Overview
Image 2
The Lower Rio Grande Valley National wildlife Refuge complex includes the Laguna Atascosa, Lower Rio Grande Valley, and Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuges. The refuge system currently manages 111 individual tracts of land totaling 77,000 acres. The refuge system is authorized to purchase additional land within the four county area of the lower Rio Grande for a total of up to 132,500 acres.
The priority has been to purchase acreage directly adjacent to existing refuge lands. The acreages will act as bridges to connect separate tracts, providing migration routes for native animals. Areas that have or contain unique or notable resources such as endangered animals or plant species also receive priority for acquisition. (http://library.fws.gov/RefugePlanningDocumentsAlphabetical.html)
Local groups have formed to assist the federal and state effort to preserve and expand the habitat necessary to ensure the survival of species found within the Santa Wildlife Refuge.
Two examples are:
The Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge System is owned by the National Wildlife Refuge System, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Department of the Interior. All of the subsurface mineral rights are privately held.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley and Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuges’ Interim Comprehensive Management Plan, dated 1997, produced by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Department of the Interior, listed five goals:
Goal I – Protect Biological Diversity, Land, and Water
To restore, enhance, and protect the natural diversity of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, including threatened and endangered species on and off refuge land through:
Goal II – Protect Water Rights, Water Management, and the Management of Wetlands
To protect existing water rights holdings, improve the efficiency of water delivery systems, protect, enhance, and rehabilitate refuge wetlands.
Goal III – Protect and Improve Water Quality
Improve refuge water quality and reduce contaminant related fish and wildlife resource losses.
Goal IV – Protect Cultural Resources
To protect, maintain, and plan for Service managed cultural resources on the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR for the benefit of present and future generations.
Goal V – Provide compatible wildlife dependent public uses, recreational opportunities, interpretation and education
The priority has been to purchase acreage directly adjacent to existing refuge lands. The acreages will act as bridges to connect separate tracts, providing migration routes for native animals. Areas that have or contain unique or notable resources such as endangered animals or plant species also receive priority for acquisition. (http://library.fws.gov/RefugePlanningDocumentsAlphabetical.html)
Local groups have formed to assist the federal and state effort to preserve and expand the habitat necessary to ensure the survival of species found within the Santa Wildlife Refuge.
Two examples are:
- (1) The Friends of the Wildlife Corridor is a nonprofit organization established in 1997. The goal of the Friends of the Wildlife Corridor intends to protect, support, and enhance the Santa Ana and Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuges. The Friends of the Wildlife Corridor help acquire land for the Lower Rio Grande Valley refuges. The group helps secure grant funding, conducts educational canoe trips, operates a nature store for the Roma Bluffs World Birding Center, and works with elected officials and the general public. (http://www.friendsofsouthtexasrefuges.org/) & (http://www.fws.gov/spithwest/refuges/texas/STRC/Irgv/Friends_LRGV.html)
- (2) The Valley Proud Environmental Council hosts a Rio Reforestation event each year. These events attract large numbers of volunteers for the half day events. These events include individuals from throughout the area that plant native trees and shrubs on the refuge system for the benefit of wildlife. The events have resulted in the reforestation of more than 500 acres with native plants. (http://www.valleyproud.org/)
The Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge System is owned by the National Wildlife Refuge System, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the United States Department of the Interior. All of the subsurface mineral rights are privately held.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley and Santa Ana National Wildlife Refuges’ Interim Comprehensive Management Plan, dated 1997, produced by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the United States Department of the Interior, listed five goals:
Goal I – Protect Biological Diversity, Land, and Water
To restore, enhance, and protect the natural diversity of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, including threatened and endangered species on and off refuge land through:
- • Land Acquisition;
- • Management of habitat and wildlife resources on refuge lands; and
- • Strengthening existing, and established new cooperative efforts.
Goal II – Protect Water Rights, Water Management, and the Management of Wetlands
To protect existing water rights holdings, improve the efficiency of water delivery systems, protect, enhance, and rehabilitate refuge wetlands.
Goal III – Protect and Improve Water Quality
Improve refuge water quality and reduce contaminant related fish and wildlife resource losses.
Goal IV – Protect Cultural Resources
To protect, maintain, and plan for Service managed cultural resources on the Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR for the benefit of present and future generations.
Goal V – Provide compatible wildlife dependent public uses, recreational opportunities, interpretation and education
- • Continue to offer a quality wildlife observational trial system on Santa Ana NWR;
- • Offer compatible wildlife dependent public access on certain tracts of the LRGV NWR; and
- • Continue wildlife interpretation and educational efforts at Santa Ana NWR and initiate interpretive efforts for LRGV NWR in coordination with private groups and other jurisdictions.
