Paul Enriquez
Environmental Branch Chief
Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure
Program Management Office
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20229
Kevin K. McAleenan
Commissioner - U.S. Customs and Border Protection
1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20229
Carla L. Provost
Acting Chief - U.S. Border Patrol
1300 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20229
CC:
Kirstjen M. Nielsen
Secretary of Homeland Security
300 7th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20024

Re: Rio Grande Valley Proposed Border Barrier Construction Comments
Dear Mr. Enriquez,
These comments on the proposed construction of 33 miles of border barriers in Rio Grande
Valley are submitted on behalf of the undersigned conservation, human rights, public interest,
and faith-based organizations.
The construction of levee and bollard-style border barriers in the locations proposed in U.S.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP’s) notice would significantly damage the environment and
harm the culture, commerce, and quality of life for communities and residents located near the
project area. The area of proposed construction spans approximately 33 miles and bisects
numerous national wildlife refuge tracts, Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park, Roma and La
Lomita National Historic Districts, and hundreds of private properties. Similar border barrier
projects have damaged or destroyed protected landscapes, interfered with binational conservation
efforts, obstructed the movement of wildlife, and impacted neighboring communities.
Additionally, the border barrier designs proposed by CBP are likely to cause life-threatening
flooding, as has occurred in other areas such as Nogales, Arizona, where similar types of barriers
have been deployed. The proposed project is also likely to harm the Rio Grande Valley’s local
ecotourism economy, which is driven in large part by outdoor recreation in areas that the
proposed construction project would disturb or destroy. Finally, we remind CBP that there is no
evidence that the proposed project would achieve the agency’s stated goals to “impede or deny

 illegal border crossings,” as border walls of many designs have proven easily surmountable by
people in a number of ways, including with a ladder or a rope.
We request that CBP carefully review and respond to the numerous concerns raised within the
following sections of this letter before moving forward with any aspect of border barrier
construction in Rio Grande Valley. Additionally, we underscore our strong concerns and
objections to the public comment process. The 30-day comment period is inadequate for the
public to thoroughly review and provide comment on a project of this magnitude. Furthermore,
members of the public with limited English proficiency have not been provided information or
notice to comment in an accessible format, key stakeholders have been disregarded, and federal
requirements for consultation with other agencies, such as those within the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), have been ignored.
Inadequate Public Notice and Comment
The letter sent by CBP and received by the Center and other concerned organizations in July
2018 states that CBP “is writing once again to solicit your input concerning the proposed
construction of border barriers in the . . . Rio Grande Valley Sector” and that this “letter followsup on an initial scoping letter that was sent in March 2018.”1 The Center and other concerned
organizations have no record of receiving a letter from CBP on or around March 2018
concerning the proposed construction of border barriers in in the Rio Grande Valley Sector. The
CBP consultation process is already inadequate and is further confounded by not including the
public, including the Center and interested organizations, from the start of this process.
Given the wide range of environmental, cultural, public safety, and economic impacts of the
proposed project, the 30-day comment period allowed by CBP is inadequate to provide the
public enough time to thoroughly review and meaningfully respond to the proposed project.
Especially for members of the public who have no other means to weigh in on decisions
impacting their communities, a 30-day comment period is an extremely short amount of time to
comment on a project that will fundamentally alter the environment and communities near the
project area.
Many community members potentially impacted by the proposed project have limited English
proficiency and are Spanish dominant or monolingual Spanish speakers. To engage in
meaningful consultation, CBP must send out information and requests for comment in both
Spanish and English. Executive Order 13166 was issued to improve access to services for people
with limited English Proficiency (LEP).2 The Executive Order states “each Federal agency shall
examine the services it provides and develop and implement a system by which LEP persons can
meaningfully access those services consistent with, and without unduly burdening, the
fundamental mission of the agency.” Failure to include Spanish-speaking members of the public
is unacceptable, is in direct disregard to Executive Order 13166, and would amount to languagebased suppression of public input.
CBP’s 30-day comment period also does not include even a single public meeting, which
strongly suggests a lack of sincere interest in obtaining thoughtful comments and broad
engagement with the diverse constituencies affected by border barrier construction. To gather
2

 sufficient, meaningful public input, we encourage CBP to host a series of public comment
forums in English and Spanish in the affected areas regarding the construction of border barriers
through communities and protected lands in the Rio Grande Valley. Offering public forums in
Spanish should not be an undue burden on the agency as CBP’s website states that U.S. Border
Patrol agents “must learn Spanish while at the Border Patrol Academy and you must pass a series
of Spanish tests after entering on duty in order to continue in the Border Patrol.”3
Also, the proposed border wall construction and related activities require compliance with
federal laws including, but not limited to, NEPA, the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Clean
Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the Clean Air
Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act, the
Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the
National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
NEPA is a clear and well-established method of soliciting public comment, for which there is no
substitute. Here, the public interest and the ultimate decision-maker will benefit from ensuring
that this process moves forward under NEPA with the completion of an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). Importantly, a NEPA-compliant EIS would ensure that the process is
transparent and publicly accessible by providing notice to comment via Federal Register
publication, local newspapers, and other means that are necessary to reach the communities that
the proposed action would impact.
The NEPA process would also cure the numerous and significant shortfalls with CBP’s recent
notice. First, the notice was sent only to select individuals of CBP’s choosing and may have
excluded certain stakeholders who this project would significantly impact. CBP has distributed
this notice in a manner inconsistent with transparent and informed decision-making by failing to
circulate and publicize this comment request widely. Second, this inconsistency and carelessness
is further highlighted by the fact that CBP’s notice to comment was left undated, despite
requiring the public to submit comments within “30 days following the date of this letter.” Third,
CBP’s letter is replete with vagueness and devoid of site-specific details including locations of
where the wall, gates, lights, roads, and cameras would be placed. The maps do not provide a
level of detail that would permit a stakeholder to see precisely where walls are planned – in fact,
the Starr county map shows the line of the Rio Grande City border wall crossing the Rio Grande
into Mexico. In addition, the letter states that 8 miles of bollard border wall will be erected in
Starr County, but the map for Starr County appears to show twice that mileage.
For these reasons, before CBP moves forward with the proposed construction, we request that
CBP (1) extend the comment period to a minimum of 90 days after providing additional specific
details about the project as would be required by an EIS; (2) that invitations to comment be sent
out in English and Spanish; (3) that CBP host public forums in English and Spanish in McAllen,
Mission, Rio Grande City, and Roma, Texas; (4) that CBP release information to the public,
including accurate, detailed maps, that would allow for informed comment by the public; and (5)
that CBP conduct this project in compliance with federal laws including, but not limited to,
NEPA, ESA, the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, the Clean Air Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Archaeological and
Historic Preservation Act, the Historic Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities Act, the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act, and the
3

