Document ID: EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0124-0014
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2013-12-04T05:00Z

DATE

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC  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 longer term concerns. While 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 that have been directed at resolving them. 
The economic recession and sequestration have contributed to challenges facing the Board this year, so 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 16[th] report, which will be completed in 2014. In collaboration with the CEQ, we decided the report would address Ecological Restoration as an umbrella concept to examine and evaluate the effectiveness of the federal government to proactively address multiple issues 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 infrastructure and activities which have degraded federal protected areas.
We have discussed these topics in prior reports, beginning with our first report in October 1995. Additionally, our 13[th] report specifically identified region-wide issues of environmental degradation including climate impacts, environmental quality, water resource degradation, natural hazards, and declines in biodiversity. For the 16[th] report we focus on efforts to address these issues through ecological restoration. Some ecological restoration efforts are being carried out within existing binational programs such as Border 2020 and Border Environment Cooperation Commission-North American Development Bank (BECC-NADB) infrastructure efforts, but they would benefit from a more comprehensive approach. 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.
GNEB has identified the following issues for immediate priority action:  
    *       All federal agencies working in the U.S.-Mexico border region should begin discussions on closer collaboration regarding ecological restoration, and by March 2014 should draft goals, metrics, and protocols for achieving short-, medium-, and long-term progress. 
    *       The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should continue to consider environmental protection in operations and continue environmental protection training as a component of ecological restoration. Training should be continually improved in consideration of changing conditions along the border.
    *       The BECC-NADB should develop best practices to better take into consideration ecological impacts and benefits of new environmental infrastructure projects and further look at ways to utilize environmental infrastructure to enhance ecological restoration.
    *       There is a framework in place to develop performance metrics along the U.S.-Mexico border as part of the EPA Border 2020 Program.  These performance metrics should be expanded to include specific ecological restoration and maintenance metrics to ensure that the 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, and base flows to support planning for allocations, wildlife habitat 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 and beneficiaries of these ecosystem services, within the framework of existing governing agreements and treaties. These analyses should be shared with U.S. state environmental flow reviews when and if they occur. Federal agencies should utilize lessons learned from the Colorado River Basin Water Supply and Demand Study when conducting these analyses.  
    *       In order to develop potential solutions that protect or improve ecological 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 could 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 federal government should support efforts to use treated effluent for ecological restoration, including through the BECC-NADB institutions.
    *       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 benefit for the Rio Grande ecosystem, particularly in the area of Big Bend National Park and adjacent protected areas in Mexico.
    *       The transboundary reality of ecosystems in the border region necessitates new types of legal-institutional arrangements as well as financing. Efforts should be made to improve urban ecological restoration efforts 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 Juarez. 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 water - groundwater interactions in the border region, groundwater 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 U.S.-Mexico border region the U.S. federal government should support ongoing efforts to foster transboundary watershed management as well as transboundary watershed 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 and, by the same token, ecological restoration activities, can degrade or improve the condition of a watershed. Watershed studies are critical to look at the past and understand the reasons for "impaired" sources of surface water as well as to look at the future and understand how alternative structural or management initiatives can make water available for restoration of ecological systems and human consumption, including industrial and agricultural uses.
    *       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 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 13[th] 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." 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." If the U.S. border counties comprised the 51[st] state, they would rank 1[st] in federal crimes, 13[th] in total population, 2[nd] in incidence of tuberculosis, 3[rd] in hepatitis (a waterborne disease) related deaths, 5[th] in unemployment, 40[th] in per capita income, and 51[st] in the number of health care professionals per capita. Much of the border population is concentrated in binational metropolitan areas such as El Paso-Ciudad Juárez or San Diego-Tijuana, but significant pockets of rural poverty also exist. These include colonias, informal settlements mainly in Texas and New Mexico that lack the most basic infrastructure, and the lands of 26 federally recognized tribes. Addressing environmental problems in the border 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 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, politics, and economics of the region requires the development of sustainable ecological restoration actions.
The United States-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. Portions of the US  - Mexico border also serve as important migratory pathways for many avian, mammal and invertebrate species.

