Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
in the US .-Mexico Border Region
\ Li December 2014
-------
-------
About the Board
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board was created in 1992 by the Enterprise for the Americas Initia-
tive Act, Public Law 102-532. The purpose of the Board is to "advise the President and the Congress on
the need for implementation of environmental and infrastructure projects (including projects that affect
agriculture, rural development, and human nutrition) within the states of the United States contiguous to
Mexico in order to improve the quality of life of persons residing on the United States side of the border."
The Board is charged with submitting an annual report to the President and the Congress. Management
responsibilities for the Board were delegated to the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by Executive Order 12916 on May 13, 1994.
The Board does not carry out border-region activities of its own, nor does it have a budget to fund border
projects. Rather, its unique role is to serve as a nonpartisan advisor to the President and the Congress and
recommend how the federal government can most effectively work with its many partners to improve
conditions along the U.S.-Mexico border.
The Board operates under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and membership on
the Board is extremely diverse. By statute, the Board is composed of:
(1) "representatives from the United States Government, including a representative from the Depart-
ment of Agriculture and representatives from other appropriate agencies;
(2) representatives from the governments of the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Tex-
as; and
(3) representatives from private organizations, including community development, academic, health,
environmental, and other nongovernmental entities with experience on environmental and infra-
structure problems along the southwest border."
The Board also includes representatives from Tribal governments with lands in the border region.
The recommendations in this report do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the federal depart-
ments and agencies that are represented on the Board, nor does the mention of trade names, commercial
products, or private companies constitute endorsement.
To request a hardcopy of this report, contact the National Service Center for Environmental Publications at
1-800-490-9198 orvia e-mail atnscep@bps-lmit.com and request publication number EPA 130-R-14-001
(English version) http://www.epa.gov/ofacmo/gneb/gneb 16threport/English-GNEB-16th-Report.pdf.
-------
-------
Table of Contents
Transmittal Letter to the President From the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board
Executive Summary. 1
Chapter One: Ecological Restoration 5
Background 5
Why Is Ecological Restoration Necessary? 6
Importance of Ecosystems 6
Causes of Degradation 7
Ecological Restoration as Part of a Continuum 7
Why Is the GNEB Addressing This Issue? 8
Key Approaches for Borderlands Ecological Restoration 9
Avoiding Resource Damages Through Proactive Approaches .9
Taking an Ecoregional Approach to Ecological Restoration 10
Coordination, Collaboration and Partnering 12
Establishing Metrics to Define, Achieve and Measure Success. 12
U.S. Federal Government Role in Restoration 12
Public Lands 14
Private Lands 14
Chapter Two: Current Ecological Restoration Activities of the
U.S. Federal Government 17
Research 17
Department of the Interior—U.S. Geological Survey. 17
Department of Agriculture-U.S. Agricultural Research Service 18
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 18
Implementation 20
Species-Centric Restoration 20
Site-Based Restoration 20
Palo Alto Battlefield. 20
Federal Support for Habitat Restoration on Nonfederal Lands: Examples From
the Natural Resource Conservation Service 21
The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Hueco Tanks Traditional Lands 22
A Partnership of U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Federal Land Managers 23
Example: Agave Restoration at Coronado National Memorial. 24
Regional-Scale Restoration 24
Multispecies: San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program 24
Restore New Mexico 25
The Malpai Borderlands Group 25
The Lower Rio Grande Valley Wildlife Corridor. 26
Challenges 27
Working in the Border Environment 27
Building and Maintaining Capacity 27
Responding to External Stressors. 28
Example: National Wildlife Refuges—Confronting Multiple Complex Challenges 28
Addressing Emerging Issues. 28
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Table of Contents (continued)
Opportunities for Improving Ecosystems and Increasing Success 29
Identifying and Implementing Effective Partnerships, Approaches and Science 29
Ecological Integrity as a Concept for Developing Cross-Agency, Cross-Project Standards 29
Resilience Thinking. 29
The Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative .30
Emerging Science for Urban Ecosystems .30
Landscape-Level Management for BLM Lands .31
Multi-Level and Cross-Border Coordination .31
Minimizing Degradation and Extending Restoration Activities .31
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .31
Department of State .32
Department of Homeland Security .32
Department of Transportation .32
North American Development Bank and the Border Environment Cooperation Commission .33
Chapter Three: Border Watersheds and Ecological Restoration 35
Water Resource Issues 36
Challenges for Ecological Restoration in Border Watersheds 37
Institutional Challenges .37
Physical Challenges .38
Ecological and Geomorphological Challenges .39
Overcoming the Challenges: Ecological Restoration in the Region's
Three Major Watersheds 40
The Tijuana River Watershed .40
Case Study: Urban Forest Management. .41
Case Study: Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve .41
The Colorado River Watershed .42
Example: Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program .42
Case Study: Minute 319 and "Pulse Flow". .42
The Rio Grande Watershed .43
Case Study: The Rio Grande Canalization Project. .45
Case Study: Devils River—State, Federal and Local Involvement. .45
Meeting Multiple Objectives Through Ecological Restoration 46
Case Study: The New River and the Salton Sea .46
Case Study: Water Harvesting, Range Restoration and Local Economies .48
Managing Treated Wastewater for Ecological Restoration .49
Rio Bosque Wetlands Park. .49
Santa Cruz River. .49
Chapter Four: Recommendations 51
Appendices
List of Acronyms .57
Glossary of Terms 59
2013 Members of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board .61
Acknowledgments 64
Notes and References 66
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
List o/Figures
Figure 1. Restoration along a continuum 8
Figure 2. Map displaying the Commission for Environmental Cooperation's
ecological regions along the U.S.-Mexico border 11
Figure 3. U.S. federal lands along the U.S.-Mexico border. 13
Figure 4. Tribal lands in the U.S.-Mexico border region 13
Figure 5. Changes in dominant vegetation in New Mexico from historic to current times. 25
Figure 6. The Rio Grande and Colorado River watersheds. .36
Figure 7. The Tijuana River watershed .37
Figure 8. The Rio Grande/Bravo Basin .44
Figure 9. The Rio Grande/Bravo Basin Dams. .44
Figure 10. The Salton Sea watershed .47
List o/Tables
Table 1. New River Pilot Wetlands Monitoring Summary...
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
-------
Transmittal Letter to the President
From the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
President Barack Obama
Vice President Joseph Biden
Speaker John Boehner
On behalf of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board, your independent advisory committee on environment and
infrastructure along the U.S. border with Mexico, I am submitting to you our 16th report, Ecological Restoration
in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region.
In collaboration with your Council on Environmental Quality, the Board selected ecological restoration as an umbrella
concept under which to examine and evaluate the effectiveness of the U.S. federal government in managing multiple
aspects of natural resource and environmental degradation. These areas include monocultures of invasive species; eroded
soils; channelized streams; over-accumulation of woody material that provides fuel for fires, mine pits and spoil piles,
excessive water withdrawals; degraded surface water quality; and disruption of landscape connectivity. Degraded natural
systems lose some or all of their capacity for repair, which leads to a cascade of further degradation, particularly within
the arid borderlands. In addition to large-scale land use practices such as agriculture, urbanization, energy and water
infrastructure development, and international border commerce and security, the rapid population growth of the region
and current environmental conditions have outstripped even the excellent binational, U. S. federal, Tribal, state and local
efforts directed at resolving them.
Though the Board has discussed these issues in prior reports, in this report we focus on efforts to address them through
ecological restoration. Restoration encompasses a range of activities, beginning with the cessation of activities that are
causing natural resource degradation and continuing through to the monitoring of completed restoration treatments.
Although U. S. federal land managers are carrying out individual actions, they would benefit from a more comprehensive
approach to ecological restoration throughout the border region that incorporates new, pragmatic initiatives that improve
coordination among U.S. agencies as well as active engagement among local, state, Tribal and national collaborators
on both sides of the international border.
The Board, in the development of this report, and following a tradition that has been maintained since its inception, has
been driven by its desire to work through consensus in constructing all of its recommendations. We hope that this report
is useful to you and other U.S. government officials as we continue to think about how we can best achieve a healthier
environment and a better quality of life for all of our citizens. We appreciate the opportunity to serve you and provide
these recommendations, and we respectfully request a response.
Very truly yours,
Diane Austin, Chair
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
-------
Ecological Restoration in the U.S.-Mexico
Border Region Executive Summary
The U.S.-Mexico border extends approximately 1,954
miles (3,145 kilometers) from California to Texas. With-
in this vast landscape, marked by a primarily arid cli-
mate, lies a variety of ecosystems, critical habitats and
treasured landscapes ranging from deserts and moun-
tains to natural waterways such as rivers, streams and
creeks. These features and the plant and animal spe-
cies associated with them exist on both sides of the
international border.
Large-scale land use practices—past and present—
have created resource challenges within borderland
ecosystems. These practices include the introduc-
tion and spread of invasive plant and animal spe-
cies, energy development and mineral extraction,
rapid and extensive human population growth and
urbanization, subsidized agriculture, extensive water
infrastructure development, and international border
commerce and security. They have resulted in a wide
range of degraded resource conditions, including
monocultures of invasive species; over accumulation
of woody material that provides fuel for fires; mine pits
and spoil piles; drained wetlands; altered river flows;
overabundant herbivores lacking pressure from pred-
ators; and disconnected wildlife movement corridors.
At the same time, changing climatic conditions such
as long-term drought have added to the challenges
facing the region.
Well-functioning ecosystems provide a wide range
of services, including food, fiber, regulation of clean
water and climate stability, physical protection from
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Executive Summary (continued)
extreme events, including flooding and drought, pest
mitigation, recreation, and educational and inspiration-
al opportunities that are vital to the prosperity, safety
and well-being of both the U.S. and Mexican publics.
Degraded natural systems lose their capacity to pro-
vide these services. They also lose some or all of their
capacity for repair, which leads to a cascade of further
degradation, particularly within the arid borderlands. In
this report, the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
(GNEB, the Board) discusses ecological restoration in
the border region, including both the challenges and
potential solutions.
Ecological restoration is "the process of assisting the
recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded,
damaged, or destroyed."* Restoration encompasses
a range of activities, beginning with the cessation of
activities that are causing natural resource degradation
and continuing through to the monitoring of completed
restoration treatments. Ecological restoration practic-
es and outcomes exist along a continuum reflecting
the realities, needs and actions that are appropriate
to the landscapes and adjacent estuarine and marine
areas of the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. Humans and
human values play a central role in restoration, from
the initial designation of environments as degraded, to
prioritization of environments for restoration, to deter-
mination of the baseline to which the environments are
to be restored. Ultimately, the goal is the development
of self-sustaining ecosystems that meet management
objectives by repairing damaged primary processes
such as water, carbon and nitrogen cycles, and initi-
ating and directing self-maintaining processes.
Restoration in the borderlands occurs within the
unique circumstances facing border ecosystems,
people and institutions. Multiple levels of governance
on both sides of and across the international border
create challenges and opportunities. Optimizing the
societal benefits of healthy ecosystems and habitats
in decision making can aid managers in prioritizing and
selecting among competing projects, and comparing
* SER. 2004. Society for Ecological Restoration International Primer on
Ecological Restoration. Accessed from
http://www.ser.org/resources/resources-detail-view/ser-international-
primer-on-ecological-restoration, July 8,2014.
the anticipated benefits of increasing ecosystem health
with the associated costs, thus ensuring a balanced
approach to conservation and development. In this
report, the Board reviews current restoration activities
of the U.S. federal government in the border region
and pays special attention to border watersheds and
actual and potential ecological restoration activities
within them.
As demonstrated by examples throughout the report,
U.S. federal agencies have acted on restoration
opportunities in the U.S.-Mexico border region appro-
priate to their respective missions. Achieving more
effective restoration in this region, however, requires
addressing some key challenges, such as scale and
connectivity, which require interagency collaboration
and the translation of goals into plans and on-the-
ground actions. Through recommendations detailed
in Chapter Four, the Board offers a range of ways to
address the challenges.
First and foremost, the GNEB recommends that
the U.S. federal government, in collaboration with
local, state, Tribal, and national entities in the
United States and Mexico, avoid resource dam-
ages through proactive approaches. Approach-
es to actively maintain high-quality natural resources
and ecosystems include adopting best practices for
low-impact infrastructure design and agency opera-
tions and supporting conservation on private lands.
The GNEB recommends that the U.S. federal
government promote ecological restoration pro-
grams and projects. This includes actively promot-
ing existing federal initiatives to increase restoration
opportunities and developing governance and fund-
ing mechanisms to reflect landscape-scale restoration
needs. Given the scale and scope of the border region
and the multiple, interrelated issues facing its ecosys-
tems, the Board recommends that the U.S. federal
government take an ecoregional approach to envi-
ronmental protection and restoration. This approach
enables landscape-scale assessments, plans and
actions that transcend administrative boundaries and
allow for the classification of units across the border
region. It recognizes the importance of understand-
ing and addressing migration corridors, cumulative
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
impacts, connectivity, and other landscape-level fac-
tors related to resource distribution and processes,
and it facilitates priority setting. This approach also
requires a systematic framework across U.S. feder-
al agencies within which to develop clearly articulat-
ed goals and objectives; clearly delineated targets,
threats and potential mitigation actions; national- or
regional-level strategies derived from these integrated
plans; and accompanying budgets. Such a common
goal structure will support coordinated restoration
actions as well as measures of incremental progress
towards ecological landscape-scale goals.
The GNEB recommends that the U.S. feder-
al government actively increase engagement
with Mexican agencies and partners. An effective
framework for ecological restoration must be developed
through active engagement among local, state, Tribal,
and national collaborators on both sides of the inter-
national border and can facilitate both top-down and
bottom-up management relevant at the appropriate
scales. Through the U.S. Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC), for exam-
ple, the U.S. government should engage Mexican part-
ners in transborder watershed management and urban
ecological restoration.
Water is a critical resource, especially in the arid
borderlands. Therefore, the GNEB recommends
that the U.S. federal government specifically
address flow management, including irrigation
and wastewater, for ecological restoration ben-
efits. [ft any water planning involving binational waters,
the Board recommends that the government evaluate,
consider and plan for environmental flows needed for
aquatic species, habitat and human recreational uses
of water, taking state water law into consideration.
For example, at least some of the water conserved
through irrigation efficiency should be dedicated to
in-stream flow to meet aquatic restoration needs. In
addition, the U.S. federal government, while taking into
consideration existing water rights frameworks, should
work with existing state water banks or water trusts to
identify means for transferring water rights to ensure
environmental flows.
In sum, the Board emphasizes the importance of
borderlands ecosystems and the services they
provide as well as the need for better understanding
and acknowledgment of the impacts of the cumulative
pressure of human activities such as development,
land use and alteration, and water use on these
ecosystems. The Board recognizes the value of
incorporating landscape-level, ecosystem-based
solutions into decision making and notes that multiple
restoration scenarios are necessary for achieving
environmental goals across large areas.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
-------
Chapter One: Ecological Restoration
BACKGROUND
Ecological restoration is "the process of assisting the
recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, dam-
aged, or destroyedf® Restoration encompasses a range
of activities, beginning with the cessation of activities that
are causing natural resource degradation and continuing
through to the monitoring of completed restoration treat-
ments. Other actions include developing detailed assess-
ments, re-establishing stream flow or wetland water level,
loosening compacted soils, stabiiizing slopes, establish-
ing plant cover and re-introducing native species.
Ecological systems are complex and dynamic, and "one
size fits all" solutions to degraded resources are insuffi-
cient and inappropriate. Therefore, ecological restoration
is designed to repair damaged resources by enhancing
"Human society's practices are the best indication of its
ethos or set of guiding beliefs. Ecological restoration is a
positive statement of co-operation with natural systems.
Preserving those systems still undamaged and protect-
ing those restored would be an even more positive state-
ment, especially if accompanied by major restorative
efforts for presently damaged systems."1
their "ability to change as their environments change."4
Humans and human values play a central role in res-
toration, from the initial designation of environments as
degraded, to prioritization of environments for restoration,
to determination of the baseline to which the environ-
ments are to be restored.*
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Why Is Ecological Restoration
Necessary?
Importance of Ecosystems
An ecosystem is comprised of plants, animals and
microbes and the air, water, soils and other components
upon which they depend, all linked together through nutri-
ent cycles and energy flows. Although nonhuman com-
ponents of the ecosystem have long been recognized
as valuable to humans, in recent years, ecobgists have
developed the concept of ecosystem services to highlight
their importance,®® Ecosystem services include the many
benefits (services or goods) derived from well-functioning
ecosystems, including food, fiber, regulation of climate
stability, pest mitigation, recreation, and educational and
inspirational opportunities.7 In this context, ecological
restoration can be viewed as a "product" that can be
assessed using the same tools and methodologies that
are used to evaluate environmental impacts of products
or processes. Restoration can increase ecosystem ser-
vices such as habitat protection, regulation of clean water,
carbon storage and maintenance of soil fertility!
Currently, although there have been advances in modeling,
an incomplete understanding exists of the value of ecosys-
tem services such as habitat for managed and protected
species; physical protection for communities and econo-
mies from extreme events, including flooding and drought:
and economic and social benefits (including human
health). These services are vita! to the prosperity, safety
and well-being of both the U.S. and Mexican publics. It
is important to understand the impacts of the cumulative
pressure of human activities such as development, land
use and alteration, and water use on these ecosystems,
as well as the value of incorporating landscape-level, eco-
system-based solutions into decision making, in addition,
optimizing the societal benefits of healthy ecosystems and
habitats in decision making can aid managers in prioritizing
and selecting among competing projects, thus ensuring a
balanced approach to conservation.
The number of people living in the U.S.-Mexico border-
lands increased from about 7 million in 1980 to almost
12 million in 2003; it is estimated the border population
will reach more than 18 miliion by 2020.® Rapidly growing
human populations increase the demand for ecosystem
Santa Cruz River, Audobon IBA at the Chavez Siding
Road Crossing Post-NIWWTP Upgrade and Los Alisos
Diversions, May 2014.
Source: John Shasky, Friends of the Santa Cruz River Volunteer
services. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment evalu-
ated the consequences for human well-being of the eco-
system changes that have resulted from growing global
demands for food, fresh water, fiber and energy during
the last 50 years and specifically highlighted how the loss
of ecosystem services increases the vulnerability of peo-
ple living in dry regions.19 Among other key conclusions
from the assessment is that the loss of ecosystem ser-
vices presents a significant barrier to achieving the Mil-
lennium Development Goals of reducing poverty, hunger
and disease.
Within the border region, ecological systems that are
candidates for restoration may be marked by invasive
species, eroded soils, channelized streams, contaminat-
ed water supplies and dropping water tables. Degraded
systems are likely to suffer from the loss of native species,
as well as reductions in ecologicai functions such as soil
fertility and pollination. Of special note, ecological resto-
ration strategies and implementation can help address
the influence of urban ecosystems on surrounding areas
and the decay of ecosystem services within urban areas.
To understand the damage, as well as the most effec-
tive restoration actions, border ecosystems need to
be described and evaluated in terms of their individual
components (e.g., populations, structures, physical and
chemical environments) and processes (human cultural
activities, atmospheric inputs, water flows), and the cor-
relations among them.11 For example, scientists studying
forests have examined rural to urban gradients and found
significant differences in soil communities, source areas of
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
The endandered ocelot Leopardus (-Felis) pardalis.
Source: Elitravo and Shutieistock
invasive species, and forest composition and structure,12
This type of analysis forms the basis for understanding
restoration chaiienges and techniques. For example, heat
island effects, stormwater drainage patterns and develop-
ment can alter physical, chemical and biological properties
of soils,13 and even biogeochemical cycles.** in addition, a
better understanding of the links between environmental
health and disease is needed to anticipate and address
shared public health issues experienced on both sides of
the border and target ecological restoration efforts.
Causes of Degradation
Degraded natural systems lose some or all of their capac-
ity for repair, and this leads to a cascade of further deg-
radation,16 particularly within the arid lands that make up
much of the U.S.-Mexico borderlands. Degraded eco-
systems also represent diminished visitor experiences at
national parks and other recreational areas, decreased
productivity of rangelands, and increased costs for water
treatment. Along the U.S.-Mexico border, the causes of
degradation are many. For example, exclusion of fire from
forests has allowed fuels to build up, increasing the like-
lihood of uncharacteristically large and hot fires that can
cause significant property damage and serious human
health concerns. Likewise, poor tillage and management
of agricultural runoff and sewage effluent contributes
to coastal "dead zones" that affect the populations of
aquatic species and the humans who depend on them.
Excessive water withdrawals related to agriculture, mining
and rapid urbanization have led to declining water tables.
Likewise, logging, grazing, military activities and border
enforcement actions all have resulted in degradation. In
addition, unzoned growth in urban areas on both sides
of the border has degraded the resource base for infra-
structure and public health and welfare.
Ecological Restoration as Part of a
Continuum
Decades of ecological restoration have resulted in
successes and failures in practice, increased ecological
knowledge and acknowledgment that lines between
"humans" and "nature" that once were seemingly distinct
are indeed blurred. Consequently, It is important to
recognize ecological restoration practices and outcomes
along a continuum reflecting the realities, needs and
actions that are appropriate to the landscapes of the
U.S.-Mexico borderlands. Given the levels of degradation
in some areas, the varied goals and objectives of land
owners, and the need to incorporate geographically
distant individual parcels as patches within larger
ecological landscapes, multiple scenarios —and
combinations of these practices —are necessary for
achieving environmental goals across large areas.
Ecologists frame environmental variation as being ordered
in space, observing that the structure and function of
ecological systems —be they populations, communities
or entire ecosystems—are governed by spatial environ-
mental patterns. Many factors affect the extent to which
the structure and function of ecological systems can with-
stand disturbance and the extent to which, once disrupt-
ed, they can be restored.16 Some areas, including urban
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
and "brownfield" sites,17 lack records of historic ecological
conditions or have experienced such great shifts in envi-
ronmental condition (e.g., temperature increases in urban
heat islands, soil permeability loss as a result of impacts
of grazing and paving) that the flora and fauna of earlier,
predevelopment periods cannot be replaced. Plus, future
conditions desired by stakeholders for these areas may
be dramatically different than historic conditions. In these
situations, recognizing that other models of "restoration"
might be appropriate, the goal is to incorporate sustain-
able ecological attributes of species assemblages, food
webs, and edaphic (soil) and hydrologic functions.18
Although the science of ecological restoration began
with emphasis on a return to pre-disturbance systems
with certain species and functions—thus distinguishing
itself from reclamation and rehabilitation practices-
current restoration thinking focuses more on "repair," or
redressing the damage incurred to the resource. The
goal is the development of self-sustaining ecosystems
that meet management objectives by repairing damaged
primary processes such as water and mineral cycles (e.g.,
carbon, nitrogen, calcium), and initiating and directing
self-maintaining processes.19 Such a "repair" approach
allows for seeing that "restoration activities occur along a
continuum, and that different activities are simply variations
of the same theme."20 Figure' presents the continuum of
activities that will be considered in this report.
