Madeleine et al.,
Yes, if the wall happens, it will be absolutely crucial to put pressure on to
1) have the gate open during daylight hours, when the refuge is open, and 2)
allow USFWS access as needed before and after, so that they can have access as
needed. I personally do not want a border wall and think the last place it
should go in is at the refuge, not the first. But in my opinion, it would be
better to have it on the levee, which is already cleared/disturbed, than
clearing land to make a wall elsewhere.
Best regards,
Tim Brush
Edinburg, TX
-----Original Message-----
From: texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:texbirds-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Madeleine Sandefur
Sent: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 9:54 AM
To: alamoinn@xxxxxxx; texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [texbirds] Re: Santa Ana NWR and the wall
With all due respect to Keith, I would like to amplify a bit on his comments of
yesterday with information I have solicited from a McAllen resident who has
been intimately involved with the Border Wall issue for many years, going back
to the first round of wall construction during the Bush administration.
He advises that in fact, border walls erected on levees are not more economical
than regular border walls. The bollard-style border walls that were built in
Cameron County averaged $7 million per mile, while the levee-border walls built
in Hidalgo County averaged $12 million per mile. Also, whereas the existing
levee-border walls were sold as repairing the IBWC levees, the levees that were
not converted into border walls were repaired using American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act funds, so taxpayers would be spending millions of dollars to
tear open and convert levees that we spent millions of dollars to repair just a
few years ago.
Regarding gates, about half of the gate-sized gaps in RGV border walls have had
gates installed. There is one between the Old Hidalgo Pumphouse World Birding
Center and the adjacent LRGV National Wildlife Refuge tract for example. He
says he has gone there many, many times over the years, and it is never open,
despite the fact that the "pedestrian walking trail" sign still points at it.
Gates average $240,000 a piece, on top of the cost of the wall that they are
in. The FY 2017 budget supplemental for DHS included funds to build gates in
the remaining 35 gaps, and CBP officials have testified before congress that
they plan to build 35 gates in the RGV. One of the remaining 35 gate-sized
gaps in the border wall is the entrance to the Sabal Palms Audubon Sanctuary.
As for clearing, CBP has said that they now want to create a 150 foot wide
"enforcement zone" cleared of all vegetation on the south side of the border
walls that currently cut through the LRGV NWR and, when they build it, Santa
Ana's levee-border wall. Levee-border walls are even worse than regular bollard
walls as far as terrestrial species such as ocelot are concerned. In addition
to fragmenting habitat, they trap species when a given Refuge tract floods, as
happened in 2010. But border walls are exempted from all state and federal
laws, including the endangered species act, the migratory bird treaty act, etc.
This issue has, in fact, garnered national attention, as there was an article
in yesterday’s Los Angeles TIMES (see
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fnation%2Fla-na-texas-border-wall-20170717-story.html&data=02%7C01%7Ctimothy.brush%40utrgv.edu%7C9b2bb34f14814640eaf208d4ceb61e51%7C990436a687df491c91249afa91f88827%7C0%7C0%7C636360728971936403&sdata=3IOjphgcxB7grjJxfw%2BYJZ6RVUv4FYY06qisHMHZ%2FNE%3D&reserved=0).
The last paragraph mentions the expected negative economic impact: “The Santa
Ana refuge is home to 165,000 visitors a year, many birders from across the
world. A 2011 study by Texas A&M University found that nature tourism in the
Rio Grande Valley brought in $463 million a year. The biggest portion of that
is from birding.”
There are other means to control the border, which would be much less damaging
and would keep these spots open to the public. As a birder friend of mine
said, “the money required could be much more effectively spent on electronic
surveillance systems and personnel on the ground. There is also a program of
border patrol agents on horseback that is awesome in its effectiveness that
needs to be expanded. Santa Ana has struggled to come back from the damage it
sustained in the 2010 flood and must not be subjected to habitat destruction
again for an unjustifiable reason, which I believe this proposed wall to be.”
For my part, I will do my best to fight the closing off of three of our most
treasured birding spots in the RGV: Santa Ana, Sabal Palm, and Bentsen.
Madeleine Sandefur
Laguna Vista
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Keith Hackland Innkeeper, Alamo Inn B&B alamoinn@xxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:18 AM
To: texbirds@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [texbirds] Santa Ana NWR and the wall
I am writing in support of Michael Marsden who provided very useful comments
yesterday. This wall is a situation where cool heads will prevail and facts on
the ground count. Politics at times obscures the facts on the ground. Since it
started I have been a keen observer of the wall and its effects in the LRGV.
There is an old levy probably completed in the 1950s or earlier, with a canal
next to it, that run outside along the northern boundary of Santa Ana NWR, and
between the visitor center area and the refuge proper. The road and walking
path into Santa Ana NWR lead accross the levy.The agencies that maintain the
levy do periodic maintenance on it, meaning that they clear it of trees and
maintain grass on its sides. This serves sparrows and other seed eaters well.
Several years ago the levy height was increased by four feet.
This same levy runs on the northern boundary of Bentsen RGV State Park between
it and the visitor center, and on the northern boundary of Sabal Palm Sanctuary
between it and the visitor center.
Where the wall has previously been built in the LRGV it has exclusively been
built on the levy, for economic reasons (less costly), and due to very
effective negotiation by the LRGV authorities to use the wall to strengthen the
levy for flood control. Due to this fact very minimal vegetation has ever been
removed in the wall sections built to date. The key is to keep it on the levy.
The wall sections that exist are designed to push people crossing the river in
desired directions, for example away from urban areas. There are openings for
gates, but I am not aware of any gates that have been erected or are in use.
Currently there is and always has been free movement through and around current
wall sections. The wall does impact terrestrial wildlife and direct access to
private land lying behind it. It has also reduced Border Patrol traffic on some
of the lands along the river.
This is a very emotional and political issue, and no more so than in the Valley
amongst me and my neighbors here. I fully understand that. This is another fact
in the situation that we respect.
Keith Hackland
Alamo, TX
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freelists.org%2Flist%2Ftexbirds&data=02%7C01%7Ctimothy.brush%40utrgv.edu%7C9b2bb34f14814640eaf208d4ceb61e51%7C990436a687df491c91249afa91f88827%7C0%7C0%7C636360728971946408&sdata=meddLp9QiqcsAxODSYw8WgJ7FJRaIcqyqBZo2MnT5wQ%3D&reserved=0
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freelists.org%2Flist%2Ftexbirds&data=02%7C01%7Ctimothy.brush%40utrgv.edu%7C9b2bb34f14814640eaf208d4ceb61e51%7C990436a687df491c91249afa91f88827%7C0%7C0%7C636360728971946408&sdata=meddLp9QiqcsAxODSYw8WgJ7FJRaIcqyqBZo2MnT5wQ%3D&reserved=0
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
Edit your Freelists account settings for TEXBIRDS at
//www.freelists.org/list/texbirds
Reposting of traffic from TEXBIRDS is prohibited without seeking permission
from the List Owner
