State of California et al v. Trump et al

Filing 57

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION To enlarge page limits in support of motion for injunctive relief filed by State of California. Responses due by 4/18/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Declaration of Lee Sherman, # 3 Notice of Motion & Motion for Preliminary Injunction, # 4 Proposed Order, # 5 Appendix of Declarations re: TFF, # 6 Appendix of Declarations re: Environmental, # 7 Request for Judicial Notice, # 8 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Sherman, Lee) (Filed on 4/4/2019)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
SALLY MAGNANI
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN
Senior Assistant Attorneys General
MICHAEL P. CAYABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
HEATHER C. LESLIE
JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II
LEE I. SHERMAN (SBN 272271)
Deputy Attorneys General
300 S. Spring St., Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California

12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
OAKLAND DIVISION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
COLORADO; STATE OF
CONNECTICUT; STATE OF
DELAWARE; STATE OF HAWAII;
STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF
MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND;
COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS; ATTORNEY
GENERAL DANA NESSEL ON BEHALF
OF THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN;
STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF
NEVADA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF
NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON;
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF
VERMONT; COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WISCONSIN

26
27

Case No. 4:19-cv-00872-HSG
APPENDIX OF DECLARATIONS RE:
ENVIRONMENTAL HARMS IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Judge:

Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr.
Trial Date:
None Set
Action Filed: February 18, 2019

Plaintiffs,
v.

28
Appendix of Declarations Re: Environmental Harms (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States of America;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PATRICK
M. SHANAHAN, in his official capacity as
Acting Secretary of Defense; MARK T.
ESPER, in his official capacity as Secretary of
the Army; RICHARD V. SPENCER, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Navy;
HEATHER WILSON, in her official capacity
as Secretary of the Air Force; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity
as Acting Secretary of the Interior; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, in
her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security;
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Appendix of Declarations Re: Environmental Harms (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
DECLARATIONS CONCERNING ENVIRONMENTAL HARMS
2
3
Exhibit Number

Declarant

1

Diana Hadley (Tucson, Arizona)

2

Jesse Lasky (Penn State)

3

Christopher D. Nagano (Center for Biological Diversity)

4

Eleanore Nestlerode (New Mexico State Lands Office)

9

5

Myles Traphagen (Wildlands Network)

10

6

Raymond Trejo (Deming, Luna County, New Mexico)

11

7

Gabriel Vasquez (Las Cruces, Doña Ana County, New Mexico)

4
5
6
7
8

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
Appendix of Declarations Re: Environmental Harms (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

EXHIBIT 1

1

XAVIER BECERRA

Attorney General of California
2

3

ROBERT W. BYRNE
SALLY MAGNANI
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN

Senior Assistant Attorneys General
4

MICHAEL P. CAY ABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG

5

EDWARD

6

HEATHER C. L ESLIE
J ANELLE M . SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II
LEE I. SHERMA_ (SBN 272271)

7

8
9
10
11

H. OCHOA
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General

Deputy Attorneys General
300 S. Spring St., Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California

12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
OAKLAND DIVISION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
COLORADO; STATE OF
CONNECTICUT; STATE OF
DELA\VARE; STATE OF HAWAII;
STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF
MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND;
CONIMONWEAL TH OF
MASSACHUSETTS; ATTORNEY
GENERAL DANA NESSEL ON BEHALF
OF THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN;
STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF
NEVADA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF
NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON;
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF
VERMONT; COMMONWEAL TH OF
VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WISCONSIN;

26
27

4: 19-cv-00872-HSG

DECLARATION OF DIANA HADLEY IN
SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs,

v.

28
Declaration of Diana Hadley (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2
3
4

5
6
7

8
9

10
11

12

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States of Ame1ica;

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PATRICK
M. SHANAHAN, in his official capacity as
Acting Secretary of Defense; MARKT.
ESPER, in his official capacity as Secretary of
the Anny; RICHARD V. SPENCER, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Navy;
HEATHER WILSON, in her official capacity
as Secretary of the Air Force; U.S.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity
as Acting Secretary of the Inte1ior; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, in
her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security;

13

14

Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24

25

26
27

28
Declaration of Diana Hadley (4: l 9-cv-00872-HSG)

1

I, Diana Hadley, declare as follows:

2

3
4

5
6
7

8
9

10
11

12
13

14
15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

26
27

1.

I am Diana Hadley. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this

declaration. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set fo11h
below.
2.

I am a founding board member and cmTent president of the No1ihern Jaguar

Project, a nonprofit organization that manages a 55,000-acre wildlife reserve in Sonora, Mexico.

3.

I am the fonner owner-operator of Guadalupe Canyon Ranch, a 20,000-acre family

ranch in Hidalgo County, along the New Mexico-Mexico border. After living on the ranch in a
region described as the "bootheel" of New Mexico for 15 years, rmming 250 head of cattle, I have
now passed my shares in the ranch in trust to my daughter.
4.

Subsequently, I retired from the University of Arizona, where I was director of the

Arizona State Museum's Office of Etlmohistorical Research. While working at the university, I
specialized in the history ofland use and ecological change in the southwestern U.S. and northern
Mexico. I published a number of technical studies for the Bureau of Land Management and the
U .S. Forest Service.
5.

I hold B.A. and M.A. degrees in archaeology and history from Washington

University and the University of Arizona and have numerous certificates in education and
Spanish language. I have organized conferences on grassland restoration, Native American
sacred sites, deforestation of the Sierra Madres and restoration of the Santa Cruz River.

6.

I have served on the board of directors of Native Seeds/SEARCH, the Audubon

Research Ranch, the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, the Friends of Tucson' s Birthplace, the
Center for Desert Archaeology, Wildlands Network and am a commissioner on the Tucson-Pima
County Historical Commission.
7.

Because of my involvement with wildlife and ranching in the ecologically

vulnerable bootheel of New Mexico, I have an acute awareness of the dangers human activities
and construction have had and will have on the native plants and animals that once thrived along
the border, where it is possible construction of a border wall may soon begin.

28

1
Declaration of Diana Hadley (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

2
3

4

5
6

7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23

24
25

26
27

8.

I urge this court to reject federal moves to authorize construction of a border wall

in these circumstances and in this area. The semi-aiid grasslai1ds of Hidalgo County, NM rarely
have adequate stores of water for human inhabitants and frequently reach 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
Nonetheless, they have supported a regionally and globally unique mosaic of grasses and highelevation scrub that supports some of the last remaining populations of species and subspecies
that have become increasingly rare on both sides of the border. Many of these species have been
intensely studied with large ainounts of funding devoted to their preservation, restoration and/or
reintroduction. These species include rare and endangered species of mammals, as well as many
other species of w ildlife, whose survival would be severely negatively impacted by both the
existence of a wall and the process of construction. Construction of a border wall would adversely
affect the ability of all of these species to move between critical cross-border water sources, and
to seasonally translocate to a vaiiety of mountain ranges strategically necessary for finding food
sources at various times of year.
9.

