Advocates: Environmental fence concerns being ignored

As federal officials solicit public comments this week on the proposed border fence, environmental advocates are worried that their comments might fall on deaf ears.

Environmental group representatives said they’ve reviewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s lengthy document assessing the proposed fence’s environmental impact, and see little evidence that the agency is resonsive to concerns about habitat and wildlife preservation.

“The report does not address environmental concerns. It basically dismisses them without looking at them,” said Martin Hagne, manager of Valley Nature Center in Weslaco, at an anti-fence rally Tuesday night in McAllen.

Earlier this year, several environmental groups submitted comments to the agency, asking that alternatives to fencing be considered on sensitive land. Raising a fence on land owned by the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, for example, could damage carefully restored habitat and affect endangered species’ ability to migrate or reach the Rio Grande for water, groups said.

The refuge consists of scattered parcels of land along the Rio Grande river corridor. About 60 to 75 percent of refuge land will likely be impacted by the fence, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials have said.

In response, the agency’s draft environmental impact statement proposes alternatives that include shifting sections of the fence, sometimes slightly off refuge land, or shortening sections. Those changes, however, are mostly “cosmetic,” said Scott Nicol, member of the Lower Rio Grande Valley Group of the Sierra Club.

“They didn’t respond at all to questions about endangered species, or habitat,” Nicol said. “It’s almost like they pre-wrote it.”

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, Customs and Border Protection is required to prepare an environmental assessment of the border fence project and present alternatives to it.

Officials carefully considered the comments from environmental groups in preparing the impact statement, said Brian Hoppy, senior vice president of e2M, an environmental-engineering firm that assisted in the report.

“Each alternative we dismissed, we had a specific reason why,” Hoppy said.

The firm took into account endangered species, habitat, wetlands and historic sites in its assessment, he said. Surveyors visited refuge land on foot and by air, and starting this week are conducting a more in-depth biological survey, he said.

Fish and Wildlife officials said the agency has included some environmentally friendly changes in its statement.

For example, in earlier plans, a refuge tract that connects to Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge would have been bisected by the fence. The results would have been “catastrophic” to the endangered ocelot, which migrate through that land, said Nancy Brown, spokeswoman for South Texas Refuge Complex.

In the environmental statement, the agency recommends moving that portion of the fence, she said.

However, other parts of the Lower Rio Grande Valley refuge are still in harm’s way, she said.

“In some cases, (the fence) is not on refuge land, it’s three feet off … but even, in the end, if we don’t have much fencing on the refuge, it still affects us,” Brown said.

The public can submit comments on the environmental statement until Dec. 31. Environmental advocates said they’re trying again during that period to make their opinions known, but wonder if their efforts are futile.

“I don’t think our concerns will be addressed in a thorough manner,” said Wayne Bartholomew, executive director of Frontera Audubon Society. “When you’ve been mandated by Congress to put up a wall, you’re going to put up a wall.”