air Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The bill has cleared committees in the House and is on the calendar for a vote on the floor. There is not yet a companion bill in the Senate.
'Really unnecessary'
Bishop and the other sponsors, including Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, argue that CBP's mandate to secure the nation's borders is being "thwarted" by the need to consult with and obtain permission from federal land managers - chiefly the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture - before conducting operations.
"The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office has found that less than half of the U.S.-Mexico border is under the operational control of the Border Patrol," Smith said in a statement. "At the same time, the Obama Administration prevents the Border Patrol from accessing federal lands in the name of environmental preservation. Because the Border Patrol is prohibited from securing federal lands, drug smugglers and human traffickers trample the earth and terrorize communities."
Opponents, including the Department of the Interior, CBP and national environmental organizations, charge that the proposed legislation is an "overreach," since a 2006 memorandum of understanding between border security agencies and federal land mangers already establishes the framework for cooperation between them.
"This is a solution looking for a problem," said Dan Millis, borderlands program coordinator for the Sierra Club. "There is already a framework in place for Border Patrol to work with public land management. If Border Patrol doesn't even have to try to work with managers, we will see a huge proliferation of roads, forward operating bases and fences on public lands."
The Coalition of National Parks Retirees is more blunt. The legislation would "gut a century's worth of land protection" laws and open up "millions of pristine acres of national parks" to unregulated intrusion.
"It's a really, really unnecessary bill," said Joan Anzelmo, a former superintendent of the Colorado National Monuments and board member of the organization. "It's an incredible assault on our national parks."
Other parks
In addition to Big Bend and Guadalupe parks in Texas, some of the other federal lands that fall within the 100-mile security zone, and hence under control of DHS, include Saguaro National Park in Arizona, Joshua Tree National Park in California, Olympic National Park in Washington, Glacier National Park in Montana, Boundary Waters Wilderness in Minnesota and Acadia National Park in Maine.
Bishop believes his bill will end a "turf war" between Border Patrol and federal land mangers who use environmental laws to block efforts to secure the nation's borders.
"What I want to do is get the Border Patrol what they need to secure the border," Bishop said, "and they tell me that what they need more than money and people is access. There are enormous swaths of public land that have effectively been ceded over to the drug cartels."
The DHS already has been granted waivers from a slew of environmental laws in order to build the controversial "fence" along certain sections of the U.S.-Mexico border, which environmentalists charge has already cause significant damage to Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona and to the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge in South Texas.
Giving control of all lands within 100 miles of the borders to a single agency is unnecessary, they argue, and poses a significant danger.
"This is worse than misguided policy, although it is certainly misguided," said Kevin Dahl, the Arizona project manager for the National Parks Conservation Association. "It's a real danger to the parks because it means that the people who have made a career of public land management are not in control."
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Some-see-border-security-bill-as-threat-to-3519901.php#page-1
Showing posts with label wetlands. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wetlands. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 1, 2012
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/
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
United States border fence threatens wildlife
Nature News
August 2, 2011
by Melissa Gaskill
The 1,000 kilometres of impenetrable barrier constructed along the Mexico–United States border, with the aim of stemming illegal human immigration, is also hampering the movements of animals, including several endangered species, a recent study finds.
The species most at risk are those with smaller populations and specialized habitats, says Jesse Lasky, a graduate student at the University of Texas, Austin, and an author on the study, published in Diversity and Distributions1. Small range size is associated with a higher risk of extinction, and for some species, the barriers reduce range by as much as 75%. According to the study, species most at risk include four listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as endangered or threatened — the Arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus), the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), the black-spotted newt (_Notophthalmus meridionalis_) and the Pacific pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) – together with the jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi), which is endangered in the United States and threatened in Mexico.
The study also identified three border regions where wildlife is most at risk from the barrier: coastal California, coastal Texas and southeastern Arizona's Madrean Sky Island Archipelago.
Fragmented communities
The Rio Grande Valley, in coastal Texas, contains one of two remaining stands of native Mexican sabal palms. The solid metal and concrete fence, around 5.5 metres high, with an 18-metre-wide strip of open land on either side, runs through a preserve created to protect the trees. Rare animals in the valley include the ocelot, of which fewer than 50 remain in the United States. The fence further fragments their habitat and separates the population in Texas from the larger and more genetically diverse population in northern Mexico.
