Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona likely to face irreversible damage from border wall construction/NPS file
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument is home to a thriving community of plants and animals. In fact, this national monument is also an International Biosphere Reserve, recognized for its conservation of the unique resources representing a pristine example of an intact Sonoran Desert ecosystem. But the health and continued protection of this irreplaceable ecosystem is at risk from a man-made intrusion; the border wall.
On May 16, 2019, the U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced that approximately 63 miles of existing border barriers would be upgraded with vehicle and pedestrian barriers in the form of a bollard wall. The proposed design of the new bollard wall includes 18- to 30-foot, concrete-filled steel bollards that are approximately 6 inches x 6 inches in diameter. The proposed project also includes improvement or construction of roads, the installation of lighting and the installation of other detection technology. And the proposed project would impact numerous national public lands, including Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument.
This is an incredibly invasive and destructive project, and CBP has not indicated publicly what level of environmental analysis it would prepare for its border wall proposal. In most instances, the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act have been waived in the interest of expediting wall construction. This means that significant desert vegetation and wildlife habitat could be destroyed without taking the time to truly study the impacts and ramifications. And we know it’s happening already, as you can see in this video of a bulldozer knocking over a decades-old Saguaro.
The existing barrier at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Coronado National Monument was constructed between 2004–2006. According to the NPS documents for that project, the barrier was to be “wildlife friendly” and include mitigation measures to protect threatened and endangered species. With the new border wall, there will be little, if any, provisions to allow wildlife to access water and habitat.
In addition, the effectiveness of the new wall is also in question. There have been numerous instances where the wall has been constructed, yet illegal border crossing still occurs. We should not risk our irreplaceable cultural and natural resources until the effectiveness of the existing wall, as well as the new proposed wall, have been disclosed to the public and thoroughly analyzed by federal, state and tribal officials.
The damage being done to Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument by the construction of this border wall will last for centuries; in fact, it may very well be irreversible. If the effectiveness of the existing barrier and its impacts have not been disclosed to the public, how do we know that a new border wall is necessary? What we do know is that a wall will threaten the delicate balance of a critical ecosystem. So is building a wall that may not be successful worth impacting national parks and harming threatened and endangered wildlife? It is not.
Rick Smith served the National Park Service for decades, retiring as the Associate Regional Director for Resources Management. Rick continues to stay involved in NPS issues and is an active member of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks. He and his wife, Kathy, live in Tucson, AZ.
Comments
rump - always playing the race card. That is what the left does when the facts don't support their case. Here are some facts that prove the wall has nothing to do with race. Lets look at legal immigration into the US. In 2018, Mexico was the largest home country for legal immigrants. In fact, it was nearly 3x the level of the next highest country, China. Central America, Mexico, the Carribean and South America represented 43.2% of all legal immigrants. That compares to less then 8% for all of Europe. If this were about race, why would the proportion of LEGAL immigrants be so high from these "brown" countries? Afterall, we make conscious decisions who gets to come in legally. If it were about race, we would just say "no". The fact is, it has nothing to do with race. It has to do with respecting and protecting our borders and entering our country legally.
Interesting Jerry. I was last there in 2017, drove both loop roads, hiked Senita Basin and around Quitobaquito Springs, hiked to Dripping Springs, hiked several other trails besides, and never saw any black water jugs, clothing, or trash of any kind scattered around. I'm sure there's some, but its much better than it was in the first decade of this century, and no comparison at all to the scare-pictures taken in 2003 of trash-filled desert gullies that are still being bandied around as if they were current.
Kurt,
While the pronghorn may be at risk (its quick recovery may question that) the article is pretty clear that there is no hard evidence that the wall would further threaten their existance. In fact, it indicated that as few a one migration every few years might be sufficient, a goal that could be easily exceeded with the relocation on release of the pen raised pronghorn. Also interesting that Homeland Security allocated more than $4 mil to pronghorn conservation. Hardly the move of an administration that has total disregard for the environment.
Yeah, sure, it's about respecting and protecting our borders and entering our country legally ...and skimming the cream of the crop off the top of a hardworking, quick learning, and, most important, relatively very cheap physical labor pool that can and will do the backbreaking tasks that guys like you and your relations wouldn't touch with a ten foot pole ...at least now you've figured out that it's a border, not a boarder, wall in this case.
Kurt, a far more credible and well reasoned article than this one. And while I would agree a wall isn't going to help the plight of these pronghorn it sounds as though they were in trouble without human intervention, wall or no wall.
The unfounded accusations of racism would be merely mildly annoying or perhaps even comical if not for the fact that every time someone like rump makes one of these ridiculous accusations it not only diminishes the meaning of the word but makes it that much harder for people who experience actual racism to be taken seriously.
Agree 100% wild.
Hmmm, wild places (although that pseudonym seems out of place given your eagerness to defend damage being done to the wilds of this national monument), I seem to remember that, in a recent comment to another NPT article, I discussed the kind of behavior displayed in your post above. It was in a comment in which I discussed how predatory narcissists tend to respond when called on their crimes.
Let's see, I pointed out that the selfish greed of the narcissistic personality drives it to live as a predator and on the basis of its transgressions; thus, in order to thrive, the narcissistic personality is always covering its tracks, hiding its crimes, and fabricating excuses. One of the best tactics for fabricating excuses is for the perpetrator to demean or belittle the victim, thereby belittling and minimizing the crime. Often, an even better tactic for fabricating an excuse is for the perpetrator to turn the tables on the victim by outright vilifying them. Then I pointed out that, sometimes, the perpetrator can combine the two tactics to create a thick broth of deflection.
So, let's see how your recent comment stacks up. You started with "unfounded accusations of racism would be merely mildly annoying" (this is a response designed "to turn the tables on the victim by... vilifying them"). You then proceed to label my concerns as "perhaps even comical" (use of this language is where you shift over to trying "to demean or belittle the victim, thereby belittling and minimizing the crime"). You then go for a "double play" with claims that "every time someone like rump (the "someone like rump" is a classic "demean or belittle" the plaintiff thing) ...makes one of these ridiculous accusations..." (this is classic "belittling and minimizing the crime"). Before finishing with a grand flourish with your accusations that my criticism "...not only diminishes the meaning of the word but makes it that much harder for people who experience actual racism to be taken seriously" (a classic vilify the plaintiff ending).
You really went all out on that one; but, it really doesn't change the truth ...and neither does anything your beloved President tweets. When something is wrong, it is wrong.