WHY IS THE GNEB
ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE?
The U.S.-Mexico borderlands are diverse in flora and
fauna and vary dramatically through the long, narrow
stretch to include chaparral; coastal plains; deserts of
cactus, sage bush and creosote; isolated mountain
ranges with pine and oak forests; rugged canyon lands
covered in yucca; rolling hills with grasses and mesquite;
Fidelity to Historic Conditions
Decreasing
Increasing
<-
Reclamation
(abatement of acute threats,
e.g., toxic waste clean-up,
bank stabilization)
Reestablish Pre-Disturbance
Condition
(restoration of all structural
and functional components to
historic conditions)*
Rehabilitation,
Revegetation, Habitat
Creation, Mitigation
(selected improvements to
structure and function)
Repair
(restoration of critical
structural and functional
components, e.g., fire
regimes, keystone species)
Approaches to
Restoration
Figure 1. Restoration along a continuum.
Note: Restoring to pre-disturbance conditions is still an appropriate approach for small disturbances within an intact matrix, or for rare or localized species'
habitats. Increasingly, however, restoration managers must account for both natural ecological change and external pressures such as climate
change, landscape fragmentation and altered ecosystem processes under which historic conditions will not persist. Instead, managers design
restoration outcomes to maximize natural resource values within existing and predicted constraints.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
and fertile river delta estuaries. Major ecosystems of the
border, such as the Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts,
include many unique species adapted to dry conditions.81
Portions of the U.S.-Mexico border also serve as import-
ant migratory pathways for many avian, mammalian and
invertebrate species.
The U.S.-Mexico border extends approximately 1,954
miles (3,145 kilometers) from California to Texas. Within
this vast landscape lies a variety of ecosystems, critical
habitats and treasured landscapes ranging from des-
erts and mountains to natural waterways such as rivers,
streams and creeks. These zones and associated species
cross the international border. Large-scale land use prac-
tices—past and present—have left resource restoration
challenges in the borderlands. These practices include:
• The introduction and spread of species such as buf-
felgrass (Pennisetum ciliare (L.) Link) and salt cedar
(Tamarix spp.),
• Energy development and mineral extraction.
• Rapid and extensive human population growth.
• Subsidized agriculture.
• The development of extensive water infrastructure.
• International border commerce and security.
In addition, changing climatic conditions such as long-
term drought have added to these challenges. A wide
range of degraded resource conditions have resulted,
including monocultures of invasive species, over accu-
mulation of woody material that provides fuel for fires,
mine pits and spoil piles, drained wetlands, altered river
flows, overabundant herbivores due to lack of predation
pressure (as shown in several wolf-elk-riparian vegetation
studies across the west3*®^, and disconnected wildlife
movement corridors.
What makes restoration in the borderlands unique? The
borderlands are characterized by:
• Multiple levels of governance across the international
border.
• High levels of biodiversity.
• Primarily arid climates and scarce water resources.
• A mix of protected areas; urban areas; agricultural
lands; and transportation, commerce and security
infrastructure zones.
KEY APPROACHES FOR
BORDERLANDS ECOLOGICAL
RESTORATION
The following key strategies can facilitate a wide range
of actions to support restoration goals.
Avoiding Resource Damages Through
Proactive Approaches
Efforts to protect border ecosystems can reduce the
need for restoration in the future. Also, restoration can-
not satisfactorily replicate the range of components and
services of a damaged ecosystem. The U.S.-Mexico
border is a complex and busy place, and federal agen-
cies develop and implement programs to address vari-
ous missions and responsibilities. These program-driven
actions, however, can degrade resources. Decisions
about the design of border fences, urban and agricul-
tural development, and energy and mineral resource
development should be made with full consideration
of the changes they wiii trigger and the opportunity to
recover resources and services that may be lost. Various
programs, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Green Infrastructure Program,* pro-
vide incentives, examples and tools to help developers,
designers and engineers avoid unintended consequenc-
es of their activities. Federal agencies are required to
comply with numerous (more than 100) laws, regula-
tions, Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda
that mandate responsible environmental practices with
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
Habitat restoration site along the Rio Grande
Canalization Project.
Source: U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission
-------
respect to environmental resources affected by facili-
ties and infrastructure. Most recently, Executive Order
13514, "Federal Leadership in Environmental, Ener-
gy and Economic Performance," requires that federal
agencies ensure that all construction, renovation, repair
and alterations comply with the Guiding Principles of
Federal Leadership in High Performance and Sustain-
able Buildings (the Guiding Principles). These Guiding
Principles include standards related to water and energy
conservation, environmentally responsible siting practic-
es, and construction materials selection. Frameworks
for evaluating impacts include natural resource condi-
tion assessments; National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) analyses; and tools adapted from industry such
as value engineering and life cycle analysis. These are
being applied to a variety of development scenarios, but
a key challenge is ensuring that plans are implemented
and evaluated to ensure that they were carried out as
intended.
2009 Memorandum of Agreement
In a 2009 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the
Department of the Interior (DOI) governing border secu-
rity and the operations of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), the DHS "agrees to plan for, design,
deploy, and maintain border security infrastructure com-
ponents in cooperation with DOI in such a way as to
avoid or minimize adverse effects to the natural and
cultural resources in those areas where such border
security infrastructure is to be constructed, operated,
and maintained." The agreement also states that "CBP
will implement BMPs [best management practices] that
are designed to avoid or minimize impacts to natural
and cultural resources. Where avoidance or minimi-
zation of adverse effects cannot be achieved through
the implementation of BMPs, CBP will, in accordance
with the terms and conditions of this MOA and the
legal requirements, make further efforts to mitigate the
adverse effects caused by construction and mainte-
nance of border security infrastructure upon the area's
natural and cultural resources."26 Such agreements are
an important first step. The plans, designs, deployment
and maintenance require regular review and monitoring.
Taking an Ecoregional Approach to
Ecological Restoration
Efficient and effective ecological restoration depends
on careful and thorough analysis of resources, as well
as implementation at appropriate scales and following
established timelines. Increasingly, due to the emergence
of new tools for analysis and planning, U.S. federal agen-
cies are working from the perspective of large spatial
areas and landscape ecology. Landscape assessments
are used in part because species' managers recognize
that organisms move across heterogeneous spaces;
there are many external influences on critical habitats;
and such influences affect behaviors such as migration,
feeding and predator avoidance.27'28 Across a landscape,
a "recurring pattern of ecosystems associated with char-
acteristic combinations of soil and landform that char-
acterize that region" has been termed an "ecoregion"
(ecological region).29 An ecoregion is identified because
of the relative homogeneity of ecosystems or relation-
ships among organisms and their environments within
the region, as well as relative differences when compared
to other regions.30
Particularly when adjusted to emphasize biodiversity or
other resource patterns, ecoregions offer a more practical
framework than administrative definitions for identifying
broad-scale partnering, planning, data collection and man-
agement, as well as strategic approaches to multiple party
efforts. In the border region, such an approach avoids the
arbitrary delineation such as the 62.5-mile (100-kilometer)
definition established in the 1983 La Paz agreement.31
Several ecoregional frameworks have been developed
to provide ecologically based stratification of terrestrial
landscapes; each has strengths when applied in the
border region. All approaches incorporate climate and
account for local landforms and soil properties. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has defined
geographically associated land resource units as Major
Land Resource Areas (MLRA) and has created a hierar-
chical tool that incorporates geology, climate, water and
biological resources. Identification of these large areas
has been important in statewide agricultural planning
and has value in interstate, regional and national plan-
ning; the detailed soil and land use data may make this
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
product useful to project-level restoration assessment.
The EPA framework, as adopted by the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC), distinguishes eleva-
tion-related life zones, which puii "islands" into ecore-
gion boundaries based on their characteristics rather
than their spatial location. The World Wildlife Fund for
Nature (WWF) defines watershed-based ecoregions and
is the most advanced framework for river systems. Both
the CEC and WWF approaches cross the international
border. In addition, globally available data on climate and
landforms, as well as Mexican investments in soils data,
make extension of local land classification units across
the border region much more feasible today than just a
few years ago. Figure 2 is an example of a product of
the CEC's ecoregional analysis.
The CEC map (Figure 2) identifies seven ecoregions that
extend to the U.S. side of the U.S.-Mexico border, within
the 62.5 miles (100 kilometers) outlined by the La Paz
agreement. From west to east, and including major urban
areas within them, these are:
11.1.1 California Coastal Sage, Chaparral and Oak
Woodlands (San Diego, Tijuana).
10.2.2 Sonoran Desert (Yuma, Mexicali, Tucson).
12.1.1 Madrean Archipelago (Nogales, Douglas).
10.2.4 Chihuahuan Desert (Las Cruces, El Paso, Ciudad
Juarez).
9.4.6 Edwards Plateau.
9.6.1 Southern Texas Plains/Interior Plains and Hills
With Xerophytic Shrub and Oak Forest (Laredo,
Nuevo Laredo, Monterrey).
9.5.1 Western Guif Coastal Plain/Planicie de la costa
occidental del Golfo (Matamoros, Brownsville).
Ecoregional frameworks can support restoration planning
and assessment in the following ways:
• Identifying the number and condition of ecological sys-
tems within the area.
• Identifying species migration corridors and barriers to
connectivity.
• Identifying the contributions of different types of resto-
ration and accumulated value of small projects based
on relative similarities of ecological sites (e.g., for dis-
tinguishing relative degrees of similarity among places
at each hierarchical level).
• Evaluating cumulative impacts of infrastructure devel-
opment such as energy facilities and transmission
corridors, and identifying mitigation opportunities in
landscapes affected by such development.
• Incorporating landscape-level factors related to resource
distribution and processes such as wildland fire.
• Providing a common framework for understanding
and communicating resource conditions and agency
actions.
Figure 2. Map displaying the Commission
for Environmental Cooperation's
ecological regions along the
U.S.-Mexico border.
Source: Adapted from "North American Terrestrial
Ecoregions—Level III," Commission for
Environmental Cooperation, http://www3.
cec.org/islandora/en/item/10415-north-
american-terrestrial-ecoregionslevel-iii-en,
pdf, which contains detailed descriptions of
each Level III ecoregion
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
• Making it possible to scale assessments for specific
issues and at different levels to address multiple, inter-
related issues.
• Providing a systematic framework within which to
develop clearly articulated goals and objectives; clear-
ly delineated targets, threats and potential mitigation
actions; national- or regional-level strategies derived
from these integrated plans; and accompanying
budgets.
• Allowing assessment and planning processes to
be built on principles of engagement and nested
collaboration.
• Facilitating both top-down and bottom-up manage-
ment that is relevant at the appropriate scales.
Coordination, Collaboration and
Partnering
Today, many ecosystems are not adapted to their cur-
rent environments; environmental conditions continue
to change; and resources are very limited. Therefore,
"self-sustainability" is a key characteristic of restoration
success. In the context of ecological restoration, sustain-
ability means that the restored system has the potential
to persist indefinitely under existing environmental con-
ditions.32 Sustainability also requires that stakeholders
embrace (or accept) the restoration outcomes based on
their values, necessitating coordination, collaboration and
clear lines of accountability for all involved parties to ensure
successful restoration endeavors. The scale of ecological
resources, along with the complexity of restoration projects
and the range of activities and external inputs that must be
included, necessitates cooperative actions. Federal eco-
system restoration projects and programs must take into
account Tribal, state and local concerns.
Across the region and among agencies and stakehold-
ers operating at multiple levels, programmatic goals and
high-level objectives must be accompanied by detailed
planning objectives. Large-scale strategic restoration
objectives should be coherent with local planning objec-
tives, and metrics must be developed that translate
across multiple levels of decision making and reporting.
Throughout this report are examples of partnerships and
interagency collaboration.
Establishing Metrics to Define, Achieve
and Measure Success
"You cannot manage what you do not measure."33
Metrics are key to measuring progress toward goals,
raising awareness and understanding, and informing
restoration decision making.34 The development and
application of metrics can connect local, state and fed-
eral agencies, as well as nongovernmental stakeholders,
and help them align their restoration goals and activities.
Appropriate metrics are based on ecological principles
that articulate the scientifically recognized attributes of
ecological integrity,3- as well as human health and wel-
fare.36 Additionally, the metrics must be understandable
to many stakeholders, applicable to a variety of situations,
and relatively easy and inexpensive to apply.
Unfortunately, throughout the border region, there is a
general lack of complete assessments of degraded areas.
Important attributes of these areas, such as soil condi-
tions, are required to inform seeding and planting efforts
and contribute to improved techniques for planting in dry
climatic conditions. Such assessments, however, are often
missing or partial. To further complicate matters, fragment-
ed metrics and inconsistent standards among the different
government, nongovernmental, and private stakeholders
make it difficult to assess the success, sustainability and
resilience of large-scale restoration projects.
U.S. FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ROLE IN RESTORATION
The U.S. federal government manages numerous lands
in the border area (see Figure J) and holds land in trust
for the benefit of American Indian Tribes (see Figure ).
In national parks and forests and elsewhere on federal
lands, including military bases, restoration actions focus
on reestablishing characteristic native taxa and ecosys-
tem processes. Typical actions include managing invasive
species and fuel loads, excavating and regrading roads
and filled wetlands, planting native species, and manag-
ing river flow. These actions will be discussed throughout
this report. This section is intended to illustrate the range
of mandates and activities that are undertaken to protect,
repair and restore border ecosystems.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
CA1 IF-DRNIA
EXPLAftATION
AKIZONA
NIVi MEXICO
S-ti.lt HUMCW
(IIUIU BSHhrdUV
»wa
u
so •go ha
3B&.
M M4M x.
NUCVO LEOM
TAMAJUPAS
Figure 3. U.S. federal lands and drainage basins along the U.S.-Mexico border. The border area has eight sub-areas with
similar hydrologic and physiographic features.
Source: "Fact Sheet: United States-Mexico Border Area, as Delineated by a Shared-Water Resources Perspective,"
DOI, http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/FCC/docs/Fact_sheets/Fact_1/D0l_US-MX_Border_FCC_Fact_sheet_1.html
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
NEW MEX CO
TEXAS
BAJA
CALIF
Pacific Ocean
Gulf of
California
SONORA
CHIHUAHUA *
Pechanga
Pauma
Pala
Rincon
San Pasqual
Mesa Grande
Barona
Capita n
Viejas
, La Jolla
Torre's
Martinez
^Gbyotesfl
Suijit.) f»(S.ibcl
I wii,i.ip\i,iy p
V..)H/.)Hii _
Oii.v, h.irt
Gulfof
Mexico
COAHUILA
bycuan
Jamul
La Post a
Campo
NUEVO
LEON
TAMAULIPASf
located In the border real
Entitles shaded In orange are U.S. tribal
comunldades trlbales de los E.U. locallzadas
Las entidades en anaranjado
la regl6n fronterlza
Figure 4. Tribal lands in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
Source: "U.S.-Mexico Border Region—Region Fronteriza Mexico-Estados Unidos," U.S.-Mexico Border 2020 Program,
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/Border2020-map.pdf
13
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and its respec-
tive bureaus are engaged in a range of restoration activ-
ities on public lands in the U.S.-Mexico border area. For
example, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the
National Park Service (NPS), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) actively implement restoration activities on
resources under their jurisdiction. Despite their bureau's
multiple-use mandate, BLM managers are charged with
restoring rangelands (grasslands, shrub lands, deserts)
to standards following "fundamental properties of water-
sheds, ecological processes, water quality and habitat/8"
The NPS has a "no-impairment" mandate embedded in
its founding Organic Act of 1916, and NPS Management
Policies clearly direct restoration of degraded resources
resulting from human disturbances.
The FWS (along with the National Marine Fisheries Service
[NMFS] of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration [NOAA]) has primary responsibility for administer-
ing the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Through the ESA,
these agencies develop recovery plans that identify spe-
cific measures for species viability. The plans also include
strategies for recovery and address roles for key partners
in the recovery of these species. The FWS also manages
refuges along the border and, like other DOI and Forest
Service units, actively addresses degraded waterways
and habitats through restoration.
Within the border region, the NMFS is limited in geo-
graphic scope to the coastal areas and watersheds of
California and Texas. In those locations, it supports proj-
ects that aid in the recovery of threatened and endan-
gered species listed under the ESA, as well as their
prey, and fish stocks managed under the Magnuson-
Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act.
The Bureau of Reclamation's Mission is "to manage,
develop, and protect water and related resources in an
environmentally and economically sound manner in the
interest of the American public." The vision for implement-
ing this includes "[mjanaging Reclamation's facilities to
fulfill water user contracts and protect and/or enhance
conditions for fish, wildlife, land, and cultural resources.5®4'
Through a variety of laws such as the Clean Water
Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), EPA is
charged with limiting the amount of harmful chemicals
entering the environment. To fulfill its responsibilities, the
Agency actively restores wetlands and improves upland
condition through waste removal and site remediation.
Private Lands
U.S. federal agencies also have responsibilities to private
landowners. Various DOI bureaus, including the FWS
and BLM, discussed in the previous section, reach out
to private landowners under various authorities using
contracts, grants and cooperative agreements. Other
agencies have explicit mandates to work with private
landowners.
For example, the Natural Resources Conservation Ser-
vice (NRCS) is a nonregulatory agency within the USDA
that works with the Nation's private landowners and land
managers through conservation planning and implemen-
tation efforts. In the border region, the NRCS works with
ranchers and farmers to provide conservation planning
and technical and financial assistance in an effort to pro-
tect, restore and enhance impaired natural ecosystems.
Following the mission of "Helping People Help the Land"
and through its guiding principles—service, partnership
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Santa Cruz River, Audobon IBA at the Chavez Siding Road Crossing Pre-NIWWTP Upgrade and Los Alisos Diversions, June 2004,
Source: John Shasky, Friends of the Santa Cruz River Volunteer
and technical excellence —the NRCS helps develop
conservation pians that include improvements to water
quality and quantity, productive soils, plant communi-
ties, open space, food and fiber, and rural and urban
communities. The NRCS identifies MLRAs and develops
ecological site descriptions to characterize land areas
by climate, soil and water features, and related plant
communities and ecological dynamics, thereby provid-
ing land managers the information needed for identifying
appropriate land uses.®* Through "Working Lands for
Wildlife," the NRCS is providing assistance to improve,
restore and maintain habitat for seven listed and at-risk
species. The NRCS has worked with the FWS to ensure
that the specific conservation practices landowners use
will benefit the focal species and not negatively impact
that species and other species that may occur on the
enrolled properties.
The FWS also works with private (nonfederal) landowners
who have habitat for listed and at-risk species on their
lands through two kinds of voluntary agreements: Safe
Harbor Agreements for listed species and Candidate
Conservation Agreements with Assurances for candidate
and other at-risk species. For their specific conservation
actions that remove threats and improve, restore and
maintain habitat, landowners enrolled in these agree-
ments receive assurances that they will not be asked to
do more than agreed upon, and should their ongoing
land management practices described in the agreement
impact the species, they are covered by an incidental
take permit. A diversity of partnerships with state and
local agencies and conservation organizations has been
established to assist in developing these agreements by
working with landowners and implementing conservation
actions.
The Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program is
another way the FWS works with private landowners by
providing technical and financial assistance to landown-
ers who are willing to work with the Service and other
partners on a voluntary basis to help meet the needs of
federal trust species by restoring and creating habitat.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
-------
Chapter Two: Current Activities of the U.S.
Federal Government
As indicated in Chapter One, the U.S. federal govern-
ment is involved in ecological restoration throughout
the border region through agencies with an explicit
mandate to restore degraded habitats and others that
incorporate general environmental protection into their
regular activities. The first two sections of this chapter
describe federal government involvement in research
and implementation related to ecological restoration in
the region. The final section discusses opportunities to
expand ecological restoration there.
RESEARCH
Ecological restoration is a dynamic process, requir-
ing responsiveness to changing environmental, social
and political conditions. Thus, ongoing research is crit-
ical to project-based and large-scale environmental
restoration efforts. Many federal agencies conduct
research to determine resource conditions and impli-
cations for management. For example, the National
Park Service (NPS) collects data on long-term trends
of select resource indicators. Individual land units sup-
port or conduct research ranging from basic biological
inventory to developing techniques for treating invasive
buffelgrass (Pennisetum ciliare (L.) Link). This section
describes some of the activities of three of the most
active federal agencies conducting research in support
of ecological restoration in the border region.
Department of the Interior— U.S.
Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the science
bureau of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
GNEB Board Member Francisco Zamora (far left) briefs
U.S. Government Officials at Laguna Grande Resto-
ration Site B1.
Source: Andrew Pernick with the Bureau of Reclamation
and provides basic and applied science to under-
stand threats, resource responses and techniques to
support restoration actions in the U.S.-Mexico bor-
der region. The USGS is an internationally recognized
leader in modeling natural systems and making robust
forecasts of the future states of those systems. Moni-
toring, modeling and forecasting change within trans-
boundary watersheds provides unbiased science and
leadership in the borderlands region:.One example
is the USGS' role in the Colorado River Pulse Study
(see the case study on Minute 319 and the Pulse Flow
in Chapter Three).
The USGS also provides integrated, cross-discipline
thinking, data collection and analyses to help synthe-
size information, described in its 2013 comprehensive
assessment of ecological, social, health, commerce
and security issues in the borderlands document,
"United States-Mexican Borderlands—Facing Tomor-
row's Challenges through USGS Science;"^ The USGS
applies geographical, geospatial, biological, hydro-
logical and geological sciences to complex binational
issues, and provides insight into natural systems and
their relation to human activity. Resulting information
is useful to federal land management bureaus in the
DOI, such as the Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
and other federal agencies associated with homeland
security, agriculture, environment and health.
In addition, the USGS is responsible for the implemen-
tation of the 1964 Waste Resources Research Act and
oversees the work of the Nation's 54 water research
centers—one in each state, the District of Colum-
bia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and Guam.
These Institutes together have produced path-break-
ing research, innovative information and a technolo-
gy transfer program in addition to training more than
25,000 students during the past 50 years.
Department of Agriculture-U.S.
Agricultural Research Service
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Agricul-
tural Research Service (ARS) has been instrumental in
developing tools for assessing and managing range-
lands. The ARS in Las Cruces, New Mexico, contin-
ues to lead research and applications of rangeland
condition assessment and state and transition models
critical to understanding the level of degradation in
ecosystems. Ecological restoration can help prevent
and address problems such as the reintroduction
of cattle fever ticks in Texas. Without attention, the
spread of these ticks wouid cause devastating mon-
etary losses for U.S. beef and dairy producers; there-
fore, ARS scientists in Kerrvilie, Texas, are developing
and testing new interventions to eliminate the ticks
within U.S. borders. In addition, following the concept
of One Health,T researchers and managers are eval-
uating the role of overabundant white-tailed deer and
non-native ungulates on efforts to manage disease
vectors.*
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Through its science and stewardship programs, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) advances the understanding of and ability to
anticipate changes in the environment by improving
t One Health is an organizing concept and effort to apply "a broader
understanding of health and disease demands a unity of approach achievable
only through a consilience of human, domestic animal and wildlife health and
through 12 organizing principles, identifies the linkage to environmental quality
and ecological integrity" (http://www.oneworldonehealtli.org/).
i Group for Emerging Babesioses and One Health Research and Development
in the U.S. 2010. One Health approach to identify research needs in bovine
and human babesioses: workshop report. Parasit Vectors. 3: 36. Published
online Apr 8, 2010. doi: 10.1186/1756-3305-3-36.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
vhYIJ
: >> \v\
Site visit conducted at Morelos Dam in preparation for Minute 319 pulse flow event, Arizona.
