Environmental Quality
and Border Security:
mSEE
-------
-------
About the Board
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB or the Board) was created in 1992 by the Enterprise for
the Americas Initiative 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 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 U.S. President and 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.
GNEB 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 U.S. 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, GNEB comprises representatives from:
(1) the U.S. government, including a representative from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and representa-
tives from other appropriate agencies;
(2) the governments of the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas; and
(3) private organizations, including community development, academic, health, environmental and other
nongovernmental entities with experience on environmental and infrastructure 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. Following historic precedent, the federal depart-
ments and agencies represented on the Board and the states of Arizona and Texas have recused themselves
from this report.
To request a hardcopy of this report, contact the National Service Center for Environmental Publications
at 1-800-490-9198 or via email at nscep@lmsolas.com and request publication number EPA 202-R-17-001
(English version), www.epa.gov/faca/gneb
-------
Table of Contents
Transmittal Letter to the President From the Good Neighbor Environmental Board v
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vi
INTRODUCTION viii
CHAPTER 1. Border Context 1
1.1 Demographic and economic context 1
1.1.1 Population and urbanization 1
1.1.2 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the border 3
1.1.3 Poverty and ethnicity 4
1.2 Environmental protection context 4
1.2.1 Environmental challenges 5
1.2.2 Protected areas and the border 8
1.2.3 Case study: Habitat restoration of areas damaged by foot and vehicle traffic 10
1.2.4 Progress on environmental quality and protection 12
1.3 Context for security in the border region 12
1.3.1 Strengthening communication and collaboration 12
1.3.2 Creating a safer border environment 13
1.3.3 Making travel faster at the border 15
1.3.4 Border security infrastructure 15
1.3.5 Case study: Alternative fencing and collaboration: Buenos Aires National
Wildlife Refuge and Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument 16
1.4 In closing 16
CHAPTER 2. Challenges and Opportunities, Part I 17
2.1 Ecosystems, ecotourism and outdoor recreation 17
2.2 Intersection of invasive species and border security 19
2.3 Endangered species along the border 20
2.4 Potential environmental impacts and alternatives of the proposed border wall 20
2.4.1 Case study: The National Butterfly Center (NBC) in Mission, Texas 24
2.5 In closing 26
CHAPTER 3. Challenges and Opportunities, Part II 27
3.1 Emergency response and preparedness 27
3.2 Federal government involvement 30
3.3 Water management, flooding, and trash and sediment control 32
3.3.1 Case study: Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve (TRNERR) 32
3.3.2 Case study: Laredo, Texas-Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas 34
3.3.3 Case study: Ambos Nogales 36
3.3.4 Case study: The New River along the U.S.-Mexico border region 38
CHAPTER 4. Recommendations 41
References 45
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update 49
Appendix 2. December 2009 GNEB Border Fence Advice Letter Recommendations and
Status Update 62
Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations 65
2017 Members of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board 66
Acknowledgments 69
ii
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
List of Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Department of Interior lands: California and Arizona x
Figure 2. U.S. Department of Interior lands: New Mexico and Texas x
Figure 3. Population and population growth in the border region 2
Figure 4. Map displaying the 15 U.S.-Mexico sister city pairs 2
Figure 5. The U.S.-Mexico international boundary 7
Figure 6. Unauthorized vehicle routes in Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, 2008 10
Figure 7. Undesignated vehicle routes that have been restored or identified to be
restored, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument, 2015 11
Figure 8. Wildlife-watching expenditures in Texas 18
Figure 9. Border Patrol Agent Jose Perales wades his way through the Carrizo cane
along the Texas-Mexico border 19
Figure 10. Map of the National Butterfly Center and proposed border fence 26
Figure 11. U.S.-Mexico binational notification system 31
Figure 12. The New River geographical location 39
Figure 13. The New River is encased until it nears the border, but it is not encased in the
United States 40
List of Tables
Table 1. The U.S.-Mexico Emergency Cooperation Agreement 27
Table 2. Emergency Management Core Functions 28
Table 3. Current Cross-Border Contingency Plans for U.S.-Mexico Sister Cities 29
Table 4. Emergency Support Functions (ESF) and Lead Agencies in Texas 30
iii
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Eligio "Kika" de la Garza II
September 22, 1927-March 13, 2017
Representative Kika de la Garza, center, during a 1985 House Committee on Agriculture meeting.
Source: The New York Times, www.nytimes.com/2Q17/03/15/us/politics/kika-de-la-garza-dead.html
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board would like to honor the late Eligio "Kika" de la Garza, who
served for 32 years in the U.S. House of Representatives, 14 of these as Chairman of the House
Committee on Agriculture. He passed away on March 13,2017.
Chairman de la Garza passed H.R. 4059,102nd Congress, the "Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act
of 1992," which became Public Law 102-532. A champion of the North American Free Trade Agreement,
Chairman de la Garza included the enabling legislation for establishment of the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board in the Act. During 1992 hearings of the House Committee on Agriculture, Chairman
de la Garza stated,
"Public input is vital in setting the environmental and infrastructure priorities of EPA's U.S.-Mexico
Environmental Plan for the Border. That is why last year I introduced H.R. 4059—which was approved
by the Committee last week—to establish a U.S.-Mexico Environmental Board to bring together federal
state and private sector leaders to provide direction in setting these priorities to the President and to
the Congress."
This board became the Good Neighbor Environmental Board.
The Board appreciates everything Chairman de la Garza, a Texan from the Lower Rio Grande Valley,
championed for the farmers of the United States and the residents of the U.S.-Mexico border region.
-------
Transmittal Letter to the President From the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
iGNEB
Environmental Adviso
-------
Executive Summary
'it'll"!
I 'M
1
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board's(GNEB
or Board) 2007 report, Environmental Protection
and Border Security on the U.S.-Mexico Border: Tenth
Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the
President and Congress of the United States, examined
the environmental implications of increased border
security. In December 2009, the Board issued an advice
letter on the environmental effects of the border fence.
In this current report, GNEB returns to the theme of
environmental quality and protection in the context of
existing and proposed border security infrastructure
and measures. The previous GNEB documents focused
on undocumented border crossings, hazardous materi-
als (hazmat), and environmental effects and mitigation
related to border security infrastructure. Although
these issues continue to be important when addressing
environmental protection in the U.S.-Mexico border
region, some conditions have changed in the last
decade. In this report, the Board focuses on five key
overlapping challenges in which environmental protec-
tion intersects with border security:
1. Tourism and recreation economy.
2. Habitat integrity and wildlife corridors.
3. Wate r m a nage me nt, fI ood i ng, a nd trash a n d
sediment control.
4. Hazmat and emergency response.
5. Air quality.
Security is a broad concept that can be defined in many
different ways. "Border security' as used in this report
focuses on threats and challenges to national security
at the border associated with preventing terrorist
activity or entry of potential terrorists and interdiction
of illegal or criminal activities. This relatively narrow
definition contrasts with broader concepts of "environ-
mental security," which includes the protection and
preservation of natural resources, the environment
and natural ecosystems. More expansive definitions of
security often focus on critical sectors of the food-wa-
ter-energy nexus. Thus, energy, water and food security
are considered key elements of the broader "security"
framework. Although this report primarily uses "border
security' in its narrower sense, some recommendations
may be relevant to the broader picture of environmen-
tal security. Although border security is an important
national priority, environmental protection in the
border region also is of great significance.
Chapter 1 provides background and context for this
report, as well as recommendations on environmental
protection and border security. Many defining features
and characteristics of the U.S. border region with
Mexico, a developing nation, make it fundamentally
different from other regions in the United States. These
features present challenges that regions located within
the interior of the United States often do not have
vi
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Executive Summary
to overcome. The diversity of the border ecosystem,
which ranges from areas of great natural beauty and
value to areas of large and growing human settlements,
creates an additional complexity when analyzing the
border region and protecting environmental quality.
This chapter addresses the key issues for environmen-
tal quality and protection in the diverse geographical
regions of the border. Finally, Chapter 1 provides detail
on the changes in border security since GNEB's 2007
report that focused on security. These changes include
stronger communication and collaboration among
security and other agencies, significant increases in
physical infrastructure and personnel in the border
region, and improved bordercontrol and management,
including faster border crossing times for goods.
The intersection of border security and the environ-
ment impose a number of challenges and opportunities
on the border region, and chapters 2 and 3 of this
report focus on challenges and opportunities related to
ecosystems, tourism and outdoor recreation; plant and
animal life and habitat integrity; emergency response
and preparedness; water management, flooding, trash
and sediment control; and air quality. The shape and
form of security infrastructure installed along the
border is a critical factor affecting these areas of special
concern. Also of importance are management practices
by security agencies. Additional installation of security
infrastructure along the border will have a large impact
on the region, presenting both challenges and oppor-
tunities to enhance security while preserving or even
improving environmental sustainability. Given the scale
and cost of the program to enhance border security
infrastructure, it is important to get it right the first
time, avoiding costly mistakes and even more costly
corrective actions. This requires careful planning and
advanced coordination with stakeholders in the region.
This report examines the environmental implications of
increased border security infrastructure within the con-
text of its previous report from 2007 and its December
2009 advice letter, which both addressed border
environment and security. The earlier GNEB documents
provided general and specific recommendations for
meeting the security and environmental needs of the
border region. In this report, the Board's recommenda-
tions focus on the intersection of environmental protec-
tion and border security in the five key areas identified
above. The recommendations in Chap?t: r 4 can help
federal agencies to preserve or enhance environmental
protection and quality while increasing the security of
the U.S.-Mexico border.
Border fence cutting across the steep mountainside of Otay Mountain Wilderness Area in San Diego County. The foreground of the photo-
graph is the Tecate River in Baja California, and the shot was taken from Federal Highway 2D in the municipality of Tijuana, Mexico. Note
the winding road that was created by the U.S. Border Patrol to provide access to the fence.
Source1. Paul Ganster, San Diego State University (August 2017).
vii
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Introduction
-------
Introduction
A decade ago in 2007, the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board's (GNEB or Board)
Environmental Protection and Border Security on the
U.S.-Mexico Border: Tenth Report of the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the
United States (10th Report) examined the environmental
implications of increased border security. Two years
later in December 2009, the Board issued an advice
letter on the environmental effects of the border
fence. In this report, Environmental Quality and Border
Security: A 10-Year Retrospective: Eighteenth Report to the
President and Congress of the United States (18th Report),
GNEB returns to the theme of environmental quality
and protection in the context of existing and proposed
border security infrastructure and measures. The 10th
Report focused on two main issues, undocumented
border crossings and hazardous materials (hazmat).
The December 2009 advice letter addressed envi-
ronmental impacts and mitigation related to border
security infrastructure. All of these issues remain
germane to environmental protection in the U.S.-
Mexico border region today, but some conditions have
changed during the last decade, including a significant
decline in undocumented crossings linked to changing
economic opportunities as well as to increased security
measures, in this report, the Board focuses on five
key overlapping challenges in which environmental
protection intersects with border security: (1) tourism
and recreation economy; (2) habitat integrity and
wildlife corridors; (3) water management, flooding, and
trash and sediment control; (4) hazmat and emergency
response; and (5) air quality.
Security is a broad concept defined in different ways.
For example, "border security" as used in this report
has a focus on threats and challenges to national secu-
rity at the border associated with preventing terrorist
activity or entry of potential terrorists and interdiction
of illegal or criminal activities. This relatively narrow
definition contrasts with broader concepts of "envi-
ronmental security" such as preservation of natural
resources; protection of clean air, water and environ-
ment; and conservation of the natural ecosystem and
the services or benefits provided. More expansive
definitions of security often focus on the security and
reliability of critical sectors of the food-water-energy
nexus and the production of these inputs vital to
sustain life and livelihoods. Thus, energy security, water
security and food security are increasingly understood
to be key elements of the broader "security'frame-
work. Although this report primarily uses "border
security" in its narrower sense, several sections and
recommendations also may be relevant to broader
framings of environmental security.
Border security is an important national priority, and
environmental protection in the border region is of
critical importance, given the rich natural resource
endowments of the region. The border region includes
the area 60 miles (100 kilometers) on either side of the
international boundary, although border ecosystems
and natural features extend beyond this zone. Of the
1,954-mile length of the southern border, almost 780
miles (40%) are U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
lands (Andrew 2017a). The U.S-Mexico border region
(within 100 miles of the border) contains 185 federal
land units under DOI jurisdiction (Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Bureau of Land Management [BLM], Bureau of
Reclamation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS], and
National Park Service [NPS]) totaling 25,388,431 acres
(Andrew 2017b), including national parks and protected
areas (Figures 1 and 2). There are 26 federally recog-
nized tribes within the border region, and the Tohono
O'odham Nation's land is split by the international
border line. In addition, local governments, nonprofit
organizations and U.S. states also manage protected
areas along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Mexico also has significant protected areas within the
border region. More than 6,500 animal and plant spe-
cies reside within the U.S.-Mexico border region (Kolef
et al. 2007). On the Mexican side, 235 species found in
the border region are classified in a risk category. Of
these, 85 are considered endangered under Mexico
law. In the United States, 148 species found in border
counties are listed as endangered under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act (Kolef et al. 2007).
As of 2010,14.4 million people live in cities, towns and
rural areas in the U.S.-Mexico border; these communi-
ties need access to clean water and sanitation services,
clean air, green spaces, and healthy environments.
Tourism and outdoor recreation generate substantial
revenues and support thousands of jobs in local
communities, all of which depend on the quality of the
border's environment.
Despite its natural and human assets, the U.S.-Mexico
border region faces serious environmental challenges,
including an increasingly scarce water supply; prone-
nessto flooding, drought and wildfires; and uncon-
ix
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Introduction
trolled urban expansion. Climate change is projected to
increase temperatures, decrease precipitation, produce
more extreme weather events, decrease snowpack and
runoff, reduce renewable surface and ground water
resources, and bring about more frequent and intense
wildfires and dangerous storm surges in the region
(GNEB 2016). Traditional infrastructure systems are
ill-equipped to allow border communities to mitigate
these impacts, which will affect many sectors, including
water, energy, trade, transportation and public health.
The disadvantaged populations of border communities,
including tribal populations, are particularly vulnerable
to the health effects of climate change. Some animal
and plant species and ecosystems in the border region
also are at risk.
California
Arizona
IE-
V-T.
v&i1 *
ZUSGS
Figure 1. U.S. Department of Interior lands: California
and Arizona.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
New Mexico
Tfc - we
Texas
"ns»,
rusGS
V- t
Figure 2. U.S. Department of Interior lands: New Mexico
and Texas.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
The fragile natural environment of the border region
underscores the need for careful planning and
coordination among federal agencies to mitigate the
effects as border security infrastructure is built out
and enforcement activities intensify. Although 10 years
have passed since GNEB published its 10th Report, the
southwest border environment and socioeconomic
contexts are dynamic and require continual adaptation
of policies and actions to respond to emerging chal-
lenges and changing conditions. In this report, GNEB
identifies the most pressing environmental challenges
that may overlap with border security and also provides
recommendations to accomplish the goals of environ-
mental protection cooperatively with border security.
The international boundary adds complexities and
costs for U.S. border communities in their attempts to
address regional environmental issues. Organizing a
proper emergency response system is greatly compli-
cated by the international boundary, as is dealing with
regional air pollution issues when part of the airshed
is located in Mexico. Other examples of environmental
issues that ultimately have only binational or interna-
tional solutions include conservation, water quality
protection, aquifer management, watershed manage-
ment, and solid and hazardous waste.
The governments of the United States and Mexico
have responded to the challenge of border envi-
ronmental issues with a number of measures,
including the 1944 Water Treaty for the Utilization
of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of
the Rio Grande (1944 Water Treaty), the 1983 La Paz
Agreement and its implementation plans (e.g., the
U.S.-Mexico Border 2020 Program [Border 2020]),
and the creation of the binational institutions of the
North American Development Bank (NADB) and the
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC).
The trilateral environmental organization formed as
a side agreement to the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, the Commission for
Environmental Cooperation (CEC), also addresses bor-
der and transboundary environmental issues. Although
these efforts to address border environmental prob-
lems have had very positive results, they still have
been insufficient to meet the needs of dynamic border
communities with growing environmental problems.1
x
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Border Context
This chapter provides background and context for
GNEB's 18th Report and recommendations on
environmental protection and border security. Section
1.1 provides an overview of the demographic and
economic context of the border region, and Sections
1.2 and 1.3 then address the environmental and border
security contexts, respectively, of the region.
1.1 Demographic and economic context
Many defining features and characteristics of the
U.S. border region with Mexico, a developing nation,
make it fundamentally different from other regions
in the United States. These include rapid economic
and population growth; rapid urbanization; shared
natural resources such as rivers, ground water and
airsheds; economic, cultural, and political differences
and asymmetries with Mexican communities across the
border; international commerce and trade flows; high
rates of poverty; and diverse ethnic identities. These
features all present challenges that regions located
within the interior of the United States often do not
have to overcome.
1.1.1 Population and urbanization
Since the 1940s, the population of the 10 U.S. and
Mexican border states has grown more rapidly than
the national averages and, at the same time, the
populations of the counties and municipalities along
the border have grown faster than the states in which
they are located. Driven by migration, the populations
of Mexican municipalities have grown at a faster rate
than their U.S. counterparts, usually at twice the rate.
1
These trends make the border region the most demo-
graphical ly dynamic region of the United States and of
Mexico. By 2000, some 12.4 million people lived in the
border counties and municipalities (Peach and Williams
2000), and by 2010 that figure had reached 14.4 million,
concentrated largely in binational metropolitan sister
cities. By 2020, the border population is projected to
reach 19.5 million (Figure 3). Most of the border's pop-
ulation resides in 15 paired U.S. and Mexican interde-
pendent sister cities ( ); the remaining residents
live in smaller settlements or in rural areas. Tribal
and indigenous communities are an important com-
ponent of the border, both in urban and rural areas.
Population growth in the region puts pressure on air,
water and land. It also creates additional demands for
services—such as water supply and wastewater treat-
ment—to ensure a safe and healthy living environment.
Growth also puts pressure on surrounding land and
habitat (USEPA and SEMARNAT 2016).
Urban growth often outpaces the ability of govern-
ment to provide adequate infrastructure in these
border cities, especially on the Mexican side of the
boundary where much of the urbanization has been
unplanned (Gansterand Lorey2016). In burgeoning
cities such as Ciudad Juarez, Nuevo Laredo, Nogales,
Mexicali and Tijuana, lands were settled and houses
were constructed, and then water and wastewater
infrastructure installation occurred years afterward. In
areas of the U.S. border region, principally in Texas and
New Mexico, but also in Arizona and California, colo-
nias—residential communities in rural areas of counties
lacking basic services such as water, sewage, electricity
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
Population and Population Growth in the Border Region
Population 2010
Avg. Annual Growth (%),
2000-2010
Duplication Time
(Years)
Counties and Municipios
Mexico, border municipios
United States, border counties
7,304,901
7,303,754
2.24
1.62
31
43
Total
14,608,655
100/300 kilometers
Mexico, 300 km
United States, 100 km
17,048,419
13,967,038
2.04
2.28
34
30
Total
31,015,457
Border States
Mexico
United States
19,894,418
70,850,713
1.95
1.49
36
47
Total
90,745,131
Mexico
United States
112,336,538
308,745,538
1.52
0.97
46
71
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and INEGI.
Figure 3. Population and population growth in the border region.
Source: Lee eta I. (2013).
OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
NEW MEXICO
Calexlco
Sari Diego
Tijuana^
Tohono
O'odham
Nation
Sunlartd
Columbuso '*ar^-
Mexicali
i. Luis
Ifo Colorado
-Q-#EI Paso
TEXAS
Negates Naco Douglas
N^Jles Naw *8"?
J Puerto Ciudad
Palomas Juarez
Sonoyta
iPresidio
oDel Rio
SONORA
Ciudad i
Acufia
Eagle Pass
CHIHUAHUA
Piedras
Negras
i La redo
MEXICO
COAHUILA
DE ZARAGOZA
Laredo
OCtANO
McAllen
T3T
1AJA
^IFORNIA
J SUR \
Irownsville
latamoros
SINALOA
DURANGO
PACfFICO
Gulf
TAMAU-
LIPAS
Mexico
SAN LUIS
POTOSf
ZACATECA5
Figure 4. Map displaying the 15 U.S.-Mexico sister city pairs.
Table 3 in Section 3.1 provides o list of the sister city pairs.
Source: Modified from Rainer Lesniewski/Shutterstock.com.
2
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
The dense urban populations of El Paso, Texas (top), and. Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, are separated only by the meandering channelized Rio
Grande and border security fencing.
Source: Google Earth.
and often paved roads—developed without standard
infrastructure. In Texas alone, the Texas Secretary of
State found that in 2014, nearly 38,000 residents in the
six largest border counties with colonias lacked potable
water or sewer services (Texas Secretary of State 2014).
Thus, on both sides of the border, large numbers of
residents do not have safe potable water piped into
their homes and/or lack proper sewage collection and
treatment services. Many border residents do not have
the same levels of water and sewage services as their
fellow citizens elsewhere in the United States.
A major difficulty for environmental progress along
the U.S.-Mexico border is that although the U.S. border
region is one of the poorest areas in the United States,
the border region of Mexico is one of the wealthiest
areas of that country. This fact has made it politically
difficult for Mexican federal authorities to spend funds
on border environmental infrastructure when there
are more pressing needs elsewhere in the country.
In addition, in the past few years, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) funds dedicated for border
water and sewer projects have declined and in the
President's fiscal year (FY) 2018 budget, were proposed
for elimination (Office of Management and Budget
2017).
1.1.2 North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) and the border
When NAFTA was being negotiated and debated in
Congress in the early 1990s, many border residents
had hopes that the trade agreement would address
the environmental problems of their communities
and bring economic development, including well-pay-
ing jobs (Ganster and Lorey 2016). Although NAFTA
produced a large increase in trade and investment, it
did not create the expected prosperity in U.S. border
communities. NAFTA stimulated commerce and created
many jobs along the border, but those jobs tended to
be low-skill and low-paying, while border communities
lost higher paying assembly and manufacturing jobs
that moved into Mexico and elsewhere offshore. The
border sister cities are vital economic gateways to
hundreds of billions of dollars in trade flows each
year. This trade growth, however, brought increased
vehicular crossings that saturated the existing border
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
infrastructure and overwhelmed communities along
the major trade corridors with more air pollution, pro-
ducing health and safety concerns. Regions throughout
the United States benefited from the growth of NAFTA-
related trade and investment (Wilson 2017), yet border
communities absorbed a disproportionate share of the
environmental costs related to congestion.
Ports of entry (POEs) also have substantial economic
and environmental effects on U.S. border communities
because of the enormous quantities of freight that
move through the trade corridors with Mexico and the
long crossing wait times for commercial and noncom-
mercial vehicles. In 2007, wait times for personal and
commercial crossings from Tijuana to San Diego alone
cost the U.S. and Mexico economies an estimated $7.2
billion in foregone gross output and more than 62,000
jobs (San Diego Association of Governments 2007). If
compiled for the entire border, the figure for losses
produced by long wait times would be enormous, in
excess of $10 billion per year. The costs are absorbed
by border communities but benefit communities
throughout the United States.
1.1.3 Poverty and ethnicity
An analysis of recent U.S. Census Bureau data (U.S.
Census Bureau 2017a) showed that when ranked as a
state, the 24 counties bordering Mexico (excepting San
Diego County, California,1 and Pima County, Arizona),
would rank 51st—or dead last—in income and percent-
age of persons under 65 without health insurance. The
border counties also would rank last in percentage of
persons age 25 years or older with a high school diplo-
ma or higher and lowest in per capita income. In some
cases, the differences are staggering; for example, only
69.1 percent of residents of these counties overage 25
are high school graduates, with the next lowest state,
California, having an 81.8% high school graduation rate.
When San Diego and Pima counties are included, the
counties in the four U.S. states bordering Mexico still
would rank 48th in poverty rate, 44th in persons under
age 65 without health insurance, 51st in percent of resi-
dents older than age 25 who are high school graduates,
and 43rd in per capita income. All of these are indica-
tors of regions of poverty (U.S. Census Bureau 2017a).
Hispanics constitute the largest ethnic group in the bor-
der region, are the largest minority group in the United
States, and area majority of the population in 19 of the
Photo of a giant toddler peering over the pedestrian fencing near the
port of entry at Tecate, California, with a U.S. Border Patrol agent
in the foreground on an ATV. The installation is by a French artist
who uses the moniker "JR" and hopes to prompt discussion about
the cultural and ethnic implications of immigration.
Source: Paul Ganster, San Diego State University (September 2017).
24 counties along the international border with Mexico.
In 2015, 82 percent of the population of the border
counties, excluding San Diego and Pima counties, was
Hispanic (U.S. Census Bureau 2017a).The percentage
of Hispanics in the U.S. border population is increasing
as a result of continuing migration from Mexico and the
relatively high birth rate of border Hispanic populations
compared with the general population.
Adding to the cultural and economic complexity of the
border region are 26 U.S. federally recognized Native
American tribes that range from 9 to 28,000 mem-
bers. Some of these tribes share extensive family and
cultural ties to indigenous peoples in Mexico's border
region and occupy land adjacent to the international
boundary.
The border area is a region where poverty and ethnicity
coexist. It also is a region where the large vulnerable
population is harmed by the health effects of deterio-
rated environmental conditions.
1.2 Environmental protection context
This section addresses the key issues for environmental
quality and protection in the diverse geographical
regions of the border. A number of national parks
in both countries—including Big Bend National Park
in Texas, Maderas del Carmen Biosphere Reserve in
Mexico, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in
Arizona, and El Pinacateand Gran Desiertodel Altar
Biosphere Reserve in Mexico—are spectacular and
remote. Deserts, mountains and riparian areas help to
1 The southern part of San Diego County has socioeconomic characteristics similar to other border counties; North San Diego County
is more affluent and less Hispanic.
