GOOD NEIGHBOR 

ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD 

Presidential advisory committee 

on environmental and infrastructure issues 

along the U.S. border with Mexico

Chair 

Diane Austin, Ph.D. 

Telephone: (520) 626-3879 

Email: daustin@email.arizona.edu 

Acting Designated Federal Officer 

Mark Joyce 

Telephone: (202) 564-2130 

Email: joyce.mark@epa.gov

December 18, 2013 

President Barack Obama 

The White House 

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, D.C. 20006 

Dear Mr. President: 

As your federal advisory committee for environmental and infrastructure issues along the U.S. border 

with Mexico, we write regarding priorities for addressing serious environmental degradation and 

improving the quality of life for the 15 million inhabitants of this complex, multicultural region. We are 

highlighting issues for immediate action as well as long-term concerns. Although many of these issues 

have been discussed in previous Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB or Board) reports, the 

rapid population growth of the region and current environmental conditions have outstripped even the 

excellent binational, U.S. federal, state and local efforts directed at resolving them. 

The economic recession and sequestration have contributed to challenges facing the Board this year; 

therefore, we have worked with your Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to develop a plan for 

making the best use of our resources and the expertise of our membership. We determined that in 2013, 

we would prepare an advice letter identifying key issues that require immediate attention and would begin 

gathering data for our 16th report, which will be completed in 2014. In collaboration with the CEQ, we 

decided to address ecological restoration as an umbrella concept to examine and evaluate the 

effectiveness of the U.S. federal government in managing multiple aspects of natural resource and 

environmental degradation, including invasive species; eroded soils; channelized streams; excessive water 

withdrawals; degraded surface water quality; and disruption of landscape connectivity by border security 

activities and infrastructure, which also have degraded federal protected areas. 

We have discussed these topics in prior reports, beginning with our first report in October 1995. 

Additionally, our 13th report specifically identified region-wide issues of environmental degradation, 

including climate impacts, environmental quality, water resource degradation, natural hazards and 
2 

declines in biodiversity.1

 For the 16th report, we focus on efforts to address these issues through 

ecological restoration. Federal land managers are carrying out individual actions, and some ecological 

restoration efforts are being carried out within existing binational programs such as Border 2020 and the 

Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and North American Development Bank (NADB) 

climate change program, but they would benefit from a more comprehensive approach to ecological 

restoration throughout the border region. Some issues require new, pragmatic initiatives that improve 

coordination among U.S. agencies and across the international boundary to take advantage of synergies. 

Stakeholder participation at all levels is critical in developing solutions, and existing programs that 

involve coordination with a large number of stakeholders from both sides of the border can inform new 

efforts. 

GNEB has identified the following issues for immediate action: 

 All U.S. federal agencies working in the U.S.-Mexico border region should increase interagency 

collaboration regarding ecological restoration and by June 2014 should draft a blueprint for 

action, including goals, metrics and protocols for achieving short-, medium- and long-term 

progress. 

 The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should continue to consider environmental 

protection in operations and continue environmental protection training as a component of its 

efforts to mitigate damages to natural resources. Training should be adaptive in light of changing 

conditions along the border. 

 EPA’s Border 2020 program should expand the framework to develop performance metrics to 

include specific ecological restoration and maintenance. This will help ensure that ecological 

systems along the border remain viable. 

 The U.S. federal natural resource agencies and the International Boundary and Water 

Commission, United States and Mexico (IBWC), in collaboration with U.S. state agencies and 

U.S. tribal nations in the border region, should develop metrics, standards and models for 

environmental flows for use in water planning. They should identify lessons learned for potential 

use in border watersheds, which should incorporate the recognition of the sovereignty of U.S. 

states and tribal nations regarding water rights. Needed information includes analysis of the range 

of flow characteristics such as peak flow and monthly flow variation, as well as base flows, to 

support planning for allocations, wildlife needs, recreation and treatment capacity. 

 U.S. federal agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and IBWC, as well as U.S. state and Mexican stakeholders and tribal partners, 

should participate in U.S. state environmental flow reviews as permitted by state law. Where no 

U.S. state environmental flow review or process is occurring, these federal agencies should 

convene basin-wide analyses of environmental flows that are developed with Mexican, state and 

tribal partners to help identify the quantity, timing and quality of flows, as well as beneficiaries of 

these ecosystem services, within the framework of existing governing agreements and treaties. 