Source: Andrew Pernick with the Bureau of Reclamation
society's ability to make scientifically informed deci-
sions, and by conserving and managing ocean and
coastal resources. With regard to ecosystem res-
toration, NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS),
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Nation-
al Weather Service (NWS), Office of Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research (OAR), and National Envi-
ronmental Satellite Data and Information Service
(NESDIS) provide science, modeling, technical assis-
tance and decision support tools that can inform and
support restoration activities along the border region.
The Office for Coastal Management within the NOS
administers programs under the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act (CZMA): the Coastal Zone Management Pro-
grams (CZMPs) and the National Estuarine Research
Reserve System (NERRS). The CZMPs are established
to manage and balance competing uses of and impacts
to coastal resources while the NERRS is a network
of coastal areas protected for long-term research,
water-quality monitoring, education and coastal stew-
ardship. The States of California and Texas are the only
states in the U.S.-Mexico border region that are eligible
to participate in the program and both states have cho-
sen to develop these programs (see page 41 for a case
study of state-federal partnership in habitat restoration
at the Tijuana River NERR).
The CZMA emphasizes the primacy of state deci-
sion-making regarding the coastal zone. Feder-
al consistency is a powerful tool that states use to
manage coastal uses and resources and to facilitate
cooperation and coordination with federal agencies.
Federal consistency requires federal agency activi-
ties, including habitat restoration activities, that have
reasonably foreseeable effects on any land or water
use or natural resource of the coastal zone must be
consistent to the maximum extent practicable with
the enforceable policies of a coastal state's federally
approved coastal management program. The National
Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) conduct
research on coastal ecosystem restoration, ecosys-
tem characterization and biogeographic assessment.
Using geographic information systems (GIS) to inte-
grate and analyze biological, physical, chemical and
socioeconomic information about coasts, NCCOS
provides border communities in southern California
and south Texas with the information and tools to
develop practices and policies that reduce pollution
and improve coastal health.
The three NWS River Forecast Centers (RFCs) in the
U.S.-Mexico border region—California-Nevada, Col-
orado Basin, and West Gulf—provide information on
river flow observations and forecasts. This information
is used by the U.S. International Boundary and Water
Commission (USIBWC) to assist in the distribution,
regulation and conservation of border region water
resources in accordance with the rights and obliga-
tions that the governments of the United States and
Mexico assume under numerous boundary and water
treaties.4®
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
NOAA's Climate Program Office (CPO) provides sci-
ence, data and information to understand how climate
conditions are changing. Using NOAA's long-term cli-
mate observing, monitoring, researching and modeling
capabilities, scientists quantify where and how climate
conditions have changed in the past and predict where
and how they are likely to change in the future. The
NOAA Climate Prediction Center provides seasonal
and inter-annual outlooks on various climate-related
variables (e.g., drought, El Nino events, storms and
other weather hazards).
IMPLEMENTATION
Ecological restoration is conducted at many levels,
although most common are those projects that are
species-centric or site-based. Limitations in the effec-
tiveness of isolated restoration projects, however, point
to the need for large-scale restoration programs and
initiatives, including those that cross the U.S.-Mexico
border. Using case studies, this section illustrates each
of these types of implementation.
Species-Centric Restoration
Species-based work usually includes habitat resto-
ration, which ranges from addressing a landscape pro-
cess such as fire or flooding to emphasis on a single
food source for the species. In southern Arizona, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is actively imple-
menting a wide range of endangered species recovery
actions, including the following:
• Captive propagation and translocation (Sonoran prong-
horn antelope [Antilocapra americana sonoriensis]).
• Habitat enhancement projects (gating of cave roosting
habitats for endangered bats).
• Monitoring of endangered cats (jaguar [Panthera onca],
ocelot [Leopardus (=Felis) pardalis] and jaguarundi
[Herpailurus (=Felis) yagouaroundi cacomitli]).
• Management of grassland habitats for natural diversity
(at the 117,107-acre [47,392-hectare] Buenos Aires
National Wildlife Refuge [NWR]).
• Restoration of endangered fish habitats (at the 2,369-
acre (959-hectare) San Bernardino NWR).
Planning for the recovery, listing of threatened or
endangered species, and designation of critical habitat
also are very active.
Site-Based Restoration
Extending beyond species-centric restoration, the goal
of site-based restoration is to improve the habitat upon
which multiple plant and animal species depend. The
challenges of site-based restoration are many and
include overcoming habitat fragmentation, understanding
species dependencies and securing resources. As for
species-centric restoration, careful and well-designed
monitoring is critical to long-term success.
Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Park
Palo Alto Resaca
The Palo Alto Resaca is a key landscape feature of the
core battlefield. It played a strategic role in placement
of battle lines and affected troop movements during the
1846 battle. The site has been degraded through tillage
agriculture, ranching and drainage projects during the
last 85 years that have altered the topography, soil, veg-
etation and hydrology of this landscape. Although build-
ings and debris from trenching have been removed, the
current condition of the site detracts from the integrity
of the historic setting and ecological landscape that the
park was established to preserve and interpret. Work
has begun to fill ditched areas and restore predistur-
bance contours, as well as to replant these areas with
native species. Although this is a small project, the work
will support similar efforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) to establish wildlife corridors along the
Rio Grande.
The NPS frequently is challenged to restore both nat-
ural resources and cultural landscapes. Palo Alto Bat-
tlefield National Historic Park is one example. This park
sits near the mouth of the Rio Grande, near Browns-
ville, Texas. In 1846, this became the site of the first
major battle of the war between Mexico and the United
States over disputed territory north of the Rio Grande.
Characteristic of prairie at the park are dispersed small
stands of mixed brush and several lengthy "resacas."
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Collaboration With Livestock Growers
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
works with livestock growers to enhance environmen-
tal conditions in areas used for grazing. In Sells, Ari-
zona, the Tres Equis Range and Livestock Association
manages a 55,000-acre (22,000-hectare) grazing area
along the border region. The primary resource concern is
maintaining plant communities that optimize the range-
lands' soils, elevations and precipitation totals. To date,
11 miles (18 kilometers) of fencing has been installed to
control the timing and intensity of grazing. To accelerate
ground cover, 9,066 feet (2,763 meters) of diversions
and water spreaders were constructed to supplement
natural precipitation in areas where plants could effec-
tively use additional moisture, while reducing damage
from uplands runoff. Soil erosion was addressed by
installing 38 grade stabilization structures, four sedi-
mentation basins and 100 acres (40 hectares) of range
planting. Three livestock ponds were constructed to
improve grazing distribution. Four vegetation monitoring
plots were established to document vegetation changes
on 13,832 acres (5,598 hectares) of deferred grazing.
Currently, the field office is working on a range inventory
of the Association's mountain pasture.
Resacas are abandoned stream courses on the Rio
Grande delta that appear as sinuous, shallow channels
across the landscape. The resacas fill with water after
rainstorms and remain ponded for weeks or months,
creating wetlands that are either unvegetated or sup-
port wetland plants that are more tolerant of ponded
water than the adjacent prairies, dominated by gulf
cordgrass (Spartina spartinae (Trin.) Merr. ex Hitchc.).
Resacas provide important habitat for:
• Waterfowl species (e.g., American wigeons [Anas
americana], pintails \Anas acuta], Northern shovelers
\Anas clypeata]).
• Wading birds (e.g., roseate spoonbills [Platalea ajaja],
night herons [Ardeidae spp.], snowy egrets [Egretta
thula]).
• Shorebirds.
• Raptors.
They also provide important habitat for several threat-
ened and endangered species such as the ocelot,
Aplamado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis) and
jaguarundi.
Federal Support for Habitat Restoration on
Nonfederal Lands: Examples from the Natural
Resources Conservation Service
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
has effectively utilized Farm Bill conservation programs
to help incentivize landowner program participation in
habitat protection and restoration programs. In fis-
cal year 2013 (FY 2013), for example, Conservation
Technical Assistance (CTA) impacted more than 3,994
individuals and resulted in conservation plans being
written on more than 2,086,409 acres (844,343 hec-
tares). Conservation plans provided the framework for
ecosystem enhancement and readied landowners to
apply for financial assistance programs. The Conser-
vation Stewardship Program (CSP) is directed at agri-
cultural producers to help them maintain and improve
their existing conservation systems and adopt addi-
tional conservation practices.
Threatened and endangered species within the Texas
border region include, for example, the ocelot, jagua-
rundi, and several endangered and culturally signifi-
cant plant species. The NRCS is working actively with
landowners and partners to restore vital ocelot and
jaguarundi habitat under the Grassland Reserve Pro-
gram (GRP), Environmental Quality Incentives Program
(EQIP), and Continuous Conservation Reserve Pro-
gram State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement (CCRP-
SAFE) program. EQIP, for example, provides financial
and technical assistance to agricultural producers to
address natural resource concerns and deliver envi-
ronmental benefits. Education efforts also are in place
to help prevent the destruction of critical native habi-
tat of culturally significant indigenous or at-risk plant
species.
The south Texas border region is an essential migra-
tory habitat for a number of insect, bird and animal
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
species. The Monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus)
and neotropical bird populations depend on this area's
ecosystems for suitable and abundant habitat along
their migration journey. The Migratory and Shore Bird
Habitat Initiative (MSBHI), begun in FY 2013, focus-
es conservation planning efforts on migrating, shore-
bird and grassland nesting-bird habitats. The NRCS
established a special funding area through the Wild-
life Habitat Incentives Program (WHIP) to help private
landowners with brush management, grass planting,
prescribed burning and prescribed grazing to emulate
open prairie and savannah-type ecosystems that are
dependent areas for grassland bird species.
Imperial wetland.
Source: Imperial Irrigation District
Natural Resources Conservation Service-
Tribal Ecosystem Restoration Partnerships
The U.S.-Mexico border region is home to a number of
federally recognized Tribes. The Natural Resources Con-
servation Service (NRCS) supports these Tribes, on and
off reservations, through efforts such as ecosystem res-
toration projects. The NRCS partners with Tribes to pre-
serve and enhance ecosystems for generations to come,
in turn, supporting the preservation of traditions, propa-
gation of wildlife and restoration of culturally significant
plants. In California, for example, the NRCS is working
with the Quechan Tribe to remove salt cedar and establish
native plant revegetation along the Colorado River at the
junction of Arizona, California and Mexico. The Manzanita
Band of the Kumeyaay Nation worked with the NRCS on
a Poly Farm project and on conservation practices includ-
ing micro-irrigation and windbreak installation, forested
lands, wildfire fuels management and revegetation, and
prescribed grazing management planning.
At that same time, efforts to target invasive spe-
cies—such as salt cedar (Tamarix spp.), giant cane
i/\rundinaria gigantea (Walter) Muhl.) and desert willow
[Chilopsis linearis (Cav.) Sweet)—continue all along the
border. These three plants occur in varying abundance
along the Rio Grande and can present environmen-
tal and cultural challenges, in the west Texas border
region alone, 143 brush management applications
were certified on 33,210 acres (13,440 hectares) with
the NRCS obligating $2,356,379 for species control.
The three species generally are viewed as invasive by
the landowners, operators and managers. However,
the same view is not necessarily held by Native Amer-
ican Tribes or members of other cultural groups; man-
agement actions, therefore, are best implemented in
the context of ongoing partnerships and cooperation
(see the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo example, below).
The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Hueco Tanks
Traditional Lands
The Tigua Indians of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo is one of
several federally recognized Native American Tribes in
the border region. The Hueco Tanks Traditional Lands
is a 3,573-acre (1,446-hectare) property, located at
the El Paso and Hudspeth county iine adjacent to the
Hueco Tanks State Park, that is sacred to the people
of Ysleta dei Sur Pueblo.* This property is a traditional
hunting and ceremonial ground for the Pueblo. Spe-
cies such as scaled quail, also known as blue quail
and cotton top (Callipepla squamata), are of cultural
significance to the people of the Pueblo as a food
source and for ceremonial purposes. The property is
located approximately 30 miles (50 kilometers) from
the Pueblo's main housing and governmental district,
and overgrazing by a neighboring property owner's
cattle and other mitigating factors have left the prop-
erty in poor ecological condition.
Because the property is not heid in trust, it is treated
as private land, and the Pueblo collaborates with the
NRCS to address ecological restoration. Preliminary
data provided through the NRCS in the form of a
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
biological survey in 2009 documented the poor eco-
logical condition of the Hueco Tanks property, with the
majority of vegetation being small shrubs and cactus.
Through a Grasslands Restoration project, remote
sensing technology was used to demonstrate the
sheer magnitude and dominant presence of creosote
bush (Larrea tridentata (DC.) Coville) (a high water use
plant species) at the site. The creosote bush reduced
grassland habitat and, consequently, compromised
the wildlife species that depend on that habitat.
History of the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo Hueco
Tanks Traditional Lands
The Tigua Indians of Ysleta del Sur Pueblo originated
from the Pueblo of Isleta, just south of Albuquerque,
New Mexico. During the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, Tigua
ancestors were forcibly displaced by the Spanish to the
Pueblo's current checkerboard land configuration within
the cities of El Paso and Socorro, Texas. Traditionally,
the Pueblo has maintained a peaceful existence in this
region relying on sustainable activities such as hunt-
ing and agriculture. By 1987, due to infringement by
non-Indians, only 68 acres (28 hectares) of Tribal lands
remained. Through acquisition of properties, however,
most not held in trust by the U.S. government, the Pueblo
has been able to build its land base up to its current
74,050 acres (29,970 hectares) of non-adjoining prop-
erties in El Paso, Jeff Davis and Presidio Counties in west
Texas. This undeveloped land in the middle of a metro-
politan area is of great significance to the people of the
Pueblo, helping keep Tribal members connected to the
earth and the principles of the ancestors and providing
sites to educate the youth in the old teachings of how
to tend the land, and preserve and conserve resources.
The Ysleta del Sur Pueblo began restoring the site by
eradicating species such as creosote and tar bush
(,Flourensia cernua (DC)) through herbicide control,
installing three large water tanks with rain catchment
fans and wildlife watering holes, and erecting proper
fencing to control cattle. The Tribe hosted a Work-
ing Effectively with American Indians training course,
which included NRCS employees who serve both
federally recognized Texas Tribes, as well as present-
ers from the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo and Kickapoo
Traditional Tribe of Texas.
The Hueco Tanks property requires additional habitat
restoration, conservation and remediation, and is a
priority for the Pueblo and its Environmental Manage-
ment Office (EMO). Completion of a comprehensive
land survey will permit the Pueblo to implement the
conservation measures that are greatly needed to
sustain and re-develop areas within the Hueco Tanks
Traditional lands. Acting as stewards, it is imperative
for Pueblo people to protect and maintain the lands in
a sustainable manner in order to uphold their traditions
and culture and safeguard resources for the future. The
creation of conservation policy and the implementation
of infrastructure and strategies to continue Pueblo tra-
ditions as guardians of the land serve to enhance and
strengthen the Pueblo's overall sovereignty.
The ultimate wildlife management goal for the Hueco
Tanks Traditional Lands and for other Pueblo proper-
ties such as the Chilicote Ranch44 is long-term con-
servation of rangelands and native wildlife species for
cultural, aesthetic, historic and recreational purposes.
The Pueblo has recently received NRCS support for
a Seasonal High Tunnel45 that will be used on a Tribal
community garden under a CSP range management
contract, along with financial assistance for fencing
(through WHIP funding) and for brush management
and a pumping plant for livestock water (through EQIP).
A Partnership of U.S. Customs and Border
Protection and Federal Land Managers
Cross-terrain movement by undocumented migrants
and U.S. Border Patrol personnel has had a negative
impact on the environment and contributed to the dete-
rioration of ecological function in upland ecosystems
along the border.46 Illegal border activity and continued
border security operations create challenges for resto-
ration; however, the Department of Homeland Securi-
ty (DHS) has undertaken specific restoration projects,
including enhancing habitat where feasible. In 2009,
DHS and DOI signed a Memorandum of Agreement:
...for the mitigation of natural and cultural resource
impacts that have occurred or may occur in connec-
tion with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
construction activities to secure the borders of the U.S.
from the threat of terrorism, the implements of terror,
and illegal human and narcotics trafficking. It is specifi-
cally intended to address the actions CBP and DOI will
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
take to minimize, avoid, or mitigate potential impacts
to natural and cultural resources arising out of CBP
border security projects.47
With more than $12 million in funding from DHS, DOI
has made progress on multiple habitat restoration
and conservation projects, including assessments,
revegetation and other habitat restoration, and habitat
acquisition, primarily for threatened and endangered
species. New research is improving the DOI's under-
standing of ecosystem-level effects of border security
response.48 CBP continues its partnership with DOI
bureaus along the southwest border to execute reveg-
etation projects and monitor their success as mitiga-
tion for CBP impacts.
Example: Agave Restoration at Coronado
National Memorial
When the Tactical Infrastructure, also known as the
border fence, was constructed along the southern
boundary of the Coronado National Memorial (Sier-
ra Vista, Arizona), more than 3,700 mature agave
(Agave palmeri Engelm.) plants, which provide forage
for lesser long-nosed bats (Leptonycteris curasoae
yerbabuenae) were removed. Since 2011, the Park
has collected seeds, and planted more than 5,000
agave seedlings. Under an intra-agency agreement,
the NRCS Tucson Plant Materials Center (AZ) grew
out the seedlings to be planted. The park has spon-
sored four volunteer days to plant the agave seedlings.
Volunteers have included interested public, Arizona
Native Plant Society members, Boy and Girl Scout
troops, and grade school summer program students
from Sierra Vista.
The agave seedlings and site maintenance has
occurred on 10 acres (4 hectares) that were used
during construction as an equipment and materials
laydown area. This site was denuded of vegetation and
the soil was compacted; this damage encouraged the
spread of Lehmann's lovegrass (Eragrostis lehmanni-
ana Nees). The park has implemented controls of this
invasive plant, as well as other pests that damage
the agave seedlings. The expected outcome of this
conservation action is to restore the agaves that were
removed from the environment during construction
and provide future forage for the endangered lesser
long-nosed bats.
Regional-Scale Restoration
Although site-based restoration can generate direct
benefits, large-scale efforts are needed to address
fragmentation, restore wildlife corridors, reduce threats
from flooding and fire, and more. Regional-scale resto-
ration requires higher levels of coordination and broad-
er strategies than either species-centric or site-based
restoration. Wildland fire, including fuel treatments
taken to restore fire regime and related ecosystem
composition and structure, is managed through
the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), located
in Boise, Idaho. The NIFC has no single director or
manager; the eight agencies and organizations that
are part of NIFC rely on interagency cooperation for
decision making. Other management structures such
as Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs)
and Climate Science Centers, which reflect the com-
plex nature of many resource dynamics, have been
developed and are being tested for coordination of
landscape assessments and action. These networks
of partners have yet to define roles for LCCs in coor-
dinating multi-agency management activities.
Multispecies: San Diego Multiple Species
Conservation Program
The San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program
(MSCP) provides for large, connected preserve areas
that address a number of species at the habitat level
rather than species-by-species, and area-by-area. This
creates a more efficient and effective preserve system,
as well as better protection, for the rare, threatened
and endangered species in the region. Contributing
to the MSCP, the San Diego NWR, operated by the
FWS, has initiated several projects to restore popula-
tions of Cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicap-
illus couesi). Plant species restoration has focused on
populations of cactus Otay tarweed (Deinandra con-
jugens (D.D. Keck) B.G. Baldw.), San Diego Ambrosia
(Ambrosia ambrosioides (Cav.) Payne), Mexican Flan-
nelbush (Fremontodendron mexicanum Davidson),
Coast Live Oak (Quercus_agrifolia Nee var. oxyadenia
(Torn) J.T. Howell) and Engelmann Oak(Q. engelmannii
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Greene). Refuge managers also are restoring ecosys-
tems such as vernal pools^9 and coastal sage scrub
habitats, critical habitat for the threatened coastal
California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica califor-
nica) and endangered Quino Checkerspot butterfly
(Euphydryas editha quino (=£. e. wrighti). Practices
typically include seed collection, cultivation, planting
and maintenance of native species; translocation of
endangered and threatened species; invasive species
control; and qualitative and quantitative monitoring.
Monitoring data show that native species richness and
cover are increasing throughout the site.
Restore New Mexico
In the early 19th century, grasslands dominated much
of New Mexico. Over the past century, however,
grasses have given way to invasive and noxious spe-
cies—such as creosote, mesquite (Prosopis L.) and
salt cedar—as a result of overuse, drought and other
factors. These changes can be seen on coarse scale
maps (Figure 5). The first map shows vegetation levels
before European settlement; note the overwhelming
presence of grasslands across the state. The second
map shows conditions in 2006, in particular the vast
expansion of shrub-dominated landscapes. The third
map indicates progress in restoring grassland cover
across the state.
In 2005, the New Mexico BLM launched the Restore
New Mexico initiative with the goal of restoring dis-
turbed lands on a landscape scale through an ambi-
tious partnership approach. Landscape restoration
has focused on controlling invasive brush spe-
cies, improving riparian habitat, reducing woodland
encroachment, and reclaiming abandoned oil and gas
well pads. BLM is more than halfway to achieving its
goal of 4 million acres (1.6 million hectares) restored
and has become a model for a large-scale program
involving numerous agencies, organizations, ranchers
and industry groups.
The Malpai Borderlands Group
Now in its 20th year as a formal organization, Ari-
zona's Malpai Borderlands Group (MBG) has
proven successful in large landscape-scale conser-
vation on the border with Mexico. This grassroots,
Tree Dominated
Shrub Dominated
Grass Dominated
Figure 5. Estimated vegetation cover conditions at the time of European settlement (Map A) have been altered through a variety
of human activities leading to widespread loss of grasslands by 2006 (Map B). BLM and its partners have made
significant progress in restoring grassland cover while supporting grazing allotments across the state (Map C).
Source: Bureau of Land Management
Sixteenth Report of the Good
25 Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
landowner-driven nonprofit organization attempts to
implement ecosystem management on nearly 1 mil-
lion acres (400,000 hectares) of virtually unfragment-
ed open-space landscape in southeastern Arizona
and southwestern New Mexico. Four major ecosys-
tems—the Rocky Mountains, the Sierra Madres, the
Sonoran Desert and the Chihuahua Desert, with ele-
vations ranging from 3,500 to 8,500 feet (1,100 to
2,600 meters) —include mountains, canyons, valleys
and riparian corridors. Several rare, threatened, and
endangered plant and animal species are found here;
it is the only place in the United States where Gould's
turkey and white-sided jackrabbits occur naturally
and also is home to popular big-game species such
as Coues deer (Odocoileus virginianus couesi), mule
deer (Odocoileus hemionus), pronghorn (Antiiocapra
americana) and desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canaden-
sis neisoni).