 Administrative Procedure Act. CBP can start with the publication of a notice to comment on the
proposal in the Federal Register that provides at least a 90-day comment period.
Destruction of Habitat and Impacts to Wildlife:
The Rio Grande Valley is one of the most biologically diverse areas in North America, where
gulf coast, great plains, and Chihuahuan desert climates come together to create a series of
unique ecosystems. The area is home to over 1,100 plant species and 700 vertebrate species
(including more than 500 bird species), at least 18 of which are listed as federally threatened and
endangered.4 The riparian woodlands also provide habitat for about one half of all the butterfly
species found in the U.S. During fall and spring migrations, millions of birds from the Central
and Mississippi flyways funnel through the area on their way to and from Central and South
America, as do migratory bats and butterflies. Of the original habitat that once supported this
enormous diversity, only 5% currently remains.5 Every remaining acre of native habitat in the
valley is irreplaceable and important to the survival of these species. As currently proposed,
CBP’s project in Rio Grande Valley will construct 33 miles of solid, impassable wall — with a
small 3-mile gap at the Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge — through some of the last
remaining native thornscrub and riparian habitat in Rio Grande Valley.
Border walls are well understood to be ecological stressors that destroy habitat, divide genetic
interchange, and impede wildlife migration.6 In July 2018, more than 2,500 scientists published a
paper detailing the harms that border walls cause to habitat quality, stating: “Physical barriers
prevent or discourage animals from accessing food, water, mates, and other critical resources by
disrupting annual or seasonal migration and dispersal routes.”7 Existing border walls in the Rio
Grande Valley have already caused extensive and well-documented harm to wildlife and natural
processes, including the destruction and fragmentation of habitat, the entrapment of animals
during flooding, and disturbances to wildlife during construction.
While some plants, birds, and smaller terrestrial animals may be able to pass through certain
designs of border walls, larger terrestrial animals will not. Ocelots, jaguarundi, javelinas, deer,
bobcats, coyotes, and other similar animals would find it impossible to climb over or dig under a
wall that is 20-30 feet tall and sunk deep into the earth. Terrestrial animals north of the wall
would be unable to access the Rio Grande. In Starr County and certain areas in Hidalgo County,
the Rio Grande is the only reliable source of water for wildlife. In the summer, when
temperatures top 100 degrees every day, animals may not survive the trek around a one-mile
section of wall, let alone a 33-mile span.
While we oppose the construction of bollard walls, we note that levee border walls are even
worse for terrestrial animals than bollard alternatives. Certain reptiles and even small mammals
can slip through the gaps found in bollard walls. CBP’s proposal for 25 miles of solid concrete
levee walls, however, will stop nearly all non-flying species in their tracks, even those small
enough to typically fit through gaps in bollard and mesh style walls. A levee border wall cannot
have gaps or holes because that would defeat the purpose of a levee, which is to stop the passage
of water. Existing earthen levees have a slope on both sides, which, during a flooding event,
allows terrestrial animals to go up one side and down the other to escape rising waters. A levee

4

 border wall would replace the existing sloping levee with a sheer concrete slab, easily
surmountable by a human with a ladder or a rope, but impossible for terrestrial animals to cross.
Some of Hidalgo County’s levees were converted to levee border walls in 2009. In 2010, the Rio
Grande flooded, inundating a number of wildlife refuge tracts up to the levees for as long as four
months. Trees were reported killed by the month-long inundation.8 After the water receded, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) reported to CBP that in areas where levee border walls
prevented the egress of animals they found hundreds of shells from drowned Texas tortoises, a
state-listed threatened species, and that it was likely that animals whose remains would be less
durable, possibly including ocelots, also drowned. USFWS warned CBP that:
“The floodwall blocked almost all egress for terrestrial wildlife species. Animals
caught between the river and the flood wall that could not escape around the
edges of floodwalls likely perished. Routine inspections of tracts during the event
found terrestrial species in trees, swimming and wading in rising water….
Hundreds of shells of Texas Tortoise have been found demonstrating the
probability of mortality for species which could not retreat from rising water
levels. The Service fears any ocelots or jaguarundi that may have been caught in
these areas when water began to rise may have been malnourished, injured, or
perished.”9
The USFWS brief determined that any animals unable to find a gap in the wall to escape the
2009 floodwaters likely perished. CBP’s proposal to build 25 miles of solid levee walls with no
gaps but a small 3.3-mile stretch at Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuge would trap and drown
virtually all terrestrial animals present in the riparian corridor, including endangered species that
may be present like ocelot and jaguarundi. With these concerns in mind, what measures does
CBP intend to incorporate into the proposed levee border walls to ensure that these barriers do
not serve as death traps for terrestrial animals during flooding events?
In addition to the grave harm the proposed project would inflict upon wildlife, there are also a
number of endangered plants within the project area that would be impacted by CBP’s proposed
construction. The disturbance of land and the disruption of the natural flow of water into the Rio
Grande would negatively impact these species and alter the area’s flora, pushing threatened and
endangered plants closer to extirpation. CBP’s proposal for a 150-foot enforcement zone where
all vegetation would be cleared indicates that a significant amount of vegetation would be
destroyed close to the new border wall. This raises concerns about erosion. Without plant cover
to slow water flow and stabilize soils, rain would likely cause gullying and loss of topsoil, further
degrading ecosystems within and adjacent to the proposed project area.
According to a calculation made by Rio Grande Valley resident and Friends of the Wildlife
Corridor board member Tiffany Kersten, 6,525 acres of natural areas would be degraded or
destroyed by the proposed project, including numerous tracts of the Lower Rio Grande Valley
National Wildlife Refuge, Bentsen-Rio Grande State Park, and the National Butterfly Center.
The area of habitat destroyed by CBP’s proposal would be greater in size than 5,000 football
fields. Much of this acreage would be stripped of all vegetation to make way for the border wall
and 150-foot enforcement zone, while the remaining lands would be cut off by the proposed
5