These analyses should be shared with U.S. states undertaking environmental flow reviews when 

 

1

 GNEB, Thirteenth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United 

States: A Blueprint for Action on the U.S.-Mexico Border (Washington, D.C.: GNEB, 2010), pp. 8–53, 

www.epa.gov/ofacmo/gneb/gneb13threport/eng_gneb_13th_report_final.pdf. 
3 

and if they occur. Federal agencies should apply lessons learned from the Colorado River Basin 

Water Supply and Demand Study when conducting these analyses. 

 To develop potential solutions that protect or improve the ecological condition of resources of the 

Colorado River Basin, the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) should continue to provide 

institutional and technical support to the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study 

and other efforts to gain information for better management of border watersheds and water 

bodies. The solutions examined and adopted in such studies should include those that promote 

healthy river flows in the Colorado River Basin. DOI should disseminate results of the Colorado 

River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study to stakeholders in other border watersheds through 

other agencies such as the IBWC. 

 The U.S. federal government should work with Mexico to coordinate releases from Mexican 

dams in a planned fashion to meet the dual purpose of water delivery to the United States and 

transboundary ecological benefits for the Rio Grande ecosystem, particularly in the area of Big 

Bend National Park and adjacent protected areas in Mexico. 

 The BECC and NADB should use best practices to measure the environmental effects and 

benefits of the projects that the BECC and NADB support, as well as to look for ways to advance 

viable projects that could contribute to ecological restoration through grant opportunities 

supported by existing programs, including the Border Environmental Infrastructure Fund (BEIF), 

Border 2020, and Community Assistance Program (CAP), or new sources. 

 The U.S. federal government should work with local and state stakeholders to support efforts to 

use treated effluent for ecological restoration, including through the BECC and NADB. 

 Because of the transboundary reality of ecosystems in the border region, the U.S. federal 

government should support efforts to improve urban ecological conditions through binationally 

coordinated watershed councils in places where urban sprawl is taking place, such as the canyon 

lands of Tijuana and the river valley of Ciudad Juárez. Such councils encourage citizen science 

and participation in transboundary ecological stewardship. 

 The U.S. federal government should conduct and support research that assists ecological 

restoration of water bodies, their associated habitats and resultant decisions regarding their 

management. There is an ongoing need for research regarding such key issues as surface waterground water interactions in the border region, ground water availability, invasive species control, 

and how the volume and timing of water releases from reservoirs can impact habitat. There also is 

a need to link existing models of ecological planning and restoration to border ecosystems. 

 To increase the implementation and success of environmental restoration activities in the U.S.-

Mexico border region, the U.S. federal government should support ongoing efforts to foster 

transboundary watershed management and ecology studies. These studies can increase 

understanding of how natural and man-made watershed structures and natural processes interact. 

With this information, we can better predict how human activities impact—and ecological 

restoration activities improve—the condition of a watershed. Watershed studies are critical to 

understanding the reasons for impaired sources of surface water, as well as to looking at the 

future and understanding how alternative structural or management initiatives can make water 

available for many uses, including environmental, agricultural and industrial. 
4 

 The U.S. federal government should support development and fund the acquisition of the data 

necessary to measure the effectiveness of ecological restoration programs and activities. A 

cohesive, comprehensive data collection program is paramount to the success of any ecological 

restoration activities along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

The following sections provide information to support these recommendations. 

The Border Context 

As described in the 13th GNEB report, certain defining features and characteristics of the border region 

make it fundamentally different from other regions within the United States: “The U.S Mexico border 

region is defined by rapid economic and population growth, rapid urbanization, spillover effects from 

Mexico, asymmetries with Mexican communities across the border, international commerce and trade 

flows, high rates of poverty, and a distinct ethnic identity.”2 As highlighted in our prior reports and advice 

letters, “[t]he North American Free Trade Agreement brought economic expansion but not prosperity to 

the border region. It increased trade flows, congestion, and environmental impacts, and also stimulated 

significant population growth.”3

 Much of the border population is concentrated in binational metropolitan 

areas such as El Paso-Ciudad Juárez or San Diego-Tijuana, but significant populations live in rural areas, 

with many of the latter living in poverty. These include colonias and the lands of 26 federally recognized 

tribes. Colonias, located mainly in Texas and New Mexico, are informal settlements that are 

economically disadvantaged areas, often lacking the most basic infrastructure, including water, 

wastewater and other basic services. Addressing environmental problems in the border region is 

complicated not only by the poverty of the region and rapid growth, but also by the transboundary nature 

of many key environmental problems, including impaired air and water quality and hazardous materials 

management. The U.S.-Mexico border region is characterized by environmental problems unlike those in 

any other part of the Nation. The complex geographic, political and economic issues of the region require 

the development of sustainable ecological restoration initiatives. 