For instance, the Nmihern Jaguar- renowned for its power, strength, beauty, and

grace- was largely extirpated in the US southwest as a result of federal predator control
programs, poaching, uncontrolled hunting and habitat destruction on the U.S. side of the border.
Jaguars are now classified as endangered and are legally protected in both the U.S. and Mexico.
The nmihernmost breeding population of jaguar on the planet sh-uggles to survive in the Mexican
states of Sonora and Chihuahua, and during the past 15 years over 50 individual jaguars,
including females and cubs, have been documented on the No1ihern Jaguar Reserve
approximately 150 miles southwest from the New Mexico border. Since 1996 eight male jaguars
have been photographed on the U.S . side of the border, and one young male cmTently occupies
te1Titory in the area of the U.S. declared as c1itical jaguar habitat.
10.

The Nmthem Jaguar Reserve, which I was instrumental in founding, consists of 85

square miles 150 miles southwest of the New Mexico-Mexico border. The reserve has fostered the
survival of the nmihem Jaguar, whose range extends into Hidalgo and Luna counties in New
Mexico.

28
2
Declaration of Diana Hadley (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

2
3

11.

The jaguar is solitary and wanders an i1mnense documented range of hundreds of

miles, which they mark with urine and scent markings and by scratching trees, hunting and
mating at any time of year. Jaguars come together only for courtship and mating and are

4

otherwise isolated. The jaguar female is left alone to raise her cubs, which are born blind and

5
6

7

8

stay in the den for several weeks, learning to hunt after six months, and remaining dependent
upon and staying with their mothers for up to two years before finding their own territory. In the
wild, the average lifespan of a jaguar is 12 to 16 years.
12.

Our binational efforts have begun a long preservation effort to counteract

9

dangerous human habits and hobbies and are having measured success. However, organized
10

efforts to build a border wall may overcome our progress in conserving wildlife and border

11

ecosystems. The No1ihern Jaguar is only one example of species of tlu-eatened animal that may
12

13
14

15
16
17
18
19

20

become extinct in the United States because of construction, vehicle traffic, noise and light
associated with human construction and habitation. A border wall would disrupt the breeding
grounds, habitat and migratory patterns of many species including the No1ihern Jaguar. Physical
barriers, roads, high-powered lighting, cameras and sensors have the potential to inflict serious
damage to all wildlife.
13.

A fixed border wall has the obvious potential to cause ilTeparable hann for a

jaguar isolated from a mate prior to insemination or a cub separated from its mother prior to
acquiring hunting skills. Jaguars once ranged from California to Texas and as far north as
Colorado. The purpose of the declaration of critical jaguar habitat within the United States

21
(southern New Mexico and Arizona) is to protect jaguars in this country and encourage potential

22

reoccupation of former habitat.

23
14.

24
25

26
27

Despite the fact that jaguar are powerful, strong climbers and rapid numers, they

tire quickly and rely on proximity rather than sustained speed while hunting deer, javelina, dese1i
bighorn sheep, birds, turtles, snakes and fish. A wall that prevents j aguars from hunting prey in
their customary range could prevent access to water sources, separate mothers from young, lead
to genetic isolation, and potentially starve individual j aguars.

28
3
Declaration of Diana Hadley (4: l 9-cv-00872-HSG)

1

15.

The Chihuahuanpronghorn antelope, also found along New Mexico's southern

2

border, is listed as endangered in Mexico. The fastest land animal in the Western hemisphere,
3

with a proven abi lity to run up to 60 miles per hour, pronghorn will be harmed by construction of

4

a border wall of any type because pronghorn rarely jump even low fences, prefening to crawl
5

l

under a

fence. 1

Pronghorn have been known to collide with barricades and to become impaled in

6

fencing. A border wall impassable because of height or undergrom1d anchoring can separate a
7
8
9

10
11

12
13

pronghorn from mates or litters and, if an escape route is blocked, make them vulnerable to
predators. The pronghorn in the southwestern portion of Hidalgo County are the only U. S.
population of native, non-introduced Chihuahuan pronghorn with pure genetics. Their numbers
are increasing after three decades of stud y, large expenditures of funding and concerted protection
efforts. Studies have shown that pronghorn mortality, especially among fawns, is greatest in areas
where fences or walls have been constructed, as these structures limit the ability of pronghorn to
escape from predatory coyote packs.

14
16.

15
16
17
18
19
20

Studies of black bear (Ursus americanus amblyceps) have revealed through DNA

testing that the populations in Chihuahua and New Mexico are genetically related and that
essential bear habitat extends to both sides of the border.
17.

The endangered white-sided jack rabbit (Lepus callotis ), found only in

southwestern New Mexico, is listed as a threatened species by the State of New Mexico. Its
population has plmm11eted in part as a result of impacts from speeding border patrol vehicles.
The jackrabbit relies on pure grassland habitat, is known to mate for life and to travel in pairs.

21
Isolation from a mate because of wall construction could kill some of the few individuals still
22

known to inhabit the United States- individuals believed to number fewer than 100. Further,

23
border patrol vehicles and construction equipment create threats to the survival of individuals and
24

25
26
27

See Arizona Daily Sun, "Tlu·eats to pronghorn antelope," Aug. 9, 2001, discussing
"antelope-friendly" smooth fencing installed no less than 16" above ground adopted by ranchers
for purposes of preservation of pronghorn antelope. https://azdailysun.com/threats-to-pronghornantelope/article_ acc72 lb l-a23a-502d-85e7-ca7fdb6bee75.html
1

28
4
Declaration of Diana Hadley (4: 19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2
3

the species. 2
18.

Black-tailed prairie dogs (Cynomys ludovicianus) inhabit both sides of the border

and conce1ied restoration efforts have taken place in Hidalgo County. The presence of these small

4

ground squiITels is a scientifically known benefit to many other species.

5
6

7
8
9
10
11

12
13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

19.

The Sonoran possum has recently been viewed in near the Mexican border in

Hidalgo County, as have a pair of elk, which likely migrated southward from the Gila Wilderness.
Elk have not been sighted in no1ihern Mexico for many decades and their return would be
enthusiastically welcomed. Their ability to cross the border and to reoccupy forn1er habitat in the
mountains of 1101ihern Chihuahua would be eliminated by construction of a border wall.
20.