Fewer than 100 families reside in the Malpai border-
lands area and many have been there for generations.
The nonprofit MBG was formed to bring ranchers, sci-
entists and key agencies together to carry out a series
of conservation programs and activities, including land
restoration, endangered species habitat protection,
cost-sharing range and ranch improvements, and land
conservation projects. Through conservation ease-
ments that block subdivision and development, the
group has protected 78,000 acres (32,000 hectares)
of private land. Innovative forms of cooperative land
management such as "grassbanking" allow neighbor-
ing drought-stricken ranchers to move their herds to
the Diamond A Ranch under reciprocal conservation
agreements and thereby rest their own lands and nat-
ural resources. Habitat restoration projects focused
on native grassland and savanna habitats include an
ambitious goal of restoring fire as a natural landscape
process. As a result, the MBG and partners have con-
ducted prescribed fire burns on more than 69,000
acres (28,000 hectares).
The MBG has recognized the importance of mon-
itoring and communication of results. Monitoring
has documented improved ecological conditions
over thousands of acres. Outreach to neighbors and
cooperators has focused on new scientific and land
management information and also has included work-
shops and tours with neighboring Mexican ranchers,
scientists and governmental authorities.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley Wildlife Corridor
In south Texas, one of the fastest growing areas in
the United States, approximately 95 percent of the
habitat has been cleared. The FWS and state and local
entities—including Texas Parks and Wildlife and many
nonprofit organizations, private landowners and local
communities—are focused on restoring, protecting
and connecting habitat in south Texas. In one exam-
ple, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Ref-
uge and its many partners have been working since
1979 to create a wildlife corridor along the Rio Grande
from Falcon Dam to the Gulf of Mexico. Land that
either has good habitat or connects to habitat is pur-
chased from willing sellers for inclusion in the refuge.
When complete, the Lower Rio Grande Valley National
Wildlife Refuge wildlife corridor will be an east-west
corridor that follows the Rio Grande and links into the
southern tip of a sister refuge, the Laguna Atascosa
National Wildlife Refuge. Through Laguna Atascosa,
the connected habitat will extend up into the great
Texas ranchlands, where private landowners are
doing very important work to protect habitat on their
own land. Recognizing their stewardship, the refuge
supports private landowners who have an interest in
managing wildlife on their property. The refuge offers
private landowners interested in being part of the wild-
life corridor technical assistance, conservation ease-
ments and other management tools. The FWS also
has an agreement with Mexico where efforts are under
way to create a similar wildlife corridor on the south
side of the Rio Grande. Despite these efforts, connec-
tivity of habitat blocks along the Rio Grande has not
been achieved and habitat block sizes are too small
to effectively maintain populations of megafauna such
as the endangered ocelot.
Binational Restoration
As described above, regional-scale activities can and
do take place across the U.S.-Mexico border. The
Rio Grande/Rio Bravo watershed exemplifies both
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
the potential for and the challenges associated with
binational ecological restoration.
The Big Bend reach of the Rio Grande is burdened by
diminishing flows, climate change and the presence of
two exotic and invasive species. The Big Bend Bination-
al Initiative was established in 2010 to coordinate feder-
al, state and private conservation activities in this area of
west Texas. Support for these activities by the U.S. and
Mexican governments is based on the 1997 Letter of
Intent for Joint Work in Natural Protected Areas on the
U.S.-Mexico border, the March 18, 2000 agreement on
Cooperation in Management and Protection of National
Parks and Other Protected Natural Areas, and the Joint
Declaration of Sister Park Partnerships signed on March
23, 2006. These activities are further strengthened by
more recent commitments by U.S. Secretary Salazar
and Mexican Minister Elvira to "build upon our shared
history of ecosystem and species conservation." U.S.
and Mexican agencies are working together to establish
the Big Bend reach of the Rio Grande and its tributaries
as the aquatic center pieces of an emerging binational
conservation area. The Rio Grande, its tributaries, the
surrounding Sky Islands and the intervening arid grass-
lands form the core of this biological region. Through
programs like the National Park Service Sister Parks
Initiative, work is intended to (1) increase binational
conservation capacity and cooperation; (2) develop
and implement conservation projects and the neces-
sary support science to demonstrate improved resilien-
cy to climate change; and (3) complete a conservation
assessment of the region.
Current restoration objectives are focused on restor-
ing gallery forests along tributaries to improve riparian
aquifers and resilience to climate change, managing
and eliminating exotic invasive riparian plants along
a 45-mile reach of the Rio Grande, and improving
hydrology on severely degraded desert grassland
sites. In support of these projects, the initiative is work-
ing to understand and quantify the role exotic riparian
plants play in diminishing aquatic habitat, develop-
ing binational conservation monitoring protocols and
increasing the capacity of the Sister Parks Initiative.
CHALLENGES
The examples in the preceding section illustrate that
through innovative approaches, progress toward
ecosystem restoration has been made. The cases
also point to specific issues that, if addressed, would
increase the success of individual projects and the
potential for regional-scale restoration. This section
identifies some key challenges.
Working in the Border Environment
Increased drug cartel activities along the border have
heightened the need for security for professional and
volunteer staff conducting restoration. For example,
at Organ Pipe National Monument, staff require an
armed law enforcement escort as they conduct field
activities in many sections of the Park. Likewise, the
standard operating procedures (SOPs) at each bor-
der NRCS field office include preventative safety mea-
sures such as every employee having a cell phone and
satellite Global Positioning System (GPS) messenger
equipment when working along the border, as well as
OnStar vehicles.
Building and Maintaining Capacity
Even where goals are clear, metrics have been devel-
oped, and partners have been identified, lack of proj-
ect/program management, staff and funding hampers
ecological restoration efforts in the border region.
Annual federal budget allocations fluctuate, are rarely
provided in a timely manner, and may not reflect mul-
tiple-year planning needs that are the reality of res-
toration projects. Restoration projects must compete
for limited resources, and, despite the long-term value
of and future savings associated with restored eco-
systems, immediate needs frequently take priority and
leave restoration projects with insufficient resources.
For example, despite efforts of the BLM-supported
Seeds of Success Program, plant materials are rare-
ly available for the correct species and correct loca-
tions. Cross-agency funding of invasive plant control
is unwieldy, and restoration dollars for fuel treatments
are all too often diverted to Wildland Urban Interface
fire response.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Responding to External Stressors
Managers typically can find ways to restore attributes
of degraded resources once impacts to those resourc-
es have ceased. The reality of work today is to improve
organism health and ecological integrity in the con-
text of constant inputs of invasive species, and con-
taminants, all within a constricted range of ecological
"space" and range of ecological processes that can
facilitate resource recovery. Managers now must iden-
tify "sustainable" resource conditions under shifting cli-
mate envelopes with no certainty of how the restored
biological community components will respond to
novel environments and biological neighbors.
Example: National Wildlife Refuges-
Confronting Multiple Complex Challenges
In south Texas at the Lower Rio Grande Valley and
Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuges, FVVS man-
agers are working to restore 10,000 acres (4,000 hect-
ares) of native Tamaulipan Brushland. Managers are
faced with a range of challenges, including past agri-
cultural land practices (e.g., clearing, grazing), chang-
es in the fire regime (e.g., increased ignitions and fire
frequency, past fire suppression), and establishment
of invasive plants and animals (e.g., alien grasses and
forbs, alien aquatic organisms, forest pests). Although
many of these acres have been planted with the assis-
tance of the Cooperative Farming Program and local
conservation nongovernmental organizations, seed-
ling survivorship among sites varies between 20 to
80 percent. Problems for long-term success include
lack of flooding of the Rio Grande, which flooded his-
torically one to two times per year, and native plant
competition with exotic grasses such as guineagrass
(Urochloa maxima (Jacq.) P.. Webster), Kleberg blue-
stem (Dichanthium annulatum (Forssk.) Stapf) and
buffelgrass. Managers also cite a lack of mapping,
assessment and restoration work on site soils.
Addressing Emerging Issues
Two emerging issues warrant special attention: scaling
and connectivity. Given the size of the U.S.-Mexico
border region and the limited resources available for
restoration activities, managers must seek efficiencies
of scale. Project work typically is conducted on sites
less than 100 acres (40 hectares). In some cases,
work is implemented with a broader vision of ecologi-
cal integrity across large areas, but work is driven more
by local species habitat requirements, and not species
range and large-scale ecological processes such as
regional stream flows and animal movement. Each of
these projects requires separate assessments, goal
structuring and planning, the use of or procurement
of trained equipment operators, the collection and
increase of plant materials, localized herbicide treat-
ments and monitoring.
The need for connectivity is another important con-
cern, especially in light of the fragmentation of habi-
tats, multiple jurisdictions and political boundaries, as
well as physical barriers such as the border fence.
Connectivity is necessary at all scales, from the local
to the ecoregional, but it is generally lacking across
the border region. For example, along the Rio Grande,
habitat blocks are too small to effectively maintain pop-
ulations of megafauna such as the endangered ocelot,
and those that exist are not adequately connected.
Related to both of these issues is a concern with the
timing of restoration activities. If projects are not coordi-
nated, then even where they are successful individually,
and where plans may be in place for expansion to other
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Emerging wetland and riparian habitats (A & B) at Rio Bosque Wetlands Park.
Source: John A. Sproul, Jr., Rio Bosque Wetlands Park Center for Environmental Resource Management, The University of Texas at El Paso
areas, gains may be lost if invasive species regain a
foothold, wide ranging species leave the project area
but cannot survive elsewhere, and removal of significant
stands of salt cedar is off-set by a lack of cottonwood
(Populus spp.) planting elsewhere for native birds that
also can use salt cedar stands for shelter.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR
IMPROVING ECOSYSTEMS
AND INCREASING SUCCESS
In addition to the projects and initiatives already under
way in the border region, and despite the challeng-
es identified in the preceding section, there are many
opportunities for the U.S. federal government to incor-
porate environmental restoration in existing programs
and routine operations. This section describes some
of those opportunities.
Identifying and Implementing Effective
Partnerships, Approaches and Science
Ecological Integrity Framework as a Tool for
Developing Cross-Agency, Cross-Project
Standards
Ecosystems are complex interlinkages of living and
nonliving components that fulfill particular functions.
As noted elsewhere, a key challenge in ecological
restoration has been identifying appropriate goals and
metrics for measuring success. Ecological integrity has
been defined as "the ability of an ecological system
to support and maintain a community of organisms
that hasspecies composition, diversity, and functional
organization comparable to those of natural habitats
within a region;.*® An ecological system has integrity
when it can withstand and recover from perturbations
imposed by natural environmental dynamics or human
disruptions. An Ecological Integrity Framework, devel-
oped by scientists at The Nature Conservancy and
built into the core methodology of NatureServe, pro-
vides a logical, step-by-step approach to help man-
agers identify ecosystem conditions and thresholds
for change,S1- A key opportunity for federal managers,
and their collaborators and partners, is to adopt this
framework.
Resilience Thinking as a Concept to Address
Uncertainty
In ecological systems, the concept of resilience
emerged in the early 1970s as a challenge to sta-
bility thinking. Resilience thinking has evolved into
a more elaborated theory in which adaptability and
transformability are key ingredients. Adaptability refers
to the capacity of a system (or parts of a system) to
learn and adjust within a range of variability, or within
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
a stability domain. Transformabiiity is the capacity to
evolve into a fundamentally new system when existing
conditions are untenable. Resiliency approaches can
be successful when the resiliency "of what" and "to
what" are clearly articulated, and key challenges must
be addressed to unpack the social dimensions of resil-
ience in the context of specific places and problems,
and to move towards interdisciplinary understanding
of social-ecological systems.®
The Desert Landscape Conservation
Cooperative
The Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative
(Desert LCC) was formed by the Bureau of Recla-
mation and the FWS and encompasses portions of
five states: California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico
and Texas, as well as a substantial portion of North-
ern Mexico. It is a binational, self-directed, nonreg-
ulatory regional partnership that seeks to provide
scientific and technical support, coordination and
communication to resource managers and the broad-
er Desert LCC community "to develop a coordinated,
science-based response to climate change and other
landscape-scale stressors."53 The Desert LCC is guid-
ed by a 24-member steering committee comprised
of representatives of resource management entities
as well as interested public and private entities in the
Mojave, Sonoran and Chihuahuan Desert regions of
the southwestern United States and northern Mexico.
The Desert LCC also is one of the 22 LCCs created by
DOI to address the impacts of climate change on Amer-
ica's water, land and other natural and cultural resourc-
es. It is focused on acquiring and sharing information to
support the development of landscape level strategies
for understanding and responding to climate change
impacts and other large-scale ecosystem stressors
such as land use change, invasive species, wildfire
and drought.54 As the Desert LCC "matures," it has the
potential to move beyond information sharing and play
a more active role in multi-project coordination.
In 2014, the FWS asked the National Academy of Sci-
ences to convene an ad hoc committee to examine the
LCC program. The National Research Council study,
"Evaluation of the Landscape Conservation Coopera-
tives," anticipated to be released in summer 2015, will
evaluate the purpose, goals and scientific merits of the
program within the context of similar programs, and
whether the LCC program has resulted in measurable
improvements and progress toward its stated goals.55
Emerging Science for Urban Ecosystems
Urban ecological restoration is a critical need and
focus for the U.S.-Mexico border region because
border communities face heightened environmen-
tal and public health risks associated with ecosys-
tem degradation (e.g., risks arising from floods, fire,
dust, water contamination and newly emergent dis-
ease vectors). In urban areas, restored soils, air and
watersheds can have direct positive environmental
and health benefits as well as provide many import-
ant social and economic benefits such as enhanced
social cohesion, increased real estate values, and
improved recreational opportunities. The many chal-
lenges facing urban ecological restoration neces-
sitate finding ways to: (1) recognize and take into
account the role of human values, perceptions and
actions in shaping the landscape; (2) address gaps
that thwart the equitable co-production and use of
knowledge for problem solving, solutions oriented
research and action; and (3) respond to rapid global
geopolitical and economic change.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds 26 Long
Term Ecological Research (LTER) Stations across the
country. In 1997, NSF funded two Urban Ecology
LTERs, including the Central Arizona-Phoenix area, as
one of the first comprehensive efforts to understand
the ecology of cities. This research will yield valuable
information to identify and restore natural resource
values within urban constraints. To date though, no
federal program exists to support active management
in degraded sections of cities under a broad ecologi-
cal restoration context. This will become increasingly
important as growing cities must address carrying
capacities within existing infrastructure and expansion
into new areas, including the annexation of colonias
into municipal boundaries.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Landscape-Level Assessments for BLM Lands
The BLM adopted an ecoregional direction for its
Rapid Ecoregional Assessments (REAs), and along
with input from partner agencies, stakeholders and
American Indian Tribes, will use information from these
studies to develop landscape-level management strat-
egies for BLM-managed lands. This approach will
help coordinate the partners' efforts to achieve vital
resource management goals beyond administrative
jurisdictions. To accomplish this, the ecoregional direc-
tion will identify focal areas on BLM-managed lands for
conservation and development, including focal areas
for conserving wildlife habitats and migration corridors,
and focal areas for potential energy development and
urban growth. The results of an initial review vali-
date the importance and value of a landscape-scale
approach to understanding the conditions, trends and
opportunities across the landscape, and applying this
information in managing smaller, local land areas.56
Multi-Level and Cross-Border Coordination
Many opportunities exist to coordinate efforts across
U.S. federal agencies, with Mexico, and with Tribal,
state and local entities. Communication and coordi-
nation can help reduce overlap, duplication of effort
and inefficiencies in ecological restoration efforts. The
Western Regional Partnership (WRP) provides a pro-
active and collaborative framework for senior-policy
level federal, state and Tribal leaders to identify com-
mon goals and emerging issues in the states of Ari-
zona, California, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah. The
WRP also works to protect natural resources, while
promoting sustainability, homeland security and mil-
itary readiness.
In another example, management of invasive species
is a key element of many ecological restoration initia-
tives, and is a priority subject in the biodiversity work
program of the Commission for Environmental Coop-
eration for North America. The U.S. National Invasive
Species Council (NISC)57 provides high-level interde-
partmental coordination of federal invasive species
actions and works with other federal and nonfeder-
al groups to address invasive species issues at the
national level.53 Yet to date, the NISC has focused only
in the United States. The Mexican National Strategy
on Invasive Species in Mexico: Prevention, Control,
and Eradication identifies coordination among differ-
ent government branches, sectors, institutions and the
general public as one of five key cross-cutting strategic
actions.59 Efforts to integrate across the U.S.-Mexico
border could increase the success of both initiatives.
Minimizing Degradation and Extending
Restoration Activities
Many U.S. federal agencies that are active along the
U.S.-Mexico border are not directly involved with envi-
ronmental restoration. Nevertheless, through careful
planning and action, they can reduce environmental
degradation and, in some cases, extend the reach of
restoration activities. The following are some examples.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The 1983 La Paz Agreement empowers the feder-
al environmental authorities in the United States and
Mexico to undertake cooperative initiatives. The agree-
ment is implemented through multi-year binational
programs for which the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA) and Mexican Secretary for the Envi-
ronment and Natural Resources (Secretarfa de Medio
Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT)) serve
as National Coordinators. The Border 2020 Program
is the latest environmental effort implemented under
the Agreement. It builds on the Border 2012 Environ-
mental Program, emphasizing regional, bottom-up
approaches for decision making, priority setting and
project implementation to address the environmental
and public health problems in the border region.
The mission of the Border 2020 program is to protect
the environment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico
border region, consistent with the principles of sus-
tainable development. In this program, sustainable
development is defined as "conservation-oriented
social and economic development that emphasizes
the protection and sustainable use of resources while
addressing both current and future needs and present
and future impacts of human actions."60
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Department of State
Under Executive Order 1 1423, as amended, the
Secretary of State has the authority to receive appli-
cations for and to issue Presidential permits for the
construction, connection, operation or maintenance
of certain facilities at the borders of the United States
with Canada and Mexico. Permits are required for
the full range of facilities at the border, including land
crossings, bridges, pipelines, tunnels, conveyor belts
and tramways. This authority applies to all new border
crossings and to all substantial modifications of exist-
ing crossings at the international border. Working with
federal agencies such as the Department of Trans-
portation (DOT), the General Services Administration
(GSA), the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS)
CBP, and EPA; coordinating closely with concerned
state and local agencies; and inviting public comment,
the Department of State (DOS), determines whether a
proposed border-crossing project is in the U.S. nation-
al interest. Consistent with the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), in considering an application for a
Presidential permit, the Department takes into account
environmental impacts of the proposed facility and
directly related construction.
The DOS and the Mexican Secretariat of Foreign Rela-
tions co-chair the U.S.-Mexico Binational Bridges and
Border Crossings Group (BBBXG), which is comprised
of federal and state agencies with an interest in border
crossings, including the DOT, DHS, GSA, and state
departments of transportation as well as their corre-
sponding agencies in Mexico. The BBBXG meets three
times a year to discuss operational matters involving
existing and proposed bridges and border crossings
and their related infrastructure, and to exchange views
on policy as well as technical information. These meet-
ings include a public session where stakeholders, local
government agencies and project sponsors have an
opportunity to address the group.
Department of Homeland Security
To help Border Patrol agents consider the environ-
ment as they carry out their responsibilities in some
of the most remote regions of the United States, the
DHS' CBP, in conjunction with the DOI, developed
an Environmental Cultural Stewardship Training Virtual
Learning Course. This effort is enhancing the train-
ing of all Sector Public Land Liaison Agents (PLLAs)
to help them communicate within the cultural and
environmental community. Included in this enhanced
training is the Archaeology and Paleontology for Law
Enforcement Officers course, which is a joint CBP and
BLM class. In coordination with federal land manage-
ment partners from the FWS and BLM, CBP also
developed a 3-day PLLA Environmental Overview
class. Within the Yuma Sector (Yuma, Arizona), CBP
is piloting a 2-hour training on sensitive cultural or eco-
logical resources, tailored to the local area and flexi-
ble to allow for the changing border conditions. CBP
also is implementing cultural and ecological briefings
for any agent who is assigned to work at Camp Grip
(Wellton, Arizona).
CBP, through the Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical
Infrastructure Program Management Office, also is
conducting environmental Best Management Practice
(BMP) training and education for field personnel who
are involved in construction, maintenance or repair
projects. This training is held both quarterly and at
the initiation of each project on the southwest border
so personnel can be notified of any BMPs or environ-
mental requirements generally or specifically required
during execution of the project.
Department of Transportation
DOT environmental review policies call for avoiding or
minimizing adverse effects where possible and restor-
ing or enhancing environmental quality through feder-
ally assisted transportation programs and other DOT
actions. For federally assisted transportation projects,
mitigation expenses are generally eligible as part of proj-
ect costs. Some Federal-Aid highway programs explic-
itly allow for environmental restoration. Transportation
decisions are made through a state and metropolitan
transportation planning process that allows states and
communities to plan for long-range transportation
needs and short-term transportation improvement pro-
grams. DOT planning policies call for consideration of
plans for protecting environmental resources and miti-
gation of adverse impacts in development of statewide
and metropolitan transportation plans.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
seven otherfederal agencies developed "Eco-Logical,"
a process that promotes ecosystem-based mitigation
and integration of plans and data across agency and
disciplinary activities. The FHWA is working with trans-
portation, resource and regulatory agencies to imple-
ment the Eco-Logical approach on a national scale.
Ecosystem-based mitigation and integrated planning
can be used to make infrastructure more sensitive to
terrestrial and aquatic habitats, and make mitigation
of unavoidable impacts more effective.
U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee on
Transportation Planning
The primary focus of the U.S.-Mexico Joint Work-
ing Committee on Transportation Planning (JWC) is to
cooperate on land transportation planning and the facil-
itation of efficient, safe and economical cross-border
transportation movements. The group is co-chaired by
transportation professionals from the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Mexican Secretariat of
Communications and Transportation (SCT) and includes
representatives from the DOS, the Mexican Secretariat of
Foreign Relations, and the departments of transportation
of the four U.S. border states and the six Mexican border
states. The General Services Administration (GSA) and
DHS' CBP also participate in JWC meetings. The JWC
promotes effective communication concerning transpor-
tation planning between U.S.-Mexico Border states and
works to develop a well-coordinated land transportation
planning process along the border. Among other efforts,
the JWC works to establish methods and procedures
to analyze current and future transportation infrastruc-
ture needs and evaluate transportation demand and
infrastructure impacts resulting from future changes in
land transportation traffic. The JWC is supporting the
development of a compendium of border-wide region-
al master plans with a comprehensive and prioritized
assessment of transportation needs along the border,
including the Port of Entry (POE).