The U.S.-Mexico borderlands are diverse in flora and fauna and vary dramatically through the long 

narrow stretch to include chaparral; coastal plains; deserts of cactus, sage bush and creosote; isolated 

mountain ranges with pine and oak forests; rugged canyon lands covered in yucca; rolling hills with 

grasses and mesquite; and fertile river delta estuaries. Major ecosystems of the border, such as the 

Sonoran and Chihuahuan Deserts, include many unique species adapted to dry conditions.4

 Portions of the 

U.S.-Mexico border also serve as important migratory pathways for many avian, mammalian and 

invertebrate species. 

 

2

 GNEB, Thirteenth Report, 3. 

3

 GNEB, letter of the GNEB to the President of the United States, May 19, 2009, p. 2, 

http://www.epa.gov/ocempage/gneb/pdf/2009_0519_advise_letter.pdf. 

4

 “Southern North America: Northern Mexico into southwestern United States,” World Wildlife Federation, last 

modified 2013, accessed September 6, 2013, http://worldwildlife.org/ecoregions/na1303. 
5 

Ecological Restoration in This Border Context 

As defined by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), ecological restoration is “the process of 

assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed.”5 Restoration is 

typically applied as an “act of renewal, revival, or reinvigoration” to “enhance the ability of ecosystems to 

change as their environments change.”6

 It is driven by the values of those implementing it, such as federal 

wilderness managers striving for high levels of ecological integrity; ranchers needing sustainable soils; or 

residents of sister cities such as Nogales, Arizona, in the United States and Nogales, Sonora, in Mexico 

who want clean, reliable water supplies. Lack of restoration under these conditions will lead to a cascade 

of negative impacts on natural resources and, in many cases, on human health. 

Due to the diverse environment of the region, both politically and geographically, we acknowledge that 

we cannot cover the full range of topics or innovations (tools and practices) occurring in the field of 

ecological restoration on the U.S.-Mexico border. One of our goals is to evaluate and encourage further 

discussion among restoration ecologists, social scientists, planners, designers and practitioners7

 of several 

key issues critical to border ecological restoration. In our initial review of ecological restoration 

principles, activities and U.S. federal programs that could have a restoration nexus, we have identified the 

following issues: 

1. Lack of an overall mandate for ecological restoration and standards defining restoration 

success. This is needed to create a long-term commitment and increase the collaboration and 

integration of different agencies in our current ecological restoration efforts. 

2. Lack of balance between ecological restoration’s emphasis on ecological integrity and 

operational mandates (e.g., transportation, commerce, security). This balance is needed to 

create an adaptive management that is able to choose priorities for the region. 

3. A focus in most efforts, discussions and actions related to the border “environment” on 

“brown” issues—pollution and the lack of adequate infrastructure—rather than “green” 

issues—the need to protect, restore and manage biologically diverse flora, fauna and 

habitats. 

4. Lack of integration with Mexico. Ecological restoration often cannot be accomplished along the 

border without a binational approach. The bulk of the programs and efforts aimed at ecological 

restoration have not been developed using a binational approach to implement them from both 

sides of the border. 

 

5

 Society for Ecological Restoration, SER International Primer on Ecological Restoration, Version 2 (Washington, 

D.C.: Society for Ecological Restoration, 2004), http://www.ser.org/resources/resources-detail-view/serinternational-primer-on-ecological-restoration. 

6

 “What is restoration?” ReSOURCE: Eastern Santa Cruz County, Arizona, Ron Pulliam, last modified 2013, 

accessed September 13, 2013, 

http://resourceeasternsantacruzcounty.ning.com/group/borderlandshabitatrestoration/page/why-pollinators-matterby-gary-1. 

