Any environmentalist want to argue that point?
Posted on 11/17/2007 10:05:09 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
Just a month after U.S. Customs and Border Protection closed a public comment period on the proposed border fence, the agency has released a 538-page document assessing the project’s potential environmental impact.
The agency made public its draft environmental impact statement for the Rio Grande Valley Sector on Friday, and is accepting comments on the statement until Dec. 31, officials confirmed.
Officials also are planning to hold two public “open house” meetings on the assessment in December.
The lengthy document proposes some tweaks to plans for border infrastructure that the agency had previously released, shifting some sections of possible fencing for environmental or logistical reasons. These changes were in response to public comments the agency received this fall, the document says.
“What this whole process is doing is allowing for good decision making,” said Barry Morrissey, a spokesman for Customs and Border Protection. “No one’s saying ‘we’re plopping down (this fence), right here, and there’s nothing you can do about it …’ we do value input, and that’s what is behind these opportunities to comment.”
Morrissey emphasized that the maps included in the environmental statement don’t necessarily show where fencing will be built – the segments shown are candidates for “some type of infrastructure,” whether it be fencing, patrol roads or technological surveillance.
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.
The agency’s statement offers several choices, from building nothing along the border to constructing two-layered fencing. Officials recommend in the document a plan that includes roads and surveillance as well as fencing. They also propose some adjustments to earlier maps.
For example, some stretches of possible fencing would be shifted slightly to minimize impact on the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge. Many of those changes involve shortening or lengthening fencing or infrastructure by less than a mile.
Environmental advocates said they were surprised that the environmental statement was released so quickly.
“With other major federal actions, (the assessments) take months, and there are many opportunities for public comment,” said Noah Kahn, federal lands associate for Defenders of Wildlife, which has spoken out against the border fence. “You wonder how thorough it is.”
Some local environmental groups received copies of the environmental statement by Federal Express Friday morning. Because they only just received the thick document, some hadn’t been able to review it yet, they said.
“The fact that they took some of our comments into consideration … gives me a little bit of hope. But the changes could just be cosmetic – I don’t know yet,” said Martin Hagne, manager of Valley Nature Center in Weslaco. The center and several other environmental groups submitted comments expressing concern about the project’s environmental impact.
Hagne said the previous comment period was “way too short,” so he was glad the agency was offering another chance to comment.
But Kahn said he thought the agency should offer more than two public meetings on the project.
“To have only two is a slap in the face to South Texans,” he said.
Morrissey said that residents will have ample chances to comment through the end of the year.
“I think anyone who intends to make a comment will have the opportunity,” he said.
Are illegal aliens considered wildlife?
Valle ping!
If you want on, or off this S. Texas/Mexico ping list, please FReepMail me.
Animals are more important to them than long-term security.
Any environmentalist want to argue that point?
Yes, we want a study of the environmental impact of open borders.
And of course there is no environmental impact of millions of un-invited people defecating, urinating and dropping tons and tons of other trash on our landsacpe. /SAR
Supervisors: Border fence overrides environmental concerns
SAN DIEGO ---- After a sometimes testy debate, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors gave the federal government its blessing Tuesday to ignore any and all environmental laws to finish building a "national security" border fence through sensitive lands along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The board's majority roundly rejected Supervisor Greg Cox's request to send federal officials a letter supporting building the "triple fence" ---- three fences separated by roads ---- as long as they followed environmental laws and fixed any environmental harm they caused.
Instead, the board voted 4-1 to draft a letter that specifically supports a bill, House Resolution 418, that would allow the director of Homeland Security to waive all state and federal environmental laws to build the fence.
Cox said the county, the city of San Diego, the state and federal governments and the Mexican government have spent nearly $600 million to protect the sensitive ecology of the Tijuana River Estuary, where the last portions of the fence would be built. He said the federal government should not be allowed to throw environmental regulations out the window when building the fence there.