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument at sunrise.
Source: Anton Foltin/Shutterstock.com.
provide great diversity in plant and animal species and
contribute to ecotourism. In addition to these federal
lands, important state and local public lands exist along
the border, including the three state-owned sites that
form the World Birding Center in the Lower Rio Grande
Valley, the Rio Bosque in El Paso, and Big Bend State
Ranch, which also provide important habitat and local
economic development. The states of New Mexico,
Arizona and California also have state parks and pro-
tected areas in the border region. The border has areas
of great natural beauty and value. Other portions of
the border have large and growing human settlements
that depend on environmental quality. This section also
provides an overview of pertinent management agen-
cies and programs.
1.2.1 Environmental challenges
The natural environment and climate of the border
region provide a number of challenges for environ-
mental quality and sustainability of communities. The
border is mostly arid, with annual precipitation averag-
ing 28 inches per year in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
in Texas, decreasing to about 7 inches per year in the
Trans Pecos area of Texas, and finally decreasing to 3
inches annually in Imperial Valley, California.
The region's environmental quality and health are
influenced by trends in population, the economy and
industrial activity, as explained in the previous section.
Specific environmental challenges include air and water
quality, land management and protection of sensitive
ecosystems and species, and waste disposal, all of
which have implications for public health, especially for
low-income populations.
Air quality
Air quality in the border region is affected by pollutants
from a number of sources. Motor vehicles, power
plants, industrial facilities, agricultural operations, min-
ing, dust from unpaved roads and open burning (e.g.,
for heating, cooking and trash disposal) all influence
urban and regional air quality along the U.S.-Mexico
border. POEs, characterized by intense motor vehicle
traffic and long crossing delays northbound, have air
quality implications that affect the facilities and sur-
rounding communities (Quintana et al. 2015). The most
common and harmful pollutants from these sources
and at POEs include suspended particulate matter (fine
and coarse) and ground-level ozone.
The United States and Mexico continue to collaborate
to help safeguard the health of border residents by
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
Cars line up at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection inspection station at San Ysidro, California, thought to be the busiest land port in
the world.
Source: JohnGK/Shutterstock.com.
protecting and improving air quality in shared air
basins. The two federal governments—in partnership
with border tribal, state and local governments—have
worked collaboratively to increase knowledge about
pollution sources and effects, establish monitoring
networks in several key areas, develop emissions
inventories, demonstrate the benefits of using cleaner
fuels, retrofit diesel vehicles, collaborate on projects to
reduce emissions, and build local emergency response
capacity through training (USE PA and SEMARNAT 2016).
The creation of the Joint Advisory Committee for the
improvement of air quality in El Paso-Ciudad Juarez
in 1996 under Appendix 1 to Annex V of the La Paz
Agreement has been especially proactive at addressing
transborder air quality issues (Joint Advisory Committee
2017).
Although substantial gains have been made, air
quality still is a major concern throughout the border
region. The pressures associated with industrial and
population growth, differences in governance and
regulatory frameworks, and topographic and meteo-
rological conditions combine to present a challenging
context in which to address air quality management.
The number of days exceeding the ozone and par-
ticulate matter standards has decreased during the
past decade (USEPA and SEMARNAT 201 6); however,
lengthy wait times at POEs, undocumented crossings in
undeveloped areas, and patrolling using unpaved roads
adversely affect air quality (USEPA 1988, 1998, 2006).
Northbound crossings increased with growing trade
after the signing of NAFTA, and wait times further esca-
lated with increases in security after the terrorist events
of September 11, 2001 (Quintana et al. 2015), referred
to hereafter as 9/11. Frequently, pedestrian lines are
immediately adjacent to the vehicle queues (Quintana
et al. 2015), resulting in pedestrians' exposure to
air with higher pollutant levels than extant in the
already-compromised air quality of the border region
(Smith et al. 2001). Such near-traffic exposures have
been associated with a variety of adverse health effects,
including asthma and cardiovascular issues (Quintana
et a I. 2015). These exposures are a matter of concern
not only for the millions of people who cross each year,
but also for the thousands of people employed at the
POEs and those who live in nearby neighborhoods. In
a white paper produced for the U.S. Department of
Transportation (Kear et al. 2012), commercial vehicle
emissions were noted to be substantially greater than
from privately owned vehicles despite the fact that
commercial vehicles comprise only approximately 15
percent of the traffic volume in the case study con-
ducted. Therefore, the authors concluded that efforts
to minimize commercial wait times would result in the
greatest improvements in POE air quality. Reduction
of wait times for noncommercial vehicles also would
benefit air quality at the crossings.
Water access and quality
In addition to air quality, water access and quality are
important issues in the U.S.-Mexico border region.
Water is an extremely limited resource in many parts
of this region. Population growth—along with growth
in agriculture and other economic activity—places
increasing stress on water quantity and quality.
Protecting the quality of rivers, oceans and other water
sources is important for ecological and human health
and prosperity in the region. The historic ambient
temperature increases and long-term drought associat-
ed with climate change point to declines of fresh water
supply in the border region (GNEB 2016).
The United States shares 1,954 miles of border with
Mexico. The land border and rivers that make up the
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
international boundary fall under the jurisdiction of
the International Boundary and Water Commission
(IBWC) (:igure 5). The IBWC comprises two sections,
the U.S. Section (USIBWC) and the Mexico Section, and
is responsible for applying the boundary and water
treaties and settling differences that arise in their
application.
Figure 5. The U.S.-Mexico international boundary.
Source: IBWC.
Rapid population growth in the border region, com-
bined with lack of adequate infrastructure, has brought
major public health and environmental concerns for
both countries as a result of frequent raw sewage
discharges. These renegade sewage flows contaminate
surface water and adjacent beaches, posing health
threats to workers and community members who come
into contact with these waters (CBP 2017a). Major pop-
ulations in cities such as San Diego, California, and El
Paso, Texas—in addition to the populations of smaller
towns and rural areas—depend on scarce ground and
surface water to meet current demands for urban and
agricultural uses and also for ecosystem services. To
meet these needs for potable water, border communi-
ties must employ expensive and complicated solutions,
such as transporting water across long distances,
desalinating saline ground water, and in the case of
El Paso, directing reuse. Two major river basins—the
Colorado and Rio Grande—and smaller ones, such as
the San Pedro and Tijuana, supply water for municipal,
agricultural and other uses. Climate effects, including
long-term drought on the Colorado River, suggest that
fresh water resources will decrease in the future.
The U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program
was created in the 1990s under the La Paz Agreement
as a bi nation a I effort to provide border communities
with safe drinking water and sanitation. EPA and the
Comision Nacional del Agua (Mexico's National Water
Commission, also known as CONAGUA) coordinate
with U.S. and Mexico federal, state and local agencies
to fund drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
projects, recognizing that access to these basic public
health services is of the highest priority (USEPA and
SEMARNAT 2016). No comprehensive data on drinking
water and sanitation infrastructure needs along the
border are available for comparison purposes. EPA,
however, has tracked the number of homes provided
with first-time access to essential drinking water
and wastewater services through the Border Water
Infrastructure Program. From 2006 to 2015, 65,665
homes had been connected to a safe community drink-
ing water system, and 626,631 homes were connected
to adequate wastewater collection and treatment
service (USEPA and SEMARNAT 2016). This effort shows
that a binational government effort is essential to
provide border residents with basic services that most
of the U.S. population takes for granted.
Solid and hazardous waste
In addition to being affected by air and water pollution,
land in the border region can be impacted by improper
disposal of solid waste and negative effects from urban,
industrial and agricultural activities. Border 2020, the
most recent iteration of the joint U.S.-Mexico Border
Environment Program, focuses on addressing land con-
tamination from inadequate management and disposal
of solid and hazardous waste and sites contaminated
by solid or hazardous waste (USEPA and SEMARNAT
2016). Since 2006, per capita waste disposal in the
United States and border states has declined according
to data related to municipal solid waste. Similarly, all
Mexican border states have seen a decline in per capita
municipal solid waste generation, with the exception
of Baja California, from 2005 to 2012 (USEPA and
SEMARNAT 2016). Reduction of waste generation and
increased recycling are evident and should coincide
with a decrease in improper disposal. Certified elec-
tronic recyclers now are found within 100 kilometers on
both sides of the southern border.
Intersection with border security
Some environmental challenges are especially relevant
based on their close relationship with border security.
Contaminated surface waters—including intermittent
flows in arroyos, rivers, drains and lakes—present
ArUona Land Boundary
354 mlk»
U.S - Mexico International Boundary
Land Boundary (CA, AZ, NM) 675 mi.
Colorado River Boundary 24 mi.
Rio Grande Boundary 1255 mi.
Total Continental Boundary 1954 mi.
Rio Grande |T»*a*) Boundary
1258 mite*
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
KEEP-OUT
USBP agents come into contact with contaminated water at a
number of locations along the border.
Source: wbang70/Shutterstock.com.
health dangers for the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) and
other law enforcement personnel who come into
contact with these waters in the course of their duties.
Untreated raw sewage and unknown chemical contam-
inates are of particular concern in the Tijuana Estuary
where health issues have been reported by USBP
agents performing interdiction activities (CBP 2017a).
Poor air quality in the major sister city metropolitan
areas of the border, and especially around the POEs,
creates unhealthy air quality for U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) officers and USBP agents who
work in those areas.2 Urbanization and other land cover
changes, including the installation of security infra-
structure and the increased number of intense storm
events that has accompanied changes in climate, have
accelerated erosion in some areas, posing problems for
enforcement activities.
1.2.2 Protected areas and the border
The border region has significant protected areas (see
Figures 1 and 2 in the introduction), including national
parks, national forests, national monuments, wildlife
refuges, estuaries and riparian conservation areas.
In addition to these national and other federal lands,
states and local governments also have invested in
significant ecological areas. Some of these are adja-
cent to protected areas across the border, forming
important trans boundary ecosystems. Protected areas
along the border include habitat for hundreds of
sensitive, threatened and endangered animal and plant
species (Baverstock 2017; Ceballos and Pacheco 2017;
Greenwald et al. 2017; Kolef at el. 2017) and, in many
cases, are on established flyways for migratory birds.
The integrity of species and habitats has been chal-
lenged by tactical security infrastructure at a number
of locations along the border, fragmenting habitat
and creating barriers to the migration of threatened
and endangered animal species. In some areas, the
visual impact of border security in pristine scenic areas
presents a challenge.
Mule deer approaching the border wall in the San Pedro region of
southeastern Arizona, 2008.
Source: Anonymous.
Threatened and endangered animal species, often
present in small numbers, require large areas of linked
habitat to promote migration and genetic diversity,
assuring the health and continuance of the population
in question. Important species along the borderthat
require movement across the international boundary
to maintain healthy, genetically diverse populations
include the Sonoran pronghorn antelope (Antilocopro
americana sonoriensis), cougar(Pumo concolor), big-
horn sheep (Ovis canadensis), jaguar (Panthera onca),
ocelot (Leopardus pardalis), Mexican long-nosed bat
2 USBP agents and CBP officers are part of the broader CBP Because USPB agents patrol the border between the POEs, they are most
likely to come into contact with contaminated surface water.
8
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
Santa Elena Canyon in Big Bend National Park. Installation of the proposed wall would severely impact the views as well as
corridor for animals in addition to having no flood plain for border security infrastructure.
Source: Krista Schlyer.
migration
(.Leptonycteris nivalis) and black bear (Ursus americanus).
In some areas of the region, physical infrastructure has
created barriersthat prevent this natural migration. For
some species, the problems for wildlife created by this
infrastructure are similar to barriers created by high-
ways and freeways. For example, in southern California,
mountain lions must cross major freeways, resulting in
high mortality rates and reducing the genetic diversity
of isolated populations (Phys.org 2017). Potential
solutions to the current problem include adding wildlife
overpasses or underpasses, which are very expensive;
however, proactive planning to address the needs of
species to migrate across the border can be cost-effec-
tive, while meeting both security and environmental
needs. At a segment of the fence near Brownsville,
Texas, small openings at the base of the fence placed
about every 500 feet are meant to permit passage of
the endangered ocelot and other small animals, but it
is not known whether ocelots actually use these "cat
holes" (Collier and Satija 2017).
The U.S. Attorney General was provided the authority
to waive certain environmental laws to expedite
the construction of border infrastructure pursuant
to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996, as amended. In 2005, as
a part of the REAL ID Act of 2005, Congress amend-
ed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act to expand the scope of the limited
waiver authority to include cultural considerations in
addition to environmental laws and transfer the waiver
authority to the Secretary of the newly established U.S.
Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Two waivers
were issued in 2007—the Barry M. Goldwater Range
and San Pedro. Following that, two waivers were issued
in 2008—"All Segments," which included projects in
California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, and the
"Hidalgo" waiver that included a discrete project in
Texas. On August 2, 2016, a Federal Register notice was
published for a 15-mile waiver in San Diego. In addition,
another waiver has been signed but has not yet been
published in the Federal Register as of September 2017.
The 2008 waiver use was supported by DOI and led to a
pledge to mitigate impacts on the environment. Under
this pledge, $17.8 million was provided by CBP for
mitigation (Andrew 2017a), and measures were taken
9
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
Cat hole in the border fence in the Brownsville, Texas, area. Note how the posts in the center of the photograph have been cut back to create a
space for the passage of small animals.
Source: Callie Richmond, The Texas Tribune.
to successfully mitigate the negative environmental
effects. CBP prepared Environmental Stewardship Plans
and surveys of biological and cultural resources for all
work completed under the waivers.
1.2.3 Case study: Habitat restoration of areas
damaged by foot and vehicle traffic3
At the time of GNEB's 10th Report, levels of illegal
smuggling of humans and drugs had reached record
highs in southern Arizona. The passage of thousands of
illegal border crossers across public lands, many using
vehicles, and the law enforcement response to control
them, resulted in a large number of undesignated
vehicle routes being created in designated wilderness
(NPS 2014). The level of disturbance to public lands
was evaluated in several reports and depicted using
30-centimenter resolution aerial imagery ( ).
Environmental effects were categorized according to
the level of impact on desert habitat; a Class 1, the
lowest category, was defined as a one-time pass by
a vehicle, whereas the highest category, Class 4, was
3 Source: Jon Andrew Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Case Study—Undesignated Vehicle Route Restoration.
10
defined as multiple undesignated vehicle routes with
deep rutting.
OPCNM
Figure 6. Unauthorized vehicle routes in Cabeza Prieta
National Wildlife Refuge, 2008.
Source: NPS (2014).
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
Beginning in February 2015, work began to reverse
these effects using CBP's infrastructure mitigation
funds (2008 waiver). Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument was the lead DOI unit managing the
restoration program, working in close coordination
with USBP's Ajo Station. The 2006 Memorandum of
Understanding Among U.S. Department of Homeland
Security and U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S.
Department of Agriculture Regarding Cooperative National
Security and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal Lands
Along the United States' Borders (hereinafter referred
to as the 2006 MOU), was a key component of the
restoration effort and formalized a unique relationship
and mutually successful partnerships. The first step in
the process was to identify access required by USBP
for border security after evaluating all existing routes.
Once this was determined, the remaining undesig-
nated access routes could be considered eligible for
restoration.
Restoration was accomplished with various methods,
ranging from hand tools to mechanized equipment
in an attempt to restore the topographic grade and
re-establish the natural flow of water during monsoon-
al rain events. Plants grown in the Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument nursery and cacti recovered from
construction of the pedestrian fence were planted at
the beginning of many undesignated vehicle routes,
whereas areas beyond sight relied on the natural seed
bank to provide future vegetative cover. On completion
of restoration activities in the summer of 2015, some
230 miles of undesignated access routes were restored
on all three DOI-managed lands within Pima County
( gure ). Restored areas were marked with a simple
signage system, and an agreement with the USBP
assured that patrol agents would be informed of the
protocol for access that would allow the areas to be
grown back and complete restoration.
Endangered Sonoran pronghorn antelope were
observed in one area of Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument soon after restoration had been completed.
Presence of this species in a restored road corridor
is clear evidence that mitigation funds have achieved
the stated goals and purpose. This cooperative project
exemplifies the progress in the relationship between
the USBP and DOI. It also shows that providing the
necessary support for border security and protecting
public lands are compatible and not mutually exclusive
goals. In 2015, this project was recognized with the
Wes Henry National Wilderness Stewardship Award
CPNWR
i f r
f. BLM \ /
OPCNM
rr
Figure 7. Undesignated vehicle routes that have been
restored or identified to be restored, Cabeza Prieta
National Wildlife Refuge and Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument 2015.
Source: NPS; Jon Andrew Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Case
Study—Undesignated Vehicle Route Restoration.
Restoration Area mm
PLEASE HELP IT GROW!
I >
A typical restoration site with pre- and post-restoration conditions.
Source: NPS. www.nps.gov/orpi/learn/nature/mteragsncy-restoration.htm
and the NPS Regional Wilderness Stewardship Award:
Wilderness Champion.
11
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
1.2.4 Progress on environmental quality
and protection
Much progress made on improving environmental
quality in the border region relates to Border 2020,
a cooperative program between the United States
and Mexico initiated in 2013 as a successor to Border
2012. Border 2020 is the latest cooperative initiative
implemented under the 1983 La Paz Agreement,
building on previous efforts, particularly the Border
XXI Program, which marked the first binational effort
to develop environmental indicators for the border
region. Border 2020's mission is to "protect the envi-
ronment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico border
region, consistent with the principles of sustainable
development." Through Border 2020, federal, state,
tribal and local institutions and agencies collaboratively
work to produce prioritized and sustained actions that
consider the needs of border communities. The actions
implemented under Border 2020 are guided by a series
of results-oriented goals and objectives. Border 2020's
goals and objectives were updated at the end of the
Border2012 period to reflect new needs and opportu-
nities in the region (USEPA and SEMARNAT 2016).
Additional environmental quality and protection prog-
ress has been made as a result of the efforts of bina-
tional institutions. BECC and its sister agency NADB,
through cooperation with EPA and other agencies, have
significantly improved water, wastewater and solid
waste infrastructure in border communities through
grants, loans and technical assistance. The agencies
more recently have begun to address air quality issues
through investment in road paving, alternative energy
and transportation infrastructure (BECC 2017; NADB
2017).
1.3 Context for security in the
border region
The previous section provided a brief overview of major
environmental quality and environmental protection
challenges in the border region in addition to describ-
ing key federal agency responsibility for environmental
management and protection. This section provides
detail on the changes in border security since GNEB's
2007 report. These changes include stronger commu-
nication and collaboration among security and other
agencies. They also include significant increases in
physical infrastructure and personnel in the border
region. Finally, the changes involve improved border
control and management and faster border crossing
times for goods.
Mobile vehicle surveillance systems provide the flexibility to adapt
to dynamic border conditions.
Source: DHS. www.dhs.gov/news/2015/05/13/written-testimony-cbp-senate-
committee-homeland-security-and-governmental-affairs
1.3.1 Strengthening communication and
collaboration
Since 2007, considerable progress has been made in
improving communication and collaboration among
security agencies and natural resource agencies in the
border region (U.S. Government Accountability Office
2011). Guided by the 2006 MOU, regular, ongoing col-
laboration now is part of standard operating practices.
Representatives from the MOU agencies hold monthly
coordination calls to discuss ongoing initiatives, proj-
ects and consultations under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973. These calls are organized by CBP's Energy
and Environmental Management Division.
In 2005, USBP established the Public Lands Liaison
Agent (PLLA) Program, and in 2009, the Chief of USBP
signed the PLLA Program into national policy (Koerner
2012). Today, all sector chiefs have an on-staff PLLA
to engage with federal, state, local and tribal partners.
PLLA duties include engagement with personnel from
DOI, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and
other federal, state, local, tribal and nongovernmental
organizations involved in land management, resource
protection and borderlands access issues. The PLLAs
also promote dialogue that includes collaboration to
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
identify mutually beneficial activities and outcomes as
well as joint environmental education, border security
and border safety training. Agents serving as PLLAs
receive advanced training on environmental matters.
They regularly coordinate with other USBP liaisons and
remain actively engaged in preparation and review of
environmental documents, including those prepared
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
for activities within their sector. They monitor changes
in land-use designation (e.g., wilderness designation)
within their sector and communicate that information
throughout the sector. They also provide outreach
regarding candidate and protected species under
the Endangered Species Act. Finally, they serve as
co-chairs with representatives from DOI and USDAfor
Borderlands Management Task Force (BMTF) meetings.
USBP, DOI and USDA established the BMTF as an inter-
governmental forum for cooperative problem-solving
on common issues related to the international border.
Its primary mission is to address border security,
human safety, and natural and cultural resource pro-
tection through shared resources, information, commu-
nication, problem-solving, standardization and training.
The BMTF is intended to create a positive, intergovern-
mental working relationship and foster support among
agencies charged with border responsibilities. Through
this coordination, the task force creates mutually
beneficial solutions to resource management issues
and provides expertise, experience and information
to address common border issues. Additionally, the
BMTF provides an opportunity to inform agencies and
interested parties about border issues and recommen-
dations for the implementation of possible solutions in
the border environment.
Along the southwest border, all USBP sectors have an
active BMTF that meets on a regular schedule, with od
hoc meetings called as needed. Border 2020 continues
to provide an ongoing venue through its task force and
regional workgroup meetings to raise new concerns
and coordinate with federal, state, tribal and local
agencies on border environmental issues, including
security-related concerns. In the past, issues such as
the waste effects on natural resources and communi-
ties resulting from undocumented migrant crossings,
and practices to mitigate these effects, were addressed.
Border 2020 continues to involve CBP and other agen-
cies in its discussions on environmental issues along
the border. Importantly, Border 2020 also involves the
participation of Mexican agencies and stakeholders to
address environmental issues that cross the border.
Access to federal lands for security purposes should
continue to be managed under the terms of the 2006
MOU signed by USDA, DOI and DHS. This guiding
document provides a framework for access by USBP
and facilitates communication and coordination among
the signatories. The MOU has been used in Arizona to
allow the USBP to manage use of roads at Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument and Cabeza Prieta National
Wildlife Refuge and BLM lands. This arrangement has
provided the USBP with the access it requires for bor-
der security and also has resulted in the restoration of
unneeded roads. DHS and collaborating agencies have
been encouraged to provide or seek funding in support
of additional restoration of habitats affected by illegal
activities and the resulting law enforcement activities.
The work at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument has
proven that the overriding need for access to enhance
border security can be provided while also restoring
and conserving unique and valuable habitats. The case
study of road restoration in this report highlights the
cooperative effort for ecological restoration in this area
of the border.
The GNEB's 10th Report and December 2009 advice let-
ter noted the lack of adequate coordination of security
agencies with environmental and land management
agencies and other border stakeholders (GNEB 2007,
2009). The PL LA program, the BMTF effort and the
Border 2020 process have made significant progress in
addressing the Board's concerns. A recent report from
the DHS Office of Inspector General did note, however,
the need for improved coordination and communica-
tion with both internal and external stakeholders (DHS
2017b).
1.3.2 Creating a safer border environment
Protecting U.S. borders from the illegal movement of
weapons, drugs, contraband and people, while promot-
ing lawful entry and exit, is an essential mission of DHS.
DHS works to manage and make U.S. borders secure
through the deployment of personnel, technology
and infrastructure. It also works closely with Canada
and Mexico as well as federal, state, local and tribal
partners in fulfilling its mission. After the 9/11 terrorist
attacks of 2001, the deployment of personnel, tech-
nology and infrastructure on U.S. borders accelerated.
The human and physical resource base built during
the past two decades has enabled USBP to develop
and implement an enforcement strategy tailored to
meet the challenges of securing the border against a
variety of threats. Border security has been improved
13
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
through increases in USBP staffing, construction of new
infrastructure and fencing, use of advanced technology
(e.g., sensors, radar, aerial assets), investments to
modernize the POEs, and stronger partnerships and
information sharing. USBP agent staffing has increased
significantly since 9/11. In FY 2001, 9,147 Border Patrol
agents were stationed along the border with Mexico; by
FY 2007 when GNEB's 10th Report was issued, 13,297
agents were on the Southwest border. By FY 2016,
17,026 agents were on this border, accounting for 86
percent of the total number of Border Patrol agents
(CBP 2017b).
Today, USBP's enforcement strategy is threat-based
and intelligence-driven. This includes identifying
high-risk areas and flows, targeting responses, and
deploying resources and capabilities in the most
effective manner to achieve multiple security objec-
tives. These include preventing terrorists and terrorist
weapons from entering the United States between the
POEs, disrupting transnational criminal organizations
through targeted enforcement efforts against the
highest priority threats and expanding programs that
reduce smuggling and crimes associated with smug-
gling, and managing risk through the introduction and
expansion of advanced detection technology along
with sophisticated tactics, techniques and procedures.
Through enhanced technology, situational awareness,
and the introduction and expansion of sophisticated
and layered tactics, capabilities and operations, USBP's
strategy focuses on "Information, Integration, and
Rapid Response."
Information gathered from reconnaissance, community
engagement, sign-cutting and tracking, and mobile
and fixed technology provides situational intelligence
to assess the threats along the border. The use of
technology in the border environment is an invaluable
force multiplier to increase situational awareness,
direct a response team to the best interdiction loca-
tion, and warn the team of any additional danger
that might develop. Information and intelligence help
USBP leadership and front line agents to be predictive
and proactive and get ahead of the threat. Integration
denotes CBP planning and execution of border security
operations while leveraging partnerships with other
federal, state, local, tribal and international organiza-
tions. Lastly, Rapid Response facilitates the deployment
of capabilities efficiently and effectively to mitigate
risks. Put simply, rapid response means USBP and its
partners can quickly and appropriately respond to
changing threats.