                 Ecological Restoration in this Border Context

As described 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." Restoration is typically applied as an "act of renewal, revival, or reinvigoration' to "enhance the ability of ecosystems to change as their environments change." 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 the sister cities of Nogales wanting 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 practitioners of several key issues critical to border ecological restoration. In our initial review, we have identified the following issues:
      
   1. Lack of an overall mandate for ecological restoration and standards defined by ecological restoration -- this is needed in order to create a long term commitment and to increase the collaboration and integration of different agencies in our current ecological restoration efforts.
   2. No balance between ecological restoration's mandate for ecological integrity and operational mandates (such as transportation, commerce and security). This balance is needed in order to create an adaptive management that is able to choose priorities for the region.
   3. A focus in most efforts, discussions and actions on the border "environment" on "brown" issues -- pollution and the lack of adequate infrastructure -- rather than "green" issues -- the need to proactively 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 tackle them from both sides of the border.
   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 in order to quantify the scope of the problems and reach relevant solutions. 
   6. Lack of consistency in the standards applied to achieve ecological restoration. While there have been federal programs that have worked closely to complete Ecological Assessments for discrete geographies, inconsistent standards covering adjacent areas under different international, federal, state, and local jurisdictions limit the overall effectiveness of natural areas that transcend these artificial boundaries.
   7. Need for consistent and effective stakeholder's engagement, in order to create grass root ecological restoration, and provide opportunities for employment in this field.
   8. Need to restore ecological corridors and protect those that already exist.

            The Potential for Ecological Restoration: Four Examples

      In this letter we highlight four areas where the 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. While the La Paz Agreement includes specific accords related to air, land and water pollution; management of hazardous substances; and water infrastructure, it also provides a framework for discussions and actions on habitat conservation and ecological restoration issues. Thus, the La Paz Agreement 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 La Paz Agreement, as well as subsequent activities related to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and North American Development Bank (NADB), has been directed primarily at environmental improvement projects or activities. BECC- NADB by mandate has 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 BECC-NADB.
The latest collaborative effort under the La Paz Agreement, Border 2020: U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Program has five overarching goals. While all 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, however, is to improve water quality using approaches governed 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. While the early border programs under the La Paz Agreement included agencies with ecological restoration expertise, such as the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), neither the current program nor its predecessor, Border 2012, have formally included DOI as a partner. And yet on a practical level, most efforts on the U.S. side of the border toward ecological restoration are concentrated through the Department of Interior and its different agencies. Informally and at the more local levels, personnel with expertise from federal agencies such as DOI and the U.S. Department of State 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 federal policy on ecological restoration. Integrating these DOI efforts with 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 looked at only from the perspective of supply -- getting sufficient water to end users. The GNEB believes the 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 1906 and the 1944 Water Treaty, which allot the waters of the Rio Grande and Colorado River between the United States and Mexico. The International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico (IBWC), is entrusted with applying these treaties.  
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 which may be determined by the Commission. This emphasis on irrigation and municipal supplies affects not just the rivers regulated by treaty but other rivers, lakes, and aquifers in the border region. It should be noted (see below) that all the waters of the Rio Grande of 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 river organisms.  
Another concern is that dams have disrupted rivers' natural seasonal variations.  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 non-irrigation season, with resulting impacts to aquatic and riparian species. Infestations of non-native plants along river banks, such as salt cedar and giant cane, or aquatic species, such as giant salvinia, hydrilla, and water hyacinth, have often replaced native species, degrading their habitat. 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.  
* Minute 319 of the IBWC, signed in late 2012, is a landmark U.S.-Mexico agreement that includes a pilot program to provide water for the environment for 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 implement 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. Documents to implement the MSCP were signed in 2005.
* As previously described in the Board's 12[th] 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 the New and Alamo Rivers in Imperial Valley to assist in cleaning up these rivers and the Salton Sea.  
      One project that identified water for the Rio Grande has proven difficult to implement. IBWC Minute 309, 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 different 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 instream 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 would also 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. While 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 groundwater use. Often these interactions are not well understood. Additional research on these interactions and groundwater 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 with the interactions of surface water and groundwater use upstream in New Mexico.
      On a positive note, on September 16 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. Colonias are economically disadvantaged areas, often lacking water, wastewater, and other basic services. 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 service, the prospect for successful ecological restoration increases dramatically.
      