The border barrier affects 60% to 70% of the habitat in the South Texas Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes the Laguna Atascosa, Lower Rio Grande Valley and Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuges. At the request of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), about 100 openings for wildlife were incorporated into the fence in this area. But, says FWS wildlife biologist Mitch Sternberg, who was not involved in the study, these openings are too small for larger animals such as coyotes or bobcats, and bobcats follow regular trails and may not find the openings. "Bobcats don't go out looking for holes in fences as they travel back and forth through brushy habitats. Overall, wildlife connectivity does not exist in these sectors anymore," he says.
Sternberg, who monitors the area's bobcat population using cameras and radio collars on around 20 bobcats, says that the border barriers bisected the home ranges of the tracked bobcats. "I tracked some cats for a long time before the wall construction and did see significant shifts in territories," he says. A pair of collared bobcats that lived on the south side of the wall were trapped on the north side, where they were later killed on a highway while searching for new habitat. The presence of this fence-restricted pair may have caused another male bobcat to wander into an urban area — a rare occurrence — where it was killed by a vehicle. Another tracked pair abandoned their home range during construction of the barrier in their area.
Sternberg hopes to collar additional cats to study distribution and movement patterns after barrier construction, but says "I'm afraid most of the previous bobcats are dead due to forced dispersal during construction, so it will be a real challenge to replicate the study in those areas."
Environmental mitigation
The barrier was mandated under the Secure Fence Act, signed into law by George W. Bush in 2006, and Michael Chertoff, the then Secretary of Homeland Security, waived environmental laws for its construction. In January 2009, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) committed US$50 million to fund mitigation of "unavoidable impacts to natural and cultural resources" from construction of the barriers, to be paid to the Department of the Interior over several years. In September 2010, CBP funded $6.8 million in mitigation projects, but approximately $30 million that was due to be allocated in 2011 was rescinded in the 2011 appropriations bill.
According to CBP spokeswoman Jenny Burke, the agency "remains committed to responsible environmental stewardship", and intends to resume the mitigation projects when funding permits.
The authors of the recent study1 recommend restoring historic connectivity through additional openings or removal of the barrier in key areas. Habitat restoration, particularly in areas where crossings are possible, could also mitigate some effects, Lasky says. "General land-use planning is important. We can plan new development and preserves with an eye to where we can promote connectivity and preserve areas where connectivity exists."
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110802/full/news.2011.452.html
August 2, 2011
by Melissa Gaskill
The 1,000 kilometres of impenetrable barrier constructed along the Mexico–United States border, with the aim of stemming illegal human immigration, is also hampering the movements of animals, including several endangered species, a recent study finds.
The species most at risk are those with smaller populations and specialized habitats, says Jesse Lasky, a graduate student at the University of Texas, Austin, and an author on the study, published in Diversity and Distributions1. Small range size is associated with a higher risk of extinction, and for some species, the barriers reduce range by as much as 75%. According to the study, species most at risk include four listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature as endangered or threatened — the Arroyo toad (Anaxyrus californicus), the California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii), the black-spotted newt (_Notophthalmus meridionalis_) and the Pacific pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) – together with the jaguarundi (Puma yagouaroundi), which is endangered in the United States and threatened in Mexico.
The study also identified three border regions where wildlife is most at risk from the barrier: coastal California, coastal Texas and southeastern Arizona's Madrean Sky Island Archipelago.
Fragmented communities
The Rio Grande Valley, in coastal Texas, contains one of two remaining stands of native Mexican sabal palms. The solid metal and concrete fence, around 5.5 metres high, with an 18-metre-wide strip of open land on either side, runs through a preserve created to protect the trees. Rare animals in the valley include the ocelot, of which fewer than 50 remain in the United States. The fence further fragments their habitat and separates the population in Texas from the larger and more genetically diverse population in northern Mexico.
The border barrier affects 60% to 70% of the habitat in the South Texas Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes the Laguna Atascosa, Lower Rio Grande Valley and Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuges. At the request of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), about 100 openings for wildlife were incorporated into the fence in this area. But, says FWS wildlife biologist Mitch Sternberg, who was not involved in the study, these openings are too small for larger animals such as coyotes or bobcats, and bobcats follow regular trails and may not find the openings. "Bobcats don't go out looking for holes in fences as they travel back and forth through brushy habitats. Overall, wildlife connectivity does not exist in these sectors anymore," he says.
Sternberg, who monitors the area's bobcat population using cameras and radio collars on around 20 bobcats, says that the border barriers bisected the home ranges of the tracked bobcats. "I tracked some cats for a long time before the wall construction and did see significant shifts in territories," he says. A pair of collared bobcats that lived on the south side of the wall were trapped on the north side, where they were later killed on a highway while searching for new habitat. The presence of this fence-restricted pair may have caused another male bobcat to wander into an urban area — a rare occurrence — where it was killed by a vehicle. Another tracked pair abandoned their home range during construction of the barrier in their area.
Sternberg hopes to collar additional cats to study distribution and movement patterns after barrier construction, but says "I'm afraid most of the previous bobcats are dead due to forced dispersal during construction, so it will be a real challenge to replicate the study in those areas."
Environmental mitigation
The barrier was mandated under the Secure Fence Act, signed into law by George W. Bush in 2006, and Michael Chertoff, the then Secretary of Homeland Security, waived environmental laws for its construction. In January 2009, US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) committed US$50 million to fund mitigation of "unavoidable impacts to natural and cultural resources" from construction of the barriers, to be paid to the Department of the Interior over several years. In September 2010, CBP funded $6.8 million in mitigation projects, but approximately $30 million that was due to be allocated in 2011 was rescinded in the 2011 appropriations bill.
According to CBP spokeswoman Jenny Burke, the agency "remains committed to responsible environmental stewardship", and intends to resume the mitigation projects when funding permits.
The authors of the recent study1 recommend restoring historic connectivity through additional openings or removal of the barrier in key areas. Habitat restoration, particularly in areas where crossings are possible, could also mitigate some effects, Lasky says. "General land-use planning is important. We can plan new development and preserves with an eye to where we can promote connectivity and preserve areas where connectivity exists."
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110802/full/news.2011.452.html
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Tijuana River Valley Residents Say Border Fence Contributing to Flooding
KPBS San Diego
December 7, 2009
by Amy Isackson
Tijuana River Valley residents say the new border fence is blocking drainage channels. They say rain is washing dirt from the new fence project into flood channels.
The Bush Administration waived all environmental laws to build the fence. Government officials promised to mitigate erosion. However, they didn't water the seeds they planted on the berm in Smuggler's Gulch until late this fall.
Dick Tynan, a rancher in the Tijuana River Valley, spoke with us while peering out his barn door towards the new border fence in Smuggler's Gulch.
Tynan said the bare dirt is creating a major problem.
"The government just dropped the ball on that," Tanyan said. "The water just takes the shortest path and its going to take out more silt as it goes. They've got a backhoe up there now working on it."
Tynan said the drainage channel that City of San Diego emergency crews have been digging is already half full.
He also said roads in the river valley have flooded. He's moved some of his horses to higher ground and is ready to move the rest.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/dec/07/tijuana-river-valley-residents-say-border-fence-co/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
December 7, 2009
by Amy Isackson
Tijuana River Valley residents say the new border fence is blocking drainage channels. They say rain is washing dirt from the new fence project into flood channels.
The Bush Administration waived all environmental laws to build the fence. Government officials promised to mitigate erosion. However, they didn't water the seeds they planted on the berm in Smuggler's Gulch until late this fall.
Dick Tynan, a rancher in the Tijuana River Valley, spoke with us while peering out his barn door towards the new border fence in Smuggler's Gulch.
Tynan said the bare dirt is creating a major problem.
"The government just dropped the ball on that," Tanyan said. "The water just takes the shortest path and its going to take out more silt as it goes. They've got a backhoe up there now working on it."
Tynan said the drainage channel that City of San Diego emergency crews have been digging is already half full.
He also said roads in the river valley have flooded. He's moved some of his horses to higher ground and is ready to move the rest.
http://www.kpbs.org/news/2009/dec/07/tijuana-river-valley-residents-say-border-fence-co/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)