**D é**  **c imo Pr**  **imer Inf or**  **me de la Junta Ambiental del Buen V e**  **c i**  **no – Marzo 2008 E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t of the Good N**  **e ighbor E**  **n v**  **i r**  **onmental B oar**  **d – Mar c**  **h 2008**Quienes SomosLaJunta Ambiental del Buen Vecino es un comitéPresidencial consultivoindependiente de EE.UU., creado en 1992 en virtud de laLeyPública 102-532, “Leyde Iniciativa de la Empresa paralas Américas (Enterprise for the AmericasInitiativeAct)”. Opera según se estipulaen la Ley de Comités Consultivos Federales (Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act, o FACA, por sus siglas en inglés), y su misión es asesorar alPresidente y al Congreso en materia de acciones ambientales y de infraestructura de “buen vecino” a lo largo de la frontera deEstadosUnidos con México. LaJunta en sí no realiza actividades ambientales en la franjafronteriza,ni tampoco cuenta con un presupuesto parafinanciar proyectos fronterizos, sino que su peculiar función es, con mira de experto y sin afiliación política, asesorar al Presidente y alCongreso de EE.UU.y recomendar la maneraen que el gobierno federal puede colaborar en la forma más eficaz con sus diversos actores paramejorar el medio ambiente en la franjafronteriza México-Estados Unidos. En cumplimientodel Mandato Ejecutivo Presidencial 12916,sus actividades administrativas se asignaron a la Agencia de Protección Ambiental de EE.UU. (EPA,por sus siglas en inglés) y las realiza suOficina de Gestión Ambiental Cooperativa (Cooperative Environmental Management, u OCEM).LaJunta está constituidapor una gran diversidad de miembros. Incluye a funcionarios de altonivel de distintas dependencias federalesde gobierno de EE.UU.y de los cuatroestados fronterizos de EE.UU.—Arizona,California,Nuevo Méxicoy Texas. Incluyeademás arepresentantes de los gobiernos de los pueblos indígenas,de los municipios,de organismos de la sociedad civil, organismos agrícolasy ganaderos; y del sector empresarial y académico. Por otraparte, la Junta sostiene un diálogo con sus grupos consultivos homólogosde dependencias ambientales en Méxicoy con los Consejos Consultivos parael Desarrollo Sustentable (CCDS) con el fin de asegurar elmantenerse informado respectode temas y problemáticas del lado mexicano de la frontera.LaJunta se reúne dos veces por año físicoen diversas comunidades fronterizas de EE.UU. y en una ocasión en Washington, DC. Susconsejos se presentan al Presidente y al Congreso de EE.UU. por medio de informes anuales que contienen recomendaciones de acciones.Dichas recomendaciones se presentan una vez que se logra el consenso entre todos los miembros de la Junta.Éstas son creadas através dela experiencia conjunta de los miembros de la Junta,del continuo diálogo con los Consejos Consultivos parael Desarrollo Sustentable, y deponentes y ciudadanos interesados de ambos lados de la frontera quienes asisten a reuniones en comunidades fronterizas. Asimismo, enocasión laJunta redacta Cartas de Comentarios en el transcurso del año con el fin de opinar en temas de actualidad. Uno de los temas quese repitecon mayor frecuenciaen su asesoríaes el hecho de que la cooperación transfronterizaes esencial paralograr avancessostenidosen problemáticas ambientales a lo largo de lafrontera que comparten Méxicoy Estados Unidos.Elpúblico es bienvenido en todas las reuniones de la Junta Ambiental del Buen Vecino. Paramayores informes,visitela páginaen Internetde la Junta:http://www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb, o vía telefónica a la oficinaOCEMde EPA al 202-564-2294.**Av i** **s o** **:**el presenteinforme se preparó en cumplimientode la misión de la Junta Ambiental del Buen Vecino (la Junta); un comitéconsultivodel sector público según se establece en la Sección 6 de la Ley de Iniciativa de la Empresa paralas Américas (Enterprise for the AmericasInitiativeAct), Artículo 7 del Código Federal de Estados Unidos,Sección 5404. Elpresentees el Décimo Primer Informe al Presidente yal Congreso de los Estados Unidos. LaEPA administra las operaciones de la Junta.Sin embargo, el presenteinforme no ha sido revisadoy aprobado por EPA y,por ende, su contenido y recomendaciones no necesariamenterepresentan los puntos de vista y políticas deEPAni de alguna otradependencia del Ejecutivo Federal de EE.UU.; además, cualquier mención de marcas o productos comerciales no debeentenderse en ningún caso como una recomendación de uso.Parasolicitar una copia física del presenteinforme, favor decomunicarse con el CentroNacional de Publicaciones Ambientales(NationalCenter for Environmental Publications) al 1-800-490-9198 o por correo electrónico a:nscep@bps-lmit.com y solicitar la publicación númeroEPA 130-R-08-001. Si desea una copia electrónica de esteinforme, puede obtenerla en el sitio en Internet de la Junta Ambientaldel BuenVecino:(versión en inglés) http://www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb/gneb11threport/English-GNEB-11th-Report.pdf(versión en español) http://www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb/gneb11threport/espanol-gneb-11th-report.pdfAbout the BoardThe Good Neighbor Environmental Board is an independent U.S.Presidential advisorycommittee that was created in 1992 under theEnterprise for the Americas Initiative Act,Public Law 102-532. Itoperates under the Federal AdvisoryCommittee Act (FACA), and itsmission is toadvise the President and Congress of the United States on “good neighbor” environmental and infrastructure practices alongthe U.S.border with Mexico.The Board does not carry out border-region environmental activities of its own, nor does it have a budget tofund border projects. Rather, its unique role is tostep back as an expert, nonpartisan advisor tothe President and Congress and recommendhow the federal government can most effectively work with its manypartners toimprovethe environment along the U.S.-Mexico border.Under Presidential Executive Order 12916, its administrative activitieswereassigned tothe U.S.Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)and are carried out by the EPA Officeof Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM).Membership on the Board is extremely diverse. Itincludes senior officials from a number of U.S.federal government agencies andfrom each of the four U.S.border states—Arizona, California,New Mexico, and Texas. Italso includes representatives from thetribal,local government, nonprofit,ranching and grazing, business, and academic sectors.In addition, the Board maintains dialogue with itscounterpart Mexican environmental agencyadvisorygroups and the Consejos Consultivos parael Desarrollo Sustenable (CCDS)—referredtoas Consejos—tohelp ensure thatit remains informed about issues on the Mexicoside of the border.The Board meets twice each calendar year in various U.S.border communities and oncein Washington, DC.Its adviceis submittedtothe U.S.President and Congress in the formof annual reports that contain recommendations for action.These recommendations aresubmitted after consensus is reached across the entiremembership. Theyare shaped by the combined expertise of the Board members,by the Board’s ongoing dialogue with its Consejo counterpart groups, and by the speakers and concerned citizens from both sidesof theborder who attend its meetings in border communities.The Board also occasionally issues Comment Letters during the year toprovideinput on timely topics.One of the most frequently recurring themes in its adviceis that supportfor cross-border cooperationis essentialif sustained progress is tobe made on environmental issues along the U.S.-Mexico border.All meetings of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board are opentothe public.For more information, see the Board Web Site,http://www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb, or contact EPA OCEMat 202-564-2294.**No t** **i ce** **:**This reportwas written tofulfill the mission of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (the Board); a public advisorycommitteeauthorized under Section 6 of the Enterprise for the Americasinitiative Act,7 USC,Section 5404.Itis the Board’s EleventhReporttothePresident and Congress of the United States.EPA manages the operations of the Board.This report, however,has not been reviewed forapproval by EPA and, hence, the report’scontents and recommendations do not necessarily represent the views and policies of EPA,norof other agencies in the Executive Branch of the federal government,nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitutea recommendation for use.Torequest a hardcopy of this report, contact the National Center for Environmental Publications at 1-800-490-9198 or via e-mail atnscep@bps-lmit.com and request publication number EPA 130-R-08-001.An electronic copy of this reportcan be found on the GoodNeighbor Environmental Board Web Siteat:(English version) http://www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb/gneb11threport/English-GNEB-11th-Report.pdf(Spanish version) http://www.epa.gov/ocem/gneb/gneb11threport/espanol-gneb-11th-report.pdf

### L **e tt**  **er t o**  **the Pr esident** 

............................................................................................ ii
**R e**  **c ommendations at a Glance** 

............................................................................... 1 

## natural disasters and the environment along the u.s.-mexico border
**Intr oduc**  **tion**

.............................................................................................................. 2 F o cus of this Repor t
............................................................................................ 4
**S e**  **c tion 1**  **: E**  **ff ec**  **ts of N a**  **tur al Disast**  **ers on the U .**  **S .-Mexic**  **o B o**  **r der** 

.............. 6 Eff ects on the Re g ion’ s Envir o nment
................................................................. 6 Eff ects on the Re g i on’ s Human H e alth

............................................................ 15 Eff ects on the Re g i on’ s W i ldlif e and Ec osyst e ms ............................................. 17 Eff ects on Specifi c P o pulation Gr oups .............................................................. 20
**S e**  **c tion 2**  **: Manag**  **ing N a**  **tur al Disast**  **ers on the U .**  **S .-Mexic**  **o B o**  **r der** 

........... 23 Unit e d S t at es : Domestic/Int e r n ational P o licies/Institutions

........................ 23 Mexic o: Domestic/Int e r n ational P o licies/Institutions

................................... 35 B i national Ar r angements
.................................................................................. 36
**S e**  **c tion 3**  **: S**  **p otlight on Pr**  **omising P a**  **r t**  **nerships**

............................................ 43 Gover n ment P a r t nerships

................................................................................. 43 University P a r t nerships

.................................................................................... 44 Multi- S ect o r P a r t nerships

................................................................................. 45 Hur r i cane/Flood Specifi c P a r t nerships

............................................................ 45 E a r thquake and W i ldfi r e Specifi c P a r t nerships

............................................... 47 Glossar y ...................................................................................................................... 48 

## JK **B U**  **SINE SS R**  **EPO R**  **T**

................................................................................................. 49 Council on Envir o nmental Q u ality Response t o T e nth Repor t
............................... 50 Comment L e tt ers ....................................................................................................... 51 Membership Rost er and Resour c e Speci alists

.......................................................... 57 N o t e of Th ank s ........................................................................................................... 60

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der iii **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der

### Eleventh Report of the Good Neighb or Environmental Board



# RECOMMENDATIONS AT A GLANCE

To eff ectively protect human health and the environment within the U.S.-Mexico border region from natural disasters, the Good Neighbor Environmental Board recommends that the federal government work with appropriate authorities to implement the following policy options: **Prevent or minimize the impacts of natural disasters through appropriate zoning codes, building codes, landscape requirements,**  **watershed management, and municipal strategic planning. Build capacity at the local, state, regional, and tribal levels to**  **eff ectively manage natural disasters, including cross-border**  **coordination. Better integrate current disparate preparedness and response**  **management systems and practical exercises so as to cover all types of emergencies, including natural disasters.** **Expand existing domestic and binational agreements to incor porate U.S.-Mexico border-specifi**  **c measures related to natural disasters, including measures tailored to specifi**  **c natural features and human settlements.**  

# 1 **2 3**  **4**

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 1Hur r i cane K a tr ina str uck in Au g u st 2005, f o llowed shor tly by Hur r i cane R i ta . O n e of the most sober ing lessons lear ned was the need f o r mor e str a t e g ic pr epar a tion and r e sponse t o na tur al disast e rs a t all levels, par ticularly in t e r ms of adequa t ely pr o t ecting vulner

able populations. Th e U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er r e g ion pr ovides a c o mpelling ex ample of wha t may , and some times has, oc cur r e d when vulner able popula tions ar e no t pr epar ed f o r na t

ur al disast e rs. Th e r e g ion’ s vulner ability takes sever al f o r m s. First , a local incident in the bor d er r e g ion can quick ly bec ome an int e r n a t ional incident . E x tr eme wea ther events such as hur r i canes, fl oods, t o r n a d oes, wildfi r e s, ear thquak es, and mu dslides do not r e spect administr a t ive bound a r i es. Unlike nonbor d er c o mmunities, r e sidents of the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er r e g ion must a t t empt t o c o or dina t e their r e sponse t o na tur al disast e rs with their neig hbors acr oss the bor d er , oft en thr o u g h inf or mal channels. In addition, studies fr om the Cent er f o r H a z a r d s and R isk Resear ch a t Columbi aUniversity ha ve shown tha t na tur al disast e rs t e nd t o ha ve the g r ea t est impact on the poor e st people of a r e g ion. Collectively , U

. S

. bor d er cities and c ounties c o nstitut e the poor est r e
g ion of the Unit ed S t at es , with many low -income and densely popula t e d urban ar eas. L a rge numbers of U

. S

. bor d er c oloni a s r esidents live in substand a r dhousing with inadequa t e infr astr uctur e loca t e d in ar eas sus
ceptible t o fl ooding . Many neig hbor ing Mexican bor

der c o mmunities also ha ve poor popula tions se ttled in pr ecar ious ar eas such as can y o n bo tt oms and on st eep slopes. S t r a p ped municipal budge t s and the lack of f e der al g r ant funding , with local popula tions g r owing a t annual r a t es of 4 t o 6 per c ent , r e sult in the inability t o maintain cr itical envir o nmental infr astr uctur e such as levees, st or m dr ains, and se wa ge c o nv e y anc e and tr ea tment syst ems —infr astr uctur e tha t is lik ely t o be aff ect e d by na tur al disast e rs and capable of aff ecting neig hbor ing c o mmunities on the U

. S

. side. O n a positive no t e , r e c e nt y ears ha ve seen some impr o vement in the c ondition of envir o nmental infr astr uctur e on bo th sides of the bor d er . Cr edit f o r this suc c ess belongs t o numer o us sour c e s
— local e ff or ts , bor d er sta t e initi a t ives, and bina tional pr o g r ams such as the B o r d er 2012 pr o g r am (see f o llowing sections) and the B o r d er Envir o nment Cooper a t ion Commis

sion/N or th Amer ican Development B ank . Y e t despit e this pr o g r ess, the c ondition of envir o nmental infr astr uctur e in many bor d er c o mmunities r e mains substand a r df o r numer o us r e asons. M ost impor tant ar e declining sta t e and f e der al suppor t f o r infr astr uctur e investment in c o njunction with r a pidly spr e ading ur

ban ar eas and land use changes. Scar city of r e sour c es a t the municipal level is only one f a c e t of the pr oblem. Th e link be tween pover t y and added vulner ability is bor n e out on an individual household level as well. A s no t e d above, in the U

. S

. ­ Mexico bor d er r e g ion, low

- income populations face par ticular challenges as the y oft en live in r isk -pr one locations such as st eep slopes sub j ect t o slip pa ge or in r i ver bo tt oms or fl ood plains sub j ect t o fl ooding

. Th eir housing t e nds t o be of lower quality c o nstr uction and less r esistant t o d a ma ge fr om wind, ear thquakes, and fl oods. B e cause man y low -income r esidents do no t ha ve adequa t e insur anc e on their homes and posses

sions, the y ar e r eluctant t o evacua t e and a v oid po t enti al personal injur y. M o r e over , post -9-11 c onc er ns in the Unit ed Sta t es about bor d er secur ity ha ve added an additional lay er of c o mplexity t o many types of na tional polic y decisions, including decisions tha t aff ect the bor d er r e g ion’ s vulner a bility t o na tur al disast ers. F o r ex ample, maintaining a tig h tly c ontr o lled bor d er f o r enhanc e d secur ity may work a g ainst the need t o cr oss the bor d er quick ly t o pr ovide timely assistanc e in the event of a na tur al disast e r
. Str o ng bor d er c ontr o ls can hinder cr oss -bor

der c o mmunica tion and int e r a ction with c ount e r par ts in Mexic o tha t , in tur n, may delay r e sponse t o na tur al and o ther disast e rs. O n a gover n ment

- t o-gover nment level, some institutional fr ame w ork s alr eady ar e in plac e t o be g i n t o addr ess the “na tur al disast er bor d er bar r i er ” pr ob**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 2lem. F o r ex ample, the U

. S

. N a tional Response P l an has a Sup p or t Annex on Int e r n ational Coor dination that calls f o r work ing with the Int e r n a t ional Red Cr oss and Red Cr esc e nt M o vement t o assist f amily members in case of emergenc y (see United S tates : Domes t ic/In ter
national Po licies/Ins titutions section) . M o r e over , dur ing 2007, the H e ads of Sta t e of the 3 c ountr ies issued a J o int Sta t ement under the Secur ity and Pr osper i ty P a r t nership of N o r t h Amer ica tha t called f o r emergenc y

mana gement and pr epar edness along the bor d ers be tween their na tions t o be a hig h pr ior ity (see S p ot

li

gh t on P r omising Pa r t nership s section)

. In addition, a t the c onclusion of the XXV B o r d er Gover nors Conf er
enc e on Sept ember 27–28, 2007, the gover nors of the 10 U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er sta t es r e solved t o (1) develop a Five- Y

ear B i na tional Emergenc y Response Str a t e
g i c P l an tha t will include pr evention, pr epar a t ion, r e sponse, and r e c o ver y ; and (2) develop a Memor andum of Understanding f o r mutual help in the event of emergencies among the 10 bor d er sta t e s. Al thou g h these codifi ed fr ame w ork s of int e nt ex

ist , the y ha ve y e t t o be implement ed and ther e f o r e r e
main unt est ed. O thers, such as the 1980 U

. S .-Mexic o A g r e ement on Cooper a t ion D u r ing N a tur al Disast ers, ha ve never been fully implement ed and ther e f o r e ha ve no t alway s enabled the quick and targe t e d types of r e sponses tha t ar e needed when a na tur al disast er str ikes and impacts the same geo g r a phical r e g ion on bo th sides of the bor d er . S ome of these fr ame w ork s on paper ar e no t se t up t o r e spond bina tionally t o binational na tur al disast e rs. O f t en, their pr ovisions wer e a g r eed on in earlier times when the bor d er was lig h tly popula t e d, be f o r e the exist enc e of dynamic tr ansbor

der me tr opolises with millions of r esidents. Residents on bo th sides of the bor d er ar e all t o o aw ar e of the need t o r e spond e ff ectively in r eal time. Many of them ha ve a g r ea t deal invest ed in ensur ing tha t such is the case; U

. S

. and Mexican bor d er twin cities (“ sist er cities ”) ha ve bec ome incr easing ly int e r
twined. Substanti al numbers of people live on one side of the bor d er and work and shop on the o ther side. Many f

amilies, including tr ibal members, ha ve r e latives living on bo th sides of the bound a r y
. In addition, many maquilador as in Mexican cities ship their finished pr oducts t o the Unit ed S t at es thr o u g h the U

. S

. sist er cities. N o t sur p r ising ly , under the cir cumstanc

es, the onse t of a na tur al disast er is likely t o fi nd many Amer icans on the Mexican side of the bor d er and vic e versa
. M o r e over , some of the cr itically needed r e sour c
es f o r r e sponding and pr o t ecting the public may be locat e d on the o ther side of the bor d er fr om wher e the disast er is oc cur r ing

. F o r m al a g r eements be tween the U

. S

. and Mexican gover n ments f o r r e sponding t o local tr ansbor d er na tur al disast e rs ha ve no t ev olved as r a pidly as has the need f o r such mechanisms

. Given these sober ing cir cumstanc e s, U

. S

. bor d er c o mmunities and their Mexican neig hbors ha ve be g un t o work t o ge ther a t the local level t o pr epar e f o r na tur al dis ast e rs. O n e no t e wor t hy r e sult is the development of sist er city emergenc y r e sponse plans. Th ese plans, jointly developed by r esidents of neig hbor ing bor d er cities, set out specifi c pr oc edur es f o r work ing t o ge ther in the event of chemical r e lease and oft en entail tr aining ex er cises t o maximiz e pr epar edness. Despit e their sig nifi cant c ontr ibution t o the pr oblem, however , sis

t er city emergenc y r e sponse plans have their limitations bo th in sc ope and r e sour c e s. In man y cases, the y ar e desig n ed specifi cally t o addr ess haz a r d ous ma t e
r i als r e leases but no t nec essar ily the br oader issue of na tur al disast e rs (see B i national A r r a ngemen ts section ). Complementing these sist er city plans ar e a number of mor e inf or mal, ad hoc ar r angements. H a ving business associ a t e s, fr iends, and f amily on bo th sides of the bor d er bec omes a pr imar y mo tiva tion f o r mar
shalling the r e sour c es t o ge t the job done, r e gar d less of wher e an individual or their a g enc y may be based. Inf or mal ar r angements also ha ve their limita tions, however . O n c e the immedi a t e thr e a t is dealt with, a t t e ntion tur ns back t o o ther pr essing ma tt ers. A s
sistanc e t e nds t o be f o cused pr incipally on issues of shor t

- t e r m r e cover y r a ther than on pr evention f o r the medium and long r ange. M o r e e ff ective c ontr ibutions will r e quir e a long-r ange pr eventive appr oach dir ect e d t owar dstr uctur al issues r a ther than only shor t

- t e r m r e medi al actions. In summar y , na tur al disast e rs c ontinue t o oc cur

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 3along the bor d er amid limit e d on- the-g r ound c o or dina t e d action fr om the Unit ed Sta t es and Mexic o . Th e Good N eig hbor Envir o nmental B oar d has wr itt en this r epor t t o f o cus na tional a t t e ntion on this gap in national polic y mak i ng and e ff ective implementation. Fr om its perspectiv e , when f o r m ula t ing na tional polic y

on na tur al disast e rs and their envir o nmental implica tions, it is essential tha t the specifi c cir cumstanc es and vulner abilities f ound in the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er re
g ion be f a ct or ed int o the equa tion. Str a t e g i c planning , within this sc enar io , should include a keen aw ar eness of c onditions and institutional capabilities on bo th sides of the bor d er . I t also should include an in-depth understanding of whe ther well-int e nded U

. S

. na tional fr ame w ork s actually work —or do no t work —in r ealworld cir cumstanc e s. I t is in our na tional self -int e r est , as well as “ g ood neig hborly , ” f o r f e der al polic y makers t o adopt this mor e str a t e g ic appr oach t o mana g ing na tur al disas

t e rs along our souther n int e r n a t ional bor d er . B y being pr epar ed t o e ff ectively r e spond t o na tur al disast e rs on bo th sides of the bor d er , our homeland secur ity will be str eng thened. Th e B oar d enc our a g es f e der al polic y makers, bo th in the administr a t ion and Cong r ess, t o move f o r w ar d with ex pedienc e t o addr ess vulner abilities f a c e d by the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er r e g ion in mana ging na tur al disast e rs. 

## F ocus of T his Repor t Th e Good N eig hbor Envir o nmental B oar d de fi nes na tur al disast e rs as discr ee t , ex tr eme wea ther

- r e la t e d and o ther na tur al events tha t cause d a ma ge and r e
quir e an immedi a t e r e sponse. M o r e over , because the B oar d is a f e der a l advisor y c o mmitt ee, its discussion of the issue pr imar ily is limit e d t o instanc es in which the f e der al gover n ment does, or should, ge t inv o lved. In addition, because its mission is t o pr ovide advic e on envir o nmental and infr astr uctur e issues along the U

. S

. ­ Mexic o bor d er , the B oar d pr imar ily ex amined na tur al disast e rs in lig h t of their e ff ects on the envir o nment and human health, as well as how the f e der al gover n
ment can most e ff ectively apply its r e sour c es t owar d minimizing the ne ga tive e ff ects. Th e B oar d r e c o g niz es tha t na tur al disast e rs in the bor d er r e g ion ar e especially c o mplica t e d. F o r ex ample, the U

. S

. f e der al gover n ment r e sponds t o two br oad ca t e gor ies of incidents : domestic incidents/na tur al disast ers and int e r n a t ional incidents/na tur al disast e rs. E a ch ca t e gor y tr ig gers a diff er ent se t of r e sponses, including whe ther or no t the incidents ar e ultima t ely declar ed dis ast e rs by either the U

. S

. f e der a l gover n ment or the Mexican f e der al gover n ment

. Th is r epor t seek s t o addr ess the gap tha t may oc cur a t a f e der al level in the bor d er r e g ion when domestic a g encies, which typically r e spond t o one or the o ther of the above incidents, suddenly must look a t bo th the domestic and int e r n a t ional c o nsequenc es/impacts of a na tur al disast e r
. Th ose a g encies tha t nor mally only r e spond t o a domestic disast er may suddenly be f a c e d with int e r n a t ional c onc er ns as a r e sult of an incident just acr oss the bor d er on the Mexican side. Like wise, U

. S

. f e der al a g encies tha t nor mally pr ovide int e r n ational assistanc e t o a f o r eig n disast er may suddenly ha ve t o ex amine domestic implica tions of an event oc cur r ing on the Mexican side of the bor d er . A s such, the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er r e g ion pr ovides a unique se t of cir cumstanc e s when c o mpar ed t o a domestic -only or int e r n a t ional-only c ont ex t

. Hur r i canes, fl oods, t o r n a d oes, wildfi r e s, ear thquak es, and mu dslides ar e the specifi c disast e rs ex amined. Th e r e c o mmend a tions ar e f o r m ula t ed t o pr ovide bo th shor t

- t e r m and longer t e r m measur es. In addition, the y c o ver st eps tha t can be taken within the cur

r e nt polic y ar ena as well as options inv o lving possible changes —or a t least r e int e r p r e ta tions

— of existing polic y. Despit e the decision t o f o cus pr imar ily on ex tr eme wea ther ev ents of shor t dur a t ion, the B oar d also decided tha t it would be r emiss no t t o sta t e its str ong ly held vie w that longer t e r m tr ends such as deser t ification, sever e dr ou g h t , pr olonged fl ooding , and clima t e change should be included in the na tur al disast e rs polic y discussion. Th ese slower acting c o usins of ca taclys

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 4mic na tur al events justifi ably can be vie w ed as na tur al disast e rs tha t oc cur over a longer time fr ame. B y vie w ing them as such, c o mplac e nc y , f a talism, and—most impor tantly

— lack of pr epar edness can be a v oided. Al so some wha t outside the sc ope of this r epor t , but c e ntr al t o an y polic y discussions about na tur al disast e rs in any por t ion of the Unit ed Sta t es, is the need t o car e fully ex amine the link be tween human ac

tions and na tur al disast e rs. F o r ex ample, t o wha t deg r ee does c o nstr uction of d ams and levees enc our a g e people t o build in fl oodplains, po t e nti a lly ex ac erba ting d a ma ge fr om na tur ally -induc e d fl oods if/when the fl ood c ontr o l str uctur es f ail? Mig h t land-use pr actic

es be as r e sponsible f o r fl ood and fi r e d a ma ge as the wa t er and fi r e itself ? H o w do g r owing human populations in a r e g ion ma g nif y the e ff ect of na tur al disast e rs and incr ease human vulner abilities? Could the impact of sev e r e wea ther ev ents be mitiga t e d thr o u g h be tt er planning and urban development policies? Th e r epor t tha t f o llows addr esses these human- f a c
t o r issues t o the ex t e nt that the y aff ect envir o nmental quality , in keeping with the B oar d ’ s mission, but no t nec essar ily fr om a socio-ec onomic perspectiv e , whic h is outside its mission. Th ese questions also r e quir e c o mpr e hensive answers if f e der al policies on mana g ing na tur al disast e rs, whe ther the y be in the U

. S .-Mexican bor d er r e g ion or else wher e in the na tion, ar e tr uly t o be c o mpr e hensive.

