Acknowledgements: US-Mexico Border and Immigration Task Force | www.bordertaskforce.org Border Action Network | www.borderaction.org No More Deaths | www.nomoredeaths.org Sierra Club of Arizona | arizona.sierraclub.org Defenders of Wildlife | www.defenders.org National Immigration Forum | www.immigrationforum.org
Accountability & Oversight
Accountability and Oversight
Prepared by the US-Mexico Border and Immigration Task Force
1. Act Responsively to Complaints Regarding DHS Agents • An effective complaint process would include uniform procedures and sufficient personnel for all Border Patrol Stations and Ports of Entry to receive, investigate, and resolve complaints of incidents brought to their attention. • Quick reviews, investigations, and protection against retaliation, arrests, or deportation of complainants, plus a federal database of complaints would ensure fair and routine administration of concerns regarding the actions of DHS agents. • Information on how to submit complaints should be posted at Primary and Secondary Inspection booths and at all Border Patrol Processing centers. 2. Incorporate Civil and Human Rights in Training of DHS Agents • DHS Officers in the border region should receive training in ethics, civil rights, human rights, and community relations. DHS operations must prevent profiling of entire communities and should instead emphasize evidence-based inspections and arrests. • Guidelines and training should ensure that the response actions of DHS officers are commensurate with the level of threat they face. • All port personnel should be trained in legal and human rights aspects of inspections procedures, including questioning, searches, and handling of documents. • Community education that informs border communities of their legal and human rights when dealing with law enforcement agents from various agencies should be promoted by DHS. 3. Report and Release Information on Border Patrol Stops, Searches, and Arrests • The Border Patrol should provide arrest reports showing the race of persons stopped, similar to law enforcement arrest reports. 4. Establish an Independent Review Commission • These recommendations and the implementation of policies should be overseen by an independent review commission comprised of diverse persons who understand the complexities of the border and who would have legal power to hold DHS responsible for its policies.
AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations | 7
Ports of Entry & Infrastructure
Ports of Entry & Infrastructure
Prepared by City of Douglas Economic Development Office
Ports of Entry can serve as the ideal mechanism for enhanced national security and catalyst for economic growth. Inadequate POEs, however are detrimental to efforts intended to protect the nation’s physical and economic security. Unfortunately, Arizona’s outdated POEs are currently among the biggest obstacles to the welfare of the state and safety of the country. Unites States Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data has shown that from 2002-2007 car and car passenger traffic at Arizona’s POEs have dropped by about 20% -- 4 million less people/ 1 million less cars entering Arizona’s POE. During the same period, pedestrian traffic increased by 2 million. In addition, since 2002 there has been an increase of over 55,000 trucks entering Arizona. AZ POE system handles 400,000 commercial trucks over 600 trains, over 32 million people –recent trends indicate cross border traffic will continue to significantly grow. POEs today are outdated and heavily overburdened infrastructure, insufficient staffing, new and more intense inspection procedures and restricted ingress and egress facilities. Example: The Mariposa border station, the most recent port of entry built in Arizona was finished in 1976 reached its intended design capacity of 400 trucks per day by the early 1980s – today Mariposa is crossing as many as 1,600 trucks and 1,400 pedestrians each day (never intended to become a pedestrian crossing). Historically, POE projects can take so long to complete that they face inflated costs due to the value changing of currencies, and when that are finally completed, the growth in demand is already outpacing the expanded capacity. Therefore, funding for facilities and staffing should be defined and funded in a multi-year fashion allowing for the enforcement agencies to better plan and utilize their resources. The lack of funding combined with an insufficient multi-year source of funding for POEs serves to aggravate the situation and create an unnecessary sense of competition for funding amongst border communities and border states. The traditional process to get a new POE completed can take at best seven yeast but more than likely 15 years from inception to completion, and in today’s economy and security needs allocating funds for POE should be a priority. Examples: San Luis II for example is a project that began in 1995 but did not break ground until February of 2008 and will be completed in the fall of 2009, some 14 years after being conceived. Examples: In addition, recognizing the need to improve our ports and witnessing the significant delays by the federal government, Arizona stepped in by contributing funds and resources to prevent further harm to our state. For instance, it was the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) that paid for the construction of the Nogales FAST lanes ($4.1 million) in 2005-06, as the Federal government did not have available funds. It was also ADOT that paid more than 50% of the expansion at Lukeville using state dollars to pay for federal facilities. Example: Funding of Douglas POE project has been continuously postponed (2010, 2011) Recommendations 1. DHS, in conjunction with its federal agency partners, needs to collaborate to expedite the approval process for the prioritization, selection and funding of land border infrastructure projects that improve the facilitation of cross-border trade and travel 2. Congress can help by committing more funds toward border infrastructure while also looking at reducing the time it takes for any project at our ports to comply with all the regulatory requirements AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations | 11