A c1itically important feature of New Mexico's unique natural landscapes is the

open expanse of native grasslands, which will be interrupted by construction of any wall, blocking
the distribution of all grassland fauna larger than a kangaroo rat. In addition to supp01iing the
habitat of the Northern Jaguar, these grasslands support imrnmerable additional species including
many that are threatened or critically endangered.
21.

Dming my years on the New Mexico ranch, I have grown accustomed to the

quietude of the area so sparsely populated by humans. The grasslands, uninterrupted by roads
and construction and accessible only on foot or horseback, suppo1i a lively community of
carnivores and herbivores, in large part because this land is not suitable for commercial fanning
or extensive human habitation.
22.

In the vast Chihuahuan Desert grassland, and in the Coronado National Forest,

thousands of diverse wildlife species tlnive and migrate across our shared border with Mexico for

22
their survival. An early recognition of this unique biological diversity is the American Museum
23

24
25

of Natural History's establislnnent of its Southwestern Research Station in this area. The heaii of
one of the largest and most ecologically diverse wildlife coITidors in all of the Americas exists at
the center of the wall's proposed construction site acros the continental divide. The southern end

26
2

27
28

See https: //wildeaiihguardians.org/wildlife-conservation/endangered-specieslist/manm1als/white-sided-jackrabbit/, noting that the white-sided jack rabbit is tlu·eatened with
extinction by "m01iality due to collisions with Border Patrol vehicles alone."

5
Declaration of Diana Hadley (4: l 9-cv-00872-HSG)

1

2
3
4
5

6
7
8

9
10
11

12

13
14
15

16
17

18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25

26

of the Rocky Mountains, the northern end of the SieITa Madres, the edges of both the Sonoran and
Chihuahuan Dese1is, and the Apacherian Savamrn all intersect on New Mexico's southern border.
23 .

Regionally rare native species, including desert bighorn sheep, Chihuahuan

pronghorn, Coues deer, white-sided jack rabbit, Mearns quail, pygmy owl, jaguar, myriad game
and songbirds and non-game mammals and reptiles depend upon the unwalled border coITidor for
their survival. These species migrate across the different existing international ba1Tiers in search
of food, mates, sources of water, and to ensure the sunrival of their species. Beyond our shared
responsibility to co-habitate with wildlife, these species also serve critical needs to the people of
New Mexico, including economic development tlu·ough hunting, wildlife watching and other
passive recreation opportunities, and help ensure we keep our desert, grassland and forest
ecosystems in conditions that mitigate the impact of flash flooding and forest fires. Additionally,
the Mexican govermnent has stated its opposition to the border wall on many grounds, including
the negative impacts on shared ecosystems and wildlife coITidors along the border that the
countries mutually manage.
24.

In addition, the Chiricahua leopard frog is listed under the Endangered Species Act

in Hidalgo County, NM. Because of a reduction in available water, the frog has vanished from an
estimated 80% of its New Mexico habitat.

3

Using scarce water in New Mexico for wall

construction constitutes a threat to this endangered species.
25.

The open expanses of the New Mexico desert drew cowboys and other westerners

to our county and state, as it has drawn my family and me. I have been privileged to run cattle
unconstrained by artificial baniers such as the one attendant to a border wall and to engage in
long-established Western h·aditions of cooperative, reciprocal cattle work with our neighbors
across the border in Mexico. Like most border residents, my children grew up acquiring
knowledge of viable economic livelihoods while participating in time-honored border customs,
speaking English and Spanish, sharing food traditions, and benefitting from the rich culture of the
U.S.-Mexico borderlands. In addition to extreme ecological disruption, wall construction would

27
28

3 Designation of Critical Habitat of the Chi1icahua Leopard Frog, 50 CFR, Sec. 17 (2012),
Vol 77, No . 54 Federal Register.
6

Declaration of Diana Hadley (4: l 9-cv-008 72-HSG)

1
2
3
4

diminish these multiple economic benefits and cultural wealth.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.

Executed on April

3 , 2019, at ?lJ.... ~

, AZ.

5

6

7

~

8

Diana Hadley

9

10

11
12
13
14

15

16
17

18
19

20
21
22

23

24
25

26
27

28
7
Declaration of Diana Hadley (4: 19-cv-00872-HSG)

EXHIBIT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
SALLY MAGNANI
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN
Senior Assistant Attorneys General
MICHAEL P. CAYABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
HEATHER C. LESLIE
JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II
LEE I. SHERMAN (SBN 272271)
Deputy Attorneys General
300 S. Spring St., Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
OAKLAND DIVISION

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
COLORADO; STATE OF
CONNECTICUT; STATE OF
DELAWARE; STATE OF HAWAII;
STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF
MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND;
COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS; ATTORNEY
GENERAL DANA NESSEL ON BEHALF
OF THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN;
STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF
NEVADA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF
NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON;
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF
VERMONT; COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WISCONSIN;

4:19-cv-00872-HSG

DECLARATION OF JESSE R. LASKY
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs,

28
Declaration of JESSE R. LASKY (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States of America;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PATRICK
M. SHANAHAN, in his official capacity as
Acting Secretary of Defense; MARK T.
ESPER, in his official capacity as Secretary of
the Army; RICHARD V. SPENCER, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Navy;
HEATHER WILSON, in her official capacity
as Secretary of the Air Force; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity
as Acting Secretary of the Interior; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, in
her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security;
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Declaration of JESSE R. LASKY (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

I, JESSE R. LASKY, declare as follows:

2

1.

3

I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration. If called as a

witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth below.

4

2.

I have been an Assistant Professor of Biology at Pennsylvania State University

5

since 2015. I obtained an A.B. from Kenyon College and a Ph.D. from the University of Texas at

6

Austin. I was subsequently an Earth Institute Fellow at Columbia University and was awarded the

7

American Society of Naturalists Young Investigator Award in 2015. My scientific background is

8

in spatial ecology and evolution, including biogeography, animal dispersal, and conservation

9

biology. I have published over 40 peer reviewed papers, many in prestigious journals such as

10

Science and Proceedings of the National Academies of Sciences. I have previously published

11

peer-reviewed research in the journal Diversity and Distributions on the potential impacts to

12

animal conservation of barriers along the USA-Mexico border1.

13

3.

Major construction projects, border infrastructure, and physical barriers pose a

14

number of threats to wildlife. These threats range from short-term rapid destruction of animal

15

habitat and populations to longer-term threats of extinction. My research in this field has been

16

primarily focused on investigating the potential impacts of border barriers and associated

17

infrastructure on wildlife.

18

4.

In addressing Defendants’ proposed “El Paso Project 1” border wall construction

19

project (“Project”), I begin with a brief overview of the conceptual background for conservation

20

implications of border barriers and associated infrastructure. I then discuss the consequential

21

environmental impacts stemming from the proposed Project.