Th e U
. S .-Mex ico bor der r e

g i on spans f o ur U
. S
. states , six Mex i can states , and ex te nsiv e tr ibal lands . R o u ghly t w o- th ir ds of th e 1,952 mile bor der lies in T exa s and is demar c ated b y th e R i o G r ande R i v e r . (S our ce: H a r r y J o hnson, S a n D i e go S tate Univ ersit y

)

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 5

# Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border
Effects on the Reg ion’s Environment 

# Natural Disasters Natural Disasters Effects on the Region’s Environment
Hurricanes, fl oods, tornadoes, earthquakes, mudslides, and wildfi res pose a risk to those living along the U.S.-Mexico border. Although fl oods, even in desert areas, may pose the most widespread threat, other disasters obviously can infl ict just as much damage. Earthquake risk is especially strong in California as a result of the high tectonic activity, but earthquakes also have occurred in Texas. Texas is especially at risk f o r t o r n adoes, but t o r n adoes ha ve str uck o ther par t s of the r e g ion as well. W i ldfi r es can oc cur anywher e along the bor d er
. O n the Mexican side, less developed urban and fl ood c ontr o l infr astr uctur e and mor e se ttlement in fl ood pr one ar eas and on st eeper slopes make Mexican se ttlements mor e vulner able t o the e ff ects of fl ooding , ear thquakes, landslides, and t o r n adoes than their U

. S

. sist er cities. Th e Mexican bor d er popula tions, howev

er , may be less a t r isk fr om wildfi r es because wildfi r es t e nd t o bur n na tur ally , without suppr ession, pr event

ing the d anger ous fuel load build up tha t oc curs nor th of the bor d er . In a d dition, ther e ar e mor e g r azing ac

tivities and fi r e w ood r e moval a c tivities near M e xican bor d er se ttlements. Rec e nt hist or y has all t o o clearly demonstr a t ed the bor d er r e g ion’ s c ontinued vulner ability t o na tur al disast ers. In O c t o ber 2007, f o r instanc e , wildfi r es r a ged thr o u g h S outher n Calif or ni a , destr oying 2,000 homes and causing well over $2 billion in d a ma ge. Al thou g h a t t e ntion r i g h tfully f o cused on the immedi a t e t o ll on the c o mmunities tha t suff er ed, the ec olo g i cal impact has y e t t o be assessed ac c o r d ing t o the nonpr ofi t g r oup, Th e N a tur e Conser vanc y. Flooding also has c ontinued t o bese t the r e g ion, with r e c e nt ex amples in Ar izona/Sonor a and Te x a s/ Chihuahua. In August 2007, intense local storms sent a wall of water through the Nogales Wash, an arroyo now lined as a concrete drainage channel that fl ows from Nogales, Sonora, through the heart of its sister city of Nogales, Arizona. Th e aging channel suff ered extensive d a ma ge in the Unit ed Sta t es. A 116- f o o t long se g m ent of the fl oor of the wash was swept aw ay , and a massive v oid was de t e ct ed behind the west wall of the channel. P erhaps of g r ea t est c onc er n was tha t the d a ma ge ex posed an int e r n a t ional se wer line tha t was under

neath the fl oor of the wash, cr ea ting a sig n ifi cant r isk tha t the se wer line would r u ptur e, po t e nti ally fl oodE a r thquakes co ntinue to be a f a ct of li f e along th e Calif o r n ia-B a j a Cali f o r n ia por t ion of th e U
. S .-Mex ic o bor der

. Ma p shows number of times per centur y that bedr ock shaking fr om ear thquakes will be str o ng enou gh to cause dama ge in S o uther n Cali f o r n ia . N o te that th e f o c u s is on bedr ock and, th er e f

or

e, under estimate s like l y dama ge fr

om shaking in ba sins and v alle y s . (S our ce: U
. S
. G e olo g ical S u r v e y E a r thquake H a zar ds P r o

g r a m W e b Site .)

6 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb ing par ts of c e ntr al N o gales, Ar izona , with wast e w a t er or c ontamina t ing the Santa Cr uz R i ver
. Even as o ther st or ms appr oached, cr e w s worked diligently t o make emergenc y r e pairs. Th e gover nor sig n ed an emergenc y declar a t ion, author izing use of N a tional Guar d tr oops if nec essar y. O n e y ear earlier , dur ing the summer of 2006, sever e fl ooding in the E lP a so , Te x a s, and C i ud ad Juár ez , Mexic o , ar ea caused mor e than $100 million in d a ma ge, r e sulting in E lP a so being declar ed a f e der al disast er ar ea
. To r n adoes also ha ve made r e c e nt bor d er r e g ion hist or y. In Ap r i l 2007, a pair of t o r n adoes str uck E a g l e P a ss, Te x a s, and neig hbor ing P i edr a s N e g r as, Coahuila

. Along with widespr e ad pr oper ty d a ma ge, the t o ll on the population was seven people k i lled in E a g l e P a ss and thr e e in P i edr a s N e g r as, with do z ens injur ed in the sist er cities. To r n adoes ar e infr equent in this par t of the bor d er ; the y ar e mor e c o mmon fur ther east in Camer o n County , which is the souther n most c ounty in Te x a s. Th e c ounty is bor d er ed on its east er n edge by the Gulf of Mexic o , mak ing it mor e vulner able t o ex
tr eme wea ther ev ents. D u r ing the past 55 y ears of d a ta c o llection on t o r n adoes, no f a talities wer e r e c o r d ed in Camer o n County , but as the r e g ion c ontinues t o g r ow fr om a r u r al a g r icultur al zone t o a hig h ly popula t e d tr ade and manuf a ctur ing c o r r idor , losses of bo th lif e and pr oper ty ar e ex pect ed t o escala t e. F o llowing is a mor e de tailed ex amina t ion of how par ticular na tur al disast e rs c ontinue t o aff ect the r e
g ion’ s envir o nment

. 

## Ear thquakes, Landslides, and Mudslides
E a r t hquakes c ontinue t o be a f a ct of lif e along the Calif or ni a-B a j a Calif o r n i apor t ion of the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er . Th e y can oc cur a t an y time, without war ning

. B esides the t o ll the y ex act on human lif e and pr oper ty , ear thquakes pr esent sig nifi cant envir o nmental r isk s including destr uction of infr astr uctur e such as r o ads and br idges, pipelines, r e fi ner i es, wast e w a t er tr ea t

ment plants, chemical st or a g e f a cilities, d ams, lev e es, and canals. E a r t hquakes ar e a ma jor cause of landslides, par

ticularly when soils ar e sa tur a t ed with moistur e fr om int ense r ain events. Ar eas with st eep slopes , such as the San Die g o-T ijuana r e g ion, ar e especially susc eptible t o mudslides dur ing ear thquakes and aft er wildfi r es when ve ge tat e d slopes ha ve become bar r en and ar e vulner able t o the e ff ects of st or ms. O n c e a mudslide or landslide oc curs, r e c o ver y and r ebuilding activ

ities may be limit e d because of lack of insur anc e c o v er a g e; insur anc e c o mpanies c o nsider these disast e rs

“ l and movement” events and, ther e f o r e , mudslides ar e no t c o ver e d under base pr oper ty insur anc e policies. W h er eas sig n ifi cant sums of insur anc e payments may be a v ailable aft er a ma jor fi r e or hur r i cane, mudslides , like ear thquakes, will no t tr ig ger payments unless the individual pr oper ty owner chooses t o pur c hase supplemental c o ver a ge. Th e r i p ple e ff ect of this lack of c o ver
Slice of Border Region Histor y: Earthquak es in the Imperial V alle y and Be yond T h e Imperial V alley is one of the most seismically active areas in California. T here have been ear thquakes of magnitude 6 or g r eater in 1 9 1 5 , 1 940, 1 9 7 9 , and 1 9 8 7 . T h e strongest was a magnitude 6.7 quake in 1 9 40 that killed 7 people. T he geolog ical forces that caused the November 2 3–2 4, 1 9 8 7 , ear thquakes are the same ones that pulled Baja California away from Mexico to form the Gulf of California. Movement along the Imperial fault also caused damage to the irrigation system in the Imperial V alley. T he All American Canal, which brings water from the Colorado River to the Imperial V alley , was damaged most severely. East of Calexico, the ear thquake shook down levees on both sides of the canal. T he banks settled more than 1 meter in places. Ear thquakes also have occurred in other par ts of the border reg ion. In 1 995, for instance, a magnitude 5.3 ear thquake struck the Alpine-Marathon area of southwest T exas. T h e largest ear thquake in history to strike this reg ion occurred in 1 9 3 1 near V alentine, T

e xas, and had a magnitude of 6.4.

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 7section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

Slice of Border Region Histor y: 2003 Cedar W ildfi re, San Diego One of the largest fi res in Southern California history , which star ted on October 2 5, 2 003, burned a total of 2 80,2 7 8 acres during the course of 2 2 days. T he cause was a local deer hunter setting fi re to brush and timber to signal his whereabouts after being separated from his hunting par tner. Because of the dry conditions of surrounding vegetation—mostly chaparral—in combination with Santa Ana winds, the Cedar fi re spread extremely rapidly

. In an effor t to contain the fi re, the California Depar tment of F orestry and Fire Protection, U.S. Depar tment of Ag riculture F orest Service, local governments in Southern California, tribal fi re depar tments, and a number of volunteer agencies provided suppor t. Mexican par ticipants in the Border Agency Fire Council ( see Spotlight on Promising P a r tnerships section ) crossed the border to help. T he F ederal Emergency Management Agency (F EMA) also provided funding to cover 7 5 percent of the total cost as a result of President Bush’s approval of the Fire Management Assistance Grant Prog ram and declaration of a federal disaster in response to thenGovernor Gray Davis’s request for assistance. In addition to the incineration of forests, the environmental consequences were dramatic. Storm water runoff , normally absorbed by well-vegetated soils, increased by approximately 1 2,6 7 5 ,000 cubic feet as a result of the loss of vegetation. A study done by the nonprofi t g roup American F orests estimates a $2 5,3 5 0 ,000 cost to retain the additional runoff to protect current infrastructure. T races of ash in run-off water also resulted. San Diego County spent approximately $6.5 million in toxic and hazardous debris removal in preparation for the following rainy season in an effor t to reduce contamination of nearby water sources. W i thin the Cedar Fire area in the San Diego City boundaries, 49 percent of the tree canopy , which removes approximately 3 1 5,000 pounds of air pollutants per year , was eliminated. American F orests estimates the annual loss in value at roughly $800,000. Th e fi re also exacted a toll on human life and health. Fifteen civilian fatalities were repor ted, two of which were a fi refi ghter and an unidentifi ed male who was believed to be a transient. Out of the 1,4 7 8 total fi re personnel, 1 04 fi refi ghters were injured. As is the case for many wildfi res, the ecosystem effects of the Cedar Fire were complex. A subspecies of native coastal rainbow trout with a highly restricted range was completely eliminated in the wild. F o r tunately , a g roup of 1 6 fi sh had recently been placed in an aquarium at the Chula V ista Nature Center prior to the fi re. T h ree additional species listed under the F ederal Endangered Species Act had their habitat affected but not completely destroyed: the Least Bell’s V ireo, the Coastal California gnatcatcher , and the Quino checkerspot butterfl y. T he gnatcatcher depends on a type of low brush that responds well to fi re and regenerates completely within about 2 to 3 years of burning. Fire plays an impor tant role in providing diversity to cer tain vegetative communities. T he patches of g rass and shrub that re-g row in the wake of a forest fi re provide sources of food and cover to species that are not well adapted to forests. T he Cedar Fire was clearly a tremendous disaster for those whose homes lay in its wake. T he cycle of fi re, regeneration, and re-g row th is a perilous reality for communities established in the forests and chaparral in Southern California. age is that resulting environmental concerns such as water pollution, chemical spills, and the presence of other environmental problems may not be addressed adequately because of lack of funds. 

## Wildfi res Wildfi res are caused by lightening strikes or by people, either accidentally or intentionally. Wildfi re performs important ecological functions that border region habitats have adapted to for millennia. Some of the indigenous people of the region used fi re as aland management tool, as did later Mexican and Anglo ranchers. Fire suppression has become a regular practice during the past century as fuels in the formof grasses, shrubs, and trees have built up to dangerous levels. In recent years along the U.S. side of the border, ranches in grasslands, shrublands, and forests have been subdivided into “ranchettes,” increasing the rural population and hence the demand for fire sup8 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

pr ession t o pr o t ect pr oper ty. Th e people living in these isola t ed r esidenc es on bo th pr iva t e and tr ibal lands incr ease political pr essur e t o suppr ess all wildfi r e s. W h en the hig h levels of fuels ar e fi nally ig nit e d, whe ther by lig h t ening str ike or human activity , the r e sults can be ca tastr ophic

. A unique f e a tur e of wildfi r e caus ation along the border is the incr ease in ille g al a c tivities. L a nd mana ger s in the C l eveland N a tional F o r est in Souther n Calif o r
ni a ha ve no t e d a dir ect link be tween wildfi r es and the pr esenc e of undocument e d mig r ants and dr u gsmu g
g l er s. A s ille g al a c tivities incr ease, law enf or c e ment a c tivities also incr ease. Th e main cause of wildfi r es is ille g al camp fi r e s, but discar ded lig h t e d cigar e tt es and spark s fr om machiner y and vehicles also cause wildfi r e s. Some also su g g est tha t smu g g l ers ha ve se t fi r es int e ntionally t o a v oid captur e, and tha t o thers ha ve star t e d fi r es t o elimina t e dense ve ge ta tion tha t ser v es as hiding ar eas f o r mig r ants and smu g g ling a c tivities. W h er eas man y of the ec osyst ems of the bor d er
lands ar e ad apt e d t o fi r e as a na tur al par t of r e gener a
tion and r e-g r o w t h, fi r e r e duc es a v ailable r e sour c es f o r a per i od of time and some times can destr oy cultur al r e sour c e s. F o r ests will r e-g r o w , but immedi a t ely af

t er fi r e s, timber and f o r a ge ar e elimina t ed. W i ldlif e habita ts shift , sc enic vistas ar e alt er ed, and wa t e rshed functions f o r human bene fi t ar e c o mpr o mised. D u r
ing and immedi a t ely aft er the fi r e , haz a r d ous ma t e r i

als and pollutants ar e r e leased int o the air , wa t e r , and soil. In addition, smoke and o ther emissions c o ntain pollutants tha t can cause sig nifi cant health pr oblems, especially f o r vulner able popula tions suc h as c hildr en, the elderly , and asthma tics. Sec ond ar y and po t e nti ally long- t e r m e ff ects of wildfi r es oft e n ar e mor e disastr ous than the fi r e itself

. Th ese sec ond ar y e ff ects include incr eased po t e nti a l f o r fl ooding , debr is fl ows, and landslides ; incr eased er osion; intr odu c tion of inv a siv e species ; c h anges in wa t er quality ; and r e duc e d ac c e ss t o r e cr ea tional ar eas. 

## T

ornadoes, Hurricanes, and Floods
To r n adoes ar e un welc ome visit o rs t o the bor d er r e g ion, par ticularly in the Te x a s
- Mexic o bor d erlands a t the souther n most edge of wha t is k nown as “t or
nado alle y. ” Th e y ar e caused by the c o llision of c o ol and war m air masses and can tr ig ger sig nifi cant envir o nmental impacts, par ticularly when the y str ik e a f a cility tha t c ontains po t e nti ally haz a r d ous or t o xic ma t e r i als. A s is the case of o ther na tur al disast e rs, post

- t or nado cleanup of debr is and o ther wast es is a labor

- int ensive pr oc ess including se g r e g a t ion of wast es f o r appr opr ia t e disposal t o either a municipal landfi ll or an indus

tr i al or haz a r d ous wast e f a cility

. Al thou g h much of the U

. S .-Mexico bor d er r e g ion is deser t , par adoxically , the r e g ion also ex per i enc es per i odic devasta t ing hur r i canes and fl oods. Hur r i canes no t only br ing wind d a ma ge but also devasta ting c o astal st or m surges, hea vy inland r ainf all, and t o r n adoes. F o r instanc e , the sta t es of Te x a s and its Mexican neig hbor , Ta maulipas

— with appr oxima t ely 800 miles of c o astline on the Gulf of Mexic o—par ticularly ar e vulner able. In f a ct , dur ing the 20th c e ntur y , Camer on County , Te x a s, loca t e d on the Gulf of Mexic o a t the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er , ex per i enc e d seven hur r i canes, including fi v e dir ect hits. B esides Te x a s, por t ions of Calif or ni a , Ar izona , and N e w Mexic o also ha ve been aff ect e d by hur r i canes.

Flooding , perhaps par adoxically , r e mains one of the bor d er r e g ion’ s most widespr e ad na tur al disast er thr e a ts. Th e R i o Gr ande, which f o r ms the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er f o r 1,254 miles, has hist or ically ex per i enc e d c y cles bo th of dr ou g h t and devasta ting fl ooding

. Al

thou g h over all r ainf all in the r e g ion is r e la tively low c o mpar ed t o o ther par ts of the Unit ed Sta t es, the r ain oft en c omes in br ie f but int e nse wea ther events, mak

ing fl ash fl oods c o mmon in the deser t . In the c o astal Medit e r r anean clima t e of Calif or ni a and B a j a Calif or
ni a , the only ar ea of N o r t h Amer ica t o possess such a clima t e, much of the y early pr ecipita t ion c o mes in a f e w int ense wint er st or m events, which usually pr oduc es hig h r u noff and fl ooding

. A s mentioned earlier , E lP a so , Te x a s ; C i ud ad Juár ez , C hihuahua ; and Doña Ana County , N e w Mexic o , r e
main a t r isk f o r fl oods mor e than 1 y ear aft er int ense local st or ms caused widespr e ad urban fl ooding in Au g u st 2006. Al thou g h some work has been c onduct e d t o r e pair inadequa t e dikes and dr aina g e str uctur es, much w o rk r e mains, especially in C i ud a dJuár ez , wher e ina d

equa t e dikes put nearby r esidents a t r isk

. B esides the pr oper ty destr uction and health pr oblems associa t e d with man y types of na tur al disast e rs, fl oods also can c ontamina t e the wa t er supply , over r un

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 9section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

wast e w a t er tr ea tment plants, and inund a t e urban envir o nmental infr astr uctur e and f a r m land. Contamina t e d fl oodwa t e rs can c ontr ibut e t o health r i sk s such as bact er i al c ontamina t ion, and mosquit o es br eeding in sta g n ant fl oodwa t e rs can bec ome car r i ers of var i

ous types of illnesses (see E ff ects on the R e g i on ’ s Human H

e alth section) . W i nd and fl ooding also can devasta t e habita t impor tant f o r na tive species. Slice of Border Region Histor y: Ballad of the 1930 Nogales Flood Border residents have long recorded signifi cant local events through corridos (folk ballads). T orrential rains and a fl ood on the afternoon of August 7 , 1 9 3 0, struck Ambos Nogales (neighboring U.S. and Mexican towns, both called Nogales). Seven people died and 1 00 homes were destroyed in Nogales, Sonora; the U.S. city saw eight people killed and 3,000 left homeless. T he event was chronicled in a corrido by G. Guzmán, “Inundación de Nogales” (T he Nogales Flood), recorded in January 1 9 3 1. W ritten from the perspective of Nogales, Sonora, the corrido spoke of the destruction and the response of the authorities, including assistance from the U.S. side:

Source: Corridos & T ragedias de la Frontera, Mexican-American Border Music, V ol. 6 & 7 , Arhoolie F olklyric 71 9/720, 1 9 94. A mil y novecientos treinta pongan muy bien su atención pues en Nogales, Sonora, había una inundación. A la una de la tarde un jueves tengo presente, azotó una tempestad donde murió mucha gente.

... A las cuatro de la tarde pues vuelve la tempestad, se prolongó por t tres horas destruyendo la siudad.

... P a ra no cantar a ustedes les ha de dar compassion, de ver la gente en la calle corriendo sin dirección. Hasta hoteles y tiendas Muchas estaban destruidas, y también muchas personas allí perdieron sus vidas.

... A

y udó la Leg ión de Honor , la Cruz Roja Americana, que fueron a dar auxilio a la siudad Mexicana. In nineteen hundred and thir ty now pay very close attention, W e ll, in Nogales, Sonora, there was a fl ood. At one in the afternoon it was a T hursday , A tempest lashed the place where many people died.

... At four in the afternoon well, the tempest returned, It continued for three hours destroying the city

.

... So as not to sing to you I want to offer my compassion, T

o see the people in the streets running around in confusion. Even hotels and stores many were destroyed, And also many people there they lost their lives.

... T he Leg ion of Honor helped as did the American Red Cross, T hey went to g ive aid to the Mexican city

.

10 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb 

## Flood Damage V ulnerabilities Lik e wildfi r e , fl ooding is a na tur al oc cur r e nc e tha t can cause sig nifi cant d a ma ge t o human lif e and pr oper ty , par ticularly when ex ac erba t e d by additional f a c
t o rs such as urbaniz a t ion.
**P o**  **pulation g r**  **ow th.**  Flooding in the bor d er r e
g ion oft en is par ticularly devasta ting because of development patt er ns. R a pid population g r ow th, especi ally in Mexican c o mmunities, oft en has out pac e d gover n ment ’ s ability t o pr ovide ser v ices such as r o ads , dr aina g e syst ems, and wast e w a t er infr astr uctur e. M o r e over , encr oachment of popula tion and tr anspor
ta tion r out es ont o the fl oodplains and dr aina g e ar eas g r ea tly ex ac erba t es fl ood pr oblems. W h en people r e
side or c ondu c t other a c tivities in the fl oodplain, and when the y use na tur al dr aina g es f o r r o ads (dr aina g es tha t ar e dr y most of the time), the c o nsequenc es can be devasta ting dur ing st or ms. F o r instanc e , in C i ud ad Juár ez , C hihuahua , f o llowing fl oods in 2006, gover n
ment offi ci als off er ed t o r e loca t e r esidents who built their homes in hig h-r isk fl oodplains. Al thou g h many ha ve moved, some r e fuse t o r e loca t e , choosing t o r e
main in hig h-r isk zones.
**Pr oblematic w** **a st**  **ew at**  **er infr astr**  **uc tur**  **e de**  **sign.** In some bor d er c o mmunities, wast e w a t er infr astr uctur e c o nsists of c o llection syst ems loca t e d in low lying ar eas tha t move wast e by g r a vity , a sc enar io tha t makes these c o mmunities par ticularly susc eptible t o d a ma ge fr om fl ooding

. O n e such c o mmunity is N o gales , S onor a ; ac c o r ding t o a B o r d er 2012 study (see B i national A r r a ngemen ts section) , wast e w a t er pipes in this c o mmunity oft en ar e c o-loca t ed with dr aina g e channels. W h en the channels fi ll up with t o r r ents of st or mwa t er , pipe joints dislodge and the pipes fi ll with sand, causing even mor e r u ptur es f a r ther downstr eam. In this way , fl ood events tr ig ger se wa ge spills. Th e sediment also can impact oper a t ion and maint e nanc e of wast e w a t er tr ea tment plants. To addr ess these pr oblems, the B o r d er 2012 Ar izona- S onor a W a t er Ta sk F o r c e r e c o mmends funding t o plan a pr o g r am of bo th str uctur al and nonstr uctur al fl ood c ontr o l mana gement . Str u ctur al f e a t ur es would include fi lt er ing syst ems, ponds, and r ain wa t er har

vesting (in o ther r e g ions, the y oft en c o nsist of levees, fl oodwalls, and d ams), wher eas nonstr uctur al mana g ement would addr ess land use planning , land c o nser v a t ion, and st e w ar dship pr o g r ams. Th e r a tionale is tha t by dir ecting development aw ay fr om fl ood-pr one ar eas, c o mmunities can spar e the ex pense of c o stly str uctur al cur es. **Inadequat e fl**  **ood c**  **o ntr**  **o l**  **infr astr**  **uc tur**  **e.** Ano ther pr oblem t o c ont end with is the lack of municipal and f e der al r e sour c es f o r maintaining fl ood c o ntr o l infr astr uctur e. In many bor d er cities, st or mwa t er c o ntr ol syst ems ar e no t in plac e or ar e poorly developed. Th is sc enar io is par ticularly evident in Mexican bor d er cities, wher e: (1) unplanned or poorly planned urban ex pansion, and (2) budge t s str e t ched t o the limit t o pr ovide wa t er and wast e w a t er ser v ic es make such investment diffi cult and no t alway s the hig h est pr ior

ity

. In o ther bor d er c o mmunities, infr astr uctur e such as levees is in g r ea t need of r e pair . Th is pr oblem came shar ply int o f o cus dur ing 2007 as work c ontinued under the U

. S

. Depar tment of H omeland Secur ity ’ s FE M A Flood Map M o der niz a t ion pr o g r am. Th is pr o g r am was established t o impr o ve and upd a t e the na tion’ s fl ood haz a r didentifi ca tion maps. Th ese fl ood maps ar e used t o identif y and depict fl ood haz a r dar eas and se t fl ood insur anc e r a t es in c o mmunities. Th e y also suppor t local planning , emergenc y pr epar edness and r e sponse, and na tur al r e sour c e mana gement (see www .f ema
. gov/plan/pr e vent/f hm/mm_main.shtm).

D u r i ng th e s ummer of 2006, sev e r e fl ooding in th e E l P

a so , T exa s , and C i udad Juar e z , Mex i co , ar ea caused mor e th an $100 million in dama ge, r e s ulting in E lP a so being declar ed a f e der al disa ster ar ea . (Sour ce: F e der al E m er genc y Mana gement A genc y

)

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 11section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
FE M A cur r e ntly is pr epar ing upd a t e d Dig i tal Flood Insur anc e R a t e Maps f o r targe t e d c ounties acr oss the Unit ed Sta t es, including sever a l in the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er r e g ion. A s par t of this pr oc ess, FE M A has r e
quest ed tha t entities oper a t ing and maintaining fl ood c ontr o l syst ems c e r t if y tha t those syst ems pr ovide adequa t e pr o t ection a g ainst a 1 per c ent annual chanc e fl ood ev ent

— tha t is , the fl ood tha t has a 1 per c ent chanc e of oc cur r ing in an y g i ven y ear (oft en r e f e r r ed t o as the 100- y ear fl ood). In sever al cases, aft er assess
ing the fl ood c ontr o l infr astr uctur e, these entities ha v e r epor t ed back t o FE M A tha t the y ar e unable t o c e r t if y tha t the syst ems in question ar e adequa t e
. L o cal offi ci als and pr oper ty owners in these c o mmunities ha ve r a ised c onc er ns about the implica tions of fl ood haz a r dar eas identifi ed in their c o mmunities. Th e y cit e c onc er n over r e quir ements f o r pr oper ty owners t o pur c hase fl ood insur anc e and appr ehension tha t such a desig n a t ion will make their c o mmunities less a ttr active t o outside businesses and inhibit ec onomic g r ow th. Some c o mmunities ha ve be g un t o take st eps t o addr ess their c onc er ns. F o r instanc e , the Doña Ana County Commission in N e w Mexic o passed a r e solution urg ing delay of the fl ood mapping pr oc ess in the c ounty until c e r tain c onc er ns and questions c ould be answer ed. Th e c ounty and other entities ha v e r aised questions about the ac cur a c y of FE M A ’ s fl ood model and dr aft maps. Re gar d less of the me thodolo g y used t o model r isk , work needs t o be done t o r est or e the int e g r ity of fl ood contr o l pr o j ects along the bor d er
. Entities su c h as the U

. S

. Section of the Int e r n a t ional B ound a r y and W a t er Commission (USIBWC) and the Hid algo County ( Tex as) Dr aina g e Distr ict #1 ar e work

ing t o r aise and r e habilita t e de fi cient R i o Gr ande levee se g m ents t o mee t the FE M A cer t ifi ca tion r e quir ements. Pr oper ties near levees tha t ar e r e pair ed and ce r t i fi ed be f o r e the FE M A maps ar e fi naliz ed ar e ex
pect e d t o be r e moved fr om the fl ood haz a r dar eas on the maps and be ex empt fr om mand a t or y pur c hase of fl ood insur anc e
. **H o**  **using , zoning**  **.** A s no t e d pr eviously in the intr oduction, low -inc ome housing oft en is c o nstr uct e d of substand a r dma t e r i als. M o r e over , it fr equently is loca t e d in ar r o y os (na t ur al r un-off cor r idors or int e r m it

t e nt cr eek s ) or o ther low lying and vulner able ar eas, placing many a t r isk . F o r a var i e t y of r e asons, however , local gover n ments oft en ar e r eluctant t o r e quir e r esidents t o r e loca t e . In addition t o these issues r e la t e d t o low -inc ome housing , per m its ha ve been issued in some c o mmunities t o c o nstr uct middle class subdivisions in ar r o y o s. Th is issue has been br ou g h t t o the f o r e fr ont in E lP a so , Te x a s, with neig hborhood activists opposing the c onc ept

. I t should be no t e d tha t fl oodplain c o nstr uction may be ac c e ptable in some cases, as long as the r esidents take c e r tain st eps such as eleva t ing their homes and pur c hasing fl ood insur anc e
. Mexican bor d er cities such as T ijuana and P i edr a s N e g r as enc ount er g r ea t diffi culties in pr o t ecting r i ver fl oodplains, ar r o y o s, and vulner able slopes fr om encr oachment by f o r m al and inf or mal se ttlements. Z o ning is weak , and enf or c e ment f o r zoning t e nds t o be even weaker . Confl icting lay e rs of gover n mental mana g ement make some actions diffi cult or impossible. F o r ex ample, a f e der al a g enc y , the N a tional W a t er Commis

sion ( Comisión N a cional del A g ua , CNA) owns the r i ver channel and fl ood plain in the Al amar
-T ij uana R i ver syst em, but does no t pr event unauthor iz ed use of tha t ar ea . Th e Municipality of T ijuana , which would like t o pr event squa tt er se ttlements in those ar eas, lack s the le gal author ity t o do so . Th e r e sult is tha t people establish inf or mal se ttlements in the r i ver fl ood plain and ar r o y o bo tt oms, which ar e aff ect e d by the most sever e of the wint er st or ms, oft en with loss of lif e and c o nsider able pr oper ty d a ma ge. 