Ports of Entry & Infrastructure
Prepared by City of Douglas Economic Development Office
before construction, specifically the process of obtaining presidential permits from the State Department. 3.Homeland Security to assume the leadership role among federal agencies in conducting a performance and utility assessment of the multiple layers of federal security programs and policies that currently govern legitimate trade and travel along the U.S. shared borders. Are these programs effective? Can they be better integrated and harmonized to increase both security and the efficiency of trade and travel? Can they be more effective and efficient with additional resources and improved infrastructure? (Our land ports of entry do not have the infrastructural capacity to adequately handle outbound inspections into Canada or Mexico, yet there have been calls for Congress to require DHS to do exactly that) 4.Ensure that scarce federal dollars are committed toward programs, policies, and projects that result in the greatest benefit in terms of economic and physical security. Successful border security efforts require the utilization of risk-based assessments based upon real-time intelligence to direct the most efficient allocation of scarce federal resources in order to attain the greatest security benefit. (The security of our borders is not something that is static. The very nature of trade, travel and cross-border commerce within the context of the concerns with terrorism require that we stay ever vigilant and prepared.)
12 | AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations
Community Security and Separating Local from Federal Law Enforcement
Community Security and Separating Local from Federal Law Enforcement Prepared by the US-Mexico Border and Immigration Task Force
1. Local Law Enforcement Should Not Be Responsible for Immigration Enforcement • Local law enforcement agencies should not be asked to participate in federal immigration enforcement because it diverts police attention from more pressing public safety concerns, undermines community relationships with police, and makes it harder to carry out law enforcement activities that safeguard communities. • Federal resources, including Operation Stonegarden grant money, should not be used to pressure local agencies to enforce immigration laws. 287(g) programs should be suspended because they impose much more significant costs on communities, both financially and socially, than any benefits they achieve. The lack of communication between police and immigrant communities is a threat to all public safety. 2. Focus Resources on Public Safety and Community Security • Community safety and security will be achieved when DHS and law enforcement focus on dangerous criminals, and not law-abiding persons without legal immigration status, who contribute to local society and economy. • The border patrol should renounce broad sweeps in neighborhoods and workplaces in the border region. High speed vehicle chases present significant risks to public safety and health.
AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations | 15
Border Operations and Border Community Participation
Border Operations and Border Community Participation
1. Encourage the Formation of Local Citizens’ Review Committees • Citizens’ Review Committees should be established throughout the border region and supported by a collaboration of local leaders and DHS. To ensure the integrity of the committee’s mission, committees should not be selected, convened and run by local Border Patrol offices rather, they should be partners with the agency. • Review Committees’ meetings should be open to the public. • Community representation on review committees should include attorneys, human rights groups, business interests, faith groups, academics, local law enforcement, and local elected officials, as well as decision makers in DHS for the respective border sector. • Significant new policies and construction projects should be presented for review committees for feedback before any final decisions are made. • The local review committee should be a space in which complaints could be presented and filed. The committee would receive reports from local DHS offices about numbers of complaints and resolutions of complaints as a means to strengthen the integrity of the complaint system. 2. Perform Community Impact Studies and Community Consultations • Community impact studies and community consultations should be required prior to all significant local, state, or federal initiatives affecting the border. • Community impact studies should consider the social, cultural, and economic impacts of implementing policies, particularly security policies. These studies should also include significant consultation with the local community. • Consultations should provide an opportunity for community members to speak publicly about their concerns, suggestions and support for initiatives affecting the border. Community members’ comments should be transcribed and the DHS should provide a response to the individuals’ comments and concerns. Consultations should be widely publicized, held in accessible locations and at hours of the day during which community members can participate.
AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations | 19
Short-Term Border Patrol Custody
Short-Term Border Patrol Custody Prepared by No More Deaths
In September 2008 No More Deaths released “Crossing the Line,” a report documenting human rights abuses suffered by migrants while in the custody of the United States Border Patrol. No More Deaths has provided humanitarian aid to migrants in the Southern Arizona desert for five years; in 2006, No More Deaths began to provide such assistance at Ports of Entry to those returned by United States immigration enforcement agencies. Many arrive at the aid stations with stories and visible evidence of the mistreatment they have experienced while in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security. Common examples include physical and verbal abuse, denial of access to medical care, and the provision of misleading and inaccurate legal information. No More Deaths’ documentation highlights the importance of including short-term facilities in any review of the immigration detention system. Focusing only on the conditions found in Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facilities will not address ICE and Border Patrol practices during short-term (up to 72 hours) apprehension, processing and repatriation. There are currently no uniform, public, and enforceable regulations of short-term custody, nor independent oversight of the treatment of those detained. Recommended Standards for Short Term Border Patrol Custody The following standards are to apply to all contact between agents and migrants during apprehension in the field; detention at processing centers; transportation; and repatriation at ports of entry. The term “agents” refers to Border Patrol agents as well as to all employees of private entities contracted by the Department of Homeland Security. Access to Water Agents will provide potable water to each migrant immediately after initial contact. To prevent contamination and spread of disease, water will be distributed in a sanitary manner. Each migrant shall receive his or her own sanitary, personal receptacle and always have unlimited access to water. Particular attention will be paid to ensure that pregnant women, children, the elderly and the ill have sufficient water. Every migrant shall be offered electrolyte replacement. Access to Food Agents will ask every migrant if they are aware of any food allergies and at a minimum provide basic electrolyte replacement upon initial contact. Each migrant will receive at least one meal regardless of the time in detention or time of arrival and subsequent meals if held for more than eight hours. Meals shall be provided at least every five hours and be nutritious. Agents shall not discard food belonging to migrants. Children and pregnant women shall be given additional access to food as desired. Mothers who are breast-feeding shall not be separated from their children. Processing Center Conditions Searches shall always be conducted by an agent of the same gender as the migrant. Migrants shall have access to basic toiletries: shampoo, deodorant, toothpaste, toothbrush and soap. Agents shall provide two clean blankets to each migrant and a safe and adequate area to sleep. Migrants shall never be denied access to toilet facilities, diapers, or sanitary products. Agents shall ensure that sanitation and temperatures in cells are maintained at acceptable and comfortable AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations | 23
Short-Term Border Patrol Custody Prepared by No More Deaths
levels. The detention areas must be cleaned, repaired, and maintained to the same standard as the entire facility. All horizontal surfaces in the detention centers shall be damp-dusted daily with a germicidal solution. Waste containers shall be lined with plastic bags and the liner shall be changed daily. Holding cells shall be cleaned daily, kept at the same temperature as the rest of the processing center, and shall not exceed the maximum capacity as posted inside the facility. There must be a quarterly sanitation inspection with a written report by a local or state sanitation official. The facility must be in compliance with corrections, restrictions, or conditions stipulated by this authority. Access to Medical Treatment Agents with at least Emergency Medical Technician certification shall conduct a field assessment prior to transportation to a processing facility. Each processing center shall have a licensed medical professional on site and on duty at all times. Licensed medical professionals shall conduct a more comprehensive screening at the processing center of each migrant at no cost; migrants shall receive medical treatment for any and all injuries prior to removal, including all open wounds and blisters. Agents shall never refuse medical treatment to any migrant, including access to hospital services. Prescriptions shall not be taken away, and will always be filled when ordered by a physician to maintain. Agents shall not interfere with medical procedures and shall not verbally or physically harass migrants while they are receiving medical treatment. Agents will pay close attention to pregnant women, children, the elderly and the ill to prevent any injuries. Pregnant women shall not be handcuffed after arrival at a hospital or clinic. Women in active labor shall not be handcuffed either en route to, or while in, a hospital. Safe Transportation Transportation shall be safe and take into special consideration those with additional health care concerns, including but not limited to pregnant women, infants, and children. Migrants shall not be crowded in vehicles; the number of migrants shall not exceed the vehicle manufacturer’s recommended number of passengers. Migrants will only be transported in vehicles with seatbelts provided for each passenger, and migrants shall not be shackled unless they have seatbelts. Migrants shall only be shackled when being transported from one point to another, not in processing facilities. Transportation shall always be at a safe speed that takes into account road and weather conditions. Vehicles used for transporting migrants will be properly equipped, maintained, and operated. Humane Repatriation & Deportation Practices Children shall never be separated from their family. A mother shall never be separated from her children, especially when she is breast feeding. Agents will ensure that family members are kept together during processing and removal. Unaccompanied minors shall be handed over to the care of their Consulate. DHS shall provide a daily report to all appropriate consulates that contains a complete list of all repatriated and deported individuals, as well as the time and port of entry of removal. Removals shall never be conducted in the nighttime or at unsafe hours.
