Environmentalists worry over impact of border fence

In a tiny office, tucked in the middle of miles of forest, conservationist Jimmy Paz furrowed his brow.

He was on the phone with representatives from the advocacy group Defenders of Wildlife, talking about a proposal that could forever change the Sabal Palm Audubon Center and Sanctuary in Brownsville, where he works.

Worst-case scenario, Paz said after the call: This wildlife sanctuary — 557 acres of rare Sabal palms and native trees housing many uncommon bird species — could end up barricaded behind the proposed border fence.

“If they build it where the levees are ... they’d be saying, ‘You belong to Mexico,’” said Paz, the sanctuary’s director.

Paz was quick to say he doesn’t know where the fence will be raised, or if there will be one on the sanctuary at all. To pretend he knows would be like speculating about a football game before it has started, he said.

Still, he worries about the impact a fence, whatever its structure or placement, would have on the wildlife and birds that call the sanctuary home.

“You put a fence across here and you’re not protecting (animals),” he said. “I’m concerned about all of the animals and birds.”

Paz, who has worked at the sanctuary for 10 years, is far from the only conservationist in the Rio Grande Valley worried about the border fence. Other environmental advocates, who have spent decades working on the goal of restoring habitat along the Rio Grande, are concerned that the proposed fence will dismantle all they’ve been trying to do.

“We have fought for the preservation of brush along the river for 30 years. ... This (fence) is a greater threat than anything else we’ve faced, and we have no means to challenge it,” said Jim Chapman, president of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Group of the Sierra Club.

Under the federal Real ID Act, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has the authority to waive environmental laws like the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.

The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and several local and state environmental groups, from Audubon Texas to the North American Butterfly Association, recently announced their united opposition to the proposed border fence, which is set to be constructed along 700 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border. Seventy miles of the fence will be in the Rio Grande Valley, federal officials have said.

At least some of that fence might end up on the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, which consists of scattered parcels of land along the river. The refuge is an attempt to restore lost habitat along the Rio Grande and create a wildlife corridor on its banks.

A portion of the fence also could be built on the Audubon sanctuary, which is next to the Rio Grande.

Environmental groups and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have said the proposed fence would prevent animals from accessing the river, one of the region’s few sources of fresh water, and cut off access to habitat in Mexico. The fence’s construction also could destroy carefully restored native plants and brush, reducing an already limited sanctuary for wildlife and birds, U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials say.

The agency has invested more than $90 million into purchasing and restoring land along the Rio Grande, said Ken Merritt, project director for the South Texas Refuge Complex. Even with that effort, he said, “only a narrow strip of habitat remains.”

Advocates say that without federal law on their side, they feel helpless to protect that habitat.

“It’s 50 years of environmental laws ... just gone,” Chapman said.

Refuges first in line?

Since 1980, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has bought about 800 to 1,000 acres per year along the Rio Grande. Little by little, this process has assembled a piecemeal wildlife corridor for hundreds of birds, butterflies and wildlife species. The purpose of buying this land — some of it already native brushland, and some of it agricultural land to be converted to habitat — was to ensure its protection, Merritt said.

In an ironic twist, that federally protected land, meticulously acquired and restored, now could be first in line for fence construction.

“The government owns the property ... so it looks like it’s going to be fast-tracked,” Merritt said. “They don’t have to go through a land-acquisition process, like with private landowners.”

Environmental advocates said they are shocked that federally protected land would be so vulnerable.

“It’s completely ridiculous,” said Noah Kahn, federal-lands associate for Defenders of Wildlife. “We recognize the need for better border security, and fencing might be appropriate in some areas. But reinforced fencing in environmentally sensitive areas ... it could be the final nail in the coffin for some species that are just hanging on.”

Defenders of Wildlife recently sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security urging the agency to reconsider the border-fence plan.

After a couple of meetings, U.S. Fish and Wildlife officials say they still know little about where the fencing would be placed on refuge land, or what type of fence would be used. But no matter what, the plans are likely to impact the species that call the refuges home, Merritt said.

In a meeting at the end of June, Fish and Wildlife officials and the Border Patrol discussed the possibility of modifying the fence to allow animals to cross, but the discussions are still preliminary, Merritt said.

Some changes to earlier maps and plans might take place, but Merritt said he doesn't know anything f or certain.

No final decisions have been made yet on the fence’s location or composition, said Russell Knocke, spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security. Before those choices are made, the department will do environmental assessments, he said.

Fighting for wildlife

Although DHS officials say they will consider environmental concerns, many advocates are skeptical — and troubled.

Chapman, of the Sierra Club, has devoted himself to restoration and preservation of the Rio Grande’s wildlife corridor, ever since moving to the Valley in 1981. He helped found the Sierra Club’s Valley chapter, and has served as its president off and on since then.