### N **e x**  **t S**  **t eps T**  **o A**  **ddr ess F**  **l ooding**  **V ulner** **abilities** Allow time f o r le v e e impr ov ements co mple t ion be f o r e D i g i tal Flood Ins u r ance R a te Ma ps ar e fi ­ nalized. Constr uction of fl ood contr o l impr o vements alr eady is under w ay in some par ts of N e w Mexic o and Te x a s
. Th e F e der al Emergenc y Mana gement A g enc y (FE M A) should wait until these pr o j ects ar e c o mple t e d be f o r e Dig i tal Flood Insur anc e R a t e Maps ar e finaliz ed.
S u ppor t de v e lopment and use of mor e sophis

ticate d modelin g to mor e acc u r a te ly ma p fl ood ri s k

. FE M A and the aff ect e d entities should be g i v en fl exibility in mee t ing modeling and mapping deadlines t o pr ovide the most a c cur a t e maps possible.

12 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

Slice of Border Region Histor y: Hurricanes with Cross-Border Effects One storm can affect numerous communities in both the United States and Mexico, even communities far from the border reg ion. F or example, Hurricane Gilber t made history in 1 9 88. After pounding Jamaica and the Y ucatán P e ninsula, Gilber t made landfall for the fi nal time as a Category 3 hurricane with winds of 1 2 5 miles per hour near La P esca, T amaulipas, about 1 5 0 miles south of Brownsville, T exas. Its worst damage was some 1 7 5 miles inland in Monterrey , Nuevo León, where Gilber t brought torrential rainfall and fl ooding, killing 1 5 0 people. T he storm then turned to the nor th, spawning tornadoes in San Antonio and Del Rio, T exas, killing two people. T h e hurricane of legend in the reg ion was Beulah, in 1 9 6 7 . A Category 3 storm by landfall, it roared ashore on September 2 0 at Brownsville with 1 3 6 mile-per-hour winds. As it proceeded inland, it dumped up to 3 5 inches of rain in the Rio Grande watershed—an area already saturated from rains the previous month. T he resulting fl ooding caused serious damage in Harlingen, T exas, and at the airpor t in McAllen, T exas. More than 2 0,000 acres of ag ricultural lands were fl ooded. Urban and ag ricultural damage also was severe in Mexico. According to the National W eather Service, every river or stream in south T exas to the south of San Antonio fl ooded. T he storm also triggered a record 95 tornadoes in T exas, including a deadly tornado 2 5 0 miles away at P alacios that killed four

. Hur r icane B e ulah came a s hor e on S eptember 20, 1967, at B r ownsville, T exa s , with 136 mile-perhour winds . A s it pr oceeded inland, it dumped up to 35 inch es of r a in in th e R i o G r ande w a te rshed. Th e stor m also tr i g

ger e d a r e co r d

95 to r n adoes in T

exa s . S h own, under w a te r , is H a rlingen, T exa s , with th e A r r o

yo Color a do in th e midd le of th e photo . (S our ce: Count y of Hidal go , T exa s)

E n co ur a

ge l o cal, state, f e der al, and b i national cooper a tion on fl ood co ntr o l iss u es
. Flood c ontr o l pr o j ects oft en t o uch on man y jur isdictions and a g encies on bo th sides of the bor d er . F o r ex ample, c e r t ifi ­ ca tion of R i o Gr ande levees in E lP a so County , Te x a s, r e quir es c o oper a t ion of the U

. S

. Section of the Int e r
na tional B ound a r y and W a t er Commission (USIBWC; a f e der al a g enc y), the C i ty of E lP a so , and a local ir r i gation distr ict . W h er eas the USIBWC maintains the R i o Gr ande fl ood c ontr o l lev e es, the other entities ha v e dr aina g e str uctur es tha t ent er the r i ver thr o u g h the levees. To mee t FE M A c e r t ifi ca tion cr it er i a , these entities must ha v e a g r eements in pla c e f o r c o or dina t ed oper a t ions of these str uctur es in the event of a fl ood. S u ppor t te chnical cooper ation and fi nanc ial a s sistance to M e

x i co f o r needed fl ood co ntr o l impr o v ements

. Th e ma g n itude of fl ood that the levee syst em in the int e r n a t ional r e ach of the R i o Gr ande is desig n ed t o handle is de t e r mined int e r n a t ionally so tha t bo th the Unit ed Sta t es and Mexic o shar e equally in the r isk s and bene fi ts of fl ood c ontr o l p r ojects. A s the Unit ed Sta t es moves f o r w ar d with plans t o r est or e de g r aded levee se g m ents t o their or ig inal desig n, appr opr i a t e d a ta and model shar ing needs t o take plac e with Mexic o
. De v elop co mmon a p pr oaches to urban wa te rshed mana gement in siste r c i ties . Th e U

. S

. f e der al

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 13section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

Slice of Border Region Histor y: Noteworthy Floods and Storms Colorado River , 1 9 05 —T emporary diversion of the Colorado River , constructed to replace water from the blocked Imperial canal, was breached by fl oodwaters. T he Colorado River changed course and fl owed into Salton Sink (the site of the ancient Lake Cahuilla), creating the modern Salton Sea. Colorado River , 1 9 09 —2 5.3 million acre-feet passed through Laguna Dam, located near the U.S.-Mexico border upstream of Y uma, Arizona. T his was enough water to fi ll 94 percent of present-day Lake P owell.
T ijuana River , 1 9 1 6 —Major storm caused signifi cant fl ooding in the T ijuana River and adjacent areas in nor thern Baja California and Southern California. Houses, farms, dams, and transpor tation were destroyed, and there was some loss of life. Rio Grande, 1 932 —T he fl ood orig inated in the P ecos and Devils Rivers in the United States, with fl ow peaking at 3 5 0,000 cubic feet per second at Laredo. T he storm led to a U.S.-Mexico ag reement for a coordinated fl ood control plan. Rio Grande, 1 954 —Biggest fl ood since 1 865 and second biggest since 1 7 46, the fl ood occurred during the T

e xas drought of record, with fl ows reaching 1 million cubic feet per second at Del Rio, T exas, and Ciudad Acuña, Coahuila, and fi lling Falcon Dam, built just the year before, preventing untold damage downstream. Rio Grande, 1 9 6 7 —Hurricane Beulah led to signifi cant Rio Grande fl ooding, killed 5 8 people, and caused more than $1 billion in damage to Harlingen and McAllen in T exas and Ciudad Mier and Camargo in T

a maulipas. Southern California, Nor thern Baja California, and Southwestern Arizona, 1 9 7 6 —Hurricane Kathleen, an eastern P acifi c cyclone, brought torrential rains and high winds to nor thern Baja California, Southern California, and the deser t areas around Y uma. T he track of the railroad that connected T ijuana with the Imperial V alley was washed out in several locations, and there was loss of life in the Yuma, Arizona, reg ion. Fa rmland in the Imperial V alley was fl ooded, and the level of the Salton Sea was raised. Río Escondido, 2004 —Normally a dry streambed, this river , located in Piedras Neg ras, Coahuila, across the border from Eagle P ass, T exas, experienced a devastating fl ash fl ood, killing dozens and damag ing hundreds of homes. According to repor ts, the river rose 2 5 feet in just 1 5 minutes. El P aso, T exas; Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua; and Doña Ana County , New Mexico, 200 6 —Intense local rainfall caused widespread urban fl ooding as local stormwater systems were overwhelmed. A stormwater detention basin in Ciudad Juárez was at risk of collapse, with the potential to fl ood downtown El P aso, forcing the evacuation of 1,5 00 residents of downtown and south El P aso. T o prevent a recurrence of this dangerous situation, the stormwater detention basin has since been decommissioned.

gover n ment should work with Mexican c ount e r par t entities, as well as with bina tional a g encies, t o pr ovide leadership and t e chnical and fi nanci al suppor t f o r local c o mmunities t o develop c o mmon appr oaches t o land use, zoning , building c o des, and fl ood c ontr o l str uc
tur es in vulner able ar eas of the sist er cities. (Th is c o nc e pt is the urban c o mponent of bina tional wa t e rshed mana gement tha t the B oar d has r e c o mmended in a number of its pr evious r epor t s.)
P r ov ide outr each and education to r esidents liv in g in fl ood plains

. Th e FEM A Te x a s offi c e and the N a tional Flood Insur anc e Pr o g r am of the Sta t e of Te x a s visit e d local bor d er c ounties in Te x a s in spr ing/

14 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb summer 2007, inf or ming r esidents who lived in floodplains of their options, such as eleva t ing houses and pur c hasing fl ood insur anc e . Th is type of c o llabo r a t iv e outr each should c ontinue. Use pr ov isions within the C lean W a te r A c t to c r eate W a te rshed R e stor ation A ction S t r a t eg i e s
. Section 319( h) of the C l ean W a t er A c t allows f o r a stakeholder -dr iven pr oc ess t o assess wa t e rshed function. In the mostly semi-ar id envir o nments of the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er , fl ooding can be amelior a t ed by implementing best mana gement pr actic es thr o u g hout wa t e rsheds. Al thou g h the c o nnections be tween clean wa t er and fl ooding may no t be obvious on the sur f ac e, when the wat e rshed as a whole is ex amined, cumulative impa cts can be t e ased out int o c o mponent par ts. H o using c o nstr uction in ar r o y o s, installa t ion of pavement , ex c essive livest ock g r azing in headwa t e rs, or a g
r i cultur al pr actic es no t only alt er wa t er quality but also incr ease st or m r u noff as well. A holistic ex amina t ion of the issues in a wa t e rshed should be under taken by bor d er c o mmunities. 

## JK 

# Natural Disasters Effects on the Reg ion’s Human Health

Pr imar y health e ff ects fr om na tur al disast e rs include injur ies and dea t h fr om wind- bor n e ob jects, str uctur al f ailur es, fl oods and fl ash fl oods, and wildfi re s
. Th er e ar e numer o us sec ond ar y e ff ects as well. N a tur al disast e rs may lead t o industr i a l ac cidents, including haz a r d ous ma t e r i als spills. Th e y also can cause disr uptions in f ood and wa t er supply and sanita tion syst ems, leading t o wa t erbor ne inf ectious diseases. In addition, the y may lead t o large- scale popula tion dis

plac ement and g r ea t psy cholo g i cal str ess. Flooding and ear thquak es disr upt tr anspor t a t ion infr astr uctur e, delaying r e sponse by public health author ities and evacua tion of healthy and dis abled r esidents. E a r t hquakes may cause buildings t o c o llapse, pr oducing dust and o ther air pollutants. A s no t e d pr eviously in this section, wildfi r es also worsen air quality , ex ac erba ting illnesses such as asthma . In f a ct , the entir e public health infr astr uctur e may bec ome c o mple t ely over whelmed, including destr uction of f a cilities and shor ta ges of staff

. A s mentioned earlier in this r epor t , hur r i canes and fl oods d a ma ge dr ink ing wa t er and se wa ge tr ea tment plants, thus aff ecting human health vi a wa t e rbor ne pa tho gens tha t can cause diseases such as typhoid f e v e r , choler a , lept ospir osis, and hepa titis A

. I f elec

tr icity is lost f o r a per i od of time, the level of chlor ine in dr ink ing wa t er distr ibution syst ems decr eases, and pr essur e dr ops in the syst em can per m it infi ltr a tion of c ontaminants, r e quir ing r esidents either t o boil dr ink ing wa t er or pur i f y

it in ano ther manner . Flooding can pr oduc e pools of sta g n ant wa t er tha t pr ovide br eeding ar eas f o r mosquit o es, which may tr ansmit diseases. L a ndfi lls may be d a ma ged, polluting g r ound and sur f ac e wa t er and sca t t e r ing solid wast e, which can incr ease popula tions of disease-bear ing r o dents. V

e ct or -bor ne diseases, those car r i ed by either insects or animals, may include malar i a , deng ue and deng ue

Domestic w a ste w ater hook ups like th is one along N o

gales W

a sh in N o

gales , S o nor a (ac r oss th e bor der fr om N o

gales , A r izona) ar e espec ially vulner a b le to hi gh-fl ow ev ents dur i ng th e s ummer monsoon sea s on. D a ma ge to th ese hook ups fr om fl oods may r e s ult in discharges of untr eate d se w a ge into b i national w a te r w ays . (S our ce: A r iz ona Depar t ment of E n vir o nmental Q ualit y)

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 15section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
haemor rha g ic f e ver , y ellow f e ver , and W e st Nile vir u s. Deng ue, f o r ex ample, usually appears 4 t o 12 week s aft er a st or m as a r e sult of the time needed f o r r e pr oduction of mosquit os and the a v ailability of a human car r i er t o be bitt en t o tr ansf er the inf ection. Th ese dis

eases all ar e pr esent in ar eas along the bor d er , and althou g h the y cur r e ntly do no t c o nstitut e a sig nifi cant health thr e a t , the y do r e quir e ongoing monit or ing . In addition, the y c ould bec ome a ma jor c onc er n in the wake of a ma jor na tur al disast er in the bor d er r e g ion. N a tur al disast e r s especially aff ect those bor d er r e g ion r e sidents who live in pover t y with its a t t end a nt health, housing , and urban infr astr uctur e issues. Many of these r esidents ar e loca t e d in and ar ound the r e g ion’ s urban c e nt ers and depend on large municipal envir o nmental infr astr uctur e syst ems such as dr ink ing wa t er fi ltr a t ion plants and wast e w a t er tr ea tment f a cilities. Th ese f a cilities, however , may be poorly desig n ed and maintained and ther e f o r e especi ally vulner able t o ex t ensive d a ma ge fr om na tur al disast e rs
. In addition, many of the r e g ion’ s poor est r esidents on bo th sides of the bor d er live in uninc o r p or a t ed se ttlements no t c o nnect e d t o municipal infr astr uctur e (see Co lonia s sec
tion )

. Inst ead, the y may r ely on out door pr ivies and dr ink ing wa t er st or ed in bar r e ls or dr aw n fr om shallow and c ontamina t ed wells, cir cumstanc e s tha t also cr ea t e par ticular types of vulner ability t o na tur al disast e rs. All U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er -r e g ion r esidents f a c e an additional health challenge: the inability t o quick ly and eff ectively move medical assistanc e acr oss the int e r n ational bound a r y. A s a r e sult , the near est sour c e of aid in a na tur al disast er cr isis may well be lit e r ally una v ailable. F o r ex ample, althou g h the U

. S

. Depar t ment of H ealth and Human Ser v ic es has cr ea t e d a N a tional Disast er Medical Syst em c o mpr i sed of 6,000 v o lunt eers, only some of these v o lunt e ers ha ve passpor t s and c ould no t be deploy e d int e r n a t ionally without waivers. Al so , c e r t ifi ca tion stand a r d s f o r health car e pr ofessionals var y acr oss bor d ers. 

### N **e x**  **t S**  **t eps T**  **o A**  **ddr ess H**  **e alth**  **Eff ec**  **ts of N a**  **tur al Disast**  **ers** Include c r oss - bor der e vac uations in pr eparedness plannin g **.** Pr epar edness plans need t o c o nsider elderly r esidents f o r eva c ua tion, special needs shelt er s, and medical needs. B esides evacua ting the cr itically ill and elderly , plans should r e c o g niz e tha t those with chr o nic c onditions such as asthma also may need t o evacua t e . Emergenc y r e sponse ex er cises should be under taken on a r e g u lar basis. In a d dition, planning f o r evacua tions a c r oss the bor d er should be car r i ed out because, a t any one time, thousands of U

. S

. bor d er city

16 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der Promotoras – K e

y Members of the Health W

o rk er Disaster Response T eam “Promotoras”—sometimes called “promotores” toindicate both male and female workers—are wellknown and trusted members of the U.S.-Mexico border community health team. T hey receive their training from health care professionals and take on the key role of talking with families in their homes about health issues and disease-prevention methods (see the Board’s Seventh Repor t, “Children’s Environmental Health”)

. Examples of sister city pairs along the border where the promotoras approach is being used include Y u ma/San Luis-San Luis Rio Colorado, Ambos Nogales, and El P aso- Ciudad Juárez. F o r many border communities, promotoras are a critical component of the community health worker team, especially those communities where Spanish frequently is the fi rst language of a family. In fact, the promotoras tradition is ing rained in Mexico’s border communities and increasingly is viewed as an extremely effective tool in the United States as well. Because of their local credibility , promotoras are able to deliver culturally sensitive education to families as well as collect data on families’ health status. T hey also offer the potential to be key players in responding to human health needs related to natural disasters. In Arizona, for instance, promotoras are being trained on emergency preparedness and response techniques and linked to the local emergency preparedness agencies (city , county , and state). Promotoras organizations there are working with the Red Cross, the Arizona Citizen V olunteer Corps, and local fi refi ghters g r oups. T hey are required to be cer tifi ed in CP R and to take a fi rst aid course. In New Mexico, the New Mexico Depar tment of Health worked with the U.S. Depar tment of Housing and Urban Development (H U D) to assist the colonia of Del Cerro and the City of Hatch to educate colonias residents on how to address mold and mosquito control. Flyers were printed in English and Spanish, and the local community centers served as the distribution centers. On a national level, emergency preparedness continues to feature as a topic in the promotoras’ annual national conference.section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

r esidents ar e visiting acr oss the bor d er and vic e versa
. Te x a s o ffi ci als made such pr epar a t ions f o r Hur r i cane Dean in Au g u st 2007, althou g h Dean eventually missed Te x a s c o mple t ely. Finally , t o help the public do its par t in pr epar edness, make inf or ma tion widely a v ailable in bo th Eng lish and Spanish. F o r ex ample, the Souther n Calif or ni a E a r t hquake Cent er developed a biling ual ear thquake pr epar edness handbook and distr ibut ed millions of c opies thr o u g h ne wspapers , the Amer ican Red Cr oss , and home impr o vement st or es. Inco rp or ate lessons lear ned f o r post -impact injur y pr e v ention. L essons lear ned fr om Hur r i cane K a tr ina include cr ea ting widespr e ad saf e ty messa g es in bo th Spanish and Eng lish on saf e plac ement and use of gener a t o rs and war ning of the r isk of downed power lines. O ther lessons include the f o llowing: r e
st or e electr ical ser v ic e as a pr ior ity and pr ovide advic e on saf e mo t o r vehicle use dur ing and aft er a st or m. Th ese outr each campaig ns need t o be devised by U

. S

. and Mexican author ities and desig n ed f o r dissemination in the bina tional f o o t pr int of the likely disast e r
. S t r e n g then post -impact a ssoc i ated disea s e pr ev ention. To r e duc e c o mmunicable disease r i sk s fr om na tur al disast e rs, work t o r est or e ser v ic e fr om af

f e ct ed wast e w a t er tr ea tment plants. In addition, make unint e r r upt e d pr ovision of saf e dr ink ing wa t e r a t o p pr ior ity

. N o t e tha t no t only fl ooding can aff ect dr ink

ing wa t er supplies —in the 2007 Souther n Calif o r n i a wildfi r e s, one c o mmunity , R a mona , was without wa t er f o r sever al week s, and r esidents had t o r e sor t t o tr uck

ing in wa t e r and boiling existing supplies. Th ese plans need t o be developed in a c o or dina t ed way f o r bo th sides of the bor d er
. S t r a te g i cally har ness te chnolo g

yto aid in post - disaster r e co v e r y . F o r ex ample, star ting in 2008, the Sta t e of Te x a s will use R a dio Fr equenc y I d entifi ca tion wr istbands t o identif y

and tr ack na tur al disast er evacuees. 

## JK 

# Natural Disasters Effects on the Reg ion’s W ildlife and E cosyst ems
N a tur al disast e rs ar e deemed as such by people, but the y alway s ha ve play ed a r ole in the str uctur e and function of na tive habita ts. F o r instanc e , bar r i er islands off the c o ast of Te x a s lessen the impacts of hur

r i canes while pr oviding br eeding habita t f o r seabir ds. Hur r i canes landing on the Te x a s Gulf Coast have upr o o t ed sabal palm f o r ests, but these disturbanc es r e
sult in a mor e var i ed na tur al c o mmunity tha t , in the long t e r m, is mor e diverse and r esistant

. To r n adoes t o uching down in souther n Te x a s ha ve le ft swa t hs of thor n scr ub bar r en f o r miles , but r e
g r ow th of low g r owing g r asses in the wake of t o r n adoes bene fi ts whit e- tailed deer and r o dents tha t ar e pr ey f o r species su c h as the end anger ed oc elot . Althou g h mudslides in Calif or ni a ha ve bur ied str eams, the y also ha ve pr ovided a ne w substr a t e f o r plants. Flooding has sc our ed the bank s of the R i o Gr ande and the Color ado R i ver and deposit e d large amounts of sediments downstr eam, bur ying aqua tic and r ipar i an habita ts, but it is the sediments tha t pr ovide soil f o r a ne w gener a tion of fl oodplain f o r ests. H ailst or ms ha ve k i lled quail and o ther small ver t ebr a t e s, but pr ovide much needed moistur e. W i ldfi r es ha ve c o nv er t e d old g r ow th f o r ests int o g r asslands or shr ub lands, k illing many plants and animals in the pr oc ess while bene fiting a new suit e of species. Th ese int ense disturbanc es of the sta tus quo ha ve disr upt e d br eeding c y cles, entir e ec osyst ems, and alt e r e d the way wa t e rsheds beha ve. In an incr easing ly urbaniz ed bor d er , these changes disr upt the ec olo g i cal ser v ic es on which humans ha ve c o me t o depend. I t can be diffi cult and c ostly f o r large urban c o mmunities t o ad apt t o alt er ed wa t e rshed function. In t o d ay ’ s bor d er envir o nment , na tur al disast e rs thr e a t en wildlif e and ec osyst ems mainly when their habita ts alr ea dy ha ve been sig nifi cantly alt er ed by human a c tivities. Mu dslides pr ovide a case in point

. In Souther n Calif o r n i aalong the bor d er , the c y cle of

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 17section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
dr ou g h t , fi r e , r ain, and sediment movement has been in plac e f o r thousands of y ears. N o r m ally , ve ge ta t e d slopes act like a sponge, soak ing in wa t er aft er r ains. In ar eas wher e fi r e suppr ession has been a g g r essively pr acticed in r e cent times , however , ar eas may no t ha ve bur ned in decades. Under these c onditions, hea vy r ains f o llowing wildfi r es oft en er ode the post

- w ildfi r e bar r en slopes and er ode large amounts of soil and ma t e r i al, destr oying ve ge ta tion in the pr oc ess. Th e c y cle itself is na tur al, but it is the scale and per i odicity of the c y cle tha t has changed. W i th the c ontinued incr ease in the number and scale of mudslides, some aqua tic species that ha ve become confi ned t o dr aina g es within this alt er ed c y cle ar e a t r i sk of ex tinction. W i ld souther n st eelhead tr out in the str eams of San Die g o County ar e par ticularly a t r isk , as well as wild r ainbow tr out popula tions in the headwa t e rs of these str eams. Th e Calif or ni a-B a j a Calif o r n i abor d er ar ea has an ex tr emely hig h de g r ee of seismic activity , which can t empor ar ily or per m anently alt er the intr ica t e na tur al plumbing syst em. E a r t hquakes can alt er the dir ection of r i vers and str eams as well as dr ain cur r e nt spr ing sit es or cr ea t e ne w ones. In f a ct , the g r ea t est thr e a t s t o wildlif e and ec osyst ems ar e the changes in hy dr olo g y tha t , in tur n, can aff ect spr ings tha t ar e home t o species such as the end anger ed Devil’ s H ole pup fi sh, f ound now in just one spr ing in Souther n N e vad a , nor th of the bor d er r e g ion. Flash fl ooding has been deemed a sig nifi cant thr e a t t o this fi sh as well. Th e impacts of fl ooding mer i t specifi c att e ntion in a r e vie w of impacts t o wildlif e and ec osyst ems. Th e two most sig nifi cant r i ver basins of the bor d er , the R i o Gr ande and the Color ado, ar e lined by fl oodplains ad apt e d t o fl ooding . B o th r i ver syst ems ar e pr imar

ily snow f e d (f or the R i o Gr ande this is tr ue pr imar ily upstr eam of E lP a so) and bo th surge in spr ing , be f o r e d ams and diversions, dur ing the annual snowmelt

. Species such as c o tt on wood, willow , and minnows all ar e hig hly ad apt e d t o these annual fl ooding events, which ser v e as envir o nmental cues f o r r e pr oduction. Cott on w ood and willow seed r e quir e moist soils f o r es
tablishment , and some minnows r e quir e r e c e ding wat e rs in fl oodplains f o r spaw ning . Pulses of wa t er also move sediment tha t ac cumula t es a t the mouth of ar

r o y os and mov e it downstr eam t o bec ome the seedbed of ne w f o r ests, and eventually sandbars a t the mouth of the r i ver , pr o t ecting the c o astline fr om hur r i canes. To humans, the impacts of fl ooding oft en ar e devasta t

ing . W i thout fl ooding , however , the ec osyst ems of the R i o Gr ande and Color ado B a sins will bec ome ex tinct

. Th is c o mplex par adox is one of the g r ea t est challenges of balancing envir o nmental and human needs along the bor d er
. 

## W ildlife and E cosyst em V

ulnerabilities

Human changes t o the landscape ha ve sig nifi cantly alt er ed na tur al syst ems in the bor d er r e g ion. D ams and levee syst ems, along with ir r i ga t e d f a r ming and urbaniz a t ion, ha ve changed the na tur al r e g i me of r i vers of the ar id bor d er , tr ansf o r ming str eam fl o w s , ri p a ri a n ec osyst ems, r e g ional biodiversity , and g r oundwa t er
. Th ese cumula t ive changes ha ve made wildlif e and ec osyst ems of the bor d er mor e vulner able t o the e ff ects of na tur al haz a r d s. **Human A l**  **t e**  **r a**  **tions of Sur**  **f ace W**  **a t**  **er F l**  **ow .**  O n e of the most sig nifi cant diff er enc es in the impact na tur al disast e rs ha ve on wildlif e and ec osyst ems now , as opposed t o f o r m er times, is the human f a ct or . F o r ex ample, the na tur al fl ooding c y cle has been int e r
Th e ma sked bobw hite quail (shown) is one example of a s p e ci e s f a ci ng s i

g n ifi cant ha b i tat loss in th e bor derlands . S tate- and f e der al- sponsor ed pr o

g r a ms f o r pr esc r ibed fi re may he lp r e duce inc i dents of lar ge wildfi r e s, as w e l las help maintain th ese spec ies ’ ha b i tats . (S our ce: B u enos A i r e s N a tional W i ld li f e R e f u

ge)

18 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

r u pt ed by c o nstr uction of d ams and levee syst ems. A c
c o r ding t o a 2000 r epor t by the W o rld W i ldlif e Fund, “Th e c o nv ersion of na tur al habita ts t o a g r icultur e and urban ar eas, the intr oduction of ex otic species, wa t er diversions, fl ow r e g u la tion, d a m and levee c o nstr uc
tion, channel str aig h t ening and dr edg ing , and numer

ous o ther changes ha ve taken plac e along the deser t R i o Gr ande and all ha ve impact ed the organisms of the r ipar i an landscape immensely. Th e dynamics of the r i ver syst em and the ec osyst ems tha t depend on it ha ve been changed, r e ducing the na tur al he t e r o geneity of the syst em and sever i ng c o nnections be tween the pa t c hes within it

. ” **Urbaniz ation, S**  **e c**  **u r**  **i ty** **, and Fir e Suppr**  **e s**  **** **sion.** Urbaniz a t ion, tr anspor t a t ion infr astr uctur e, and secur ity r e la t e d a c tivities also ar e impa cting na tur al syst ems of the bor d er r e g ion. Th e spr e a dof these a c tivities int o f o r m erly undisturbed, or lig h tly dis

turbed, ar eas has r e sult ed in fr a g m enta tion of ec osyst ems. Th is oc cur r e nc e has r e duc e d the siz e of the pa t c hes of habita t , so tha t in some ar eas the r e maining ec osyst em fr a g m ents ar e t o o small t o suppor t some species su c h as the end anger ed oc elot and jag u ar ondi along the bor d er of Te x a s and Ta maulipas. In addition, act i ve fi r e suppr e ssion has ac c o mpanied urbaniz a t ion int o na tur al ar eas so as t o pr o t ect homes and str uc
tur es. A s sta t e d in this section, this pr actic e has led t o a dr ama t ic incr ease in the fuel load, which has r e sult ed in larger and mor e int ense wildfi re s
. Th ese super wildfi r es ha ve the po t e nti al t o aff ect ver y large ar eas and ev en ex tir p a t e species. 