24 | AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations
Short-Term Border Patrol Custody Prepared by No More Deaths
Identification documents, property and/or money of each migrant shall be securely labeled, stored, and returned upon removal. Medications shall always be returned to migrants. There will be no destruction of migrants’ property, including clothing. Each migrant shall be fully clothed in weather appropriate clothing when removed. No migrant shall be held or returned with wet clothes and agents shall provide appropriate attire and/ or shoes when necessary. Legal Proceedings Upon admission, migrants shall be informed verbally and in writing of their rights in a language they understand, including the right to petition for asylum, to see a judge or attorney, and their right to consular notification. Migrants shall be given the opportunity to make a phone call to legal counsel, their Consulate, and/or a family member. When migrants are asked to sign any paperwork, the paperwork shall be in their native language. No legal document shall be signed without consulting an attorney. Agents shall explain all paperwork content if requested to do so, and shall not threaten or coerce migrants into signing paperwork. Human Rights Agents shall provide an environment free from harassment, humiliation, physical, sexual, verbal and emotional abuse. At no time will agents participate in torture or any form of abusive, cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment. All grievances shall be promptly and thoroughly investigated. Independent Oversight A Community Oversight Committee shall be established to ensure compliance with codified standards. The committee shall be staffed with medical and legal professionals and individuals who work in the area of human and migrant rights. Members shall have access to processing centers and Border Patrol/DHS facilities.
AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations | 25
Operation Streamline and Criminal Alien Programs
Operation Streamline and Criminal Alien Programs Prepared by the National Immigration Forum and the US-Mexico Task Force
1. Respect Due Process and Detention Rights • DHS should follow clear guidelines for criminal investigations consistent with constitutional and human rights norms, including observance of laws regulating how long an immigration or law enforcement official can detain a person, the timing and form of notice required for the basis of detention, and the circumstances in which the immigration status of those detained can be investigated. • Immigrants facing criminal charges and deportation must receive adequate time to meet with their defense attorneys and assess their legal rights. 2. Operation Streamline Should be Suspended and Re-evaluated • Operation Streamline curtails fundamental legal rights and diverts important judicial resources from more significant criminal prosecutions. It should be fully suspended pending an evaluation of its overall effectiveness within the scope of federal law enforcement priorities. This would not prevent prosecution of illegal entry on an individual basis where such charges might be warranted. • Review of Operation Streamline should include: 1. A study of the numbers of federal prosecutions of white collar crimes, organized crimes, environmental crimes, civil rights crimes, drug trafficking, human smuggling, and other federal crimes between 2005 and 2009 2. A study of federal convictions obtained under Operation Streamline and the number of nonviolent immigration offenses 3. Comparison of rates of federal prosecutions and convictions in districts along the southern border in relation to other districts nationwide 4. Interviews with criminal defense attorneys who have represented defendants charged under Operation Streamline, including review of opportunity of arrestees to consult with immigration attorneys prior to conviction, and the ratio of defendants to defense attorneys 5. Interviews with the US Marshal Service, federal court judges, and court personnel regarding the effects of increased illegal entry prosecutions 6. Reporting on lengths of imprisonment, names, and locations of prisons used for those prosecuted under Streamline 7. Cost calculations for detentions, prosecutions, and incarcerations under Operation Streamline
AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations | 29
Border Walls
Border Walls
Prepared by the Sierra Club
The borderlands region contains a large number of Wilderness Areas, National Parks, National Monuments, National Wildlife Refuges, and National Forests. These lands are part of America’s wild legacy, and are of significant ecological, educational, historic, cultural, recreational and economic value to the United States and its people. In order to preserve the integrity of these important lands, the Sierra Club has the following recommendations for the Department of Homeland Security: 1. Stop Building Bush’s Border Wall by Halting Current Construction Projects Border walls have bisected communities, separated families and caused damaging floods. Hundreds of miles of walls have been built through federally protected lands, fracturing wildlife habitat and scarring the landscape. Much of this construction has occurred outside of the rule of law. In 2005, the REAL ID Act gave the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security the authority to waive any law to expedite construction of border walls. Thereafter, the Bush Administration ignored dozens of landmark laws along the border, including the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy Act. Despite this, the final 40 miles of Bush’s 670 mile border wall are still being constructed under the Obama Administration. Much of this mileage cuts through pristine wilderness and sensitive nature preserves. In California’s Otay Mountain Wilderness, formerly a roadless wilderness area, walls that will fragment habitat are under construction and coarse new roads causing significant erosion problems are being plowed across the landscape. Along the Rio Grande in South Texas, several wildlife refuges will end up with the majority or the entirety of their refuge land on the Mexican side of the border wall. The rule of law should be reinstated along the border and construction