"I support the triple fence, but we ought to abide by our own laws ... as it's built," he said. "We don't need to waive the National Environmental Protection Act, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, or any other federal laws."
But other supervisors disagreed.
"I would suggest that when laws impede our national security efforts, then it is important to waive those laws," Supervisor Dianne Jacob said.
HR 418 was recently approved by the House of Representatives, and is being considered in the Senate. U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-El Cajon, added the portion known as section 102 that would allow waiving environmental laws after the California Coastal Commission rejected the U.S. Border Patrol's plans to complete the wall in 2003.>
The Border Patrol plan promised to repair environmental harm by replanting slopes that were cut and filled to build the fence; abandon and replant more than 100 miles of roads now used by the Border Patrol; and restore and enhance sensitive habitats along the Tijuana River.
But the coastal commission ruled the plan would do more harm than necessary to areas that are refuges to more than 370 species of birds and endangered habitat.
The federal government, meanwhile, began building the fence in San Diego County in 1993 and has finished all but 3 1/2 miles running through county and state land in the Tijuana Estuary.
U.S. Border Patrol officials told supervisors Tuesday that the unfinished wall was a national security risk that could allow terrorists to infiltrate the United States.
Cox said he was happy with the Border Patrol's promises to repair the environmental harm.
But he said HR 418 could allow the government ---- and the Border Patrol ---- to ignore those promises.
Cox argued that if the United States could put men on the moon, it could certainly build the security fence without breaking its own environmental laws.
Some public speakers agreed.
"Section 102 (of the bill) would undermine our democracy by exempting this project for, frankly, no good reason, from all the (environmental) rules that we hold sacrosanct," said Laura Hunter, spokeswoman for the nonprofit Environmental Health Coalition.
But Cox and Hunter's objections were drowned out by other supervisors.
"I was just going to stay out of this," Supervisor Bill Horn said. "But after listening to some of these speakers, I don't think they realize that a state of war exists around the globe with terrorists. And we have an open border and we cannot stop the influx who come through here.
"Whether they want to work in our groves or build furniture ---- whatever," Horn said, adding that he thought the unfinished fence made the United States vulnerable to terrorism.
"The environment is important, but not as important as the lives of Americans," he said.
At one point in Tuesday's debate, Jacob said the issue was simple: Did the board support the Border Patrol, or did it "want to throw up road blocks?"
"Well, I'm supporting the Border Patrol today," Jacob said defiantly.
Cox replied, "Well, I am, too."
After the meeting, Cox said he was disappointed in the board's decision. He reiterated that he believed the triple fence should be built, but that the Border Patrol should follow environmental laws.
"The brilliance of the United States is that we do have laws, and that everybody abides by them ---- including the federal government," Cox said.
Good, now throw the report away and build the fence..............
No Barry, what this "whole process" is doing is wasting time and money unnecessarily so that you can STALL the building of fence. All 'environmental' aspects have been WAIVED by Presidential signature...and by Cherkoff, yet both continue to stand in the way of fence construction.
I say we build this with immigrant labor, all those building it get citizenship.
The Rio Grande Valley is not arid. The Valley is home to a huge agricultural industry. It’s had periods of extended drought, but it is not arid by any definition.
But won’t most of the fence be out of the Rio Grande valley? I mean, there is that whole stretch of border from El Paso to San Diego...believe me, it is arid
Yes, most of the fence will be outside the Rio Grande Valley.
And, I’d say it actually starts getting arid west of Del Rio, Tx, through the Big Bend and all the way to San Diego, CA, although Laredo is pretty arid too.
The article was about the fence in the Lower Rio Grande Valley which starts South of Laredo, about maybe half way to Brownsville. This area is not arid and is known for it’s huge agricultural operations.
My grandparents live in the Valley near McAllen and they are whole heartedly against the fence. There is a physical fence, called a “river” in place. We don’t need a fence, what we need are more border agents to patrol the river.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.