### N **e x**  **t S**  **t eps T**  **o A**  **ddr ess W**  **i ldlif**  **e and E**  **c osyst**  **em V ulner** **abilities**
Instit utionalize a wa te rshed a p pr oach to mana

g in g wild li f e and other r e sour ce s . A s mentioned pr eviously , the C l ean W a t er A c t Section 319( h) pr ovides the op por tunity f o r stakeholders and wa t e rshed g r oups t o cr ea t e W a t e rshed Rest or a t ion A c tion Str a t e
g i es tha t assess all the str essors pr esent in a wa t e rshed tha t may be c o mpr o mising wa t er quality. Impr o ving wa t er quality bec omes the vehicle f o r understanding all aspects of the wa t e rshed. Th e W a t e rshed Pr o t ection P l an f o r the Ar r o y o Color ado W a t e rshed in the L o wer R i o Gr ande V alle y is an ex c ellent model f o r g r appling with the impacts of urbaniz a t ion and a g r i cultur e on the ec osyst em and f o r seek ing best mana gement pr ac
tic es t o cr ea t e r esilient syst ems tha t can ser v e c o mmunities long int o the futur e. S t r a te g i cally r e stor e s u r f ace wa te rs **.** To r e duc e the envir o nmental d a ma ge fr om fl ood c ontr o l work s of the R i o Gr ande, Color ado, and T ijuana R i vers , str at eg i c r est or a t ion is one appr oach being pr oposed. In the case of the R i o Gr ande, a 2003 r epor t fr om Th e Allianc e f o r R i o Gr ande H e r i ta ge and W o rld W i ldlif e Fund not es tha t r est or a t ion a c tivities c ould inclu de low er
ing the fl oodplain t o allow the channel t o fl ood mor e fr equently , and c o nstr ucting side channels t o c o nnect low -lying ar eas aw ay fr om the main channel. Ano ther option would be t o r e move or br each levees in specifi c loca tions t o incr ease the fr equenc y of over bank fl ows. In o ther wor d s, a na tur al fl ow c y cle, which includes peri o d i c fl oods, is good f o r the r ipar i an ec osyst em, wa t er quality , syst em r esilienc y , and species pr ot ection. Like wise, on the Color ado R i ver , envir o nmental organiz a t ions such as Envir o nmental De f ense and the S onor an Institut e ha ve pr omo t e d the idea of r est or ing r i ver meanders and pr oviding f o r oc casional fl ooding ont o the bank s as a means of r est or ing na tive c o tt onwood and willow habita t

. W h en the r i ver lea v es the low -fl ow channel and inund a t es the ad j a c e nt fl oodplain (over bank fl ooding ), it pr ovides wa t er f o r habita t r e s
t o r a tion. O v er bank fl ooding can oc cur while still c o ntaining the r i ver in the fl ood c ontr o l levees. Suppor t e rs point t o studies demonstr a t ing tha t na tiv e species in the Color ado R i ver Delta r e g ion bene fi t e d sig n ifi cantly fr om fl ood events in the 1980s and 1990s. Th ese str a t e g ic r est or a t ion e ff or ts ar e best ac c o mplished with active par ticipa tion of r e levant Mexican a g encies and organiz a t ions. E x amples include Mexic o ’ s N a tional Commission f o r N a tur al Pr o t ect e d Ar eas ( Comisión N a cional de Á r ea s N a tur ales P r ote g ida s ); the Mexic o Section of the IBWC ( L a Comisíon Inte r n a c ional de L imite s y A g ua ); CNA ; sta t e envir o nmental a g encies ; and local and sta t e wa t er/wast e wa t er tr ea tment a g encies (some times called Jun ta s or Comisiones de A g ua y S a neamien t o ).
Inco rp or ate ecosyste m health goals into urban stor mwater mana ge ment plans . B o r d er cities such as San Die g o , T ijuana , E lP a so , C i ud ad Juár ez , L a s Cr uc e s, L a r e do , and Nuev o L a r e do should pr escr ibe buf

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 19section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
f e rs, r ipar i an str ips, and we tlands tha t can captur e and slow st or mwat er while bene fi ting wildlif e
. (I t should be no t e d tha t U

. S

. cities with popula tions g r ea t er than 100,000 alr eady ha ve t o ob tain st or mwa t er per m its fr om the U

. S

. Envir o nmental Pr o t ection A g enc y or the sta t e dele ga t e d a g enc y.)
E

x

pand pr esc r ibed fi r e s to maintain ha b i tats f

o r c r i tically enda n ger ed spec i es **.** Th e aplomado falc o n, masked bobwhit e quail, and the chapar r al-dependent species of San Die g o County ar e ex amples of species f a cing sig n ifi cant habita t loss in the bor d erlands. Sta t e and f e der al sponsor ed pr o g r ams f o r pr escr ibed fi r e t o maintain their habita ts should be institut ed wher e absent and maintained wher e pr esent

. Education campaig ns tha t impr ess on homeowners in fi re pr one ar eas t e chniques t o keep their pr oper ties “fi re saf e ” should bec ome a hig h pr ior ity f o r bor d er c ounties and sta t e s. I

denti f y

, pr otect , and connect c r itical ha b i tat **.** To pr ot ect cr itical na tur al ar eas and species fr om dev

asta ting e ff ects of na tur al disast e rs, the B oar d r e c o mmends sever al st eps. First , cr itical habita t ar eas must be identifi ed and pr o t ect e d on bo th sides of the border

. S e cond, e ff or ts need t o be ma de t o c o nnect cr itical habita t ar eas with pr o t ect e d ar eas, thus assur ing tha t c o nnect e d pa t c hes of habita t ar e large enou g h t o maintain ec osyst em and species health. B e cause man y impor tant habita t ar eas ar e near each o ther a c r oss the int e r n a t ional bound a r y , it is impor tant t o maintain unbr o ken c o nnectivity. S an Die g o County has done an ex c ellent job with its Multiple Species Conser va tion Pr o g r am, but c o nnection acr oss the bor d er with impor tant habita ts in B a j a Calif or ni a is la ck ing

. To addr ess this lack of c o nnectivity , the L a s Calif o r n i a s B i na tional Conser va tion Initi a t ive, which is based on scientifi c r e sear c h t o identify pr ior ity speci es and habita ts, has been pr oposed by U

. S

. and Mexican nongover n mental organiz a t ions. Th e e ff or t is suppor t

ed by the Calif or ni a B i odiversity Council, a c oalition of local, sta t e , and f e der al a g encies. L a ck of tr ansbound a r y c o nnectivity can be f ound in o ther ar eas of the bor d er as well. E x amples ar e the N e w Mexic o
- C hihuahua bor d er with the j a g u ar and the Te x a s
-Ta maulipas bor d er with the oc elo t and the j a g u ar ondi. Consider pr otectiv e mea s u r e s f o r endemic speci e s . In the Ced ar W i ldfi re **,** a species of na tiv e c o ast

al r ainbow tr out f ound in a number of r i vers in the C uyamaca R a ncho Sta t e P ark was c o mple t ely wiped out . F o r tunat ely , as mentioned earlier , a g r oup of 16 had r e c e ntly been plac ed in an a q uar ium a t the C hula Vista N a tur e Cent er just pr ior t o the fi r e . M o r e c o nsider a t ion should be g i ven t o such measur es, par ticularly f o r endemic speci e s. 

## JK 

# Natural Disasters Effects on Specifi c P opulation Groups T

ribes Tw enty

- six U

. S

. f e der ally r e c o g niz ed N a tive Amer ican tr ibes live in the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er r e g ion. Some of these tr ibes ha ve f amily and cultur al ties t o indigenous peoples in the nor ther n bor d er r e g ion of Mexico

. F o r a var i e t y of r e asons, when na tur al disast e rs str ike, bor d er tr ibes oft en fi nd themselves par ticularly a t r isk

. F o r ex ample, many r esidents of tr ibal ar eas live in dis

persed housing tha t is sca t t e r e d over the landscape and sur r ounded by na tive ve ge ta tion. Th ese homes ar e vulner able t o wildfi r es and ar e diffi cult t o evacua t e
. Al so , dur ing the r e c o ver y phase, it is diffi cult t o r est or e basic ser v ic es t o these pr oper ties. T r ibes alr eady ha ve taken st eps t o r e duc e their vulner ability

. F o r ex ample, some ha ve pr e-disast er mitiga tion plans, while o thers ar e aw aiting appr oval on their plans. Some tr ibes ha ve v o lunt e er tr ibal fi re depar tments, some ha ve paid staff, and o thers ha ve a Te lec o mmunica t o r Emergenc y Response Ta skf o r c e or a Community Emergenc y Response Team. T r ibes in the Souther n Calif or ni a bor d er ar ea ar e r e g u larly aff ect e d by fi r e s, as oft en as ever y 3 t o 4 y ears.

20 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

Tr ibes ’ vulner a b ilit y to natur a l disa sters became clear once a g

ain dur i ng th e S o uther n Cali f o r n ia wild fi r

e s of Octo ber 2007. A to tal of 13 tr ibes ev ac uate d th eir r e s er v a tions
. S h own is th e Po omacha fi r e adv a nc ing ac r o ss a hillside on L a J o lla B a nd of Luiseno Indians land, near E s co ndido , Cali f o r n ia , on Octo ber 24. (S our ce: Indian H

e alth S e r v ice.)
F o r instanc e , in 2003, sever al tr ibes in the San Luis Re y W a t e rshed and P a lomar M ountain ar ea wer e impact ed by the P a r a dise, Ced a r , and O t ay fi r e s. In addition, in O c t o ber 2007, tr ibes ’ vulner ability , unf or tuna t ely , was onc e a g ain demonstr a t ed dur ing the Souther n Califo r n i aw i l d fi r e s
— the P o omacha , W i t c h, and H a r r is fi re s
. Th e L aJ o lla B a nd of Luiseño Indi ans witnessed mor e than 90 per c ent of their r e sour c es bur ned in the Po o m a c h afi r e . A t o tal of 13 tr ibes evacua t e d their r e s
er vations. Th r e e tr ibes wer e without power and wa t e r
. H omes a t sever al of the r e ser v a t ions wer e destr oy ed, wa t er lines wer e melt ed, and wa t er mains burst . T r ibal evacua tion c e nt ers wer e se t up f o r displa c ed tr ibal f amilies, and elders wer e bused t o saf er loca tions. Th e Red Cr oss se t up fi eld oper a t ions, and HUD f o r m ed a disast er r e sponse t eam tha t pr ovided advic e on how HUD r e sour c es mig h t be used f o r r ebuilding . W idespr e ad c onc er n r e mains about wha t futur e fi r es may br ing t o the ar ea , especi ally f o r tr ibes such as the Santa Ysabel B a nd of Die g ueño Indi ans, whose land has no t bur ned in man y decades. B esides wildfi r e s, bor d er tr ibes c ontinue t o be af

fe c t e db y fl ooding . F o r ex ample, in the E lP a so ar ea , the Ysle ta del Sur Pueblo ( YDSP) tr ibe of Te x a s suf

f e r e d d a ma ge t o tr ibal members ’ housing and land in Au g u st 2006 by the sever e fl ooding tha t oc cur r e d in E lP a so . A c c o r ding t o tr ibal offi ci als, the fl ooding also caused er osion, which was int ensifi ed because the inv a siv e shr ub species tha t ha v e c o me t o domina t e the ar ea do no t pr o t ect a g ainst er osion as well as the na tive g r asses. A d ditionally , ther e wer e sig nifi cant pr oblems with mosquit o es and mold f o llowing the fl ooding

. To pr epar e f o r na tur al disast e rs and their aft er
ma th, YDSP cr ea t e d an Emergenc y P l anning Coor dina t o r and an Emergenc y P l anning Committ ee, along with an Emergenc y Mana gement P l an that mee t s f e der al gover n ment r e quir ements. Th e c o mmitt ee is composed of var i ous depar t ments ( l aw enf or cement , health, le gal, gover n ment oper a t ions, e t c .) tha t mee t on a bimonthly basis. I t also c onducts tr aining f o r bo th tr ibal members and o ther c o mmunity members. I t has par ticipa t e d in ex er cises with sur r ounding cities and c ounties and work s in par tnership with the C i ty of E l P a so , the C i ty of Soc o r r o , E lP a so County , the Sta t e of Te x a s, and FE M A . T r aining par tners include the N a tive Amer ican Fish & W i ldlif e Socie t y and the W o rkplac e Saf e ty T r aining Pr o g r am of the University of Al abama a t B i r ming ham. Al thou g h the tr ibe has no t worked dir e ctly with C i ud ad Juár ez , it is indir ectly inv o lved vi a one of its par tners. Like some o ther bor d er c o mmunities, the YDSP and o ther tr ibes f a c e a shor ta ge of r e sour c es f o r na tur al disast er pr epar a t ions and r e sponse. T r ibal spok es
people ha ve called f o r mor e c o mmunica tion and shar

ing of tr aining oppor tunities as a means f o r building capacity. Th e y also r e c o mmend tha t emergenc y planning c o mmitt ees c ontain all vital depar tments t o be fully e ff ectiv e
. 

## Colonias

“ C oloni a s ” ar e uninc o r p or a t ed c o mmunities or se t

tlements along the U

. S

. bor d er with Mexic o tha t lack basic envir o nmental infr astr uctur e. (N o t e tha t in Mex

ico, a “ c oloni a ” is consider e d a r e g u lar neig hborhood; the equivalent t e r m in Mexic o is “ c oloni apopular

. ”) M ost of these se ttlements ar e inf or mal or ille g al, but local U

. S

. and Mexican author ities ha ve no t been able t o pr ev ent their f o r m a t ion. In r e c e nt decades, hundr eds of such se ttlements ha ve spr ung up along the souther n bor d ers of N e w Mexic o and Te x a s. A s of J a nuar y 1, 2008, ther e wer e 138 c oloni a s in N e w Mexico

. In Te x a s, ac c o r ding t o a sta t e gover n ment r e
por t published a t the end of 2006, ther e was a t o tal of 1,786 c oloni a s with a c o mbined popula tion of ap**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 21section one: Effects of Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

pr oxima t ely 360,000 in the six largest bor d er c ounties alone. C u r r ent estima t es put the t o tal Te x a s c oloni a s popula tion a t nearly 400,000. F o r tuna t ely , c onditions in many bor d er -r e g ion c o
loni a s ha ve impr o ved in r e c e nt y ears thr o u g h f e der al and stat e pr o g r ams. A number of coloni a s r esidents , however , c ontinue t o live in substand a r dhousing and ha ve inadequa t e dr aina g e, se wa ge, dr ink ing wa t e r , and garba ge disposal syst ems. Th e y r ely , inst ead, on substand a r dseptic tank s, pit pr ivies, or , in some cases, outhouses. Some of these c o mmunities also suff er fr om poor air quality as a r e sult of c o nditions such as dir t r o ads in an ar id clima t e, which incr eases the pr es
enc e of dust (c oarse par ticula t e ma tt er). O ther issues include lack of pr oper dr aina g e t o ensur e st or mwa t er fl ows aw ay fr om homes dur i ng r ainst or ms and c ontr o l of blowing dust

. Coloni a s can be par ticularly har dhit dur ing na tur al disast e rs because most of them wer e established without pr oper planning , urban ser v ic es infr astr uc
tur e, or enf or c e d building c o des. Many wer e built in fl ood plains or on st eep slopes , and the housing quality oft en is poor

. In a d dition, wher e envir o nmental infr astr uctur e does exist in c oloni a s , it is fr a g ile, mak i ng it unable t o withstand fl oods and o ther events. F o r instanc e , inadequa t e wast e w a t er syst ems can mean tha t se wa ge some times sa tur a t es str ee ts dur ing fl oods or hea vy r ains. Th at s a me fl ooding oft en poses a thr e a t t o g r oundwa t er . Dr ink ing wa t er syst ems and wells can be c ontamina t ed by overfl owing st or mwa t er . Ano ther eff ect of fl ooding or hea vy r ainf all is d a ma ge t o r o ads ; dir t r o ads can tur n int o impassable mud. Residents some times ar e cut off fr om their c o mmunity , with ac

c ess t o f ood and o ther supplies limit e d, garba ge pick

up (wher e a v ailable) hinder e d, and school buses unable t o pick up childr en. N e w Mexico ’ s coloni a s suff er ed ex t ensive d a ma ge dur ing fl ooding in 2006, as did E lP a so-ar ea c oloni a s. Unf o r tuna t ely , because r ain events —especi ally in the L o wer R i o Gr ande V alle y of Te x a s
— oft en ar e so sever e , and because man y coloni a s ar e locat e d in fl oodplains, fl ooding in Te x a s c oloni a s oc curs r e g u larly

. W i tness the f o llowing descr i ption car r i ed by the B r ownsville H

e r

ald ne wspaper aft er Camer o n County fl ooding in 2003: “Flooded f a r m fi elds , small t o wns and c oloni a s ar e aw ash in stinky r ain wa t er mix ed with se wa ge fr om overfl owing septic tank s. H ealth offi ci als ar e pr epar ing f o r a bumper cr op of mosquit o es. ” Coloni a s in Mexican bor d er cities ar e perhaps even mor e vulner able t o the e ff ects of na tur al disast e rs than their c ount e r par t se ttlements acr oss the int e r n a t ional bound a r y. Even less gover n ment c ontr o l on planning of these se ttlements , denser se ttlements , and lower levels of infr astr uctur e disting uish the Mexican inf or
mal c o mmunities. A s no t e d pr eviously , Mexican se t

tlements also t e nd t o ap pear in ar eas of st eep slopes and can y o n bo tt oms, ar eas no t c o nsider e d suitable by c o mmer ci al developers. Coloni a s ’ pr epar edness f o r na tur al dis ast e rs c ould po t e nti ally be enhanc e d thr o u g h use of a t o ol developed by the U

. S

. Geolo g i cal Sur ve y in c o oper a t ion with the offi c es of the Te x a s Att o r n e y Gener al, Secr e tar y of S t a t e, and the Te x a s W a t er Development B oar d called the Coloni a H ealth, Infr astr uctur e, and P l a t ting Sta t us (C HIP S) t o ol. I t can be used t o pr ovide inf or ma tion t o suppor t infr astr uctur e pr ior ities in Te x a s. Th e t o ol’ s r e
por t gener a t o r can be tailor ed t o the needs of the user , pr oviding either br oa d or specifi c out put

. F o r ex ample, C HIP S can be used t o list c oloni a s with wast e w a t er issu es in a specifi c c ounty as well as all c oloni a s with need of clinical ac c ess. Given tha t it pr ovides bo th popula t ion d a tabase inf or ma tion and infr astr uctur e d a ta f o r each c o loni a in Te x a s, it may lend itself t o a dis as
t er pr epar edness t o ol. In f a ct , FE M A r e quest ed a c o py and made use of its capabilities t o r e spond t o the 2006 fl ooding in E lP a so
. 

## JK

22 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb 

# Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border Natural Disasters Unit ed Stat es: Domestic/Int ernational P olicies/Institutions 

# Natural Disasters Unit ed Stat es: Domestic/Int ernational P olicies/Institutions

Th e United States has a complex domestic system for preparing for, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating natural disasters. Th e system largely developed out of the need to manage incidents within the Unit ed Sta t es. I t does no t , howev er , adequa t e ly c o nt empla t e disast e rs in the bor d er r e g ion of the Unit ed Sta t es tha t also impact par ts of neig hbor ing Mexic o
. In the case of bina tional bor d er na tur al disast e rs, the syst em is calibr a t e d f o r r a pid r e sponse only in the ar ea c o ver e d by the disast er tha t lies nor th of the int e r
na tional bound a r y. Response on the o ther side of the bor d er is le ft t o Mexican author ities , despit e tr ans
bor d er implica tions, unless the incident is declar ed a disast er by the U

. S

. Ambassador t o Mexic o and the Mexican f e der a l gover n ment r e quests U

. S

. gover n
ment assistanc e . In tha t case, f o r m al tr ansbound a r y c o oper a t ion on na tur al disast er r e sponse and r e c o v er y offi ci ally oc curs pr imar ily thr o u g h a chain of c o mmunica tion inv o lving Mexic o C i ty and W a shing t o n, D

. C ., namely the U

. S

. Depar tment of Sta t e, the O ffi c e of F o r eig n Disast er A ssistanc e a t the U

. S

. A g enc y f

o r Int e r n a t ional Development (US A ID), and the Mexican F o r eig n Ministr y. Given tha t many bor d er incidents may no t be declar ed a na tur al disast er by one or bo th of the f e der al gover n ments, local and sta t e offi ci als oft en must mee t immedi a t e emergenc y needs thr o u g h inf or mal local a g r eements and c o oper a t ion. A s a r e sult , tr ansboundar y na tur al disast e rs lea v e millions of U

. S

. bor d er r esidents in tr ansbound a r y c o mmunities with diff er ent levels of pr o t ection under the N a tional Incident Mana g ement Syst em (NIMS , discussed la t er) than r e sidents in other parts of the nation.U.S. domestic policy addresses incident management, including natural disasters, from the ground up. Th is approach is based on the recognition that local governments have several unique types of expertise: (1) pre-existing close working relationships with each other, (2) detailed familiarity with the populations they serve, and (3) specifi c geographic awareness of the impacts a potential threat could impart. A s a r e sult , f e der al polic y calls f o r emergenc y pr epar edness and disast er r e sponse t o be handled a t the lowest jur isdictional level(s) possible. L o cal, tr ibal, and sta t e gover n ments ha ve pr imar y r e sponsibility f o r pr epar ing their c o mmunities f o r a na tur al disast er and f o r r e sponding fi rst should a disast er oc cur . F e der al assistanc e gener ally bec omes a v ailable only when the r e sour c es of local, tr ibal, and/or sta t e gover n ments bec ome over whelmed. O n oc casion, however , par ticularly sinc e Hur r i cane K a tr ina , the f e der al gover n ment has st epped in earlier in the pr oc ess t o pr e-position r e
sour c es in anticipa tion of a r e sponse. A U

. S

. Gover n ment A c c ountability O ffi c e r epor t issued in 2007 (G A O-07-403) r eaffi r ms tha t a var i e t y of na tur al haz a r dmitiga tion a c tivities exist , and they ar e pr imar ily implement ed a t the sta t e and local level. Entitled N a tur al H a z a r d

M i ti g

a tion: V a r iou s M i ti g

a tion Eff or ts E x ist, but F e der al E ff or ts Do N o t P r o vide a Compr

ehensiv e S t r a te g i c Fr ame w ork , the r epor t sta t es tha t althou g h “FE M A [F eder al Emergenc y Mana gement A g enc y], o ther f e der al a g encies, and nonf e der al stakeholders ha ve collabor at ed on natur al haz a r dmitigation, the cur r e nt appr oach is fr a g m ent e d and does no t

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 23section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

pr ovide a c o mpr e hensive na tional str a t e g ic fr ame w ork f o r mitiga tion. Collabor a t ion typically oc curs on a haz

ar d- specifi c basis, aft er a disast e r , or thr o u g h inf or mal me thods. A c o mpr e hensive fr ame w ork would help defi ne c o mmon na tional goals, establish joint str a t e g ies, lever a ge r e sour c e s, and assig n r e sponsibilities among stakeholders. ”
Domestic Emergency Management Cycle Whether managing a natural disaster or another type of emergency , four components generally are included in the cycle: preparedness, response, recovery , and mitigation. Clearly , mitigation activities after a disaster also feed into future plannin g and preparedness. Because of the binational nature of sister cities, the b order region has specific vulnerabilities that complicate the execution of the emergency management cycle.

Mitigation Actions to eliminat e or reduce the impact of future disast ers. Specifi c hazard mitigation plans are prepared following a federal, stat e, or local disast er . Preparedness Activities under taken in advance of an emergency
. T h ese activities develop operational capabilities and improve effective response to disast ers. Disast er plans are developed and revised to guide disast er response and increase available resources. Response Recognition of an approaching disast er by coordinating resources and activating a warning syst em as well as responding to an actual response and sustaining suppor t.

Recover y Both shor t-t erm activities int ended to return vital life-suppor t syst ems to operation, and long-t erm activities designed to return infrastructure syst ems to pre-disast er conditions.



## T

riggering Domestic F ederal Assistance F e der al inv o lvement typically oc curs under the f o llowing cir cumstanc e s : (1) local, tr ibal, and/or sta t e jur i sdictions alr eady ha ve r e sponded t o the incident ; (2) the r e sour c es of these jur isdictions ha ve bec o me over
whelmed (or it is anticipa t e d tha t the y will be); and (3) the d a ma ge has been assessed by local, sta t e , f e der al, and v o lunt e er organiz a t ions t o de t e r mine losses and r e c o ver y needs. At tha t point , the gover nor(s) of the aff ect e d sta t e(s) r e quests f e der al assistanc e
. Under the S taff or d A c t (see tex t box) , f e der al assis

tanc e t o help mana ge a na tur al disast er typically bec omes a v ailable when “the disast er is of such sever i ty and ma g n itude tha t e ff ective r e sponse is be y ond the capabilities of the sta t e and the aff ect e d local gover n
ments, and tha t the f e der al assistanc e is nec essar y. ” O nly the Pr esident may pr oclaim a Ma jor Disast er Declar a t ion or an Emergenc y Declar a t ion. To ob tain

24 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
either , the gover nor of an aff ect e d sta t e must make a declar a t ion r e quest t o the Pr esident . A Ma jor Disast er Declar a t ion initi a t es the deliver y of longer t e r m f e der

al r e c o ver y assistanc e pr o g r ams and typically r e quir es a c o mmitment of sta t e funds. An Emergenc y Declar ation pr ovides shor t er t e r m f e der al assistanc e f o r a specifi c emergenc y , or f o r the pr evention of a ma jor dis as
t e r , and does no t activa t e the deliver y of longer t e r m f e der al r e c o ver y assistanc e pr o g r ams. O n c e a declar a t ion is issued, a number of f e der al a g encies bec ome inv o lv ed

. A ssistanc e a v ailable depends on whic h type of declar a t ion is issued as well as the incident itself . A ssistanc e gener ally f alls int o thr e e cat e gor ies : (1) individual assistanc e , including disast er housing , disast er g r ants, low -int e r est disast er loans, and o ther disast er assistanc e pr o g r ams ; (2) public assistanc e , which helps sta t e or local gover n ments fund the c osts of r e building a c o mmunity ’ s d a ma ged

Federal Authority for Managing Domestic Natural Disasters and Other Incidents Numerous laws, regulations, guidance documents, and directives create the web of authority for federal activities related to natural disasters. F ollowing are descriptions of several of the key documents. La ws T h e Homeland Security Act of 2 002 transferred numerous agencies and functions, including F EMA and several preparedness branches of the Depar tment of Justice (DOJ) and H H S, to the Depar tment of Homeland Security (DH S). T h e Homeland Security Act assigned to DH S the responsibilities of consolidating and coordinating U.S. emergency prevention, preparedness, response, and recovery. Public Law 1 0 7
- 2 96 (2 002). T h e Rober t T
. Stafford Disast er Relief and Emergency Assistance Act(Stafford Act) establishes prog rams and procedures for the federal government to provide assistance to state, local, and tribal governments, as well as individuals and private nonprofi t organizations, in the event of a disaster or emergency. It sets out the authority for federal disaster preparedness and relief prog rams and includes the procedures through which state governors request federal assistance and disaster declarations when combined state and local resources are insuffi cient to manage an incident. 93 Public Law 2 88 (1 9 7 4 ), as amended.
Executive Orders Executive Order 1 2 1 4 8 (F ederal Emergency Management) designates F EMA as the primary federal agency for coordination of federal disaster relief , emergency assistance, and emergency preparedness. W ith the notable exception of the authority to declare a major disaster or emergency , the executive order also delegates to F EMA the responsibility for numerous relief and assistance functions formerly vested in, or transferred to, the President under disaster-related laws (including the Stafford Act). 44 F ederal Reg ister 43 2 3 9 (1 9 7 9), as amended by Executive Order 1 3 2 8 6, 68 F ederal Reg ister 1 0 6 1 9 (2 003). Executive Order 1 3 2 8 6 amended previous executive orders and other actions, including Executive Order 1 2 1 4 8, in connection with the restructuring of federal depar tments and agencies responsible for incident management and emergency response, and with the transfer of cer tain functions to the Secretary of Homeland Security. 68 F ederal Reg ister 1 0 6 1 9 (2 003). Homeland Security Presidential Directives (H S P Ds) HSP D-5 (Management of Domestic Incidents, F ebruary 2 8, 2 003) requires development of a single national incident management system, which has led to development of the N I M S , and of a national response plan, resulting in development of the National Response Plan (N R P) . A successor to the N R P , the National Response F ramework (N R F), was released on January 2 2 , 2 008, and is set to go into effect on March 2 2 , 2 008. It also designated the Secretary of Homeland Security as the “principal federal offi cial for domestic incident management. ” HSP D-8 (National Preparedness Goal, December 1 7 , 2 003) requires the development of a national preparedness goal to enhance federal prevention of , and response to, emergencies, par ticularly the effectiveness, effi ciency , and timely delivery of federal preparedness assistance to state and local governments.