 barrier and turned into a “no-man’s” land, trapped on the south side of the border wall but north
of the river. This no-man’s land would be cut off from public access and habitat on the north side
of the border barrier, impacting both recreationalists and wildlife.
Apart from the extremely low-resolution maps attached to CBP’s notice to comment, no maps
have been released that adequately detail the project area or assess the acreage of habitat that
would be destroyed as a result of the project. It is CBP’s responsibility, not the responsibility of
the public, to compile and share detailed information on the proposed project before requesting
the public to comment. CBP must provide detailed maps of the project area and extend the
comment period to allow the public to make informed and specific comments after reviewing
detailed and specific maps showing the extent of CBP’s proposal.
Based on the information CBP has provided, the proposed project would harm native species and
the natural environment over a wide area. Despite this, CBP has not indicated that it would
mitigate harm to wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, and their habitat. Even if
CBP does propose mitigating actions, we are concerned by CBP’s poor track record regarding
promised mitigation. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, where CBP
erected many miles of border wall and upgraded patrol roads in 2008, CBP prepared an
Environmental Stewardship Plan which determined that the most appropriate mitigation for
destroyed or fragmented habitat would be the purchase of 4,600 acres of land to be added to the
USFWS refuge system. To date, CBP has purchased only 1,100 acres of potential ocelot habitat
in South Texas. This is less than a quarter of the habitat that CBP committed to purchasing to
offset the damages caused by 2008 construction. We are concerned that similar pledges of
mitigation that might be made in the course of this proposed project may also be left unmet or
ignored.
Even if CBP were to commit to mitigation and carry it out, the nature of a border wall makes
meaningful mitigation extremely difficult or impossible. This is because the worst effects of the
wall are not the habitat destroyed or damaged, but rather that the wall divides populations,
cutting them off from resources and fragmenting them so they are more vulnerable to extirpation.
A mitigation accounting in which CBP were to replace each acre of habitat it destroys by
purchasing and conserving a similar acre elsewhere would not come close to offsetting the harm
caused by the fragmentation a wall would create, and therefore should not be considered
legitimate mitigation.
It is conceivable that CBP could attempt to mitigate for fragmentation and other effects by
purchasing and preserving land to offset the Mexican habitat that would be lost to U.S.
populations of animals like ocelots. For example, if the wall were to cut off 10,000 acres of highquality habitat from the U.S. population, a logical offset would be for CBP to purchase 10,000
acres of replacement habitat. However, even were CBP willing, it is unlikely that such highquality habitat could be purchased nearby because so little remains. More than 95% of the habitat
that originally existed in the Rio Grande Valley has been converted to uses that make it
unsuitable for wildlife. Neighboring farmlands exist that could one day be revegetated, but it can
take 100 years or more to sufficiently revegetate such areas to the point where they again serve
as viable habitat. These factors make the likelihood of adequate mitigation so remote that CBP
should halt the proposed project and seek to employ border security strategies that preserve the
existing high-quality habitat in the project area.
6

 Endangered Species:
Natural areas like the Lower Rio Grande Valley Wildlife Refuge, Bentsen-Rio Grande State
Park, the National Butterfly Center, as well as private, conservation-oriented ranchlands, hold
some of the best-preserved native habitat left in the valley and are the last remaining homes for
numerous endangered species including the red-billed pigeon and Aplomado falcon, and
potentially the ocelot and jaguarundi. This means that preserving these protected areas—many of
which are within or adjacent to CBP’s proposed project area—could make the difference
between survival and extinction for some of these species in the U.S.
Ocelots, numbering around just 70 in the U.S., live in the Rio Grande Valley’s remaining thorn
scrub forests. There are believed to be only 30 wild jaguarundi remaining in the U.S., all of
which live in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. Habitat destruction and fragmentation have been
major causes of the decline of both species and will be greatly exacerbated by the proposed
project.
Another threat faced by nocturnal species like ocelot and jaguarundi are flood lights, which
adversely affect migration, dispersal, foraging, predation, and other activities. CBP’s own 2004
Environmental Impact Statement for Operation Rio Grande stated that “increased lighting from
Operation Rio Grande may disrupt nocturnal behavior in portions of the project area, which
could affect the ocelot and jaguarundi.”10 Specifically, the illumination of brush disturbs or
prevents the regular nocturnal habits of animals, which in the case of the ocelot and jaguarundi
includes hunting. Otherwise vital habitat becomes of limited value when blasted with floodlights.
In settling a lawsuit brought by the Sierra Club, Audubon Society, and Defenders of Wildlife
against the 2004 EIS, CBP agreed to limit the illumination of brush, particularly in refuge lands.
The settlement is still in effect, and it is unclear how CBP’s plans for lighting as proposed in this
project would comply with the settlement. It is equally unclear how such lighting, installed
within known habitat for endangered species, would comply with the Endangered Species Act
(ESA).
The USFWS has identified the reconnection of viable populations of ocelots in the borderlands
between Texas and Tamaulipas as an important recovery action in the 2016 Recovery Plan for
the Ocelot.11 CBP’s proposed project would make meeting the goals set forth in the recovery
plan impossible by cutting off these populations with a solid impassable barrier. Furthermore,
scientists have determined that ocelots in the U.S. face a 33% chance of extinction in 50 years if
key recovery actions, including maintaining landscape permeability, are not implemented.12
CBP’s proposed border wall construction would interfere with these recovery strategies and
make the extinction of the U.S. ocelot population much more likely.
To our knowledge, CBP has not initiated ESA formal consultation with USFWS to ensure that
the proposed activities will not jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened
species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat. There is no indication in
the notice to comment or elsewhere that CBP intends to comply with the ESA or is taking into
account the impacts of border walls on federally listed endangered species. Failure to comply
with the ESA would be highly problematic as there are at least 18 listed threatened and
endangered species with habitat within or adjacent to the proposed project area. CBP’s proposed
7

 activities would remove and degrade habitat and would likely lead to direct wounding,
harassment, killing, and/or other forms of “take” of listed species through activities that would
remove vegetation and create barriers that would restrict species’ movement within and around
the proposed project areas. CBP, as all other federal agencies, must also further the purposes of
the ESA by ensuring its activities conserve endangered and threatened species. We implore CBP
to uphold its duties under the ESA and request that CBP engage in formal consultation with
USFWS.
Finally, we expect that CBP may propose mitigation for ocelot and jaguarundi, such as installing
“cat holes” similar to those that exist in certain bollard-style walls in Cameron County, installed
approximately a quarter mile apart. These 9” X 12” gaps in the fence are intended to allow
ocelots and jaguarundi to pass from one side of the wall to the other. Whether these are used by
endangered species or any other animal should be thoroughly studied, as anecdotal evidence
suggests that even if an animal can fit through the hole many will not approach the area due to
the Border Patrol traffic, exposed space cleared of vegetation, and flood lights at night. Until
CBP can demonstrate that the installation of “cat holes” is an effective means of allowing ocelots
and jaguarundi to cross the border wall through detailed scientific study, these “cat holes” should
not be considered an adequate or effective mitigation to the harm the proposed project would
inflict upon endangered species. If the existing “cat holes” are proven to be of minimal benefit,
CBP will need to work with USFWS to develop other proven mitigation measures, or else
abandon the border wall project altogether to avoid violating the ESA.
Migratory Birds:
The proposed border wall and associated clearance of habitat for CBP’s desired 150-foot
“enforcement zone” will negatively impact migratory birds. The Central and Mississippi
migratory flyways converge on the Rio Grande Valley, funneling millions of birds through the
proposed project area each fall and spring. Migratory birds travel hundreds or even thousands of
miles on their annual journeys, in some cases crossing the Gulf of Mexico before arriving in the
Rio Grande Valley. Migratory birds need intact habitat in which they can rest and refuel before
continuing on their migrations.
Flooding
The levee and bollard-style border walls proposed by CBP will increase the risk of flooding and
could lead to the inundation of communities with floodwaters, the destruction of wildlife habitat,
the drowning of animals and people, and the incurrence of millions of dollars in infrastructure
damage, as has already occurred in other areas where CBP has constructed border walls.
Bollard Walls in Starr County:
CBP’s proposal to construct 8 miles of 20 to 30-foot-high bollard walls, made up of six-inch
concrete-filled steel bollards would lead to increased risk of flooding and put communities,
wildlife, and property at risk. Bollard walls have been documented to collect debris during floods
and act as dams that trap the flow of water. Similar border walls have caused catastrophic
flooding in Nogales, Arizona, where debris piled up against mesh and bollard border barriers and
8