of border walls -- and their associated damage to communities and the environment -- should stop. 2. Secretary Napolitano Should Commit to No Further Use of Real ID Waiver Secretary Napolitano’s predecessor, Secretary Chertoff, used his authority to construct hundreds of miles of pedestrian and vehicle barriers without compliance with federal, state, or local laws that protect historic sites, wildlife, and tribal burial grounds. We believe damage that has occurred to community relationships and public lands is attributable, at least in part, to the haste with which construction has proceeded, the lack of compliance with laws and regulations, and the lack of consultation with property owners and land managers. The remaining segments currently under construction include extremely steep slopes in the Otay Mountain Wilderness area and nature preserves in the Rio Grande Valley. If DHS concludes that completing these segments is necessary, we ask that they direct the Border Patrol to comply with the applicable legal requirements, including the National Environmental Policy Act, for construction in these areas. More careful consideration now could save mitigation dollars later, as well as avoiding the type of impacts that will be difficult to mitigate at any cost. 3. Fund Mitigation Efforts The $50 million DHS has already transferred to DOI to fund efforts to mitigate the damaging effects of the border wall is a nice down payment, but further payments are overdue. This is a long-term, multi-billion dollar border wall, that necessitates similarly massive mitigation initiatives.
AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations | 33
Border Walls
Prepared by the Sierra Club
4. Meaningful Cooperation with Communities, Land Managers, and Conservation Organizations Allow land managers, local officials, and local communities to have a say in border security decisions, requiring full public notice and participation.
29 | AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations
Border Environment
Border Environment
Prepared by Defenders of Wildlife
Environmental Concerns • Trampling of vegetation and other direct damage to wildlife and habitat. • Fragmentation of habitat and wildlife corridors. • Introduction of exotic species. • Air and water pollution. • Wildlife mortality and displacement. • Modifications of wildlife behavior in response to disturbances. • Additional pressure on threatened and endangered species and species of special concern. • Difficulties in restoring habitat and maintaining improvements • Solid waste left behind by undocumented migrants. Recommendations for Protecting Wildlife Corridors and other Vulnerable Lands • Use “virtual” high-tech fencing options, such as unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles, motion sensors, laser barriers and infrared cameras, whenever possible. • Limit the use of pedestrian fences to urban areas. In the Arizona borderlands, fencing should be a last resort and used only if cross-border species are accommodated with gaps controlled by virtual fencing and designed using the best available science. • Use wildlife-friendly vehicle barriers in conjunction with virtual fencing in areas where hard infrastructure is necessary and appropriate. • Allocate adequate funds for habitat protection or other recovery efforts as mitigation for unavoidable impacts in ecologically sensitive areas. • Make compliance with environmental laws a top priority for all agencies. • Increase opportunities for collaboration among land managers, biologists, local jurisdictions, and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol at the beginning of the planning process. • Incorporate long-term monitoring and adaptive management at all levels to monitor the effectiveness of mitigation efforts and to inform future planning efforts. • Develop a comprehensive internal environmental program for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol similar to the one the U.S. military uses to address environmental issues. • Improve environmental education for U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents.
AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations | 37
Border Environment
Prepared by Defenders of Wildlife
• Increase funding for borderland management agencies. • Clearly designate legal roads to minimize use of illegal travel routes. • Implement alternatives to the reinforced double-layer pedestrian fencing mandated in the Secure Fence Act in areas such as the Barry M. Goldwater Range, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Tohono O’odham Nation lands, Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge, Otay Mountain Wilderness Area San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, Lower Rio Grande National Wildlife Refuge tracts and other known vulnerable and ecologically sensitive areas. • Along waterways, maintain stream flows and vegetation by keeping the impacted border corridor as narrow as possible, and limiting off-road vehicle use and the enforcement footprint to the immediate border area as much as possible. Recommendations for Filling Information Gaps • Develop lists of potential funding sources for borderlands research. • Improve interior enforcement to make ecological study and monitoring safer. • Collect data on impacts of illegal traffic and security operations on wildlife and habitat. • Monitor roads, fences and other infrastructure for impacts on ecological resources. • Determine compatibility of security operations and infrastructure with migratory wildlife. • Monitor effectiveness of operations at deterring illegal traffic across sensitive areas. • Collect data on wildlife corridors. • Develop GIS mapping of border region to provide mitigation options. • Study undocumented migration patterns and trends. • Explore opportunities for using infrared cameras and other security technology to monitor wildlife as well as people. Policy Challenges • Real ID Act exemption of the Department of Homeland Security from all environmental laws. • Border Patrol’s inadequate compliance with environmental laws. • Disproportionate focus on fences and high-tech deterrence at the border at the expense of interior enforcement. • Unmanaged development in ecologically sensitive areas along the border.