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 25section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
infr astr uctur e, including debr is r e moval and g r ants f o r public schools ; and (3) haz a r dmitiga tion, whichassists both individuals and public entities with measur es t o r e duc e or elimina t e d a ma ge caused by futur e disast e rs. Th ese measur es may include eleva t ion or r e
location of fl ood-pr one homes or r e tr ofi tting buildings t o make them be tt er able t o withstand the impacts of ear thquakes or str ong winds. B esides the two types of declar a t ions a v ailable under the Staff or d A c t , many f

e der al depar tments and a g encies ha ve independent author ity t o pr ovide specifi c types of incident assistanc e and suppor t (see R o les of F eder al A gencies below) . N o t e tha t , in some cases, an ag e n c y ’ s offi ci al author ity includes natur al dis ast e rs , wher eas in o thers it may only include emergencies such as tr anspor t a t ion ac cidents inv o lving the r e lease of haz

ar dous ma t e r i als. F o r ex ample, the U

. S

. Ar my Cor p s of Eng i neers (US A C E) can issue a disast er declar a t ion in r e sponse t o fl ooding and c o astal st or ms, wher eas the U

. S

. Envir o nmental Pr o t ection A g enc y (EPA) has author ity t o r e spond t o sudden thr e a t s t o public health or the envir o nment caused by inland r e leases of oil or haz a r d ous substanc e s. W h en na tur al disast e rs inv o lve tr ibal entities, the B u r e au of Indian A ff airs and Indi an H ealth Ser v ic e (under the Depar tment of H e a t h and Human Ser v ic es [HHS]) ar e inv o lved. 

## Coordinating F ederal Assistance
**NR P and NIMS**  **.** F o llowing the Sept ember 11, 2001, a ttack s on the W o rld T r ade Cent er and the P enta gon, the DHS was cr ea t e d and desig n a t ed the umbr ella f e der al incident mana gement a g enc y. To help DHS str a t e g ically oversee the work among the many entities inv o lv ed in mana g ing incidents, the NR P and the NIMS wer e developed. Th ese post -9/11 actions initi a t ed a per i od of tr ansition f o r domestic incident mana gement , and the Unit ed Sta t es arg u ably r e mains in tha t per i od of tr ansition. Dev e loped t o deal with all incidents of var y ing type, ma g n itude, and sever i ty , the NR P’ s pr imar y pur p ose is t o f a cilita t e c o or dina t ion among f e der al, sta t e , tr ibal, and local gover n ments, as well as pr iva t e and nonpr of

it organiz a t ions. Th e NR P has fi ve c o mponents : (1) a B a se P l an tha t r elies on the NIMS (see below) as an organiz a t ional t empla t e f o r c o or dina tion; (2) appendices that pr ovide additional author ities , r e f e r e nces , and r e sour c e s ; (3) Emergenc y Suppor t Function Annex es tha t descr i be the r oles of f e der al a g encies and depar t

ments ; (4) Suppor t Annex es with additional sub j ect

specifi c inf or ma tion such as int e r n a t ional c o or dination; and (5) Incident Annex es, which descr i be specifi c incident mana gement a c tivities f o r par ticular types of incidents. P a r t icularly r e levant t o emergenc y r e sponse in the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er r e g ion is the NR P’ s Suppor t Annex on Int e r n a t ional Coor dina t ion (I C Annex). Th e I C Annex discusses the Depar tment of Sta t e ’ s r e sponsibilities as the c o or dina ting f e der al a g enc y f

o r incidents with an int e r n a t ional c o mponent —r esponsibilities such as ex pediting visa issuanc e of f o r eig n ex per t s if needed; work ing with the Int e r n a t ional Red Cr oss and Red Cr esc e nt M o vement t o assist f amily members in loca ting loved ones in an aff ect e d ar ea ; c o or dina t ing U

. S

. gover n ment r e quests f o r f o r e ig n or int e r n a t ional multila t er al (e.g ., Unit ed N a tions [UN], N o r t h Atlantic T r ea ty O r ganiz a t ion) assistanc e; and advising on the diplomatic , economic , and s e cur i ty implications of bor d er r estr ictions or closur e. Th e I C Annex of the NR P also discusses int e r n ational coor dination associ a t e d with many of the emer

genc y suppor t functions (E SFs) (see ta ble) . Th e I C Annex lists the f o llowing as “ c ooper a ting a g encies ”: the U

. S

. Depar tment of A g r i cultur e (USD A); Depar tment of De f ense (D OD); HHS; DHS; D OJ; Depar tment of T r anspor t a t ion (D OT ); US A ID; o ther f e der al a g encies ; and the Amer ican Red Cr oss. P erhaps sig n ifi cantly within the int e r n a t ional c o nt e x t , althou g h the NR P mentions the U

. S .-Mexico Mar i ne J o int Contingenc y P l an (Mar ine JCP), it does no t mention the J o int Unit ed S t at es -Mexico Contingenc y P l an f o r Pr epar edness and Response t o Envir o nmental Emergencies Caused by Releases, Spills, Fir es, or E x plosions of H a z a r d ous Substanc es in the Inland B o r d er Ar ea (Inland JCP) ( see B i national A r r a ngemen ts section ). B o th the Mar i ne and Inland JCP s, however , ar e impor

tant fr ame w ork s f o r c o or dina t ion with Mexic o in the event of polluting incidents, and ther e f o r e would signifi cantly str eng then the NR P if included. Th e NIMS is the t empla t e tha t was used in developing the NR P

. I t pr ovides a c o nsist ent fr ame w ork f o r incident mana gement a t all jur isdictional levels r e gar d

less of the cause, siz e, or c o mplexity of the incident

. Th is c o nsist ent fr ame w ork enables r e sponders fr om

26 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
U.S. National Response Plan (N R P): F ederal Agency ES F and Responsibilities in the Case of Domestic Disasters NO TE: A declared disaster on the Mexican side of the border would trigger a different set of functions/responsibilities from the U.S. government if the Mexican government requested assistance.

Emergency Suppor t F unction Primary Depar tment or Agency 1. T ranspor tation Depar tment of T ranspor tation

2. Communications Depar tment of Homeland Security (DH S) (Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection/National Communications S ystem) 3. Public W orks and Eng ineering Depmar tent of Defense (U.S. Army Corps of Eng ineers) and DH S (Federal Emergency Management Agency [F EMA]) 4. Firefi ghting U.S. Depar tment of Ag riculture (U SDA) (Forest Service) 5. Emergency Management DH S (F EMA)
6. Mass Care, Housing, and Human Services DH S (F EMA) and American Red Cross

7

. Resource Suppor t General Services Administration (GSA) 8. Public Health and Medical Services Depar tment of Health and Human Services

9. Urban Search and Rescue DH S (F EMA)

1 0. Oil and Hazardous Materials Response U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and DH S (U.S. Coast Guard) 1 1. Ag riculture and Natural Resources U S DAand the Depar tment of the Interior

1 2. Energ y Depar tment of Energ y (DOE)

1 3. Public Safety and Security Depar tment of Justice
1 4. Long- Term Community Recovery U S DA, Depar tment of Commerce, DH S (F EMA), Depar tment of Housing and Urban Development, T reasury , and Small Business Administration 1 5. External Affairs DH S (F EMA)

Sources : Information obtained from T able 2.1 of The F ederal Response to Hurricane K atrina: L essons L earned (February 2 006), page 1 6; Figure 2 of the N R P (December 2 004), page 1 2; the table entitled “International Coordination Associated W ith Emergency Suppor t F unctions (ESFs)” in the International Coo rdination Suppor t Annex, I N T -5, of the N R P (December 2 004); and the Notice of Change to the N R P (May 2 5, 2 006 ). S tat e Depar tment Responsibilities within the Int ernational Cont ext W hen the U.S. Government considers transpor tation and border restrictions/ closures, the State Depar tment must provide guidance on overall diplomatic, economic, and security implications. Specifi c areas include: • Restrictions on international air travel. • Clearance of foreign aircraft and marine vessels.
• Facilitate communications for response to international cyber- CI P failures

and related incidents. • W ork to effect multilateral effor ts to create a “global culture of cybersecurity

. ” [No responsibilities detailed in the International Coordination Suppor t Annex]
Coordinate with foreign governments and DH S on identifi cation and movement to the United States of assets and resources for fi refi ghting assistance. [No responsibilities detailed in the International Coordination Suppor t Annex] Coordinate with foreign governments on identifi cation and movement to the United States of mass care assets and resources for response and recovery activities. As requested by foreign governments, act as liaison with local authorities toenable foreign missions to provide consular access and safety/security assistance to its nationals in the United States. [No responsibilities detailed in the International Coordination Suppor tAnnex]
• W ork with U.S. agencies, the W orld Health Organization, other international

organizations, and nations on surveillance activities and countermeasures to reduce the spread of biolog ical contaminants and facilitate the delivery of vaccines, blood products, and medicines. • Suppor t federal agencies to facilitate the transfer of dangerous pathogen

samples from and to the United States. • Facilitate coordination between domestic and international public health and

law enforcement effor ts.
• Coordinate with foreign governments, if requested, on identifi cation and

movement to the United States of urban search and rescue assets.

• Ar ticulate U.S. needs to the world community through the U N

. Suppor t the entire spectrum of incident management.
Facilitate the exchange between the United States and foreign nations to identify the nature of the threat, impede disease spread, and take immediate remedial actions. Suppor t DOE work with the governments of major oil-consuming countries through the International Energ y Agency and other g roups to maintain readiness to respond to energ y emergencies such as a disruption in oil supplies. [No responsibilities detailed in the International Coordination Suppor t Annex] Suppor t all agencies and the international community on long-term recovery effor ts.
Suppor t the DH S diplomacy and public affairs to ensure a consistent the message to foreign and domestic stakeholders.

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 27section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
diff er ent jur isdictions and disciplines t o work t o ge ther mor e e ff ectiv ely. F o r ex ampl e , it assigns a specifi c title f o r ea c h type of r e sponsibility and a specifi c chain of c o mmand tha t should be used t o mana ge ever y incident . HSP D-5 specifi es tha t be g i nning in Fiscal Y ear 2005, all r e cipients of f e der al pr epar edness aw ar ds must implement the NIMS

. **NR P t**  **o NRF** **.** N o t lon g aft er the NR P and NIMS wer e developed, Hur r i cane K a tr ina pr ovided a largescale t est of these syst ems. F o llowing the c o or dina t ion issues that sur f aced as the nation scr ambled t o r e spond, bo th the NR P and the NIMS be gan t o be r e vised t o inc o r p or a t e lessons lear ned. Among o ther changes, the r e vised NR P , t o be r e plac ed by the NRF on Mar c h 22, 2008, se ts out t o clar if y issues such as wha t tr ig gers implementa t ion of the NR P

. I t also emphasiz es tha t an anticipa t o r y r e sponse may be most appr opr i a t e when mer ely the thr e a t of a sig nifi cant incident exists.
**O ther planning t**  **o ols**  **.** In addition t o r elying on the NR P/NRF , some f e der al a g encies independently ha ve developed planning t o ols t o addr ess their par ticular ar eas of substantive jur isdiction dur ing an incident

. F o r ex ample, HHS has developed the P l anning To ol f o r Public H ealth E ff ects D u r ing N a tur al Disast ers. Th e HHS P l anning To ol char ts na tur al disast er events (such as fl oods, ear thquakes, landslides, wildfi r es) and public health c ontingencies (such as dealing with dea t hs, injur y pr evention and c ontr o l, loss of clean wa t er supply , loss of shelt er , loss of r outine hyg i ene, incr eased pests and vect ors, loss of electr icity), r ank ing the likely pr evalenc e of each c ontingenc y thr o u g hout an aff ect e d popula tion dur ing ea c h type of ev ent (e.g ., f o cal, widespr e ad, r a r e , likely). In addition, EP A is developing a planning t o ol tha t local c o mmunities (e.g ., cities, c ounties, and tr ibes) can use t o develop plans f o r mana g ing debr is tha t r e sults fr om na tur al disast e rs. 

## Role of F ederal Agencies in Manag ing Domestic Incidents
Many F e der al a g encies play a par t in the emergenc y

mana gement c y cle. In some cases , their r ole pr imarily is dur ing the pr epar edness and r e sponse por t ion, wher eas o ther a g encies st ep in dur ing r e c o ver y and mitiga tion/r ebuilding ; still o thers ar e inv o lv ed in multiple phases. F o r ex ample, a t the fr ont end of the c y cle, the U

. S

. Geolo g i cal Sur ve y , within the Depar tment of the Int e r ior (D OI), issues no tifi ca tions and war nings f o r ear thquakes, v olcanoes, and landslides. DHS over

sees the national e ff or t t o mana ge all types of haz a r d s. FE M A , within DHS , mobilizes and organizes entities dur ing a disast er and also administ ers the N a tional Flood Insur anc e Pr o g r am. D u r ing emergencies, f e der al a g encies also ex t e mpor aneously assist wher e nec e s
sar y , as EP A did with its sear ch and r e scue e ff or ts in the aftma t h of Hur r i cane K a tr ina

. Th e N a tional Response Team, c o mpr ising 16 f e der al a g encies, has r e sponsibility f o r e ff ectiv e na tional pr epar edness and r e sponse f o r oil and haz a r d ous ma t e r i als spills. Th e USD A F o r est Ser v ic e fi g h ts and mana ges wildfi r e s. In addition, the N a tional W i ldfi re Coor dina t ing Gr oup (NWCG) is made up of the USD A F o r est Ser v ic e; f our D OI a g encies

— the B u r e au of L a nd Mana gement , the N a tional P ark Ser v ic e, the B u r e au of Indi an A ff airs, and the Fish and W i ldlif e Ser v ic e; and sta t e f o r estr y a g encies thr o u g h the N a tional A s soci ation of Sta t e F o r est ers. I t s pur p ose is t o c o or dina t e pr o g r ams of the par ticipa ting wildfi r e mana gement a g encies and f ost er c o oper a t ion. Th e NWCG pr ovides a f o r m aliz ed syst em t o a g r ee on stand a r d s of tr aining , equipment , qualifi ca tions, and o ther oper a t ional func

tions. D O T has a Re g ional Emergenc y T r anspor t a t ion Pr o g r am t o ensur e tha t the D O T r ole in N a tional Response P l anning is ac c o mplished. Th is pr o g r am r esides under the leadership of D O T Re g ional Emergenc y T r anspor t a t ion Coor dina t o rs and Repr esenta tives who ar e r e sponsible f o r developing pr epar edness plans ; c onducting tr aining ; maintaining int e r d epar tmental, f e der al, sta t e , and local organiz a t ion c o or dina t ion; and suppor ting FE M A ’ s r e sponse under the NR P

. Th e r e c o ver y and r e building/mitiga tion por t ion of the c y cle por t ion also br ings in numer o us a g encies. F o r instanc e , HHS t o ge ther with DHS c o or dina t es f e der al public health and medical car e assistanc e; HUD work s with local organiz a t ions aft er fl oods t o addr ess mold and mosquit o c ontr o l, as well as r ebuilding . In addition, the N a tur al Resour c es Conser va tion Ser v ic e, within USD A , car r i es out debr is r e moval fr om clo g ged str eams caused by fl ooding , installs c o nser va tion measur es such as r e seeding na tive g r asses t o pr event soil

28 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

er osion on hillsides aft er a fi r e , and r e plants and r e
shapes f a r m land str eam bank s tha t ha ve er oded aft er a fl ood. Al so mana ged by USD A is the W e tlands Reser ve Pr o g r am, a v o luntar y pr o g r am t o r est or e we tlands, which, in tur n, help t o minimiz e futur e fl ood d a mage
. In addition, mana g ing a na tur al disast er along the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er oft en includes an int e r n a t ional dimension, and sever al f e der al a g encies play a par ticular

ly c e ntr al r ole. Th e Sta t e Depar tment c o or dina t es int e r n a t ional r e sponse e ff or ts and r e quests f o r aid fr om f o r eig n gover n ments ; US A I D, par ticularly its O ffi c e o f F o r eig n Disast er A s sistanc e (O FD A), also may play a ke y r ole. B e cause int e r n a t ional r e sponse can bec ome a c e ntr al f e a tur e of e ff ectively mana g ing na tur al disas

t e rs in the bor d er ar ea , the r oles of the Sta t e Depar t

ment and US A ID ar e discussed mor e fully below

. 

## Role of F ederal Agencies in Manag ing Int ernational Incidents **S tat**  **e D e**  **par tment and U**  **S A**  **I D**  **.** Th e Sta t e Depar tment play s a c e ntr al r ole in c o or dina t ing the U

. S

. r e sponse t o f o r eig n disast e rs by pr oviding assistanc e t o Amer ican citiz ens abr o ad and by ser v ing as the f o cal point f o r c ontact with f o r eig n gover n ments. I t ex er cis

es these r e sponsibilities thr o u g h sever al mechanisms. First , the Secr e t ar y of Sta t e pr ovides over all f o r
eig n polic y g u id anc e t o the US A ID O F D A . US A I D, in tur n, is the pr incipal U

. S

. a g enc y t o ex t e nd assistanc e t o o ther c ountr ies r e c o ver ing fr om disast e rs onc e the U

. S

. Ambassador t o the aff ect e d c ountr y has made a declar a t ion of disast er and the f o r eig n gover n ment has r e quest ed assistanc e . Th e US A I D O F D A off ers emer
genc y assistanc e , funds mitiga tion activities t o r e duc e the impact of r e cur r ent na tur al haz a r d s, and pr ovides tr aining t o build local capacity f o r disast er mana gement . In addition, O F D A deploys t eams of disast er specialists t o assess d a ma ge, det e r mine appr opr ia t e assistanc e levels, and c o or dina t e with o ther U

. S

. gov
er nment and nongover n mental r e sponders. In the case of Mexic o , US A ID O F D A most r e c e ntly pr ovided mor e than $2.1 million in r e sponse t o the devasta t ing fl oods in the sta t es of Ta basc o and C h i apas in N o vember 2007 and deploy e d a fi ve-person assessment t eam t o the fl ood-aff ect e d ar ea t o de t e r mine pr ior ity needs in c o nsulta tion with the U

. S

. Embassy and the Gov e r n
ment of Mexic o
. Th e U

. S

. Embassy and Consula t es in the impact ed c ountr y also play a cr itical r ole by bec oming the c e ntr al hubs f o r dissemina t ing inf or ma tion t o local Amer icans and li aising with host

- c ountr y gover n ment on disast er r e sponse. Depending on the siz e of the disast e r , the Sta t e Depar tment in W a shing t o n, D

. C ., and/or embas

sies may f o r m task f o r c es t o mana ge the U

. S

. r e sponse (as was the case with the 2003 tsunami tha t impact ed Th ailand, Indonesi a , and o ther par ts of A s i a). In Mex

ic o , U

. S

. c o nsula t es oft en must take the fi rst action in any anticipa t e d hur r i cane, assisting Amer ican citiz ens in the ar ea , deploying staff t o the anticipa t e d aff ect e d ar ea , and maintaining c ontact with f o r eig n offi ci als. Embassy personnel also may be deploy e d t o har d-hit ar eas t o shor e up c o nsula t e staff . In addition t o maintaining open lines of c o mmunica tion— c r itical dur ing a dis ast e r— the U

. S

. Ambass ador also has the authority t o r e lease up t o $50,000 in immedi a t e disast er aid t o f o r eig n gover n ments. B esides its work in the fi eld, the headquar t e rs of

fi c e of the Sta t e Depar tment in W a shing t o n, D

. C

. , has par ticular r e sponsibilities f o r r e sponding t o bo th f o r
eig n and domestic disast e rs. Th e offi c e ser v es as the pr imar y c onduit f o r c o mmunica ting with U

. S

. diploma tic posts, dissemina t es cr itical inf or ma tion t o U

. S

. medi a outle ts, and work s with o ther U

. S

. a g encies. In the case of catastr ophic domestic dis ast e rs , such as Hur r i cane K a tr ina , it is the Sta t e Depar t ment ’ s r e
sponsibility t o c o or dina t e off ers of f o r eig n assistanc e
. In the aft er ma th of Hur r i cane K a tr ina , the Unit ed Sta t es ac c e pt ed f o r e ig n assistanc e
— s ome thing tha t the Unit ed S t at es had never done on such a large scale. A s a r e sult , the Sta t e Depar tment , FE M A , and US A ID O F D A ha ve worked closely t o ge ther t o develop the Int e r n a t ional A ssistanc e Syst em (I A S), which establishes stand a r doper a t ing pr oc edur es f o r r e questing assistanc e , de t e r mining if r e sour c es can be pr ocur ed int e r n a t ionally , r e vie w ing off ers, de t e r mining ac c e pt

ability of off ers, mana g ing lo g i stics, and distr ibuting r e sour c e s. A d ditional U

. S

. a g encies inv o lved in I A S include DHS , D O S , USD A , and o thers. 

### N **e x**  **t S**  **t eps f**  **or E xisting Fr** **ame w**  **ork s and Capabilities** 
F u r ther clar i f ythe N a tional R e sponse Plan (NR P)/N ational R e sponse Fr ame w ork (NRF) **.** Th e

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 29section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

c onc epts, pr inciples, and initi a t ives of the NR P/NRF ar e ex tr emely use ful t o c o or dina t e the c o mplica t e d web of local, sta t e , tr ibal, and f e der al r e sponders and their numer o us independent and c o-dependent r e
sponsibilities. Some additional clar ifi ca tion, however , would str eng then the fr ame w ork

. F o r ex ample, clar if y the chain of c o mmand and wha t is c o or dina t ed when t o f a cilita t e quick and e ffi cient r e sponses. Th e “ c lar i f y wha t is c o or dina t ed when” issue has implica tions, f o r instanc e , f o r whe ther FE M A or f e der al a g encies (using their own r e sour c es) pay f o r the c osts of the r e sponse. A da p t the NR P’s S u ppor t Annex on Inte r n ational Coor dination to ena b le r a pid r e sponse to bo r der

- r eg ion nat ur al disasters . A s mentioned earlier , althou g h the NR P mentions the U

. S .-Mexic o Mar i ne J o int Contingenc y P l an (Mar ine JCP), it does no t mention the J o int Unit ed S t at es -Mexico Contingenc y P l an f o r Pr epar edness and Response t o Envir o nmental Emergencies Caused by Releases, Spills, Fir es, or E x plosions of H a z a r d ous Substanc es in the Inland B o r d er Ar ea (Inland JCP) ( see B i national A r r a ngemen ts sec ti o n ). B o th the Mar i ne and Inland JCP s, however , ar e pr oven and suc c essful plans f o r bina tional emer

genc y r e sponse c o or dina t ion, and ther e f o r e impor tant fr ame w ork s f o r c o or dina t ion with Mexic o in the event of polluting incidents. Even if no t mentioning the Inland JCP in the or ig inal NR P was mer ely an over

sig h t , including it in the f o r t hc oming version would str eng then the NR P/NRF

. B uild ca pac i t yso that the nece ssar yte chnolo

g

y and ex per i ence d dec isionmakers at all le v e ls ar e a vaila ble in the fi eld dur i n g

a r e sponse, includin g ne we r players . Events such as Hur r i cane K a tr ina and the Souther n Calif or ni a wildfi r es of 2007 ha ve pr oven tha t r e sponders a t all levels must ha ve the capacity t o quick ly and e ff ectively r e spond. Emer

genc y pr epar edness and r e sponse has bec ome a shar ed r e sponsibility among all levels of gover n ment —local, sta t e , tr ibal, and f e der al—as well as the pr iva t e and nonpr ofi t sect o rs. To build this capacity and addr ess the dispar a t e lev

els of ex per t ise and understanding , ne wer r e sponders c ould dr aw fr om the ex per i enc e of mor e hist or ical r e
sponders such as ex per i enc e d sta t e and local r e sponders and the F o r est Ser v ic e, EP A , and Coast Guar d. O n e mechanism would be t o enga g e in ex per i enc e d r e sponder

- led tr aining and inf or ma tion ex changes. Pr oactively pr epar ing and tr aining f o r disast e rs may be among the most e ff ective means t o mitiga t e their impacts. In addition, ex per i enc e d r e sponders ar e enc our a g ed t o r e ach out t o the pr iva t e sect o r t o ensur e, f o r ex ample, tha t large employ e rs in bor d er c o mmunities ha ve policies, pr oc edur es, and tr ained personnel in plac e t o mana ge na tur al disast e rs. 

## Role of the Privat e Sector In the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er r e g ion, many large c o mpanies ha ve se t up oper a t ions on bo th sides of the bor d er . Some ar e inv o lved in manuf a ctur ing , wher eas o thers ar e inv o lved in tr ade as well as wholes a le and r e tail oper a t ions. Pr iva t e sect or oper a t ions along the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er should be included in all discussions r e gar ding pr epar a t ion and r e sponse t o disast e rs caused by na tur al haz a r d s. Many c o mpanies ha ve oper a t ions on bo th sides of the bor d er , and their employ e es live in bo th Mexic o and the Unit ed Sta t es. Man y c o mpanies ha ve in-plant medical staffs, secur e c o mmunica tion sys

t ems acr oss the bor d er , large war e houses, and fl eets of buses —all of which can be br ou g h t t o bear dur ing an incident

. L a rge c o mpanies, dur ing and aft er an incident , ha ve r e sponsibilities f o r the welf ar e of c o mpany personnel, mak ing sur e the c o mpany c omes thr o u g h the incident , and assisting wher e possible in the larger c o mmunity

. Int e r n a t ionally , f o r w ar d-look ing c o mpanies and gov

er nments ar e instituting policies f o r emergenc y mana g ement ; f o r ex ample, an I S O stand a r d(c er tifi ed b y the Int e r n a t ional O r ganiz a t ion f o r Stand a r d iz a t ion and ver i fi able by an independent par ty) f o r emergenc y mana gement has been ap pr oved by Isr a el. A pr imar y goal of these policies is t o enable c o mpanies t o sur v ive disast e rs and r e c o ver r a pidly , pr eser ving jobs and ec onomic out put

. S o ny E l ectr onics , Inc

. , pr ovides one ex ample of a bor d er -r e g ion c o mpany with str a t e g ic planning measur es in plac e f o r the onse t of na tur al disast e rs. H e adquar t e r e d in the R a ncho B e r n ar do ar ea of San Die g o , one of the ar eas har dhit by the O c t o ber 2007 wildfi r e s, the c o mpany ’ s r e sponse t o the disast er was c o
or dina t ed thr o u g h the pr ovisions of its B u siness Con30 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb tinuity P l an. Th e P l an pr ovides ex t ensive pr oc edur es f o r assisting employ e es in advanc e of, dur ing , and f o llowing the disast e r
. I t also includes pr oc edur es f o r c o
or dina t ing with gover n ment a g encies tak i ng the lead in the over all c o mmunity r e sponse. B e f o r e the onse t of the disast e r , haz a r d ous chemicals wer e st or ed in nonc ombustible ar eas and secur ed. D u r ing and aft er the disast e r , the c o mpany f o llowed the P l an’ s pr ovisions f o r c o oper a t ion with the Red Cr oss and ac c ess t o le gal and insur anc e ser v ic es. A c c o r ding t o c o mpany offi ci als, B u siness Continuity P l ans ar e ex pect ed a t all Sony f

a cilities, including those in Mexic o
. In some ar eas, c o mpany plans ha ve been c o or dina t

ed thr o u g h local business associ a t ions. O n e ex ample is the Ma tamor os L o cal Mutual A ssistanc e Commit

t e e ( ComitéL o cal de Ayuda M u tual , CL A M). Cr ea t e d in 1986 by local industr y , CL A M str uctur e and activities ar e pa tt er ned aft er g u idelines of a U

. S

. pr o g r am called Community Awar eness and Emergenc y Response. CL A M establishes and r e vie w s industr y emergenc y r e sponse plans f o r po t e nti al inc o r p or a t ion int o those of the c o mmunity. U p c o ming a c tivities include t esting hur r i cane plans in bo th Ma tamor os and the neig hbor

ing U

. S

. city , Br ownsville, Te x a s. 