7

 Melissa V. Eitzel et al., “Insights From a Cross-Disciplinary Seminar: 10 Pivotal Papers for Ecological 

Restoration.” Restoration Ecology 20, no. 2 (2012): pp. 147–52.
6 

5. Lack or inconsistent application of data, tools and models for assessing ecological 

restoration in the border region. There is an urgent need for a data inventory clearinghouse, 

gap analysis, a data quality review and more within the region to quantify the scope of the 

problems and reach relevant solutions. 

6. Lack of consistency in the standards applied to achieve ecological restoration. Although 

there have been federal programs that have worked together closely to complete Ecological 

Assessments for discrete geographies, inconsistent standards covering adjacent areas under 

different international, federal, state and local jurisdictions limit the overall viability of natural 

areas that transcend these artificial boundaries. 

7. Need for consistent and effective stakeholder engagement to create grassroots restoration 

efforts and provide opportunities for employment in this field. 

8. Need to restore ecological connectivity and ecologically significant areas such as the Salton 

Sea and protect those that already exist. 

The Potential for Ecological Restoration: Four Examples 

In this letter we highlight four areas where the U.S. federal government has responsibility and ecological 

restoration could play a significant role: collaborative efforts under the La Paz Agreement, and 

particularly Border 2020; water and watershed issues; border security; and urban areas. 

1. Collaborative Efforts Under the La Paz Agreement 

Since the 1983 La Paz Agreement, U.S. and Mexican officials have engaged in discussion and 

collaboration on environmental protection efforts along the U.S.-Mexico border. The La Paz Agreement 

includes specific accords related to air, land and water pollution; management of hazardous substances; 

and water infrastructure, but it also provides a framework for discussions and actions on habitat 

conservation and ecological restoration issues. The La Paz Agreement, therefore, allows the governments 

to convene workgroups and committees or task forces of experts to address a wide range of border 

environmental issues. The 30-year-old La Paz Agreement, as well as subsequent institutions such as the 

BECC and NADB that are related to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), have been 

directed primarily at environmental improvement projects or activities. By mandate, the BECC and 

NADB have focused particularly on infrastructure such as wastewater treatment plants. These have been 

of more immediate concern to the affected local governments and border residents. Identifying and 

ensuring the ecological restoration impacts or benefits of these infrastructure projects has not been a 

priority of the workgroups and committees established under the La Paz Agreement or of the BECC and 

NADB. 

The latest collaborative effort under the La Paz Agreement, Border 2020: U.S.-Mexico Border 

Environmental Program, has five overarching goals.8

 Although all of the goals may affect ecological 

restoration, only one, “Improving Access to Clean and Safe Water,” specifically mentions ecological 

restoration as part of “protecting and restoring watersheds and water quality.” The primary emphasis, 

 

8

 EPA, Border 2020: U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program (Washington, D.C.: EPA, 2012), pp. 17–28, 

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/border2020summary.pdf. 
7 

however, is to improve water quality using approaches directed by EPA and its counterparts in Mexico, 

the Ministry of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) and the National Water 

Commission (CONAGUA). 

Broadening the focus to include ecological restoration will require more than new language. Although the 

early border programs under the La Paz Agreement included agencies with ecological restoration 

expertise such as the DOI, neither the current program nor its predecessor, Border 2012, have formally 

included the DOI as a partner. Yet on a practical level, most efforts toward ecological restoration on the 

U.S. side of the border are implemented through the DOI and its various agencies. Informally and at the 

more local levels, personnel with expertise from U.S. federal agencies such as the DOI and the State 

Department are involved through workgroups or task forces. 

Some of the larger efforts, such as the Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Program (U.S. Forest Service), include border regions and should naturally 

intersect with border efforts such as Border 2020. The recent attempt to assess ecologies—and ecological 

restoration—through the Bureau of Land Management’s Rapid Ecoregional Assessment does include 

three areas along the border but does not attempt to integrate an assessment on the Mexican side of the 

border or directly collaborate with Mexican authorities. Still, these large, collaborative efforts point to 

what is necessary for developing a more comprehensive U.S. federal policy on ecological restoration. 

Incorporating these DOI efforts in Border 2020 is a needed first step. 

2. Water and Watershed Issues 

Water remains the primary limiting resource for most of the U.S.-Mexico border area. This key resource, 

which the United States shares with Mexico in many locations along the border, has been traditionally 

considered only from the perspective of supply (i.e., getting sufficient water to end users). The GNEB 

believes that the U.S. federal government could take a broader look at border water supply, exploring 

opportunities to make water available for ecological restoration. 