22

5.

Immediate, short-term threats of border barrier construction come partly from their

23

inevitable disturbance and destruction of natural habitats for wildlife. Much of the USA-Mexico

24

border runs through wilderness and natural habitats for diverse wildlife, including the proposed

25

Project region. To construct major barriers, such as a pedestrian fence, roads must be built and

26

maintained, often across uneven terrain. As a result, wide swathes of natural vegetation and

27
28

1

Jesse R. Lasky et al., Conservation biogeography of the US–Mexico border: a transcontinental
risk assessment of barriers to animal dispersal, 17 Diversity & Distributions 673, 687 (2011).
1
Declaration of JESSE R. LASKY (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

habitat for wildlife are destroyed. The rapid construction of roads over uneven terrain often

2

results in dramatic erosion, destroying additional vegetation in a dry region with sensitive

3

vegetation. Animal populations inhabiting these areas will be destroyed or displaced, either due to

4

injury from construction equipment or the destruction of their habitat. The long-term presence of

5

extensive bright lighting for border patrol and vegetation-free areas along border wall corridors

6

will also drive away many species of animals from these areas.

7

6.

Border barriers pose an additional immediate threat to populations of large animals

8

that must move long distances to satisfy their needs for food, water, and mates, species which

9

would have no ability to fit through small openings between bollards. If populations of these

10

animals are blocked from foraging for food, water, and mates at the border, the result will likely

11

be death, reduced fertility, and population decline. Examples of such species in the area of the

12

proposed Project include Cougar, Bobcat, Mule and White-tailed Deer, Collared Peccary

13

(Javelina), American Badger, and Gray Fox. Although these species are not in danger of global

14

extinction, they play vital roles in their ecosystems. The addition of border barriers threatens their

15

populations and hence ecosystems in the border region.

16

7.

There are multiple species of large mammal in the region of the proposed Project

17

whose populations are already officially threatened. Jaguar is considered Endangered by the US

18

Fish and Wildlife Service. Jaguars were formerly widespread in the southwest US, but were

19

extirpated by hunting. In recent decades, small numbers of individuals have dispersed north from

20

breeding populations in northern Mexico. Some of these jaguars have recently reached mountains

21

in southwestern New Mexico west of Luna county. If further long-term recolonization of jaguars

22

continues, areas in Doña Ana and Luna counties include suitable habitat. Construction of the

23

proposed Project would stop jaguar movement through the region, potentially limiting

24

recolonization. The Mexican wolf is also considered Endangered by US FWS. It was once widely

25

distributed across northwest Mexico and the southwest US. Today the species is limited to

26

mountains straddling the Arizona-New Mexico borders with some recent small reintroductions in

27

Mexico. Doña Ana and Luna counties as well as the locations across the border in Mexico contain

28

suitable habitat for Mexican wolf. The long-term recolonization and repopulation of the region
2
Declaration of JESSE R. LASKY (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

would be limited by border barriers in the region.

2

8.

Border barriers stop animal dispersal and thus also pose long term threats of

3

extinction and population decline. There are two primary long-term threats of barriers. First,

4

reduced dispersal prevents the recolonization of appropriate habitat following local population

5

extinctions, which can lead to extinction of a whole metapopulation and the species. To explain:

6

many species exist as metapopulations, which are collections of individual separate populations

7

distributed across a landscape. These individual populations may disappear from time to time,

8

perhaps due to a local disease epidemic or myriad other forces. But animal dispersal across a

9

landscape allows these populations to be re-founded by individuals from surviving populations. If

10

dispersal is prevented at the border, this process stops, and can lead the entire set of populations

11

to go extinct over the long term. Second, preventing dispersal causes an erosion of genetic

12

diversity within populations. If border barriers isolate animal populations on either side, the

13

individual populations on a given side will lose genetic diversity over time. A loss of genetic

14

diversity makes populations more vulnerable to extinction because it limits their ability to adapt

15

to new diseases and changing environments, because deleterious mutations accumulate, and

16

because inbreeding often reduces fitness.

17

9.

The height of the proposed Project’s wall and lighting pose major problems for the

18

movement of birds and bats. Although these animals have the ability to fly over barriers, many

19

small birds and bats avoid flying high in order to avoid predators (e.g. hawks and owls). The

20

bollards of the proposed Project, at 30 feet high, would pose major barriers to many of these

21

species. For example, researchers found that Ferruginous Pygmy-Owls (a transboundary species)

22

in northern Sonora did not typically fly higher than 13 feet, and flights above vegetation were

23

extremely rare2. Similarly, many birds and bats active at night avoid clearings with bright lights.

24

10.

Species with small ranges are particularly vulnerable to extinction due to the

25

various threats above. If animal movement is stopped by the border, then the species ranges will

26

be effectively independent on either side, and the species’ vulnerability to extinction will be

27
28

2

Aaron D. Flesch et al., Potential Effects of the United States-Mexico Border Fence on Wildlife,
24 Conservation Biology 171, 181 (2009).
3
Declaration of JESSE R. LASKY (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

determined by the size of the larger remaining sub-range (US or Mexican). I measured the larger

2

portion of the species range for each amphibian, reptile, and non-volant mammal on either side of

3

the border. The proposed Project intersects the range of 17 species whose largest remaining sub-

4

range is less than 500,000 km2, a relatively small size associated with greater risk of extinction.

5

These species include three species whose largest remaining sub-range is less than 100,000 km2,

6

an even more threatening situation: Desert Pocket Gopher, New Mexico Whiptail, and Texas

7

Lyre Snake.

8
9

11.

There are a large number of species potentially impacted by these barriers. This

region is one of the most biodiverse in the United States. This is particularly true of non-volant

10

terrestrial vertebrate species such as amphibians, reptiles, and non-flying mammals that are most

11

likely to be impacted by barriers to movement. Reptiles and mammal species of the borderlands

12

in particular reach peak diversity in this region. I found that the new barriers of the proposed

13

Project intersect the ranges of 53 non-volant mammal, 38 reptile, and 10 amphibian species.

14

12.

The proposed Project runs directly through habitat and populations of Ornate Box

15

Turtle and the Desert Pocket Gopher, both of which are considered Near Threatened by the

16

International Union for Conservation of Nature (“IUCN”). Additionally, the project intersects the

17

range of the Banner-tailed Kangaroo Rat, which is considered Near Threatened by the IUCN and

18

individuals of which have been recently recorded in this region.

19

13.

In Luna and Doña Ana counties, the locations of El Paso Project 1, there are 87

20

species of animals considered by the State of New Mexico to be Endangered, Endemic, Sensitive

21

taxa, Species of Greatest Conservation Need, or Threatened. These designations signal that these

22

species are potentially threatened by new major activities that destroy their habitat or limit their

23

dispersal. Thus the proposed Project poses an important threat to these species.