## JK

Th e Octo ber 2007 wildfi r e s in S o uther n Cali f o r n ia destr o

yed 2,000 homes and caused w e ll ov er $2 b i llion in dama ge. L e ft: Fr iends and v o lunte ers si ft th r o u gh r ubble in th e R a ncho B e r n ar do section of S a n D i e go . R i gh t: H e licopte rs dr op w a te r and r e tar dant on th e H a r r is fi r e , near th e Mex i can bor der , in an e ff or t to stop th e wildfi r e s fr om adv a nc ing f u rth er . (S our ce: A n dr ea B o oher , F e der al E m ergenc y Mana gement A genc y

)

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 31section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
U.S. B ORDERS T A

T E M AJORDIS A S T E RDE CLA RA T IONS (Border Counties Specifi ed) California Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype: Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype: Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype:

Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype:
Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype: October 2 4, 2 0 0 7 October 2 1, 2 0 0 7–March 1, 2 008 W ildfi res Individual and Public Assistance & Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (San Diego County and others) April 1 4, 2 005 F e bruary 1 6–2 3, 2 005 Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mud and Debris Flows Public Assistance & Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (San Diego Counties) F e bruary 4, 2 005 December 2 7 , 2 004–January 1 1, 2 005 Severe Storms, Flooding, Debris Flows, and Mudslides Individual Assistance (San Diego County) Public Assistance (San Diego County) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (San Diego County) October 2 7 , 2 003 October 2 1, 2 003–March 3 1, 2 004 W ildfi res Individual Assistance & Public Assistance (San Diego County) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All) F e bruary 9, 1 998 F e bruary 2–April 3 0, 1 998 Severe W inter Storms and Flooding Individual Assistance & Public Assistance (San Diego County) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All) Arizona Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype:
Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype:
Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype: September 7 , 2 006 July 2 5–August 4, 2 006 Severe Storms and Flooding Public Assistance (Pima County and the T ohono O’odham Nation) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All) July 1 4, 2 003 June 1 7–July 1 5, 2 003 W ildfi re (Aspen Fire) Public Assistance (Pima County) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All) October 2 7 , 2 000 October 2 1 –November 8, 2 000 Severe Storms and fl ooding Public Assistance (Cochise and Santa Cruz Counties) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All)

32 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

New Mexico New Mexico Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype:

Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype: August 3 0, 2 006 July 2 6, 2 006, and continuing Severe Storms and Flooding Individual Assistance (Doña Ana and Otero Counties) Public Assistance (Doña Ana, Grant, Hidalgo, and Luna Counties) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All) September 2 2 , 1 999 July 1 6–August 7 , 1 999 Severe Storms and Flooding Public Assistance (Doña Ana and Luna Counties) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All) T

exas Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype:

Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype:
Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype:
Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype:
Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype:
Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype:
Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype: August 1 5, 2 006 July 3 1, 2 006 Flooding Individual Assistance (El P aso County) Public Assistance (El P aso and Hudspeth Counties) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All) January 1 1 , 2 006 December 1, 2 005, and continuing Extreme W ildfi re T hreat Public Assistance (All) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All) September 2 4, 2 005 September 2 3, 2 005, and continuing Hurricane Rita Public Assistance (All) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All) November 5, 2 002 October 2 4–November 1 5, 2 002 Severe Storms, T ornadoes, and Flooding Individual Assistance (Cameron and Hidalgo Counties) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All) September 2 6, 2 002 September 6–3 0, 2 002 T

r opical Storm Fa y Individual Assistance (W ebb County) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All) August 2 2 , 1 999 August 2 2 –2 6, 1 999 Hurricane Bret Individual Assistance and Public Assistance (Cameron, Hidalgo, and W ebb Counties) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All) August 2 6, 1 998 August 2 2 –3 1, 1 998 T

r opical Storm Charlie (Heavy Rain and Flooding) Individual & Public Assistance (Kinney , Maverick, V al V erde, and W ebb Counties) Hazard Mitigation Grant Prog ram (All)

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 33section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
EM ER GENC YDE CLA RA T IONS All Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype: September 1 3, 2 005 August 2 9, 2 005, and continuing Hurricane Katrina Evacuation Specifi cally , F E MA is authorized to provide Public Assistance Category B (emergency protective measures), including direct federal assistance, at 1 00 percent federal funding. T

exas Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype: Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype:
Declared Date: Incident P eriod: Incident T ype: Assistance T ype: F e bruary 1, 2 003 F e bruary 1, 2 003 Loss of Space Shuttle Columbia Public Assistance (Cameron and El P aso Counties) September 1, 1 999 August 1, 1 999, and continuing Extreme Fire Hazards Emergency Services (Brewster , Culberson, El P aso, Hudspeth, Jeff Davis, Kinney , Presidio, T errell, and V al V erde Counties) June 2 3, 1 998 N/A Severe wildfi re potential All 2 5 4 counties for Direct F ederal Assistance, to include reimbursement for the elig ible costs associated with prepositioning assets from the Emergency Management Assistance Compact. T h e Compact is an ag reement between or among states to provide assets when possible.

F I R E MANAG E M E NT ASS I S T A N C E D E C L A R A TI O N S California 2 005 – Border 5 0 Fire (San Diego County) 2 003 – Mataguay Fire (San Diego County) 2 003 – P aradise Fire (San Diego County) 2 003 – Cedar Fire (San Diego County) 2 002 – Pines Fire (San Diego County) 2 002 – Gavilan Fire (San Diego County) Arizona 2 003 – Ash Fire (Cochise County) 2 003 – Aspen Fire (Pima County) T exas 1 998 – Cibolo Creek fi re (Presidio County) 1 998 – P aradise Fire (Jeff Davis County)

Note: Other Fire Management Assistance Declarations posted on W eb site without county specifi cation are not included in this list. Source: http://www .fema.go v . Note that only U.S.-b order counties are listed; other nonb order counties also included in origina l table.

34 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb 

# Natural Disasters Mexico: Domestic/International Policies/Institutions

Th e pr imar y f e der al Mexican entity r e sponsible f o r immedi a t e r e sponse t o na tur al disast e rs is the N a tional Council f o r C i vil Pr o t ection (P r otec ción C i vil ), which f alls under the author ity of the f e der al S e cr e tar i a t of Gover n ment ( S e cr e tar ía de G o ber n a c ión , SE GO B) and has sta t e-level c o or dina t ors thr o u g hout the c o untr y. I t s mission is t o c o or dina t e the N a tional Syst em f o r C i vil Pr o t ection ( S i s tema N a cional de P r otec ción C i vil , SINA P R O C), an ar r a ngement of public and pr iva t e organiz a t ions a t the f e der al, municipal, and local, lev

els in Mexic o with the pur p ose of pr o t ecting citiz ens a g ainst disast e rs
. W ell-organiz ed and tr ained, Pr o t ec
ción C i vil is k nown f o r pr oviding timely and e ff ectiv e assistanc e t o Mexican citiz ens dur ing na tur al disas

t e rs/events, including evacua tion and shelt er se t

- up be f o r e and dur ing hur r i canes. Th e SINA P R O C na tional emergenc y r e sponse plan emphasiz es the need f o r c o or dina t ion among local, sta t e , and f e der al levels of gover n ment . Th e plan des

ig na t es municipal administr a t ions as the fi rst r e sponders t o na tur al disast e rs and o ther emergencies. I f the y lack the capacity t o solv e the pr oblem, the y tur n t o the sta t e gover n ment f o r r elie f ; if sta t e gover n ments still ar e over whelmed by the disast e r , the y tur n t o the f e der al gover n ment , bo th Pr o t ec ción C i vil and the N a tur al Disast ers Fund, which has r e sour c es f o r r elie f

. SE GO B may declar e a sta t e of emergenc y when an imminent na tur al thr e a t (or hig h pr obability of one) poses sig nifi cant r isk t o human lif e and would r e quir e r a pid mobiliz a t ion. O n c e a sta t e of disast er is declar ed, SE GO B is le gally mand a t ed t o establish int e r n a t ional a g r eements f o r civil pr o t ection and is r e sponsible f o r c o or dina t ing bo th f e der al and, with the Secr e t ar i a t of F o r eig n Rela t ions ( S e cr e tar ía de R e la ciones E x te r i or es ), int e r n a t ional aid. A c c o r ding t o the 1986 B a sis f o r the E s ta blishmen t of th e N a tional Sys tem f o r C i vil P r otection , Mex i co at th at t i me h a d binational cooper ation a g r eements with the Unit ed S t at es that could be used f o r bina tional emergenc y r e sponse in the bor d er r e g ion. In addition, in the 2006 Manual f o r th e O r g

a ni z a tion and O p er ation of the N a tional Sys tem f o r C i vil P r otection , Pr o t ec ción C i vil establishes the cr it er i af o r the fulfillment of int e r n a t ional a g r e ements and c o oper a t ion. Mexic o can be a valuable ally in r e sponding t o domestic disast ers in the Unit ed Sta t es. A s no t e d pr eviously , in the wake of Hur r i cane K a tr ina , the Gov e r n
ment of Mexico sent a conv oy of unar med soldiers t o the Unit ed Sta t es t o pr ovide f ood and medical supplies t o victims who had lost their homes. Mexic o also sent a na vy vessel t o the Mississippi c o ast ar ea with r e scue vehicles and helic opt ers t o aid evacua tion e ff or ts. Al

thou g h ther e wer e some pr oblems c o or dina t ing the ac

c e ptanc e of the assistanc e , the ex per i enc e has led the U

. S

. f e der al gover n ment t o develop a ne w syst em t o be tt er r e c e ive f o r eig n assistanc e , as discussed earlier

. In addition, Mexican emergenc y r e sponders f o r m par t of the B o r d er A g enc y Fir e Council, discussed in mor e de tail in the Spo t lig h t on Pr omising P a r t nerships sec

tion. Mexican sta t e s, including those along the bor d er , ha ve their own local civil pr o t ection laws tha t dele ga t e r e sponsibilities t o the municipal administr a t ions. F o r ex ample, the B a j a Calif or ni a C i vil Pr o t ection L aw es
tablishes the Sta t e Council f o r C i vil Pr o t ection, which has the le gal mand at e t o r e ach a g r eements with fi rst r e sponse author ities of the “ b or der r e g ion, ” perhaps implying bo th Mexican and Unit ed Sta t es a g encies. Th e Coahuila C i vil Pr o t ection L aw g i ves the Dir e ct or f o r C i vil Pr o t ection the author ity t o contact int e r n ational organiz a t ions, public or pr iva t e, in case of emergenc y. Th e Nuev o L e ón and Ta maulipas C i vil Pr o t ection L aws establish tha t int e r n a t ional v o lunt e er g r oups can r e gist er with the Municipal C i vil Pr o t ection Unit t o par
ticipa t e in emergenc y r e sponse actions. 

## JK

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 35section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb 

# Natural Disasters Binational Arrangements In 1980, the two gover n ments sig n ed an a g r eement pr oviding f o r the establishment of a U

. S .-Mex

ic o Consulta tive Committ ee on N a tur al Disast ers (a s men tioned in In tr oduction) . Membership includes FE M A , the Sta t e Depar tment , the South w est B o r d er Re g ional Commission, and Mexic o ’ s Secr e tar i a ts of Gover n ment , F o r eig n Rela t ions, N a tional De f e nse, N a vy , T r e asur y and Public Cr edit , Communica tions and T r anspor t , Human Se ttlements and Public W o rk s, and H ealth. Th e pur p ose of the a g r eement is t o f ost er c o oper a t ive inf or ma tion shar ing and planning in the bor d er r e g ion f o r na tur al disast er pr epar edness. Th e Committ ee ’ s mand a t e includes ex change of inf or mation and personnel, r isk assessments, tr aining , study of d a ma ge assessment t e chniques, and study of the r ole of c o mmunica tions in emergenc y planning

. Th e a g r eement also specifi es tha t each c ountr y shall do its best t o f a cilita t e pr ompt entr y int o and exit fr om its t e r r it or y of personnel, ma t e r i als, and equipment inv o lved in c o oper a t ive pr o g r ams under the a g r eement . Under the a g r eement , the Committ ee is t o mee t a t least annually and may establish joint work ing g r oups with par ticipa tion of o t her f e der al, sta t e , or local gover n ments and the pr iva t e sect o r
. To d a t e , implementa t ion of the 1980 A g r e ement has been limit e d. Offi ci als a t the work ing level fr om bo th gover n ments, however , hope t o mee t in early 2008 t o be g in upd a ting the a g r eement t o make it mor e e ff ective in the event of a disast er on either side of the bor d er
. B esides the 1980 A g r e ement , r e c e nt decades ha ve seen additional U

. S .-Mexic o par tnerships cr ea t e d t o jointly move f o r w ar d in ar eas of mutual int e r est , including assisting each o ther in times of emergenc y. Y e t , offi ci ally r e c o g niz ed bina tional emergenc y pr epar edness and r e sponse r e mains largely limit e d t o chemical and oil spills. O n ly in a f e w cases do cur r e nt bina tional institutions and a g r e ements also inc o r p or a t e na tur al disast e rs as an issue the y c o ver
. Th e po t e nti al t o ex
pand fr om “ s pills only c o ver a ge ” t o “ a ll haz a r d s c o ver
a g e ” is a ke y point tha t should be c o nsider e d by polic y makers and hope fully will be addr essed in the upd a t e of the 1980 bila t e r al a g r e ement

. B esides the limit e d c o ver a ge of manyexisting bina tional a g r eements, o ther challenges r e main in the f o r m of le gal, r e g u la t o r y , oper a t ional, lo g istical, and fi nanci al bar r i ers. L e gal and r e g u la t o r y challenges make it diffi cult t o de t e r m ine the k i nds of help tha t can be g i ven and ac c e pt ed, and de t e r mining this dur

ing an emergenc y can be a time- c onsuming pr oc ess. Al so , medical lic ensing and cr edenti aling var i es fr om c ountr y t o c ountr y , r aising questions in r e gar d s t o int e r o per a bility. Fur t her mor e, ac c e pting the suppor t of f o r eig n personnel dur ing an emergenc y typically r e
quir es cust oms duties, passpor t r e quir ements, and r e
sour c e manif ests t o be waived. Types of r e sour c es and c o mmunica tions equipment also var y , which can pose int e r o per a bility challenges (see B o ar d ’

s T e n th R e por t )

. F o llowing ar e descr i ptions of sever al institutions and a g r eements tha t fi g u r e str ong ly in bina tional policies r e la t e d t o emergenc y mana gement

. 

## Int ernational Boundary and W a t er Commission
Th e Int e r n a t ional B ound a r y and W a t er Commis

sion (IBWC) play s a ma jor par t in fl ood c o ntr o l work

. Established by tr ea ty , the IBWC is r e sponsible f o r applying the bound a r y and wa t er tr ea ties be tween the Unit ed Sta t es and Mexic o . I t has bo th a U

. S

. Section (USIBWC) and a Mexican Section (L a Comisíon In te r n acional de L imite s y A g ua , C I L A), a str uctur e tha t pr ovides a solid f ound a tion f o r tr ansbound a r y c o oper a t ion

. IBWC cur r e ntly maintains fl ood contr o l pr o j ects at a number of cr itical loca tions along the bor d er . O n e of the most ex t e nsive syst ems is loca t e d in the L o wer R i o Gr ande V alle y of Te x a s
-Ta maulipas, an ar ea especi ally vulner able t o widespr e ad fl ooding fr om hur r i canes and tr opical st or ms. O ther bina tional fl ood contr o l pr o j ects include the R i o Gr ande Rectifi ca tion Pr o j ect , which includes levees and fl oodways thr o u g h E lP a so , Te x a s
- C i

ud ad Juár ez , C hihuahua ; a syst em of levees and ber ms along the R i o Gr ande near Pr esidio , Te x a s
- O jina g a , C hihuahua ; r i ver levees along the Color ado R i ver near

36 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
Y

u ma , Ar izona-Mexicali, B a j a Calif or ni a ; channel impr ovements at N o gales , Ar izona-N o g ales , S onor a ; and a concr e t e fl ood c ontr o l channel and levees f o r the T i

juana R i ver , which ent e rs the Unit ed Sta t es a t the San Die g o , Calif or ni a-T ijuana , B a j a Calif or ni a , bor d er
. Giving additional fl ood pr o t ection ar e two int e r
na tional st or a g e r e ser v oirs built by the IBWC —F alc o n D am near Roma , Te x a s -Nueva C i ud ad Guer r e r o , Tamaulipas, built in 1953, and Amistad D a m near Del R i o , Te x a s
- C i ud ad A cuña , Coahuila , c o mple t e d in 1969. B o th d ams play an impor tant r ole in c ontr o lling R i o Gr ande fl oods and pr o t ecting the L o wer R i o Gr ande V

alley. Rec e nt inspections sug g est tha t a d ditional studies and str a t e g ies ar e needed t o pr o t ect the stability of Amistad D am fr om the e ff ects of na tur ally oc cur
r ing sink holes. To pr ovide adequat e fl ood pr o t ection in the bor d er r e g ion, the USIBWC has developed plans f o r fl ood c o ntr ol syst em r e habilita tion in Doña Ana County , N e w Mexic o , and E lP a so , Hid algo , and Camer o n Counties, Te x a s
. Th e USIBWC also is c o or dina t ing with C I L A t o jointly under tak e planning a c tivities. Th e goal of this eff

or t is t o r est or e the old levees t o their or ig inal desig n capacity (IBWC) and t o FE M A stand a r d s ; f o r the int e r n a t ional r e ach, the capacity was pr eviously a g r eed t o by bo th c ountr ies, each of which is r e sponsible f o r maintaining its levees t o the a g r eed stand a r d. D u r ing 2007, the USIBWC c o mple t e d a sig nifi cant levee-r ais

ing pr o j ect in E lP a so County , with mor e work planned in the futur e. Th e L o wer R i o Gr ande Flood Contr o l Pr o j ect in South Te x a s is wher e the most work is r e quir ed—an estima t ed $125 million t o r aise and r e habilita t e U

. S

. levees. In some ar eas, the 100- y ear fl ood would over
t o p levees by as much as 6 f e e t in this hur r i cane-pr one r e g ion. Th e USIBWC is implementing a multi- y ear plan t o r aise lev e es in cr itical ar eas using a v ailable funding

. In Fiscal Y ear 2008, the a g enc y was appr opr i a t e d $21.7 million f o r levee work in Te x a s and N e w Mexic o—a sig nifi cant incr ease over r e c e nt y ears when annual appr opr i a tions wer e $2–3 million. Finally , the USIBWC also has been c o or dina t ing with C I L A on d a ta c o llection and modeling . Th e goal is f o r bo th c ountr ies t o use the inf or ma tion t o de t e r
mine fl ood c ontr o l syst em needs and pr epar e plans f o r impr o vements.

N

a tur a l disa ster s can tr i g

ger inc i dents such a s ha zar dous mate r i als spills. T o suppor t tr ansbor der capac i t y to r e spond to disa sters , th e U
. S
. E n vir o nmental P r otection A genc y co nducts ha zar dous mate r ials r e sponse tr aining with Mex i can fi rst r e sponders

. S h own: tr aining session in th e C i t y of A c una , S tate of Coahuila , Mex i co (ac r oss th e bor der fr om E a gl e P

a ss , T exa s). P a r t ic ipants included offi c i als fr om th e local fi r e depar t ment , hospital, public w o rk s depar t ment , police depar t ment , and nonpr ofi t g r oups s u ch a s th e R e d C r oss . O n sta ge ar e sev e r a l members of th e audience dr essed in di f

f e r

ent lev e ls of personal pr otectiv e equipment. (S our ce: V a lmichael L e os , U
. S
. E n vir o nmental P r otection A genc y

)

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 37section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb 

## Border 2 0 1 2 Program A s the B oar d discussed in its Te nth Repor t ( see pages 32–33 ), the B o r d er 2012 pr o g r am and its Emergenc y Pr epar edness and Response B o r d er -W ide W o rkg r oup (EP RBWWG) ha ve play ed cr uci al r oles in U

. S .-Mexic o bina tional emergenc y pr evention, pr epar edness, and r e sponse r e la t e d t o discharges of haz a r d ous substanc

es. D u r ing 2007, c o mple tion of one of the ob jectives of Goal #5 (Emergenc y Pr epar edness and Response) of the B o r d er 2012 pr o g r am was marked by the sig ning of the 14th and fi nal Sist er C i ty Contingenc y P l an. B esides the a c tivities of the EP RBWWG , B o r d er 2012 has c ontr ibut ed in o ther ways t o bor d er -r e g ion pr epar edness f o r emergencies. Th ese c ontr ibutions include t esting and upd a ting the emergenc y no tification syst em be tween Mexic o and the Unit ed Sta t es and ex pediting cr oss -bor der r e sponses f o r people and equipment under the T r ust e d T r a v eler Pr o g r am. M o r e gener ally , B o r d er 2012 has str eng thened par tnerships be tween U

. S

. and Mexic o offi ci als a t all levels, including C u st oms and B o r d er Pr o t ection (CBP) within DHS , the U

. S

. N o r ther n Command (NO R T HCOM, a D OD asse t), Pr o t ec ción C i vil, the Mexican N a tional Communica tions Cent er ( k nown as C E N A C OM), and A d

uanas (Mexic o ’ s c ount e r par t t o CBP)

. In f a ct , EP A , NO R T HCOM, FE M A , US A I D, Pr o t ec ción C i vil, and the six nor ther n Mexic o bor d er sta t es cur r e ntly ar e c o llabor a t ing t o enhanc e Mexican haz a r d ous ma t e r i als disast er r e sponse capabilities thr o u g h tr aining , ex er
cises, and a “ l ea ve behind ” equipment pr o g r am. 

## T he U.S.-Mexico Inland Joint Contingency Plan
In its Te nth Repor t , the B oar d also discussed the J o int Response Team and its work on the Inland JCP , both of whic h or ig ina t ed with Ann e x II of the L aP az A g r e ement

. Th e 1999 Inland JCP establishes bina tional c o oper a t ive measur es f o r pr epar ing f o r and r e sponding t o haz a r d ous substanc e incidents along the bor d er
. Th e EP RBWWG , in its r ole as st eer ing c o mmitt ee of the J o int Response Team, cur r e ntly is upd a ting the 1999 JCP t o r e fl ect r e c e nt institutional changes and upd a t es int e nded t o ensur e 24 hour/7 d ay a week notifi ca tion capabilities on the Mexican side of the binational r e sponse no tifi ca tion syst em. P erhaps ir onically , althou g h the Inland JCP c ould pr ovide an e ff ective fr ame w ork f o r c o or dina t ion of a binational r e sponse t o a natur al dis ast e r , its author ity is limit e d t o r e leases of haz a r d ous substanc e s. Th er ef o r e , unless the e ff ects of a na tur al disast e r include the r e lease of a haz a r d ous substanc e , the need t o r e spond t e chnically is outside the domain of author ity under the Inland JCP

. 

## Sist er City Agreements A s mentioned earlier in this r epor t , c o mmunities tha t lie acr oss the bor d er fr om each o ther oft en ha ve ex tr emely close ties in the f o r m of f amily , fr iends, and ec onomic int e r d ependenc e. In times of cr isis , including na tur al disast e rs, these neig hbor ing c o mmunities

— s ome times called sist er cities —ha v e inf or mally been c o ming t o each o thers ’ aid f o r many y ears. To fur ther str eng then and syst ema t iz e these ex

isting municipal-level ne twork s , the B o r d er 2012 pr og r am has facilitat e d the development of Sist er C i ty A g r e ements. Th ese a g r eements, which ar e dr aw n up by the c o mmunities themselves and jointly sig n ed, function as bina tional joint c o ntingenc y plans tha t descr i be how the c o mmunities will work t o ge ther t o plan f o r , r e spond t o , and r e c o ver fr om emergencies. Th ey ar e based on the fr ame w ork f o r emergenc y pr epar edness and r e sponse established in the Inland JCP . In addition, the y r e inf or c e the close r e la tionships among city may o rs, fi r e chie fs, and o ther gover n ment offi ci als fr om the Unit ed Sta t es and Mexic o , as well as aiding in br idg i ng changes in political administr a t ion. F our t e en sist er city pairs , home t o 90 per c ent of the bor d er popula tion, or ig inally wer e identifi ed. O n June 25, 2007, the last of the 14 or ig inally c onc eived ma jor Sist er C i ty A g r e ements was sig n ed by the c o mmunities of E lP a so , Te x a s ; the Municipality of Juár ez , C hihuahua ; and Sunland P ark , N e w Mexic o
. Anecdo tal inf or ma tion su g g ests tha t the Sist er C i ty a g r eements ha ve f a cilita t e d impr oved c o llabor ation acr oss the bor d er . Rec e ntly , f

o r ex ample, Mexican author ities in Re ynos a used the communications pr ot o c o l of their Sist er C i ty A g r e ement t o no tif y

McAl len, Te x a s, of a small oil spill tha t ent e r e d the wa t e rs of the R i o Gr ande. Th e c o mmunica tions pr o t oc ol also was used by Pr o t ec ción C i vil in C i ud ad Juár ez t o no tif y

the U

. S

. N a tional Response Cent er about a plastics plant

38 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

N

e i

ghbor ing U
. S
. and Mex i can co mmunities along th e bor der ofte n hav e ex tr eme l y close ties. T o mor e e ff ectiv e ly help each other in ca se of emer genc y

, Sister C i t y A g r e ements hav e been instituted b y many of th ese c o mmunities and jointly si g n ed. O n June 25, 2007, th e 14th Sister C i t y A

g r e ement w a s si g n ed b y th e co mmunities of E lP a so , T

exa s; th e Munic ipalit y of Juár e z , C hihuahua ; and S unland P a rk , N e w Mex i co . S h own, le ft to r i gh t: R o ber to S
. H

e r n ande z R ., A c ting May o r , C i udad Juar e z , C hihuahua; R u ben S e g u r a , Mayor , S unland P a rk , N e w Mex i co; J o hn F

. Cook , Mayor , E lP a so , T exa s; and S tephen L

. J o hnson, A d ministr a to r , U
. S
. E n vir o nmental P r otection A genc y . (S our ce: U
. S
. E n vir o nmental P r otection A genc y

)

ex plosion tha t had the po t e nti al t o aff ect E lP a so
. Despit e their invaluable utility , Sist er C i ty A g r e ements largely ar e limit e d in sc ope. M ost apply only t o haz a r d ous ma t e r i als r e leases r a ther than all types of emergencies or disast e rs ; however , many sist er cities c ontinue t o r e spond t o r e quests f o r aid r e gar d less of whe ther or no t the y r e la t e t o haz a r d ous ma t e r i als. In sever al instanc e s, the y ha ve inf or mally r elied on their c ontingenc y plans dur ing events such as t o r n adoes and fl oods

. Fur ther , one sist er city pair —N o g ales, Ar izona and N o gales , S onor a—has f o r m ally upd a t e d its 2006 plan t o include an all haz a r d s appr oach. Ac

tiva tion of the upd a t e d plan in Au g u st 2007 r e sult ed in a bina tional r e sponse t eam tha t sa ved lives dur ing the fl oods. Sever al o ther sist er city pair ings ar e r e vis

ing their plans t o include emergencies be y ond haz

ar dous ma t e r i als r e leases, such as fl oods, hur r i c a n e s, and t o r n adoes. Th is g r oup includes McAl len-Re ynosa ; E a g l e P a ss -P iedr as N e g r as ; Del R i o- C u id ad A cuna ; San Luis

- S an Luis R i o Color ado; Cochise County -N ac o; and Dou g las

- A g ua Pr ie ta

. (N ote: T o hono O ’ d h am N a tion and other tr ibes als o may be in v o l v ed.) B e cause the Sist er C i ty A g r e ements ar e equivalent t o Memor and aof Understanding , the U

. S

. and Mexican f e der al gover n ments do no t r e c o g niz e the Sist er C i ty A g r e ements as binding . Th er e f or e, f o r ex ample, any a g r eement be tween the sist er city c o mmunities t o addr ess li ability issues ar e unenf or c e able. Th eir nonbinding na tur e, however , allows f o r tr emendous fl ex
ibility in f a shioning the sc ope of the a g r eements, empower ing c o mmunities t o addr ess their unique needs. A s no t e d in the B o ar d ’ s Te nth Repor t , one challenge in bina tional emergenc y pr epar edness and r e
sponse c o or dina t ion is ob taining li ability c o ver a ge f o r fi rst r e sponders and their equipment dur ing sist er city activa tion. A lack of r e cipr o city be tween Amer ican and Mexican insur anc e c o mpanies has been cit e d as one r e ason. Liability c o v e r a ge r e c o gnized b y the r e spectiv e gover n ment in which r e sponders ar e oper ating is impor tant because emergenc y r e sponders oper ating in a f o r eig n c o untr y ar e sub j ect t o the jur isdiction and liability of tha t c ountr y. In r e sponse t o this challenge, EP A

’ s O ffi ce of Emergenc y Mana gement is investigat

ing the f e asibility of a pilo t pr o g r am t o ob tain insur

anc e f o r U

. S

. local r e sponders going int o Mexic o , but a mor e c o mpr e hensive solution is needed. Ano ther challenge is quick ly ge tting equipment and personnel acr oss the bor d er dur ing an emergenc y. A f t er man y bina tional ex er cises along the bor d er , inc o nsist encies fr om “por t of entr y t o por t of entr y ” and fr om “ sist er city t o sist er city ” wer e identifi ed. EP A and CBP cur r e ntly ar e c o llabor a t ing t o f o r m ula t e a solution, such as a pr o t oc ol and/or pr oc edur e tha t would be applicable “ b or der

- wide ” f o r ex pediting the cr ossing of equipment and personnel acr oss the bor d er dur ing a haz a r d ous ma t e r i al incident

. 

