Border Wall Harms Wildlife

By Matt Clark

The border wall is a classic example of habitat fragmentation – one of the leading causes of species extinction. As human-created barriers such as highways and walls bisect the land, once intact wildlife habitat patches become fragmented, and less permeable to wildlife movements. One of the insidious consequences of habitat fragmentation is that it creates smaller, more isolated habitat patches and wildlife populations – the negative effects of which may not become apparent for decades. Isolated wildlife populations are prone to more dramatic fluctuations from year to year, are less resilient to natural disturbances, have a higher probability of local extinction, and are robbed of the crucial genetic interchange that keeps wildlife populations healthy. Fragmentation may also preclude access to water sources, seasonally-available food resources, and new territories. The importance of maintaining and/or restoring habitat connectivity is a fundamental principle that has emerged from wildlife conservation sciences in the past two decades.

The border wall is causing habitat destruction, degradation and fragmentation at a regional scale for a wide array of wildlife – creatures that do not recognize arbitrary political boundaries. Numerous cross-border wildlife linkages have already been severed by the wall, and the wall itself is redirecting traffic into adjacent habitats. Clearly, more scientific research is needed to quantify these impacts.

On-the-ground examples:

· 1.9 million tons of dirt is being used to fill Smuggler’s Gulch in southern California in order to construct a wall across this steep canyon. This threatens to increase sediment flows into the ecologically-sensitive Tijuana River Estuary, which provides habitat for four federally-listed endangered birds: the light-footed clapper rail, the California least tern, the least Bell's vireo and the California brown pelican.


· Both deer and javelina have been documented along the wall in the vicinity of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, apparently unable to cross the border because of the wall.

· A Compatiblility Determination for the then-proposed border wall on the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge concluded the wall was not compatible with the refuge’s mission and regulations, stating: “The barrier would fragment habitat on the refuge, thereby adversely affecting the ecological integrity of the refuge's natural resources…The barrier would adversely affect endangered species (jaguar), migratory birds (pygmy-owls), and important habitats (Arivaca Creek) on the refuge, thereby conflicting with stated management goals for the refuge...” A controversial land swap was orchestrated and the wall was built anyway. Border Patrol recently documented an aggravated mountain lion on the refuge unsuccessfully attempting to get through the border wall to the Mexican side of its habitat.

Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge and the Border Wall. Photo courtesy Matt Clark.

· A recent Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service states, “Shifting IA [illegal alien] activity has already occurred in Arizona and California as a result of fence construction or increased CBP [Customs and Border Protection] staffing”. The wall continues to funnel traffic and disturbance into remote, rugged, and ecologically sensitive areas. The Biological Opinion provides 8 documented examples of this phenomenon, some of which are anticipated to negatively impact threatened and endangered species such as the Sonoran pronghorn, jaguar, Mexican spotted owl and Chiricahua leopard frog.

Matt Clark is the Southwest Representative for Defenders of Wildlife.

CALL TO ACTION BY THE TOHONO O'ODHAM INDIGENOUS PEOPLE AGAINST THE US-MEXICO BORDER WALL

The Traditional Tohono O'odham Indigenous People Demand a Halt to the Construction of the US-Mexico Border Wall and the Destruction of Indigenous Nations.

The following press release was issued by the O'odham Solidarity Project:

The Tohono O'odham Nation has the second largest reservation recognized by the United States, with territory and members on both sides of the US-Mexico political boundary in the states of Arizona, US and Sonora, Mexico. As original people of the territory, the Tohono O'odham have lived on and cared for that land long before such a boundary even existed; before there was a US or a Mexico. Now, however, the construction of the border wall along the entire US – Mexican border is splitting border communities and Indigenous nations alike, including the Tohono O'odham.

The construction of this wall will destroy the Tohono O'odham way of life (their traditions and religious practices), not to mention the many rights sworn to the O'odham people that are being violated. Tohono O'odham elders and traditionalists maintain their legacy through oral history, conducting natural ceremonies that include offerings to the land and sea. They also use manyplants and environmental resources of the region as a source of food and medicine. But, many of these sacred ceremonies take place in Mexico.

"This Wall and the construction of this Wall has destroyed our communities, our burial sites, and ancient O'odham routes throughout our lands. The entire International border has divided and displaced our people," says Ofelia Rivas, a representative of the traditional Tohono O'odham in Washington D.C. “The Wall is also severely affecting the animals. We now see mountain lions going into areas where people live because of the Wall.”