 trapped more than 8 feet of water on the Mexican side of the border, causing two deaths and
damaging 578 homes.13
The locations CBP has proposed for bollard wall construction lie within the Rio Grande
floodplain, which is an area already susceptible to flooding. If CBP constructs the same design of
bollard walls that were built in Cameron County, the bollards themselves would block 66% of the
area that water would otherwise be able to flow through, not even considering additional blockage
caused by debris obstruction. Floodwaters almost always carry high levels of sediment and debris.
Bollard walls built in California, Arizona, and New Mexico have seen the gaps between their
bollards clog with debris during flood events, sometimes only weeks after construction was
completed.
In 2008, the border wall near Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and the Lukeville Port of Entry
caused extensive flooding when monsoonal rains were stopped from draining due to a debris dam
created by the border wall. Most likely as a result of this flooding, CBP commissioned Baker
Engineering to examine all of the places where border walls crossed streams and washes from El
Paso, Texas to the Pacific Ocean. Baker reported:

“PF 225 fencing obstructs drainage flow every time a wash is crossed. With
additional debris build-up, the IBWC’s criteria for rise in water surface elevations
(set at 6” in rural areas and 3” in urban areas) can quickly be exceeded.”
In a number of instances, water dammed by debris-clogged border walls has pooled up to a depth of
six feet or more behind the barriers. Over time, sediment accumulates behind these clogged walls,
raising the upstream bed many feet higher than the downstream bed. In Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, this effect led to water gouging around the foundation of the border wall and toppling 40
to 60-foot sections of wall, which were washed downstream. A 2008 National Park Service (NPS)
assessment of flooding damages caused by the border wall recommended that CBP involve objective,
third party experts in the review and approval of any additional border barrier construction and
designs. The assessment cited concerns that the existing design, on which NPS was not consulted,
was expected to accelerate erosional scour that might continue to undermine the stability of the fence
itself, in addition to altering channel morphology and floodplain function and worsening flooding
dangers.14 There is no reason to believe that bollard border walls in the Rio Grande floodplain where
rain is much more frequent, would be less of a flooding liability than existing bollard walls in
Arizona.
Finally, CBP’s proposed bollard walls in Starr County would cause severe drainage issues for the
cities of Roma and Rio Grande City, as well as other communities in their path. Water that now is
able to drain downhill to the Rio Grande would be obstructed by the border wall and the debris
caught between bollards. This would likely cause the flooding of homes, businesses, farms, as well as
wildlife habitat. If CBP has a plan for addressing this issue, the full details should be released
immediately so that they can be evaluated by the public. Continuing to withhold this information or
failing to develop such a plan in the first place, would be shortsighted and a violation of the
consultation requirements required by the Secure Fence Act as well as NEPA.

9

 Levee Walls in Hidalgo County:
Levee walls pose significant flooding concerns to wildlife that may be caught on the south side
of the levee wall in a flood event. We have already voiced concern in the above section, detailing
how existing levee walls function as wildlife traps that drown terrestrial animals, and how this
danger will be greatly exacerbated by new construction of contiguous and impermeable levee
barriers. Beyond drowning wildlife, levee walls could also endanger the lives of recreationalists,
landowners, domestic animals, and migrants who may be present in the area between the border
wall and the river during flood events.
Border Walls Erected in the Rio Grande Floodplain Would be a Treaty Violation:
Mexican officials of the International Boundary Water Commission (IBWC) have long voiced
concern over the construction of border walls in the Rio Grande floodplain. Luis Antonio Rascón
Mendoza, the principal engineer of the Mexican section of the IBWC, iterated concerns about
border walls worsening flooding by pushing floodwaters into Mexico in 2008, stating:
“The location, alignment and design of the proposed fence represent a clear
obstruction of the Rio Grande hydraulic area, since in the towns of Rio Grande
City and Roma, TX, the fence would occupy nearly all of the hydraulic area on
the U.S. side, causing the deflection of flows towards the Mexican side. If you
consider that, given the design characteristics, the fence obstructs 60-70% of the
hydraulic area in a direction perpendicular to the flow, and if you add to that the
effect of the current retaining trash and debris, the significant length that is
located in the floodplain, and the position of the fence relative to the direction of
flow, the fence constitutes a serious obstruction and deflection of the Rio Grande
flows towards Mexico. […] We reiterate our opposition to the construction of the
proposed fence in the Rio Grande floodplain given the impacts stated above.”
As demonstrated by Rascón’s comments, border walls constructed in the floodplain worsen
flooding by redirecting floodwaters away from the U.S. and into Mexico, creating a
disproportionate burden to be borne by Mexican communities. Just as the border wall in Nogales,
Arizona flooded Nogales, Sonora, leading to millions of dollars in damages and two deaths,
CBP’s proposed border walls in Rio Grande Valley could again lead to the inundation of
Mexican communities with deadly and damaging floodwaters.
Beyond this being a clear issue of environmental injustice, redirecting dangerous floodwaters
into Mexico, as CBP’s proposed project would almost certainly do, is also an international treaty
violation. In a 1970 boundary treaty entitled: Treaty to Resolve Pending Boundary Differences
and Maintain the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the International Boundary, both nations
agreed to “prohibit the construction of works… which, in the judgement of the commission, may
cause deflection of obstruction of the normal flow of the river or of its flood flows.”15 This
treaty, signed with “a close spirit of friendship and mutual respect” between nations, was enacted
to prohibit actions that would adversely impact either nation’s floodplain or interfere with natural
river flows, just as CBP’s proposed project would do.