Gaps in border security infrastructure in the rugged, mountains east
of Tecate, California, enable sensitive species that are threatened
by habitat loss and fragmentation, such as the mountain lion, to
continue to range freely across the border.
Source: Paul Ganster, San Diego State University (September 2017).
A key element of USBP's strategic plan for securing
the border is the agency's layered enforcement pos-
ture, referred to as "defense-in-depth." This includes
advanced detection technology, tactical infrastructure,
traditional patrol activities and other enforcement
operations. The strategic plan recognizes that the secu-
rity of the border cannot be achieved by only enforce-
ment activities located at the physical border. For that
reason, some of USBP's enforcement operations take
place away from the physical border, at interior check-
points and in ancillary areas. These operational areas
away from the border line also require continued and
improved mitigation to promote environmental quality
and protection in these areas as well.
With more agents, better infrastructure, more powerful
technology after the 9/11 attacks, and other external
factors, the downward trend in apprehensions of
undocumented persons at the southern border has
been dramatic. Since FY 2000, apprehensions have
dropped by more than two-thirds on the California,
Arizona, New Mexico and Texas borders. In the
Tucson Sector, apprehensions are down from more
than 616,000 in FY 2000 to just 63,397 in FY 2015, a
drop of nearly 90 percent. Border wide, FY 2000 had
1.6 million apprehensions; FY 2016 saw only 408,870
apprehensions (CBP 2017c). Increased enforcement
and improved security infrastructure at the border with
Mexico partially explain the decline in apprehensions as
a result of the increased difficulty and cost for migrants
seeking to cross the border illegally. Factors such as
U.S. and Mexican macro-economic conditions, political
instability and gang-related violence in Central America
and elsewhere, Mexico's demographic shift, workplace
14
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
enforcement actions in the United States, perceptions
of unauthorized migrants in U.S. politics, and others
also help to explain the sharp decrease in apprehen-
sions at the border with Mexico.
1.3.3 Making travel faster at the border
By expanding trusted-traveler programs that provide
expedited movement through POEs into the United
States for preapproved, low-risk travelers, CBP has
at once improved security and reduced the time and
cost for individuals entering the United States. Border
residents and frequent border crossers have partic-
ularly benefitted from programs such as the Secure
Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection
(commonly known as SENTRI), which has reduced the
waiting time for northbound crossing at a land POE to
20 minutes or less. Faster processing of vehicles not
only reduces inconvenience and costs for travelers but
reduces air pollution, with health benefits to people at
the POEs and surrounding communities (GNEB 2016).
This is another example of meeting security needs at
the border and improving the environment and quality
of life for border communities.
At a 2016 Border 2020 Air Quality Task Force Meeting in
Tubac, Arizona, CBP reported on a pilot project for joint
cargo inspections with Mexico at the Mariposa POE
to reduce crossing time and emissions that has led to
significant improvements. During the proof-of-concept
phase of the project, nonperishable northbound cargo
that was prescreened was inspected jointly by U.S. and
Mexico customs (Galvan 2016). The program reduced
crossing times from Mexican warehouses to the United
States from an average of 4 to 8 hours to 1.2 hours.
This represented a savings of $762,000 in inventory
transit costs in just the first 30 days, as determined by
the participating industrial sector. The program now is
standard at the Mariposa POE and is being considered
for expansion to include perishable cargo and rail from
prescreened companies and cargo traveling south-
bound into Mexico. Additionally, it is being considered
for implementation at the San Luis and Douglas POEs.
1.3.4 Border security infrastructure
The Board's 10th Report and December 2009 advice
letter detailed concerns about the unintended environ-
mental consequences of the hurried-pace construction
of border security infrastructure that included primary
and secondary fencing, access roads, sensor networks,
communications networks, and lighting and video
installations (GNEB 2007, 2009). Environmental impacts
included altered hydrology in some areas, producing
flooding and sedimentation, damage to cultural and
natural resources, habitat fragmentation, and barriers
Border security infrastructure near Border Field State Park in San Diego County adjacent to the Pacific Ocean. The infrastructure includes the
fence near the boundary, an access road, stadium lighting, a secondary fence and an additional road.
Source: Paul Ganster, San Diego State University.
15
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 1: Border Context
to migration of endangered or threatened animal
species. Increased enforcement activities on dirt roads
also had environmental consequences. In some cases,
the infrastructure and enforcement activities reduced
human pressure on sensitive habitats and species,
enabling them to recover. Appendix 1 reviews the
recommendations of the 2007 GNEB 10th Report and
federal agency responses to these recommendations.
Appendix 2 reports the recommendations of the
December 2009 GNEB advice letter and the progress
made toward addressing the highlighted challenges.
1.3.5 Case study: Alternative fencing and
collaboration: Buenos Aires National
Wildlife Refuge and Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument
In 2004, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument under-
took construction of a vehicle barrier along 30 miles of
the south boundary at the Mexico border. The barrier
was designed to stop vehicles from driving around the
U.S. POEs or USBP checkpoints and through the fragile
desert wilderness. Although this 3-year construction
project was costly, the natural and cultural resources it
has protected are priceless. The effort also had pos-
itive effects on visitor and officer safety and national
security.
Vehicle barrier on Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge.
Pronghorn antelope and other threatened species are able to cross
the vehicle barrier but not the solid pedestrian fence to the right.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services On the Border: Protecting Natural
Resources on the Front Lines of Immigration, wvw.fws.gov/home/feature/2008/
pdf/ OntheBorder.pdf
One remaining concern for the FWS and other federal
land managers is potential impacts to the endangered
Sonoran pronghorn antelope in Arizona as well as
other species elsewhere along the border, such as the
ocelot in South Texas. The Sonoran pronghorn popu-
lation was last surveyed in 2016. In southern Arizona,
there now are an estimated 273 animals. An additional
90 animals have been released through a captive
rearing program in Nevada. In recent years, captive
propagation and better habitat conditions have result-
ed in a substantial increase in the population from a
drought-induced population collapse in the early years
of the 21st century. Sonoran pronghorn are especially
sensitive to fencing, preferring to crawl under barbed
wire fences rather than jump over, and human distur-
bance, including unauthorized migrants and smuggling
activities and border patrol activities. The migration of
Sonoran pronghorn to populations across the border
also is important for the recovery and health of the
species (FWS 201 5).
This steel fence is designed to stop car and truck traffic that used to
drive from Mexico, through the wilderness of Organ Pipe Cactus
National Monument, to enter into the United States illegally.
This type of barrier does not impede wildlife following traditional
migration corridors.
Source: NPS. www.nps.gov/orpi/planyourvisit/barrier.htm
In 2008, FWS worked with CBP in the design offence
segments to incorporate wildlife passage elements. For
other segments, CBP committed to mitigation mea-
sures for the fences' effects on listed species.
1.4 In closing
Although 10 years have passed since GNEB issued
its 10th Report, the southwest border environment
and socioeconomic context are dynamic and require
continual adaptation of policies and actions to respond
to emerging challenges and changing conditions. The
fragile natural environment of the border region under-
scores the need for careful planning and coordination
among federal agencies to mitigate the impacts as
border security infrastructure is built out and enforce-
ment activities intensify. Advance planning, coordina-
tion and stakeholder participation will improve security
infrastructure and facilitate meeting both security and
environmental goals. This will help to avoid mistakes
and the resulting need to make expensive adjustments
to infrastructure along the border.
16
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
The intersection of border security and the environ-
ment impose a number of challenges and oppor-
tunities on the border region. Areas of emphasis in this
report include:
• Ecosystems, tourism and outdoor recreation.
• Plant and animal life and habitat integrity,
including the intersection of invasive species
and border security, endangered species
along the border, and the potential environ-
mental impacts of and alternatives to the
border wall.
• Emergency response and preparedness,
including hazmat.
• Water management, flooding, and trash and
sediment control.
The shape and form of security infrastructure installed
along the border is a critical factor affecting these areas
of special concern as well as air quality. Also of impor-
tance are management practices by security agencies.
Additional installation of security infrastructure along
the border will have a significant effect on the region,
presenting both challenges and opportunities to
enhance security while preserving or even improving
environmental sustainability. Installation of new walls,
fencing and support infrastructure along the border
could be an enormous undertaking. In some areas, the
infrastructure could be the equivalent of construction
of a highway through similar terrain. Given the scale
and cost of the program to enhance border security
infrastructure, it is important to get it right the first
time, avoiding costly mistakes and even more costly
corrective actions. This requires careful planning and
advanced coordination with stakeholders in the region.
2.1 Ecosystems, ecotourism and
outdoor recreation
Natural ecosystems are the foundation of many
life-sustaining and life-enhancing benefits (or ser-
vices)—clean air and water, fertile soil for crop produc-
tion, pollination, recreation, flood control and others.
Ecosystem services are critical to economic devel-
opment and sustainability as well as environmental
health but often are undervalued, taken for granted or
ignored. Collaborative ecosystem management efforts
are especially effective in avoiding costly environmental
and health remediation efforts that can occur from a
dysfunctional system. Two case studies—the Tijuana
River National Estuarine Research Reserve (TRNERR)
and the Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge—high-
light lessons learned. These case studies serve as
models for achieving both improved border security
and environmental quality.
It is evident from past successes that collaboration
among DHS and other federal and state agencies with
conservation research and management groups leads
to mutually beneficial solutions that both enhance
border security and support wildlife corridors, estuary
health and environmental health, leading to species
protection and ecotourism benefits. Together, ecotour-
17
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 2: Challenges and Opportunities, Part I
ism and outdoor recreation are a substantial part of the
U.S. economy and of the border region. As indicated
in Figures 1 and 2 in the Introduction, large areas of
the border are protected areas, especially in California,
New Mexico and Arizona and to a lesser extent in
Texas. These protected areas are important resources
for ecotourism and outdoor recreation, including
birding, hiking, camping, mountain biking and so forth.
In addition to the federally protected areas, important
state and local parks and wildlife management areas
provide further opportunities for the public and for the
protection of vital habitats and species.
Although the value of ecotourism in the border area
is difficult to quantify, the Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department has collected information that helps to
explain economic benefits of wildlife-related tour-
ism. Millions of Texas residents travel to observe,
photograph or feed wildlife; these travelers spent
$228,779,736 on travel-related expenses in 2001.
Additionally, wildlife-watching activities support more
than 23,000 jobs in Texas. More than $80 million was
generated from state sales tax on purchases by wildlife
watchers. FWS and the U.S. Census Bureau reported
that, in 2011, wildlife watchers spent $1.8 billion on
wildlife-watching activities in Texas ( ) (FWS and
U.S. Census Bureau 2013). Wildlife-watching equipment
(binoculars, special clothing, etc.) expenditures totaled
$590 million, and away-from-home wildlife watchers on
average each spent $463 on trip-related expenditures
(FWS and U.S. Census Bureau, 2013). Not only does
wildlife-watching support jobs and bring in ecotourism
Wildlife-Watching
Expenditures in Texas
(Total: $1.8 billion)
Trip-related
26%
Other
dollars, tourism is the third largest industry in Texas,
and nature-based tourism is one of its fastest growing
segments. "Nature-related tourism offers Texans the
opportunity to build and diversify economies based on
conserving the natural resources and rural lifestyles
important today and for future generations" (Texas
Parks & Wildlife 2017).
Important birding areas are found throughout the bor-
der region. These include, among others, the Tijuana
River Estuary and the Colorado River and Salton Sea in
California; the San Pedro River National Conservation
Area in Arizona; and the Santa Ana National Wildlife
Refuge, Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area, and
Laguna Atascosa in Texas. These generate a large
number of visitors with positive effects on the local
economies. In addition to these federal lands that help
provide important habitat for birds and birding oppor-
tunities, state and local parks along the border also
provide protected areas and opportunities for wildlife
watching. In Texas, the World Birding Center, the Sabal
Palm Sanctuary, and Big Bend Ranch State Park all
could be significantly affected by the construction of a
physical wall.
Security infrastructure and enforcement actions have
negatively affected border ecotourism through the
building offences and roads and restricting access to
some areas. Alternatively, in many protected areas
along the border, improved security has helped protect
ecosystems from damage by migrants and smugglers,
as well as from the enforcement activities, and has
made these areas once again safe and accessible for
ecotourism and outdoor recreation. A good example
Equipment
50%
Figure 8. Wildlife-watching expenditures in Texas.
Source: FWS and U.S. Census Bureau (2013).
I
I
Warning sign in Coronado National Forest in southern Arizona,
near the international border, circa 2006. By 2017, increased border
security made the national forest safe for recreation once again.
Source: Paul Ganster, San Diego State University.
18
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 2: Challenges and Opportunities, Part I
of this is the reopening of the areas adjacent to the
international border in Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument, including the famed Quitobaquito Springs.
This part of the national monument had been closed
for a number of years because of a lack of security for
monument personnel and visitors. Another example of
benefits of increased border security is the Coronado
National Forest along the border in southern Arizona.
In 2007, at the time that GNEB's 10th Report was
issued, warning signs were posted to alert recreation-
ists of the dangers from unauthorized border crossers.
By 2017, these border areas of the Coronado National
Forest were safe for people to enjoy.
As seen along the border of Tijuana, Mexico, and
Imperial Beach, California, collaboration among USBP,
land and resource management agencies, and conser-
vation organizations have many benefits. When Border
Patrol agents understand the positive impact and
delicate balance required for effective ecosystem man-
agement, and when resource managers understand
the intricate elements of border security, the results
can mean a healthier environment, a safer border
and economic advantage. According to Linnell et al.
(2016), "Including border security personnel in wildlife
monitoring is one critical step to raise awareness of
wildlife needs, help assess the impact of border fenc-
es, and explore potential strategies for reducing the
unintended impacts on wildlife." Furthermore, through
this collaboration, all parties can achieve a better
understanding of where additional options for enhanc-
ing border security that also support natural system
functions can work together. For instance, high-tech
monitoring methods in unfenced areas could provide
effective security while allowing for wildlife corridors to
remain intact. An improved ability to manage natural
resources and lands from border patrol activities also
can be seen along high-traffic areas for illegal immigra-
tion, such as the Tijuana borderarea. Natural resource
management personnel have increased security in their
daily activities, and the effects from illegal camping and
hiking off trails have been reduced.
2.2 Intersection of invasive species
and border security
The Board has commented on the persistent problem
of invasive species affecting natural systems along the
border, especially aquatic areas and the banks of the
Rio Grande and Colorado River (GNEB 2004). The dense
vegetation produced by some invasive species presents
problems for border security enforcement by restrict-
ing USBP access and screening smugglers and illicit
activities from observation.
Giant cane or Carrizo cane (Arundo donax), a species
from the Middle East brought to the United States
in the 19th century, now has taken over many water
bodies. Along the Rio Grande, it grows in dense stands,
sometimes acres in size, allowing undocumented
migrants and drug smugglers to hide and evade USBP
agents ( igure ). Remote video surveillance cameras
cannot penetrate the thickets, enabling smugglers to
cross the Rio Grande and approach agents virtually
undetected (DHS 2007).
Figure 9. Border Patrol Agent Jose Perales wades his way
through the Carrizo cane along the Texas-Mexico border.
Source: Reynaldo Leanos.Jr., Texas Standard, www.texasstandard.org/
stories/this-invasive-species-is-a-threat- to- national-security
The giant cane can grow rapidly up to 18 feet in height.
A predatory wasp was introduced to help eliminate
the cane, but more usual control methods are cutting,
burning and application of herbicides. A binational
group, Los Diablos (The Devils), burns the cane along
the Rio Grande in Big Band National Park (Fernandez
2016). Composed of firefighters, conservationists and
park rangers, the group uses prescribed burns followed
by application of an herbicide to guarantee that repro-
duction is halted.
Salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima) is another invasive
species that has spread throughout the border. This
species causes problems similar to the giant cane,
outcompeting native vegetation, frustrating border
security activities, affecting river flows important to
complying with minimum amounts of water specified
in binational water treaties, and limiting access to the
riparian areas by local communities. Along the portion
19
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 2: Challenges and Opportunities, Parti
of the lower Colorado River that forms the U.S.-Mexico
border, the Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe manages
a Bureau of Indian Affairs Noxious Weed Program
that is used to clear and eradicate salt cedar. The tribe
also manages a USDA Natural Resource Conservation
Service Environmental Quality Incentive Program, which
is used to replant areas cleared of salt cedar along the
Colorado River with native vegetation like mesquite
(Prosopis spp.), cottonwood (Populus spp.) and willow
(Salix spp.) trees (Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe
2017). The tribe and its partners have not only restored
access to the river to tribal members but have restored
native vegetation and improved access for security
purposes.
2.3 Endangered species along
the border
The U.S.-Mexico border region is a delicate ecosys-
tem with regular animal and bird migrations moving
between the north and south of the North American
continent across the international border. It is home
to a diverse population of mammals, birds and plants.
The dry, desert ecosystem also supports prong horn
antelope, cougars, desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canaden-
sis neisoni), the endangered North American jaguar,
and the ocelot—which is down to its last 50 animals in
southern Texas (Sullivan 2016). The U.S.-Mexico border
region has the highest rate of species endangerment in
the United States (Van Schoik 2004). Some 31 percent
of the species listed as endangered by DOI are found
in the region. On the Mexican side of the border, 85
species of plants and animals are endangered. Not sur-
prisingly, the threats to these species are exacerbated
by the fact that the ecosystems in this region are split
by a political boundary that greatly complicates conser-
vation efforts as well as creates a physical barrier that
fragments habitat and impedes migration of animals.
The border wall bisects public and private lands along
the border, and the barrier can affect the 30 endan-
gered, threatened or candidate species of wildlife that
live near the international border in just Arizona and
Sonora (Cohn 2007; Gaskill 2016).
Other areas of the border experience similar issues
with respect to border infrastructure. Because of the
necessary roads, vehicles and support facilities that
come with border security, some fragile desert plants
(including saguaros [Carnegieagigantean]) and other
wildlife species (including Sonoran pronghorn ante-
lope) may lose access to important sources of food
and water (Cohn 2007). Retaining migration corridors
via connected habitat across the international border
for endangered and important species is critical.
Maintaining connected habitats across the international
boundary is especially important for species strug-
gling to survive in the face of multiple and cumulative
threats. Three border regions—California, the Madrean
archipelago and the Gulf Coast—are of particular
concern. These regions are characterized by high
overall species richness and high richness of species at
risk from existing barriers and construction of potential
new barriers. For some species, existing sections of
the border wall have completely blocked the migration
corridors—or regularly traveled paths through the
landscape—in areas that species have relied on for
centuries. New sections of the wall may have the same
effect depending on how they are designed and where
they are constructed (Lasky et al. 2011). Imperiled and
endangered species—which include, among others,
the ocelot, jaguar, bighorn sheep, cougar, long-nose
bat and Sonoran pronghorn antelope—"may not be
able to migrate, exchange genes between populations
necessary for a healthy population, and/or reach vital
food" or water sources (Esquina 2017). A recent study
by leading scientists estimates that completion of the
wall as presently conceived as a barrier impenetrable
to humans and wildlife would affect some 800 species,
140 of which are in danger of extinction (Baverstock
2017; Ceballos and Pacheco 2017; Kolef et al. 2017).
2.4 Potential environmental impacts
and alternatives of the proposed
border wall
The U.S. government has constructed 654 miles of
primary fencing (pedestrian and vehicle fence) and
an additional 51 miles of secondary fence covering
approximately 36 percent of the border. Other parts of
the border have high mountainous terrain or major riv-
ers, such as the Rio Grande, that act as natural barriers.
The current administration has proposed extending
the structure to cover the entire border. In March
2017, CBP issued two formal requests for proposals
(RFPs) that specified the physical requirements for
the proposed wall: 18-30 feet in height, made of solid
concrete or other materials, possess an anti-climb top
and below-ground barrier to prohibit digging beneath
it, must withstand 1 hour of hammering and chiseling,
contain pedestrian and vehicle gates (25 and 50 feet
wide, respectively), contain fittings on the U.S. face to
"shield from external attack," and include attractive
20
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 2: Challenges and Opportunities, Part I
Sample of Wildlife Impacted by the Wall
" wtmmKimf/imm? m • -
Chachalaca
Ocelot
Pygmy Owl
Armadillo
Bobcat
Bighorn Sheep
Jaguar M
Texas Horned Lizard
Mexican Gray Wolf
Black Bear
A variety of species, including those presented in this image, could be affected by the construction of a border wall.
Source: 'The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. for GNEB.
texture and color on the U.S. side. Companies that sub-
mitted proposals were expected to construct a physical
prototype of their proposal (CBP 2017d).
Federal law provides the DHS Secretary with the
authority to waive federal, state and local environmen-
tal law if deemed necessary for border security. As of
2011, the DHS Secretary had applied waivers of more
than 50 environmental laws. Waivers also were applied
to more than 550 miles of barriers and roads needed to
complete border fencing projects (Neeley 2011). If new
security infrastructure is to be built, federal agencies
must continue to collaborate to ensure that infrastruc-
ture is designed and sited to mitigate the effects on
the environment, plant and animal species, and their
habitat. This collaborative approach will help to ensure
that the infrastructure is completed properly and will
not have to be reconfigured to address flooding or
other issues. This is the most cost-effective approach.
No comprehensive border-wide studies of the existing
fence's effects on wildlife and plant species have been
conducted. Scientific studies conducted in specific bor-
der locations and published in peer-reviewed science
journals, however, provide important information on
the effects of fencing on wildlife in parts of the border
region. A 2010 biological analysis found that nine
herds of bighorn sheep in Mexico are linked to herds
in Arizona, and proposed fencing would isolate some
herds on the Arizona side as a result of the limited
mobility range of female bighorn sheep. The same
study found that endangered ferruginous pygmy owls
21
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 2: Challenges and Opportunities, Part I
(Glaucidium brasilianum) would be affected by the large
vegetation gaps and tall fences created by proposed
fencing because of the birds' limited range and flight
height. Overall, the study found that other species that
have similar mobility and spatial distributions may
be affected by border development, yet mitigation
strategies could be designed to address both wildlife
and societal needs (Flesch et al. 2010). Other species
identified by biologists and other scientists as affected
by the fencing proposal in 2007 include the Sonoran
pronghorn, jaguar and ocelot. A wall would prevent jag-
uars from repopulating the southwestern United States
from a population in Mexico's Sierra Madre Occidental.
Landscape permeability to allow wildlife movement is
critical to wildlife health and survival (Cohn 2007).
In southern San Diego County, the border fence now
ends on a steep western slope of mountains to the east
of the small town of Jacumba and does not begin again
until the desert floor of Imperial County. The inter-
vening mountains are part of the range of the desert
bighorn sheep that inhabit the Peninsular Ranges in
southern California from the San Jacinto Mountains
south across the border and through Baja California to
Volcan deTres Vfrgenes in Baja California Sur, Mexico
(Bighorn Institute 2017; FWS 2000). Peninsular bighorn
sheep are a natural part of the California border's
heritage and culturally and economically important.
Completing an impenetrable fence across its migration
corridorwould further endangerthis species.
Jacumba, California, where existing fence ends, not intruding
on the migration corridor for peninsular desert bighorn sheep,
mountain lion and other species.
Source: Paul Ganster, Sail Diego Scats University.
Flooding impacts on habitat and the landscape have
been associated with existing border fencing, including
a pedestrian barrier in Organ Pipe Cactus National
Monument that impounded floodwaters after a heavy
storm event in July 2008 (Neeley 2011; NPS 2008).
Analysis has indicated that the border barriers likely
contributed to a flooding event in Nogales, Sonora, in
July 2008, possibly implicated in two drowning deaths
(Clarke 2016); this will be discussed in more detail in
Section 3.3.3 of the report. Landscape disruption in the
rugged Otay Mountain Wilderness in San Diego County
through fence and access road construction produced
accelerated erosion in areas with the rareTecate
cypress (Cupressus forbesil) and the imperiled Thome's
Border fence near Jacumba in eastern San Diego County. The image
from 2002 (above) shows the 8-foot fence constructed from surplus
landing mats and then a vehicle barrier in the valley bottom. The
2017 image (below) shows how the vehicle barrier was replaced with
a pedestrian fence approximately 20 feet in height that also includes
gates that open to accommodate stormwater flow and decrease
flooding impacts.
Source: Paul Ganster, San Diego State University.
22
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 2: Challenges and Opportunities, Part I
Surveillance equipment and. communications along the border fence separating the United States and Mexico at Nogales, Arizona.
Source: Rex Wholster/Shutterstock.com.
hairstreak butterfly (Callophrys [Mitoura]gryneus thornei)
that relies on the cypress as a host (Neeley 2011),
although no occurrences of removal or destruction of
protected species have been documented. Subsequent
to the reported incidents, CBP undertook a review of
fence design and made modifications where needed
and improved the removal of debris collected along
fences. There have been no recent reports of issues
related to border security fences. In Starr County,
Texas, on the Lower Rio Grande, recent proposals for
barrier construction have raised strong local concerns
(Schwartz 2017). Elected officials and community mem-
bers have raised specific issues with new wall construc-
tion, including heightened flooding risk, isolation of
parts of the communities or private lands on the south
side of the new structure, and major impacts on habitat
and birding areas, especially Roma Bluffs.
In view of these impacts of border security infrastruc-
ture installation on the environment, wildlife and
landscape, it is imperative for federal agencies such as
DHS and CBP to continue to collaborate on environ-
mental mitigation to the maximum extent feasible in
future border security infrastructure projects. GNEB
recommends that environmentally sustainable infra-
structure design be considered in future projects. The
negative environmental impacts produced by previous
fence and access road construction should inform the
current efforts of 2017 and any future efforts to extend
and enhance border infrastructure. Careful planning
and collaboration with other federal agencies and
state and local stakeholders will help DHS to avoid past
shortcomings and produce border barriers that meet
the needs of security and environmental protection.
For example, through working with land managers of
protected areas and biologists, DHS could determine
locations where cross-border habitat must be undis-
turbed to facilitate migration and survival of sensitive
species. A combination of vehicle barriers, gates,
sensors, presence of USBP personnel, close coopera-
tion with Mexican authorities, and other methods could
secure these areas from unwanted human intrusion
yet enable animal movement to take place. To this end,
GNEB reiterates its recommendation from the 10th
Report:
"As a best business practice, hold a national con-
ference on fencing/barrier technology that high-
lights successes to date and educates the public,
with participation from private sector experts and
nongovernmental organizations. /4s an outcome,
develop recommendations for prototype fences
that meet security goals while minimizing environ-
mental damage or even improve environmental
conditions" (GNEB 2007).
The 2017 CBP RFPs for border wall construction
proposals produced innovative thinking on border wall
designs and solutions. At least two proposals for more
"sustainable" alternative border barriers represent the
types of proposals that have emerged. One defense
contractor developed a proposal for a virtual border
23
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 2: Challenges and Opportunities, Part I
Security personnel watching a video monitoring surveillance
security system.
Source: Dmitry Kali novsky/Sh utters tock.com.
barrierthat uses computer technology and thousands
of portable sensors as an alternative to a concrete
brick-and-mortar wall. The proposed virtual wall would
be less costly than a brick-and-mortar equivalent. This
proposal employs sophisticated prototype infrared
sensors the size of a softball (4 inches in diameter and
5.5 inches high) that are powered by solar batteries
and can sense motion, infrared light, heat and other
evidence of human activity nearby. The portable sen-
sors would be distributed via dropping an estimated
200 sensors per mile of border area from an aircraft
in an "asymmetrical grid pattern" and scattered in a
band extending 0.5 mile into the United States from
the border. The sensors would activate on impact and
begin communicating with adjacent nodes and sending
data regarding detected activity to regional cluster
nodes with a signal similar to Bluetooth, not requiring
Wi-Fi or satellite connection. The cluster nodes, which
are a bit larger because of their increased power need
and requisitely larger solar panel, then would relay
the information through an encrypted wireless signal
to the sensor network monitoring server. Information
from sensors can be tracked on computers or devices
such as tablets and smartphones via a Web browser;
color-coded alerts would be sent to tracking devices if
human activity is detected (Dickson 2017). No compa-
rable system currently exists to assess if such a system
could meet the security requirements of the RFP.
A second alternative concept first proposed by Mexican
environmentalists is a solar border structure that
would generate enough electricity to power one-half-
million U.S. homes and would "pay for itself (Fthenakis
and Zweibei 2017). This alternative would be a "massive
string" of horizontal photovoltaic panels that could
provide an equivalent barrier to that associated with
a concrete wall. The solar structure could be managed
by a public-private partnership that could generate
economic development in the border region. A Nevada
company has developed a similar proposal (Yeo 2017).
Despite the obvious practical obstacles, the solar
alternative may represent a sustainable and more
economical alternative to the concrete wall described in
the RFP.
These are just two of many alternatives that have
emerged in 2017. It is apparent that, through collabo-
ration with the private sector and other stakeholders,
innovative solutions can be developed for border
security infrastructure. Existing practices, such as leav-
ing gaps to provide access for agricultural fields along
the Rio Grande and Rio Colorado that were isolated by
borderfence construction, can be adapted to permit
wildlife migration with proper USBP supervision. These
solutions can address both security and environmental
needs along the border with Mexico.
2.4.1 Case study: The National Butterfly
Center (NBC) in Mission, Texas
The NBC is a 100-acre botanical garden, featuring
formal demonstration beds and wildscape, focused on
native host and nectar plants that sustain all life stages
of more than 200 species of butterflies. Once a com-
mercial onion field, this parcel of land that borders the
Rio Grande and is bisected by the Mission Main Canal
and levee, now serves as a preserve for disappearing
riverine woodland and wetland and acts as a refuge for
three federally listed endangered plant species—slen-
der rushpea (Hoffmannseggia tenella), Tamaulipan kid-
neypetal (Ayenia limitaris) and Walker's manioc (Manihot
walkerae). Other species of interest at NBC include the
threatened Texas tortoise (Gopherus berlandieri), Texas
homed lizard (Phrynosoma cornutum) and the Texas
indigo snake (Drymarchon melanurus erebennus).
Less than five percent of native habitat remains in
the Lower Rio Grande Valley, and it is primarily set
aside along the Rio Grande, in the Lower Rio Grande
Valley Wildlife Conservation Corridor. This corridor is a
multistakeholder effort to connect lands from Falcon
Dam to the Laguna Madre to create a contiguous range
for wildlife to feed and breed. Projects like the NBC play
a critical role in the conservation corridor by preserving
remnants of land for native plant and wildlife species
24
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 2: Challenges and Opportunities, Part I
Sample of Species Impacted by the Proposed Wall
Slendor Rush Pea
' Mexican Bluewing
Texas Ayenia
Ruddy Daggerwing
The National Butterfly Center helps to preserve land for native plant and butterfly species, such as these, which could be negatively affected by
construction of a border wall on the property.
Source; The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. for GNEB.
in this subtropical zone, where western desert meets
thorny shrubland and the South Texas prairie.
The Lower Rio Grande Valley is home to 1,200 plant
species, 300 butterfly species and 700 vertebrate
species, of which 530 are birds. The greatest conserva-
tion challenges to this area are land development, the
availability of water, erosion management, increases in
nonnative pasture for livestock at the expense of native
grassland, and habitat fragmentation.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, "native habitats
in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, particularly in the ripari-
an corridor, remain small and fragmented—even more
so with construction and completion of the border
fence" (Leslie 2016). Similarly, The Nature Conservancy
notes stresses, including habitat disturbance and
destruction, as peculiarly detrimental to the landscape
and survival of wildlife, as hundreds of acres of native
plants are eliminated for CBP's barren "control zone."
The movement of terrestrial life, especially, is restricted
by unnatural barriers (The Nature Conservancy 2008).
Not only does the border wall impose an artificial
division on the southwestern borderlands, once united
by the Rio Grande, it now poses a threat to wildlife
that will not be able to reach the river or range beyond
the wall. The wall also will disrupt the natural seed
distribution of native plants provided by wind and
wildlife and exacerbate the spread of plants that do not
depend on consumption to proliferate. Construction of
a border wall also presents a challenge to the thriving
ecotourism economic activity of the NBC and the Lower
Rio Grande Valley. Declines in ecotourism, an economic
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 2: Challenges and Opportunities, Part I
activity that generates more than $450 million annually
for the Lower Rio Grande Valley, occurred where por-
tions of a border wall already have been constructed
(Woosnam et a I. 2011).
The NBC has spent the past 15 years working to reverse
habitat loss through the deliberate planting of native
host and nectar plants for wild, free-flying butterflies,
all of which face increasing pressure to survive as a
result of climate change, drought, disease and devel-
opment. Most recently, the NBC became home to the
Southernmost Monarch Waystation and is planting
10,000 native milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) and spring
and fall nectar plants to sustain imperiled monarchs
(Danaus plexippus) during seasonal migrations and
provide ecologically appropriate host plants to support
a rebound in species numbers.
Just as the topography of border mountain ranges
presents challenges to the installation of border secu-
rity infrastructure (i.e., fences and access roads) in a
way that minimizes negative environmental impacts,
the Lower Rio Grande Valley also presents significant
challenges. The Rio Grande meanders through the land-
scape, and the adjacent river bottom is generally not
suitable for fence construction as a result of periodic
flooding. The Treaty of November 23,1970, also prohib-
its construction of "works...which...may cause deflection
or obstruction of the normal flow of the river or of its
flood flow" (IBWC 1970). Given that the current design
offences is not suitable for the flood plain, USBP has
placed the fence and support roads on higher ground
on the river's levee, which often is some distance from
the international boundary located in the center of the
river. In the case of the NBC, USBP has proposed locat-
ing the fence along the levee, which is approximately
900 yards from the banks of the Rio Grande. In addition
to installation of an impenetrable barrier, this security
project would remove vegetation from a 150-foot wide
control zone. These actions would fragment the habitat
in an important link of the Lower Rio Grande Valley
wildlife corridor and would impair the functioning of the
NBC. More than half of the NBC's land would be located
south of the fence, igure 1 shows the location of the
NBC and proposed border fence.
2.5 In closing
The Board urges all appropriate federal government
departments and agencies to coordinate closely with
state, local, municipal and tribal governments and local
Figure 10. Map of the National Butterfly Center and
proposed border fence.
Source: The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. for GNEB.
property owners who would be affected by additional
fencing. Starr and Hidalgo Counties in Texas are
emblematic examples of the problems and complex-
ities associated with adding sections of fencing along
the border. Concerns regarding flooding that could
result from additional infrastructure along that section
of the border have been raised continually during
the past decade. Unless it is carefully planned and
designed, additional infrastructure in that section of
the border, particularly within the Santa Ana National
Wildlife Refuge, could have extremely damaging and
likely irreversible ecological and economic effects.
Military
Proposed
Border Wall
Atop Levee
Mexico
Parkway
Existing
Canal Levee
United
States
United
States
Military Parkway
N.B.C.
Visitors
Pavilion
26
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
3.1 Emergency response and
preparedness
A critical element related to border security as well as
to sustainability and resilience of border communities
is emergency response. There is a strong foundation
of hazmat and emergency response preparation and
planning along and across the border, capacity that
can support security efforts in the region. This section
describes how the U.S. and Mexico governments
manage transboundary emergency response, including
agreements, non-binding documents and standard
operating procedures at the federal, state and local
levels. This section relies on three documents: a 1980
agreement between the U.S. and Mexico updated
in 2008 (U.S. Department of State 2008), a U.S.
Department of State 2013 report on transboundary
emergency procedures (U.S. Department of State 2013),
and a 2004 scholarly report (Batchelor 2004). The sister
city plans (USEPA 2017), central to the contingency
plans along the border, also are discussed.
The 1980 agreement (updated in 2008) on emergency
management in case of natural disasters or accidents
provides a framework for U.S.-Mexico cooperation
among nine U.S. and 14 Mexican agencies in a natural
disaster, accident or other emergency, including secu-
rity-related incidents (U.S. Department of State 2008).
lists mandated topics of U.S.-Mexico coopera-
tion (U.S. Department of State 2008). This agreement
authorizes participation of nongovernmental orga-
nizations or businesses and coordination with state,
local and other authorities. The agreement asks each
country to use best efforts to facilitate prompt entry
into and exit from its territory of personnel and recog-
nizes that cooperation is limited to actions authorized
by domestic laws and the availability of funds.
Table 1. The U.S.-Mexico Emergency Cooperation
Agreement
• Exchange of information, experts and techni-
cians as mutually agreed.
• Exchange of information on techniques for
evacuation of persons under emergency
conditions.
• Exchange of information on techniques to
ensure an adequate supply of resources neces-
sary to meet emergency situations.
• Assessment of emergency communications
planning.
• Analysis of the probable effects and potential
risks of particular kinds of disaster in geograph-
ic areas having a high potential for risk.
• Promotion of symposia, conferences, work-
shops and training programs in emergency
management and response.
• Cooperation with other international, govern-
mental or public and private nongovernmental
entities involved in emergency management.
• Other activities, as mutually recommended by
the U.S. Departments of State and Homeland
Security and Mexican ministries of Foreign
Affairs and Governance.
Source: U.S. Department of State (2008).
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 3: Challenges and Opportunities, Part II
If an environmental incident should occur along the
U.S.-Mexico border, local governments will respond ini-
tially and provide emergency response capability prior
to either federal or state agency responses. Local gov-
ernments usually concentrate emergency response and
planning into a few agencies that address fire, police,
emergency medical services or emergency response.
Local governments also deal with private companies
that haul hazmat. In the event of an incident, these
companies may have first responder capability and,
if so, local governments can integrate public sector
responses with private sector capabilities.
For many border communities, the fire department is
the principal agency for emergency response because
those units typically prevent and control fires and
respond to hazmat incidents. In many communities,
fire departments also deliver basic emergency medical
services (EMS) and general emergency response. In
some communities, EMS and emergency manage-
ment departments may be separate. If an office of
emergency management (OEM) exists, it may address
contingency planning and integration of departmental
standard operating procedures. The OEM fulfills state
and federal government legal requirements for each
city to have a single point of contact for emergency
management to create coordination among different
jurisdictions.4 For example, an OEM in one city may
negotiate with neighboring cities and counties, or even
across the U.S.-Mexico border, to institute mutual
aid agreements. The capabilities and organizational
structure of fire departments vary from city to city.
Local emergency personnel respond to incidents
regardless of the nature or cause of the problem. As
emergency causes vary, emergency planning efforts
focus on dealing with the common effects (Texas
Department of Public Safety 2017). For example, fires
and floods both can force people from their homes,
so emergency plans focus on evacuation. Emergency
plans identify key functions and assign responsibility
for carrying out the tasks necessary to complete them.
Typically, the organization or unit tasked with a function
develops a standard operating procedure to ensure
critical tasks are completed, an "all-hazards" approach
so emergency response personnel can respond to any
situation. Eight common functions necessary for local
emergency response operations as identified by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are
listed in (FEMA 2013).
Table 2. Emergency Management Core Facilities
• Direction, Control and Coordination
• Communications
• Warning
• External Affairs/Emergency Public Information
• Population Protection
• Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing and
Human Services
• Public Health and Medical Services
• Logistics Management and Resource Support
Source: FEMA (2013).
On the U.S.-Mexico border, many U.S. cities have signed
mutual aid agreements with their Mexican counter-
parts, sometimes called sister city plans. Currently, 15
sister city plans are in place, listed in . These
agreements include specific guidance for responding
to emergency situations, including accidental leaks
or hazmat spills, and are being updated to account
for emergency situations caused by natural disasters.
Although there have been instances of cross-border
notification and response to emergency situations at
the municipal level, the Joint Contingency Plan has not
been activated since it was signed and implemented in
1999 (Oliveira 2017). Informal binational cooperation
often occurs, as documented in Natural Disasters and
the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border: Eleventh
Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the
President and Congress of the United States (GNEB 2008).
Decontamination for emergency response at an oil refinery plant.
Source: Phonix_a Pk. sarote/Shutterstock.com.
4 Texas Government Code: Texas Disaster Act of 1975. Title 4, Subtitle B, Chapter 418, Subchapter A § 418.101.
28
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 3: Challenges and Opportunities, Part II
Table 3. Current Cross-Border Contingency Plans for U.S.-Mexico Sister Cities
EPA
Region Sister Cities Adoption Date
6
Columbus, New Mexico-Puerto Palomas, Chihuahua
2002
6
El Paso, Texas-Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua -Sunland Park, NM-Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
2007, updated 2009
6
Del Rio, Texas-Ojinaga, Chihuahua
2004, updated 2013
6
Del Rio, Texas-Ciudad Acuna, Coahuila
2001, updated 2013
6
Eagle Pass, Texas-Piedras Negras, Chihuahua
1998, updated 2013
6
Laredo, Texas-Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas
1998, updated 2016
6
McAllen, Texas-Reynosa, Tamaulipas
2000, updated 2009
6
Pharr, Mission, Hidalgo, Edinburg, Weslaco, Donna, Texas; and Rio Bravo,
Tamaulipas, added to McAllen-Reynosa agreement
2009
6
Brownsville, Texas -Matamoras, Tamaulipas
2002, updated 2016
6
Harlingen, Texas and Valle Hermoso, Tamaulipas, added to Brownsville-Matamoros
agreement
2016
9
San Diego, California-Tijuana, Baja California
2013 updated
9
Calexico (Imperial County), California-Mexicali, Baja California
2005, update pending
9
Yuma and San Luis, Arizona-San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora
2000, update pending
9
Nogales, Arizona-Nogales, Sonora
2005, update pending
9
Naco (Cochise County), Arizona-Naco, Sonora
2002, update pending
9
Douglas, Arizona-Agua Prieta, Sonora
2011, update pending
9
TohonoO'Odham Nation, Arizona-Sonoyta, Sonora
pending
Source: US EPA (2017).
These cases include the April 2004 flooding of the Rio
Escondido in Piedras Negras, in which case the mayor
of the Mexican border town requested assistance
directly from CBP, and also severe thunderstorms in
April 2007, during which the Mexican state of Coahuila
and the city of Piedras Negras assisted with clean-up
efforts in Eagle Pass and Maverick County, Texas. These
cross-border linkages for emergency response form a
basic component of border security.
State governments are intermediaries in contingency
planning and emergency response. The federal govern-
ment sets priorities and develops national plans. Local
governments respond to incidents. State governments
enact federal priorities and support local governments
in their response efforts. When an emergency exceeds
the response capability of local governments, state
agencies may become involved in directing and coordi-
nating state response. Disaster preparedness and mit-
igation activities can be ongoing at any time. Response
and recovery activities generally require the declaration
of a state of disaster. A governor may declare a state of
disaster for a particular area if a disaster has occurred
or is imminent. In Texas, for instance, once the gov-
ernor declares a state of disaster, the appropriate
designated agency institutes the appropriate sections
of the state emergency management plan and other
necessary actions to deal with the situation.5
For example, in Texas, the Texas Emergency
Management Executive Guide assigns responsibil-
ities to seven executive branch state agencies and
two services operated by the Texas A&M University
System (Table 4) (Texas Department of Public Safety
2017). The Texas Division of Emergency Management
in the Department of Public Safety is the primary
Texas agency for contingency planning, response
and mitigation. Once the governor declares a state of
disaster, the Texas Division of Emergency Management
may institute the appropriate sections of the state
emergency management plan and other necessary
actions to deal with the situation. Under Texas law, the
governor and his or her duly appointed advisors have
considerable powers in implementing any response
5 Texas Government Code: Texas Disaster Act of1975. Title 4, Subtitle B, Chapter 418, Subchapter A §418.101.
29
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 3: Challenges and Opportunities, Part II
Table 4. Emergency Support Functions (ESF) and Lead Agencies in Texas
I ESF#
Focus
Lead Agency I
1
Transportation
Texas Department of Transportation
2
Communications
Texas Department of Public Safety
3
Public Works and Engineering
Texas Department of Transportation
4
Fire Fighting
Texas A&M Forest Service
5
Emergency Management
Texas Division of Emergency Management
6
Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Housing and Human Services
Texas Division of Emergency Management
7
Logistics Management and Resource Support
Texas Division of Emergency Management
8
Public Health and Medical Services
Texas Department of State Health Services
9
Search and Rescue
Texas A&M Engineering Extension Service
10
Oil and Hazardous Materials Response
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
11
Agriculture and Natural Resources
Texas Department of Agriculture
12
Energy
Public Utility Commission of Texas
13 Public Safety and Security Texas Department of Public Safety
15 External Affairs Texas Department of Public Safety
Note: ESF has been superseded in accordance with the National Disaster Recovery Network.
Source: Texas Department of Public Safety (2017).
strategy. These options range from the use of public
and private resources to the suspension of procedural
rules and laws to the forced movement of people. The
disaster proclamation must specifically state the nature
of the threat and the emergency, and a state of disaster
cannot last longer than 30 days unless extended, the
threat or danger has passed, or until the conditions no
longer exist (Texas Department of Public Safety 2017).
3.2 Federal government involvement
The United States federal emergency management
efforts focus on preparedness, mitigation and recovery
more than response. Federal response efforts are
limited to only the largest incidents, and the federal
government does not get involved in response activities
unless absolutely necessary. Federal response plans
provide the framework for requesting, coordinating
and delivering federal assistance in any federal disaster
or emergency.
In the spirit of preparedness, different federal entities
such as EPA (Regions 6 and 9) and the U.S. Department
of Defense have participated in training exercises
(table-top exercises and formal training such as
Incident Command System) and information exchange
activities and also have donated equipment to sister
city efforts. A successful partnership between EPA
and the U.S. Northern Command in the form of a
Memorandum of Agreement enhanced border pre-
paredness and readiness. The partnership resulted in a
number of benefits:
• Provision of response equipment and train-
ing for 10 Mexican border sister cities during
the past 4 years.
• Training of more than 650 Mexican first
res ponders.
• Training, equipment and technical/training
materials facilitated by $1,919,316 in funding.
The La Paz Agreement established the Mexico-U.S. Joint
Contingency Plan to provide a binational coordination
mechanism for protecting human health and the
environment and responding to significant chemical
and oil contingencies or emergencies that affect the
inland border area between the United States and
Mexico (USEPA 1999). This was finalized under Border
2012. The La Paz Agreement also established the Joint
Response Team (JRT), which has coordinating authorities
for both Mexico and the United States. The JRT com-
prises representatives from U.S. and Mexico federal,
state and local agencies responsible for emergency
prevention, preparedness and response in the border
region. The work of the JRT is supported by a robust
system for the binational notification (Figure 11) of
30
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 3: Challenges and Opportunities, Part II
Mexico
U.S.
CENACOM
National
Response
Centre (NRC1
Co-Chair
USA (JRT)
COATEA7
PROFEPA
Co - Chairs
PROFEPA-
Proteccion Civil
MexjJRH
ISJRT
Co - Chaira
PRQFEPA-
Protcccl6n Civil
MexURTl
NATIONAL RESPONSE
CENTER(NRC)
CENACOM
COATEA/
PROFEPA
Co - Chair
USA (JRT1
EMAs
Regional
Offices USEPA
@
CENACOM: National Communications Center (Civil Protection SEGOB)
COATEA: Center for Orientation and Attention to Emergencies (PROFEPA)
ISJRT: Incident-Specific Joint Response Team
JRT: Joint Response Team (Co-chairs Mexico - PROFEPA, Proteccion Civil, Co-chair U.S. - EPA)
State EMAs: State Emergency Management Agencies
Figure 11. U.S.-Mexico binational notification system.
Source: EPA and SEMARNAT (2016).
Telephone
Fax
Email
a:" |
j .V'
Texas Border Patrol trucks with boats being deployed for rescue missions in flooded areas.
Source: michelmond/Shutcerstock.com.
31
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 3: Challenges and Opportunities, Part II
emergency response incidents, drills and threats and
local Emergency Response Plans developed jointly
by sister cities along the border. It also is supported
by extensive training to provide capacity building to
enhance response readiness, cross-border coordination
and training continuance for hazmat and emergency
response capabilities of both countries.
3.3 Water management, flooding, and
trash and sediment control
Maintaining a balance between effective measures to
secure the border and minimizing the environmental
effects has been challenging. Some of the effects of
increased security measures, especially infrastructure
installation and additional enforcement activities,
include accumulation of sediment and trash, deteri-
oration of water quality, and effects on watersheds
and the environment. The case studies of this section
focus on the security measures implemented, such as
border fences or increased patrols, and the effects that
have been experienced by communities, personnel
or the environment. In some areas, enforcement was
increased, but a borderfence was not constructed. It is
important to evaluate both areas in terms of security,
social, economic, environmental and health effects
to make effective decisions in future strategies for
securing the border. The studies also were selected
to highlight the geographic setting, successes and
concerns that have been seen in the 10 years since the
10th Report; they are representative of the different
landscapes found along the U.S.-Mexico border.
A reclaimed, wetland in El Paso provides rare habitat to birds in
the region.
Source: Krista Schlyer.
3.3.1 Case study: Tijuana River National
Estuarine Research Reserve (TRNERR)
Geographic context
The Tijuana River Watershed is a large, 1,700-square-
mile system straddling the international border
with one-quarter located in the United States and
three-quarters in Mexico (Wright and Vela 2005). The
Tijuana River Watershed includes three POEs, much
of urban Tijuana and dense populations in south San
Diego County, topography from sea level to more than
6,000 feet, diverse microclimates and ecosystems, and
numbers of threatened and endangered species. The
Tijuana River crosses the international border 4 miles
from the coast and drains through an 8-square-mile
valley mainly in the United States and along the border.
A significant portion of the river valley in the United
States is designated as the TRNERR, recognizing the
important ecological, historical and cultural resources
of this region. The reserve is protected and managed
through a federal-state cooperative effort with the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and
California State Parks for long-term research, educa-
tion, training and interpretation. TRNERR and adjacent
areas are important locations for recreation and nature
tourism, especially bird watching because the estuary
is at once a nesting site and stopover on migration for
many avian species.
Issues
TRNERR includes beach, dune, mudflat, salt marsh,
riparian, coastal sage scrub and upland habitats
surrounded by the growing cities of Tijuana, Mexico,
and San Diego and Imperial Beach, California. Border
security and enforcement efforts have had a huge
impact in the area in the past decades as security
imperatives and practices have evolved. Critical issues
faced by the reserve include habitat conservation
and restoration, endangered species management,
management of the wastewater from Mexico, sediment
and solid waste management, and the integration of
recreation activities.
The Tijuana-San Diego interface has been the focus of
increasing installation of border security infrastructure
and more intense enforcement activities since the
1990s. This activity, especially the renewed security
efforts after 9/11, have had a number of environmental
effects, most notably increased sedimentation from
32
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
fence and road construction and increased patrol
activities in vehicles. The construction of the access
roads and enhanced fence were pushed through very
rapidly without accompanying storrnwater infrastruc-
ture and revegetation of disturbed areas. Eventually,
these mitigation steps were taken by USBP, lessening
the sedimentation problem. Threatened species and
important habitats also were adversely affected. These
security activities compounded the effects originating
in upstream urban Tijuana areas consisting of rene-
gade sewage flows and quantities of solid waste and
sediments transported across the border by intense
winter storms.