24

14.

There are at least two plant species, both cactus, considered by the State of New

25

Mexico to be Endangered that are also found in the habitat surrounding El Paso Project 1:

26

Nightblooming Cereus and Dune Pricklypear. This designation signals that these already

27

imperiled species are severely threatened by habitat destruction and erosion that will be caused by

28

border wall construction and associated activities.
4
Declaration of JESSE R. LASKY (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

15.

In summary, the location of the proposed Project contains many species of wildlife

2

potentially impacted by the Project. Many of these species are already under major threats of

3

extinction and extirpation, thus the Project has the potential to do major damage to biodiversity

4

and ecosystems in the region.

5
6
7

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on April 4, 2019, at State College, Pennsylvania.

8
9
____________________________________
JESSE R. LASKY

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5

Declaration of JESSE R. LASKY (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

EXHIBIT

XA IER BECERRA
Attorney
neraJ of Califi rnia
2

3

ROBERTW. BYR E
ALL MAG A I
Ml HAEL L. EWMA

4

eni r As istant Att rneys General
MJCHAELP. AY B

5

CHRl Tl E H
G
Eow RD H.
HOA

up rvi ing Deputy Attorney GeneraJ
6

7
8
9
10

11

HEATHER . LE LIE
JA ELLE M. MlTH
JAME F. ZAHRADKA II
LEE I. HERMA
BN 272271

Deputy Attom y G neraJ
300 . pring St. uite 1702
Los Angele , CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: Lee. h [e-mail]

Attorney for Plaintiff tate ofCalifornia

12
IN THE

ITED TAT

DI TRJCT

OURT

13
FOR THE

RTHERN DI TRICT

F CALIFORNIA

14
OAKLAND DIVI IO
15
16
17

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

TATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
COLORADO; TATE OF
CO
ECTICUT; TATE OF
DELAWARE; TATE OF HAW All;
TATE OF fLLINOI · TATE OF
MAINE; TATE OF MARYLA D;
COMMONWEALTH OF
MA ACH ETT · ATTORNEY
GE ERAL D
A NE EL O BEHALF
OF THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN;
STATE OF MINNE OTA; TATE OF
EVADA· TATE OF EW JER EY;
STATE OF EW MEXICO; TATE OF
NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON·
T TE OF RHODE I LAND· TATE OF
VERMONT; COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA; and TATE OF WI CON IN;

DECLARATIO OF CHRI TOPHER D.
AGANO IN UP.PORT OF
PLAINTIFF ' MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY IN
CT 0

Plaintiffs

26
27

4:19-cv-00872-H G

v.

28
Declaration of Chri topher D.

agano 4: J9-cv-00872-H G)

1
2

3
4

5
6
7

8
9
10

11

12
13

as President of the United tat s of America·
UNITED TATE OF AMERICA; U . .
DEP ARTME T OF DEFE E; PATRICK
M. HANAHAN in b.i official capacity a
Acting Seer tary of Defen e· MARKT.
E P R in hi official capacity as ecretar of
the Army; RICHARD V. PENCER in his
official capacit as cretary of th Navy;
HEATHER WIL ON in her official capacity
as ecretary of the Air Fore · U. .
DEPARTME TOFTHETRE
RY;
STEVEN T. MN
HIN in his official
capacity a ecretar of the Treasury; U . .
DEPARTME TOFTHEI TERIOR·
DAVID BERNHARDT, in hi offi ial capa ity
as
ting e retar of the Interior; . .
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; KIRSTJE M. NIELSEN in
her official capacit as ecretary o Homeland
ecurity·
Defendant .

14

15
16

17

18
19

20
21

22
23
24
25
26

27

28
Declaration of hristopher D. agano (4: 19-cv-00872-H G)

I Christopher D.

2

agano d clare as follow :

I have personal knowJedge of the fact set forth in thi decJaration. If called as a

1.

3

witness I could and would testify competently to the matter set forth below. As to those matters

4

which reflect an opinion the reflect m per anal opinion and judgment on the matter.

5

2.

r re id in Washougal

6

3.

I am a taff member of the enter for Biol gical Di ersity, where I have served a

Washington.

7

as mor s

8

to protect imperiled pecie parti ularly r ptiles and in ertebrates u ha butterflies lady

9

beetl s and tiger beetles. I work in conjunction with campaigner lawyer , policy experts and

10

I

nti tin the Centers Endangered pe ie Program ince 2017. At the Center, I work

other cienti ts to achieve thi goal.

11

4.

Prior to coming to th Center I worked for 27 year from 1989 to 2016 as an

12

endangered species entomologist/ecologi t, endang red species biologi t Endangered p cie

13

Di i ion Chief, and D put Assistant Field upervi or with the U.. Fi hand Wildlife ervice

14

( 'FW

15

Mexico. I was the Chief of the Endangered pecie Division at the

16

or" ervice

based in Carl bad and acrarnento, California and Albuquerque New
ew Mexico Ecological

ervi es Office for 1 Yi years. I was resp n ible for the protection con ervation and reco ery of

17

endangered species throughout New M xico, including the

18

and Luna aunties. 1 also comp! t d endangered pecies-related d tail in five other states.

19

5.

Prior to going to the ervic

/Me, ico border area and Dofia Ana

I worked for se eral ears in the mid-late 1980 a a

20

research associate in the Entomology ection at the Natural History Mu eum of Lo Angeles

21

County.

22

6.

I ha

a Master of En ironmental tudies d gree from the Yale chool of Forestry

23

and Environmental tudie ; for my graduate work I inve tigated the international trade in

24

butterflies. During thi period I wa an int m working on endangered sp cies i ues at the

25

En ironmental Defen e Fund in Wa hington D.C. for Micha I J. Bean, now retired Deput

26

A si tant ecretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks at the Department of Interior.

27
28

7.

In sum I have dedicat d m

areer to the cienti:fic research and protection of

endangered and thr atened specie .

1
Declaration of Christopher D.

agano (4: 19-c -00872-HSG

8.

During m career with the FWS I routine! re iewed proj cts proposed by

2

fed ral state and 1 al agencies and non-go em.mental partie for their potential effect on

3

endangered and non-listed wildlife plants and th ir habitat pursuant to the National

4

En ironmental Policy Act ( 'NEPA ) and the California En ironmental Quality Act ( 'CEQA ').

5

My efforts invol

6

plant and their habitat , as well a r view of the propos d mitigation and development of

7

additional measure if appropriate.

8
9

9.