The U.S.-Mexican border is one of the busiest, most
economically important borders in the world. Eighty
percent of U.S.-Mexican trade crosses the land border
on trucks and trains. Here, the DOT works with rel-
evant stakeholders to ensure binational planning of
transportation infrastructure such as access roads
and bridges, and operations such as transportation
performance and intelligent transportation systems.
This involves close coordination with the government
of Mexico, as well as relevant border states and met-
ropolitan planning organizations. This transportation
planning is conducted by the binational border trans-
portation working group: the U.S.-Mexico Joint Work-
ing Committee on Transportation Planning (JWC). The
DOT also is engaged in President Obama's High Level
Economic Dialogue (HLED) with Mexico. The HLED
work plan was designed to coordinate shared interests
and priorities affecting the growth and competitiveness
of the U.S. and Mexican economies, focusing on those
linkages where the two countries can collaborate to
promote mutual prosperity.
North American Development Bank and the
Border Environment Cooperation Commission
The North American Development Bank (NADB), and
its sister institution the Border Environment Cooper-
ation Commission (BECC), are binational institutions
created by a side-agreement to NAFTA to "preserve,
protect and enhance the environment of the border
region in order to advance the well-being of the people
of the United States and Mexico." More specifically,
the BECC evaluates and certifies infrastructure proj-
ects for funding by the NADB.
The institutions are governed by a single, 10-member
Board of Directors, comprised of one representative
each from the DOS, DOT, EPA, and Mexican gov-
ernment equivalents, as well as a representative of a
border state from each country, and a representative
of the general public who resides in the border region
from each country.
As part of the process to obtain grants through the
Border Environment Infrastructure Fund of NADB,
BECC develops and provides an Environmental Infra-
structure Document to EPA. This document reviews
impacts to threatened and endangered species in the
project area.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
-------
Chapter Three: Border Watersheds and
Ecological Restoration
Throughout the U.S.--Mexico border region, water is
a critical factor affecting environmental and economic
conditions. The water supply system in the U.S.-Mexi-
co border is comprised of two major river systems and
includes 20 transboundary aquifers.
Various commissions, agencies, districts and other
entities have been established to help determine how
scarce border water resources can be utilized opti-
mally and their quality safeguarded;61 Watersheds are
critically important to ecological, social, political and
economic conditions across the region, and this chap-
ter is devoted to border watersheds and ecological
restoration within them.
The GNEB has addressed watersheds and water
resources along the border since its first annual report.
The fourth, eighth and fifteenth GNEB reports were
entirely on water; the fourth report advocated the insti-
tutionalization of a border-wide watershed approach.
In addition, major parts of the fifth and twelfth reports
were about water and water issues. This chapter
builds on the earlier work and recommendations of
the GNEB, focusing on the potential and challenges
for ecological restoration within the three largest bor-
der watersheds, the Colorado and Rio Grande/Bravo
(see Figure 6), and the Tijuana (see Figure 7).
Key goals of agencies and organizations involved in
watershed restoration in the border region include:
1, Reintroduction of self-sustaining populations of
extirpated native fish species
2. Restoration of riparian plant communities
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
3. Restoration of upland plant communities
4. Restoration of wetlands
5. Reestablishment of flow and sediment
equilibrium
6. Reestablishment of base flow conditions
7. Reduction or elimination of invasive species
8. Reestablishment of a healthy stream/riparian
system,
WATER RESOURCE ISSUES
Water resources of the U.S.-Mexico border include
shared rivers, aquifers and reservoirs and lakes. The
two major border rivers are the Colorado and the Rio
Grande and there are many minor rivers such as the
Tijuana, New, San Pedro and Santa Cruz Rivers. Major
reservoirs and lakes include the Amistad and Falcon
reservoirs on the Rio Grande and the Salton Sea in
California. The Pacific Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico
also form part of the border water resources.
Managing the supply, quantity and use of scarce bor-
der water resources is challenging, as governance is
fragmented. In Mexico, the federal government man-
ages surface and groundwater and establishes water
quality standards; in the United States groundwater
Figure 6. The Rio Grande and Colorado River watersheds.
Source: International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)
management lies with the states (and each state
has a different regulatory regime) while surface water
management may be addressed by various state and
federal agencies. States administer water rights, set
water quality standards (subject to U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency [EPA] review) and can develop
large-scale water projects.
The interaction between groundwater and surface
water is critical; often groundwater provides spring
flow, a key ecological resource. For example, San
Felipe Springs near Del Rio, Texas provides surface
water to the Rio Grande and habitat for the plants and
animals, such as the Rio Grande bugheal (Trichocoro-
nis rivularis A. Gray), a submersed aquatic plant that is
found only in small, spring-fed systems near Del Rio
and in northern Coahuila and Nuevo Leorr,®
Precipitation varies widely along the border, with annu-
al precipitation varying between 3 inches per year in
Imperial Valley, California and 28 inches per year in
Brownsville/Matamoros (Nogales, Arizona, 19; San
Diego, California, 12, and El Paso, Texas, 8).;^The
region also experiences drought and heavy rainfall,
including flooding.®4
Two primary water treaties govern water resources of
both countries: the Convention of 1906 and the 1944
Water Treaty. The Convention of 1906
applies to the international reach of
the river between El Paso, Texas-Ci-
udad Juarez, Chihuahua and Fort
Quitman, Texas, in Hudspeth Coun-
ty, the county just downstream of E!
Paso County. The 1906 Convention (a
treaty) provides for the United States
to deliver to Mexico 60,000 acre-feet
(70 million cubic meters) per year of
Rio Grande water for agricultural use
at Ciudad Juarez. In case of extraor-
dinary drought, the water delivered to
Mexico can be reduced.® The Water
Treaty of 1944 allocated the waters of
the Colorado River and Rio Grande
between the two countries; provided
for the construction of reclamation
mwM
- V j» \ - A*""
' J '•* V. tk. - : A
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
works on the main channel of the international reach
of the Rio Grande; allowed the newly created Interna-
tional Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), Unit-
ed States and Mexico, to give preferential attention to
the solution of border sanitation problems; and pro-
vided the IBWC with authority to apply and interpret
the terms of the Treaty with the consent of the two
governments.
The IBWC has responsibility for applying the bound-
ary and water treaties between the two countries
and settling differences that may arise out of applica-
tion of these treaties. Application of the treaties has
required major modifications to the Rio Grande and
its channel. For example, the Rio Grande Rectifica-
tion Project covers 86 river miles (140 river kilome-
ters) from El Paso, Texas-Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua
to Fort Quitman, Texas. Its purpose is to provide flood
protection and to stabilize the international boundary
line. It was constructed in the 1930s in accordance
with the Convention of February 1, 1933, to address
problems that occurred when the twisting river shifted,
thereby affecting the international boundary. To sta-
bilize the boundary, loops in the river were removed,
shortening the channel length from 155 miles to 86
miles (249 kilometers to 140 kilometers) and resulting
in a rectified river channel in the center of the floodplain
and flood control levees in both countries.
Tijuana Ricor
Wiunlwd
Ut
N 4-
¦m
Figure 7. The Tijuana River watershed.
Source: International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC)
CHALLENGES FOR
ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION
IN BORDER WATERSHEDS
Achieving the ecological restoration goals outlined
above will require overcoming institutional, ecological
and geomorphological challenges, among others.
Institutional Challenges
For the Colorado River and Rio Grande, the major
institutional challenge for ecological restoration of bor-
der water resources has been the emphasis on water
for agricultural, industrial and municipal uses over
other uses. The 1944 Water Treaty contains a specif-
ic order of preferences, giving the highest priority to
domestic and municipal uses followed by agriculture
and stock raising, electric power, other industrial uses,
navigation, fishing and hunting, and any other benefi-
cial uses that may be determined by the IBWC?1 This
emphasis on irrigation and municipal supplies affects
not just the rivers regulated by treaty but also other
rivers, lakes and aquifers in the border region. Except
in flood conditions, all U.S. waters of the Rio Grande
under both the Convention of 1906 and the 1944
Water Treaty belong to water rights holders, and in the
United States, these water rights are granted by state
agencies. Coupled with other management practices,
the priority of uses has reduced water
availability for fish and other aquatic
organisms.
Because of agricultural, livestock, indus-
trial and municipal demands, address-
ing environmental needs poses special
challenges. Among the more specific
consequences of the prioritization of
irrigation and municipal needs for the
Colorado River and Rio Grande are:
• Dams are managed largely for agricul-
tural irrigation purposes, making res-
toration of river flows, such as release
of water during non-irrigation season,
difficult. For these rivers, iike many in
the Southwestern United States, irri-
gation accounts for the vast majority
of surface water use.
run Uiii
- r*n ¦ 1
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
DOl Deputy Secretary Michaei Connor plants a tree at
Laguna Grande Restoration Site B1.
Source: Andrew Pernick with the Bureau of Reclamation
• Much of agriculture uses flood irrigation, in part due to
low cost of water.
• Riparian and aquatic habitats are not explicitly rec-
ognized as water uses in the international treaties,
although fishing and hunting are acknowledged.
• Although in recent years there has been a gradual shift
from agricultural to municipal water rights as some
farmers decide to sell their water shares, this shift has
not led to more water being physically present in the
river, but just to a change in use.
Ground water resources are managed by both state
and local authorities, with very limited federal involve-
ment. These groundwater resources can be of vita!
importance to ecological restoration due to their role
as the source of aquifer-fed springs that feed into iarg-
er water bodies, as well as their role in providing base
flow to larger river systems. In a region that has been
affected by drought in recent years, the lack of surface
water also has led to increased groundwater pump-
ing, putting spring flow from aquifers in peril. Thus,
overpumping of local and transboundary aquifers can
pose challenges to ecological restoration of riverine
systems.
Unfortunately, the link between groundwater and
surface water has not been recognized in interna-
tional treaties. An effort to work more collaboratively
on shared aquifers, however, has occurred within the
context of the Border 2020 program as well as through
the Transboundary Aquifer Assessment program, an
unprecedented effort to align earth science data (hydrol-
ogy, geology, precipitation, etc.) and collaboratively map
four priority aquifers, the Santa Cruz River Valley aquifer
and San Pedro aquifer underlying Arizona and Sonora,
the Hueco Bolson aquifer near El Paso/Ciudad Juarez,
and the Mesilla/Conejos-Medanos aquifer at the New
Mexico-Chihuahua border.^ The reports provide foun-
dational information on current aquifer characteristics
that are important for policy makers, land managers and
stakeholders involved in water management, including
efforts to restore or prevent degradation to ecological
systems. They are the culmination of binational field vis-
its, workshops, identification and analysis of available
data and needs, and cooperative task assignments to
fill gaps. The Arizona-Sonora transboundary collabora-
tion and the IBWC Cooperative Framework, established
by a Joint Report to facilitate U.S.-Mexico coordina-
tion and dialogue, can serve as a model for meeting
similar informational and analytical needs about aquifer
characteristics elsewhere along the U.S.-Mexico border
region.
Getting from assessments of these aquifers, to more
specific management—including managing aquifers
in a way to assure that base flows of rivers are main-
tained—is a difficult institutional challenge. Although
there has been some effort to police groundwater
pumping in local aquifers that is directly tied to the
Rio Grande, there continues to be controversy: Texas
and New Mexico have been in disagreement for many
years over the pumping of groundwater along the Rio
Grande in New Mexico and its impacts on flow* In
Texas, pumping has received some regulation through
groundwater districts, although a landowners "right of
capture," long acknowledged since a Texas Supreme
Court ruling in 1904, now is recognized in state law.
Physical Challenges
Physical changes to the region's water resources
include dams and changes in the release of waters,
as noted above, channelization, reduced snowpack
and snowmelt in the spring, pumping of local aqui-
fers, and reduced inflows from tributaries from Mexico.
Fundamentally, this has reduced flows within the rivers
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
themselves, and increased the highs and lows in the
flow regime. Key physical challenges include:
• Channelization and rectification in the Upper Rio
Grande. The straightening of the river in defined banks
flanked by levees limits the natural variability of chan-
nel formation. Although some of this channelization is
related to urban areas where there are defined land
use patterns that limit the ability to allow channels to
meander, other areas are decidedly rural yet have been
unnaturally straightened. This also limits the riverine
habitats that might otherwise exist.
• Irrigation and climatic change. The elimination of
peak flows in the spring due largely to the irrigation
release schedules of the dams for agricultural purpos-
es, along with climatic changes that have seen reduced
snow packs and spring inflow, has had a profound
impact on the Rio Grande. For one, these reduced
"flushes" have allowed vegetation like salt cedar to gain
a foothold and dominate the riverine banks and chan-
nels themselves.
• Reduced flow from Mexico and the Rfo Conchos.
Under the terms of the 1944 Water Treaty between the
United States and Mexico, the United States has the
right to one-third of the water that originates from six
Mexican tributaries. The amount of water is supposed
to average at least 350,000 acre-feet (432 million cubic
meters) per year, in cycles of 5 years. In the past 2
decades, Mexico has not always provided its waters to
the United States, even in higher water years because
of flooding. Nowhere has this been more true than the
flows coming from the Rfo Conchos, which enters the
Rio Grande near the twin cities of Ojinaga, Chihuahua
and Presidio, Texas.
Ecological and Geomorphological
Challenges
Flood control has been a major challenge. Because of
development in the floodplains along the Rio Grande
and policies to keep the river from shifting course,
levees and other devices have limited overbank flow.
Reduced inflows from dam management and over-
pumping of groundwater have diminished flooding
over the banks, and the river banks have been starved
of floodwaters that contribute to ecological restoration.
Several examples of ecological and geomorphological
challenges include:
• Channel degradation below dam and aggradation
beyond. Dams over time cause the river channel to
degrade below the dam structure, with the river get-
ting starved of nutrients and sediment and aggrading
beyond this initial degradation.69 In the Rio Grande,
sediment buildup occurs well upstream and down-
stream of the dams, essentially choking the river chan-
nel itself.
• Reduced floodplain. The combination of lower over-
bank flow regimes and urban and rural development
has affected the normal floodplain cycles and their evo-
lution. Finally, the development of levees has further
impeded the normal floodplain flows.
• Non-native species introduction. Non-native spe-
cies of concern include salt cedar (Tamarix spp.), giant
reed {Arundo donax), giant salvinia or Kariba-weed
(.Salvinia molesta Mitchell), hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata
(L.f.) Caspary) and water hyacinth (Eichhornia cras-
sipes). Invasive species along the Colorado River and
Rio Grande and their tributaries have profoundly affect-
ed flows, guantity, guality and sediment buildup, and
have had other unforeseen effects.
• Biological controls of invasive species. These
can have unintended conseguences and transbound-
ary side effects. To attack the invasive species salt
cedar, the Animal Plant and Health Inspections Ser-
vice (APHIS) of USDA released a non-native beetle as
a biological control of salt cedar. Although the results
have shown great promise in salt cedar stands in the
Rio Grande Basin, the Tunisian beetle (Diorhabda sub-
lineata) also attacked athel (Tamarix aphylla) trees in
Mexico near Ojinaga. Athel trees grow to a height of
60 feet (18 meters).70
• Reintroduction of threatened and endangered spe-
cies. In the fifteenth GNEB report, the reintroduction
of the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow (Hybog-
nathus amarus), a species extirpated since the 1960s in
the Rio Grande, was highlighted. The release of the min-
now was a partnership among several state and federal
agencies and the recovery continues to be monitored.71
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
• Loss of important habitat for fish and wildlife.
Channelization, including straightening of the river and
removal of side channels, has eliminated the slow-water
habitats that serve as spawning and nursery grounds
for native fish as well as the off-channel aquatic habitats
that provide refugia for fish when the river is dewatered.
Frequent mowing of the river's banks for flood control
purposes has eliminated riparian plant communities that
provide important wildlife habitat.
• Construction of the border fence. Construction
of the border fence mandated by Congress has, in
certain areas, had the side effect of destroying habitat
corridors and affecting aquatic ecosystems. The Nature
Conservancy's Southmost Preserve in South Texas
was cut in half by the border fence, affecting the wildlife
corridor of the endangered ocelot {Leopardus pardalis).72
The GNEB's December 2009 letter to the President on
the border fence highlights the construction of the triple
fence in the Tijuana River estuary.
OVERCOMING THE
CHALLENGES: ECOLOGICAL
RESTORATION IN THE
REGION'S THREE MAJOR
WATERSHEDS
Ecological restoration along riparian corridors can
bring back both flora and fauna, and improve water
quality at the same time. The success of restoration
efforts depends on the availability of water. Therefore,
a key to ecological restoration of rivers is to reestablish
a pattern of flows to which native species of plants
and animals have adapted. In changing conditions,
successful restoration also requires ongoing data col-
lection and adaptation. Often, in addition, a key aspect
of the restoration effort is to obtain water rights for
the restoration sites. Water rights are held by Tribes
or granted by state governments, so federal agen-
cies must collaborate with Tribal and state entities to
achieve restoration goals. Some border states have
established water trusts to legally hold water rights
for future users.
Water and wastewater infrastructure can be managed
for flow restoration and other important aspects of eco-
logical restoration initiatives and projects. Dams are a
central feature of border water management, along with
flood control levees, hydroelectric power plants and
wastewater treatment plants. The long history of dam
construction, channelization, and land development in
both the Rio Grande and Colorado River watersheds
has made passive restoration of these rivers impossible;
intervention is required to manage flows to support a
sound ecological environment. By undertaking a com-
bination of active and passive measures, it could be
possible to reestablish floodplain and riverine habitats
created and sustained by the rivers; pave the way for
reoccupation of these habitats by native species; and
restore the ability of rivers to provide ecological services
that have direct benefits for people such as water puri-
fication, flood control and nutrient cycling. This section
describes ecological restoration initiatives within the
border region's three major watersheds.
The Tijuana River Watershed
The Tijuana River watershed drains 1,750 square miles
(4,532 square kilometers), three-quarters of which lies
in Mexico. It is located within one of the fastest grow-
ing regions along the border with approximately 4.5
million people (3 million in San Diego County,73 1.5
million in the City of Tijuana74). Its headwaters lie part-
ly in Mexico and partly in the United States, and it is
considered a world biodiversity hotspot. The Tijuana
River empties into the Pacific Ocean at Imperial Beach,
California. Rapid growth and resulting development
have greatly reduced and damaged the abundance
and distribution of the watershed's unique biota and
related habitats. Key impacts include habitat destruc-
tion, trash dumping, degraded water quality, sediment
accumulation, off-road vehicle travel and invasion by
exotic plant species. The IBWC, United States and
Mexico, has been working with stakeholders in both
countries to address some of these impacts and has
developed a draft agreement establishing a framework
for binational cooperation on transboundary issues in
the Tijuana River Basin. This agreement is expected
to be finalized in late 2014 as an IBWC minute. The
agreement will provide the means for U.S.-Mexico
cooperation on issues related to the watershed with
a particular focus on trash, sediment and water qual-
ity. Two programs within the Tijuana River watershed
illustrate the benefits and complexities of ecological
restoration along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Water-harvesting gabion stabilized by downstream Cottonwood, post-hurricane Odile, October 16, 2014.
Source: Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
CASE STUDY: Urban Forest Management
The City of San Diego received a CalFire planning grant to develop an Urban Forest Management Plan, City staff, along
with consulting urban foresters, key stakeholders and the Community Forest Advisory Board are in the process of devel-
oping the plan, A draft plan is expected in early 2015.
A vigorous and engaged urban forestry program is critical to meeting San Diego's commitment to ecological restoration,
climate change, carbon sequestration, stormvvater reduction and water conservation. With these goals in mind, the city
will develop a long-range urban forest management plan to guide the city's urban forest into the future.75
CASE STUDY: Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve
The 2,293-acre (928-hectare) Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve (TRNERR), located in Imperial Beach in
southern California, is a partnership between the United States and the state of California that links the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), California State Parks, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). It preserves
one of the largest remaining examples of coastal wetland habitats in southern California. Situated in a highly urbanized
location, 15 miles (24 kilometers) south of San Diego and immediately adjacent to Tijuana, Mexico, the TRNERR faces
critical issues of habitat restoration and recreational use, as well as management of endangered species, wastewater
and sediment.76 The Reserve has a long history of coupling rigorous science with ecosystem restoration, and presently is
completing major studies focused on synthesizing restoration and ecosystem science to inform effective decision-making
for future restoration actions.
Long-term environmental monitoring is critical to environmental restoration efforts. The TRNERR participates in the NERR
System-wide Monitoring Program (SWMP), which provides researchers, resource managers, educators and other coastal
decision makers with standardized, quantitative measures to determine how reserve conditions are changing in both
the short- and long-term. SWMP provides quantitative measurements of short-term variability and long-term changes
in the water quality, biological systems, and land-use/land-cover characteristics of estuaries and estuarine ecosystems
for the purposes of informing effective coastal zone management. SWMP currently has three major components that
focus on: (1) abiotic indicators of water quality and weather; (2) biological monitoring; and (3) watershed, habitat and
land use mapping.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
The Colorado River Watershed
The 1,450-mile (2,334-kilometer) Colorado River runs
from the Rocky Mountains of Colorado to the Gulf of
California, supplying water to more than 33 million peo-
ple in Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, Neva-
da, Utah, Wyoming and Mexico. The Colorado River
Basin drains 243,000 square miles (629,000 square
kilometers).77 Demand for its water outstrips supply. This
supply-demand imbalance is projected by the Bureau
of Reclamation to be 3.5 million acre-feet (4.3 billion
cubic meters) by 2050, mostly due to population growth
and the associated increase in demand for water and
to an estimated 9 percent reduction in water flow due
to increasing temperatures and reduced precipitation.78
The impacts of this imbalance are especially visible in
the Colorado River Delta, lying in the U.S.-Mexico bor-
der region, where the dynamic environment created by
the interaction of the river's flow and the ocean's tide
once supported freshwater, brackish and saltwater spe-
cies. This section will highlight two initiatives aimed at
restoring the ecology of this region.
Example: Lower Colorado River Multi-Species
Conservation Program
The Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation
Program (LCR MSCP) was created to "balance the
use for the Colorado River water resources with the
conservation of native species and their habitats." The
program area reaches more than 400 miles (644 kilo-
meters) of the lower Colorado River, from Lake Mead to
the border with Mexico. With the Bureau of Reclamation
as its implementing agency, the program works toward
the recovery of species listed under the Endangered
Species Act and aims to reduce additional species list-
ings. The program's Habitat Conservation Plan includes
habitat restoration and maintenance, as well as spe-
cies-specific conservation measures, and incorporates
research, monitoring and adaptive management.79 The
57 participating entities include local, state, Tribal and
federal agencies as well as private water users, with
program costs evenly divided between the federal gov-
ernment and nonfederal partners.80
CASE STUDY: Minute 319 and "Pulse Flow "
In November 2012, the IBWC, United States and Mexico, signed Minute 319,81 a 5-year agreement addressing a broad
range of joint cooperative measures between the two countries for Colorado River management. The major elements
of Minute 319 are that it:
• Extends humanitarian measures from a 2010 agreement (Minute 318) to allow Mexico to defer delivery of a portion of its
Colorado River allotment while it continues to make repairs to earthquake-damaged infrastructure.
• Provides additional Colorado River water to Mexico during certain high elevation reservoir conditions at Lake Mead when
additional water is available to users in the United States, providing benefits to both countries.
• Establishes proactive Basin operations during certain low elevation reservoir conditions at Lake Mead by applying water
delivery reductions in order to deter more severe reductions in the future.
• Establishes a program whereby Mexican water resulting from conservation and new water sources projects could essentially
be held in the United States for subsequent delivery to Mexico as determined through its planning processes.
• Through conservation projects, generates water for the environment of the Colorado River limitrophe (border) and delta.
• Provides for U.S. investment in water infrastructure and environmental projects in Mexico. These investments provide water
benefits to U.S. entities in exchange for their funding and generate water for Mexico over the long term.
• Outlines potential opportunities for future cooperation between the United States and Mexico in areas such as environmental
restoration, water conservation, system operations, and new water sources projects.
• Creates a pilot project to provide water for environmental flows for the Colorado River.82
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board ^
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Case Study: Minute 319 and "Pulse Flow" (continued)
In March-May 2014, the one-time "Pulse Flow" of 105,392 acre-feet (130 million cubic meters) of water was released
downstream from Morelos Dam to aid the environment in the Colorado River Delta, primarily the riparian corridor. Under
normal conditions, water is not released downstream from Morelos Dam so the river channel is largely dry. The Pulse
Flow, coupled with 52,696 acre-feet (65 million cubic meters) of water (known as the Base Flow), for delivery at lower
flow rates within Mexico and during a longer period of time, are expected to provide for the restoration of about 2,300
acres (930 hectares) of riparian habitat, allowing for seed germination for native willow {Salixgooddingilj and cottonwood
trees (Populus fremontlj as well as other native species and water to sustain their growth.
On May 15,2014, the Colorado River recorded a milestone when it connected, for a short period of time, with the ocean
for the first time in years at a location known as the upper part of the estuary, about 15 miles from the Gulf of California.
Because of the complexities of the Colorado River system, scientists were uncertain whether the water would reconnect
with the Gulf some 94 miles (151 kilometers) downstream from Morelos Dam. The success in reconnecting the river
with the ocean is a significant achievement in the implementation of Minute 319.
Under Minute 319, water for the environment was provided through participation of the Mexican and U.S. governments
and nongovernmental organizations from both countries, marking the first time the two countries have delivered water
for environmental purposes. This pilot project has generated interest from hundreds of international scientists and jour-
nalists who documented the progress of the pulse flow. A binational team of scientists and conservationists developed
and is implementing a plan to monitor the success of the restoration efforts under Minute 319, specifically the impacts
of environmental flow deliveries on the vegetation, wildlife and hydrology of the riparian corridor of the Colorado River
in Mexico. The team has observed germination of native and nonnative species in several locations along the river, and
the effects of the water deliveries on the surface water and groundwater are being assessed.
One of the unexpected aspects of the implementation of the pulse flow was the response of local community members
who live near the border, many of whom had the opportunity to see the river full of water for the first time. The excitement
and delight of having their river back was evident as hundreds of people gathered to swim, splash and enjoy the river
during the few weeks it flowed with water. When monitoring ends in 2017, the team will generate a report to inform
potential future efforts of this nature.
The U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) recognized Minute 319 with its Partners in Conservation Award in January 2014,
an award established to highlight conservation achievements that include collaborative activity among a diverse range
of entities. The award recognizes the engagement and contribution of many partners from the governments of both the
United States and Mexico, the seven U.S. Colorado River Basin states, nongovernmental organizations and academia.
The Rio Grande Watershed
The 355,000-square mile (920,000-square kilometer)
watershed of the Rio Grande (or Rio Bravo, as it is
known in Mexico) presents unique challenges. The
1,896-mile (3,051-kilometer) river flows from south
central Colorado to the Gulf of Mexico, forming part
of the U.S.-Mexico border along the way (see Figures
8 and ). Only a small percentage of the river's natural
discharge reaches the Gulf of Mexico due to human
diversions. More than a century of water development
has changed the river's flow pattern, and in recent
decades, the amount of water has declined.
The lack of planned water deliveries from Mexican
reservoirs to the Rio Grande has created multiple dif-
ficulties—from generating periodic water deficits under
the treaty, which affects Texas water users, to reducing
in-stream flow in the Rio Grande—with resulting envi-
ronmental impacts. Securing a specific commitment
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
from Mexico to proactively manage its reservoirs to
deliver water to the United States in a scheduled man-
ner would offer the opportunity to deliver water in a
method that maximizes environmental benefits, much
like the base flow and pulse flow deliveries planned
for the Colorado River. Although scheduling water
releases to benefit the habitat of Big Bend National
Park and adjacent protected areas in Mexico has been
discussed for a number of years, an agreement with
Mexico has remained elusive.
Within the U.S.-Mexico border region, the Rio Grande
has lost a significant portion of its original complement
of fish species due to a century of dam building, chang-
es to natural flow patterns, diversions, channelization,
and other changes to the river and its floodplain. A com-
prehensive approach to river restoration would address
RiO Grande,'Bravo Basin
BOurtO* t
Col PCada
UNITED STATES
Jr Nrw
1 Mes.r££p
¦ T
T«t»
Cfuhuahja -A *
{ "YT
4 . jf
1
/ J
1 < //'v/V A
\ ' 1 GL1-11 OF
huovo ^ S
Letftn J
IKdrangn
S w 1
MEXICO
_ • id in mwn
Timaulipix i ¦ ¦ . i ¦ ¦ ¦ >
fllTfT'l
* » »S3
Figure 8. The Rio Grande/Bravo Basin.
Source: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/mrgbi/resources/dams/
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
factors that have caused native fish to disappear and
avoid serious constraints on Rio Grande management
(see Species-Centric Restoration, Chapter Two). The
reach above the Rio Conchos has been especially hard
hit, having lost one-half to two-thirds of its native fish
species.® Only one species, however, is extinct; the
remainder still exist elsewhere in the Rio Grande Basin
or in other rivers and could be reestablished under suit-
able conditions. According to the Water Policy Review
Advisory Commission, a proactive approach toward
the recovery of native fish, before they are listed as
threatened or endangered under the U.S. Endangered
Species Act, could minimize disruptions to water users
while providing greater flexibility in the choice of con-
servation measures.84 This section highlights two resto-
ration initiatives within the Rio Grande watershed.
Rio Grande.1 Bravo Basin Dams
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
Figure 9. The Rio Grande/Bravo Basin Dams.
Source: U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation
-------
CASE STUDY: The Rio Grande Canalization Project
The Rio Grande Canalization Project extends 106 miles (171 kilometers) along the Rio Grande from Percha Dam, New
Mexico, downstream to American Dam in El Paso, Texas. Its purpose is to facilitate delivery of Rio Grande water to Mexico
in accordance with the Convention of 1906 and to provide flood protection. Constructed between 1938 and 1943, the
project has a normal flow channel, a floodway, and 130 miles (210 kilometers) of flood control levees. As with the Rio
Grande Rectification Project, construction resulted in the river being shortened and straightened. Five sediment control
dams were built from 1969 to 1975 to control sediment and flood runoff to the Canalization Project.
In 2009, following preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement evaluating different alternatives for managing
the Project, the U.S. Section of the IBWC issued its Record of Decision (ROD). In accordance with the ROD, the USIBWC
committed to restoring native trees, shrubs and grasslands on up to 30 restoration sites and other areas of the floodplain
totaling approximately 2,500 acres (1,012 hectares) along the Rio Grande in southern New Mexico stretching from below
Percha Dam to the New Mexico-Texas state line. The USIBWC also is purchasing a parcel for restoration. One restoration
goal is to create habitat for the endangered southwestern willow flycatcher. Working with the USIBWC, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) already has planted some 5,000 trees and cleared 350 acres (142 hectares) of invasive,
nonnative salt cedar on nine sites. The USIBWC has begun monitoring the restoration sites. One challenge has been the
impact of the ongoing drought on native populations of willows. Installation of 53 shallow groundwater monitoring wells
at 20 restoration sites will provide valuable data that will assist with planning tree planting depths and irrigation needs.
The success of the restoration effort depends on the availability of water. Therefore, a key aspect of the restoration effort
is to obtain water rights for the restoration sites; the USIBWC must coordinate at the state and local levels to secure
water rights (surface or groundwater). The Elephant Butte Irrigation District Board (EBID) approved a policy to allow EBID
surface water to be used for agricultural purposes on USIBWC restoration sites. Through this voluntary, market-based
approach, the USIBWC acquired an initial volume of irrigation water and, on June 30, 2014, initiated irrigation of native
vegetation at a restoration site along the Rio Grande near Las Cruces, New Mexico. Some 60 people turned out for a
ceremony to celebrate this milestone in the restoration effort. The USIBWC is working to acquire additional water rights
from willing sellers.
CASE STUDY: Devils River—State, Federal and Local Involvement
In January 2011, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) acquired the approximately 18,000-acre (7,300-hect-
are) Devils River Ranch along the southern stretch of the Devils River.85 A year of negotiation resulted in a leveraged sale
involving state and federal funds and significant private contributions to achieve this priceless conservation acquisition.
The property consists of native riparian woodlands, Edward Plateau oak woodlands and grasslands, andTamaulipan and
Chihuahuan desert scrub habitat with 10 miles (16 kilometers) of river frontage immediately upstream of the Amistad
National Recreation Area. In 2011, TPWD added 20,000 acres (8,100 hectares) to the original 18,000 acres (7,300 hect-
ares) in what is now called the North Unit of the Devils River State Natural Area (SNA). The Southern Unit—also known
as the Big Satan—provides habitat for endemic plants, fish and wildlife, including a rare salamander and several rare
fish along this tributary to the Rio Grande.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Case Study: Devils River—State, Federal and Local Involvement (continued)
The Devils River is one of the most ecologically intact rivers in Texas; its waters tumble over limestone past rugged
ridges, canyons and grassy banks. Located on the Devils River north of Del Rio, Texas, the Devils River SNA is managed
through conservation easements and holds 10.8 miles (17.4 kilometers) of river and lake frontage of the Devils River
and Lake Amistad. A series of springs within the SNA's karst topography provides a substantial base of the river's flow.
Three types of stream conditions characterize the river: long, deep pools; wide shallow areas; and relatively deep, tur-
bulent rapids. The river is free of impoundments, generally inaccessible, and essentially unpolluted. The SNA's purpose
is to protect the area's natural and cultural resources, with special emphasis on endangered and threatened species,
aquatic life and spring flows, and to provide recreational and educational opportunities that do not compromise resource
stewardship objectives. The TPWD is presently developing a management plan with significant public and federal input
for the two units of the SNA.
This state, federal and local partnership represents a successful public/private effort to conserve special properties for
future generations. The acquisition provides permanent protection and management of important grasslands and wood-
lands, riverine and riparian habitats, and world-class rock art sites. It also provides increased managed public access
to the wildest and most pristine river in Texas, and one of the most unspoiled rivers in the continental United States.
MEETING MULTIPLE
OBJECTIVES THROUGH
ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION
Both the quality and quantity of water available within
an ecosystem is determined by the condition of the
watershed and the activities that take place within it.
Although activities such as mining, logging and urban
development generally remove vegetation and can
degrade soils, increase erosion and impair water qual-
ity, efforts can be undertaken to repair the damage.
This section describes efforts to restore water quality
and quantity within border watersheds.
CASE STUDY: The New River and the Salt on Sea
The New River starts in Mexicali, Mexico, approximately 15 miles (24 kilometers) south of the border, and flows north into
the United States at Calexico, passes through the Imperial Valley, and drains into the Saltan Sea, California's largest lake,
some 66 miles (106 kilometers) north of the California-Baja California border. In 1999, two pilot wetlands (see :igure
1i ) were constructed in Imperial and Brawley, California, to improve water quality in the New River. The construction of
these wetlands led to improvements in the quality of the water before it was discharged back into the New River and
entered the Saltan Sea (see Table 1 ).86
The Saltan Sea provides essential habitat for hundreds of fish and wildlife species and is an important cultural and
recreational resource. It has no outlet, and dissolved salts contained in the inflows concentrate in the Saltan Sea
through evaporation. The salinity of the Saltan Sea currently is nearly 1.5 times the salinity of ocean water and has been
increasing as a result of evaporative processes and low freshwater inputs. Further reductions in inflows from water
conservation, recycling and transfers will lower the level of the Saltan Sea and accelerate the rate of increasing salinity.
This projected salinity increase, if not addressed, will in turn reduce the suitability of fish and wildlife habitat and affect
air quality by exposing lakebed playathat could generate dust. Despite 2003 state legislation intended to help restore
the Saltan Sea ecosystem, the California legislature has not taken action.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Case Study: The Mew River and the Salton Sea (continued)
Imperial Site Water Quality Summary (Averages)
January 2001 to October 2013
Parameter Inlet Outlet % Change I
Dissolved Oxygen
(DO)
8.19
6,92
-15,5
Total Nitrogen
(mg/L)
6.8
3.6
-46.6
Total Phosphorus
(mg/L)
1,38
0.80
-41.8
Selenium
(ng/L)
.0080
.0064
-20.3
Biological Oxygen
Demand (BOD)
(mg/L)
13.0
10.59
-18.6
Fecal Coiiform
(MPN/100 mL)
89,087
488
-99,5
Total Suspended
Solids (TSS) (mg/L)
191
12
-93.6
Brawley Site Water Quality Monitoring Summary
(Averages) January 2001 - October 2013
Parameter Inlet Outlet % Change
DO
3.44
7.68
+123
Total Nitrogen
(mg/L)
7.8
2.16
-72,1
Total Phosphorus
(mg/L)
1.40
0.69
-51.1
Selenium
(ug/L)
0.0106
0.0100
-6.1
BOD
(mg/L)
12,20
10.62
-13.0
Fecal Coiiform
(MPN/100 mL)
904,636
693
-99.9
TSS
(mg/L)
207
14.0
-93.3
Figure 10. The Salton Sea watershed.
Source: "Salton Sea Watershed Map," California Department of
Water Resources, http://www.water.ca.gov/saltonsea/
documents/watershed.cfrn
Table 1. New River Pilot wetlands monitoring summary
Source: Stephen Charlton, Imperial Irrigation District, personal
communication, September 22,2014
Recently, though, the Salton Sea Restoration and Renewable Energy Initiative was launched by the Imperial Irrigation
District, in partnership with Imperial County, to leverage funds generated by new renewable energy projects located at
the sea to help finance activities for air quality management and habitat restoration. Projects sited on portions of exposed
lakebed will serve a dual purpose: producing renewable energy while doubling as groundcover to mitigate air emissions.
Under state legislation enacted in 2013,87 planning and implementing projects at the sea will be driven locally by the
Salton Sea Authority, with support from state and federal governmental agencies.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
CASE STUDY: Water Harvesting, Range Restoration
and Local Econom ies
Research on Water Harvesting
Best Practices
In recognition of its ecological restoration suc-
cesses, Cuenca Los Ojos Foundation (CLO) has
won multiple awards in both the United States
and Mexico and is looked to as a natural learning
laboratory to extend proven practices elsewhere.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has partnered
with CLO and Borderlands Restoration (BR) to
document the impacts of installing rock check
dams and larger gabion-style check dams in the
Mexican Highlands.89 Researchers demonstrated
increasing vegetation in the Cienega San Bernardi-
no using a remote-sensing analysis coupled with
field data over a 27-year period, despite drought
conditions.90
On September 17, 2014, CLO's San Bernardino
Ranch was impacted by extreme flooding from
Hurricane Odile. Many gabions were damaged,
but some held together thanks to stabilization by
native vegetation. The ability of trees and grass-
es to regenerate diminishes reliance on limited
resources for repair. In response, CLO is inves-
tigating natural regenerative strategies that can
help restore water harvesting features impacted
by extreme weather events.
Another partnership between the USGS, the
National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Research Service's
(ARS) Southwest Watershed Center, and the Uni-
versity of Arizona is documenting decreased storm
peak flows and increased water availability using
a paired-watershed approach, with one that has
been fitted with rock-detention structures for
watershed restoration purposes by CLO, and one
that has not.
Overgrazing, mining and urban development all have
contributed to habitat fragmentation and loss through-
out the arid border region. The conditions have been
exacerbated by years of drought. Upland woodlands and
grasslands are important as rangelands and wildlife corri-
dors. Riparian areas and wetlands play a disproportionate
role in sustaining biological diversity by providing forage,
cover, nesting and migration corridors. Unfortunately, it
is estimated that fewer than 10 percent of those areas
remain.88 A watershed-scale approach to ecological res-
toration considers education, public-private partnerships,
and the development of restoration economies focused on
sustainability. In southern Arizona, partnerships involving
the Cuenca Los Ojos Foundation (CLO), Borderlands Res-
toration (BR), and both public and private stakeholders are
bringing sustainable land-management and restoration
practices to public and private lands, and are incorpo-
rating monitoring and evaluation to help guide future
projects.
Managing more than 200,000 acres (81,000 hectares)
of privately owned land strategically located in southern
Arizona and northern Sonora at the headwaters of the
Rio Yaqui watershed, CLO is focused on restoring the
biodiversity of the borderlands region. Over the past 30
years, its founders have privately funded water harvest-
ing and range restoration practices to restore migratory
corridors for birds and large mammals, while securing the
livelihoods of rural agricultural producers. These practic-
es include installation of erosion-control features in the
form of simple low-lying rock check dams and larger
gabion-style check dams.91 Over time, these features
trap waterborne sediment while slowing down erosive
stormwater runoff. As these features are covered in sedi-
ment, they decrease the slope of drainages while creating
natural sponges for water storage and availability during
dry periods. This restores vegetation and wildlife habitat
and also helps improve water quality through attenuation
of particle associated pollutants.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Case Study: Water Harvesting, Range Restoration and Local Economies (continued)
To help address the serious economic challenges of the border region, the BR, the first limited profit, limited liability (L3C)
company in Arizona, has partnered with CLO with the aim of building a restoration economy around public and private
lands.92 Profits gained from habitat restoration are reinvested in job training, local capacity building and restoration infra-
structure. This is accomplished in part by hiring local workers to implement the successful technologies demonstrated
by CLO. BR now is working with the USGS, CLO and the privately held Babocomari Ranch on water harvesting practices
to improve soil conservation and water availability for the San Pedro River. As a major tributary, the Babocomari River
supports water flows to the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area. BR also is partnering with the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) to experiment with pollinator-supporting native plant material collection, growth and installation on
public lands while training local residents to do the work.
Managing Treated Wastewater for
Ecological Restoration
Although constructed wetlands help improve water
quality, they also do much more. The Rio Bosque
Wetlands and the Santa Cruz River provide import-
ant ecological services within the border region. Both
face ongoing challenges resulting from drought and
high water demand but also provide unique opportu-
nities for ecological restoration tied to effluent-man-
agement practices. The Rio Bosque Wetlands Park
demonstrates how local partnerships can help restore
ecological corridors. The Santa Cruz River requires
international partnerships to help sustain its riparian
functions.
Rio Bosque Wetlands Park
The Rio Bosque Wetlands Park is a 372-acre
(151-hectare) City of El Paso park located in south-
east El Paso County near the town of Socorro, Texas.
The park is enclosed by irrigation canals and drains
on three sides, and the western boundary of the park
lies adjacent to the Rio Grande, which forms the inter-
national border between the U.S. and Mexico in this
area. Water used to flow naturally through the park in
the fall and winter before the Rio Grande was confined
within levees in the 1930s.
Common native riparian areas are largely gone from
the river valley, but partnerships between the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, IBWC, Ducks Unlimited,
the El PasoATrans-Pecos Audubon Society and local
utilities are restoring cottonwood-willow habitat along
the main water channel of the park. Today, the Rio
Bosque Wetlands is supported by treated wastewater
from the adjacent Roberto Bustamante Wastewater
Treatment Plant. El Paso Water Utilities and El Paso
County Water Improvement District agreed to make
this water available when it was not being used for
irrigated agriculture. In addition, a well at the park's
inlet keeps a 0.5-mile (0.8-kilometer) reach of the old
river channel constantly wet.
Prolonged drought intensifies the challenge of restor-
ing these habitats, but Rio Bosque is showing prog-
ress. Here, returning bird species are being detected
at point-count stations located within reestablished
riparian habitat. This offers a glimpse of what can be
accomplished when stakeholders foster partnerships
and water is returned to the environment.
Santa Cruz River
The Santa Cruz River watershed highlights multiple
binational challenges: water supply, water quality,
groundwater, wastewater, and flooding, which have
affected the communities of Nogales, Arizona, and
Nogales, Sonora. The headwaters of the Santa Cruz
River are in the San Rafael Valley of Arizona. It then
travels south and enters Mexico before turning north
again and reentering Arizona where it recharges
groundwater in the Santa Cruz Active Management
Area. The 1980 Arizona Groundwater Code recog-
nized the need to aggressively manage the state's finite
groundwater resources. To support the growing econ-
omy, areas with heavy reliance on groundwater were
identified and designated as Active Management Areas
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Effluent from the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant, which flows into the Santa Cruz River,
Source: U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission
(AMAs). The AMAs are subject to regulation under the
Groundwater Code and carry out programs consistent
with their goals, while considering and incorporating the
unique character of each AMA and water users. The
major portion of the Santa Cruz River watershed lies
in Mexico. Therefore, effective watershed planning and
ecological restoration must be undertaken with stake-
holders from both sides of the border.
Historically, flow in the Santa Cruz River varied wide-
ly with changes in natural conditions and human
use. Since 1951, however, river levels have been
maintained by a steady flow of treated effluent from
the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment
Plant (NIWTP). The USIBWC operates the NIWTP,
and Mexico pays to have its wastewater treated by
the plant. The effluent is discharged to the Santa Cruz
River, where it marks the start of the 14 miles (23 kilo-
meters) of perennial flow within the river. The resulting
southwest cottonwood-wiilow riparian environment
is one of the most endangered ecosystems in the
United States and is designated as a critical habitat
for the endangered Southwestern Willow flycatcher:®?'
The area also is recognized as an Important Bird Area
(JBA) by the Audubon Society.
Under Minute 276,,84 Mexico has the right to reclaim
the portion of the effluent that originates in Nogales,
Sonora. New wastewater infrastructure and manage-
ment practices in Nogales, Sonora, combined with
drought and improved groundwater recharge, have
negatively affected habitat downstream of the NIWTP.
Discharges from Sonora have diminished from 12.38
million gallons per day (MGD) in 2012 to 10.69 MGD
in 2013—a loss of 1.69 MGD. The combined impacts
are most readily visible north of the Chavez Siding
crossing where a once lush riparian corridor has lost its
wiilows, and cottonwoods are showing signs of stress.