10

 During the 2008 construction of bollard border walls in Cameron County, the IBWC required
that CBP build walls north of the levees and outside of the Rio Grande floodplain so as to not
deflect waters into Mexico and violate the 1970 treaty. Mexico and the Mexican section of the
IBWC continue to object that any unilateral action on the part of the U.S. to build a border wall
in the floodplain would be a violation of the treaty.
The eight miles of border wall CBP is proposing to construct in Starr County fall within the Rio
Grande River floodplain. Constructing walls in this area would constitute a treaty violation. CBP
must either change the route and location of their planned border wall by moving it out of the
floodplain or abandon the project altogether. Moving the wall out of the floodplain would mean
walling off significant portions of towns such as Roma, and leaving homes and businesses
trapped in no-man’s land between the border wall and the river. For this and other reasons we
recommend CBP halt the project altogether.
The levee wall CBP is proposing, with a vertical concrete slab built to the levee's existing height,
topped with 18 foot-high bollard, would also violate the treaty. The height of the levees built in
the U.S. and Mexico are intended to be precisely the same, ensuring that if a flood overtops one
nation's levee it will simultaneously overtop that of the other. Like the prohibition of installing
obstructions such as walls in the floodplain, this is intended to ensure that infrastructure
constructed by one country does not deflect water and worsen flooding in the other. Bollards
atop a levee border wall are just as likely to be clogged with debris as bollards erected in the
floodplain, and thereby likely to become impermeable barriers that deflect water. This issue
should be taken up with the Mexican section of the IBWC, and their response should be made
publicly available.
As we have described, CBP’s proposal will deflect water into Mexico and worsen the severity of
flooding in Mexican communities such as Ciudad Aleman. If water is deflected south, the river
could also settle into a new channel, effectively moving the international boundary. At a bare
minimum, no construction should begin without extensive IBWC input regarding the design,
placement, and impacts to flood control, and until Mexican IBWC officials’ concerns are fully
addressed.
Impacts to Ecotourism and Rio Grande Valley Economy
State parks, national wildlife refuges, historic districts and nature preserves in the Rio Grande
Valley are significant attractions that bring hundreds of millions of dollars to the local economy.
According to a Texas A&M University study, nature tourism in Rio Grande Valley contributed
$344.4 million per year to county-level economies and created 4,407 jobs.16 The State of Texas
is the number one bird-watching destination in the nation and more than 500 bird species have
been documented in the valley.17
Numerous renowned birding and nature areas lie within the proposed project area and would be
irreversibly damaged or destroyed by border wall construction. These areas include Bentsen-Rio
Grande State Park, numerous tracts of the Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge, the
National Butterfly Center, the Roma Bluffs World Birding Center, and others. As refuge lands

11

 and state parks are lost and endemic and migratory species decline, there will be less incentive
for nature enthusiasts to visit the area.
Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park is also the headquarters of the World Birding Center,
which encompasses nine sites along the Rio Grande River. A brief from the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department (TPWD) (Attached as Exhibit A) states that the border barrier construction
proposed by CBP would likely lead to the parks closure, stating:
“While the full impact to the operation is not known at this point, it is safe to say
a wall would be a significant deterrent to visitors and inhibit the access currently
provided. Construction of the proposed wall would certainly call into question
whether TPWD could continue to safely operate the property as a state park.”18
The brief also details how the proposed project would restrict public access and eliminate
opportunities for camping in the park, if not forcing the area to close altogether. The brief
continues:
“If the wall is erected, TPWD will likely discontinue overnight camping and
nighttime viewing of wildlife due to safety concerns…. The barriers would
weaken the ability of Bentsen-Rio Grande to perform one of its primary missions,
providing access to the outdoors for local scout groups and serving as an outdoor
classroom for school groups. TPWD programming such as Texas Outdoor Family
events that introduce new users to the outdoors would likely be curtailed,
reducing outreach services to populations that are already underrepresented in the
outdoors.”
The closure of Bentsen-Rio Grande State Park would not only harm wildlife and endangered
species, it would also harm the local economy, and restrict public access to one of the last
remaining places in the Rio Grande Valley where residents can camp in an undeveloped natural
area.
A 2010 report by the National Recreation and Park Association shows Bentsen-Rio Grande State
Park had an annual visitation of 45,296, more than 40% of which were non-local visitors. These
non-local visitors spent an average of $45.88 per day, contributing $835,670 to the local
economy.19 This means that the closure of Bentsen-Rio Grande State Park alone would cost Rio
Grande Valley communities many hundreds of thousands of dollars. This does not include
economic loss incurred through the closure or decline in visitation at other frequently-visited
areas like the National Butterfly Center, the Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge, Roma
and La Lomita National Historic Districts, and others that would be impacted by the proposed
project. CBP’s border wall proposal would place severe economic tolls upon local communities
in the Rio Grande Valley, which are already among the poorest in all of Texas.20
We request that before moving forward with the proposed project, CBP conduct a full
assessment of how the project would impact local economies and offer mitigating strategies for
businesses that are likely to lose revenue and individuals who are likely to lose their jobs.

12

 Broad Public Opposition to the Border Wall in Rio Grande Valley and Beyond
It is also important to note that the overwhelming majority of Rio Grande Valley residents, the
majority of Texans, and 60% of the American public oppose the border wall.21 Opposition to the
border wall in border communities is substantially higher and polls show that 72% of borderland
residents oppose the wall.22 In an explicit rejection of CBP’s proposed border wall construction,
35 cities, counties and tribal nations in the borderlands have passed “No Border Wall”
resolutions.23
Importantly, Hidalgo and Starr counties, where CBP is proposing to build border walls, both
passed “No Border Wall” resolutions condemning the border wall and taking a firm and formal
stance against the construction of any new miles of barriers. Both Hidalgo and Starr County
commissioners voted unanimously in favor of these resolutions, citing concerns to the
environment, private property, and flooding that would result from the proposed project. In
addition to Hidalgo, Starr and Cameron counties, sixteen cities in the Rio Grande Valley have
passed “No Border Wall” resolutions. These cities include McAllen, Mission, Pharr, Sullivan
City, La Joya, Weslaco, Edinburg, and others that would be directly impacted by CBP’s
proposed project.
Each of these resolutions is a direct and public position taken by city and county governments in
Rio Grande Valley that should be considered by CBP as statement of direct opposition to the
proposed project. These resolutions, as well as the general public opposition to the project, are
well-known throughout the Rio Grande Valley. The fact that CBP has only allowed a short 30day comment period and has not made an effort to notify all members of the public, particularly
Spanish-speaking individuals suggests that CBP is making an intentional effort to suppress
public input, likely because CBP knows that the public and local elected officials in Rio Grande
Valley are overwhelmingly opposed to the border wall.
CBP often argues that it is these very border communities that the border wall will benefit. If
what CBP argues is true, then we would expect border communities to be supportive of the
project. The broad and vocal opposition from border communities demonstrates the reality that
these communities neither want nor need additional miles of border walls. CBP has continually
attempted to paint border communities as unsafe places while claiming that the construction of
border barriers will reduce crime. We remind CBP that border communities across the
borderlands have consistently lower crime rates than the national average, and Texas border
cities are among the safest communities in the state. Data from 2015 showed that murder rates in
Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio were more than twice the murder rates in McAllen,
Brownsville, Laredo, and El Paso, and aggravated assault rates for these same border
communities were 19 times lower than those in Detroit, Michigan.24 CBP’s portrayal of border
communities as dangerous places is not only factually inaccurate, but it is an offensive
mischaracterization that further insults and profiles communities of color.
The overwhelming opposition to this project from local communities who stand to be harmed
reflects just how damaging this project would be. At a bare minimum, CBP must consult
extensively with local communities by preparing a full EIS with public meetings, and ample