## Binational Stat e-Level Contingency Plans Contingenc y plans dr aw n up by neig hbor ing sta t es acr oss the int e r n a t ional bor d er would c o mplement the municipal-level Sist er C i ty A g r e ements ; however , with the ex c e ption of one pr oposed plan—be t ween the sta t es of Ar izona and its Mexican neig hbor sta t e , Sonor a—no f o r m al sta t e
- t o- sta t e a g r eements and plans f o r emergenc y pr epar edness and r e sponse exist

. In Sept ember 2007, the gover nors of the Unit ed Sta t es and Mexican bor d er sta t es issued a joint decla**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 39section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

r a tion a t their XXV B o r d er Gover nors Conf er enc e (see Intr oduction) . Th e joint declar a t ion included a number of it ems dir ectly r e la t e d t o emergenc y planning and r e sponse in the bor d er r e g ion. Th e gover n ors a g r eed t o: (1) car r y out a functional bina tional a g r o t e r r or ism ex er cise; (2) cr ea t e a Gener al P l an f o r B o r d er Secur ity

, using as a basis the ex per i enc es and suc c ess cases shar ed by the member sta t es of the B i na tional B o r d er Secur ity W o rktable, especially those a c tions r e la t e d t o inf or ma tion ex change; the int e r o per a bility of r eal time v oic e, d a ta , and video c o mmunica tions ; and pr o g r amming joint oper a t ions and joint tr aining pr o g r ams f o r bo th sides of the bor d er ; (3) tr ain fi rst r e sponders in the bor d er r e g ion on issues r e la t e d t o an infl uenz a pandemic in c o or dina t ion with the health c o mmit

t e e; (4) develop a Five- Y

ear B i na tional Emergenc y Response Str a t e g i c P l an tha t will include pr ev ention, pr epar a t ion, r e sponse, and r e c o ver y ; and (5) develop a Memor andum of Understanding f o r mutual help in the event of emergencies among the 10 bor d er sta t e s. Th e declar a t ion includes the f o llowing sta t e ment : “ W e r e c
o g niz e the need t o g r ow within a pla t f o r m of r e g ional c o oper a t ion, with the appr opr i a t e par ticipa tion of gov

er nment , t o int ensely pr omo t e the development of a bor d er and c o mmunities tha t can withstand disast e rs, while tak ing full advanta g e of existing capacities. ” 

## Informal Binational Cooperation
L o cal bor d er
- c ommunity offi ci als oft en r ely on mor e inf or mal tr aditional pr actic es and personal r e lations t o marshal nec e ssar y bina tional c o oper a t ion t o addr ess emergencies in the absenc e of c o mpr e hensive and a g ile f o r m al U

. S

. -Mexic o a g r eements. Tw o cases fr om the Te x a s
- Mexic o bor d er illustr a t e this point

. In Ap r il 2004, fl ash fl ooding in the Mexican bor d er t o wn of P i edr a s N e g r as, popula tion 200,000, caused the R í o Esc ondido t o r i se 25 f e e t , tr apping r esidents on r oof

t o ps. W h en Mexican ar my offi ci als declined t o ask f o r help fr om the Unit ed Sta t es, insisting it was no t nec

essar y , the may o r of P i edr a s N e g r as personally asked CBP t o pr ovide helic opt ers f o r sear ch and r e scue. CBP sent two helicopt ers and r e scued 14 people tr ap ped on r ooft o ps. Th r e e y ears la t e r , in Ap r il 2007, thunderst o r ms pr oduc ed two t o r n adoes tha t str uck the sist er cities of Piedr a s N e g r as and E a g l e P a ss, especially the la tt er ( men tioned earlier in th is r e por t). To aid in r e scue and r e c o ver y , the Mexican Sta t e of Coahuila , thr o u g h its gover nor , and the P i edr a s N e g r as May o r , off er ed as
sistanc e with clean-up e ff or ts in E a g l e P a ss and sur

r ounding Ma ver i ck County. W i th the help of CBP , nine dump tr uck s , a loader , thr e e back hoes, and Mexican v o lunt e ers cr ossed the bor d er t o assist in clean-up e f

f o r ts. In Calif or ni a , inf or mal c o oper a t ion also c ontinues t o play a ke y r ole in r e sponding t o na tur al disast ers. F o r instanc e , aft er E lNiño fl oods in the early 1990s and in 1998, the C i ty of San Die g o dispa t c hed r o ad cr e w s and work vehicles t o assist T ijuana in clear ing its r o ads of mudslides and debr is. M o r e r e c e ntly , dur ing the summer of 2005, the gover nor of B a j a Calif or ni a asked the Calif or ni a gover nor f o r assistanc e in ex ting uishing an out -of

- c ontr o l f o r est fi r e in Mexic o ’ s P a r q ue N a cional San P e dr o Már t ir . Calif or ni a offi ci als then tur n ed t o the B o r d er A g enc y Fir e Council ( see S p ot li gh t on P r omising Pa r t nership s section ) and its existing r e la tionships with Mexican fi re fi g h ting offi ci als t o immedi a t e ly dispa t c h 60 sta t e fi re fi g h t e rs and a fl ee t of vehicles t o assist B a j a Calif or ni a
. In addition, in 2007, Mexican fi re fi gh t e r s fr om T ijuana and Te ca t e aided in fi g h ting the fi r es in San Die g o County

. Enf o r c ement se ttlements also can pr ovide a mechanism t o f ost er bina tional c o oper a t ion. F o r ex
ample, the San Die g o County Depar tment of Envir o nmental H ealth r e c e ived administr a t iv e se ttlement funds t o pur c hase haz a r d ous ma t e r i als emergenc y r e sponse equipment , and then tr ansf e r r ed the equipment t o the T ijuana Fir e Depar t ment f o r emergenc y r e sponse pur p oses. Th ese cases illustr a t e the impor tanc e of local cr oss
bor d er r e la tionships in addr essing incidents. Th e y also su g g est tha t ther e is need f o r mor e assistanc e by sta t e and f e der al gover n ments t o f a cilita t e local r e sponses. 

### N **e x**  **t S**  **t eps f**  **or Binational Institutions/P**  **olic ies** 
B e low , a number of nex t st eps ar e r e c o mmended t o impr o ve tr ansbor d er r e sponse t o na tur al disast ers. Th e y addr ess c onc er ns tha t pr esent r e sponse capabilities need t o be up g r aded t o cover the binational bor d er r e g ion t o adequa t e ly pr o t ect the U

. S

. bor d er c o mmunities. Al thou g h the y demonstr a t e tha t sig nifi cant pr o g
40 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

r ess can be made thr o u g h local and sta t e initi a t iv es, ultima t ely , the two f e der al gover n ments need t o make emergenc y r e sponse t o na tur al disast e rs seamless in the bor d er ar ea . Th is may r e quir e bo th administr a t ive ar r angements and le g i sla t ive initi a t ives.
E s ta blish an all disa sters b i national co ntingenc y plan. To seamlessly r e spond bina tionally t o a bina tional disast er of any type, many jur isdictio nal levels on bo th sides of the bor d er need t o be enga g ed. Th e bina tional f e der al jur isdictional str uctur e nec e s
sar y f

o r full enga g ement cur r e ntly is limit e d, however

. F o r ex ample, the 1980 U

. S .-Mexic o A g r e ement on Cooper a t ion D u r ing N a tur al Disast ers has y e t t o be fully implement ed. In addition, the L aP az A g r e ement (the basis f o r B o r d er 2012 and the Emergenc y Pr epar edness and Response B o r d er -W ide W o rkg r oup and the J o int Response Team/J oint Unit ed Sta t es -Mexic o Contingenc y P l an f o r Pr epar edness and Response t o Envir o nmental Emergencies Caused by Releases, Spills, Fir es, or E x plosions of H a z a r d ous Substanc es in the Inland B o r d er Ar ea [Inland JCP]) is an a g r eement f o r the pr ot e ction and impr o vement of the envir o nment in the bor d er ar ea . Th e f o cus of this a g r eement has been t o coor dinat e gover n ment e ff or ts f o r man-made pollution sour c e s, no t thr e a t s or har m imposed by na tur al or o ther dis ast e rs , which nec essita t e a mor e c o mplex r e sponse and the inv o lvement of numer o us mor e entities. Th er e f or e, developing a bina tional emergenc y r e
sponse c o or dina t ion mechanism tha t c o vers all types of disast e rs pr esents a no table challenge. Th a t said, it is an impor tant goal tha t will tak e time and utiliz a t ion of existing U

. S .-Mexic o a g r eements may no t be able t o achieve it

. Fully implementing (and, if nec essar y , br oadening t o pr ovide additional author ity f o r U

. S

. -Mexico natur al disast er c ontingenc y planning ) the 1980 U

. S .-Mexic o A g r e ement on Cooper a t ion D u r ing N a tur al Disast ers, mentioned earlier ( see als o S e cur it y and P r osper i t y Pa r t

nership under the G o v e r nmen t Pa r t nership s section ), would be a g r ea t st ep t owar densur ing the bor d er ar ea is pr epar ed f o r and capable of bina tionally r e sponding t o a bina tional na tur al disast e r
. Full implementa t ion of the 1980 A g r e ement

— or a futur e f e der a l bina tional emergenc y r e sponse mechanism tha t c o vers all types of disast e rs
— c ould build on r e la tionships and r e g i onal and local initi a t ives, such as those developed under Sist er C i ty A g r e ements and the Inland JCP , alr eady in place.
C lar i f y and ex pand Sister C i t yA g r e emen ts . Enc our a g e sist er city c o mmunities t o ex pand bo th the substantive and geo g r a phic sc ope of their A g r e ements. Substantive sc ope c ould be ex panded t o include pollution, na tur al events, or o ther incidents. E x pansion t o include all haz a r d s is ex tr emely e ff ective because local gover n ments take ownership of the initi a t ive, lev e r
a g ed funds fr om o ther sour c es bec ome a v ailable, and city gover n ments enga g e additional levels of gover n
ment suc h as c o unty , sta t e , and other local entities as per t inent t o their ar eas, cr ea ting mor e c o mpr e hensive plans f o r emergenc y pr epar edness and r e sponse. In addition, enc our a g e sist er city c o mmunities t o identif y institutional and polic y challenges. K e y among these challenges is t o solve the li ability/indemnification challenge and ex pedit e d bor d er cr ossing challenges f o r emergenc y r e sponse personnel and equipment

. De v elop additional siste r state/bor der state co ntin genc y pr oposals and plans . Th e B oar d endorses the ex c ellent pr o g r ess on the sist er city c ontingenc y plans and enc our a g es ongoing c o mmunica tion, planning , and ex er cises t o impr o ve their ability t o r e
spond t o emergencies of all types. Th e B oar d also fully suppor ts the r e c e nt joint declar a t ion of the XXV B o r
der Gover nors Conf er enc e and r e c o mmends tha t par
ticular a t t e ntion be g i ven t o na tur al disast e rs as the elements of the declar a t ion ar e implement ed.
B uild pr e v ention and minimization of da ma ge mea s u r e s into ex istin g

b i national a g r e ements **.** Fo r ex ample, zoning c o des can be developed t o keep buildings/a ctivities out of fl oodplains and str eam channels. B uilding c o des can be institut ed t o minimiz e impacts fr om ear thquak es and fi r e s. L a ndscape r e quir ements can be used t o cr ea t e a “ d e f ensible spac e ” ar ound built up ar eas t o pr o t ect a g ainst wildfi r e s. Gr ading or dinanc es can be used t o pr o t ect a g ainst landslides and minimiz e er osion/sedimenta tion/fl ooding of str eam channels. E a ch city should identif y ke y po t e nti al na tur al disast e rs and develop plans t o pr event their impact and minimiz e the need t o under take c ostly r e sponses. Such pr eventa tive appr oaches c ould be inc o r p or a t ed int o an existing bina tional par tnership t o enc our a g e

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 41section two: Managing Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
such fr ont -end pr eventa tive actions t o be taken on bo th sides of the bor d er
. S t r e n g then both inf o r m al and c r oss - a genc yb i
national co lla bor a tion

. Continue t o work with U

. S

. C u st oms and B o r d er P a tr ol within the Depar tment of H omeland Secur ity and its Mexican c ount e r par ts (e.g ., A d uanas) t o enhanc e capabilities f o r quick , cr oss -bor

der emergenc y r e sponse mobiliz a t ion. Th e B oar d suppor t s the joint sta t ement issued under the Secur ity and Pr osper i ty P a r t nership calling f o r pr o g r e ss in tha t ar ena
. (Th ese issues also wer e a d dr essed in the B oar d ’ s Te nth Repor t .) To initi a t e cr oss -bor der assistanc e , tr ig gers and organiz a t ional r oles and r e sponsibilities should be established. O n c e assistanc e is initi a t ed, equipment lo g istics and int e r o per a bility , c o mmand and c ontr o l over personnel, and r e imbursement of ex penses and fund tr ansf e rs must be de fi ned mor e clearly. In r e gar d s t o public aff airs, messa g es must be clear and c o nsis

t e nt f o r bo th c ountr ies. Cr oss -bor der evacua tion plans should be developed. In look ing f o r w ar d, cur r e nt initi a t iv es a t all gover n mental levels should be r e vie w ed and c o or dina t e d in an e ff or t t o develop the s a me compr ehensive, all-haz ar d appr oach t o cr oss -bor der emer

genc y mana gement with Canad aand Mexico as the Unit ed S t a t es pr actic es domestically

. 

## JK

42 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection three: Spotlight on Promising P a rtnerships www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb 

# Spotlight on Promising P artnerships

N

o te to r e aders : A s in its pa st r e por ts, the B o ar d ha s a s sembled a s a mpling of pr ojects and par t nerships alr e ady under w a y th at demonstr a te how the issue it ha s identi fi ed f o r its r e por t alr e ady is being addr essed. S o me hav e been in pla c e f o r years, w hile others ar e ne w. In addition, other pr ojects may be under w a y th at ar e not inc luded. Th e purpose of inc luding th ese par t nerships is to hi ghli gh t s o me of the good w o rkalr e ady being car r ied out, identi f y possible te mplate s t o be r e plicated else w h er e , hi ghli gh t s o me of the c o mplex ities, and r e inf o r

c e the need f o r c o ntinued str a te g i c suppor t on the f e der a l lev e l f o r all t y pes of par tnerships th at c o ntr i bute to pr o

g r ess. N

o te also th at f o r th is par t icular to pic

— mana g i ng natur a l disa sters along the U

. S

. -Mex ic o bor der

— s ev er al par t

nerships hav e been inc luded th at cur r ent l y ar e limited in sc ope (e .g ., c o v e r only ha z a r dous spills). Th e B o ar d enc o ura

ges po lic y makers to ex amine all e ff ectiv e emergenc y mana gement pr ojects to de te r mine the possibilit y of br oadening th eir sc ope to inc lude natur a l dis a sters. Finally , note th at s o me par tnerships alr e ady hav e been disc ussed in de tail within the pr evious section on cur r ent institutions and po licies and s o ar e not listed below

. Th ese inc lude initiativ e s suc h a s the S i ster C i t y A g r e ements, the B o r der 2012 E m ergenc y P r epar edness and R e sponse B o r der

- W ide W o rk g r oup , and the 1980 U

. S .-Mex ic o A g r e ement on Cooper ati on D u r i ng N atur a l Disa ster s. 

# Natural Disasters Government P a r tnerships

**B o**  **r der Liaison Mec**  **h anisms (BLMs).**  Th e BLM was cr ea t e d in the 1990s by the U

. S

. Depar tment of Sta t e and Mexic o ’ s Secr e tar i a t of F o r eig n Rela t ions t o r e spond t o the need f o r g r eat er coor dination a t the local lev el be tween entities on both sides of the bor d er
. Th e mechanism br ings t o ge ther sta t e and local entities on bo th sides of the bor d er t o discuss any issues of c onc er n. Al thou g h some of the most active BLMs ha ve been those be tween sist er cities, such as T ijuana and San Die g o , BLMs also exist be tween c o nsula t es tha t ar e no t dir ectly acr oss fr om each o ther

. F o r ex
ample, the U

. S

. Consula t e in Nuev o L a r e do no t only has a BLM with the Mexican c o nsula t e in L a r e do but also with the c o nsula t es in Del R i o and E a g l e P a ss. Man y BLMs ha ve subc ommitt ees f o r tr anspor t a t ion, c o mmer c e , and saf e ty issues tha t can ser v e as use ful pla t f o r ms f o r building positive work ing r e la tionships as the y apply t o disast er r e sponse. **Int er**  **national R e**  **d C r**  **oss and R e**  **d C r**  **escent S**  **o c**  **ieties ’ Guidelines**  **.** In N o vember 2007, the Int e r n a t ional F e der a tion of Red Cr oss and Red Cr es
c e nt Socie t ies ’ Int e r n a t ional Disast er Response L aws, Rules, and Pr inciples (ID RL) Pr o g r amme submitt e d Dr a f

t G u idelines f o r the Domes t ic F a cilitation and R e g u lation of In te r n ational Dis a s ter R e lie f and Initial R e c o v e r y As s i s ta n c e t o the 30th Int e r n a t ional Conf er enc e of the Red Cr oss and the Red Cr esc e nt in Geneva , Switz e r
**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 43section three: Spotlight on Promising P a rtnerships www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
land. Th e ID RL Pr o g r amme f a cilita t es and suppor ts the development of laws , r u les , and pr inciples t o enhance the e ff ectiveness of int e r n a t ional disast er r e sponse. I t s g u idelines pr ovide g u id anc e t o na tions seek ing t o impr o ve their domestic le gal, polic y, and institutional fr ame w ork s c onc er ning int e r n a t ional disast er r e
sponse and r e c o ver y. Such g u idelines may be of value t o the gover n ments of the Unit ed S t at es and Mexico when c o nsider ing gaps, needs, and fr ame w ork s f o r c o
oper ation. **S e**  **c u**  **r i**  **ty and Pr osper**  **i ty P**  **a r**  **t nership (SPP).**  A s mentioned in the Intr oduction t o this r epor t , on Au g u st 27, 2007, the H e ads of Sta t e of the 3 c ountr ies issued a joint sta t e ment under the SPP tha t called f o r their na tions t o c ontinue t o work t o ge ther t o “ b e t t er pr event , pr epar e f o r , and r e spond t o disast e rs, either na tur al or man-made. ” Th e sta t e ment calls f o r c o ntinuing t o “ d e fi ne, develop, and coor dinat e ap pr opr i a t e r e sponses t o ca tastr ophic incidents in N o r t h Amer

ica and develop bila t e r al and tr ila t er al pr o t oc ols and pr ocedur es t o mana ge the movements of goods and people, including emergenc y r e sponders , acr oss our shar ed bor d ers dur ing and f o llowing an emergenc y , and t o impr o ve c o mmunica tions among gover n ments and be tween gover n ments and industr y , par ticularly dur ing times of incr eased thr e a t

. ” “Th e c o nsequenc es of ca tastr ophic events oft en tr ansc e nd na tional bor d ers, ” the leaders sta t e d. “Pr e par a t ion and planning can mitiga t e the impact of such events on people and our ec onomies. Much work has been under taken be tween our c ountr ies a t na tional, subna t ional, and local levels t o develop c o mmon appr oaches f o r r e sponding t o ma jor incidents. W e ask our minist ers t o c ontinue this work and t o addr ess any obstacles pr eventing cr itical equipment , supplies, and personnel fr om being deploy e d ex peditiously t o those par ts of N o r t h Amer ica wher e the y ar e needed. W e also ask them t o develop pr oc edur es f o r mana g ing the movement of goods and people acr oss our shar ed bor

ders dur ing and f o llowing an emergenc y. ” Th e B oar d r e c o g niz es the impor tanc e of this initi a t ive and str ess
es the need t o br ing this t o the level of implementa t ion in the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er r e g i on. Offi ci als fr om r e levant U

. S

. gover n ment a g encies me t a t the work ing level in N o vember 2007 t o discuss how t o implement the leaders ’ dir ective on emergenc y mana gement and pr epar edness. O n e of the r e c o mmended c ourses of action fr om this g r oup was t o upd a t e the two bila t e r al a g r eements tha t exist be tween the Unit ed Sta t es and Canad aand the Unit ed Sta t es and Mexic o on c o oper a t ion dur ing disast e rs (a s dis

cu ssed in the B i national A r r a ngemen ts section). 

## JK 

# Natural Disasters University P a r tnerships

Many bor d er r e g ion universities ar e c onducting applied r e sear ch on emergenc y mana gement , including na tur al disast e rs. F o llowing ar e sever al r e levant ex amples.
**C o**  **ver the B o**  **r der H**  **a z**  **a r**  **d Mitigation Plan.**  Te x a s A&M Int e r n a t ional University , in par tnership with the R i o Gr ande Institut e, is sponsor ing the dev e lopment of a c o mpr e hensiv e H a z a r dMitiga tion P l an f o r the cities and c ounties in a 10- c ounty ar ea of Te x a s
. Th e e ff or t is funded b y a Pr e-Disast er Mitigation Gr ant fr om the F e der al Emergenc y Mana gement A g enc y (FE M A). Ma jor haz a r d s will be identifi ed, including tr ansbound a r y haz a r d s, and a mitiga tion plan will be developed t o addr ess the haz a r d s. Th e pr oc ess has included sig nifi cant public input fr om bo th sides of the bor d er , including a mee t ing in Re ynosa dur ing 2007 with local Mexican offi ci als and nongover nmental organiz a tions. **S o**  **c i**  **al Dy namics Modeling Pr**  **o j**  **ec t**  **.** Ne w M e x ic o Sta t e University , in c o llabor a t ion with L os Al amos N a tional L a bor a t o r y , is using tr anspor t a t ion modeling softwar e t o study evacua tion beha viors and tr af

fi c c o ngestion in a por t ion of E lP a so wher e Eng lish fr equently is no t the native lang ua ge of r esidents. Spe44 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r dersection three: Spotlight on Promising P a rtnerships www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
cifi cally , the par tners ar e look ing a t how the me thod of deliver ing inf or ma tion about a thr e a t aff ects human r e sponse and tr affi c c o ngestion. Th e goal is t o f ost er understanding of soci al dynamics in chao tic situa t ions so as t o impr o ve emergenc y r e sponse and evacua tion pr oc edur es, including na tur al disast e rs. 

## JK 

# Natural Disasters Multi-Sector P a r tnerships

**F e**  **der al A**  **g enc**  **i es**  **, L o**  **cal Organiz a**  **tions .**  Many f e der al a g encies car r y out their work r e la t e d t o na tur al disast e rs vi a the par tnerships the y alr eady have established on a local level. F o r ex ample, the U

. S

. Depar t

ment of H o using and Urban Development (HUD) work s with municipal wa t er distr icts or wa t er boar ds t o discuss str a t e g ies t o allevi a t e k n own fl ood ar eas aff ect

ing c oloni a s and mig r ant/f ar mworker c o mmunities. In N e w Mexic o , HUD staff worked with local par tners t o pr ovide inf or mation on how the stat e pr ovides funds f o r wa t e r , wast e w a t er , and fl ood c ontr o l. P a r t ners included offi ci als fr om the Villa g e of H a t c h, the To wn of Mesilla , the C i ty of Sunland P ark , and sever al nonpr ofi t and f a ith-based organiz a t ions, as well as Doña Ana County , FE M A , the U .S Envir o nmental Pr o t ection A g enc y , and the U

. S

. Depar t ment of A g r i cultur e. A f t er sever al mee t ings, Doña Ana County r e c e ived funding t o build a fl ood c ontr o l levee and o ther infr astr uctur e in the souther n por t ion of the c ounty as well as in the Villa g e of H a t c h. 