He is accustomed to jumping into the fray over environmental concerns, if necessary. The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife and Frontera Audubon Society have fought many legal battles over the corridor. In 1989, the groups sued the U.S. section of the International Boundary and Water Commission when the agency started mowing brush along floodways. They sued again in 1999 when the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service installed floodlights and planned fencing along the border without conducting an environmental assessment.

The groups balked, saying that mowing brush excessively could be detrimental to habitat and that floodlights would confuse nocturnal wildlife like the ocelot and jaguarundi. Both times their concerns won out, with the agencies’ agreeing to conduct formal assessments and to scale back the projects along certain stretches of the Rio Grande.

But now, all Chapman can do is wait.

“Angry and discouraged would be the words to describe what I’m feeling,” he said.

Mary Lou Campbell, another long-time member of the Sierra Club and Frontera Audubon Society, can relate. A Valley resident since 1975, she has spent most of that time helping to protect native habitat along the river. Today, she sometimes wonders if that effort was worth it.

“Federal refuges were planned to be just that - refuges for wildlife,” said Campbell, who grew up learning about animals from her grandfather, a Shawnee Indian. “It’s very ironic and sad.”

Historically, the Endangered Species Act has required state and federal agencies to consult with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or other environmental agencies before beginning projects that could impact endangered wildlife. The Anzalduas Bridge, for example, was raised to allow ocelots and other wildlife to cross, said Ernesto Reyes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist. Reyes has consulted with many agencies on projects affecting endangered species, from highway construction to overpasses.

For the first time, Reyes has limited input.

“If they waive the Endangered Species Act, there’s not much we can do,” he said.

Species at risk

For decades, local conservationists have sounded the alarm about the endangered ocelot and jaguarundi, wildcats that are struggling to survive in South Texas. In Texas, ocelots are only found in the Rio Grande Valley — about 35 to 50 are known to live on Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge, with a few others scattered across the region. The jaguarundi is equally scarce. Both species also are found in Mexico, but in small numbers.

Fish and Wildlife officials, as well as environmentalists, said they’re worried the fence would isolate the cats, reducing genetic diversity and putting the species’ future in further peril.

“It would restrict their maneuverability,” said Karen Chapman, water and wildlife analyst for Environmental Defense. “A wall undermines the whole idea of having connected strings of habitat — you’re restricting the ability of wildlife to roam free.”

Although it’s uncertain how often ocelots or jaguarundis cross the Rio Grande to access habitat in Mexico

, the cats are known to swim bodies of water, said Michael Tewes, biology professor and director of the feline research program at Texas A&M University-Kingsville.

Past studies have shown that at least one ocelot has crossed the Rio Grande, with others crossing the Arroyo Colorado or the Brownsville Ship Channel, Tewes said. A fence along the Rio Grande could severely limit the cats’ movement, he said.

“It depends on the details,” Tewes said. “If there’s habitat on the other side, it could be a problem.”

Additionally, a wide variety of bird and butterfly species depend on the Rio Grande’s habitat year-round, experts say. More than 500 bird species are found at the Lower Rio Grande Valley refuge, and 40 to 60 are found on Sabal Palm, officials said. More than 300 species of butterflies also travel through the region.

At least 100 endangered species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, birds and plants are present in the Valley, and many of them depend on the little habitat still in existence, said Chapman of Environmental Defense.

“The river corridor sustains a lot of the wildlife here,” she said. “Once you get to the cities just north of the border, there isn’t much ... that’s why people come here, why birders come here.”

The Valley has about 11 different ecosystems, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It’s that biodiversity that attracts millions in tourism dollars every year, local officials said.

Impacting the borderlands

One border region already has seen a negative impact from increased Department of Homeland Security and Border Patrol enforcement, according to a report from Defenders of Wildlife.

In its 2006 report, the advocacy organization concluded that road and wall construction, along with lighting projects and off-road patrolling by the Border Patrol, has harmed protected lands in Arizona. In addition, increased enforcement in urban areas has pushed illegal crossings into the borderlands, where human traffic has damaged desert springs and wetlands, the report says.

Similar effects could occur in Texas, said Kahn of the organization.

“We believe the interests of Texas’ parks and refuges would be better served by vehicle barriers or remote technology, instead of a fence,” he said.

Environmental groups like Defenders of Wildlife have called for the Department of Homeland Security to have greater transparency in its decision-making process and consult more readily with environmental agencies and local and state government.

Knocke, of the Department of Homeland Security, said that officials made environmental concessions for the fencing in Arizona, and could do so in Texas if deemed necessary.

For example, a stretch of fence in Arizona has tiny crevices so a rare lizard can migrate freely, he said.

“That’s just one example of how we make accommodations when appropriate, based on environmental assessments,” Knocke said.

Paz, of Sabal Palm Audubon Center and Sanctuary, said he hopes DHS will recognize the need to preserve the unique habitat along the Rio Grande, for wildlife’s sake.

“Everything, all animals, have an important part in this world,” Paz said. “They have a job to do, and we need to protect them.”