AZTOY
Member
Fortifying border would hurt wildlife
Tucson, AZ, 02.05.2003 - Hoping to stem the flow of people and narcotics into the United States, the Border Patrol wants to put more fences, roads, sensors, cameras and stadium-style lighting in Southern Arizona.
By the agency's own estimates, that would damage 5,280 acres and kill 69,809 lizards, 4,487 birds and 2,842 mammals under a "worst case" scenario.
But while the Border Patrol says its stepped-up enforcement would "result in unavoidable environmental impacts," it has concluded the damage isn't sufficient to stop plans for the "tactical infrastructure" meant to bolster homeland defense and the war on drugs.
Environmentalists and some federal land managers aren't so optimistic, arguing that endangered species like the pygmy owl, Sonoran pronghorn and lesser long-nosed bat may be hurt by increasing militarization of the border.
Of particular concern is the elusive jaguar, which has been photographed three times in Southern Arizona since 1996. The cats are thought to have come north from breeding colonies in Mexico's Sierra Madre, one just 135 miles south of the border.
"The jaguars won't come north with this kind of fencing and lighting," said Scotty Johnson of the Defenders of Wildlife environmental group, which has previously sued the Border Patrol over its operations.
Some of the 249 miles of new fences proposed are "right in the heart of where most of the jaguar sightings have been in the last 100 years," he said.
The fences, typically 10 to 15 feet tall, would be backed up by a secondary set of fencing in some high-traffic areas.
Critics also doubt the effectiveness of the new projects and think they will put more migrants at risk. Last fiscal year, 163 border crossers died in Southern Arizona, according to an Arizona Daily Star analysis.
Agency's wish list
"People are going to be pushed into even more remote, desolate areas," said Chris Ford, co-director of the Tucson-based Border Action Network.
At issue is a 354-page environmental impact statement that the Border Patrol released in October in draft form. The massive document outlines the agency's wish list for its Tucson and Yuma sectors, which encompass about 400 miles of the border, much of it rugged, remote land in national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.
Between 1996 and 2001, the two sectors reported a 180 percent increase in apprehensions and a 100 percent increase in drug seizures. In the same period, the number of agents in the two sectors more than tripled.
The report gives no price tag or time line for construction.
"This doesn't mean we'll do any or all of these things," said Jim Caffrey, an official in the Border Patrol's facilities and engineering department in Washington.
More detailed environmental studies would be required before any work began, and construction would take at least nine months to get started after Congress approved funding, he said.
Under the agency's "preferred alternative," a maximum of 5,620 acres would be disturbed. But most of that would be along roads, fences and other areas that have already been altered. Most of the work would be within a half mile of the border, and most roadwork would be improvements to existing dirt roads, officials said.
In addition, stadium-style and portable lighting systems could illuminate up to 1,708 acres, with the bulbs burning 10 to 12 hours a day, 365 days a year.
The effects of lighting on many species of wildlife is "not presently known," the study said, but any effects are likely to be "short-term and minimal."
Lights might actually help insect-eating bats by concentrating food sources around the bulbs, the study argued.
The Border Patrol believes the infrastructure would greatly enhance its mission and make it easier to stop migrants and smugglers at the border, thus reducing the environmental damage caused by people moving north through the United States.
"It gives us the ability to use our manpower more effectively," Border Patrol spokesman Mario Villarreal said.
The Border Patrol study outlines three other alternatives that would cause less environmental damage:
* A "no action" option that would only continue ongoing construction projects.
* An added emphasis on technology, with expanded use of video surveillance, remote-sensors, stadium-style lights and elevated "skywatch towers."
* Expansion of "traditional" operations, such as checkpoints, aerial surveillance and dragging dirt roads with tires to make footprints easier to spot.
Even under the preferred alternative, the Border Patrol says it would minimize its impact by conducting wildlife surveys and steering activity away from sensitive habitat.
Refuges cope with traffic
Such habitat has been hard hit in recent years as land managers across Southern Arizona have wrestled with exploding numbers of illegal visitors to their backcountry, not to mention the drought.
Illegal border crossers have trampled endangered plants, started major wildfires and disturbed nesting areas for the endangered pygmy owl that has stymied growth in Northwest Tucson, according to a 2002 congressional study and interviews with land managers.
While some federal land officials complain the Border Patrol does its share of damage while chasing migrants and smugglers, most say the damage would be far greater without the law enforcement presence.