The right of the O'odham to travel freely and safely via these traditional routes in their territory has previously been guaranteed under United States, Mexican, and International Law. The US government's American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 acknowledges rights for the O'odham people that the construction of the US-Mexico Border Wall directly violates. By restricting the mobility of the O'odham people, the Wall prevents the free practice of their religion and their cultural traditions. Further, rights granted by the United Nations universalDeclaration of Human Rights, the Declaration of Human Rights for Indigenous Peoples, and the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man are also being ignored due to a waiver issued by the US Department of Homeland Security. Under this document, the President claims the power to waive any and all environmental and Federal Indian laws in order to build the Wall in the name of national security.

The US-Mexican border policies and the Wall have also increased the military presence within the O'odham lands, further affecting their lives and communities.

"This Wall has militarized our entire lands," states Ofelia Rivas, "We, as original people, are now required to answer to United States armed forces as to our nationality on our own lands." Ofelia Rivas, herself, was once asked, at gunpoint, to produce identification to establish her right to be on lands that she was born on and her ancestors lived on since before Columbus.

Ironically, the increase in militarization of the US-Mexican Border has coincided with the rise of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that went into effect in 1994. Supporters at the time said NAFTA would decrease immigration and bring good paying jobs to Mexico but the exact opposite has happened.

“Many of the people crossing from Mexico into the United States are indigenous people and families,” says Ofelia Rivas. “They tell me that under these free trade agreements they can no longer farm and make a living.”

Under NAFTA it has become easier for commercial goods to cross the border than people, especially the Tohono O'odham. This is illustrated by a striking example told by Mrs. Rivas:"An O'odham elder and her daughter were interrogated and watched by United States Border Patrol guards as they collected traditional O'odham food in the desert."

Ofelia Rivas is in Washington, D.C. today with members of many different Indigenous nations and allies who have walked from San Francisco, California across the continent to Washington, D.C. This group calls their march “The People’s Walk” not only for the sovereignty of Indigenous nations but also for the protection of sacred sites, plants, and animals.

Thus, ordinary O'odham people and elders and their allies are issuing a call to action against the construction of the US-Mexico Border Wall. "As original peoples of these lands,” says Ofelia Rivas, “we protest the violation of the thirty seven federal laws by the April 1, 2008 Waiver by Secretary Chertoff."

For More Information Contact:
O'odham VOICE Against the Wall and O'odham Rights Cultural and Environmental
Justice Coalition: Ofelia Rivas (520) 471-3398, uyarivas@hotmail.com,
http://www.tiamatpublications.com/odham_solidarity_project.html
The People’s Walk: peoplejune13@yahoo.com
Earthpeoples: Rebecca Sommer: (718) 302-1949, http://www.earthpeoples.org/

Action Alert - Public Comments on the Border Wall in Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

Bulldozers are already clearing vegetation to build the seven mile long section of border wall on either side of the Sasabe, Arizona port of entry (see below). The Department of Homeland Security prepared an Environmental Assessment (not to be confused with the more stringent and comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement that should be completed for a project in sensitive habitat) which, not surprisingly, found that construction of the wall would have “no significant impact.” To date Secretary Chertoff has not issued a Real ID waiver of environmental laws, so DHS cannot legally ignore the Endangered Species Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and other relevant statutes.


Part of the Sasabe border wall will be built on the southern edge of the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. The Refuge is currently working to determine whether or not a 15 foot tall steel wall is compatible with its mission, and has opened a brief public comment period. It is important that anyone who is concerned about the environmental impacts that the border wall will have take advantage of this opportunity and write a letter.

According to the draft Compatibility Determination,

The Refuge was established on August 1, 1985 “....to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered species or threatened species .... or (B) plants ....” 16 U.S.C. 1534 (Endangered Species Act of 1973) and for the “...development, advancement, management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources....” 16 U.S.C. 742f(a)(4) (Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956). Congressional records and other pertinent files show that conservation of the masked bobwhite quail was the major impetus behind establishment of the Buenos Aires NWR. Habitat restoration and the existence of a self-sustaining population of masked bobwhite quail remains a primary goal of the Refuge.

In total this portion of the border wall will clear 51 acres of habitat, and will be an impassible barrier for large terrestrial animals such as pronghorn and jaguar. In the last few years jaguar have been photographed in southern Arizona, giving hope that they may be able to move back into their former U.S. range. While according to the Border Patrol a border wall will only slow a human crosser by 5 minutes, a jaguar will find it impossible to climb over a 15 foot high steel wall.