Partnerships
Other agencies involved in land management in the
river valley include the U.S. Navy, CBP and FWS. The
USIBWC also operates the South Bay International
Wastewater Treatment Plant. The USIBWC's operation
and maintenance costs for 2016 were approximately
$15 million, treating on average 25 million gallons of
sewage per day that originates in Mexico. The USIBWC
also has invested $18.5 million at the facility toward
infrastructure improvements. The International
Wastewater Treatment Plant, serving 800,000 people,
was funded by EPA at a cost of $239.4 million (Liden
2017). Additionally, EPA has invested $1.5 million in
addressing trash and sediment via the Border 2012/
Border 2020 programs and related efforts such as the
West Coast Estuaries Initiative, furthering the effort to
reduce the strain on the Tijuana River ecosystem.
Recognizing the many pressures that a binational and
highly urbanized watershed encounters, partners,
including TRNERR, the State Coastal Conservancy, and
the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board
formed the Tijuana River Valley Recovery Team to
develop a recovery strategy for the valley (Tijuana River
Valley Recovery Team 2012). The recovery strategy and
subsequent actions contributed to the development
by the IBWC of Minute 320 of the 1944 Water Treaty,
which is for binational coordination of the Tijuana
River Watershed, and initially focused on pollution and
sediment issues in the Tijuana River Valley.
Mitigating Impacts
TRNERR approaches water quality issues and trash
and sediment control through a three-pronged
Chapter 3: Challenges and Opportunities, Part II
approach: (1) address the issue at the source through
cross-border partnerships, (2) stop pollutants before
they enter sensitive habitat, and (3) restore healthy
ecosystems that have increased capacity to process
higher levels of pollution. At TRNERR, the majority of
funding has been directed toward the second prong—
stopping pollutants before they enter sensitive estu-
arine habitat. Between 2003 and 2005, two sediment
basins were constructed within the upper floodplain of
Goat Canyon to annually retain more than 40,000 cubic
yards of sediment and trash. As a result, sedimentation
and trash pollution in downstream riparian forest
and marsh habitats has been reduced. Because of the
location of the basins downstream from the urbanized
and degraded watershed in Mexico, however, regular
sediment and trash removal and maintenance is
required.
Cleared and processed sediment from the basin being prepared for
transport off site.
Source: Christopher M. Peregrin, TRNERR.
Since construction in 2005, the Goat Canyon Sediment
Basins have captured nearly one-half million cubic
yards of trash and sediment, allowing for effective
cleanup, increased health of the estuary, and a safer
environment for those that visit, live and work in this
border region. This includes reducing the exposure of
CBP agents to the polluted sediment and trash that is
carried into the Tijuana River Valley. Habitat restoration
efforts have been initiated downstream of the Goat
Canyon Sediment Basins to begin the process of restor-
ing the land damaged by the previous uncontrolled
impacts and further improve the health and safety of
this area.
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 3: Challenges and Opportunities, Part II
The Goat Canyon Sediment Basin in the TRNERR filled, with trash and sediment.
Source: Christopher M. Peregrin, TRNERR.
The City of Laredo is located in Webb County, Texas,
and had a mid-2016 population of 257,156 (U.S. Census
Bureau 2017b). It is expected to continue to grow to
610,669 by 2070 (Texas Water Development Board
2015). Growth along the border is attributed to cultural,
social and economic relationships with Mexico (Texas
Water Development Board 2015). In early 2016, the sis-
ter city of Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, had a population
of 399,431 (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Geografia
2017). Both communities rely on commerce to support
economic development. Equally important is that both
communities rely on the Rio Grande as their primary
water supply. The river also serves as the international
boundary between the two countries.
Access to the Rio Grande for both communities is vital.
The intakes that pump water for drinking and irrigation
are within the river corridor and floodplain. There is a
long history of familial, social and community interac-
tions across the river. The Rio Grande remains a central
focus for both communities and is a core part of their
image. Maintaining the connectedness across the river
is vital for both Laredo and Nuevo Laredo.
The discharge from wastewatertreatment plants,
untreated wastewater renegade flows, and debris and
trash from storms can affect waterquality of the river.
Laredo and Nuevo Laredo have experienced high levels
of fecal indicator bacterial contamination in the Rio
Grande. Since 1998, the communities have expressed
concern about water contact recreation and degraded
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 3: Challenges and Opportunities, Part II
water quality. One of the issues identified was damage
to the sewage collection system in Nuevo Laredo that
caused stormwater and wastewater cross connections.
Sanitation
BECC certified a rehabilitation project for the sewer
collection system to prevent the flow from going to the
stormwater drain system and into the Rio Grande. The
project was completed in 2015, and a study is under
way to evaluate its success.
A small outfall emanating from a concrete structure draining into
the Rio Grande.
Source: IBWC.
Habitat
A section of land in the middle of Laredo (known as
the Riverbend) has been a topic of discussion for more
than a decade. It is within the Rio Grande floodpiain
and has been targeted for restoration by the city for a
number of reasons. The area had been substantially
degraded by encroachment of invasive species, unau-
thorized border crossings, informal sand and gravel
mining, flood damage, security patrols, and other activ-
ities (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013). Historically,
this 77-acre parcel of riparian habitat had supported
wildlife such as migratory birds, endangered species
(jaguarundi [Pumayagouaroundi] and ocelot), and other
animals. The Laredo Riverbend Restoration Project was
initiated in 2015 and includes the restoration of ripari-
an, wetland and aquatic habitat; improvement of water
quality; reduction of erosion; and increase in habitat
quality as part of a migration, foraging and breeding
corridor for common native wildlife and federally and
state listed species (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
2013). The project also will make the area appropriate
for recreation again.
Strategies
Nonstructural measures have been taken. Laredo is
one of the few urban areas along the border where a
borderfence has not been constructed. The Rio Grande
serves as the primary barrier to unauthorized border
crossings. The City of Laredo and CBP work collabora-
tively and have developed a balance that has been fos-
tered since 2006. This partnership serves as an exam-
ple of bridging security measures with community and
environmental values (Rio Grande International Study
Center 2017). Part of restoration activities and invasive
species control is to enhance security measures and
improve habitat quality along the river corridor. CBP
utilizes a border road and boats to conduct patrols. The
City of Laredo and CBP understand that cooperation
and dialog help resolve differences and lead to better
outcomes.
Nonprofit organizations such as the Rio Grande
International Study Center also help to promote activi-
ties to engage citizens from Laredo and Nuevo Laredo
to foster awareness through civic duty and education.
The Rio Grande International Study Center sponsors
cleanups, science fairs and festivals throughout the
year. In 2016, the center had a successful year of
events, including Dia del Rio (water quality monitoring
by high school students throughout the watershed), the
Laredo Birding Festival, and "Loving Laredo" hikes.
Monitoring the Rio Grande.
Source: Rio Grande International Study Center.
The Rio Grande remains a focal point for Laredo and
Nuevo Laredo, and the sister cities continue to work
together to address items that will improve water
quality, reduce trash and create a healthier ecosystem.
The communities firmly believe that a sustainable
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 3: Challenges and Opportunities, Part II
Border Patrol Explorers volunteering at Manadas Creek in Laredo.
Source: Rio Grande International Study Center.
future is one that includes a connection to the river
as a resource and forms part of the community to be
enjoyed and protected.
The Laredo case indicates how effective approaches
to border protection through adaptability and collab-
oration with communities can achieve security goals
while supporting ecotourism and social values and
maximizing the infrastructure budget. Riparian vege-
tation restoration was able to support security efforts
and improve the quality of the local environment. The
Laredo case suggests that effective solutions to border
security and environmental protection challenges differ
along the international border with Mexico.
3.3.3 Case study: Am bos Nogales
Geographic context
The sister cities of Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales,
Sonora, commonly referred to as Ambos Nogales, are
Flooding in Ambos Nogales. Left side of the fence is Nogales,
Arizona; Nogales, Sonora, is on the right.
Source: City of Nogales, Arizona.
linked by the Nogales Wash and the Santa Cruz River.
The Santa Cruz River originates in the Canelo Hills area
of southeastern Arizona and flows south into Mexico
prior to turning northward and re-entering the United
States in Ambos Nogales. Ambos Nogales is in a narrow
valley surrounded by mountain ranges. The population
of Nogales, Arizona, has been stable for several years
at around 20,000 inhabitants (Arizona Commerce
Authority 2017). The 2015 population of Nogales,
Sonora, was 233,952 (Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y
Geografia 2017), and new informal settlements, or colo-
nias populares as they are known in Mexico, continue to
appear on the urban margins as the area increases in
population.
Issues
Wastewater for both communities is treated at the
Nogales International WastewaterTreatment Plant
(NIWTP), located approximately 9 miles north of the
international boundary. Nogales, Arizona, contributes
an average of 2 million gallons per day of wastewater
for treatment, whereas an average of 11 million gallons
per day is contributed by Nogales, Sonora. Wastewater
is conveyed to the NIWTP through the International
Outfall Interceptor. Some metals in wastewater
discharged from Mexico have either exceeded the
NIWTP's operational limits or U.S. regulatory standards.
Additionally, because there are no stormwater man-
agement regulations and inadequate infrastructure in
Mexico, stormwater inflow and infiltration contributes
to binational sanitary sewer overflows during heavy
rainfall.
North of the NIWTP, the treated effluent discharged
into the Santa Cruz River maintains critical riparian
habitat downstream in the United States for many
miles and recharges aquifers that supply potable water
to surrounding communities (GNEB 2016). The treated
wastewater from the NIWTP supports a cottonwood-
willow riparian environment that is designated as a
critical habitat for the endangered Southwestern Willow
flycatcher and also is recognized as an Important Bird
Area (IBA) by the Audubon Society (GNEB 2014). In
2015, the Friends of the Santa Cruz River also detect-
ed the return of the endangered Gila topminnow
downstream of the NIWTP. Its return is attributed to
improved effluent water quality discharges into the
river resulting from infrastructure improvements at the
NIWTP in 2009. Wastewater flows from the NIWTP
36
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 3: Challenges and Opportunities, Part II
also help Arizona comply with the Groundwater
Management Act for safe yield by keeping the Santa
Cruz River aquifer in balance. Under IBWC Minute 276,
however, Mexico has no obligation to deliver waste-
water to Arizona for treatment and eventual discharge
into the Santa Cruz River.
Storm events often contribute to the transfer and
accumulation of waste along Nogales Wash and the
Santa Cruz River in addition to flooding and overflow of
the binational sewage treatment system. The migration
of wastes into the United States via the Nogales Wash
and the Santa Cruz River represents a significant threat
to human health, infrastructure and the environment.
These storm-related effects also pose health and safety
concerns for border security personnel in addition to
the entire community.
Another intense storm in July 2014 destroyed and lifted
sewer mains and caused mudslides in Nogales, Sonora.
The DeConcini POE was closed for approximately 10
hours that day so that port staff could clear out the
one-half inch of sewage and mud in processing areas,
sweep out a storm grate, pick up trash, and move sand
bags (Coppola 2014).
These periodic storms and flooding produce major
damage in Ambos Nogales. The torrential rains and
runoff are complicated by a variety of diverse factors,
such as security infrastructure, solid waste originating
in Mexico, and stormwater infrastructure inadequacies.
The investigation, mitigation and cleanup of the wastes
originating in Mexico and being transported to the
United States are complex issues requiring action on
both sides of the border.
A severe storm in July of 2008 produced significant
runoff, causing manholes to overflow as large amounts
of trash and sediments were swept into the commercial
downtown area. Runoff in this section of the city had
been impeded by the design of the wall separating
the cities, which trapped trash and formed a dam. The
flooding damage caused the pedestrian Morley Avenue
POE to be closed for 16 days as damage to businesses
and streets were cleaned up. Damage to businesses
and infrastructure in Nogales, Sonora, was estimated at
$8 million, and Nogales, Arizona, also experienced sig-
nificant economic loss. The border wall in this section
had been reinforced earlier in 2008 to stem the flow of
drugs and persons entering the United States illegally.
Subsequently, the design of the wall was altered to
reduce flood risk from this security infrastructure
(Coppola 2008).
In 2015, EPA commissioned a waste characterization
study for this watershed. Trash cleanups in the bina-
tional watershed that same year removed 4 tons of
trash in Nogales, Sonora, priortothe monsoon season
Before and after cleanup photos in the Santa Cruz River in Nogales, Arizona.
Source: Booz Allen Hamilton (December 2015)-
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 3: Challenges and Opportunities, Part II
in June, and 29 tons of trash in Nogaies, Arizona, in
December. The tatter cleanup was prioritized because
of the copious amounts of debris that had accumu-
lated around a sewer pipe that connected to the
International Outfall Interceptor.
Another strategy to mitigate the effects of stormwater
flows in Am bos Nogaies involves green infrastructure
such as swales, gabions and other detention features.
Some of these features have been implemented or
supported through projects funded by the Border 2012
and Border 2020 programs.
Nogaies, Sonora, Detention Basin La Beliota.
Source: Watershed Management Group.
The Ambos Nogaies region illustrates complexities in
managing security and environmental challenges in
transborder metropolitan regions. Binational water-
sheds are complex natural systems with complicated
governance issues and require collaboration among
colleagues from each side of the border. Without effec-
tive communication and coordination, dire impacts
are witnessed by the local communities while affecting
the ability of security personnel to safely perform their
jobs. Moving through tunnels and washes that have
been overrun with stormwater and sanitary sewer over-
flows creates public health and safety risks. To mitigate
such occurrences, it is imperative that collaboration
with local stakeholders and security officials continue
for a secure border and economic vitality in the region.
3.3.4 Case study: The New River along the
U.S.-Mexico border region
Geographic context
The New River has been known as a source of envi-
ronmental and health problems since the early 1940s.
The New River is within the Salton Sea Transboundary
Watershed and has its beginnings approximately 20
miles south of the U.S.-Mexico international boundary,
near Cerro Prieto in the Mexicali Valley, Mexico. The
river travels for another 60 miles in the United States
through the Imperial Valley in California before it
discharges its contents into the Salton Sea, California's
largest inland surface water body ( ). In
Mexico, the New River collects agricultural drainage
from the Mexicali Valley as well as stormwater runoff
and industrial and municipal wastewater as it passes
through the City of Mexicali on its way through the City
of Calexico, California. In California, the river collects
municipal treated wastewater, stormwater runoff and
agricultural runoff from the Imperial Valley before it
discharges its flow into the Salton Sea. The New River
is encased in the Mexicali metropolitan area, and it
crosses into Calexico near the U.S.-Calexico West POE
( )¦
New River security and environmental issues
In 2013, the IBWC estimated the average flow of the
New River was between 80-100 million gallons per
day (3.5-4.4 cubic meters per second) at the border.
Although several actions implemented in Mexico during
the last decade have significantly improved the water
quality of the flows, the New River still fails to meet U.S.
Clean Water Act water quality standards as it enters the
United States, in particular pathogen-indicator bacteria
standards established to protect public health. Sewage
infrastructure problems in Mexicali produce discharges
of raw municipal sewage from 0.7 to close to 15 million
gallons per day into the New River. A recent estimate
is that approximately $80 million would be required to
correct infrastructure problems in Mexicali (California
Regional Water Quality Control Board 2017). This also
contributes to the New River being the most polluted
river in California. The New River poses a health threat,
especially for people who have contact with the river's
waters. Although encased in Mexico, it still is used by
migrants who attempt to cross into the United States.
38
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 3: Challenges and Opportunities, Part II
SALTON SEA
WATERSHED
BLYTHE
MECCA
CALIFORNIA
CHOCOLATE
MOUNTAINS
BOMBAY
BEACH
SALTON
CITY
ARIZONA
SALTON SEA
NILAND
SALTON SEA
WATERSHED
CALIPATRIA
WESTMORLAND
SALTON SEA
WATERSHED
SANTA ROSA
MOUNTAINS
ALAMO RIVER
SUBWATERSHED
NEW RIVER
SUBWATERSHED
IIMPERIAL
HOLTV1LLE
OCOVLLO
MEXICAU
Figure 12. The New River geographical location.
Source: New River Improvement Project Technical Advisory Committee (2011).
Exposure to the river's waters has negative health
implications for migrants and the U.S. security person-
nel who apprehend them.
The impairments of the New River include pathogens,
dissolved oxygen, nutrients, pesticides, metals, trash
and sediment, and others. The tributary drains to the
New River in Mexicali continue to be dumping grounds
for trash and are one of the main sources of trash
that is brought across the border by the river flows.
In the United States, the primary sources of pollution
are agricultural runoff from the Imperial Valley, which
carries nutrients, sediments and pesticides. Stormwater
runoff also contributes to the water quality problems
but to a lesser degree.
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board's
Colorado River Basin Region estimates that about
120 tons of trash are dumped every year into the
New River and its tributaries (New River Improvement
Project Technical Advisory Committee 2011). Solid
waste transported in the New River is not removed and
accumulates downstream. The two screens installed by
the Border Patrol are to deter illegal border crossers
and not to remove trash. The California-Mexico Border
Relations Council's New River strategic plan recom-
mends that the U.S. government either (1) construct/
install/operate/maintain trash screens immediately
downstream from the International Boundary in the
United States or (2) assist Mexico to construct/install/
operate/maintain trash screens immediately upstream
from the International Boundary in Mexico (Technical
Advisory Committee for New River Strategic Plan 2016).
The strategic plan also recommends encasing the New
River from a point immediately downstream from the
border to a point downstream from where the river
crosses the West Branch of the All-American Canalto
isolate the contaminated waters from possible human
contact.
39
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 3: Challenges and Opportunities, Part II
Calexico West Port of Entry
New River Encasement
Figure 13. The New River is encased until it nears the border, but it is not encased in the United States.
Source:Jose Francisco Zamora-Arroyo, Sonoran Institute (November 2016).
Screen placed across the New River by the U.S. Border Patrol.
Designed to stop people, the screen also traps solid waste.
Source: Watershed Management Group.
Chemical and biological problems and solid waste in
the New River present challenges for the surrounding
communities and present risk not only for migrants
who attempt to use the waterway to cross into the
United States but also for USBP and local emergency
response personnel who have contact with the river's
waters. Addressing these problems in a cost-effective
way requires not only coordination across the border
but also careful planning and cooperation by security
agencies and other stakeholders. The screens across
the New River installed by the USBP to deter migrant
movement provide an example of a missed opportunity
to include environmental benefits into the original
border security infrastructure design. As installed, the
screens are raised to let accumulated trash float down
the river instead of removing this material. A better
design would provide the necessary barrier to human
passage, but would remove the trash from the river
for proper disposal (New River Improvement Project
Technical Advisory Committee 2011). With proactive
involvement of local and state authorities, a solution
that provides security and removes trash could have
been designed and installed, with benefits to all
stakeholders.
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
his 18th Report examines the environmental
implications of increased border security infra-
structure within the context of GNEB's 10th Report
from 2007 and its advice letter of December 2009, both
of which addressed border environment and security.
The earlier GNEB report provided general and specific
recommendations for meeting the security and envi-
ronmental needs of the border region. Appendices of
this report provide detailed descriptions of the recom-
mendations from the 2007 10th Report and December
2009 advice letter and actions taken by federal agen-
cies to address those concerns.
The 10th Report and December 2009 advice letter also
provide recommendations of a more general nature.
Most important are the recommendations in two areas.
First, the Board advised that federal policy makers
concentrate on stronger communication and collabo-
ration between security agencies and environmental
protection and land management agencies on matters
relating to border security and border security infra-
structure. Second, the Board recommended strategic
mixing of technology and infrastructure to reflect differ-
ent security and environmental needs for the varied
geography of the border (GNEB 2007, 2009).
In the 18th Report, the Board focuses on five key over-
lapping challenges where environmental protection
intersects with border security (1) tourism and recre-
ation economy; (2) habitat integrity and wildlife corridors;
(3) water management, flooding, and trash and sediment
control; (4) hazmat and emergency response; and (5) air
quality. Please see Chapte and for a more in-depth
discussion of each of the following recommendations,
with the exception of the first recommendation below,
which is discussed in Chapter 1.
Coordination of agency planning and
implementation with local border
communities
• The Board recommends continued careful
planning and coordination among federal
agencies to mitigate the impacts as border
security infrastructure is built out and
enforcement activities intensify. Advance
planning, coordination and stakeholder
participation will improve security infrastruc-
ture, facilitate the meeting of both security
and environmental goals, and help to avoid
expensive mistakes.
• The Board recognizes the improvements in
coordination between DHS and land man-
agement and environmental agencies since
its 10th Report and December 2009 advice
letter. GNEB urges that those efforts continue
and also include active participation of other
stakeholders, including state, tribal and local
governments as well as the private sector,
academics and border communities.
• DHS, DO I and USDA are encouraged to meet
annually to coordinate their activities and
identify successes and challenges as well
as future issues and concerns. The annual
41
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 4: Recommendations
"Border Forum" that has been focused on
Arizona should be expanded to include all
those involved in land management and
border security in the four southwestern
border states.
• The Rescue Beacon Program operated by
USBP has been very helpful in reducing
the number of fatalities in remote areas.
Likewise, DOI agencies have much improved
their permitting of this activity. The Board
encourages these efforts and recommends
expansion as deemed necessary by USBP
and land management agencies.
• Consultation with tribes should be initiated at
the earliest possible time to assure that input
on impacts to tribal interests is received and
incorporated into project planning. Tribes
are in the best position to identify Native
American grave sites, historic sites, tribal
natural resources or other sites of particular
spiritual value that could be affected.
• The PLLA Program established by the USBP
has been extremely valuable in terms of
developing relationships and enhancing coor-
dination and communication among federal,
state and local entities with responsibilities
in the border region. USBP should continue
to support and develop this program as a
means to enhance border security while
also protecting the environment. Programs
to educate USBP agents on environmental
issues should be continued. Efforts to edu-
cate DOI, USDA, and state and local entities
on the work of USBP have been very helpful
and should be expanded.
• Coordination with the IBWC is encouraged to
avoid unintended effects on the flow of the
Rio Grande, Colorado River and Tijuana River
and ensure compliance with international
treaties with Mexico. Implementation of
Minute 320 of the IBWC 1944 Water Treaty
to address pollution and sediment issues in
the Tijuana River Valley basin also should be
pursued.
• The Board recommends that access to
federal lands should continue to be managed
under the terms of the 2006 MOU signed by
USDA, DOI and DHS. The work at Organ Pipe
Cactus National Monument has proven that
the overriding need for access for border
security can be provided while also restoring
and conserving unique and valuable habitats.
• Proactive planning and cooperation with
border stakeholders can enable DHS to
address security concerns and meet the
environmental needs of the border region.
A number of efforts initiated during the past
decade should be continued.
Reduce the environmental footprint of
infrastructure
• The environmental footprint of border
security infrastructure remains a concern
of the Board. When possible, avoidance of
large infrastructure projects in riparian areas,
mountainous terrain and other sensitive
habitats is recommended. At the same time,
GNEB urges DHS to expand the successful
restoration efforts on unused access roads
and informal trails and roads established by
illegal activities.
• Use of surveillance technology such as inte-
grated fixed towers, ground sensors, remote
video surveillance towers, and other methods
have proven to be very helpful in detecting
illegal activity and directing the appropri-
ate law enforcement response. Wherever
feasible, the Board encourages the use of the
appropriate technologies to enhance border
security and reduce the footprint of border
security measures.
• Use of green infrastructure as natural
barriers to the transport of undocumented
peoples or goods should be examined as an
option to improve physical border security
and environmental quality where viable.
42
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 4: Recommendations
Protect wildlife migration and habitat
corridors
• The Board recommends that DHS engage all
stakeholders to develop and design inno-
vative approaches to ensure that sensitive
species can move back and forth across the
border while still meeting security needs.
• The Board recommends the monitoring of
environmental impacts, including impacts on
hydrology and wildlife movements, to assist
in the design of future border security infra-
structure and the development of possible
mitigation measures for impacts that may be
detected through monitoring.
• In the design of border security infrastruc-
ture, DHS should seek to minimize or avoid
measures that would impede the flow of
wildlife across the landscape. Recognizing
that some structures by their very nature
may have impacts, measures such as the oce-
lot openings in south Texas could be used.
• Design of vehicle barriers that preclude
passage of motorized vehicles should be
developed so that movement of large mam-
mals (e.g., deer, sheep, pronghorn antelope)
still would be possible.
• Joint projects with tribes and federal and
state agencies to remove invasive plants
from riparian areas should be expanded.
Utilize environmental reviews to mitigate
unintended impacts
• If the DHS Secretary waives environmental
review, several measures can be undertaken
to avoid or minimize impacts on the environ-
ment, archeological and historic resources.
DHS should coordinate, to the extent practi-
cable, with DOI and USDA land management
agencies, as well as appropriate state and
local land managers, to avoid unintended
effects of border security infrastructure.5
• Although traditional documents required
by NEPA and the Endangered Species Act
would not be required under the waiver,
Environmental Stewardship Plans prepared
under previous waivers are helpful in reduc-
ing negative effects through planning and in
documenting work done. DHS is encouraged
to prepare similar documents if a waiver is
invoked for future work.
• The Board recommends that DHS use NEPA
or equivalent procedures for scientific and
public input as well as continued research to
avoid impending disasters.
Enhance efforts to reduce flooding and trash
and sedimentation flows
• The Board recommends routine coordination
of all stakeholders with IBWC and other
agencies to avoid flooding and excess sedi-
mentation caused by security infrastructure.
Not only will this help to reduce disastrous
events, but it also can significantly help to
address environmental problems. For exam-
ple, screens across waterways to impede
unauthorized migrants can be designed to
avoid flooding during storm events. They also
can be designed to facilitate removal of solid
waste from rivers and storm drains.