I al

d a se m nts of project impa t on ndangered and non-Ii ted wildlife and

hav an exten i e working knowledge of endangered pec1e . During my

27-year care r with the FW

I conducted hundred of informal con ultati.ons and many dozens of

10

formal consultation pursuant to the Endangered pe ies A t with many Federal agencie ranging

11

from the Bur au of R clarnation to the

12

pro iding guidanc to Fed ral agenci sin determining wh th rand to what ext nt their projects

13

would ha e an effect on the ur i al and r co ery in the wild of ndanger d p cies and whether

14

and to what e tent ederal agencie ' project would adver ely m dify or de tro the endangered

15

specie ' critical habitat.

16

10.

ati nal Park er ice. The

Whil at the U .. Fish and Wildlife ervic

consultation invol ed

I focu ed on analyz d and

17

encouraged other agencies to first avoid, and if that was n t pos ible, to mitigate the effect of

18

barriers such a highways and roadways on the Jong-t rm movement of endangered animals and

19

wildlife. The abilit of many animal to mo e to new area area containing habitat within their

20

range or between portion of their home range is critical for ensuring they do not become extinct

21

or extirpated and i important for r ducing the po ibilit

22

other biological and ecoloE:,rical problems.

23

11.

f genetic inbre ding and for avoiding

Another is ue that I focused on at the FW was th indirect adverse effects of a

24

proje ton endangered animal and wildlife. Indir ct effect are oft n not adequately analyzed by

25

federal agencies but their impact on endangered p ci s and wildlife can b far greater and much

26

longer lasting than the direct effect of a pr ~ect.

27
28

12.

I am gravel cone med b the failure of the Department of D fen

Department of Homeland

urity ("DH ' ) and

u tom Border Patrol (" BP ) to comply with
2

Declaration of Christopher D.

(DOD

agano (4: I9-cv-00872-H G)

1

NEPA for their propo ed border wall in New Mexico. These agencies have failed to consider the

2

propo ed border wall s effect on the endangered and Experimental

3

the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi) and the Aplomado falcon (Falco femorali

4

septentrionali ) and failed to con ult with the FWS on possible environmental and species

5

effects.

6

13.

one sential Popu1ations 1 of

From decade of work with endangered and threatened pecie , as well as

7

experience dealing with the Me ican wolf and Aplomado falcon while I wa stationed at the FWS

8

New Mexico Ecological er ices Office, I recognize the threat that border wall construction and

9

maintenance and as ociated operations pose to the e two animals. The proposed construction of

10

the border wall in Dofia Ana and Luna Countie and as ociated construction-related activitie

11

may have a number of adver e effects on the Mexican olf and Aplomado falcon. These include

12

direct effects uch as injury, death harm and harassment due to construction of the border wall

13

including linear vegetation clearing· road construction· grading and construction of equipment

14

torage and parking areas· off road movement of ehicle and quipm nt in o]ved in con truction·

15

and poi oning from ch mical application (herbicides and pesticides). A series of indirect effects

16

such as harassment, on the two endangered species also are pos ible, including abandonm nt of

17

the area for ssential behaviors such as feeding resting and mating due to njgbt lighting· and

18

detrimental impacts caused by exotic invasiv weeds introduced b construction and routine DHS

19

and CBP operations which will elinlinate food sources and habitat for rodents and other animals

20

utilized by the Mexican wolf and the Aplomado falcon. The combined direct and indirect effects

21

of a border wall would be additional pres ure on the urvi val and recovery in the wild of the e

22
1

23
24
25

26
27

28

"Nones ential Population" is the d signation for members of a threatened or endangered
species who have been transported and released within suitabl habitat within its probable
unoccupi d historic range or in areas where the species did not formerly exist. An' Es ential
Experimental Population' is on whose los would be likely to appreciably reduce the urvival of
the species in the wild all other Experimental Populations are nonessential. onessential
Experimental Populations also intentionally have reduced protections in order to encourage public
and private landowners to assist in the recovery of the imperiled species. The purpo e of
Experimental Populations i to establi h populations of endangered or threatened p cies with the
intent of reducing the po sibility of their extinction impro ing their chances of recovery and thus
the need for their continued protection under the Endangered pecies Act. The authority for
Endangered pecies Act (ESA) section 1O(j) rules is gi en at 50 CFR 1539G).
3
Declaration ofChri topher D. Nagano (4: I 9-cv-00872-HSG)

1

two endanger d sp cies. The threat to the endangered Mexican wolf are of special concern,

2

given the dang rs th

3

connectivity for the animal between the United tat

4

14.

Mor

fac in the Republic of Mexico, and the ne d to maintain natural
and Mexico.

p cifically the propo ed border wall identified a El Paso Project I in th

5

February 25 2019, memorandum from DH to th DOD r garding a Reque t for Assistance

6

Pursuant to 10 U. . . § 284 would interrupt the movement of the Mexican wolf across the

7

U /MexJco B rder including in Dona Ana and Luna Counties which i wh re El Paso Project 1

8

will be constructed. The C nter for Biological Diver ity has obtained information from the FW

9

via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on the er s international bord r mo

ment of a

10

radio-collared M xican wol f who wa relea ed in Me ico in 2017. It wa fir t recorded on

11

January 21 , 2017 in the

12

County

13

Juar z in the Mexican tate f Chihuahua on January 25, 2017. The rele ant information

14

obtained by the Center for Biological Diversity ia thi FOlA reque tis attached as Exhibit A to

15

this declaration.

16

15.

17

18

nited tat s it wa then recorded in the City of La Cruce Dofia Ana

w Mexico, on January 23 2017 and then la t r corded on the out kirt of Ciudad

The p destrian border wall will ad

r ely af ect and likel re trict or eliminate the

ability of Me ican wolv s to mo e on their own volition between Mexico and the United tate .
ince the pede trian walls will be ffective in prohibiting the entry of humans, th

al o will

19

restri tor pre

nt th mo ement of Mexican wol e between the e two nations. The Mexican

20

wolfs es ential behavior of long distance rnovem nt in Dofia Ana and Luna counties will be

21

blocked by the propo ed border wall. The unimpeded movement of Mexican wol es b tween the

22

United tate and M xico i important for incr asing and maintaining their genetic di ersity. Th

23

lack of geneti diversity for a specie may result in physical maJformities, behavioral problem ,

24

reduced ability to succes fully reproduce and pr duce viabl offspring, r du ed lifespan, reduced

25

ability to a oid preda or , greater su ceptibiljty to diseas , and the reduced ability to sur i e

26

adver e environmental condition such as extremely cold winter or hot urnmers. The proposed

27

border wall could eJiminate the po ibility of the r co ery of the endangered Mexican wolf and

28

preclude their deli ting under the Endanger d peci

Act.