Future expansion and modifications of wastewater
infrastructure in Nogales, Sonora, may further reduce
the flow to the NIWTP and impact the cottonwood-
wiilow habitat along an important ecological corri-
dor in Arizona. Careful management of wastewater
infrastructure and treatment plant effluent is needed
to restore ecological conditions within the Santa Cruz
River. Given the success of Minute 319, there are
opportunities for a similar multi-stakehoider collabo-
rative approach in this region as well.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Chapter Four: Recommendations
As demonstrated by examples in this report, federal
agencies have acted on restoration opportunities in the
U.S.-Mexico border region appropriate to their respec-
tive missions. Achieving more effective restoration in this
region, however, requires addressing some key chal-
lenges. This report has demonstrated that it is difficult
for individual units in single agencies to tackle central
concerns such as scale and connectivity. Large-scale
restoration efforts must address processes that are not
confined to an individual site such as a park, or even to
a state level program. The first step in achieving con-
nectivity is interagency collaboration, but much work is
needed to translate goals into plans and on-the-ground
actions. The recommendations presented in this chap-
ter offer a range of ways to address these challenges.
1. PROTECT ECOSYSTEMS:
AVOID THE NEED FOR
RESTORATION
• Actively maintain high-quality natural resources and
ecosystems and adopt best practices for low-im-
pact infrastructure design and agency operation.
For example, identify and implement best man-
agement practices to prevent and mitigate erosion
resulting from construction of the border fence and
associated infrastructure, and aggressively explore
the use of information and remote sensing technolo-
gies that will enhance border security while reducing
the physical footprint of interdiction activities along
the border.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
• Support conservation on private lands, maintaining
extension services while expanding tools such as
easements and other incentive programs.
• Reduce the number of non-native species entering
border ecological zones. Strengthen U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) efforts and collaborate
with Mexican officials to screen for cross-border
transport of non-native species.
2. PROMOTE ECOLOGICAL
RESTORATION PROGRAMS
AND PROJECTS
• Develop a common goal structure across U.S. fed-
eral agencies to support coordinated restoration
actions and measures of incremental progress
towards ecological landscape goals. As part of
this effort, identify and implement opportunities for
federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Department of Trans-
portation [DOT], U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA], National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration [NOAA], U.S. Army Corps of Engi-
neers [USACE]) to prioritize ecological restoration
activities in underrepresented areas such as urban
environments and transboundary ecosystems.
• Develop performance indicators and metrics-based
plans for high-priority species, community, and
ecosystem recovery, similar to efforts applied in
ecoregional assessments and the Lower Colora-
do Multi-Species Conservation Program. Include
development of a science-based recovery plan
for native Rio Grande fish from Caballo Reservoir
(New Mexico) to Presidio (Texas) that balances the
restoration of native fish and their habitats with the
continued best management practices of the Rio
Grande for all domestic and international obligations
and requirements.
• Adopt ecoregional approaches to assessments and
priority setting along common resource issues and
identify opportunities for restoration among state,
Tribal, nongovernment and international partners.
For example, priorities for restoration work for the
Big Bend Rio Bravo project were identified based
on an understanding of resources and impacts of
like resources on both sides of the border.
• Identify gaps or inconsistencies in the application
of data, tools and models for assessing ecological
restoration in the border region and provide resourc-
es for existing assessments such as the U.S.-Mex-
ico Transboundary Aquifer Assessment Program,
and expansion of the USDA's Management Land
Resource Areas (MLRAs), including local ecological
site descriptions into Mexico.
• Expand the scope of federal programs to include
natural resources issues, including ecological res-
toration, and use best practices to measure the
environmental effects and benefits of the projects.
For example, address ecological restoration through
the Border Environment Cooperation Commission
(BECC) and North American Development Bank
(NADB) and EPA's Border 2020 program.
• Improve governance and funding mechanisms to
reflect landscape-scale restoration needs.
- Draw upon lessons learned and the National
Research Council's evaluation of Landscape
Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) to improve
coordination of direct restoration actions across
multiple federal agencies and other public and
private entities.
- Explore funding mechanisms for multi-year res-
toration projects that allow managers to conduct
initial assessment, prioritization, integrated and
multi-level planning, decision making, design,
implementation, and operation and maintenance
in a manner similar to the project structure of EPA's
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Com-
pensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Program.
- Identify federal funding for water conservation
projects (e.g., cost sharing with Rio Grande
Project water users to improve irrigation efficien-
cy) and coordinate with other entities (e.g., the
BECC, NADB, Texas Water Development Board)
to encourage greater investment in water conser-
vation and make more water available for ecolog-
ical restoration.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Vacant lot in San Diego being converted into a food forest and site for urban ecological restoration.
Source: University of California, San Diego
- Establish a grant program to support border
restoration projects undertaken by nonfederal
entities. For example, the grant program could
provide support to several nongovernmental
organizations working along the Rio Grande to
achieve goals identified in the Rio Grande native
fish recovery plan, or native plant material devel-
opment in southern Arizona.
• Actively promote existing federal initiatives to
increase restoration opportunities.
- Improve research and management related to
native and invasive species to promote native
species for restoration and invasive species man-
agement. Among other actions, create and imple-
ment interagency invasive species strike teams
and expand the role of USDA Natural Resourc-
es Conservation Service (NRCS) Plant Materials
Centers in Tucson, Arizona; Las Lunas, New
Mexico; and Kingsville, Texas, to promote native
species.
- Systematically monitor the border fence and sup-
porting infrastructure for effects resulting from its
construction and develop actions to modify, rede-
sign or mitigate the negative outcomes realized
or anticipated by the existing construction and
fence-related operations such as lighting. Update
mitigation gaps for impacted species and habi-
tats and fuifiil commitments to address resource
damages under the U.S. Customs and Border
Protection (CBP)-Department of the Interior (DOI)
Memorandum of Agreement.™
3. ACTIVELY INCREASE
ENGAGEMENT WITH
MEXICAN AGENCIES
AND PARTNERS
• Reopen discussion with Mexico and Canada
regarding the transboundary environmental impact
assessment (TEIA) process with the goal of deter-
mining the feasibility of this mechanism to address
transnational impacts, and encourage transborder
cooperation on environmental infrastructure proj-
ects. TElAs should be used in and around the Ports
of Entry to assess opportunities for ecological res-
toration at these locations.
• Through the U.S. Section of the Internation-
al Boundary and Water Commission (USIBWC),
engage Mexican partners in transborder watershed
management and urban ecological restoration. For
example, working with USIBWC, EPA and NOAA
should authorize and provide funding to create a
Special Area Management Plan® for the Tijuana
River Watershed.
• Through the USIBWC, open talks with Mexico that
are modeled on the broad-based participation that
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
2007 downstream aerial view of Morelos Dam showing normal conditions.
Source: International Boundary and Water Commission
has occurred in the Colorado River and that aim to
find common ground for sustainable management
of shared water resources, including ecological res-
toration. in particular, the USIBWC should work with
authorities in Mexico for more continuous releas-
es of water from the Rio Conchos in a way that
is beneficial to downstream users and ecological
restoration.
• Explore involvement of Mexican agencies in
multi-agency initiatives and programs such as the
National Invasive Species Council and the National
Interagency Fire Center. Buiid upon this involvement
to develop and revitalize agreements such as the
Memorandum of Understanding between the DOI
and the Mexican government regarding the For-
gotten River stretch of the Rio Grande (the 200-
mile [322-kilometer] reach of the Rio Grande that
extends from below El Paso to its confluence with
the Rio Conchos at Presidio-Ojinaga) and elimina-
tion of the salt cedar there.
• Given the success of Minute 319 in providing water
for the environment of the Colorado River Delta
region, encourage the IBWC to include an envi-
ronmental component in the expected Minute 319
successor agreement and to consider future agree-
ments of this nature. Partnerships similar to those
that formed to execute Minute 319 can support the
development of an amendment to Minute 276 (or a
new minute) focused on securing wastewater efflu-
ent for the Santa Cruz River.
4. EVALUATE OPTIONS FOR
FLOW MANAGEMENT,
INCLUDING IRRIGATION
AND WASTEWATER, FOR
ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION
BENEFIT
• In any water planning involving binational waters,
evaluate, consider and plan for environmental flows
needed for aquatic species, habitat Active Man-
agement Area (AMA) and human recreational uses
of water. For example, a positive development in
recent efforts is providing water for the environment
in the Colorado River Delta region, pursuant to Min-
ute 319.
• Work with existing state water banks or water
trusts to identify means for transferring water rights
to ensure environmental flows, taking into consid-
eration existing water rights frameworks. This may
include the purchase of water rights for ecological
flows and, to encourage donations of water to an
environmental water trust, will require review of
existing tax law or possible revisions to tax law to
make such donations tax deductible (like a charita-
ble donation) or eligible for a tax credit.
• Develop policies to require some of the water con-
served through irrigation efficiency be dedicated to
in-stream flow to meet aquatic restoration needs,
consistent with state policies.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Appendices
-------
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AMA
Active Management Area
APHIS
Animal Plant and Health Inspections Service
ARS
Agricultural Research Service
BBBXG
U.S.-Mexico Binational Bridges and Border Crossings Group
BECC
Border Environment Cooperation Commission
BLM
Bureau of Land Management
BMP
best management practice
BOD
biological oxygen demand
BR
Borderlands Restoration
CBP
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CCRP-SAFE
Continuous Conservation Reserve Program State Acres for Wildlife Enhancement
CEC
Commission for Environmental Cooperation
CERCLA
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CLO
Cuenca Los Ojos Foundation
CONAGUA
Comision Nacional del Agua (National Water Commission [Mexico])
CPO
Climate Program Office
CSP
Conservation Stewardship Program
CTA
Conservation Technical Assistance
CZMA
Coastal Zone Management Act
CZMP
Coastal Zone Management Program
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
DOI
Department of the Interior
DOS
Department of State
DOT
Department of Transportation
EBID
Elephant Butte Irrigation District
EMO
Environmental Management Office
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EQIP
Environmental Quality Incentives Program
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
FY
fiscal year
GIS
Geographic Information Systems
GNEB
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
GPS
Global Positioning System
GRP
Grassland Reserve Program
GSA
General Services Administration
HLED
High Level Economic Dialogue
IBA
Important Bird Area
IBWC
International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico
JWC
U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee on Transportation Planning
LCC
Landscape Conservation Cooperative
LCR MSCP
Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program
LTER
Long Term Ecological Research
MBG
Malpai Borderlands Group
MGD
millions of gallons per day
MLR A
Major Land Resource Area
MOA
Memorandum of Agreement
MSBHI
Migratory and Shore Bird Habitat Initiative
MSCP
Multiple Species Conservation Program
NADB
North American Development Bank
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Glossary of Acronyms (continued)
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NCCOS National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NERRS National Estuarine Research Reserve System
NESDIS National Environmental Satellite Data and Information Service
NIFC National Interagency Fire Center
NIWTP Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOS National Ocean Service
NPS National Park Service
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NSF National Science Foundation
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
NWS National Weather Service
OAR Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
POE Port of Entry
PLLA Public Land Liaison Agent
REA Rapid Ecoregional Assessment
RFC River Forecast Center
ROD Record of Decision
SCT Mexican Secretariat of Communications and Transportation
SEMARNAT Secretarfa de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (Mexican Secretary for the
Environment and Natural Resources)
SNA State Natural Area
SOP standard operating procedure
SWMP System-wide Monitoring Program
TEIA Transboundary Environmental Impact Assessment
TPWD Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
TRNERR Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
USIBWC United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission
WHIP Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program
WRP Western Regional Partnership
WWF World Wildlife Fund for Nature
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Active Management Arej - Area with heavy reli-
ance on mined groundwater, subject to regulation
pursuant to the Arizona Groundwater Code.
At-risk species - Species that have either been pro-
posed for listing as endangered or threatened under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA), are candidates
for listing or have been petitioned for listing. Biologists
commonly refer to species as "at-risk" if they face
possible extinction or extirpation from a geographic
area.
Biogeochemical cycles - The flow of chemical ele-
ments and compounds between living organisms and
the physical environment.
Brownfields - Real property for which expansion,
redevelopment or reuse may be complicated by the
presence or potential presence of a hazardous sub-
stance, pollutant or contaminant.
Candidate species - Plants and animals for which
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to
propose them as endangered or threatened under the
ESA, but for which development of a proposed listing
regulation is precluded by other higher priority listing
activities. The current list of FWS candidate species
is available at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/what-
we-do/index.html.
Drainage Basin - The area drained by a river and all
its tributaries. Also called catchment area or drainage
area.
Ecological integrity - The ability of an ecological
system to support and maintain a community of or-
ganisms that has a species composition, diversity and
functional organization that is comparable to that of
natural habitats within a region; the ecological system
has integrity, or a species population is viable, when
elements of composition, structure, function and eco-
logical processes occur within their natural ranges of
variation and can withstand and recover from most
perturbations imposed by natural environmental dy-
namics or human disruptions.
Ecological restoration - The process of assisting
the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degrad-
ed, damaged or destroyed; an intentional activity that
initiates or accelerates the recovery of an ecosystem
with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability.
Ecosystem (Ecological Systems) - A dynamic and
interrelating complex of plant and animal communities
and their associated nonliving (e.g., physical and chem-
ical) environment. An ecosystem is comprised of plants,
animals and microbes as well as the air, water, soils and
other components upon which they depend, all linked
together through nutrient cycles and energy flows.
La Paz Agreemenl - The 1983 Agreement on Co-
operation for the Protection and Improvement of the
Environment in the Border Area, which empowers the
federal environmental authorities in the United States
and Mexico to undertake cooperative initiatives and is
implemented through multi-year binational programs.
Listed species - A species, subspecies or distinct
vertebrate population segment that has been added
to the federal lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants as they appear in sections 17.11
and 17.12 of Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regula-
tions (50 CFR 17.11 and 17.12).
NatureServ< - A nonprofit conservation organization
whose mission is to provide the scientific basis for ef-
fective conservation action. NatureServe and its net-
work of natural heritage programs and conservation
data centers are the leading source for information
about rare and endangered species and threatened
ecosystems.
Reclamatioi - A process of addressing damage to
an ecosystem that includes stabilization of the terrain,
assurance of public safety, aesthetic improvement
and usually a return of the land to what, within the re-
gional context, is considered to be a useful purpose.
Rehabilitatior - A process of addressing damage
to an ecosystem that emphasizes the reparation of
ecosystem processes, productivity and services.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Glossary of Terms (continued)
Regional-scale restoration - Actions that ad-
dress coarse metrics such as large-scale distur-
bance (water flow or fire regime), vegetation cover
type (forest, open canopy) and wildlife movements.
This approach requires a more thoughtful analysis
of the role of human activity in the landscape, and
implementation must include a representative sam-
ple of areas with high levels of ecological integrity.
Resilience - The ability of an ecosystem to regain
structural and functional attributes that have suffered
harm from stress or disturbance. This concept has
gained prominence as an approach to addressing
uncertain conditions, and to working with natural
change in ecosystems.
Site-based restoration - Actions that focus on
degradation within a limited delineated area. This ap-
proach addresses restoration needs where impacts
have been regarded local and intensive (small mining
sites, small weed infestations, old parking areas or
corral, chemical releases); these actions often are the
focus of land managers because the impacts can be
addressed within typical budget and project timelines.
Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) - De-
fined under the Coastal Zone Management Act as
a comprehensive plan providing for natural resource
protection and reasonable coastal-dependent eco-
nomic growth containing a detailed and comprehen-
sive statement of policies, standards and criteria to
guide public and private uses of lands and waters,
and mechanisms for timely implementation in specific
geographic areas within the coastal zone.
Species-centric restoration - Actions that focus
on a single species or group of species using sim-
ilar habitats. This approach to restoration has be-
come problematic when broader related resourc-
es such as food webs, overall habitat biodiversity
and natural disturbance processes are ignored.
Trust resources - Those natural resources an agen-
cy is charged with managing and conserving through
legislation. For federal agencies, these include: cer-
tain anadromous fish; certain endangered species;
certain marine mammals; federally owned minerals;
bald and Golden Eagles; migratory birds; national
Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries (and resources
therein); national Parks and Monuments (and resourc-
es therein); and Tribal resources, in cases where the
United States acts on behalf of the Indian Tribe.
Trust species - This includes migratory birds, threat-
ened species, endangered species, interjurisdictional
fish, marine mammals and species occurring within
federally designated units such as National Parks,
National Wildlife Refuges and Marine Sanctuaries.
Urban ecological restoration - The process of
assisting the recovery of ecosystems that have been
degraded, damaged or destroyed where the human
built environment is pervasive (e.g., cities and metro-
politan areas). This is an intentional activity that ini-
tiates or accelerates the recovery of urban ecosys-
tems understood as coupled human-natural systems.
Urban ecosystem - An integrative concept that
highlights how human-built environments (e.g., parks,
buildings, infrastructure, urban land use) in cities and
metropolitan areas also include plants, animals and
microbes—together with air, water, soils and other
components upon which life depends—all linked to-
gether through nutrient cycles and energy flows.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
GOOD NEIGHBOR ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD
MEMBERSHIP ROSTER
Non-Federal, Federal, State, Local and Tribal Members
2013-2015
Representatives
Diane Austin, Ph.D. (Chair)
Associate Research Anthropologist
Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology
University of Arizona
Gerardo E. Alvidrez
EH&S Group Manager
Cardinal Health
Medical Group
Dave Anderson, P.E., D.WRE, CFM, CPESC
Founder/President
FORM Strategic Consulting, LLC
Jose Angel
Assistant Executive Officer
Colorado River Basin Region
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Kevin Bixby
Executive Director
Southwest Environmental Center
Tom Blaine
Field Operations and Infrastructure Division Director
New Mexico Environment Department
Evaristo Cruz
Director
Environmental Management Office
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
David Henkel, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
School of Architecture and Planning
University of New Mexico
Edna A. Mendoza
Director
Office of Border Environmental Protection
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Jamie Michael
Department Manager
Health and Human Services
Dona Ana County New Mexico
Jack Monger
Executive Director
Industrial Environmental Association
Luis Olmedo
Executive Director
Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.
Keith Pezzoli, Ph.D.
Director of Field Research, Continuing Lecturer
Superfund Research Center, Community
Engagement
Urban Studies and Planning Program, 0521
University of California, San Diego
Luis E. Ramirez MSFS
President
Ramirez Advisors Inter-National, LLC
Cyrus B.H. Reed, Ph.D.
Conservation Director
Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter
Ivonne Santiago, Ph.D.
Lecturer
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Texas at El Paso
Sherry Sass
Treasurer
Friends of the Santa Cruz
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., P.E.
Chairman
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Jill Sherman-Warne
Executive Director
Native American Environmental Protection Coalition
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Membership Roster (continued)
Timothy Trevino (Vice-Chair)
Senior Director of Strategic Planning & Agency
Communications
Alamo Area Council of Governments
Mike Vizzier
Chief
Hazardous Materials Division
County of San Diego, Department of Environmental
Health
Erin Ward
Director, U.S.-Mexico Border Projects
New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute
Jose Francisco Zamora-Arroyo, Ph.D.
Director
Colorado River Delta Program
Sonoran Institute
Federal Members
Department of Agriculture
Salvador Salinas
State Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Department of the Interior
Greg Eckert, Ph.D.
Restoration Ecologist
National Park Service
U.S. Department of Interior
Department of State
Steven C. Kameny
U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs Officer
Bureau of Western Hemispheres Affairs
U.S. Department of State
International Boundary and Water Commission
Edward Drusina
Commissioner
United States Section
International Boundary and Water Commission
Department of Transportation
Sylvia Grijalva
U.S.-Mexico Border Planning Coordinator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Yolanda Chavez
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Grant Programs
Community Planning and Development
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Commerce
Holly A. Bamford, Ph.D.
Assistant Administrator
National Ocean Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Department of Homeland Security
Dr. Teresa R. Pohlman, LEED, AP
Director
Sustainability and Environmental Programs
Chief Readiness Support Officer
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Department of Health and Human Services
Jose Luis Velasco
Executive Director
U.S. Section, U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commis-
sion
Office of Global Affairs
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Designated Federal Officer
Ann-Marie Gantner
Designated Federal Officer
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal and State Agency Alternates
(,non-Board members who support their agency's
participation)
Department of State
Thomas Hastings
Border Affairs Officer, Mexico Desk
U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs
U.S. Department of State
International Boundary and Water Commission
Sally Spener
Foreign Affairs Officer
United States Section
International Boundary and Water Commission
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Department of Health and Human Services
Lorraine Navarrete
Binational Operations Coordinator, MSA, Inc. (CTR)
U.S. Section, U.S.-Mexico Border Health
Commission
Office of Global Affairs
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Commerce
Jeff Payne
Acting Director
National Ocean Service - Coastal Service Center
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Michael Migliori
Estuarine Reserves Division
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Stan Gimont
Director
Office of Block Grant Assistance
Office of Community Planning and Development
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Robert C. Peterson
Office of Block Grant Assistance
Community Planning and Development
Office of Community Planning and Development
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Department of Transportation
Camille Mittelholtz
Acting Director, Office of Safety, Energy and
Environment
U.S. Department of Transportation
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.
Border Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator
Intergovernmental Relations Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
EPA Regional Office Contacts
Region 9
Tomas Torres
San Diego Border Office Director
Region 9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Alhelf Banos-Keener
U.S.-Mexico Border Specialist
Region 9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Bill Luthans
Deputy Director
Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Debra Tellez
TX-CHIH-NM Coordinator
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Carlos Rincon, Ph.D.