13

 opportunities for the public and elected officials to weigh in on the disastrous implications of the
project before moving forward in the planning process.
Unproven Efficacy of Border Barriers
CBP’s undated notice to comment on this project states that “the purpose of the proposed barrier
construction is to increase CBP’s ability to impede or deny illegal border crossings.” At this
point in time, there is no conclusive data to suggest that border barriers actually impede or deny
undocumented border crossings. In fact, a 2017 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
noted that there is currently no way of documenting the role of border barriers in impeding
border-crossers. The report recommended that CBP
“develop metrics to assess the contributions of pedestrian and vehicle fencing to
border security along the southwest border and develop guidance for its process
for identifying, funding, and deploying [Tactical Infrastructure] TI assets for
border security operations.”25
Until CBP develops these metrics, it is inappropriate to suggest that the deployment of border
barriers will have a meaningful effect of “impeding and denying” border crossings.
Border barriers block most species of animals, impede natural flows of water, and even alter
plant dispersal, but there is no evidence they stop people from crossing. A 2014 study of activity
around border barriers in natural areas showed that terrestrial mammals were found in higher
numbers in locations where no border barriers were present. The authors, however, found no
difference in the number of border-crossing humans detected between areas with and without
barriers, suggesting that barriers are not effective at deterring migrants, but do affect wildlife
populations.26
The same 2017 GAO report that established CBP has not proven border barriers are effective at
deterring border crossings also sheds light on CBP’s overarching tactics of border barrier
construction and border militarization. The report outlines CBP’s strategy of border wall
construction as a tactic employed not necessarily to stop border crossings, but as an attempt “to
divert illicit cross-border activities into more remote or rural environments, where illegal entrants
may require hours or days to reach the nearest U.S. community.”
This tactic has proven ineffective at deterring border crossings. It has also led to the deaths of
thousands of migrants who have been pushed into remote reaches of borderland deserts and
perished in the elements while attempting to cross the border. CBP’s own statistics show that
more than 7,000 people have died crossing the border between 1998 and 2017,27 though this
count only reflect bodies that have been found and therefore is widely considered to be much
lower than the true number of deaths.28
From its conception, the construction of border barriers and militarization of border communities
has been a part of a larger strategy to intentionally push border-crossers into remote desert
environments where many die due to harsh conditions. This policy has led to a humanitarian
crisis on our southern border. CBP’s proposal to construct more miles of barriers in the Rio
14

 Grande Valley and increase levels of border militarization would exacerbate this crisis and likely
lead to more migrant deaths in south Texas and across the borderlands. Already, heat-related
migrant deaths on the border are up 55% in the past nine months and more families are
attempting to cross in remote and dangerous terrain.29 In 2017, Texas saw the largest increase in
border deaths of any state, more than two thirds of which occurred in the Rio Grande Valley.30
Environmental Justice:
Environmental justice is defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as “The fair
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, culture, national
origin, income, and educational levels with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of protective environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Executive Order 12898
directs that “each Federal agency shall make achieving environmental justice part of its mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and
low-income populations.”31
More than 90% of the population in Hidalgo and Starr counties can be classified as a minority.32
Starr and Hidalgo counties, where CBP is proposing to construct border walls, have some of the
lowest per-capita incomes in the entire state, with $11,659 and $13,480 per capita incomes
respectively.33 It is clear that based on the demographics of the project area, a disproportionately
high number of the people who will be negatively affected by the proposed project are members
of minority and/or low income populations.
Significant environmental justice concerns have already arisen in the planning process of the
proposed project though CBP’s failure to send notices in Spanish in an area where 85% of the
public are Spanish-speaking. This suggests an intentional attempt to exclude and discriminate
against the very populations that CBP is obligated to engage. For this and other projects, CBP
should strive to actively engage all community members, regardless of race, culture, national
origin, income and educational levels, and minimize impacts on marginalized populations, in
accordance with Executive Order 12898.
As we previously requested in our July 23, 2018 letter to CBP entitled “Request for Sixty-day
Extension on U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s Notice and Invitation to Comment on Rio
Grande Valley Border Barrier Construction,” we ask that the planning process for this project
proceed no further until CBP can demonstrate that a meaningful and transparent effort has been
made to obtain public comment from a wide range of community members, including minority
and low-income populations.
As previously discussed, the construction of 33 miles of border walls, some of which CBP has
proposed to place within the Rio Grande Valley floodplain, would expose local residents to
worsened floods. These floods would disproportionately impact residents in low-lying areas that
are often home to poorer communities. Beyond these significant flooding concerns, the proposed
construction would also likely impact air and water quality of neighboring communities. CBP’s
proposed project is of significant scale and will involve extensive concrete batching, heavy
machinery operation, and severe ground disturbance, all of which would likely emit particulate
15

 dust and pollutants into air and water and endanger the health of neighboring communities.
These public health hazards would adversely and disproportionately impact human health of
minority and low-income populations in violation of Executive Order 12898.
Without the preparation of an EIS under NEPA it is impossible to fully understand and analyze
the true public health and environmental justice implications of CBP’s proposed project. There is
a clear framework for assessing environmental justice impacts within the NEPA process. The
completion of an EIS for the proposed project, as required under NEPA, would illuminate these
concerns and help inform the best path forward.
Finally, we are aware that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), CBP’s parent agency,
has waived 38 laws to expedite three separate border wall construction projects in California and
New Mexico in the past year alone. DHS has done this by invoking Section 102 of the REAL ID
Act, which we continue to argue is unlawful, as this waiver authority is no longer applicable and
was never intended to exist in perpetuity. DHS’s use of the Section 102 waiver to waive laws
like NEPA, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and others has denied residents in border
communities the same critical public health and environmental protections that communities
everywhere else in the nation receive as a basic right. The very purpose of these laws, and of
Executive Order 12898, is to protect communities most at risk and ensure they receive the same
protections and rights as all Americans. If DHS chooses to issue yet another waiver and cast
aside critical public health and environmental protections in Rio Grande Valley, it would be lowincome minority populations who would suffer most. We caution CBP that issuing a waiver for
the proposed project would be profoundly undemocratic and raise significant environmental
justice concerns. In this and other projects, DHS must work to actively engage stakeholders and
respect our nation’s laws, rather than using expired provisions of the REAL ID Act to deny legal
rights to low-income and minority communities.
Conclusion
We urge CBP to carefully review and respond to all concerns raised within this letter and to
comply with all applicable federal laws before moving forward with the planning and execution
of this project. As discussed above, we are extremely concerned that CBP does not appear to be
conducting this project in compliance with NEPA or other applicable federal laws, as indicated
by the fact that CBP has not initiated the NEPA process to begin gathering input on the project
proposal. CBP’s short 30-day comment period for this project, which was sent only to select
individuals of the agency’s choosing, is no substitute for meaningful public comment and is
wholly inadequate to meet the public process and informed decision-making requirements set
forth by NEPA. Because of this, and the additional reasons detailed within the contents of this
letter, CBP must cease all efforts towards constructing border barriers in Rio Grande Valley until
these numerous and significant issues are resolved.