4
Declaration of Christopher D. Nagano (4: l 9-c -00872-H G)

l

2

16.

Further con truction the propo ed border wall could result in the harassment of

3

endangered Mexican Aplomado falcons.

4

and other construction equipment and activiti

5

normal behavior

6

17.

7

with ut proper

8

agencies as r quired by the Endangered p cie Act.

9

18.

oise and other di turbance re ulting from bulldozer
could cau e the ignificant disruption of their

uch as foraging and feeding.

There will be irreparable harm to the Me ican wolf and th Aplomado falcon
EPA re i wand th compl tion of ection 7 consultation by the

three federal

The propo ed border wall will al o harm other speci s that are not fi deratly

10

recognized a endangered or threatened. Gi en th lack of an adequate a essment of El Pao

11

Project 1 on th en fronment. the potential effects of the proposed project n ensiti e habitats as

12

well a non-ii ted but imperiled sp cies remains unknown. Th border wall con truction and

13

associated acti itie such as ehicle traffic, road building horseback and quad patrol

14

lighting, and other as ociated human and law enforcement acti itie could permanent! alter the

15

geography and impact nati

16

conditions for invasi e weeds and ad ers l impacting the existing natural ecos tern .

17

19.

njght

veg talion and plant communities e pecially by improving habitat

The earth moving and associated disturbance cau d by border wall construction

18

will create habitat for invasive exotic plants and weeds which out ompete and r place native

19

plant . Th

20

nati e plants, and native animals dependent on the nati e vegetation for fi d and the predators

21

that feed on them. Tb seeds of exotic weeds from other areas are ea ily tran ported within dded

22

mud or dirt on con truction quipment, or unintentionally b CBP car trucks hor e trailer

23

quads and the hoo e and fur of their patrol horses.

24

20.

exotic specie initiat a downward piral of increa ingly d tructi e effects to

Tb Gila moost r (Heloderma su ~ectum , the iconic larg orange and bla k

25

colored v nomous lizard, inhabits both side of the international border from we t of El Pa o

26

Texa , all through New Mexico and into Arizona. Thi legendary reptile i listed a endangered

27

b the tate of ew Mexico. Its 2017 reco ery plan is u d y th

28

Game and Fi h (Gila Mon t r (Heloderma uspectum) Recovery PJan by John Bulg r dated April

ew Me ico Department of

5
Declaration of hristopher D. Nagano 4: l 9-cv-00872-HSG)

1

5 2017) includes information that the reptile has been coll cted or obser ed at six locations west

2

of El Pa o and Las Cruces.

3

21.

Gila monster in New Mexico are typically found where Chihuahuan desert scrub

4

merges with desert grassland. Dominant vegetation in occupied and suitabl site include

5

creosote bu h catclaw snakeweed ocotillo. me quite, juniper, cacti, sotol and numerou gras es.

6

mall trees, shrubs, and herbaceou veg tation provide important cover and food for the Gila

7

monster

8

coarse gravelly conglomerate oil and areas of loam and sand. Of paramount importance is

9

availability of uitabl refuge helters which occur in rock cavitie and ere ice , pack rat

10

11

pre . The reco ery plan reported that Gila mon ters in

w Mexico pr fer relatively

mounds and burrow created by other reptiles or mammals.
22.

The recovery plan not d Gila monst r horn range sizes are highJ variable

12

ranging from <2.5 acres to 259 acres. Typically

13

ranges on their refuge helter . Indi idual ha e tr mendous fidelit to their home range e.g.

14

they tay within their 'home area, according to one herp tologi t (Daniel Beck. 2005. Biology of

15

Gila monster and beaded lizard . Univer ity of California Press).

16

23.

ila mon ter center th ir activities and home

The low number of observations and re ords of the Gila rnon ter west of El Paso

17

and Las Cruces in the recov r plan may b misleacting. It does not demonstrate that the area is

18

not uitable for thi r ptil . Based on my exp rience at the FWS I know Gila m nsters ar

19

extreme! popular in the illegal reptile trade. Poachers and mugglers ell illegally collected

20

individual for hundreds of dollar . Given their protected status b the tate of New Mexico and

21

the Republic of Mexico wh re it i protected, it is unlikely that poachers who ha e taken Gila

22

monsters west of the El Pao area on either side of the U /Mexico border would make the

23

information public. This i because they do not want to be caught b law enforcement auth rities

24

or re eal th 1ocation wher the animals were found to other poachers.

25

24.

Gi en lhe amount of uitable habitat along the U../Mexico border in

ew Mexico

26

west of El Paso, th high alue of the Gila monster by reptile collectors and the biology and

27

ecology of the speci

28

proposed.

it i highl likely that th.is animal inhabits th area where the border wall is

6
Declaration of Christopher D. Nagano (4: 19-cv-00872-H G)

25.

The threat from the propo ed border wall to the Gila monster come in the form of

2

direct effects of wall construction uch as their death or injur from construction operations

3

falling into trenche or other holes and then dying of expo ure or b ing buried alive· getting run

4

over b vehicles as ociated with the project· collected b con truction personnet and indirect

5

effects in the form of the border wall blocking their mo ement patterns or reducing the size of

6

individual animal s home ranges and eliminating the available food or shelter resources.

7

26.

I am hop ful that NEPA and E A analyses. if done prop rly and in good faith by

8

DOD DH and CBP will ensure the urvival and recov r in the wild of the endangered

9

Mexican wolf and endangered Aplomado falcon, and the New Me ico tate-listed Gila monster

10

in addition to maintaining the health of the great r ecosystem in the

11

region. Requiring DOD, DH and

12

irreparable harm to both federally-listed and state-Ii ted pecie wildlife and the environment.

13
14
15

ew Mexico borderlands

BP to complete the NEPA process will surely redre

I declare und r penalty of p rjury under the laws of the

njted tates that the foregoing is

tru and correct.
Executed on April

3

the

2019 at Portland Oregon.

