NAFTA Imperils Border Wildlife, Officials Warn : Environment: The treaty is expected to bring increased development along the ecologically sensitive U.S.-Mexico line. Neither government has acted to give greater protection to threatened species.

The North American Free Trade Agreement could harm endangered species, national wildlife sanctuaries and other resources along the ecologically rich U.S.-Mexico border, but the two governments have done nothing to assure stepped-up protection on either side of the international boundary, federal wildlife officials say.

Although environmental groups and the Clinton Administration have hammered out side agreements with Mexico that would clean up the border’s sewage and toxic pollution, the agreement’s impact on wildlife and its habitat has been virtually ignored.

“There are serious habitat problems and endangered species problems on the border now, and we expect that NAFTA may in fact exacerbate some of those problems,” said Doug Ryan, an international affairs specialist with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. “This is an issue that has not been explored very thoroughly in the NAFTA debate.”

The 2,000-mile border with Mexico is home to 460 endangered or rare species and eight large U.S. wildlife refuges. Increased development after the lifting of trade barriers “will cause direct or indirect impact to most, if not all,” according to an analysis by the Fish and Wildlife Service’s southwestern regional office.

Also, freer commerce between Mexico and the United States would intensify its illegal counterpart--smuggling of protected animals for pets and consumer products, which is a substantial problem now, the report says.

U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt, who is helping President Clinton promote the treaty, told The Times he is aware of the danger that freer trade poses to the area’s fragile wildlife areas and acknowledged that no firm safeguards or funds have been built in by the Clinton Administration or the Mexican government.

But he said he hopes that if NAFTA is adopted, the U.S. government would have more leverage, including potential trade sanctions and fines, to pressure Mexico into following international conservation laws that exist but are not being enforced.

“Mexico is going to industrialize anyway, so if we do it in a cooperative format, the chances of it going well are much, much greater. In a sense, NAFTA gives us leverage over them,” Babbitt said.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials who spoke with The Times emphasized that they are not opposed to the trade agreement. But they argue for more money and personnel to enforce U.S. environmental laws, train Mexican counterparts, help ailing species recover and manage the millions of acres of refuges. They also advocate creation of a special international body to protect natural resources if NAFTA is signed.

But their pleas for more U.S. funds and attention to their concerns have gone largely unheeded.

The wildlife agency’s report says 99 new employees and an extra $11.4 million in four border states, including $2 million in California, are needed to address wildlife problems in the United States if the trade pact is signed. But only $100,000 was included in its 1994 budget.

“That’s peanuts, and the law enforcement needs prompted by NAFTA are going to be enormous,” said one official in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Albuquerque, N.M., regional office, which is responsible for protecting endangered species on the U.S. side of the Rio Grande.

Federal officials are also alarmed about the impact on wildlife in Mexico, where protection is less assured and where U.S. officials have no right to intervene.

Mexico is one of the richest countries on Earth in ecological diversity, with more reptile species than any other country and the second largest number of mammal species, many of which are found nowhere else.

Of particular importance is the lower Rio Grande; if trade barriers are relaxed, new factories, agricultural operations and dams are likely to spring up there.

“NAFTA will increase human use and development of renewable natural resources and fragmentation of key habitats,” the report says.

Already, 20 new bridges, several new highways and new ports of entry are proposed along the Rio Grande from the Gulf of Mexico to Del Rio, Tex., the report says.

Such construction could irreparably harm the area’s unique, endangered animals, such as ocelots, jaguarundi and jaguars--three rare species of wild cats--as well as the mouth of the Rio Grande and the Laguna Madre, an inland lagoon where thousands of migratory birds from the United States winter, the report says.

“Each bridge and its approaches (have) the potential to destroy brush and riparian habitats, multiply human presence, lighting, noise and air pollution, and affect the management of state and federal refuges,” the report says.

Also, broadening the U.S. market for Mexican agricultural products may lead to worse pesticide pollution and cause wetlands used by wintering birds to be drained or filled.

“You don’t need a crystal ball to see there is going to be increased human activities and developments under NAFTA,” said Michael Smith, a deputy chief of the Fish and Wildlife Service’s Office of International Affairs. “Our goal is to get everybody to meet and discuss these issues as they arise.”

Babbitt said conservation in Mexico is a hypersensitive topic to address in the treaty, because the U.S. government cannot tell a foreign nation how to handle its natural resources.

“Nobody can violate their control over land use,” Babbitt said, “so we have a profound issue here. We can’t rush to judgment of them. It’s the next great issue: How do we arrive at criteria for what needs to be done?”

Ryan said the Mexican government and scientists are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of their rare ecosystems and the severity of the damage, but they do not have resources or experience to enforce the laws, and U.S. wildlife officials are too overburdened to offer much help.

On the U.S. side of the border, wildlife refuges and other sensitive ecological areas are suffering from neglect and development.

Illegal trade in reptile skins, parrots and other wildlife is rampant; national refuges are poorly maintained; waterways vital to fish are drained or dammed, and agricultural chemicals are killing off vegetation used by wintering birds, according to the agency’s report.

U.S. and state laws protect endangered species, such as eagles, and require environmental impact reports for new development. But, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service report, the agency is stretched too thin to do its job.

The report says, for example, only one federal wildlife inspector is based in Laredo and San Diego, which are busy ports of entry, and only one wildlife agent at McAllen, Tex., serves the 1,100 miles of border between the Gulf of Mexico and El Paso.

“This whole NAFTA debate puts a spotlight on these problems on the border, and if this can provide the impetus for things that need to be done, then all the better,” Ryan said. “I do think they are liable to get worse from NAFTA. But rather than complain about it, we need to address them.”

The nation’s major environmental groups are split on the trade pact, with some endorsing it largely for the reasons that Babbitt does. Others, such as the Sierra Club, oppose it.

In a report last year, the World Wildlife Fund, a wildlife protection group, reported that NAFTA is likely to cause more exploitation of North American resources and encourage illicit trade in products such as exotic skins. The report suggested stronger enforcement in both Mexico and the United States.

But Kathryn S. Fuller, president of the organization, endorsed NAFTA anyway last week. She said that development along the border is inevitable even without NAFTA, and that the trade pact could become “a positive force for habitat protection” by bringing attention to the issues, fostering new international partnerships and increasing Mexico’s financial resources.