Environmental advocates said earlier this week that they have reviewed U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s assessment of how a border fence might affect natural habitat and wildlife and see little evidence the agency is addressing their concerns.

Earlier this year, several environmental groups submitted comments to the federal agency, asking it consider alternatives to fencing 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, they said.

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

In response, CBP’s draft environmental impact statement proposes alternatives that include shifting sections of the fence, sometimes slightly off refuge land, or shortening sections of it. Those changes, however, are mostly “cosmetic,” said Scott Nicol, a 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, CBP is required to prepare an environmental assessment of the border fence project and present alternatives to it.

However, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff did not order an environmental review of the proposed fence in Arizona, where the fence will cross a conservation area. Instead, Chertoff waived 19 environmental laws to expedite the fence’s construction.

Although the Valley’s environmental impact study has already started, environmental groups are worried a similar waiver could happen here.

Officials carefully considered the groups’ comments as it prepared the impact statement, said Brian Hoppy, senior vice president of e2M, an environmental engineering firm that helped write 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 migrates through that land, said Nancy Brown, a spokeswoman for the 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.

“In some cases, (the fence) is not on refuge land — it’s 3 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 going to speak up again during this period 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.”

____

Melissa McEver covers health and environment issues for Valley Freedom Newspapers. She is based in Harlingen and you can reach her at (956) 430-6252.