38 | AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations
Border Environment
Prepared by Defenders of Wildlife
• Weak “conservation ethic” guiding Border Patrol organization and structure. • Poor coordination among agencies, nongovernmental organizations and the general public. • Lack of coordination on GIS and mapping efforts. • Absence of mechanisms and processes for addressing ecological concerns. • Inadequate binational cooperation, partly because of new border crossing requirements. • Scant research and monitoring on both sides of the border. Recommendations for New Borderlands Policies to Address Challenges • Demonstrate a commitment to the rule of law by complying with all laws despite the existence of Real ID Act waivers. • Development of two long-term planning documents, (one for the southern border, one for the northern border) for Border Patrol operations that are completed through a public process under the National Environmental Policy Act. A primary benefit of this process is preparing for the inevitable redirection of migrant and vehicle traffic to previously undisturbed areas, and allowing the strategic deployment of activities and infrastructure to minimize impacts to wildlife and habitat. • Adopt a new national border protection strategy based on findings from a functional assessment and cost comparison of border security alternatives and an analysis of past costs to public and tribal lands along the border. • Suspension of additional border wall construction until 90 days after the national border protection strategy is submitted to Congress. • Develop a comprehensive borderlands monitoring and mitigation plan to address the full range of ecological and environmental impacts of border infrastructure and operations. Dedicated funding for development of an environmental program within the Border Patrol equivalent to those of the U.S. military. This program should include 1) comprehensive environmental sensitivity training and education for agents; 2) ecological monitoring of activities and infrastructure; 3) funding for mitigation and restoration activities; and 4) professional biologists on staff to assist in the implementation of environmental programs and to guide environmental compliance. Funding should be earmarked directly for specific land management units or threatened and endangered species and provided in addition to base operational funds. • Mandatory early coordination of natural and cultural resource protection with federal land managers, local governments and communities affected by Border Patrol infrastructure proposals (such as road construction, and construction of wall, fences and other barriers). The existing Borderlands Management Task Force is a potential vehicle for such a process, and Congress should also consider providing dedicated funding for the task force. • Amendment to the Secure Fence Act of 2006 to change the emphasis from blindly building walls to gaining operational control of our northern and southern borders with natural, technological and man-
AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations | 39
Border Environment
Prepared by Defenders of Wildlife
power-based security methods. • Use low-impact infrastructure where appropriate to mitigate the environmental effects of undocumented migration and other illegal activities in the short-term. • Take steps immediately to meet Border Patrol commitments to environmental protection and mitigation, such as funding studies to assess the effects of low-level helicopter flights and other activities on Sonoran pronghorn. • Urge Congress and the Department of Homeland Security to place increasing emphasis on high-tech surveillance alternatives and other “force-multiplying” methods that improve border security efforts and minimize impacts on wildlife and sensitive habitat. • Reverse the Office of Management and Budget’s position that allocating funds to land management agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, U.S.D.A. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management for security and law enforcement projects is not appropriate because it is outside the primary mission of these agencies. • Designate public liaisons and provide more information to affected communities and the general public about the activities and plans of the Border Patrol and Department of Homeland Security to improve the transparency of these border security agencies. • Allow conservation organizations and other groups to enter into meaningful cooperative partnerships with Border Patrol and land management agencies for on the ground restoration efforts.
Source documents and additional information available online at: http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/habitat_conservation/federal_lands/on_the_line_report.pdf http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/habitat_conservation/federal_lands/arizona_stakeholder_recommendations.pdf http://www.defenders.org/resources/publications/programs_and_policy/habitat_conservation/federal_lands/continental_divide.pdf
40 | AZ Border Communities’ Recommendations