• Although the USIBWC received millions of
dollars under the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act to improve the levee sys-
tem along the Rio Grande, millions more are
needed to get the entire system up to FEMA
standards and protect against hurricanes in
the Rio Grande Valley.
• The Southern Arizona Project led by the BLM
should continue. This effort has resulted in
substantial reductions in trash and debris
resulting from illegal immigrant traffic. BLM
also has facilitated collaboration among law
enforcement agencies with activities such as
Operation Reclaim Our Arizona Monuments,
which have helped to reduce drug and
human smuggling in the Tucson area.
6 For example, this could be achieved through coordination with land managers on affected DOI and USDA lands as early as possible.
Assistance could be provided to DHS on particularly sensitive fish and wildlife habitat and archeological and historic resources as
well as possible conflicts with existing public use of parks, refuges and BLM lands. Activities in proximity to Bureau of Reclamation
facilities also could be coordinated to avoid impacts on water delivery.
43
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Chapter 4: Recommendations
Continue and expand cross-border fire and
other emergency response systems
• Communication across the border with first
responders should be enhanced. Sharing
resources to assist with response to wild fires
could be improved through coordination and
sharing of personnel and resources.7
• Enhance communication efforts across the
border for response on other binational
situations, such as sanitary sewer overflows,
to facilitate timely responses to mitigate
environmental or public health emergencies.
• The ability of emergency response personnel
to cross the border, along with their requisite
equipment, to promptly respond to emer-
gency situations remains a challenge in the
border region. Identifying best practices,
such as the Douglas, Arizona, sister city
agreement, promoting those practices and
enhancing them if applicable may stimulate
the genesis of additional effective solutions.
• Points of contact for USDA, DOI and DHS
should be identified at the headquarters level
to ensure that the coordination and resolu-
tion of issues and concerns can be efficiently
facilitated when needed during emergencies.
Seek further reductions in border-crossing
times to improve air quality
The Board recommends that DHS continue
to reduce border-crossing times at POEs
for passengers, private vehicles and cargo.
Faster processing of vehicles not only reduc-
es inconvenience and costs for travelers but
reduces air pollution, with health benefits
to people at the POEs and surrounding
communities.
Address aging infrastructure in border
communities
Aging wastewater infrastructure in border com-
munities, especially in Mexico, is resulting in
failures of the collection system and causing
spills that produce environmental and
health concerns. The original infrastructure
projects and loan programs now are limiting
the cities' capacities to obtain loans to pay
for the improvements. A detailed study is
needed to identify the extent of the problem
as well as mechanisms for paying for the
infrastructure.^-
7 A model could be the Mexico/United States Bilateral Response Plan (MEXUS Plan) to coordinate transboundary responses for
marine waters and both Gulf and Pacific Annexes. The MEXUS Plan was updated and signed on July 11, 2017> by the U.S. Coast
Guard and Secretarfa de Marina (Mexican Navy).
44
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
References
A
Andrew, J. 2017a. "Department of Interior Land Management and
Trust Responsibilities on the Southwest Border." Presented at the
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting, Imperial Beach,
CA, February 9-10,2017.
Andrew,J. 2017b. E-mail communication. May 31.
Arizona Commerce Authority. 2017. "Community Profile for
Nogales." Retrieved June 29. www.azcommerce.com/a/profiles/
Vi ew P rof i le/87/Nogales.
Batchelor, J. 2004. Emergency Response to Environmental Incidents
on the Texas-Mexico Border. Austin, TX: The University of Texas at
Austin.
Baverstock, A. 2017. "Experts Warn 800 Species, Many
Endangered, Affected by Border Wall." Fox News, April 10. www.
foxnews.com/world/2017/04/10/ex perts-warn-800-s pec ies-many-
end angered-affected-by-border-wa 11 .htm I.
BECC (Border Environment Cooperation Commission). 2017.
"Border Environment Cooperation Commission." Retrieved August
14. www.becc.org.
Bighorn Institute. 2017. "Endangered Peninsular Bighorn
Sheep." Retrieved August 14. www.bighorninstitute.org/
endangered-peninsular-bighorn.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2017. Resolution
No. R7-2017-0022: Requesting the Federal Government Take
Decisive and Timely Action to Ensure Mexico Eliminates Bypasses
of Raw Sewage From Mexicali Into the New River. Palm Desert CA:
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Colorado River
Basin Region.
CBP (U.S. Customs and Border Protection). 2017a. "CBP'sTijuana
River Valley Recovery Efforts and Impacts of Transboundary Flows
on Border Security." Presented at the San Diego Regional Water
Quality Control Board Meeting, San Diego, CA.June 21,2017.
www.waterboards.ca.gov/sandiego/board info/agendas/2017/
Iun/item8/ltem8 SD11 BorderPatrol Presentation.pdf.
CBP. 2017b. "U.S. Border Patrol Fiscal Year Staffing Statistics
FY1992-FY2016."January 3. www.cbp.gov/document/stats/
u s- b o r d e r- pa tro I -f i sea l-y ea r- staff i n g-statistic s-fy-1992-fy- 2016.
CBP. 2017c. "United States Border Patrol Southwest Border
Sectors Total Illegal Alien Apprehensions by Fiscal Year
(FY1960-FY2016)." Retrieved June 25, 2017. www.cbp.gov/sites/
default/files/assets/documents/2016-Qct/BP%20Southwest%20
Border%20Sector%20Apps%20FY1960%20-%20FY2016.pdf.
CBP. 2017d. "CBP Requests Proposals for Border Wall Prototypes."
Press Release. March 17.
Ceballos, G. and J. Pacheco. 2017. Vertebrados de la Frontera
Mexico-Estados Unidosy el Impacto del Muro Fronterizo. Internal
report. Mexico City, Mexico: Instituto de Ecologfa, National
Autonomous University of Mexico, Ciudad Universitaria.
Clarke, C. 2016. 'Trump's Border Wall Would Be the World's
Longest Concrete Dam." KCET, May 10. www.kcet.org/redefine/
trumps-border-wall-would-be-the-worlds-longest-concrete-dam.
Cohn, J. 2007. 'The Environmental Impacts of a Border Fence."
Bioscience 57(1 ):96.
Collier, K. and N. Satija N. 2017. "Scientists Say Trump's
Border Wall Would Devastate Wildlife Habitat." The Texas
Tribune, March 3. www.texastribune.org/2017/03/03/
environmental-impacts-border-wall.
Coppola, M. 2014. "Flooding Forces Closure at DeConcini Port of
Entry." Nogales International, July 7. www.nogalesinternational.
com/ ne ws/f I ooding-forces-closure-at-deconcini-port-of-e ntry/
article b8471558-0638-11 e4-a64b-001 a4bcf887a.html.
Coppola, M. 2008. "Flood Strikes Nogales Again." Nogales
International, August 14. www.nogalesinternational.com/news/
flood-strikes-nogales-again/article7aa094ef-221 f- 521 e-8e ce -4c d f-
771da678.html.
DHS(U.S. Department of Homeland Security). 2017a. DHS Issues
Waiver to Expedite Border Construction Projects in San Diego
Area. Press Release. August 1. www.dhs.gov/news/2017/08/01/
d hs- i ss ue s-wa i ve r-ex p ed ite - bo rd e r-c o n str u cti o n - p roj ects- sa n-d i -
ego-area.
DHS. 2017b. CBP's Border Security Efforts—An Analysis of Southwest
Border Security Between the Ports of Entry. OIG-17-39. February 27.
Washington, D.C.: Office of the Inspector General, DHS. www.oig.
d hs. gov/sites/d ef a u It/f i I es/a ssets/2017/QIG -17-39- Fe b17.pdf.
DHS. 2007. "Razing Cane: Research to Rid the Border of Weeds."
Originally published May 2007; retrieved May 26,2017. www.dhs.
gov/science-and-technology/razing-cane.
Dickson, G. 2017. 'This Fort Worth Company Has a New Concept
for Trump's Border Wall." Fort Worth Star-Telegram, June 2. www,
sta r-te legram.com/n ews/ local/community/fo rt-wo rth/a rti -
c le154133434. htm I.
Esquina, H. 2017. Why You Should Care: Trump's Order on the
Border Wall. Defenders of Wildlife Blog, January 25. www.defend-
ersblog.org/2017/01/care-trumps-order-border-wall.
FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 2013.
"Emergency Management Core Functions." Welcome to IS-0230.d:
Fundamentals of Emergency Mangement. Emmitsburg, MD:
Emergency Management Institute, FEMA. emilms.fema.gov/
IS0230d/FEM0107040text. htm.
Fernandez, M. 2016. "U.S.-Mexico Teamwork Where the Rio
Grande Is but a Ribbon." The New York Times, April 22. www.
nytimes.com/2016/04/23/us/us-mexico-teamwork-where-the-rio-
grande-is-but-a-ribbon.html.
Flesch, A.D., C.W. Epps, J.W. Cain III, M. Clark, P.R. Krausman, and
J.R. Morgart. 2010. "Potential Effects of the United States-Mexico
Border Fence on Wildlife." Conservation Biology 24(1 ):171-181.
Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe. 2017. "Environmental
Department." Retrieved June 26. www.quechantribe.com/depart-
m ents-e nviro nm e nta I. htm I.
Fthenakis, V. and K. Zweibel. 2017. "A Shiny New Border Wall That
Could Pay for Itself." Wall Street Journal, March 8. www.wsj.com/
articles/a-shiny-borde r-wa 11 -th at- p ays-fo r- itse If-1488931053
45
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
References
FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2015. Draft Recovery Plan
for the Sonoran Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis),
Second Revision. Albuquerque, NM: FWS Region 2. www.fws.gov/
southwest/es/Documents/SpeciesDocs/SonoranPronghorn/
So no ran Pronghorn Draft Recovery Plan Final December2014.pdf
FWS. 2000. Recovery Plan Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges,
California. Portland, OR: FWS Region 1. www.fws.gov/ca r Is bad/
SpeciesStatusList/RP/20001025 RP PBS.pdf
FWS and U.S. Census Bureau. 2013.2011 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation—Texas. FHW/11 -NAT
(RV). Washington, D.C.: FWS and U.S. Census Bureau, www.census.
gov/prod/2012pubs/fhw11 -nat.pdf
Galvan, A. 2016. "Feds: Joint US-Mexico Border
Inspections Shorten Wait Times." AP News, August 4.
apnews.com/58b707c5c018430799208220c9fda910/
f ed s-j o i nt-us-m ex ico-border-inspections-shorten-wait-times.
Ganster, P. and D. Lorey. 2016. The U.S.-Mexican Border Today:
Conflict and Cooperation in Historical Perspective. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Gaskill, M. 2016. 'The Environmental Impact of the U.S.-
Mexico Border Wall." Newsweek, February 14. www.newsweek.
com/2016/02/26/environ mental-impact-us-mexico-bo r-
d e r-wa11-426310. htm I
GNEB (Good Neighbor Environmental Board). 2016. Climate
Change and Resilient Communities Along the U.S.-Mexico Border: The
Role of Federal Agencies: Seventeenth Report of the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United
States. EPA 202-R-16-001. December. Washington, D.C.: EPA, www.
epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-12/documents/17th gneb
report publication 120516 final 508.pdf.
GNEB. 2014. Ecological Restoration in the U.S.-Mexico Border Region:
Sixteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the
President and Congress of the United States. EPA 130-R-14-001.
December. Washington, D.C.: EPA, www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2016-12/documents/16th gneb report english final web.
pdf.
GNEB. 2009. "GNEB Advice Letter: Recommendations Regarding
the Environmental Effects of the Construction and Maintenance
of the U.S.-Mexico Border Fence and Associated Infrastructure."
December 2. www.epa.gov/faca/good-neighbor-environmen-
tal-board-gneb-2009-comment-letters-and-responses.
GNEB. 2008. Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-
Mexico Border: Eleventh Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental
Board to the President and Congress of the United States. EPA
130-R-08-001. March. Washington, D.C.: EPA. www.epa.gov/sites/
prod uction/files/documents/english-gneb-11th-report.pdf.
GNEB. 2007. Environmental Protection and Border Security
on the U.S.-Mexico Border: Tenth Report of the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United
States. EPA 130-R-07-003. March. Washington, D.C.: EPA, www.
epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-06/documents/Q1 gneb 10th
english.pdf.
GNEB. 2004. "GNEB Advice Letter: Damage Caused by Invasive
Aquatic and Riparian Species on the U.S.-Mexico Border."
October 20. www.epa.gov/faca/good-neighbor-environmen-
tal-board-gneb -2004-c omment-letters-and-responses.
Greenwald, N., B. Sefee, T. Curry, and C. Bradley. A Wall in the
Wild: The Disastrous Impacts of Trump's Border Wall on Wildlife.
May. Tucson, AZ: Center for Biological Diversity, www, bio logical-
dive rsity.org/programs/internationa l/borderlands and bound-
ary waters/pdfs/A Wall in the Wild .pdf.
IBWC (International Boundary and Water Commission). 1970.
'Treaty to Resolve Pending Boundary Differences and Maintain
the Rio Grande and Colorado River as the International
Boundary." Article IV B.(1). TIAS 7313. www.ibwc.gov/Files/1970
Treaty.pdf.
Instituto Nacional de Estadfstica y Geograffa. 2017. "Encuesta
Intercensal 2015." Retrieved August 14. www.beta.inegi.org.mx/
proyectos/enchogares/especia les/intercensal.
Joint Advisory Committee. 2017. "Joint Advisory Committee."
Retrieved September 10. www.cccjac.org.
Kear, T.P., J.H. Wilson, and J.J. Corbett. 2012. United States-Mexico
Land Ports of Entry Emissions and Border Wait-Time White Paper
and Analysis Template. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Federal Highway
Administration, trid.trb.org/view/1250038
Koerner, EM. 2012. Borderland Management Taskforces and U.S.
Customs and Border Protection Liaison Programs: Vehicles for
Greater NEPA Public Involvement? National Environmental Policy
Act Education and Certificate Program Capstone Paper, Duke
Environmental Leadership Program, Nicholas School of the
Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC.
Kolef, P., A. Lira-Noriega, T. Urquiza, and E. Morales. 2007.
"Priorities for Biodiversity Conservation in Mexico's Northern
Border." In A Barrier to Our Shared Environment: The Border Fence
Between the United States and Mexico (Cordova A, de la Parra CA,
eds.). San Angel, Mexico, D.F.: Cominicacion Objetiva, pp. 129-144.
Lasky, J.R., W. Jetz, and T.H. Keitt. 2011. "Conservation
Biogeography of the US-Mexico Border: A Transcontinental
Risk Assessment of Barriers to Animal Dispersal." Diversity and
Distributions 17(4):673-687.
Lee, E., C.E. Wilson, F. Lara-Valencia, C.A. de la Parra, R. Van Shoik,
K. Patron-Soberano, E.L. Olson, and A. Selee. 2013. The State of the
Border Report: A Comprehensive Analysis of the U.S.-Mexico Border.
May. Washington, D.C.: The Wilson Center, w ww.wi I so nc e nte r. o rg/
sites/default/files/mexico state of border O.pdf.
Leslie, D.M.,Jr. 2016. An International Borderland of Concern:
Conservation of Biodiversity in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
Scientific Investigations Report 2016-5078. Washington D.C.: U.S.
Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey. Prepared in
cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Oklahoma
State University, pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2016/5078/sir20165078.pdf
Liden, D. 2017. Personal communication. August 2.
LinnellJ.D.C., A. Trouwborst, L. Boitani, P. Kaczensky, D. Huber, S.
Reljic.J. Kusak, A. Majic, T. Skrbinsek, H. Potocnik, M.W. Hayward,
E.J. Milner-Gulland, B. Buuveibaatar, K.A. Olson, L. Badamjav, R.
Bischof, S. Zuther, and U. Breitenmoser. 2016. "Border Security
Fencing and Wildlife: The End of the Transboundary Paradigm in
Eurasia?" PLoS Biology 14(6):e1002483. doi.org/10.1371/journal,
p bio.1002483.
NADB (North American Development Bank). 2017. "North
American Development Bank: Mission. Retrieved August 14. www.
nadbank.org/about/mission.asp.
The Nature Conservancy. 2008. "Conservation Profile: Lower
Rio Grande Valley." Fact Sheet. Arlington, VA: The Nature
Conservancy, www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamer-
i ca /u n ite d state s/te xa s/p I a c eswe p rote ct/r io -g ra n d e-f a ct-sh eet-
1008-lowres-2.pdf
Nee ley, J. 2011. "Over the Line: Homeland Security's
Unconstitutional Authority to Waive All Legal Requirements for
the Purpose of Building Border Infra str uctu re/"A rizon a Journal
of Environmental Law & Policy 1(2):142. www.ajelp.com/articles/
46
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
References
over-the-line-homeland-secu r itys- u n co nstitutio na l-a uth o r-
ity-to-wa i ve-a 11 -1 ega I- re q u i re m e nts-fo r-the - p u r p ose- of- b u i I-
d i n g- b o rd e r- i nf r a stru ctu re/
New River Improvement Project Technical Advisory Committee.
2011. Strategic Plan: New River Improvement Project Sacramento,
CA: California-Mexico Border Relations Council.
NPS (National Park Service). 2014. Inventory and Assessment of
Undesignated Vehicle Routes on Department of the Interior Lands in
the SBInetAjo-1 Project Area and Vicinity, Southwestern Arizona. Fort
Collins, CO: NPS, U.S. Department of the Interior, sc ience. nature.
nps.gov/im/units/sodn/assets/docs/QRPI Roads final sm.pdf
NPS. 2008. Effects of the International Boundary Pedestrian Fence
in the Vicinity of LukevilIe, Arizona, on Drainage Systems and
Infrastructure, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Arizona. Ajo,
AZ: NPS, U.S. Department of the Interior. www.npr.org/docu-
ments/2017/apr/FloodReport July2008 final.pdf
Office of Management and Budget. 2017. Budget of the U.S.
Government: A New Foundation for American Greatness: Fiscal Year
2018. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, www,
wh ite h o u se. gov/ s ites/wh itehouse.gov/files/omb/budget/fy2018/
budgetpdf
Oliveira, B. 2017. Personal commincation. June 19.
Peach, J. and J. Williams. 2000. "Population and Economic
Dynamics on the U.S.-Mexican Border: Past, Present, and
Future." In The U.S.-Mexican Border Environment: A Road Map to a
Sustainable 2020 (Ganster P, ed.). SCERP Monograph Series, No. 1.
San Diego, CA: Southwest Center for Environmental Research and
Policy and SDSU Press.
Phys.org. 2017. "Southern California Mountain Lions' Genetic
Connectivity Dangerously Low." Phys.org, June 15. phys.org/
news/2017-06-southern-ca I ifornia-mounta in-lions-genetic .htm I.
Quintana, P.J.E., P. Ganster, P.E. Stigler Granados, G. Munoz-
Melendez, M. Quintero-Nunez, and J. Guillermo Rodrfdguez-
Ventura. 2015. "Risky Borders: Traffic Pollution and Health Effects
at US-Mexican Ports of Entry Journal of Borderlands Studies
30(3):287-307.
Rio Grande International Study Center. 2017.'The Rio Grande
International Study Center." Retrieved June 29. www.rgisc.org.
San Diego Association of Governments. 2007.2007 Update:
Economic Impacts of Wait Times in the San Diego-Baja California
Border Region. San Diego, CA: San Diego Association of
Governments, sandiegohealth.org/sandag/sandag pubs 2009-7-
25/publicationid 1181 5101.pdf
Schwartz, J. 2017. New Map Details Trump's Texas Border Wall
Plan, Renewing Flood Concerns. Austin American-Statesman, August
11. www.mystatesman.com/news/state--regional/new-map-
details-trump-texas-border-wall-plan-renewing-flood-concerns/
PZxHOkZIAbl X8c5ltGL2nO.
Smith, L.A., S. Mukerjee, G.J. Monroy, and F.E. Keene. 2001.
Preliminary Assessments of Spatial Influences in the Am bos
Nogales Region of the US-Mexican Border. Science of the Total
Environment 276(1 -3):83-92.
Sullivan, J. 2016. "What Would Trump's Wall Mean for
Wildlife?" BBC News, September 1. www.bbc.com/news/
science-environment-37200583.
Technical Advisory Committee for New River Strategic Plan. 2016.
Proposed Revised Recommendations for Calexico Reach of New River.
www, oa I. c a. go v/wp -co nte nt/u p lo a d s/ sites/34/2016/10/Bo rd e r-
CMBRC-2016yr-ProposedRec.pdf
Texas Department of Public Safely. 2017. Texas Emergency
Management Executive Guide: FY2017 Edition. May. Austin, TX:
Texas Division of Emergency Management, Texas Department of
Public Safety, www.dps.texas.gov/d e m /G ra ntsRe so u rc es/e xe c-
Guide.pdf.
Texas Parks & Wildlife. 2017. 'The Economic Benefits of Wildlife
Watching in Texas." Retrieved March 12. tpwd.texas.gov/landwa-
ter/land/programs/tourism/economic benefits/index.phtml.
Texas Secretary of State. 2014. Tracking the Progress of State-
Funded Projects That Benefit Colonias. Austin, TX: Colonias
Initiatives Program, Texas Border and Mexican Affairs Division,
Texas Secretary of State.
Texas Water Development Board. 2015.2016 Rio Grande Regional
Water Plan: Volume I. Austin, TX: Texas Water Development
Bo a rd. www.twd b ,te xa s .g ov/wate rplanning/rwp/plans/2016/M/
Region M 2016 RWPV1.pdf
Tijuana River Valley Recovery Team. 2012. Recovery Strategy: Living
With the Water. San Diego, CA: San Diego Regional Water Quality
Control Board, www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb9/water issues/
tijuana river valley strategy/docs/Recovery Strategy Living with
the Water.PDF
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2013. Draft Integrated Detailed
Project Report and Environmental Assessment: Laredo River bend 206
Restoration Project. Fort Worth, TX: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Fort Worth District, www.swf.usace.army.mil/PortaIs/47/docs/
Environmental/EA/Laredo DPR EA August 2013.pdf
U.S. Census Bureau. 2017a. "American FactFinder." Retrieved May
26. factfinder.census.gov.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2017b. "U.S. Census QuickFacts: United
States." Retrieved August 14. www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/
table/laredoc itytexa s/PST045216.
U.S. Department of State. 2013. Memorandum: Agency by Agency:
Emergency Management Engagement With Mexico. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of State.
U.S. Department of State. 2008. Agreement Between the
Government of the United States of America and the Government of
the United Mexican States on Emergency Management Cooperation in
Cases of Natural Disasters and Accidents. Signed October 23, 2008,
in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.
USEPA(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2017.
"Cross Border Contingency Plans for U.S.-Mexico Sister
Cities." Retrieved June 15. www.epa.gov/border2020/
cross-border-contingency-plans-us-mexico-sister-cities.
USEPA. 2006. "Chapter 13: Miscellaneous Sources, Section 13.2.2:
Un paved Roads." In AP 42: Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factos, Fifth Edition, Volume 1. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA. www3.epa.gov/
ttnchie1/ap42/ch13/final/c13s0202.pdf.
USEPA. 1999Joint United States-Mexico Contingency Plan for
Preparedness for and Response to Environmental Emergencies
Caused by Releases, Spills, Fires, or Explosions of Hazardous
Substances in the Inland Border Area. EPA 550-R-99-06. June.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Soild Waste and Emergency Response,
USEPA. nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURLcgi?Dockey=P1001 INC.T)G"
USEPA. 1998. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section
13.2.2: Unpaved Roads: Final Report. Research Triangle Park, NC:
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA. www3.epa.
gov/ttnc hie 1/a p42/ch13/bgdocs/b 13s02-2.pdf
47
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
References
USE PA. 1988. Control of Open Fugitive Dust Sources. EPA 450-3-88-
008. September. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, USE PA. ne p i s ,e p a. gov/Exe/Zy P URL
cgi?Dockey=91010T54.TXT.
USE PA and SEMARNAT. 2016. State of the Border Region Indicators
Interim Report2016. Washington, D.C.: U.S.-Mexico Border 2020
Program, USEPA and Secretarfa de Medio Ambiente y Recursos
Naturales. www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/docu-
ments/state of the border region 2016 122216.pdf.
U.S. Government Accountability Office. 2011. Southwest Border:
Border Patrol Operations on Federal Lands: Statement of An u K.
Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Accountability Office, www.gao.gov/
assets/130/126074.html
Van Schoik, R. 2004. "Biodiversity on the U.S.-Mexican Border:
Conservation Biology in the U.S.-Mexican Border Region." World
Watch Magazine 17(6), November/December, www .wo r I d watc h .
org/node/567.
Wilson, C. 2017. Growing Together: Economic Ties Between the United
States and Mexico. Washington, D.C.: The Wilson Center Mexico
Institute, w ww. wi I so nc e nte r. o rg/a rti c le/g ro wi n g-to geth e r- ec o-
n o m ic -ti es- betwee n-the-united-states-and-mexico
Woosnam, K.M., R.M. Dudensing, D. Hanselka, and S. An. 2011.
An Initial Examination of the Economic Impact of the Nature Tourism
on the Rio Grande Valley. September. Rio Grande Valley, TX: South
Texas Nature Marketing Co-op.
Wright, R. and R. Vela R (eds.). 2005. Tijuana River Watershed Atlas/
Atlas de la Cuenca del Rio Tijuana. San Diego, CA: SDSU Press and
Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias.
Yeo, S. 2017. "If You Thought Getting Mexico to Pay for the Wall
Could Get Any Weirder, You'd Be Wrong." Washington Post, June 7.
48
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update
Bilingual Version/Version BUingnt
U.S.-Mexico
Border
Ij'j ipalh Report
o! the
Good Neighbor
Environmental
Board to the
President and Congress
oi the United States
-------
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update
The information below presents a summary of
progress that federal agencies have made in
advancing the recommendations of the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board's (GNEB) 10th Report. The
information presented is not intended to represent
a complete compilation of activities; however, it is a
representative sampling of notable actions that support
the objectives of GNEB.