Sincerely,

16

 ACLU Border Rights Center
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Animal Welfare Institute
Borderlands Restoration Network
Born Free USA
Center for Biological Diversity
Defenders of Wildlife
Endangered Species Coalition
Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC)
Franciscan Action Network
Friends of the Earth US
Friends of the Sonoran Desert
Friends of the Wildlife Corridor
Frontera Audubon
Great Old Broads for Wilderness
Hope Border Institute
Klamath Forest Alliance
La Unión del Pueblo Entero
National Parks Conservation Association
NM CIVIC
NM Comunidades en Accion y de Fé - CAFé
North American Butterfly Association
NY4WILDLIFE
Rio Grande Valley No Border Wall Unofficial Coalition
Save Wolves Now Network
Sierra Club
Southern Border Communities Coalition
Southwest Environmental Center
Texas Border Coalition
Western Watersheds Project
WildEarth Guardians
Wildlands Network
17

 1

Undated letter from Paul Enriquez, Real Estate and Environmental Branch Chief, CBP (letter received on or
around July 10, 2018).
2

Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency (Aug. 11,
2000); Memorandum to Federal Agencies from Attorney General Eric Holder Reaffirming the Mandates of
Executive Order 13166 (Feb. 17, 2011).
3

Customs and Border Protection Website. Frequently Asked Questions: Do I have to speak Spanish to join the U.S.
Border Patrol? Accessed July 2018. https://www.cbp.gov/faqs/do-i-have-speak-spanish-join-us-border-patrol.
4

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge webpage: Wildlife and
Habitat. Accessed July 2018. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Lower_Rio_Grande_Valley/wildlife_habitat.html
5

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2018. Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge webpage: Restoring
Habitat. Accessed July 2018. https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Lower_Rio_Grande_Valley/resource_management/
restoring_habitat.html
6

Flesch, A.D., C.W. Epps, J.W. Cain, III, M. Clark, P.R. Krausman, and J.R. Morgart. 2010. Potential effects of the
United States-Mexico border fence on wildlife. Conservation Biology, 24, 171–181.
7

Peters, R., W. J. Ripple, C. Wolf, M. Moskwik, G. Carreón-Arroyo, G. Ceballos, A. Córdova, R. Dirzo, P. R.
Ehrlich, A. D. Flesch, R. List, T. E. Lovejoy, R. F. Noss, J. Pacheco, J. K. Sarukhán, M. E. Soulé, E. O. Wilson, J.
R. B. Miller. 2018. Nature Divided, Scientists United: US–Mexico Border Wall Threatens Biodiversity and
Binational Conservation, BioScience.
8

E. Findell. 2011. Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge Still Growing Back from Alex Flooding. The Monitor. Accessed July
31, 2018. https://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_f76c9cf8-dc8e-5510-9fb3-f99248589eb8.html
9

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Rationale and Justification for Conservation Measures: Rio Grande Valley
Sector. Corpus Christi Ecological Services Field Office. March 9, 2011.
10

Customs and Border Protection. 2004. Environmental Impact Statement for Operation Rio Grande. Department of
Homeland Security. April 2004.
11

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. Recovery Plan for the Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis). Soutwhest Region.
Albuquerque, New Mexico. July, 2016.
12

Haines, A.M., Tewes, M.E., Laack, L.L, Grant, W.E. and J. Young. 2005a. Evaluating recovery strategies for an
ocelot (Leopardus pardalis) population in the United States. Biological Conservation 126: 512-522.
13

Arizona Daily Star. 2008. Mexico Ties Flooding in Nogales to U.S. Border Patrol-Built Wall. July 23, 2008.

14

National Park Service. 2008. “Effects of the International Boundary Pedestrian Fence in the Vicinity of Lukeville,
Arizona, on Drainage Systems and Infrastructure, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona.” Organ Pipe
National Monument. August 2008.
15

The United States of America and Mexico. 1970. Treaty to Resolve Pending Boundary Differences and Maintain
the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the International Boundary. Signed November 23, 1970.
16

Woosnam, K., R. Dudensing, D. Hanselka, and S. An. 2011. An Initial Examination of the Economic Impact of
Nature Tourism on the Rio Grande Valley. Report prepared for the South Texas Nature Marketing Coop by
Department of Recreation, Park & Tourism Sciences and Department of Agricultural Economics Texas A&M
University.
17

Mathis, M and D. Matisoff. 2004. A Characterization of Ecotourism in the Texas Lower Rio Grande Valley.
Houston Advanced Research Center, Valuing Nature in Texas Program.
18

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park and Impacts of the Proposed Border
Wall. Undated Brief (Attached as Exhibit A).
19

Crompton, John L. 2010. Measuring the Economic Impact of Park and Recreation Services. National Recreation
and Park Association, Research Series.

18

 20

U.S. Census Bureau. "Selected Economic Characteristics” 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year
Estimates" Accessed July 2018.
21

CBS News. 2018. Americans Continue to Oppose U.S.-Mexico Border Wall: CBS News Poll. March 12, 2018.

22

Cronkite News. 2016. Border Residents: Don’t Build a Wall Between Cities. July 17, 2016.

23

No Border Wall Coalition. 2018. The Opposition webpage. Accessed July, 2018. https://noborderwalls.org/
opposition/
24

Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2015. Murder Rates in Border Cities Compared to Select U.S. Cities Per 100,000
Population. Prepared by the office of Congressman Henry Cuellar, Source: 2015 Crime in the United States, FBI.
25

U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2017. Southwest Border Security: Additional Action Needed to Better
Assess Fencing’s Contributions to Operations and Provide Guidance for Identifying Capability Gaps. GAO-17-331.
26

McCallum J.W., J.M. Rowcliffe, I.C. Cuthill. 2014. Conservation on International Boundaries: The Impact of
Security Barriers on Selected Terrestrial Mammals in Four Protected Areas in Arizona, USA. PLoS ONE 9(4):
e93679. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093679
27

U.S. Border Patrol. 2017. Southwest Border Deaths by Fiscal Year. Southwest Border Sectors. https://www.cbp
.gov/sites/default/files/assets/documents/2017-Dec/BP%20Southwest%20Border%20Sector%20Deaths%
20FY1998%20-%20FY2017.pdf
28

Ortega, Bob. 2018. Border Patrol Failed to Count Hundreds of Migrant Deaths on U.S. Soil. CNN Investigates.
Tuesday May 15, 2018. https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/14/us/border-patrol-migrant-death-count-invs/index.html
29

Hay, Andrew. 2018. U.S. Border Deaths Rise on Family, Child Migrants: Patrol Agency. Reuters. June 25, 2018.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-deaths/us-border-deaths-rise-on-family-child-migrants-patrolagency-idUSKBN1JL33P
30

International Organization for Migration. 2018. Migrant Deaths Remain High Despite Sharp Fall in US-Mexico
Border Crossings in 2017. Accessed July 2018. https://www.iom.int/news/migrant-deaths- remain-high-despitesharp-fall-us-mexico-border-crossings-2017
31

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations. 59 Fed. Reg. 32 (Feb. 16, 1994).
32

State of Texas. 2015. Estimates of the Population by Age, Sex, and Race/Ethnicity for July 1, 2015.
http://demographics.texas.gov/Resources/TPEPP/Estimates/2015/2015_ASRE_Estimate_alldata.pdf
33

U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. Selected Economic Characteristics, Hidalgo and Starr Counties, per capita income.
2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

19

 20





W8C - Bantam-Rio Grande Valley SP

World Birding Center - Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley State Park
s-Proposed Homeland Security Border Wall Location

1 . 3r.