Bill Radke, manager of the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge east of Douglas, called the Border Patrol's new study "a good stab" at solving the problem. But in a formal response, he wrote that new roads, lights and fences "will create detrimental habitat fragmentation, and have a negative effect on long-term wildlife corridors, animal behavior, natural precipitation runoff, water quality, and air quality."
"On the other hand," he said in an interview, "I realize if they do these things everywhere except national wildlife refuges, where do you think the new corridors will be? I feel caught in the middle."
Despite fences, sensors and patrols, an estimated 1,000 border crossers enter Radke's refuge every month, sometimes bathing, urinating and defecating in the riparian habitat.
At the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, 50 miles southwest of Tucson, manager Wayne Shifflett said he would support four new surveillance cameras proposed for the refuge since they might serve as a deterrent and "wouldn't detract from the aesthetics of the refuge." He would also like to see better maintenance of the tattered barbed wire fence along the border that lets Mexican cattle come into a refuge that has eliminated grazing.
But, "I'd definitely oppose more roads," he said. "The only kind of fence I'd support would be one that's low in profile that would allow free movement of animals across the border."
Just such a low-slung fence is proposed for Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, where ranger Kris Eggle was shot and killed last August. Authorities say Eggle's killer drove through Organ Pipe's flimsy border fence as he fled Mexican police investigating a drug-related quadruple homicide. He was then killed in a hail of bullets fired by Mexican officers standing on their side of the border.
But if Organ Pipe gets a vehicle barrier, officials at neighboring Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge expect the traffic will shift to them. The 1,342- square-mile refuge already has about two dozen abandoned vehicles on its land at any time, said manager Roger Di Rosa.
But debates about infrastructure along the border obscure the bigger picture, he said.
"The solution is not on the border. It's in Washington, D.C., and Mexico City with immigration policy," he said. "Basically I'm sitting back in the foxhole watching the war."
* Contact reporter Mitch Tobin at 573-4185 or
http://www.msnbc.com/local/azstar/A1044435023.asp
Tucson, AZ, 02.05.2003 - Hoping to stem the flow of people and narcotics into the United States, the Border Patrol wants to put more fences, roads, sensors, cameras and stadium-style lighting in Southern Arizona.
By the agency's own estimates, that would damage 5,280 acres and kill 69,809 lizards, 4,487 birds and 2,842 mammals under a "worst case" scenario.
But while the Border Patrol says its stepped-up enforcement would "result in unavoidable environmental impacts," it has concluded the damage isn't sufficient to stop plans for the "tactical infrastructure" meant to bolster homeland defense and the war on drugs.
Environmentalists and some federal land managers aren't so optimistic, arguing that endangered species like the pygmy owl, Sonoran pronghorn and lesser long-nosed bat may be hurt by increasing militarization of the border.
Of particular concern is the elusive jaguar, which has been photographed three times in Southern Arizona since 1996. The cats are thought to have come north from breeding colonies in Mexico's Sierra Madre, one just 135 miles south of the border.
"The jaguars won't come north with this kind of fencing and lighting," said Scotty Johnson of the Defenders of Wildlife environmental group, which has previously sued the Border Patrol over its operations.
Some of the 249 miles of new fences proposed are "right in the heart of where most of the jaguar sightings have been in the last 100 years," he said.
The fences, typically 10 to 15 feet tall, would be backed up by a secondary set of fencing in some high-traffic areas.
Critics also doubt the effectiveness of the new projects and think they will put more migrants at risk. Last fiscal year, 163 border crossers died in Southern Arizona, according to an Arizona Daily Star analysis.
Agency's wish list
"People are going to be pushed into even more remote, desolate areas," said Chris Ford, co-director of the Tucson-based Border Action Network.
At issue is a 354-page environmental impact statement that the Border Patrol released in October in draft form. The massive document outlines the agency's wish list for its Tucson and Yuma sectors, which encompass about 400 miles of the border, much of it rugged, remote land in national parks, forests and wildlife refuges.
Between 1996 and 2001, the two sectors reported a 180 percent increase in apprehensions and a 100 percent increase in drug seizures. In the same period, the number of agents in the two sectors more than tripled.
The report gives no price tag or time line for construction.
"This doesn't mean we'll do any or all of these things," said Jim Caffrey, an official in the Border Patrol's facilities and engineering department in Washington.