Unfortunately, the draft Compatibility Determination finds construction of the wall to be compatible with the refuge’s mission. In many places it simply repeats assertions from the Environmental Assessment. These include the statement that “Jaguars will still be able to move through other areas of the border,” which conveniently ignores the fact that most of the Arizona border will be walled off, not just the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge. It is important that this flawed argument be pointed out in public comments, along with the basic incompatibility of a wall in a wildlife refuge. The Compatibility Determination and the Environmental Assessment that it is based upon focus narrowly on the footprint of the wall, ignoring the fragmentation of habitat that extends beyond the refuge’s borders. The refuge is not an island, it is a portion of a larger ecosystem, and the ability of animals to travel through that ecosystem is vital to its continued viability.

The public comment period on the Buenos Aires National Refuge’s draft Compatibility Determination closes on September 18. It is crucial that we all take advantage of the opportunity to comment on its inadequacies and flawed determination. Comments must be sent to:

Refuge Manager
Buenos Aires NWR
P.O. Box 109
Sasabe, Arizona 85633

No Significant Impact on the Environment, or Divide and Conquer

By Roy Emrick, President
Friends of Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge

The Final Environmental Assessment (EA) of the proposed seven mile "Pedestrian Fence Near Sasabe" (along the southern border of Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona) is that it will have no significant impact on the environment. Of course the EA was rushed through and allowed zero days for public comment, so that construction could begin August 27. Since they could have invoked REAL ID, which allows Homeland Security to ignore any law they feel is in their way, it is surprising they gave a nod to environmental issues. This is just one segment of a 700 mile long border fence approved by Congress last December. The wall is being contracted in bits and pieces. Each one will presumably have its own EA. Each one will no doubt be found to have no significant (local) impact on the environment.

Of course, in the aggregate, the wall will have a tremendous negative impact on the environment, and wildlife in particular. Ample data show that the walls built so far have just diverted human traffic to more remote areas and have reduced neither traffic nor deaths. Wildlife experts and environmental activists from both the US and Mexico warn of the negative impacts on jaguars, Sonoran pronghorn, and Mexican black bears by isolating border animals into smaller groups, affecting their genetic diversity. Such influences would have to be dealt with in an environmental assessment of an entire border wall.

However, for decades NEPA has been subverted by this divide and conquer approach. For example, no basin-wide EIS has been done for water development projects in the Colorado River Basin. As long ago as the 1970's, when the Central Arizona Project was being built, a basin-wide study pushed for by environmentalists was successfully fought off by the water interests.

The Environmental Assessment does make the following concession: Direct impacts to wildlife habitats and wildlife populations are expected by the permanent conversion of up to 51 acres of vegetation communities to the fence and maintenance road. .........Such designs would not impede migration of most wildlife species, including birds, reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals. Travel corridors of larger mammals, however, would be permanently lost by the construction of the fence. Disturbance to surrounding wildlife populations would occur during construction activities, including increased stress by the presence of humans and construction equipment, noise, and lighting. These impacts would be considered temporary and minimal. Note that they consider only the impact on the land directly involved in construction.

Table I shows the construction equipment that will be involved. There will be a staging area somewhere along the road into headquarters. You can judge the effect on wildlife of all of this equipment running in and out for 140 days from the staging area to the border.

How did we get to this situation? For one thing, Congress's inability to enact a comprehensive immigration bill has resulted in criticism of Senators and Representatives by constituents. To keep the home folk happy numerous bills have been introduced and enacted for the construction of real and virtual border walls. Last December the House passed a measure under which this wall is being built: "the Secure Fence Act, [which], mandates the construction of approximately 700 miles of pedestrian fence along the southwestern border. Within the next 2 years, 225 miles of these 700 miles are scheduled to be completed. The first 75 miles of these 225 miles would occur in areas that have already been developed (e.g., currently contains permanent vehicle barrier [PVB] or TVB) and thus, little or no additional environmental impacts would be expected." [Quote from the EA] Thus, their basic premise is that there is essentially no difference between a barrier that you can step over and a 15 foot high wall with six inch gaps.

It gets better: Arizona Senator Kyl, who had taken a lot of flack from conservative constituents, attached a rider to a defense bill last month to build a longer, triple wall. Because of the high profile of the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, (and because it is an election year?) he made a token concession by dropping a 15-mile portion along the San Pedro. No such concession was made for our Buenos Aires NWR (or for the San Bernardino or other border refuges). Homeland Security says it will consider environmental issues, but the READ ID law says they can waive any law that they want, so not much stock can be taken in that.

Until we deal with the causes of migration, such as NAFTA, the farm bill and its subsidized corn, immigration reform and other political issues, walls won't do the job. Walls without large numbers of troops to patrol them will be breached. The cost of such a wall along the entire border would be staggering. Please write or call your Congress-folk and Senators and tell them you oppose border walls.