3. Border Security and Impacts on Ecological Restoration.
      Illegal border activity and border security has affected the environment of the border region, and the appropriate response strategy, besides applying best practices and mitigation funds to affected resource managers, should include ecological restoration. 
      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 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was charged by Congress with its construction. To quote from the letter (included as an attachment in the GNEB 13[th] 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." . As noted in the 13[th] GNEB report, foremost is the disruption of connectivity for species moving across the border, and for water flow. Recognizing the positive impacts to facilitate trade and clarifying that increased border protection activities have impacts in the region, it could also be noted that DHS is committed to responsible environmental stewardship and ecological restoration efforts are an integral part of that commitment as per internal policy. However, Border Patrol activities continue 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 DHS has undertaken numerous mitigation efforts regarding the impact of the border fence and is working with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and various tribal organizations on many of them. To cite just one example, DHS (Border Patrol Facilities and Tactical Infrastructure Program Management Office) has a project to stabilize fill slopes, offset loss of vegetation, and re-establish habitat in Zone A-1, San Diego Sector. The project goal is to stabilize fill slopes, offset loss of vegetation, as well as re-establish Quino checkerspot butterfly suitable habitat. Other projects have emphasized species regulated under the Endangered Species Act, but DHS has only provided $17 million of up to $50 million to mitigate impacts from the construction of the border fence. Species-specific approaches are generally seen as inadequate responses to widespread degradation of natural resources and the environment.
      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 liaison in their daily routine. 

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, newly emergent disease vectors). For example, haphazard urbanization (i.e., building human settlement on steep, unstable slopes, without adequate infrastructure) like that taking place in the Tijuana canyon lands, causes severe erosion during rain storms, causing 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. 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 and improve 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. The Tijuana River Valley Recovery Team (TRVRT) is leading exemplary work along such lines in the San Diego-Tijuana twin city region. The TRVRT's multiagency transborder approach and emphasis on citizen science constitutes a new forward-looking field of watershed-based, urban-regional ecological restoration that can help innovate and democratize science and technology, create jobs through the greening of infrastructure, bridge the "nature deficit" disorder, and bring ecosystem services more clearly into account. In another example, the U.S. federal government is already 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.
Ecological restoration can help meet the mission of the federal agencies working in the border region, including, for example, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's mission to "Build a Resilient Nation." Ecological restoration that improves coupled social-ecological systems in human settlements along the U.S.-Mexico border will help reduce environmental and public health risks while increasing resilience and security.

These four are only some of the areas where ecological restoration, appropriately applied, can address both environmental and human problems in the border region. These and others will be more fully researched in the 16[th] report. Special consideration will be given to potential impacts or constraints the recommendations will have on Tribal, state, and local governments, as well as non-governmental and non-profit organizations. 
The Board will further develop the issues and themes raised in this advice letter in our 16[th] Annual Report, scheduled for release in 2014.  Mr. President, we thank you for the opportunity to provide you with our insights and recommendations on these issues.
 
                                 Respectfully,
                                       
                                       
                                       
                                 Diane Austin
                                     Chair

cc:  The Honorable Joe Biden 	                                          
       The Vice President of the United States	               

       The Honorable Nancy Sutley
       Chair, Council on Environmental Quality

       The Honorable Gina McCarthy
       Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency