TRI-COUNTY — New Customs and Border Protection high-intensity lighting initiatives along the U.S.-Mexico border in El Paso and Starr counties are prompting local concerns over potential impacts to dark skies and the environment.
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) announced on March 7 it is seeking public input on “potential impacts and project alternatives for the proposed construction, operation, and maintenance of border barrier lighting in El Paso and Starr counties.” Comments — which CBP will accept until April 22 — will help inform an environmental assessment.
In total, CBP is proposing a 44.75-mile non-continuous stretch of lights, light poles and associated infrastructure in areas along the border outside of ports of entry, some of which are remote and agricultural. A 19.6-mile portion of the lighting has already been installed but is not yet illuminated, with another 25.15 miles being proposed by CBP.
Other states along the U.S.-Mexico border, including New Mexico and Arizona, have also seen the installation and proposed additional installation of border lighting. “These are extremely high-powered lights, the types you would normally find in a football stadium, on high poles, relatively close together,” said Ruskin Hartley, CEO of Dark Sky International. “If they are energized their impact would be seen for miles and miles in some of the darkest and most remote parts of North America, some of our last great dark sky locations.”
The tri-county area and parts of Mexico make up the Greater Big Bend International Dark Sky Reserve — the first and largest international dark sky reserve designated in 2022. The reserve is made possible due to grassroots efforts by the McDonald Observatory, Big Bend Conservation Alliance and more to encourage local residents, municipalities and counties to adopt better lighting techniques.
While none of the “border barrier lighting” is currently proposed for the tri-county area, it is located as close as the El Paso-Hudspeth county line, and will likely contribute to light pollution in the Big Bend region, according to McDonald Observatory Dark Skies Outreach Program Coordinator Stephen Hummel, who addressed Alpine City Council members on Tuesday.
Council members discussed whether or not to adopt a letter — written by city staffers — opposing CBP’s plans to install 25.15 miles of new lighting along the international border. The draft letter, read aloud by Mayor Catherine Eaves, stated one of the main concerns is that CBP would consider installing similar infrastructure in Presidio or other local border communities.
“If large sections of the Big Bend border were to be lit as they are elsewhere the impact would be immense,” the letter stated. “It could effectively end the Greater Big Big International Dark Sky Reserve and the binational effort. It would devastate wildlife, astrotourism and our local economy and it would significantly impact astronomical research.”
Hummel said CBP is not legally required to hold a public comment period for the project, and had not for previous lighting installations, making the current comment period notable. “You may not get another opportunity to speak up about it,” Hummel told council members.
He said the current review process will help inform whether or not already installed lights are illuminated. McDonald Observatory intends to submit a formal comment to CBP, he said.
Councilmember Rick Stephens said the letter would be more effective if, rather than outright opposing the new border lighting, it requested border lighting be dark-sky friendly and comply with existing city ordinances. Other council members agreed and they voted to pass the letter as amended.
Laura Gold, Alpine resident and board member of Dark Sky Texas, told The Big Bend Sentinel her concerns go beyond the ability to see the night sky, and include potential impacts to people living along the new lighting routes, as well as ecological concerns over bird migration, aquatic species and insects. “It’s the environmental impact on all the wildlife too, so it’s more than just an astronomical concern,” Gold said.
Gold said she is glad CBP is now seeking public input about the border lighting initiatives, but she didn’t understand why that input was not solicited before the 19-mile stretch of lights was already installed. “My concern is they would attempt to bring the same thing out here, just start building it like they’ve done before,” Gold said. “They built this thing without telling anybody.”
CBP did not respond to a request for comment about why public input was delayed or if border lighting will be pursued in the tri-county area in the future.
CBP preliminary project plans, which are posted online, state that shielding to “control the possible spillage of light” may be considered. Its reasoning for the installation of the lights is to further “safeguard America’s borders.” “Operational lighting is envisioned as a tool to augment CBP’s situational awareness, detection, and response capabilities,” plans state.
Hartley said Dark Sky International is not opposed to lighting on the border if CBP can show a demonstrable need, but in his opinion that has not yet been expressed. He said he understands why CBP needs lights at points of entry, but he was struggling to understand why lights are needed in remote stretches of the border where the cost to install and maintain them is high.
“We will not stand in the way of lighting that has a clear public benefit,” Harley said. “But we have yet to hear a clear articulation of what’s the public benefit that’s being served here?”
Hartley and Gold also expressed confusion over how existing surveillance technology employed by CBP would be impacted by border lighting. “We don’t understand why they even want to use lights when they have state-of-the-art technology for nighttime surveillance,” Gold said.
Gold is also concerned that the presence of new border lighting is going to make the job of local advocates, who work to explain to citizens and companies why dark skies deserve protection, even harder. “It makes it difficult to try to get big light polluters to get on board with preventing light pollution when you have a major source of light pollution just popping up willy-nilly along the border by the federal government,” Gold said.
The federal government, particularly the National Parks Service, is a key partner in ongoing dark skies efforts and has invested money in astronomical infrastructure. Hartley said border lighting initiatives lack a broader perspective among federal agencies. “There’s big public investments in dark sky infrastructure and protection and this is just one hand of government not talking to the other hand of government,” Hartley said.
To submit a comment about the CBP border lighting initiative, visit cbp.gov/document/environmental-assessments/border-lighting-el-paso-and-starr-counties-tx-march-2024