El Paso Border Office Director
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Paula Flores-Gregg
TX-COAH-NL-TAMP Coordinator
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Francisco Abarca, International and Borderlands Program Manager, Arizona Game and Fish Department
Dr. Wael Al-Delaimy Professor of Epidemiology, Chief of the Division of Global Health, Department of Family
and Preventive Medicine, and Superfund Research Center, University of California, San Diego
Gilbert Anaya, Chief, Environmental Management Division, U.S. Section of the International Boundary and
Water Commission
Mary Anderson, Border Mitigation Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jon Andrew, Interagency Borderlands Coordinator, U.S. Department of the Interior
Josiah Austin, Founder, Cuenca Los Ojos Foundation
Valer Austin, Co-Founder, Cuenca Los Ojos Foundation
Robert G. Bailey, Ph.D., Ecological Geographer, Rocky Mountain Research Station, U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Jeffery Bennett, Physical Scientist/Hydrologist, Big Bend National Park, Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River,
National Park Service
Nadeem Bohsali, Student Intern, Office of Administration and Resources Management, Office of Diversity,
Advisory Committee Management and Outreach, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Patrick Comer, Chief Ecologist, NatureServe
William Finn, Chief/Supervisory Hydrologist, Water Accounting Division, U.S. Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission
Melissa Floca, Associate Director, Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego
Michele M. Girard, Watershed Program Manager, Coronado National Forest, U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Eddie Guerrero, New Mexico International Border Advisor, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department
of the Interior
Jennifer Hass, Environmental and Energy Division Director, Customs and Border Protection, Department of
Homeland Security
Chris Hathcock, Wildlife Refuge Specialist, Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Lane R. Hauser, Rangeland Management Specialist, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of
the Interior
Lawrence Herzog, Professor, City Planning, School of Public Affairs, San Diego State University
Delbert Humberson, Geographer, U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission
Robert Jess, Project Leader, South Texas Refuge Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department
of the Interior
Genevieve Johnson, Coordinator, Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative, Bureau of Reclamation,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Sonja Kokos, Adaptive Management Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
Alison Krepp, Program Specialist, Office for Coastal Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Robert Leiter, Director, Spatial Analytics and Communication Core, Lab for Sustainability Science, Planning
and Design, Urban Studies and Planning Program, University of California, San Diego
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Jeffrey M. Lucero, Associate Deputy Commissioner - Operations, Commissioner's Office, Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Department of the Interior
Julie H. Moore, Candidate Conservation, Endangered Species Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Rijk Morawe, Chief, Natural and Cultural Resources Management, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Laura M. Norman, Ph.D., Research Physical Scientist, Western Geographic Science Center,
U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior
Antonio Ortega, Governmental Affairs Officer, Imperial Irrigation District
Rebecca Little Owl, Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. Section of the International Boundary
and Water Commission
Chris Peregrin, Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve
Aimee Roberson, Science Coordinator, Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Oscar Romo, Director, Alter Terra
Alfonso Sandoval, State Data Administrator, New Mexico State Office, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior
David Seibert, Executive Director, Borderlands Restoration L3C
Catlow Shipek, Senior Project Manager, Watershed Management Group
Joe Sirotnak, Botanist, Big Bend National Park, Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River, National Park Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Mark Sturm, Biological Resources Program Manager, National Park Service - Intermountain Region,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Christine E. Taliga, Plant Materials Specialist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture
Ethan Taylor, Policy Advisor, U.S. Department of the Interior
Greg Thomsen, Special Project Manager, California Desert District, Bureau of Land Management,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bob Unnasch, Ph.D., Chief Scientist, Sound Science LLC
Elizabeth Verdecchia, Environmental Protection Specialist, U.S. Section of the International Boundary and
Water Commission
Joel Wagner, Water Resources Division, National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Paul Watson, President and CEO, The Global Action Research Center
Allison Wechsler, Intern, Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology, University of Arizona
Don R. Wilhelm, Texas State Coordinator, Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Andrew Yuen, Project Leader, San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior
llya Zaslavsky, Director, Spatial Information Systems Lab, San Diego Supercomputer Center
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
NOTES AND REFERENCES
1 Cairns, J. 2002. "Rationale for Restoration." In Handbook of Ecological Restoration, edited by M.D. Perrow and A.J. Davy,
10-23. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
2 SER (Society for Ecological Restoration). 2004. Society for Ecological Restoration International Primer on Ecological
Restoration. Accessed July 8, 2014. http://www.ser.org/resources/resources-detail-view/ser-international-primer-on-
ecological-restoration
3 Pulliam, H.R. undated. "What Is restoration?" Accessed July 8, 2014. http://borderlandsrestoration.org/our-approach/
what-is-restoration/
4 Clewell, A.F., and J. Aronson. 2013. Ecological Restoration, 2nd Edition. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
5 Bakshi, B., and Small, M.J. 2011. "Incorporating Ecosystem Services Into Life Cycle Assessment." Journal of Industrial
Ecology 15(4): 477-478. (doi:10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011,00364.x)
6 National Wildlife Federation. 2014. "Ecosystem Services." Accessed June 1, 2014. http://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Wildlife-
Conservation/Ecosystem-Services.aspx
7 Brown, T.C., J.C. Bergstrom, and J.B. Loomis. 2007. "Defining, Valuing, and Providing Ecosystem Goods and Services."
Natural Resources Journal 47 (2): 329-376. Retrieved from http://0-search.ebscohost.com.lib.utep.edu/login.aspx7direct
=true&d b=a9h&AN=27430406&site=ehost-l ive&scope=site
3 Rey Benayas, J.M., A.C. Newton, A.Diaz, and J.M. Bullock. 2009. "Enhancement of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services
by Ecological Restoration: A Meta-Analysis." Science 325 (5944): 1121-1124. Published online 30 July 2009 (doi: 10.1126/
science. 1172460)
9 Updike, R.G., E.G. Ellis, W.R. Page, M.J. Parker, J.B. Hestbeck, and W.F. Horak, eds. 2013. United States-Mexican
Borderlands—Facing Tomorrow's Challenges Through USGS Science: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1380. Reston, VA:
U.S. Geological Survey, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1380/
10 The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board. 2005. Living Beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-being.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board, http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.429.aspx.pdf
11 McDonnell, M.J., and S.T.A. Pickett. 1990. "Ecosystem Structure and Function Along Urban-Rural Gradients: An
Unexploited Opportunity for Ecology." Ecology 71 (4): 1232-1237.
12 McDonnell, M.J., S.T.A. Pickett, P. Groffman, P. Bohlen, R.V. Pouyat, W.C. Zipperer, R.W. Parmelee, M.M. Carreiro, K.
Medley. 1997. "Ecosystem Processes Along an Urban-to-Rural Gradient." Urban Ecosystems 1 (1): 21-36.
13 Pavao-Zuckerman, M.A. 2008. "The Nature of Urban Soils and Their Role in Ecological Restoration in Cities." Restoration
Ecology 16 (4): 642-649.
14 Kaye, J.P., P.M. Groffman, N.B. Grimm, L.A. Baker, and R.V. Pouyat. 2006. "A Distinct Urban Biogeochemistry?" Trends in
Ecology & Evolution 21 (4): 192-199.
15 Whisenant, S. 1999. Repairing Damaged Wildlands. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, (doi: 10.1017/
CBO9780511612565)
16 McDonnell, M.J., and S.T.A. Pickett. 1990. "Ecosystem Structure and Function Along Urban-Rural Gradients: An
Unexploited Opportunity for Ecology." Ecology 71 (4): 1232-1237.
17 The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines a brownfield as "real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse
of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant."
http://epa.gov/brownfields/overview/glossary.htm
13 Westphal, L.M., P.H. Gobster, and M. Gross. 2010. "Models for Renaturing Brownfield Areas." Chapter 19. In Restoration
and History: The Search for a Usable Environmental Past, edited by M. Hall, 208-217. New York, NY: Routledge.
19 Whisenant, S. 1999. Repairing Damaged Wildlands. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, (doi: 10.1017/
CBO9780511612565)
20 Hobbs, R.J., and D.A. Norton. 1996. "Towards a Conceptual Framework for Restoration Ecology." Restoration Ecology 4
(2): 93-110. (doi: 10.1111/j. 1526-100x.1996.tb0012.x)
21 Shachak, M., J.R. Gosz, S.T.A. Pickett, and A. Perevolotsky. 2004. Biodiversity in Drylands: Toward a Unified Framework.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
22 Beschta, R.L., and W.J. Ripple. 2012. "The Role of Large Predators in Maintaining Riparian Plant Communities and River
Morphology." Geomorphology 157-158: 88-98.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
23 Beschta, R.L., and W.J. Ripple. 2010. "Mexican Wolves, Elk, and Aspen in Arizona: Is There a Trophic Cascade?" Forest
Ecology and Management 260 (5): 915-922.
24 Oregon State University. 2007. "Trophic Cascades Program." http://www.cof.orst.edu/cascades/index.php
25 USEPA. 2014. "Green Infrastructure." Office of Water, EPA. Last modified October 27. http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/
greeninfrastructure/index.cfm
26 CBP-DOI. 2009. Memorandum of Agreement Between U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of
the Interior Regarding Natural and Cultural Resource Mitigation Associated with Construction and Maintenance of Border
Security Infrastructure along the Border of the United States and Mexico.
27 Groom, M.J., G.K. Meffe, and C.R. Carroll. 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology, Third Edition. Sunderland, MA:
Sinauer Associates, 440.
23 Groom, M.J., G.K. Meffe, and C.R. Carroll. 2006. Principles of Conservation Biology, Third Edition. Sunderland, MA:
Sinauer Associates, 439.
29 Omernik, J.M. 2004. "Perspectives on the Nature and Definition of Ecological Regions." Environmental Management 34 (1
Suppl.): 27-38. (doi: 10.1007/s00.267-003-5197-2)
30 Omernik, J.M. and R.G. Bailey. 1997. "Distinguishing Between Watersheds and Ecoregions." Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 33 (5): 935-949. (doi: 10.1111/j. 1 752-1688.1997.tb04115.x)
31 On August 14, 1983, the United States and Mexico signed the United States-Mexico Agreement on Cooperation for the
Protection and Improvement of the Environment in the Border Area, better known as the La Paz Agreement. This remains
the keystone agreement for bilateral cooperation on environmental protection in the border zone.
32 Hallett, L.M., S. Diver, M.V. Eitzel, J.J. Olson, B.S. Ramage, H. Sardinas, Z. Statman-Weil, and K.N. Suding. 2013. "Do We
Practice What We Preach? Goal Setting for Ecological Restoration." Restoration Ecology 21 (3): 312-319. (doi: 10.1111/
rec. 12007)
33 Ernstson, H., and S. Sorlin. 2013. "Ecosystem Services as Technology of Globalization: On Articulating Values in Urban
Nature." Ecological Economics 86: 274-284. (doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.09.012)
34 McKay, S.K., I. Linkov, J.C. Fischenich, S.J. Miller, and L.J.J. Valverde. 2012. Ecosystem Restoration Objectives and
Metrics. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research, ERDC TN-EMRRP-EBA-16.
35 Foley, M.M., B.S. Halpern, F. Micheli, M.H. Armsby, M.R. Caldwell, C.M. Crain, R.S. Steneck. 2010. "Guiding Ecological
Principles for Marine Spatial Planning." Marine Policy 34 (5): 955-966. (doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2010.02.001)
36 Foley, M.M., M.H. Armsby, E.E. Prahler, M.R. Caldwell, A.L. Erickson, J.N. Kittinger, P.S. Levin. 2013. "Improving Ocean
Management Through the Use of Ecological Principles and Integrated Ecosystem Assessments." Bioscience 63 (8): 619-
631. (doi: 10.1525/bio.2013.63.8.5)
37 Pursuant to § 4180.1 43 CFR Ch. II (10-1-10 Edition). http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title43-vol2/pdf/CFR-
2010-title43-vol2-sec4180-2.pdf
33 Lucero J., Bureau of Reclamation, personal communication.
39 USDA. "Ecological Site Descriptions." Accessed November 2014. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/
national/technical/ecoscience/desc/
40 Norman, L.M., D.D. Hirsch, and A.W. Ward. 2008. Proceedings of a USGS Workshop on Facing Tomorrow's Challenges
Along the U.S.-Mexico Border—Monitoring, Modeling, and Forecasting Change Within the Arizona-Sonora Transboundary
Watersheds: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1322. Tucson, AZ: U.S. Geological Survey, http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1322
41 Updike, R.G., E.G. Ellis, W.R. Page, M.J. Parker, J.B. Hestbeck, and W.F. Horak, eds. 2013, United States-Mexican
Borderlands—Facing tomorrow's challenges through USGS science: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1380. Reston, VA:
U.S. Geological Survey.
42 NOAA National Weather Service. "Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service." http://water.weather.gov/ahps/partners/nws_
partners, php
43 Just over 2,696 acres (1,091 hectares) are held in trust, whereas the other 876 acres (355 hectares) are held in simple fee.
44 The Pueblo acquired the 70,360-acre (28,470-hectare) Chilicote Ranch, located in both Jeff Davis and Presidio counties in
west Texas. Preceding the 1960s, the ranch was managed primarily for sheep, goat, and cattle production. Since that time,
the ranch has run a cow/calf operation, occasionally grazing yearlings. The property has been managed to derive income
from mule deer, pronghorn, aoudad, quail hunting and javelina and for predator control of coyote, mountain lions and
bobcats. Pens for Big Horn Sheep were installed for an animal re-introduction project funded by the state. State funding is
no longer available, so although the pens are still standing, the Project no longer operates.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Notes and References (continued)
45 A steel-framed, polyethylene-covered structure, also called a hoop house, which is used in agriculture to extend the
growing season, http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/oh/programs/?cid=nrcs144p2_029511
46 Pellant, M., P. Shaver, D.A. Pyke, and J.E. Herrick. 2005. "Interpreting Indicators of Rangeland Health, Version 4." Denver,
CO: U.S. DOI, BLM National Business Center. Technical Reference 1734-6. BLM/WO/ST-00/001+1734/REV05.
47 CBP-DOI. 2009. Memorandum of Agreement Between U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of
the Interior Regarding Natural and Cultural Resource Mitigation Associated with Construction and Maintenance of Border
Security Infrastructure along the Border of the United States and Mexico.
43 Webb, R.H., T.C. Esque, K.E. Nussear, M. Sturm. 2013. "Disruption rates for one vulnerable soil in Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument." Journal of Arid Environments 95: 75-83. (doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2013.03.016)
49 Vernal pools are temporary pools of water that provide habitat for distinctive species of plants and animals.
50 Parrish, J.D., D.P. Braun, and R.S. Unnasch. 2003. "Are We Conserving What We Say We Are? Measuring Ecological
Integrity Within Protected Areas." Bioscience 53 (9): 851-860. (doi: http://dx.doi.Org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0851:
AWCWWS])
51 Unnasch, R.S., D.P. Braun, P.J. Comer, G.E. Eckert. 2008. The Ecological Integrity Assessment Framework: A Framework
for Assessing the Ecological Integrity of Biological and Ecological Resources of the National Park System. Report to the
National Park Service.
52 Armitage, D., C. Bene, A.T. Charles, D. Johnson, and E.H. Allison. 2012. "The Interplay of Well-being and Resilience in
Applying a Social-Ecological Perspective." Ecology and Society 17 (4): 15 (http://dx.doi.Org/10.5751/ES-04940-170445)
53 U.S. DOI. 2013. "Desert Landscape Conservation Cooperative Fact Sheet." Last modified December 13, 2013, accessed
September 18, 2014. http://www.usbr.gov/dlcc/resources/docs/DLCCfactsheet.pdf
54 U.S. DOI. 2009. Addressing the Impacts of Climate Change on America's Water, Land, and Other Natural and Cultural
Resources. Secretarial Order 3289. http://www.fws.gov/home/climatechange/pdf/SecOrder3289.pdf
55 National Academies. 2014. "Call for Nominations by July 8: Evaluation of the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives." http://
nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/studies-in-progress/evaluation-of-the-landscape-conservation-cooperatives-call-
for-nominations
56 U.S. DOI, BLM. 2014. The BLM's Landscape Approach for Managing Public Lands. Last modified January 31, 2014,
accessed October 1, 2014. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/more/Landscape_Approach.html
57 The NISC was created by EO 13112 in 1999. It is co-chaired by the Secretaries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce.
NISC members include the Secretaries of State, Defense, Homeland Security, Treasury, Transportation, Health and Human
Services, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), as well as the Administrators of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and U.S. Agency for International Development.
53 The National Invasive Species Council. About NISC. http://www.invasivespecies.gov/main_nav/mn_about.html
59 National Advisory Committee on Invasive Species. 2010. National Strategy on Invasive Species in Mexico: Prevention,
Control and Eradication. Mexico: Comision Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad, Comision Nacional
de Areas Protegidas, Secretarfa de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. http://www.biodiversidad.gob.mx/v_ingles/
country/pdf/lnvasive_species_Mexico_dec2010.pdf
60 USEPA. 2012. Border 2020: U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program. EPA-160-R-12-001. Washington, D.C.: Office of
International and Tribal Affairs, http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/border2020summary.pdf
61 An excellent overview of these different local, state, and federal agencies and non-governmental districts and other
institutions with a role in managing water along the border can be found in the Eighth GNEB report. See www2.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/documents/gneb8threport.pdf, pp.4-10. See also the Fifteenth GNEB report http://www2.epa.gov/
sites/production/files/documents/english-gneb- 15th-report.pdf, pp. 5-15.
62 Poole, J.M., W.R. Carr, D.M. Price, and J.R. Singhurst. 2007. Rare Plants of Texas: A Field Guide. Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, 498-499.
63 GNEB. 2010. Thirteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United
States, p. 29. Accessed July 7, 2014. http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/eng_gneb_13th_report_
final.pdf
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
64 GNEB. 2005. Water Resources Management on the U.S.-Mexico Border: Eighth Report to the President and the Congress
of the United States, p. 22. Accessed July 7, 2014, http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/gneb8threport.
pdf; and GNEB. 2009. Innovative and Practical Approaches to Solving Border Environmental Problems: Twelfth Report of
the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States, p. 8. Accessed July 7, 2014,
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/english-gneb-12th-report.pdf
65 Roosevelt, Theodore. 1906. Convention between the United States and Mexico. Equitable Distribution of the Waters of the
Rio Grande. Article II. http://www.ibwc.gov/Files/1906Conv.pdf
66 Truman, Harry S. 1944. Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, U.S.-Mexico: Treaty
Between the United States of America and Mexico, Signed at Washington, D.C., February 3, 1944, and Protocol Signed
at Washington, D.C., November 14, 1944. Article 3.
67 The Tranboundary Aquifer Assessment Act (U.S. Public Law 109-448) was signed by the President of the United States
on December 22, 2006. Mexico's collaboration in the program was formalized through a Joint Report signed by the
Principal Engineers of the IBWC on August 19, 2009. The Joint Report established the Cooperative Framework for U.S.-
Mexico coordination and dialogue that has been essential to binational study of these aquifers. Working through the
IBWC Cooperative Framework, the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Arizona, Mexico's National Water Commission
(CONAGUA), and the University of Sonora are nearing completion of the Santa Cruz River Aquifer Binational Report and
the San Pedro River Aquifer Binational Report, which will be issued by IBWC later in 2014 in Spanish and English (see wrrc.
arizona.edu/TAAP).
63 Texas sued New Mexico in January 2013 over this issue.
69 Collier, M., R.H. Webb, and J.C. Schmidt. 1996. Dams and Rivers: Primer on the Downstream Effects of Dams: U.S.
Geological Survey Circular 1126. Tucson, AZ: U.S. Geological Survey.
70 AgriLife Extension, Texas A&M System. "Texas Biological Program Continues to Expand, Despite Some Controversies."
Beetle-Mania: Biological Control of Salt Cedar in Texas 2 (2 Summer 2010) 1-2.
71 GNEB. 2012. The Environmental, Economic and Health Status of Water Resources in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region:
Fifteenth Good Neighbor Environmental Board Report, pp. 42-43. www.epa.gov/ocempage/gneb/gneb15threport/
English-GNEB-15th-Report.pdf
72 "Southmost Preserve: Threatened Treasure." YouTube video, posted by The Nature Conservancy, July 7, 2010. www.
nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/unitedstates/texas/explore/mammals-ocelot.xml
73 2010 U.S. Census, http://www.census.gov/2010census/data/
74 INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadfsticay Geograffa; National Institute of Statistics and Geography), http://www.inegi.org.mx/
75 San Diego Planning Department. "Urban Forest Management Plan." http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/programs/
u rbanf orest/i ndex. shtml
76 Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve. "Overview." http://trnerr.org/about/overview/
77 Environmental Defense Fund. About the Colorado River Basin, http://www.coloradoriverbasin.org/about-the-colorado-
river-Basin/
73 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2011. "Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study Seeks Input to Help Resolve
Projected Future Supply and Demand Imbalances." November 29, accessed September 24, 2014. http://www.usbr.gov/
newsroom/newsrelease/detail.cfm?RecordlD=38644
79 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2004. Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program, Volume II: Habitat
Conservation Plan. December 17. http://www.lcrmscp.gov/publications/hcp_volii_dec04.pdf
30 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. "Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program." Last updated December 20,
2013. http://www.lcrmscp.gov/general_program.html
31 Minutes are decisions of the IBWC. When approved by both countries, they have the force of treaty.
32 In its fifteenth report, the GNEB addressed environmental flows and recommended that U.S. federal agencies and IBWC
develop metrics and models for environmental flows for use in water planning.
33 Stotz, N.G. 2000. Historic Reconstruction of the Ecology of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo Channel and Floodplain in the
Clihuahuan Desert. Report prepared for the World Wildlife Fund.
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
Notes and References (continued)
34 Water Policy Review Advisory Commission. 1998. Water in the West: Challenge for the Next Century, which found that
aquatic ecosystems are under stress from a variety of sources, including federal projects and activities and recommended
that federal agencies develop comprehensive plans for aquatic ecosystem restoration, including among their goals the
recovery of aquatic species at risk by "developing multispecies habitat conservation programs" (pp. 6-12).
35 Information from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and Devils River Working Group, Final Report and Recommen-
dations, January 2012.
36 GNEB. 2009. Innovative and Practical Approaches to Solving Border Environmental Problems: Twelfth Good Neighbor
Environmental Board Report, pp. 24-27. Accessed May 3, 2014. http://www.epa.gov/ocempage/gneb/gneb12threport/
English-GNEB-12th-Report.pdf
37 State of California. 2013. Salton Sea Restoration Act. California Fish Game Code, Division III, Chapter 13.
33 Ohmart, R.D. and B.W. Anderson. 1986. "Riparian Habitats." In Inventory and Monitoring of Wildlife Habitat, edited byA.Y.
Cooperrider, etal., 169-99. Denver, CO: U.S. DOI, BLM.
39 USGS. "Aridland Water Harvesting Study." Last updated August 7, 2014. http://geography.wr.usgs.gov/science/aridlands/
90 Norman, L.M., M.L. Villarreal, H.R. Pulliam, R. Minckley, L. Gass, C. Tolle, and M. Coe. 2014. "Remote Sensing Analysis
of Riparian Vegetation Response to Desert Marsh Restoration in the Mexican Highlands." Ecological Engineering 70C:
241-54. (doi: 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.05.012)
91 Barry, T. 2014. "Transborder Drylands Restoration: Vision and Reality After Three Decades of Innovative Partnerships
on the U.S.-Mexico Border." S.A.PI.EN.S. Surveys and Perspectives Integrating Environment and Society. 7 (2). http://
sapiens.revues.org/1553
92 Borderlands Restoration, http://borderlandsrestoration.org/
93 U.S. FWS. "Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Final Revised Critical Habitat 2013." Last updated December 3, 2013. http://
www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/SWWF_revisedCH_2013.htm
94 Minute 276, "Conveyance, Treatment and Disposal of Sewage from Nogales, Arizona and Nogales, Sonora Exceeding the
Capacities Allotted to the United States and Mexico at the Nogales International Sewage Treatment Plant Under Minute
227," dated July 26, 1988, is an agreement of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and
Mexico, for the expansion of the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant in Arizona, the allotment of treatment
plant capacity between the United States and Mexico, and the sharing of associated costs between the two countries.
95 CBP-DOI. 2009. Memorandum of Agreement Between U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Department of
the Interior Regarding Natural and Cultural Resource Mitigation Associated with Construction and Maintenance of Border
Security Infrastructure along the Border of the United States and Mexico.
96 Special Area Management Plan, Section 304 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Public Law 92-583, 16 U.S.C.
1451-1456).
Sixteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board
to the President and Congress
of the United States
-------
-------
------- |