The allocation of water between the two countries is addressed in two treaties, the Convention of 19069

and the 1944 Water Treaty,10 which allocate the waters of the Rio Grande and Colorado River between 

the United States and Mexico. The IBWC is entrusted with applying these treaties.11

One challenge for ecological restoration has been the emphasis on water for agricultural, industrial and 

municipal uses over other uses. The 1944 Water Treaty contains a specific order of preferences, giving 

the highest priority to domestic and municipal uses followed by agriculture and stock raising, electric 

power, other industrial uses, navigation, fishing and hunting, and any other beneficial uses that may be 

determined by the IBWC.12 This emphasis on irrigation and municipal supplies affects not just the rivers 

regulated by treaty but also other rivers, lakes and aquifers in the border region. It should be noted (see 

 

9

 Convention Providing for the Equitable Distribution of the Waters of the Rio Grande for Irrigation Purposes, U.S.-

Mexico, May 21, 1906, T.S. 455. 

10 Utilization of Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, U.S.-Mexico, February 3, 1944, 

and Protocol, U.S.-Mexico, November 14, 1944, T.S. 944. 

11 The Board has written extensively about border water and watersheds, including the 4th, 8th, 12th and 13th 

GNEB reports. See “Reports to the President of the United States,” EPA, last modified December 18, 2012, 

accessed September 11, 2013, www.epa.gov/ofacmo/gneb/gneb_president_reports.htm. 

12 Article 3 of T.S. 944. 
8 

below) that all the waters of the Rio Grande in the United States under both the Convention of 1906 and 

the 1944 Water Treaty belong to individual water rights holders and that these water rights are granted by 

state agencies. Coupled with other management practices, the priority of uses has reduced water 

availability for fish and other aquatic organisms. 

Another concern is that dams have disrupted the natural seasonal variations of rivers. Without high flows 

in the springtime, for example, it can be difficult for native plants and animals to survive. In some areas, 

rivers are essentially dry during the nonirrigation season, with resulting impacts to aquatic and riparian 

species. Infestations of non-native plants along riverbanks, such as salt cedar and giant cane, or aquatic 

species, such as giant salvinia, hydrilla and water hyacinth, often have replaced native species, degrading 

their habitat.13 In some areas, certain non-native species consume significant amounts of water, thereby 

reducing water availability. 

Some specific examples of wetland or riparian habitat restoration in the border region include: 

 The United States Section of the IBWC is working directly to restore habitat at various sites along 

the Rio Grande in the United States between Percha Dam, New Mexico, and El Paso, Texas, and 

has started to acquire water rights from willing sellers to support the effort.14

 Minute 319 of the IBWC,15 signed in late 2012, is a landmark U.S.-Mexico agreement that 

includes a pilot program to provide water for the environment in the Colorado River boundary 

segment and delta, identifying water for a pulse flow to help establish native plant species as well 

as for base flow in a part of the river where upstream dams and diversions have disrupted instream flow for decades. The Minute also commits the United States and Mexico to implementing 

environmental enhancement of riparian areas, and some work has progressed at habitat 

restoration sites. 

 The Bureau of Reclamation’s Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) is a 50-year habitat 

conservation plan for 400 miles of the lower Colorado River from Lake Mead to the Mexico 

border.16 Documents to implement the MSCP were signed in 2005. 

 As previously described in the Board’s 12th report, work is underway in California to address 

ecological restoration of the Salton Sea, an inland lake that has suffered from high salinity and 

polluted runoff. Federal, state, and local stakeholders have partnered and built three wetlands for 

 

13 GNEB. “Damage Caused by Invasive Aquatic and Riparian Species on the U.S.-Mexico Border,” letter of the 

GNEB to the President of the United States, October 20, 2004, 

www.epa.gov/ofacmo/gneb/comments/2004_oct_20_comments.htm. 

14 IBWC, United States Section. Project Brief: Restoration Activities in the Rio Grande Canalization Project, June 

2009–August 2013 (El Paso, TX: IBWC). 

15 Interim International Cooperative Measures in the Colorado River Basin Through 2017 and Extension of Minute 

318 Cooperative Measures to Address the Continued Effects of the April 2010 Earthquake in the Mexicali Valley, 

Baja California, IBWC, Nov. 20, 2012, Minute No. 319, www.ibwc.gov/Files/Minutes/Minute_319.pdf. 