The information in this table documents considerable
progress made by federal agencies in addressing
recommendations and issues related to border security
and environment that were raised in the GNEB 10th
Report in 2010. Most apparent has been the increased
cooperation among agencies concerned about border
environmental issues and the agencies of the U.S
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) charged
with border security (e.g., U.S. Customs and Border
Protection [CBP]. U.S. Border Patrol [USBP]). Progress
on institutional cooperation on hazardous materials
(hazmat) at the ports of entry (POEs) also is evident.
Minimal progress since 2010 also is apparent in some
areas. Although the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the International Boundary and
Water Commission (IBWC), and to some extent the
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), regularly engage
with Mexico on matters related to environment and
security, it is not clear this is true for other U.S. federal
agencies. Likewise, engagement of the community in a
proactive way could be improved considerably. Finally,
little systematic progress has been made in developing
approaches for security installations that meet the
needs of environmental sustainability, particularly
as related to habitat fragmentation and the need
to migrate to preserve healthy populations of some
threatened species.
Human Crossings
2007 GNEB
Recommendation
2017 Agency Update
or Finding
Recommendation 1:
Strengthen commu-
nication and collab-
oration between
security agencies
and environmental
protection agencies,
including land man-
agement agencies,
on both sides of the
border. Early and
ongoing cooperation
and participation in
the cross-agency dia-
logue will contribute
to effective solutions
that serve the core
agency missions of
homeland security
and environmental
protection while also
addressing quality
of life concerns of
border communities.
DHS/CBP: Guided by the 2006 Memorandum of Understanding Among U.S. Department of Homeland
Security and U.S. Department of the Interior and U. S. Department of Agriculture Regarding Cooperative
National Security and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal Lands Along the United States' Borders (here-
inafter 2006 MOU), CBP has executed a number of programs to strengthen communications with
agencies on both sides of the border. These efforts are detailed in the responses below.
DOI: Regular conference calls between U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) and CBP keep the activities
of each department coordinated with ongoing activities. The Public Lands Liaison Agent (PLLA)
Program established by USBP also has improved coordination greatly. At the local level, land manag-
ers with DOI are in regular contact with PLLAs and local USBP through Borderland Management Task
Force (BMTF) meetings and day-to-day contact. The degree of coordination flexes with the amount of
activity by USBP.
EPA: EPA's U.S.-Mexico Border 2020 Program (Border 2020) continues to provide an ongoing venue
through the task force and regional workgroup meetings to raise and coordinate with federal, state
and local agencies and tribal nations on environmental issues. In the past, issues such as waste
impacts on natural resources from undocumented migrant crossing and practices to mitigate these
impacts on natural resources and communities were addressed. Border 2020 continues to involve
CBP and other agencies in its discussions on environmental issues along the border. Additional
information is provided through the EPA Border 2020 website at www.epa.gov/border2020. Further
examples of EPA collaboration and communication are as follow:
EPA Region 6 Activities and Highlights: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/docu-
ments/september 2016 final 1 st.pdf
EPA Region 9 and CBP serve on the Tijuana River Valley Recovery Team and the Tijuana
River Advisory Council. Improving water quality in the Tijuana Rive rand New River helps
the health and safety of USBP agents. These agents also report spills in Mexico to EPA and
IBWC.
U.S. Section of the IBWC (USIBWC): USIBWC communicates issues to stakeholders on a quarterly
basis through its Citizens Forums. The forums are located in areas that provide coverage throughout
the border. USIBWC also utilizes technical forums to address transboundary resource issues with
Mexico. IBWC reviews and coordinates with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, environmental departments, and other federal agencies to address environmental issues
along the border.
USIBWC is the liaison on issues between the United States and Mexico. It coordinates with Mexico on
a daily basis on a variety of matters that include water accounting, flood operations, water quality,
boundary, reservoir operations, permitting projects on federal lands, and sanitation issues. USIBWC
works closely with DHS/CBP on a routine basis.
50
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update
Human Crossings (continued)
2007 GNEB
Recommendation
2017 Agency Update
or Finding
Recommendation 2:
Strategically employ
a mix of technology
and personnel to
meet the security
and environmental
needs of different
sections of the
border region.
Vehicle barriers and
sensor technology
along the boundary
that permit habitat
connectivity and
migration of import-
ant species can serve
well in rural areas
characterized by
fragile habitats.
DHS/CBP: Based on systematic threat evaluation and consideration of the ecology of the area, CBP
has deployed vehicle fencing, surveillance technology and communications equipment where appro-
priate along the southwest border. These efforts are coordinated with the appropriate resource
agencies, including DOI, to minimize impacts to the human and natural environment.
Challenge 1 (p. 19):
Roads and foot
trails created by
undocumented
migrants, migrant
smugglers and drug
smugglers and by the
interdiction agencies
that pursue them
cause damage to
wildlife and fragile
ecosystems.
Next Steps (p. 20):
When possible use
technology rather
than new roads and
barriers to achieve
security goals. If
additional security
infrastructure is
required, combine
permanent vehicle
barriers with ground-
based radar and
other technology, as
well as personnel,
to effectively halt
undocumented
crossers as close
to the border as
possible.
DHS/CBP: Prior to initiation of construction, CBP conducts environmental and cultural resource
surveys to identify important or sensitive natural and cultural resources. CBP then adjusts locations,
revises designs or alters construction methods to minimize impacts to the extent consistent with
mission requirements.
DOI: From the DOI perspective, this has improved greatly since 2007. DHS provided $17.8 million
toward mitigation for waived infrastructure and has supported a variety of other project specific
mitigation. Discussions with CBP during project planning also have helped to avoid unintended
effects on the environment. In anticipation of additional border security infrastructure, DOI and its
bureaus have been working with USBP to frame the process for coordination and communication.
These efforts should help to inform USBP of sensitive sites and the measures that could be used to
avoid impacts.
DOI: Although no formal assessment of the effects of illegal immigrants on border ecosystems has
been conducted in recent years, it is the general opinion of land managers that the negative effects
of illegal immigration have been reduced significantly, and hazards to public safety also have been
reduced.
DHS/CBP: CBP has made extensive use of surveillance technology along the border. Based on the
threat assessment and environment of a given area, different tower types and appropriate technolo-
gy mixes have been installed. Integrated fixed towers are deployed in open areas using radar, visible
light and infrared cameras, and other technology to detect and classify potential illegal activity.
Remote Video Surveillance System towers are deployed in areas with denser groundcover along
with a mix of technologies. Mobile surveillance units are deployed to preselected sites that have
been screened to avoid environmental and cultural resources. The information is sent to centralized
locations for analysis and used to deploy personnel to interdict illegal activity close to the border
and along pre screened access routes. Vehicle barriers have been constructed to prevent access
by vehicles in areas where road infrastructure on the Mexican side of the border supports vehicle
access and is monitored by the surveillance systems.
DOI: Currently, 15 integrated fixed towers are located on DOI-managed lands. The surveillance
information obtained from these towers has reduced the level of vehicle surveillance required.
DOI bureaus and USBP locally are continuing to work on ways to reduce the negative effects of
patrol activity. An additional 15 towers have been proposed for the TohonoO'odham Nation; when
installed, these should help reduce and focus vehicle patrol work.
Next Steps (p. 20):
DHS should take
appropriate steps to
identity important
or sensitive natural
resources along the
U.S.-Mexico border
and avoid, minimize
or mitigate envi-
ronmental impacts
on such resources
wherever possible.
51
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update
Human Crossings (continued)
2007 GNEB
Recommendation
or Finding
2017 Agency Update
Next Steps (p. 20):
Strengthen com-
munication and
outreach to the
public to enable
greater interaction
with appropriate
land management
agencies and DHS,
thus resulting in con-
tinued public input
on border project
development and
implementation.
DHS/CBP: CBP uses multiple avenues to enhance communications with the public and land manage-
ment agency personnel. All projects receive appropriate environmental review and the correspond-
ing level of public input. The CBP website atwww.cbp.gov includes information on environmental
programs within CBP (www.cbp.gov/about/environmental-cultural-stewardship) and includes
documents describing projects open for public review and projects that have completed approvals
and have entered the construction phase. CBP's Office of Public Affairs facilitates public outreach
and communications regarding border security activities. Additionally, the USBP PLLA and Local
and Tribal Liaison programs foster coordination and support to enable greater coordination with
appropriate land management agencies and the public.
DOI: The PLLA Agent and BMTF in each sector have improved communication with DOI bureaus.
Next Steps (p. 20):
Establish an office
within a relevant
federal agency that
is dedicated to ana-
lyzing and commu-
nicating the impacts
of border security on
the environment.
DHS/CBP: As noted above, CBP analyzes and communicates the environmental impacts of con-
struction and deployment of tactical infrastructure along the borders routinely. The Energy and
Environmental Management Division in the Office of Facilities and Asset Management is tasked with
overseeing the environmental programs throughout CBP to ensure that CBP is in compliance with
environmental requirements and properly communicating potential project impacts to the public
and management agencies.
DOI: Within DOI no such office or function is in place now; this is handled by Public Affairs staff as
needed. Public affairs communications will be a part of the planning for anticipated border security
infrastructure in the next few years.
Challenge 2 (p. 21):
Trash and other
waste left by undoc-
umented migrants
and drug smugglers
in the process of
crossing despoils the
landscape and puts
people and wildlife at
risk for disease.
U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC)/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA): The Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve has been working with U.S. and
cross-border interests and communities to educate citizens about the negative effects of trash
entering the ecosystem. This work is not specifically focused on the effects of undocumented
migrants, rather on influencing the general behaviors of border community citizens in both countries
for helping achieve environmental and human health protections.
EPA: Border 2020 continues to provide an ongoing venue through the task forces and regional
workgroup meetings to raise and coordinate with federal, state and local agencies and tribal nations
on environmental issues. In the past, waste impacts on tribal lands and natural resources from
undocumented migrant crossings and practices to mitigate these impacts on natural resources and
communities were addressed.
Next Steps (p. 22):
Provide federal
government support
to tribes, private
landowners, rural
communities, state
parks and protected
areas, and federal
land management
agencies to address
sanitation and solid
waste issues asso-
ciated with undocu-
mented crossings.
DHS/CBP: Physical barriers have, in some cases, assisted in reducing the amount of trash and other
waste resulting from illegal border crossings on federal lands.
DOI: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Southern Arizona Project has been funded since 2003
to remove trash and debris resulting from illegal border crossings. An annual report has been issued
by BLM, the most recent in 2015. Individual land management units conduct cleanups on an as-need-
ed basis as funds allow. The amount of trash associated with illegal crossings has decreased as illegal
crossing levels have decreased.
EPA: Border 2020 accomplishments reports can be found online:
2011: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/b2012closeout eng.pdf
2011 -2012: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/4-state-border-high-
lights-2012 O.pdf
2014-2015: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-02/documents/highlights report win-
ter 2014 2015 border2020.pdf
2016 (Region 6 specific): www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-10/documents/septe(Ti-
ber 2016 final 1st.pdf
52
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update
Human Crossings (continued)
2007 GNEB
Recommendation
or Finding
2017 Agency Update
Challenge 3 (p. 22):
Impenetrable
fences may present
significant negative
consequences to
wildlife and the
environment.
Next Steps (p. 22):
As a best business
practice, hold a
national confer-
ence on fencing/
barriertechnol ogy
that highlights
successes to date
and educates the
public, with partici-
pation from private
sector experts and
nongovernmental
organizations. As an
outcome, develop
recommendations
for prototype fences
that meet security
goals while minimiz-
ing environmental
damage or even
improving environ-
mental conditions.
DHS/CBP: In March 2017, DHS/CBP issued a solicitation for design and construction of prototype
fencing that meets defined security objectives. Information utilized from the prototype fencing will
be utilized to inform future design standard(s), which will likely continue to evolve to meet CBP's
requirements. Any and all prototypes will be designed to deter illegal entry into the United States.
Through the prototyping process, CBP may identity new designs or influences for new designs that
will expand the current border barrier toolkit that CBP will use to construct a border wall system
based on CBP's requirements.
DOI: DOI would support such a conference. To the department's knowledge, there has not been a
conference convened that has been focused on this topic. DOI also would be willing to assist with
design of future fence or wall to seek a design to minimize environmental impacts.
Next Steps (p. 23):
Continue to ensure
that USIBWC has
the opportunity to
review proposed
border security
infrastructure prior
to construction and
provide advice on
ways to minimize
negative trans bound-
ary impacts, such as
erosion or flooding.
DHS/CBP: CBP has worked closely with IBWC when infrastructure projects have been executed on
IBWC-managed land or have had the potential to cause transboundary effects.
USIBWC: USIBWC has worked closely with CBP in reviewing the compatibility with U.S. treaty commit-
ments of proposed CBP infrastructure projects, working out design modifications where necessary to
ensure fulfillment of both entities' respective responsibilities and missions.
53
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update
Human Crossings (continued)
2007 GNEB
Recommendation 2017 Agency Update
or Finding
Chal lenge 4 (p. 23):
Lack of collaboration
across agencies
with responsibility
for border security,
land management
and environmental
protections tends to
lessen the likelihood
of win-win scenarios
for both security and
the environment.
Next Steps (p. 23):
An interagency task
force comprising
DHS, DOI and the
U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA)
should be estab-
lished that includes
their respective law
enforcement compo-
nents; this task force
then could develop
strategic plans and
establish mutual
goals regarding
law enforcement
changes that would
affect federal lands,
including sensitivity
to environmental
impacts.
DHS/CBP: CBP facilitates a monthly coordination meeting that includes representatives from DOI,
the U.S. Forest Service and CBP. This includes representatives from both environmental and law
enforcement offices, as needed, to coordinate law enforcement efforts on federal lands. At the local
level, coordination among law enforcement personnel occurs regularly.
DOI: Although not established as a task force, there is regular communication among law enforce-
ment entities. An example is Operation Reclaim Our Arizona Monuments, an effort coordinated by
BLM that focuses on fighting back against smugglers and others using public land for transporting
contraband. There have been other cooperative efforts (e.g., Operation Trident Surge in Arizona,
Operation Take it Outside in California) that have involved law enforcement personnel in each of
the departments. Tactical efforts occur on an as-needed basis. Interoperability of land mobile radio
communications also has improved and is managed through a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) that expires in 2017.
Next Steps (p. 24):
The federal govern-
ment should identify
communications
gaps and place liai-
son personnel in the
border states who
facilitate communica-
tion among security,
environmental and
borderland manage-
ment agencies.
DHS/CBP: In 2005, CBP initiated the PLLA Program, which was formalized as a national program in
May 2009. Each USBP sector along the southwest border has a PLLA. PLLAs support active engage-
ment with personnel from DOI, USDA and other federal, state, local, tribal and nongovernmental
organizations involved in land management, resource protection and access issues. They also pro-
mote a dialogue that includes collaboration to identify mutually beneficial activities and outcomes,
joint environmental education, and border security and border safety training. PLLAs communicate
up and down the chain of command to accomplish goals and objectives, serving a vital role in the
facilitation of BMTFs, which are designed to facilitate an intergovernmental forum for cooperative
problem-solving on common issues related to the international border. The primary mission is to
address border security, human safety, and natural and cultural resource protection through shared
resources, information, communication, problem-solving, standardization and training.
In keeping with the 2006 MOU, issues are discussed and resolved at the local level to the maximum
extent possible. Operational personnel from CBP law enforcement offices routinely interact with
local, state and federal officials. CBP has participated in joint projects to support and strengthen
interagency relationships, including the Operation Stone Garden grants and operations program
to provide resources for state, local and tribal partners to enhance integration efforts for border
security.
DOI: The USBP PLLA Program is the best example of this, with agents identified in each sector
who coordinate with DOI and USDA. DOI staffing levels have not allowed for this beyond the DOI
Interagency Borderlands Coordinator position in Washington, D.C. DOI also supports a Senior Special
Agent located at the USBP Tucson Sector Headquarters who coordinates with USBP on the entire
southwest border. DOI plans to maintain these positions indefinitely.
EPA Border 2020 has collaborative efforts and liaisons to assist and facilitate communication with
different partners. A consistent framework beyond the program, especially among federal agencies,
remains a challenge. EPA continues to work on a more consistent framework with other agencies
through local and regional outlets. The following website summarizes Border 2020, including
background goals and program structure: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/border-
2020s u m m a rv. pdf.
54
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update
Human Crossings (continued)
2007 GNEB
Recommendation 2017 Agency Update
or Finding
Projects and
Partnerships (p. 24):
U.S.-Mexico critical
infrastructure pro-
tection frameworks.
EPA EPA is an active member of the joint board of the Border Environment Cooperation Commis-
sion and North American Development Bank, binational institutions created to develop environ-
mental infrastructure of the U.S.-Mexico border region and enhance the well-being of residents in
both nations. Information related to infrastructure and collaboration involving these entities can be
found at www.e pa .gov/i nte rn ati o na I -coo pe rati o n/e pa s- rol e -borde r-e nvi ron me nt-coope rat i on-
commission-becc-and-north.
IBWC: IBWC signed Minute 320 on October 5, 2015, to address sanitation and water quality issues in
the Tijuana River Watershed. Binational technical workgroups for the New River and Nogaies areas
discuss sanitation (pretreatment issues, water quality, and collaboration and coordination between
the United States and Mexico). IBWC continues to address security and safety measures at Amistad
and Falcon dams, working closely with CBP and federal agencies and binationally with Mexico.
EPA: Border 2020 information as related to the Douglas, Arizona, wastewater treatment:
Borde r 2020 Acti onPlan(2016): www.e pa .gov/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/
final arizona sonora 201S 2016 action pian.pdf
E nvi ron m e nta I a ss ess m e nt fo r Dougl a s, Ari zona, Wa stewate rCollectionandPotable
Water Distribution Improvement Project (2001): nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1008NUV.
PDF? Dockey=P1008NUV.PDF
DHS/CBP: Guided by the 2006 MOU, CBP, DOI and USDA have executed a number of programs
that strengthen border security while minimizing negative effects to the environment on federal
borderlands.
DOI: The 2006 MOU signed by DHS, USDA and DOI has continued to provide a framework for coop-
eration and coordination. The MOU has been reviewed annually by the signatories, and no changes
have been proposed. DOI and DHS are in the process of updating current MOUs and preparing new
agreements relating to environmental reviews in anticipation of additional border security work.
These are expected to be updated or renewed this calendar year. Individual land management units
also have negotiated agreements for road maintenance and other activities.
Projects and
Partnerships (p. 24):
Douglas-Agua
Prieta stormwater
partnership.
Projects and
Partnerships (p. 24):
MOU to facilitate
security and mini-
mize environmental
damage on federal
borderlands.
55
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update
Hazardous Materials
2007 GNEB
Recommendation
2017 Agency Update
or Finding
Recommendation 1:
At POEs, increase the
number of hazmat
inspectors and estab-
lish specific sites and
hours for hazmat
vehicles. Duplicate
successful approach-
es, including use
of appropriate
technology. Increase
cooperation between
environmental
agencies and security
agencies through
approaches that
reflect site-specific
language and staffing
requirements.
Recommendation 2:
Beyond POEs,
resolve liability issues
for cross-border
emergency res pond-
ers and provide
targeted support that
reflects the needs of
border communities
within the larger
national strategic
plan. Document
and share best
emergency response
practices. In addition,
increase dialogue
with tribal entities
about hazmat
transported near
and through tribal
lands and increase
tribal participation in
training exercises.
DHS/CBP: Within budget constraints, CBP has increased staffing at POEs and has expanded the
capacity at several land POEs on the southwest border. Joint inspection programs, such as the joint
inspection facilities at the Otay Mesa commercial port, are being implemented and considered for
expansion as budgets allow.
DOC/NOAA For both recommendations and the subordinate challenges, the following information is
provided to raise awareness of the specialized response capability of NOAA.
NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) is a center of expertise in preparing for, evalu-
ating and res ponding to threats to coastal environments, including oil and chemical spills, releases
from hazardous waste sites, and marine debris. OR&R provides scientific and technical support to
prepare for and respond to oil and chemical releases; determines damage to natural resources from
these releases; protects and restores marine and coastal ecosystems, including coral reefs; and
works with communities to address critical local and regional coastal challenges. OR&R comprises
three divisions—Emergency Response, Assessment and Restoration, and Marine Debris—and
collectively provides comprehensive solutions to environmental hazards caused by oil, chemicals and
marine debris. OR&R works closely with the U.S. Coast Guard in responding to incidents.
EPA: EPA continues to work with federal, state, regional, tribal and local entities to ensure that
hazmat is handled in accordance with applicable environmental regulations. Border 2020 continues
to convene binational waste and enforcement task forces that provide venues to facilitate informa-
tion exchange and cooperation on environmental issues, including issues at POEs. Additional infor-
mation related to hazmat management along the border can be found at www.epa.gov/border2020/
borde r-2020-e nforce ment-webi na r.
DHS/CBP: USBP agents have participated in several local emergency response actions and coordi-
nate with local and state emergency res ponders. Improved mobile communications connections
have facilitated both improved cooperation and response.
EPA Border 2020 continues to have a main goal to address emergency response needs along the
U.S.-Mexico border. Discussions to resolve liability issues in which EPA is involved are ongoing. The
best emergency response practices are being shared at quarterly trainings and task force meetings
and through sister city plans. EPA's Office of Land and Emergency Management (OLEM)/Office of
Emergency Management (OEM) has been coordinating with Regions 6 and 9 to incorporate tribal gov-
ernments in emergency response planning and preparedness efforts along the U.S.-Mexico border
with respect to the sister city contingency plans. Additional information can be found on the Border
2020 website at www.epa.gov/border2020/emergency-response-poIicy-forum.
56
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update
Hazardous Materials (continued)
2007 GNEB
Recommendation
or Finding
2017 Agency Update
Challenge 1 (p. 34):
POEs lack staff to
inspect all ship-
ments of hazmat,
including hazardous
waste, and some
local emergency
res ponders have
inadequate training.
Environmental
agencies also lack
hazmat tracking data
as well as more gen-
eral chemical storage
data. Although CBP
prescreens ship-
ments before leaving
32 foreign ports, it
does not do so at
land ports in Mexico.
DHS/CBP: Key ports have crossing sites designated for hazmat with some trained officers. CBP's pri-
mary interest is to protect the border from inadvertent spills and conduct inspections of shipments
to prevent illegal crossings. Additionally, CBP has worked with EPA to improve information flow via
the International Trade Data System (ITDS). Regulations and procedures currently are in process to
facilitate these improvements.
Next Steps (p. 34):
Increase the number
of hazmat inspectors
at POEs.
Next Steps (p. 34):
DHS should provide
additional support
for Mexican coun-
terparts, especially
Proteccion Civil and
local Mexican fire
departments.
EPA Through Border 2020 Goal 4 (Emergency Response), Objective 3, training has been provided to
entities on both sides of the border: www.epa.gov/border2020/emergency-response-poiicy-forum.
Next Steps (p. 34):
Establish specific
POE sites/hours for
hazmat vehicle use.
EPA EPA continues to work with federal, state, regional and local entities to ensure that hazmat is
handled in accordance with applicable environmental regulations. An example of inspection collab-
oration between agencies, including federal and local, can be seen at California POEs, where hazmat
is authorized to come through only during specific times on designated days when federal and
local environmental inspectors are present: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/b2020-
enf2013-workshop-border-inspections-en.pdf.
Next Steps (p. 34):
Best practices,
such as San Diego
County's hazmat
inspection program
or the City of
Laredo's warehouse
ordinance, need to
be shared with other
communities.
EPA The best emergency response practices are being shared at quarterly trainings and task force
meetings and through sister city plan updates.
Next Steps (p. 35):
New electronic
manifest.
EPA EPA OLEM/Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery currently is developing an electronic
hazardous waste manifest system (www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/hazardous-waste-electronic-man-
ifest-system-e-manifest) in response to a statutory mandate under the 2012 Electronic Hazardous
Waste Manifest Establishment Act. The system is scheduled to begin operations in the spring of 2018.
The first phase of implementation will include the domestic manifest process, and a second phase of
system development and rulemaking likely will expand the system to include the tracking of export
manifests.
57
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update
Hazardous Materials (continued)
2007 GNEB
Recommendation
or Finding
2017 Agency Update
Next Steps (p. 35):
Radio frequency
identification (RFID).
EPA RFID is a method of marking and tracking drums of waste to ensure that shipments reached
their destination that was tested under EPA's former Environmental Technology Verification Program.
Although the technology worked, it had some issues and implementing it would have required a
regulatory change, unless its use was voluntary. The Waste Import Export Tracking System (WIETS) is
the tracking system currently used in the United States.
RFID Project Results: nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P1 OOFZOS.PDF?Dockey=P1 OOFZOS.PDF
RFID Stakeholder Meeting: nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPDF.cgi/P100K341 .PDF?Dockev=P100K341.
PDF
RFID Project Plan: nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P10049IN.PDF?Dockey=P10049IN.PDF
Wl ETS: www.e pa. gov/hwge n e rators/
i nfo rm at i on -ex porte rs -reso u rce-con se rvati on -a nd -recove rv-a ct-rc ra -h a za rdo us-wa ste
Next Steps (p. 35):
Automated
Commercial
Environment (ACE)
System and ITDS.
EPA EPA made regulatory and information technology system changes to meet Executive Order
13659. This provided the capability to convert border processes necessary to clear the following car-
go from paper to electronic under the ITDS and its supporting ACE system: (1) chemicals and waste
chemicals for import subject to regulations implementing the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA);
(2) pesticides for import subject to regulations implementing the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA); and (3) hazardous waste for export subject to regulations implementing the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). With respect to hazardous waste export shipments,
paper consent checks and submittal of paper manifest to CBP at the border were converted to elec-
tronic validation of consent and entry of manifest tracking number in the Automated Export System
in CBP's ACE System.
Basic information on RCRA export and import requirements can be found atwww.epa.gov/
hwge ne rato rs/ba s i c- i nfo rmation-resource-conservation-and -recove ry-a ct- rc ra -ex po rt-a n d- i m po rt.
Challenge 2 (p. 35):
Emergency res pond-
ers are notable
to easily cross the
border to respond to
incidents because of
insurance, liability,
national sovereignty
and command
issues, and customs
and border proce-
dures may delay
response.
DOI: DOI reached an agreement with Mexico to allow for cross-border support for wildfire suppres-
sion. The agreement allows for response in proximity to the border (within 10 miles). DOI personnel
conduct these activities consistent with an operating plan that has been provided to Mexico. Mexico
has not provided a similar plan to the United States. The plan is in preparation, but it is not known
when the plan will be finalized.
EPA An example of local liability resolution is seen in Douglas, Arizona, which has created agree-
ments allowing its first responders to cross the border. EPA OLEM/OEM has been coordinating liabili-
ty and crossing issues, where possible, with the sister city plans. More information on sister city plans
can be found at www.epa.gov/border2020/cross-border-contingencv-plans-us-mexico-sister-cities.
Next Steps (p. 35):
Resolve liability
issues for cross-bor-
der emergency
res ponders.
Next Steps (p. 35):
Coordinate bination-
al federal customs.
EPA An example of local liability resolution is seen in Douglas, Arizona, which has created agree-
ments allowing its first responders to cross the border. EPA OLEM/OEM has been coordinating liabili-
ty and crossing issues, where possible, with the sister city plans. More information on sister city plans
can be found at www.epa.gov/border2020/cross-border-contingencv-plans-us-mexico-sister-cities.
Challenge 3 (p. 36):
Technology equip-
ment and personnel
issues: environ-
mental protection
needs of small
U.S. communities,
Mexican communi-
ties and U.S. tribes
are overlooked in the
"big picture".
EPA EPA OLEM/OEM has been coordinating with Regions 5 and 9 to incorporate tribal govern-
ments in emergency response planning and preparedness efforts along the U.S.-Mexico border
with respect to the sister city contingency plans, which can be found at www.epa.gov/border2020/
cross-border-contingency-plans-us-mexico-sister-cities.
The El Paso, Texas-Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua-Sunland Park, New Mexico-Ysleta del Sur Pueblo sister
city plan was updated in 2009 and now includes the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo tribe.
Approval is pending for the TohonoO'Odham Nation-State of Arizona-Sonoyta, Sonora plan.
58
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update
Hazardous Materials (continued)
2007 GNEB
Recommendation
or Finding
2017 Agency Update
Next Steps (p. 36):
Provide additional
support for low-
tech, small-scale,
local environmental
protection efforts,
Mexican commu-
nities, and tribes
as part of overall
strategic planning for
national security.
EPA Best emergency response practices are being shared at quarterly trainings and task force
meetings and through sister city plan updates; please see responses provided above for further
information. For example, a trinational emergency response plan between the Tohono O'odham
Nation, United States and Mexico currently is being finalized to address the needs of the region:
www.e pa .gov/bord e r2020/c ros s-borde r-conti nge ncv- pi a n s- us -m ex i co-s i ste r-c it i es.
Next Steps (p. 36):
Where U.S. local
emergency
res ponders provide
assistance, their
experiences need to
be documented and
shared for the bene-
fit of other U.S. and
Mexico res ponders.
EPA Best emergency response practices are being shared at quarterly trainings and task force
meetings and through sister city plan updates; please see responses provided above for further
information. For more information on emergency response, see the Border 2020 website at www.
e pa. gov/borde r2020/e mergency-response-poli cy-for u m.
Challenge 4 (p. 36):
An overarching stra-
tegic plan for border
region POEs is
needed that reflects
development,
population, lan-
guage, and staffing
requirements, which
also would lessen
tensions that exist
between security
and environmental
protection personnel
at some ports of
entry.
Other border
concerns include
industrial develop-
ment on the border,
the large population
on the border, the
lack of protective
equipment for
Mexican emergency
res ponders, the lan-
guage, and tourists
and migrant workers
in the area.
Next Steps (p. 37):
Strengthen com-
munication and
collaboration.
EPA Best emergency response practices are being shared at quarterly trainings and task force
meetings and through sister city plan updates. For more information on emergency response, please
see the Border 2020 website at www.epa.gov/border2020/emergencv-response-policv-forum.
Next Steps (p. 37):
When planning for
border emergencies,
consider actual set-
tings of the border.
EPA Best emergency response practices are being shared at quarterly trainings and task force
meetings and through sister city plan updates. For more information on emergency response, please
see the Border 2020 website at www.epa.gov/border2020/emergency-response-policy-forum.
59
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update
Hazardous Materials (continued)
2007 GNEB
Recommendation 2017 Agency Update
or Finding
Challenge 5 (p. 37):
Tribal funding and
communication pose
a challenge, specif-
ically the inability
of border tribes to
receive funding for
emergency response
and less than
desirable commu-
nication on hazmat
transported through
and adjacent to tribal
lands.
EPA EPA OLEM/OEM has been coordinating with Regions 6 and 9 to incorporate tribal governments
in emergency response planning and preparedness efforts along the U.S.-Mexico border with respect
to the sister city contingency plans. Best emergency response practices are being shared at quarterly
trainings and task force meetings and through sister city plan updates. For additional information see
the sister city plans at www, e pa. gov/borde r2020/c ross- bord e r-c ont i nge n cv- pi a n s- us- m ex ic o-
sister-cities.
Next Steps (p. 37):
DHS should earmark
funding specifically
for border tribes.
Next Steps (p. 37):
Increase tribal par-
ticipation in training
exercises that involve
federal, state and
local entities.
EPA Best emergency response practices are being shared at quarterly trainings and task force
meetings and through sister city plan updates; please see responses provided above for further
information.
Additional example: Tribes were involved in the Lower Colorado River Pipeline Functional Exercise:
https://www.kindermorgan.com/content/docs/the responder 2017 02.pdf.
Projects and
Partnerships (p. 38):
RFID pilot to track
hazardous waste
shipments.
Projects and
Partnerships (p. 38):
Baja California
Emergency
Management
Institute.
EPA RFID is a method of marking and tracking drums of waste to ensure that shipments reached
their destination that was tested under EPA's former Environmental Technology Verification Program.
Although the technology worked, it had some issues and implementing it would have required a
regulatory change, unless its use was voluntary. WIETS is the tracking system currently used in the
United States.
RFID Project Results: nepis,epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100FZOS.PDF?Dockey=P100FZQS.PDF
RFID Stakeholder Meeting: nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P100K341 .PDF?Dockey=P100K341.
PDF
RFID Project Plan: nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi/P10049IN.PDF?Dockey=P10049IN.PDF
WIETS: www.epa.gov/hwgenerators/
i nfo rm at i on-ex porte rs -reso u rce-con se rvati on -a nd -recove ry-a ct-rc ra -h a za rdo us-wa ste
EPA Border 2020 continues to play a role in Baja California area emergency management, as
described at www, e pa. gov/s ites/p rod u cti on/f i I e s/2016-01 /doc u m e nts/s a nd i e go c a - t i j ua n a_ba j a_
caJa n 14 2013.pdf.
Projects and
Partnerships (p. 38):
The Border Agency
Fire Council.
Projects and
Partnerships (p. 38):
Four Sister-City
Collaboration.
EPA Collaborations continue through the Border 2020 sister city effort: www.epa.gov/border2020/
c ross- bord e r-co nti n ge n cy-p I a ns -u s- m exi co-s i ste r-c iti es.
60
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 1. GNEB 10th Report Status Update
Hazardous Materials (continued)
2007 GNEB
Recommendation 2017 Agency Update
or Finding
Projects and
Partnerships (p. 38):
Collaboration
between the
Arizona/Sonora
Emergency
Preparedness and
Response Task Force
and the Arizona/
Mexico Commission
Emergency
Management
Committee.
Projects and
Partnerships (p. 38):
Interagency Arizona
Port Inspection
Exercise.
Projects and
Partnerships (p. 39)
North American
Commission on
Environmental
Cooperation (CEC)
Waste Tracking
Projects
Projects and EPA: EPA made regulatory and information technology system changes to meet Executive Order
Partnerships (p. 39): 13659. This provided the capability to convert border processes necessary to clear the following
cargo from paper to electronic under the ITDS and its supporting ACE System: (1) chemicals and
ACE System and waste chemicals for import subject to regulations implementing TSCA; (2) pesticides for import
ITD5, subject to regulations implementing FIFRA; and (3) hazardous waste for export subject to regulations
implementing RCRA. With respect to hazardous waste export shipments, paper consent checks and
submittal of paper manifest to CBP at the border were converted to electronic validation of consent
and entry of manifest tracking number in the Automated Export System in CBP's ACE System.
Basic information on RCRA export and import requirements can be found atwww.epa.gov/
h wge ne rato rs/ba s i c- i nfo rm at i on- resou rce-con se rvati on -a nd -recove rv-a ct- rc ra -ex po rt-a n d- i m po rt.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration provides more information about ACE/ITDS at www.fda.gov/
Forlndustry/lmportProgram/ucm456276.htm. including links to user guides.
EPA: EPA co-hosted multimedia binational enforcement workshops with the CEC, the trilateral body
formed under the North American Free Trade Agreement, in Hermosiiio, Sonora, Mexico, in 2007 and
in San Diego, California, in 2013. State partners in California routinely provide training through EPA
State Technical Assistance Grants, which includes topics such as "developing and sharing protocols
for detecting noncomplianttransboundary shipments of hazardous waste," as described in the 10th
Report.
Border 2020 continues to collaborate with states to offer recurrent training on hazmat import/
export requirements. Through the task forces, Border 2020 identifies opportunities for information
exchange that builds knowledge on respective regulatory programs, such as import/export require-
ments, and facilitates public access of compliance data for border industrial facilities.
EPA Border 2020, Compliance Assistance (Goal 5): www.epa.gov/border2020/
compliance-assistance-poli cy-fo ru m.
Projects and EPA: EPA OLEM/OEM is coordinating the update of the 2009 Mexico-U.S. Joint Contingency Plan with
Partnerships (p. 39): its Mexican counterparts, SEMARNAT and Civil Protection. The Joint Contingency Plan is updated,
. . exercised and tested regularly: www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-01/documents/us_mexi-
Joint Contingency c oJ oi nt co nt i nge n cy p I a n. pdf.
r I0lfl«
61
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
EPA: Task force members participate, present and provide routine updates to the Arizona/
Mexico Commission Emergency Management Committee. Some additional information regarding
the Arizona-Sonora Border 2020 Action Plan can be found at www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2016-04/documents/az-sonora action plan engiish 3 10 16 final.pdf.
EPA: The CEC's Hazardous Waste Task Force completed its report on hazardous waste tracking in
: August 2011. The report can be found at www3.cec.org/islandora/en/item/10158-crossing-border-op-
portunities-imp rove-sou nd-management-transboundary-hazardous-en. pdf.
Projects and
Partnerships (p. 39):
EPA Enforcement
and Compliance
Assistance Training
Programs.
-------
Appendix 2. December 2009 GNEB Border Fence Advice
Letter Recommendations and Status Update
On December 2, 2009, the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board (GNEB) issued an advice
letter to the U.S. President and Congress regarding
the U.S.-Mexico border fence. The letter was sent after
Congress authorized the construction of 700 miles
of border fence under the Secure Fence Act of 2006,
charging the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
with the responsibility for building the border fence.
By the time the Board wrote the letter, most of the 654
miles of border fence had been constructed.
Prior to the Board's letter, Congress also had enacted
into law the REAL ID Act of 2005, which grants the
Secretary of Homeland Security "...the authority to
waive all legal requirements...necessary to ensure
expeditious construction of barriers and roads under
this section." These legal requirements included the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water
Act and Clean Air Act.
The December 2009 letter from GNEB on the border
fence was incorporated into A Blueprint for Action on
the U.S.-Mexico Border: Thirteenth Report of the Good
Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and
Congress of the United States (13th Report), issued in
June 2010. The advice letter is the longest that GNEB
has issued and contains several supporting images.
Although most GNEB advice letters do not receive a
formal response, in 2010, Nancy Sutley, Chair of the
White House's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
responded specifically about the border fence letter.
Her response also is included in the 13th Report.
The key portion of the advice letter was a list of rec-
ommendations about the border fence. The following
table contains the list of recommendations from the
December 2009 advice letter, along with an update
on the status of implementation actions taken (or not
taken).
2009 GNEB
Recommendation
2017 Update
1. Require that all border Responding for President Barack Obama in April 2010, CEQ Chair Nancy Sutley wrote, "CEQ
security infrastructure and appropriate federal departments and agencies appreciate your recommendations
projects fully comply with the of bringing border security infrastructure activities in full compliance with NEPA and our
National Environmental Policy nation's environmental laws. As you know, we are reviewing the current environmental
Act (NEPA) as well as all other impacts of border security infrastructure and looking for opportunities for minimizing these
laws, including environmen- impacts. As part of this process, we look forward to identifying opportunities for ensuring
tal, historic and archeological that border security infrastructure and associated maintenance and repair meet national
preservation laws. environmental goals."
The U.S. Congress has not amended the REAL ID Act of 2005, which would be required.
2. Work with Congress to
amend the REAL ID Act of
2005 to remove the provi-
sions allowing the Secretary
of Homeland Security to
waive legal requirements.
See update to Recommendation 1. No actions were taken to amend the REAL ID Act of 2005.
3. Fully incorporate adequate
environmental review, public
participation and scientific
analysis into the design
and implementation of all
border security infrastructure
projects.
CEQ Chair Sutley responded in April 2010, "CEQ and appropriate federal departments and
agencies agree with the Board that public participation is important in border security infra-
structure projects. CEQ, with the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), U.S. Forest Service,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of State, and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, will continue to work with the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) to improve public review, analysis and participation in the design and
implementation of select border security infrastructure projects. DHS has agreed to provide
CEQ and these departments and agencies with a description of its stakeholder engagement
process to foster ongoing coordination. DHS plans to obtain input from non-Federal stake-
holders, including State, local and Tribal authorities and the interested public. DHS will share
this information with the Board and will post it on the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
(CBP) website and disseminate it through other appropriate mechanisms.
In January of this year [2010], DHS officials toured the westernmost portion of the fence with
the California Coastal Conservancy and provided updates on their work to the Tijuana River
Valley Recovery team in December 2009 and January 2010. This exchange of information was
very well received by the stakeholders."
62
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 2. December 2009 GNEB Border Fence Advice Letter Recommendations and Status Update
2009 GNEB
Recommendation
2017 Update
4. Facilitate review by the
International Boundary
and Water Commission of
projects that may cause
deflection or obstruction of
the normal flow of rivers or
their flood flows, ensuring
continued compliance with
the 1970 Boundary Treaty
between the United States
and Mexico and other inter-
national agreements.
In the April 2010 CEQ response, Chair Sutley wrote, "...the State Department encourages and
welcomes recent steps by DHS to coordinate with the Commission on border fence construc-
tion, particularly in flood-prone areas."
5. Systematically monitor the
entire fence and supporting
infrastructure for effects
resulting from its construc-
tion and develop actions to
modify, redesign or mitigate
the negative outcomes
realized or anticipated by the
existing construction.
No actions taken.
6. Provide sufficient annual
funding via the DHS budget
for monitoring, research and
mitigation of the environ-
mental impacts of the border
fence.
From the April 2010 CEQ Chair Sutley letter, "DHS has executed an Interagency Agreement
with U.S. Geological Survey to develop a monitoring protocol to determine the environmen-
tal effects of border security activities. This agreement is an important step in monitoring
the impacts of the fence and its supporting infrastructure. DHS will continue to work with
affected federal land resource agencies to address possible negative consequences as they
are identified."
7. Obtain adequate local
stakeholder input for all fence
construction, mitigation and
maintenance as well as for
associated infrastructure
projects, including access
roads.
See update to Recommendation 3.
8. In sensitive rural areas
that are important wildlife
corridors, use barriers and
technology that prevent
vehicular traffic, control
pedestrian incursion and
allow wildlife movement.
Approximately 300 miles of the current fence consists of vehicular fence, much of it designed
to a I low wild life movement.
9. Aggressively explore the
use of information and
remote sensing technologies
that will enhance border
security while reducing the
physical footprint of inter-
diction activities along the
border.
No update.
63
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Appendix 2. December 2009 GNEB Border Fence Advice Letter Recommendations and Status Update
2009 GNEB
Recommendation
2017 Update
10. Ensure adequate funding
to DHS/CBP for ongoing
training for border security
personnel about the local
natural environment and sig-
nificant natural and cultural
resources.
In the April 2010 CEQ response, Chair Sutley wrote, 'The Board urged adequate funding to
DHS/CBP for training border security personnel about environmental, natural and cultural
resource issues. DHS already has infrastructure in place to provide some of this training.
The Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Training Task Force, operated under the
Director of the Border Patrol Planning Branch, is one example. It delivers environmental and
cultural awareness training to Border Patrol agents whose patrol activities include Federal
lands. The Environmental and Cultural Stewardship Training Task Force's mission was
established within a Memorandum of Understanding entitled, Cooperative National Security
and Counterterrorism Efforts on Federal Lands Along the United States' Borders, signed in March
2006 by the Secretaries of Homeland Security, the Interior and Agriculture." CBP also has
incorporated environmental awareness and sensitivity training into the basic curriculum for
all new U.S. Border Patrol agents during their initial basic training.
11. Identify and implement
best management practices
to prevent and mitigate the
erosion resulting from fence
construction and associated
infrastructure.
CEQ Chair Sutley responded in April 2010, "As you know, DHS/CBP and DOI signed a
Memorandum of Agreement in January 2009 regarding environmental stewardship
measures related to the construction of border security infrastructure. To implement the
Memorandum of Agreement, CBP agreed to fund up to $50 million to address the adverse
effects of infrastructure construction and maintenance on DOI-managed natural and cultural
resources. DHS and DOI are working together to release the funds so mitigation measures
can occur."
12. Charge the National
Academy of Sciences to con-
duct a study on the binational
environmental effects of the
border fence and associated
infrastructure.
CEQ recommended that the Board discuss this with the National Academy of Sciences. GNEB
did not act on this recommendation.
64
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations
10th Report Environmental Protection and Border
Security on the U.S.-Mexico Border: Tenth
Report of the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board to the President and
Congress of the United States
13th Report A Blueprint for Action on the U.S.
Mexico Border: Thirteenth Report of the
Good Neighbor Environmental Board to
the President and Congress of the United
States
18th Report Environmental Quality and Border
Security: A 10-Year Retrospective:
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board to the President and
Congress of the United States
1944 Water 1944 Water Treaty for the Utilization of
Treaty Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana
Rivers and of the Rio Grande
2006 MOU Memorandum of Understanding
Among U.S. Department of Homeland
Security and U.S. Department of the
Interior and U. S. Department of
Agriculture Regarding Cooperative
National Security and Counterterrorism
Efforts on Federal Lands Along the United
States' Borders
9/11 September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks
ACE Automated Commercial Environment
(System)
BECC Border Environment Cooperation
Commission
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BMTF Borderlands Management Task Force
Border 2020 U.S.-Mexico Border 2020 Program (EPA)
CBP U.S. Customs and Border Protection
CEC (North American) Commission for
Environmental Cooperation
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
(Executive Office of the President)
DHS U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOC U.S. Department of Commerce
DOI U.S. Department of the Interior
EMS emergency medical services
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act
FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FY fiscal year
GNEB Good Neighbor Environmental Board
hazmat hazardous materials
IBWC International Boundary and Water
Commission
ITDS International Trade Data System
JRT Joint Response Team
MEXUS Plan Mexico/United States Bilateral
Response Plan
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NADB North American Development Bank
NAFTA North American Free Trade Agreement
NBC National Butterfly Center
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NIWTP Nogales International Wastewater
Treatment Plant
NPS National Park Service
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
OEM Office of Emergency Management (EPA)
OLEM Office of Land and Emergency
Management (EPA)
OR&R Office of Response and Restoration
(NOAA)
PLLA Public Lands Liaison Agent
POE port of entry
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RFID radio frequency identification
RFP request for proposals
SENTRI Secure Electronic Network for Travelers
Rapid Inspection
TRNERR Tijuana River National Estuarine
Research Reserve
TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act
USBP U.S. Border Patrol
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
USIBWC U.S. Section of the International
Boundary and Water Commission
WIETS Waste Import Export Tracking System
65
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
2017 Members of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
Nonfederal Members
Paul Ganster, Ph.D., Chair
Director
Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias
San Diego State University
Jose Angel
Executive Officer
State Water Resources Control Board
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Lauren Baldwin, MBA, LEED-GA
Sustainability Coordinator
City of El Paso, Texas
Evaristo Cruz
Director
Environmental and Natural Resources Department
Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
Tom W. Davis
General Manager
Yuma County (Arizona) Water Users' Association
David J. Eaton, Ph.D.
Bess Harris Jones Centennial Professor in Natural
Resources Policy
LBJ School of Public Affairs
The University of Texas at Austin
Carrie Hamblen
Executive Director
Las Cruces (New Mexico) Green Chamber of Commerce
Lisa LaRocque
Sustainability Officer
Public Works Department
City of Las Cruces, New Mexico
Edna A. Mendoza
Director
Office of Border Environmental Protection
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Mariel Nanasi
Executive Director
New Energy Economy
Luis Olmedo
Executive Director
Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.
Rebecca L. Palacios, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department Public Health Sciences
New Mexico State University
John C. Parada
Tribal Environmental Programs Director
Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla Cupeno Indians
Keith Pezzoli, Ph.D.
Teaching Professor, Department of Communication
Director, Urban Studies and Planning Program
University of California, San Diego
Cyrus B. H. Reed, Ph.D.
Conservation Director
Lone Star Chapter
Sierra Club
Bryan W. Shaw, Ph.D., P.E.
Chairman
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Margaret Wilder, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
School of Geography and Development
Center for Latin American Studies
University of Arizona
Jose Francisco Zamora-Arroyo, Ph.D.
Director
Colorado River Delta Legacy Program
Sonoran Institute
66
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
2017 Members of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
Federal Members
International Boundary and Water Commission
Edward Drusina
Commissioner
U.S. Section
International Boundary and Water Commission
Department of Agriculture
Salvador Salinas
Texas State Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce—National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Jeff Payne, Ph.D.
Acting Director
Office for Coastal Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Department of Homeland Security
Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D., LEED, AP
Executive Director
Sustainability and Environmental Programs
Undersecretary for Management
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
EPA Headquarters Staff_
Department of State
Hillary Quam
Border Affairs Coordinator
Office of Mexican Affairs
U.S. Department of State
Department of Transportation
Sylvia Grijalva
U.S.-Mexico Border Planning Coordinator
Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Samuel Coleman, P.E.
Acting Regional Administrator
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Acting Designated Federal Officer
Mark Joyce
Associate Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal and State Agency Alternates_
(Non-Board Members Who Support Their Agency's Participation)
International Boundary and Water Commission
Gilbert Anaya
Division Chief, Environmental Management Division
U.S. Section
International Boundary and Water Commission
Department of Agriculture
Kristy Oates
State Resource Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Department of Commerce—National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Michael Migliori
Office for Coastal Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
Department of Health and Human Services
Abraham Torres
Management Analyst
U.S.-Mexico Border Health Commission
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Homeland Security
Jennifer Hass, J.D.
Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation
Program Manager
Office of the Chief Readiness Support Officer
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Department of the Interior
Brent Range
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument Superintendent
National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.
Border Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator
Communications and Intergovernmental Relations
Division
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
67
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
2017 Members of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
EPA Regional Office Contacts
Region 3
Jose R. Redmond Giron
Remedial Project Manager
Region 3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 6
Arturo Blanco
Director of Environmental Justice
International and Tribal Affairs
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jeanne Eckhart
Environmental Scientist
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Carlos Rincon
Director
El Paso Border Office
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9
Jeremy Bauer
Regional Coordinator
San Diego Border Liaison Office
Region 9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Lisa Schaub
Life Scientist
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Debra Tellez
Texas-New Mexico-Chihuahua Coordinator
Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hector Aguir re
Director
San Diego Border Liaison Office
Region 9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
68
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Acknowledgments
Laura Abram, First Solar, Inc.
Lissette Almanza, Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality
Jon Andrew, U.S. Department of the Interior
John Armijo, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Brian Collins, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Amber Craig, U.S. Border Patrol
Ronnie Crossland, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
Serge Dedina, Mayor, City of Imperial Beach, California
Paul Enriquez, U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Maggie Fitzgerald, Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality
Althea Foster, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sarah Frey, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Russell Frisbie, International Boundary and Water
Commission
Ashley Howard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bill Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Davis Jones, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Katherine Kopia, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Deborah Kopsick, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Douglas Liden, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Beverly Mather-Marcus, U.S. Department of State
Rijk Morawe, National Park Service
James Nielsen, U.S. Border Patrol
Beatriz Oliveira, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Emily Pimentel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Brent Range, U.S. Department of the Interior
Maria Sisneros, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Thomas Skibitski, New Mexico Environment
Department
Tonia Slaughter, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Becky Smyth, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
Scott D. Storment, Green Hub Advisors, LLC
GuyTidmore, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
BrandiTodd, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Marianna Wright, North American Butterfly Association
Andy Yuen, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
69
Eighteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States
-------
Notes
-------
-------
------- |