## JK 

# Natural Disasters Hurricane/Flood Specifi c P a r tnerships

**E l**  **P a**  **so Plan T o**  **A v**  **oid D e**  **velopment on Ar**
  ** ro** **yo s**  **.** Th e city of E lP a so O p en Spac e Mast er P l an, adopt ed in 2007, identifi es pr eser vation of undeveloped ar r o y os as a hig h pr ior ity

. Th e P l an r e c o mmends tha t dr aina g e washes be le ft in their na tur al sta t e t o pr ovide na tur al g r eenbelt ar eas in the city r a ther than channelizing them, as has been the tr aditional pr actic e . I t also pr oposes a change in subdivision r e g u la tions t o r e quir e pr eser va tion of 75 per c ent of the land ar ea of existing ar r o y os in undeveloped ar eas. An added benefi t of this nonstr uctur al fl ood contr o l pr actice is that the appr oach also r e sult s in maintaining open spac e and g r eenbelts.
**L o**  **w er R**  **io Gr ande W**  **i ldlif**  **e C o**  **r r**  **idor .**  In the L o wer R i o Gr ande Flood Contr o l Pr o j ect in Te x a s, the USIBWC , in c o or dina t ion with the U

. S

. Fish and W i ldlif

e Ser v ic e, has modifi ed tr aditional ve ge ta tion mana g ement pr actic e s, establishing a “no mow ” zone in the R i o Gr ande fl oodplain as a wildlif e c o r r idor . Th e r e g ion is home t o var i ous end anger ed species including tw o ca ts

— the oc elo t and j a g u ar ondi. Restr icting mowing in cr itical ar eas is par t of an a g r eement tha t pr ovides pr o t ection f o r wildlif e while allowing o ther ar eas t o be mowed as par t of fl ood c o ntr o l pr o j ect maint e nanc e. **R i**  **o Gr ande Canaliz**  **ation C o**  **llabor ative Pr**  **o j** 
**** **ec t**  **.** Th e R i o Gr ande Canaliz a t ion Pr o j ect is a wa t er deliver y and fl ood c o ntr o l pr o j ect c o ver i ng 106 r i ver miles fr om P e r c ha D am, N e w Mexic o , downstr eam t o ElP a s o , Te xa s
. Th e goal is t o int e g r a t e fl ood c ontr o l and c o nv e y anc e functions with habita t r est or a t ion. Th e U

. S

. Section of the Int e r n a t ional B ound a r y and W a t er Commission (USIBWC; see B i national A r r a ng men ts sec

tion) is par ticipa ting in a c o llabor a t ive e ff or t with pr o j

ect stakeholders , including the E l ephant B utt e Ir r i ga**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 45section three: Spotlight on Promising P a rtnerships www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

Th e R i o G r ande, w hich f o r ms th e U
. S .-Mex ico bor der f o r 1,254 miles , histor ically ha s ex per ienced c y cles both of dr ou gh t and dev a stating fl ooding . A l th ou gh o v er all r a inf all in th e r e

g i on is r e lativ e ly low co mpar ed to other par ts of th e United S tates , th e r a in ofte n co mes in br ie f , but inte nse, w e ather ev ents, making fl a s h fl oods co mmon in th e deser t . S h own is R i o G r ande fl ooding dur i ng 2005 at E lP a so , T exa s - C i udad Juar e z , C hihuahua . (S our ce: Inte r national B o undar y and W a te r Commission, U
. S
. S ection) tion Distr ict , W o rld W i ldlif e Fund, and Envir o nmental De f ense along with a 30-member stakeholder g r oup. Te chnical work is being c onduct e d by the U

. S

. Ar my Cor ps of Eng i neers under c ontr a ct t o the USIBWC . Th e pr o j ect also entails modeling envir o nmental fl ows f o r fl oodplain r est or a t ion, c o nsider ing saf e harbor a g r e ements wher eby a landowner who v o luntar ily r est or es habita t f o r end anger ed species will not be penalized with futur e r estr ictions on land use or wa t er oper ations , development of habita t conser vation plans , and c o nsider a tion of po t e nti al use of wa t er f o r envir o nmental pur p oses thr o u g h Speci al W a t er Users A s soci ations. A var i e t y of alt er na tive appr oaches ar e being ex

amined. In addition t o r aising levees, the USIBWC w ould c o nsider c ontr o l of invasiv e species (especially salt c e d ar), modifi ca tion of g r azing leases along the R i o Gr ande as an er osion c ontr o l str a t e g y , planting of nativ e r ipar ian species, str eam bank r e c o nfi g u r a tion t o facilita t e over bank fl ows and r est or a t ion of na tive plant species in the fl oodway , opening of r i ver meanders and modifi ca tion of ar r o y o mouths t o incr ease habita t diversity , ar r angements f o r seasonal pulse fl ows of wa t er

46 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der t o allow f o r over bank fl ows f o r envir o nmental pur

poses, and establishment of v o luntar y c o nser va tion easements be y ond the f e der al r i g h t of way. **S tat**  **e-L evel R**  **esponse t o**  **Hur r**  **i cane D**  **e an,**  **Aug ust 2007.**  E a ch of the f our U

. S

. bor d er sta t es has developed emergenc y r e sponse plans tha t ar e put int o action when na tur al disast e rs str ike. F o r ex ample, as Hur r i cane Dean made its way thr o u g h the Car i bbean bec oming a Ca t e gor y 5 st or m and moving westwar d, the Sta t e of Te x a s, as well as FE M A , worked with local author ities along the c o ast t o pr epar e f o r a massive evacua tion of L o wer R i o Gr ande V alle y r esidents. O n Au g u st 17, Gover nor P e r r y issued a disast er declar a t ion and r e quest ed f e der al assistanc e fr om the Pr esident , which was g r ant e d on Au g u st 18. Pr epar ations included: mobiliz a t ion of 4,000 Te x a s Ar my N a
tional Guar dsmen and 3,000 school buses t o evacua t e L o wer R i o Gr ande V alle y r esidents ; air planes t o move 1,800 nonambula t or y r esidents ; 47 helic opt ers ; 250 boa t cr e w s (fr om just one a g enc y); and fuel sta tions t o assist mo t o r ists fl eeing t o San Ant o nio

. F o r t una t ely f o r Te x a ns, the hur r i cane changed c ourse, but the sta t e t o ok its pr epar a t ions ser i ously

. **T i**  **juana R i**  **ver F l**  **ood W a**  **r ning S**  **y st**  **em.** Of

fi ci als fr om the Unit ed Sta t es and Mexic o sig n ed an a g r eement in 2003 f o r an Int e g r a t ed B i na tional Flood W a r ning Syst em in the T ijuana R i ver W a t e rshed. Th e pur p ose of the pr o j ect is t o pr ovide r eal- time r ainf all and str eam fl ow inf or mation t o emergenc y offi ci als on bo th sides of the bor d er t o enable e ff ective decisionmak ing dur ing fl oods in the T ijuana R i ver W a t e rshed. Th

e fl ood war ning syst em is the fi rst of its k i nd along the U

. S .-Mexic o bor d er
. Pr o j ect par ticipants ar e fr om a br oa d spectr um of organiz a t ions : USIBWC and the Mexican Section of the IBWC (L a Comisíon In te r n a c ional de L imite s y A g ua , C I L A); Mexic o ’ s N a tional W a t er Commission ( Comis

ión N a cional del A g ua ); the U

. S

. N a tional W e ather S e rvic e; County of San Die g o; C i ty of San Die g o; the C i vil Pr o t ection a g encies of B a j a Calif o r n i a , T ijuana , and Te ca t e; Sta t e of Calif or ni a Depar tment of P ark s and Recr ea tion; San Die g o Sta t e University ; and E lCole g i o de L aFr ont er a N o r t e. In addition, the N a tional O c eanic and Atmospher i c A d ministr a t ion pr ovided early leadership.section three: Spotlight on Promising P a rtnerships www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb
**U .**  **S .-Mexic**  **o A g**  **r e**  **ement f or R**  **io Gr ande**  **Maint enance at E**  **l P**  **a so**  **, T e**  **x a**  **s -**  **C i**  **udad Juár ez**  **, C**  **hihuahua .**  F o llowing the fl ood in the R i o Gr ande a t E lP a so , Te x a s
- C i ud ad Juár ez , C hihuahua , in Au g u st and Sept ember of 2006, USIBWC and C I L A dev e loped a plan t o maintain the r i ver channel and fl oodways. Th e J o int Repor t of the Pr incipal Eng i neers, sig n ed in 2007, identifi es cr itical ar eas wher e the r i ver channel has pr oblems c o nv e y ing nor mal and fl ood fl ows as a r e sult of sediment , ve ge ta tion g r ow th, and poor condition of the fl ood c ontr o l levees. Th e a g r eement specifi es the r i ver r e aches wher e each section will be r e sponsible f o r desilting a c tivities, lev e e r e pairs, and o ther impr o vements. 

## JK 

# Natural Disasters Ear thquake and W ildfi re Specifi c P a r tnerships

**B o**  **r der A**  **g enc**  **y Fir**  **e C o**  **unc il (B**  **A F**  **C).** Th e B A F C was f o r m ed dur ing the 1995 fi r e season in the San Die g o-B a j a Calif or ni a bor d er r e g ion. I t includes mor e than 30 organiz a t ions r e pr esenting fi r e pr o t ection, law enf or c e ment , elect e d offi ci als, the health sect o r , na tur al r e sour c e mana gers, and o thers fr om bo th sides of the bor d er . B A F C mee t s quar t erly and appr oxima t ely ever y 6 week s dur ing the fi r e season. I t oper a t es under a mutual assistanc e a g r eement with Mexic o tha t is f a cilita t e d by the U

. S

. and Mexican c o nsula t es in the r e g ion. B A F C has impr o ved c o mmunica tions acr oss the bor d er , held many joint tr aining ex er cises, implement ed fi r e saf e ty campaig ns on bo th sides of the bor d er , coor dinat e d development and maint e nance of fi r e br eak s along the bor d er , and jointly c onduct e d pr escr i bed bur ns along the bor d er . B A F C also c o or dina t es cr ossbor d er assistanc e f o r wildfi r e s. F o r ex ample, as mentioned earlier , in the f all of 2007, 60 B a j a Calif or
ni a fi re fi g h t e rs cr ossed the bor d er t o help with the San Die g o County fi r est or m; pr eviously in June 2006, 10 eng ines and cr e w s fr om the Calif or ni a Depar tment of F o r estr y and Fir e Pr o t ection cr ossed int o B a j aCalif or
ni a t o suppor t Mexican fi r e author ities f o r 6 d ays with a fi r e tha t bur ned 5,200 acr e s. **Golden Guar dian E**  **x er**  **c ise.**  Th e Golden Guar di an E x er cise Ser i es, fi rst intr oduc ed in Calif or ni a in 2004, is an ex er cise pr o g r am c onduct e d annually t o c o or dina t e the a c tivities of city , c o unty , and sta t e gov
er nments ; fi rst r e sponders ; v o lunt eer organiz a t ions ; and the pr iva t e sect o r in r e sponse t o po t e nti al acts of t e r r or ism and na tur al disast e rs. Th e goal of the Ser i es is t o build on lessons lear ned fr om bo th simula t ion ex

er cises as well as r eal- world events. Th e 2008 Golden Guar di an E x er cise will f o cus on the ear thquake sc enar i o
. 

## JK

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 47

### Glossar **y of A**  **c r**  **o n**  **y ms/T**  **er ms**  glossary: Acronyms/T erms www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

A d uanas L a A d minis t r a ción G e ner a l de A d uana s (Mexic o ’ s C u st oms A g enc y)
BLM B o r d er Li aison Mechanism (some times this acr o ny m can also r e f e r t o the B u r e au of L a nd Mana gement)
CBP C u st oms and B o r d er Pr o t ection (U .S .)
C HIP S Te x a s Coloni aH ealth, Infr astr uctur e, and P l a t ting Sta t us CI L A L a Comisión In te r n a c ional de L ímite s y A g ua (Mexican Section of the Int e r n a t ional B ound a r y and W a t er Commission)
CL A M ComitéL o cal de Ayuda M u tual (L ocal Commit e e of Mutual A ssistanc e )
CNA Comisión N a cional del A g ua (Mexic o ’ s N a tional W a t er Commission)
D FIRMs Dig i tal Fir e Insur anc e R a t e Maps
DHS Depar tment of H omeland Secur i ty (U .S .)
DOC Depar tment of Commer c e (U .S .)
DO I Depar tment of the Int e r ior (U .S .)
DO J Depar tment of Justic e (U .S .)
DOT Depar tment of T r anspor t a t ion (U .S .)
EP A Envir o nmental Pr o t ection A g enc y (U .S .)
EP RBWW G Emergenc y Pr epar edness and Response B o r d er -W ide W o rkg r oup ES F Emergenc y Sup p or t Functions
FEMA F e der al Emergenc y Mana gement A g enc y (U .S .)
GA O Gover n ment A c c ountability O ffi c e (U .S .)
GS A Gover n ment Ser v ic es A g enc y (U .S .)
HHS Depar tment of H ealth and Human Ser v ic es (U .S .) HSP D H o meland Secur ity Pr esidenti al Dir e ctives
HUD Depar tment of H o using and Urban Development (U .S .)
IA S Int e r n a t ional A ssistanc e Syst em IBWC Int e r n a t ional B ound a r y and W a t er Commission
IC A n nex Int e r n a t ional Coor dina t ion Annex Inland JCP Inland J o int Contingenc y P l an ID RL Int e r n a t ional Disast er Response L aws, Rules, and Pr inciples Pr o g r amme Mar i ne JCP Mar i ne J o int Contingenc y P l an NIMS N a tional Incident Mana gement S y st em NRF N a tional Response Fr ame w ork
NR P N a tional Response P l an NWCG N a tional W i ldfi r e Coor dina t ing Gr oup OF D A Offi c e of F o r eig n Disast er A ssistanc e SEGO B S e cr e tar ía de G o ber n a c ión (Mexic o ’ s Secr e t ar y of Gover n ment)
SINA P R O C S i s tema N a cional de P r otec ción C i vil (Mexic o ’ s N a tional Syst em of C i vil Pr o t ection)
SPP Secur ity and Pr osper i ty P a r t nership of N o r t h Amer ica USA C E U

. S

. Ar my Cor ps of Eng i neers USAI D U

. S

. A g enc y f

o r Int e r n ational Development
US D A U

. S

. Depar t ment of A g r i cultur e U SIBWC U

. S

. Section of the Int e r n a t ional B ound a r y and W a t er Commission

48 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der **ighbor E onmental B**  **eventh R** ers and t nment A

# Business Repor tbusiness report www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

50 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der **C o**  **unc il on E**  **n v**  **i r**  **onmental Q u**  **ality R esponse t**  **o 10th R**  **e por**  **t Good N**  **e ighbor E**  **n v**  **i r**  **o nmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 51 business report www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb **C omment L**  **e tt**  **er**business report www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

52 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der **C omment L**  **e tt**  **er** (c ontinued)**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 53 business report www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb **C omment L**  **e tt**  **er** (c ontinued)business report www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

54 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der **C omment L**  **e tt**  **er Good N**  **e ighbor E**  **n v**  **i r**  **o nmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 55 business report www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb **C omment L**  **e tt**  **er** (c ontinued)business report www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

56 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der **C omment L**  **e tt**  **er** (c ontinued)business report www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

N

o te : F o llowing listing inc ludes all th ose w h o ser v ed on the B o ar d dur ing calendar year 2007. A s te r i sk (*) indicates th ose w h o c o mple ted th eir te r ms eith er dur ing 2007 or pr ior to the r e lea s e of the E l ev enth R e por t on Mar c h 19, 2008. I t does not inc lude th ose ne w members a ppointed on Mar c h 15, 2008.
**NONGOV E**  **R NME**  **N T**  **A L**  **, S T**  **A**

**T E**  **, LO**  **C A**  **L ,**  **T R**  **IB A**  **L ME**  **MBE R**  **S**
**P a**  **ul Ganst er**  **, Ph.D ., C**  **hair** Dir e ct or Institut e f o r Re g i onal S t udies of the Calif or ni as San Die g o S t at e University 5500 Campanile Dr iv e San Die g o, C A 92182-4403 619-594-5423; 619-594-5474 (fax) E-mail: p g

anster@mail.s ds u.edu **C h**  **r ist**  **opher P .**  **Br own, Ph.D**  **.** A s soci at e Pr of essor N e w Mexic o S t a t e University P

. O

. B o x 30001/MS C M A P L a s Cr uc es , NM 88003-8001 575-646-1892; 505-646-7430 (fax) E-mail: br ownc hr@nmsu.edu
**Ro n**  **Cu rr**  **y** ***** Secr et ar y N e w Mexic o Envir o nment Depar t ment 1190 S t . Fr ancis Dr ive, P

. O

. B o x 26110 Santa F e , NM 87502-6110 505-827-2855; 505-827-2836 (fax) E-mail: r o n.cur r y @state .nm.us **Mic hael P**  **. D**  **o rsey**  Ch i e f Community H e alth Division San Die g o County Depar t ment of Envir o nmental H e alth 9325 H a z a r dW ay San Die g o, C A 92123-1217 858-694-3595; 619-778-1991 (c ell); 858-694-3559 (f ax) E-mail: mic h ael.dorse y@s dc ount y . ca .go v **E d**  **w a**  **r d** **E lbr**  **oc k**  Malpai B o r d erlands Gr oup P

. O

. B o x 25 Animas , NM 88020 575-548-2270; 505-538-1812 (c ell) E-mail: elbr oc k@vtc .ne t **Gar y Gillen**  Pr esident Gillen P est Contr o l 1012 Mor t on S t r e et R ichmond, TX 77469 281-342-6969; 281-232-6979 (fax) E-mail: g a r

y@g illenpestc ontr o l.c om **Susan K eith**  Dir e ct or Souther n Re g ional O p er ations Ar izona Depar t ment of Envir o nmental Q u ality 400 W

. Cong r ess , Suit e 433 T u cson, AZ 85701 520-628-6883; 520-628-6745 (fax) E-mail: s jk@a zdeq.go v **P a**  **tti Kr ebs**  E x ecutive Dir e ct or Industr i al Envir o nmenal A s socait on 701 B S t r e et , Suit e 1040 San Die g o, C A 92101 619-544-9684; 619-544-9514 (fax) E-mail: iea@iea .s dc ox mail.c om **R o**  **sar io Mar**  **i n**  Secr etar y Calif or ni a S t at e Consumer Ser v ic es A g enc y 915 Capit o l Mall, Suit e 200 Sacr ament o , C A 95814 916-653-2979 E-mail: r m ar in@scs a . ca .go v **J ennif**  **er A .**  **Mont oy** **a*** Senior Pr o g r am O ffi c e r C hihuahuan D e ser t Pr o g r a m W

o rld W i ldlif e Fund 100 E

. H a dle y S t r e et L a s Cr uc es , NM 88001 575-525-9537; 505-523-2866 (fax) E-mail: jatc hle y@ziane t.c o m **S t**  **ephen M. Niemey e**  **r ,**  **P .**  **E .**  P o lic y Analyst Int e rgover nmental Relations Division/B or der A ff airs T

e x a s Commission on Envir o nmental Q u ality MC -121, P

. O

. B o x 13087 Au stin, TX 78711-3087 512-239-3606; 512-239-3335 (fax) E-mail: snieme ye@tc eq.state .tx .us **N e**  **d L .**  **N o**  **r r**  **is , Jr**  **.*** C h air man T

ohono O’odham N a tion P

. O

. B o x 837 Sells , AZ 85634 520-383-2028 E-mail: ned.nor r i s jr@tonation-nsn.go v

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 57business report www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

**R o**  **ber t** **V a**  **r a**  **dy , Ph.D**  **.*** Deputy Dir e ct or and Resear ch Pr of essor Ud all Cent er f o r S t udies in Public P o lic y Th e University of Ar izona 803 E

. First S t r e et T u cson, AZ 85719 520-626-4393; 520-626-3664 (fax) E-mail: r v ar ady@email.ar i zona .edu **Ann Mar ie A**  **. W**  **o lf**  Pr esident Sonor aEnvir o nmental Resear ch Institut e, Inc

. 3202 E

. Gr ant Road T u cson, AZ 85716 520-321-9488; 520-321-9498 (fax) E-mail: a a w o l f@ser ia z . org **John W o**  **o d**  County Commissioner , Pr ecinct 2 Camer o n County C i ty of Br ownsville 1100 E

. M o nr oe Br ownsville, TX 78520 956-983-5091; 956-983-5090 (fax) E-mail: jw ood@c o . camer o n.tx .us
**F E**  **D E**  **R A**  **L ME MBE**  **R S**  Depar t ment of A g r i c u lt ur e **R o**  **sendo T r**  **ev iño III**  Speci al A ssistant t o the C h ie f U

. S

. Depar t ment of A g r i cultur e 5563 De Z a vala , Suit e 290 San Ant o nio, TX 78249 210-691-9248 E-mail: r o sendo

. tr evino@tx .us da . go v Depar t ment of Commer ce (cur r e nt ly v a cant) Depar t ment of H e alth and Human Ser v ices **Mar i**  **ly n DiSir**  **io** A s soci at e Dir e ct or f o r Global H e alth N a tional Cent er f o r Envir o nmental H e alth A g enc y f

o r T o xic Substanc es and Disease Re g istr y Cent ers f o r Disease Contr o l and Pr evention 1600 C lift o n Road, N.E ., MS -E97 Atlanta , G A 30333 404-498-0909; 404-498-0064 (fax) E-mail: mdisir io@cdc.go v Depar t ment of H o meland Sec u r i t y **Gar y R**  **obison** A cting A s soci at e C h ie f Offi c e of B o r d er P a tr ol/H eadquar t e rs C u st oms and B o r d er Pr ot ection U

. S

. Depar t ment of H omeland S e cur i ty 1300 P ennsylvani a A v enue, N.W ., Suit e 6.5 E W

a shing t o n, DC 20229 202-344-2115; 202-344-3140 (fax) E-mail: g a r

y .r obis on@d hs.go v Depar t ment of H o usin g and Urban De v elopment **S hannon H. S**  **o rz**  **ano** Deputy A ssisstant Secr etar y f o r Int e r n ational A ff airs U

. S

. Depar t ment of H o using and Urban D e velopment 451 Seventh S t r e et , S

. W ., Room 8112 W

a shing t o n, DC 20410 202-708-0770; 202-708-5536 (fax) E-mail: shannon_h._s orz a no@hud.go v Depar t ment of the Inte r i or **J ames S**  **t e**  **f anov**  D e puty Dir e ct or Investigations and Resear ch T

e x a s W a t er Scienc e Cent er U

. S

. Geolo g ical Sur v e y U

. S

. Depar t ment of the Int e r ior 8027 E x change Dr ive Au stin, TX 78754-4733 512-927-3543 E-mail: jeste f an@us g

s.go v Depar t ment of S tate **D aniel D**  **. D**  **a r**  **r ac**  **h** Coor dinat or U

. S .-Mexic o B o r d er A ff airs U

. S

. Depar t ment of S t at e, WHA/MEX 2201 C S t r e et , N.W ., Room 4258 W

a shing t o n, DC 20520 202-647-8529; 202-647-5752 (fax) E-mail: dar r a c hdd@state .go v Depar t ment of Tr anspor tation **Linda L .**  **L a** **wson** Dir e ct or Saf e ty , Energ y and the Envir o nment U

. S

. Depar t ment of T r anspor t ation 1200 N e w J e rse y A

v enue, S

. E ., Room W84310 W

a shing t o n, DC 20590 202-366-4416; 202-366-0263 (fax) E-mail: linda .laws on@dot.go v

58 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r derbusiness report www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

E n v i r onmental P r otection A genc y **Carl E dlund**  Dir e ct or Multimedi a P l anning and P e r m iting Division Re g ion 6 U

. S

. Envir o nmental Pr ot ection A g enc y 1445 Ross A v enue, Suit e 1200, MC 6P D D allas , TX 75202-2733 214-665-8124 E-mail: ed lund.carl@epa .go v Inte r n ational Bounda r yand W a te r Commission **Carlos Mar in**  Commissioner U

. S

. Section Int e r n ational B o und a r y and W a t er Commission 4171 N. Mesa , Suit e C -100 E lP a so, TX 79902 915-832-4101; 915-832-4191 (fax) E-mail: carlosmar in@ibwc.state .go v **D E**  **SIGNA T**  **E D F**  **E D**  **E R**  **A L O**  **FFIC E**  **R**
**E l**  **aine M. K o**  **er ner**  Desig n a t ed F e der al O ffi c e r Good N eig hbor Envir o nmental B oar d U

. S

. Envir o nmental Pr ot ection A g enc y Offi c e of Cooper ative Envir o nmental Mana gement 1200 P ennsylvani a A v enue, N.W

. Mail Code 1601M W

a shing t o n, DC 20460 202-564-2586; 202-564-8129 (fax) E-mail: koer ner . e l aine@epa.go v

**R E**  **S OURC**  **E SP EC**  **I A**  **L I**  **S T**  **S** ( non-B oar d

members w h o w o rkc l osely with the B o ar d

)
F

e der a l A genc yAlter nate s **Candice Abinanti** Int e r n ational Relations Speci alist F e der al Emergenc y Mana gement A g enc y U

. S

. Depar t ment of H omeland S e cur i ty 500 C S t r e et , S

. W ., Room 714 W

a shing t o n, DC 20472 202-646-2786; 202-646-3397 (fax) E-mail: candic e . a b inanti@d hs.go v **L a**  **na C o**  **r r** **ales , M.P**  **.H.** Offi c e of Global H e alth N a tional Cent er f o r Envir o nmental H e alth A g enc y f

o r T o xic Substanc es and Disease Re g istr y 1600 C lift o n Road, N.E ., MS -E97 Atlanta , G A 30333 404-498-0335; 267-808-1870 (c ell); 404-498-0064 (f ax) E-mail: l f c o r r ales@cdc.go v **Mig uel F**  **lor es**  Dir e ct or W

a t er Q u ality Pr ot ection Division Re g ion 6 U

. S

. Envir o nmental Pr ot ection A g enc y 1445 Ross A v enue, Suit e 1200, MC 6P D D allas , TX 75202-2733 214-665-8587 E-mail: fl or es.mi g u el@epa .go v **S y** **l v**  **i a Gr**  **i j**  **al v** **a** US - Mexic o B o r d er P l anning Coor dinat or F e der al Hig h way A dministr a t ion U

. S

. Depar t ment of T r anspor t ation One Ar izona Cent er 400 E

. V an B u r an S t r e et , Suit e 410 Phoenix , AZ 85004 602-510-7986; 602-379-3608 (fax) E-mail: s y lvia .g r i jalv a@f hw a . dot.go v **R a**  **fael Guer r**  **e r**  **o** N a tur al Resour c e Mana ger N a tur al Resour c es Conser vation Ser v ic e U

. S

. Depar t ment of A g r i cultur e 501 W

. F elix B uilding 23 F o r t W o r t h, TX 76115 817-509-3490 E-mail: r a f

a el.g uer r er

o@ft w.us da . go v **R a**  **c hel P**  **o y**  **n t**  **e r**  Offi c e of Mexican A ff airs U

. S

. Depar t ment of S t at e 2201 C S t r e et N.W ., Room 4258-MS W

a shing t o n, DC 20520 202-647-9364; 202-647-5752 (fax) E-mail: poynte r r m@state .go v

**Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r o**  **nmental B oar**  **d E l**  **eventh R e**  **por t**  N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der 59business report www .epa .gov/ocem/g neb

**R E**  **S OURC**  **E SP EC**  **I A**  **L I**  **S T**  **S** (c ontinued) ( non-B oar d

members w h o w o rkc l osely with the B o ar d

)
**C h**  **r istina Mac**  **hion Q**  **uilaqueo R**  **E GION 9 BO**  **R D**  **E R**  **O FFI**  **C E**  Pr o g r am Analyst **To m**  **a s**  **To r**  **r e**  **s** U

. S

. Depar t ment of H o using and Urban D e velopment U

. S .-Mexic o B o r d er Pr o g r am Coor dina t or 451 Seventh S t r e et , S

. W ., Room 8112 Re g ion 9 W

a shing t o n, DC 20410 U

. S

. Envir o nmental Pr ot ection A g enc y 202-708-0770; 202-708-5536 (fax) 610 W

. A sh S t r e et (905) E-mail: c h r i stina

. ma c h ion@hud.go v San Die g o, C A 92101 619-235-4775; 619-235-4771 (fax) **Sally S p**  **ener** E-mail: to r r es.toma s @epa .go v Public A ff airs O ffi c er Int e r n ational B o und a r y and W a t er Commission **R E**  **GION 6** 4171 N. Mesa , Suit e C -100 **Gina W e**  **ber and Joy Campbell** E lP a so, TX 79902 US -Mexic o B o r d er Pr o g r am Coor dina t o r 915-832-4175; 915-832-4195 (fax) Re g ion 6 E-mail: sallyspener@ibwc.sta te .go v U

. S

. Envir o nmental Pr ot ection A g enc y 1445 Ross A v enue, 12th Floor E P A R e g i onal O ffi ce Contacts D allas , TX 75202-2733 214-665-6787 (Ms. W e ber); 214-665-8036 (Ms. Camp**RE G**  **I O**  **N 9**  bell); 214-665-7263 (fax) **H e**  **c t**  **or F .**  **A g**  **uir r**  **e** E-mail: w e ber

. g i na@epa .go v; campbell.joy@epa .go v U

. S .-Mexic o B o r d er Speci alist Re g ion 9 **R E**  **GION 6 BO R**  **D E**  **R O**  **FFI C**  **E** U

. S

. Envir o nmental Pr ot ection A g enc y **Carlos R i**  **nc on, Ph.D**  **.** 75 H aw t hor ne S t r e et B o r d er O ffi c e Dir e ct or San Fr ancisc o, C A 94105 Re g ion 6 415-972-3213; 415-947-8026 (fax) U

. S

. Envir o nmental Pr ot ection A g enc y E-mail: a g uir r e .hector@epa .go v 4050 R i o Br a v o, Suit e 100 E lP a so, TX 79902 915-533-7273; 915-544-6026 (fax) E-mail: r inc on.carlos@epa .go v

N

o te of Th ank s In addition t o those list ed in the 2007 Membership Rost er
— whi ch includes B o ar d Members, F e der al A g enc y Al t e r
na t e s, and EP A Re g ional O ffi c e Contacts

— the f o llowing individuals also pr ov ided valuable c ontr ibutions t o the pr epar a t ion of the Good N eig hbor Envir o nmental B oar d E l eventh Repor t : Cali f o r n ia S tate Cons umer S e r v ices A genc y – Manolo P l atin; Conser v a tion B i o l o g

y Institute – Michael W h it e; Depar t
ment of H o using and Urban Dev e lopment – L o r enzo “L ar r y ” Re y e s ; Depar t ment of th e Inte r i or , F i sh and W i ld li f e S e rvice – Mark K aib; Depar t ment of Commer ce, N a tional Oceano g r a p hic and A t mospher i c A d ministr a tion – Mark Capelli; E n vir o nmental P r otection A genc y – J o c e lyn A d k ins, Lisa Al modovar , D a ve Gr a v allese, B e a t r iz O liveir a , D a na T u lis (H eadquar t e rs); H al Z enick (Resear ch T r i a ng le P ark); R a gan Br oyles, Mar y K emp, V almichael L e os , B ill Luthans, A shle y Phillips, Mar i a Sisner os (Re g ion 6); and B arbar a Mac o (Re g i on 9); G i llen P e st Contr o l – Te r r ie B e r ing ; Inte r n ational B o undar y and W

a te r Commission, U
. S
. S e ction – St eve Smullen; N a tiv e A m er ican E n vir o nmental P r otection Coalition – Nina H a pner ; N

e w Mex i co E n vir o nment Depar t ment – Mar issa St one; S a n D i e go F o undation – P a ula Stig ler ; S a n D i e go S tate Univ ersit y – B e r t ha H e r n ández , K r issy Meckel-P arker , and Re ynaldo Ro jo; S o ny E l ectr o nics – Dou gSmith; T exa s Commission on E n vir o nmental Q u alit y – Mar t in R amir ez; and T o hono O’ odham N a tion – Ty Canes.

60 **Good N e**  **ighbor E n**  **v i**  **r onmental B**  **oar d E**  **l eventh R**  **e por**  **t** N a tur a l D i s a sters and the E n vir o nment A l ong the U

. S .-Mex ic o B o r der