16 “Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program,” last modified November 26, 2012, accessed 

September 9, 2013, www.lcrmscp.gov/general_program.html. 
9 

the New and Alamo Rivers in Imperial Valley to assist in cleaning up these rivers and the Salton 

Sea.17

 One project that identified water for the Rio Grande has proven difficult to implement. IBWC 

Minute 309,18 signed in 2003, provides for water savings from irrigation district conservation 

projects in Mexico to be transferred to the Rio Grande annually. Unfortunately, because of a 

difference in interpretation of the agreement, Mexico has not made reliable deliveries of 

conserved waters, as required by Minute 309. The lack of deliveries affects water availability for 

downstream Rio Grande users in both countries and reduces transboundary environmental 

benefits. 

 More broadly, the lack of planned water deliveries from Mexican reservoirs to the Rio Grande 

has created multiple difficulties—from generating periodic water deficits under the treaty, which 

affects Texas water users, to reducing in-stream flow in the Rio Grande—with resulting 

environmental impacts. Securing a specific commitment from Mexico to proactively manage its 

reservoirs to deliver water to the United States in a scheduled manner also would offer the 

opportunity to deliver water in a method that maximizes environmental benefits, much like the 

base flow and pulse flow deliveries planned for the Colorado River. Although scheduling water 

releases to benefit the habitat of Big Bend National Park and adjacent protected areas in Mexico 

has been discussed for a number of years, an agreement with Mexico has remained elusive. 

 Another matter that merits further attention is the interaction between surface water use and 

ground water use. Often these interactions are not well understood. Additional research on these 

interactions and ground water migration and recharge could help inform efforts to secure water 

supplies for ecological restoration. This is not only true along the border itself, but in the case of 

the Rio Grande, also for the interactions of surface water and ground water use upstream in New 

Mexico. 

 On a positive note, on September 16, 2013, the chairmen of the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality and the Texas Water Development Board and the EPA Region 6 

Administrator sent a joint letter on colonias to three Texas associations. The letter to the Texas 

Association of Counties, the Texas Municipal League and the Texas Association of Regional 

Councils asked for the members of those organizations to cooperate with state and federal 

agencies to provide services to colonia residents. If colonia residents receive wastewater services, 

the prospect for successful ecological restoration increases dramatically. 

3. Border Security and Impacts on Ecological Restoration 

Illegal border activity and border security activities have affected the environment of the border region; 

the appropriate response strategy, besides applying best practices and mitigation funds to affected 

resource managers, should include ecological restoration. 

 

17 GNEB, Twelfth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United 

States: Innovative and Practical Approaches to Solving Border Environmental Problems (Washington, D.C.: 

GNEB, 2009), www.epa.gov/ocempage/gneb/gneb12threport/English-GNEB-12th-Report.pdf.

18 Volumes of Water Saved With the Modernization and Improved Technology Projects for the Irrigation Districts in 

the Rio Conchos Basin and Measures for Their Conveyance to the Rio Grande, IBWC, July 3, 2003, Minute No. 

309, www.ibwc.gov/Files/Minutes/Min309.pdf. 
10 

In our December 2, 2009, advice letter, the Board highlighted the effects of the construction and 

maintenance of the border fence on the environment. The border fence was mandated by Congress, and 

the DHS was charged by Congress with its construction. To quote from the Board’s 2009 advice letter, 

included as an attachment in the 13th GNEB report, “While...the border fence has had some positive 

outcomes and is appropriate in targeted areas, the construction has caused negative impacts to some 

natural and cultural resources.”19 As noted in the 13th GNEB report, foremost is the disruption of 

connectivity for species moving across the border and connectivity of water flow.20 Recognizing the 

positive impacts to facilitate trade and clarifying that increased border protection activities have impacts 

in the region, it also could be noted that the DHS is committed to responsible environmental stewardship; 

ecological restoration efforts are an integral part of that commitment as per internal policy.21 Border 

Patrol activities continue, however, to have consequences. For example, tribes and DOI staff, as well as 

residents in the region, report that Border Patrol activities, such as tire dragging to look for tracks of 

undocumented immigrants and workers, continue to cause environmental degradation and increase 

erosion. 