More detailed environmental studies would be required before any work began, and construction would take at least nine months to get started after Congress approved funding, he said.
Under the agency's "preferred alternative," a maximum of 5,620 acres would be disturbed. But most of that would be along roads, fences and other areas that have already been altered. Most of the work would be within a half mile of the border, and most roadwork would be improvements to existing dirt roads, officials said.
In addition, stadium-style and portable lighting systems could illuminate up to 1,708 acres, with the bulbs burning 10 to 12 hours a day, 365 days a year.
The effects of lighting on many species of wildlife is "not presently known," the study said, but any effects are likely to be "short-term and minimal."
Lights might actually help insect-eating bats by concentrating food sources around the bulbs, the study argued.
The Border Patrol believes the infrastructure would greatly enhance its mission and make it easier to stop migrants and smugglers at the border, thus reducing the environmental damage caused by people moving north through the United States.
"It gives us the ability to use our manpower more effectively," Border Patrol spokesman Mario Villarreal said.
The Border Patrol study outlines three other alternatives that would cause less environmental damage:
* A "no action" option that would only continue ongoing construction projects.
* An added emphasis on technology, with expanded use of video surveillance, remote-sensors, stadium-style lights and elevated "skywatch towers."
* Expansion of "traditional" operations, such as checkpoints, aerial surveillance and dragging dirt roads with tires to make footprints easier to spot.
Even under the preferred alternative, the Border Patrol says it would minimize its impact by conducting wildlife surveys and steering activity away from sensitive habitat.
Refuges cope with traffic
Such habitat has been hard hit in recent years as land managers across Southern Arizona have wrestled with exploding numbers of illegal visitors to their backcountry, not to mention the drought.
Illegal border crossers have trampled endangered plants, started major wildfires and disturbed nesting areas for the endangered pygmy owl that has stymied growth in Northwest Tucson, according to a 2002 congressional study and interviews with land managers.
While some federal land officials complain the Border Patrol does its share of damage while chasing migrants and smugglers, most say the damage would be far greater without the law enforcement presence.
Bill Radke, manager of the San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge east of Douglas, called the Border Patrol's new study "a good stab" at solving the problem. But in a formal response, he wrote that new roads, lights and fences "will create detrimental habitat fragmentation, and have a negative effect on long-term wildlife corridors, animal behavior, natural precipitation runoff, water quality, and air quality."
"On the other hand," he said in an interview, "I realize if they do these things everywhere except national wildlife refuges, where do you think the new corridors will be? I feel caught in the middle."
Despite fences, sensors and patrols, an estimated 1,000 border crossers enter Radke's refuge every month, sometimes bathing, urinating and defecating in the riparian habitat.
At the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, 50 miles southwest of Tucson, manager Wayne Shifflett said he would support four new surveillance cameras proposed for the refuge since they might serve as a deterrent and "wouldn't detract from the aesthetics of the refuge." He would also like to see better maintenance of the tattered barbed wire fence along the border that lets Mexican cattle come into a refuge that has eliminated grazing.
But, "I'd definitely oppose more roads," he said. "The only kind of fence I'd support would be one that's low in profile that would allow free movement of animals across the border."
Just such a low-slung fence is proposed for Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, where ranger Kris Eggle was shot and killed last August. Authorities say Eggle's killer drove through Organ Pipe's flimsy border fence as he fled Mexican police investigating a drug-related quadruple homicide. He was then killed in a hail of bullets fired by Mexican officers standing on their side of the border.
But if Organ Pipe gets a vehicle barrier, officials at neighboring Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge expect the traffic will shift to them. The 1,342- square-mile refuge already has about two dozen abandoned vehicles on its land at any time, said manager Roger Di Rosa.
But debates about infrastructure along the border obscure the bigger picture, he said.
"The solution is not on the border. It's in Washington, D.C., and Mexico City with immigration policy," he said. "Basically I'm sitting back in the foxhole watching the war."
* Contact reporter Mitch Tobin at 573-4185 or
http://www.msnbc.com/local/azstar/A1044435023.asp
culture, farming practices, and that most adorable of all ideas, 80 bazillion people per square mile. Yeah, it will be great. In twenty years there won't be a single varmint left that hasn't been slash and burn farmed, hunted, or wiped out of existence by sprawling poverty. Then the I'm-only-an-enviro-Nazi-because-head-on-Communism-wasn't-working-with-you-American-types can shut the