Border Issues:
The Mexican/United States (U.S.) border fence project was approved for installation under the Secure Fence Act as a way to stop illegal immigration and smuggling activities from Mexico. The U.S. Border Patrol bans approximately 1,000,000 illegal immigrants annually and confiscates about 500 tons of narcotics that are attempted to be smuggled across the U.S. border. The Rio Grande Valley in Texas ranks in the top three busiest U.S. Border districts out of the 20 total districts.
The installation of the steel fencing border began in 2006, and more than 30 federal laws, including many environmental laws were waived and bypassed to complete the fencing activities, including but not limited to: the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The original proposal approved by President Bush called for the installation of approximately 700 miles of border fence, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) set a goal to have 370 miles installed by the end of 2008. Of the 700 miles proposed, 153 miles of fencing would be placed in Texas alone (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003721366_fence25.html). As of 2009, approximately 70 miles of fencing remained to be installed, and most of those 70 miles were allocated for the Rio Grande Valley. The cost to build the border fence has topped $2 billion. Two types of fencing, pedestrian fence and vehicle fence, have been used to divide the border. The fence only covers approximately one third of the 2,000 mile border between the United States and Mexico. Those in opposition to the fencing point out that those intending to commit illegal activities can reroute to the two thirds of open border, and that the fencing may not be worth the money or environmental impacts. A third type of virtual fence is proposed to be installed in the gaps left by the pedestrian and vehicle fences.
Several environmental issues have arisen as a result of the placement of the border fence, including blocking access to the Rio Grande River which is the only fresh water source in the area and impeding into the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge that took more than 30 years of planning and maintenance. The fence most affects animal populations with unique habitats and low populations. The fence prevents ocelots and other regional animals from swimming across the river to mate; it divides animal families, and blocks animal movement so that they may not be able to reach habitats necessary to survive. For example, the ocelot population at Santa Ana has declined to fewer than 50 individuals, and are all but completely removed from the more diverse populations recorded in Mexico. The fence reduces access to potential territories and its access roads make animals more vulnerable to predators. Most land animals cannot move around or climb the fence, and many birds hesitate crossing over gaps in open or unfamiliar habitats. There has been an increase in animal deaths since the installation of the fence near Santa Ana Wildlife Refute, largely by vehicle traffic, in more urban areas surrounding the wildlife refuge as a result of trying to relocate after being isolated from their previous habitat.
In an effort to reduce the environmental impact to the South Texas Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge, 100 opening were included in the border fence with hopes to increase the flow of wildlife. It has been noted, however, that most of the larger animals cannot fit through these openings and most species to not seek out new migration paths so they may never find these openings (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110802/full/news.2011.452.html).
The installation of the steel fencing border began in 2006, and more than 30 federal laws, including many environmental laws were waived and bypassed to complete the fencing activities, including but not limited to: the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Endangered Species Act. The original proposal approved by President Bush called for the installation of approximately 700 miles of border fence, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) set a goal to have 370 miles installed by the end of 2008. Of the 700 miles proposed, 153 miles of fencing would be placed in Texas alone (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003721366_fence25.html). As of 2009, approximately 70 miles of fencing remained to be installed, and most of those 70 miles were allocated for the Rio Grande Valley. The cost to build the border fence has topped $2 billion. Two types of fencing, pedestrian fence and vehicle fence, have been used to divide the border. The fence only covers approximately one third of the 2,000 mile border between the United States and Mexico. Those in opposition to the fencing point out that those intending to commit illegal activities can reroute to the two thirds of open border, and that the fencing may not be worth the money or environmental impacts. A third type of virtual fence is proposed to be installed in the gaps left by the pedestrian and vehicle fences.
Several environmental issues have arisen as a result of the placement of the border fence, including blocking access to the Rio Grande River which is the only fresh water source in the area and impeding into the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge that took more than 30 years of planning and maintenance. The fence most affects animal populations with unique habitats and low populations. The fence prevents ocelots and other regional animals from swimming across the river to mate; it divides animal families, and blocks animal movement so that they may not be able to reach habitats necessary to survive. For example, the ocelot population at Santa Ana has declined to fewer than 50 individuals, and are all but completely removed from the more diverse populations recorded in Mexico. The fence reduces access to potential territories and its access roads make animals more vulnerable to predators. Most land animals cannot move around or climb the fence, and many birds hesitate crossing over gaps in open or unfamiliar habitats. There has been an increase in animal deaths since the installation of the fence near Santa Ana Wildlife Refute, largely by vehicle traffic, in more urban areas surrounding the wildlife refuge as a result of trying to relocate after being isolated from their previous habitat.
In an effort to reduce the environmental impact to the South Texas Wildlife Refuge Complex, which includes the Santa Ana Wildlife Refuge, 100 opening were included in the border fence with hopes to increase the flow of wildlife. It has been noted, however, that most of the larger animals cannot fit through these openings and most species to not seek out new migration paths so they may never find these openings (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110802/full/news.2011.452.html).