It should be noted that the DHS has undertaken numerous mitigation efforts regarding the impact of the 

border fence and is working with the DOI and various tribal organizations on many of them. To cite just 

one example, the DHS’ Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure Program Management Office

has a project to stabilize fill slopes, offset loss of vegetation and re-establish Quino checkerspot butterflysuitable habitat in Zone A-1, San Diego Sector.22 Other projects have emphasized species regulated under 

the Endangered Species Act, but the DHS has provided only $17 million of the as much as $50 million 

identified by the DOI as needed to mitigate impacts from the construction of the border fence.23 Speciesspecific approaches are generally seen as inadequate responses to widespread degradation of natural 

resources and the environment. 

The DHS also has begun to incorporate training and guidance related to environmental issues into its 

practices. In addition, appropriate DHS personnel and Border Patrol officers receive training on 

environmental protection and tribal customs and relations, and they now incorporate environmental 

protection and tribal liaising in their daily routine. 

 

19 GNEB, letter of the GNEB to the President of the United States, December 2, 2009, p. 1, 

http://www.epa.gov/ocempage/gneb/pdf/2009_1202_advise_letter.pdf. 

20 GNEB. Thirteenth Report, pp. 71, 74. 

21 Janet Napolitano (DHS Secretary), “Department Sustainability Policy,” memorandum to Component Heads, 

February 7, 2011; Elaine C. Duke (DSH Under Secretary for Management), “Department of Homeland Security 

Environmental Policy,” memorandum to all DHS employees, October 18, 2008; DHS Chief Financial Officer and 

Chief Readiness Support Officer, “Financial Liabilities Policy,” memorandum, April 27, 2012; Sustainable 

Practices for Environmental, Energy and Transportation Management, DHS, September 29, 2008, Directive 

025-01; Environmental Compliance Program, DHS, May 23, 2007, Directive 023-02; Environmental Planning 

Program, DHS, April 19, 2006, Directive 023-01; Instruction 023-1 for DHS Directive 023-01; and 

Instruction 017-01 for Historic Preservation in Asset Management and Operations, DHS, March 10, 2008, 

Directive 017-01. 

22 Dr. Teresa Pohlman (Director, Sustainability and Environmental Programs, DHS), email message to Steve 

Niemeyer (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality), July 8, 2013. 

23 Dr. Greg Eckert (Restoration Ecologist, National Park Service), email message to Steve Niemeyer, September 11, 

2013. 
11 

4. Ecological Restoration in Urban Areas 

Urban ecological restoration is a critical need and focus for the U.S.-Mexico border region because border 

communities face heightened environmental and public health risks associated with ecosystem 

degradation (e.g., risks arising from floods, fire, dust, water contamination and newly emergent disease 

vectors).24 For example, haphazard urbanization (i.e., building human settlements on steep, unstable 

slopes without adequate infrastructure), as is taking place in the Tijuana canyon lands, causes severe 

erosion during rain storms and ecological devastation on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border. Because 

of the complexity associated with high levels of human activity in urban ecosystems, approaches vary 

from maintaining and enhancing native plant diversity—or specific rare and endangered plant or animal 

species—to restoring and enhancing habitats and cultural landscapes, the latter being landscapes that 

combine human and natural features to reflect and express the relationships between people and the 

environments within which they live. 

The nature and type of restoration that is possible or desirable in urban areas depends on the level of 

degradation of the ecosystem; whether or not there is a framework or reference to reestablish systems that 

were in place before the urban area was developed; and the extent of recognition of the role of human 

values, perceptions and actions in shaping the landscape.25,26 Using restoration as a tool to maximize 

natural resource values in these highly managed settings provides us with opportunities to test adaptive 

capacities of species and adaptation techniques under novel environmental conditions. 

Ecological restoration can increase the positive impacts of restored soils, air and watersheds, as well as 

provide many important socioeconomic and mental health benefits, such as enhanced social cohesion, 

increased real estate values, improved health and recreational activities, and recognized cultural and 

spiritual values.27 The Tijuana River Valley Recovery Team (TRVRT) is an example of a binational 

collaboration that works along such lines in the San Diego-Tijuana twin city region. The TRVRT’s 

multiagency transborder approach “bring[s] together governmental administrative, regulatory, and 

funding agencies in tandem with advice from the scientific community, the environmental community, 

and affected stakeholders to...restore the Tijuana River floodplain to a balanced wetland ecosystem.”28 In 

another example, the U.S. federal government already is supporting some of this work in the Tijuana 

River Valley on the U.S. side of the border through innovative “Community Engagement” and “Research 

Translation” activities funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), 

Superfund Research Program. 