7.,

 

Bord" Wall

Park Boundary

1 50' Enforcemont Zone
Illusion Main Canal

 



APPENDIX A: Texas Parks and Wildlife Division Brief

 

 

21

World Siding Conant - Bantam-Rio Grand. Valley sum Pall:
- Homdmd Security Border Wall Location 5 luttuclon

 

 

22

Bantam-Rio Grands Valey State Park and
impacts of the Proposed Border Wal

         

. . it A '1 11'. mi in Ora; 1.

in 1944. Elmsrand Lloyd Bentsen Sr. 9m 588.9acresofiandtotheTexas ParksBoard
for one dollar. The dead stipulated that the land be used 'soleiy for Public Park Purposes
and shall be maintahed. operated. known and designated as Benteen-Rio Grands Valley
State Park." Today the park encompasses 768 acres of brushy woodlands along the Rio
Grande just south of Mission in Hidalgo County. Texas.

Bentsen-Rlo Grande Valley State Park homd nearly 30.000 visitors in 2016 and like
other state parks across the park system. is steadily growing as a destination with
approximately 5%growtheechyear.Vlsitorsto Benteen comefrom all overtheworld.

quarter of overnight users. As a significant nature based tourism destination. Bentsen
adds a substantial contribution to the local and state economy. In addition. over 4,000

Brand Christian Youth Camp.

 


Valley. and the wildlife unique to these woodlands. can stil be fomd. Stands of cedar
elm. Rio Grande ash. Texas ebony. black wllow. anacua. hulsache and other species
provide food shelter and nesting habitat for many Texas natives. 0f the hundreds of rare.
threatened orendangered species documented in Hidalgo County. 25 species have been
confirmed at the park hcluding the federally endangered interior Least Tern (Stems
anfillarum atheiassos). Northern Aplornado Falcon (Falco ibmoralls sepfsnirionaiis).
Jaguanrndi (Herpallwus yaguarendr). and Ocelot (Leopardus pardalis). and the state-
threatened Texas Tortoise (Gopherus berfandieri) and Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corals
erebannus). 

Wm

Today. 
destinations in the country and is the Headquarters of the World 
120milesotriverroadfremSouth Padre
Island west to Rome. with habitats ranging from dry chaparrai and verdant riverside
thickets to freshwater marshes and coastal The Rio Grande Valley has long
been recognized as a world-class birding destination. and with the creation of the World
Birding Center. Texas Parks Wildife Department. U.S. Fish &Wildlife Service. and nine
Rio Grands Valley communities. have expaMed tourism in the Rio Grands Valey. as well
as awareness about this ecological treasure along the state's southern border.


incredible variety of birds. Some 340 diierent species otbirds have been sighted in the
park. inciuding the green jay. Altamira orioie. white-tipped dove. plain chachalaca. hook-
billed kite. groove-billed ani. common persons and ringed kingfisher. Birders across the

 

23

nation know the park as a treasure trove of "Valley Specialties". tropical birds found
nowhere else in the United States.

and Park ti no

-

  



View orperir headquarters from levee

 

initial proposals for the alignment of the border security wall would have substantial
impacts on the operations and public access to the park. Proposed placement of the well
would essentially separate the park?s Headquarters. Visitor and Education Center from
the great majority of park property. including staff residences and other facilities. which
would be located behind the Border Wall. The entire habitat preserve would be south of
the wall. creating a barrier to publlc access. use. and enjoyment.

As noted previously. the land for Bentsen-Rio Grande Valley SP was donated 'solely for
public park purposes". An express condition of this conveyance is that in the event the
land ?is not so maintained. designated and operated as such State Park for the use and
bene?t of the public, then the title to such land shall revert to and again become vested
in said above named Grantors. their heirs. executors and administrators".

While the full impact to the operation is not known at this point. it is safe to say a well
would be a signi?cant deterrent to visitors and inhibit the access currently provided.
Construction of the proposed well would certainly call into question whether TPWD could
continue to safely operate the property as a state park. and thereby possibly causing the
site to revert back to the original Grantors' heirs.

 

24

 

Detail of front gate area

If the wall is erected. TPWD will l?rely discontinue overnight camping and nighttime
viewing of wildlife due to safety concerns. in addition. TPWD will need to increase its
enforcement activities behind the wall to monitor the park 24 hours/day to protect the
safety of the visitors. This activity will include additional protection of non-commissioned
park staff when they are working inside of the park. If the levee border wall is built with a
proposed gate as the entrance into Bentsen State Park. it seems likely that a Border
Patrol Checkpoint will need to be constructed to monitor visitors leaving the park.

The barriers to park use would weaken the ability of Bentsen-Rio Grande to perform one
of its primary missions, providing access to the outdoors for local scout groups and
serving as an outdoor classroom for school groups. TPWD programming such as Texas
Outdoor Family events that introduce new users to the outdoors would likely be curtailed,
reducing outreach services to populations that are already underrepresented in the
outdoors.

The border wall would also impair access to the Brand Christian Youth Camp located
adjacent to the park. The Youth Camp. which serves an estimated 4,000 visitors each
year can only be entered by coming through the park. and would face the same
challenges to attracting visitors as the park.

Construction of a wall would also directly impact TPWD facilities. As currently proposed.
park facilities within a 150 foot zone south of the wall will be demolished. Depending on
the exact location of the well. this could include the Nature Center. park maintenance yard
and park residence. Even if the agency were to receive reimbursement for these facilities,
finding new locations to rebuild would be problematic and would likely impact existing
wildlife habitat. If these locations are built inside of the park. then additional security will



 

25

be requiredtoprotectthem. 

non-daylight hours will be needed for many pupoees including biological. hterpretive,
maintenanceoroperational needs.



Theareaclearedforthe proposed walwill amounttodiout25-35 acres ofquality riparian
habitat This will directly impact habitat of numerous plant species and animal of concern
Moreover the cleared area will invariably be colonized by invasive species. which 
further adversely impact adjacent native habitat.

MW


area, deployment of enhanced homology and other measures. US. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP)andTexae Parks 




TPWD leedershb and the Assistant Sector Chietior U.S. Customs and Border Protection
metrecentlyatBentsen-Rio GrandeValleyState Parktoviewtheopemtionalconcams
andoblectlvestorbothpartiee. ltisbelleved

while preserving the viability of operations of the World Birding Center Headquarters and
Bentsen-Rio Grende Valley. Some elements of an alternative plan for the state park
property could hclude:

and communicationbetweenCustome and
State PakPoice
of?ceretoenhance cooperation and operational coordindion.


aoentsandothero?ioersonpatrol.


miscurrentiyun'mprovedwriace

duetothe cunent surlace condition.

0 Deployment oiadditiomlremotesenelng units andothermonitoringdeviceswimln
theperkboundariee.


alongtheborder. relations and leveragingot
theuresourcesadd 
activities aswetlae