 

24 “Human Health Under Threat From Ecosystem Degradation,” World Health Organization, last modified 

December 9, 2005, accessed September 9, 2013, www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr67/en/. 

25 “Models for Ecological Restoration in Urban Areas: Lessons From the U.S. and Germany,” U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Forest Service, last modified October 18, 2010, accessed September 10, 2013, 

www.nrs.fs.fed.us/urban/landscape_change/ecological_restoration_germany_us. 

26 Lynne M. Westphal, Paul H. Gobster, and Matthias Gross, “Models for Renaturing Brownfield Areas,” in ed. 

Marcus Hall, Restoration and History: The Search for a Usable Environmental Past (New York: Routledge, 

2010), pp. 208–17, www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2010/nrs_2010_westphal_001.pdf. 

27 National Research Council, Urban Forestry: Toward an Ecosystem Services Research Agenda: A Workshop 

Summary (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2013), 

www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18370&page=1. 

28 “Tijuana River Valley Recovery Strategy,” California Environmental Protection Agency, San Diego Regional 

Water Quality Control Board, last modified 2013, accessed November 10, 2013, 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb9/water_issues/tijuana_river_valley_strategy/index.shtml. 
Ecologica

including,

improves 

reduce en

These fou

address bo

more fully

constraint

nongovern

In this lett

and enviro

federal ag

consider e

and to gat

ecologica

raised in t

Mr. Presid

these imp

NOTE: G

agencies h

cc: The H

The V

The H

Chair,

The H

Admin

 

29 “Buildin

al restoration 

, for example

coupled socia

vironmental a

ur examples ar

oth environm

y researched i

ts that the rec

nmental and n

ter, the Board

onmental deg

gencies and w

environmenta

ther data and 

l restoration p

this advice let

dent, we than

ortant issues.

Good Neighbo

have recused 

Honorable Joe 

Vice President

Honorable Nan

, White House

Honorable Gin

nistrator, U.S

 

ng a Resilient N

can help mee

, the DHS’ m

al-ecological 

and public he

re only some 

mental and hum

in the 16th re

ommendation

nonprofit org

d has highligh

gradation. The

with stakehold

al protection i

develop metr

programs and

tter in our 16t

nk you for the 

or Environme

their organiza

Biden 

t of the United

ncy Sutley 

e Council on 

na McCarthy 

. Environmen

 

Nation,” DHS, 

et the mission 

mission to “Bu

systems in hu

ealth risks wh

of the areas w

man problems

port. Special 

ns will have o

anizations. 

hted key issue

ese issues inc

ders at all leve

n agency ope

rics, standards

d activities. Th

th Annual Re

opportunity t

ental Board re

ations from th

d States 

Environment

ntal Protection

accessed Septe

12 

of the federa

uild a Resilien

uman settlem

ile increasing

where ecolog

s in the borde

consideration

on tribal, state

es for addressi

lude the need

els and from b

erations and c

s and models 

he Board will

port, schedul

to provide yo

Respectf

Diane Au

Chair 

epresentatives

his advice lett

tal Quality 

n Agency 

ember 9, 2013,

al agencies wo

nt Nation.”29 E

ments along th

g resilience an

gical restoratio

er region. The

n will be give

e and local go

ing multiple c

d to increase c

both sides of t

ontinue envir

to plan for an

l further deve

ed for release

ou with our in

fully, 

ustin 

s from U.S. fe

ter. 

, https://www.d

orking in the 

Ecological re

he U.S.-Mexic

nd security. 

on, appropriat

ese examples 

en to potential

overnments, a

concerns of n

collaboration 

the border; to

ronmental pro

nd measure th

elop the issues

e in 2014. 

nsights and rec

ederal departm

dhs.gov/buildin

border region

storation that

co border will

tely applied, c

and others wi

l impacts or 

as well as 

natural resourc

among U.S. 

o continue to 

otection traini

he effectivene

s and themes 

commendatio

ments and 

ng-resilient-na

n, 

t

l help 

can 

ill be 

ce 

ing; 

ess of 

ons on 

ation.