16

17

18
19
20

21
22
23
24
25
26

27
28
7
Declaration of Christopher D. agano (4: 19-cv-00872-HSG)

EXHIBIT A

From:

Dwire, Maggie

To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

Sherry Barrett: John Oakleaf
Mexican wolf M1425
Friday, January 27, 2017 10:22:50 AM

Image ona

tmaae.ong

Our counterparts in Mexico have contacted us about GP locations downloaded from a radio collar worn by a
recently released wolf(Ml425) in Mexico. The download from the animal"s collar presumably show that it crossed
the border into the U went to Las Cruces and returned across the border into Me ·ico. I attached below a
screenshot of the downloads.
The first location in the U i at 8pm on January 21 and the location in Las Cruces is at 8am on the 23rd (a zoomed
in map of this specific location is also below). The first location back into Mexico is at 8am on January 24th.
The last GP download from this collar was on the outskirts of Juarez al 11 am on the 25th. Mexico's field team
heard the radio signal from Juarez on thee ening oftbe 25th. The field team bas not been able to locate the collar
since and the GP has not downloaded since.
As you can see, some of the locations are in urban areas. It could be that the animal is alive and dispersing through
the e areas. Or and L this point Mexico has said "it could be that the collar (with or without carcass) is in hands of
omebody that is carrying it around."
Mexico is trying to determine whether the liar is being worn by a live wolf, and will let u know any information
they learn. Let us know if you have any questions.
Maggie

E~H1S1T

A

.
; °'~:~~·~ ' :

•.• -. ·- - .11- -=-__,,
.,_,,

•

,.

__,...

•

'

~

J ~~
'

•

S.."..

Maggie Dwire
Assistant Mexican Wolf Recovery Coordinator
U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service
2105 Osuna Road NE
Albuquerque, NM 87113
Ph (505) 761 -4783

E')(H\f>\) A
Q \{ Rl.ffi) fH -eR- \.-.J A-Co A~D

~~

EXHIBIT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
SALLY MAGNANI
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN
Senior Assistant Attorneys General
MICHAEL P. CAYABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
HEATHER C. LESLIE
JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMESF. ZAHRADKA II
LEE I. SHERMAN (SBN 272271)
Deputy Attorneys General
300 S. Spring St., Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for PlaintiffState of California

12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
OAKLAND DIVISION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
COLORADO; STATE OF
CONNECTICUT; STATE OF
DELAWARE; STATE OF HAWAIi;
STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF
MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND;
COMMONWEALTHOF
MASSACHUSETTS; ATTORNEY
GENERAL DANA NESSEL ON BEHALF
OF THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN;
STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF
NEVADA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF
NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON;
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF
VERMONT; COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WISCONSIN;

DECLARATION OF ELEANORE
NESTLERODE IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs,

26
27

4: 19-cv-00872-HSG

v.

28
Declaration of Eleanore Nestlerode (4: 19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

2
3

4
5
6

7

8
9

10
11

12

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States of America;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PATRICK
M. SHANAHAN, in his official capacity as
Acting Secretary of Defense; MARKT.
ESPER, in his official capacity as Secretary of
the Army; RICHARD V. SPENCER, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Navy;
HEATHER WILSON, in her official capacity
as Secretary of the Air Force; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity
as Acting Secretary of the Interior; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; KIRST JEN M. NIELSEN, in
her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security;

13
Defendants.
14
15

16
17
18

19

20
21

22
23
24
25

26
27

28
Declaration of Eleanore Nestlerode (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

I, Eleanore Nestlerode, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am Eleanore Nestlerode. I have personal lmowledge of the facts set forth in this

3

declaration. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth

4

below.

5
6

2.

I am a staff member of the New Mexico State Land Office (SLO) and have worked

for SLO as IT/GIS Business Analyst since February 12, 2007.

7

3.

One of my duties is locating and mapping state trust lands for the SLO.

8

4.

I work at the Land Office Geographic Infonnation Center of the SLO, where I

9

prepared the map attached as Exhibit A to this declaration. The map depicts New Mexico state

10

trust lands along the New Mexico-Mexico border and also identifies real property managed by the

11

federal govennnent, as well as privately owned property.
5.

12

The attached map illustrates New Mexico's specific interests in the state trust

13

lands outlined in the map, noting whether New Mexico has a surface interest (or "estate"), a

14

subsurface interest or estate, or both, in the state trust lands shown. Federal surface land

15

management is identified as being associated with the federal Bureau of Land Management

16

(BLM).

17

6.

To prepare the map, I assembled the most up-to-date GIS ownership data layers

18

available to the New Mexico State Land Office, both of federal surface ownership, and of in-

19

house state trust lands surface and subsurface ownership, and overlaid these layers on a standard

20

topographic base map. I then analyzed the state trust lands located in the vicinity of coordinates

21

associated with the El Paso Sector Project 1 site by entering those coordinates that the

22

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provided to the Department of Defense (DOD) in a

23

memorandum dated February 25, 2019, concerning DHS's "Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10

24

U.S.C. § 284" (DHS Memorandum).

25

7.

The DHS Memorandum specifies that the El Paso Project 1 includes installation of

26

46 miles of pedestrian fencing beginning approximately 17.5 miles west of the Columbus Port of

27

Entry and continuing east in non-contiguous segments to approximately 35 miles east of the

28

Columbus Port of Entry within Luna and Dona Ana Counties, New Mexico. The Memorandum
1
Declaration of Eleanore Nestlerode (4: 19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

indicates that the fencing will be constructed in two stretches, with one starting at coordinate

2

31.7837, -107.923151, and ending at 31.783689, -107.679049, and the second starting at

3

coordinate 31.783672, -107.573919, and ending at 31.783741, -107.038154.

4

5
6

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on April 3, 2019, at Santa Fe, New Mexico.

7

~~
eanoreNestlerode

8
9
10
11

12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Declaration of Eleanore Nestlerode (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

EXHIBIT A

28S 10W

28S 11W

28S 9W

28S 7W

28S 8W

29S 11W

29S 10W

29S 9W

29S 8W

-107.923151
31.7837

29S 7W

-107.679049
31.783689

28S 7W

28S 6W

29S 7W

28S 5W

Arena

29S 6W

29S 4W

29S 6W

-107.573919
31.783672

28S 4W

29S 5W

28S 6W

Malpais

28S 3W

28S 2W

29S 3W

29S 2W

-107.573919
31.783672

-107.038154
31.783741

New Mexico State Trust Lands Status
Along the Border with Mexico

P
!

P
!

SIERRA

Silver City

Cities and Towns

GRANT

Arizona

P
!

OTERO

Lordsburg

P
!

Deming

DONA ANA

P
!Las Cruces

LUNA

County Seats
Interstate
Highway

HIDALGO

Texas

Mexico

Locator Map

P
!

Local Roads
Railroads

County Lines

0

1

Miles
4

2

±

State Trust Lands

Subsurface Estate
Surface Estate
Both Estates

Federal Surface Management

Bureau of Land Management

Note: state trust land ownership is adjacent to a 60-foot strip of land along the border with Mexico referred to as the
Roosevelt Reservation, reserved in a 1907 Presidential Proclamation; this may not be visible due to scale limitations.

Stephanie Garcia Richard
Commissioner of Public Lands
505-827-5761
www.nmstatelands.org

The New Mexico State Land Office assumes no responsibility or liability for, or in connection with, the accuracy, reliability or use of the information provided herein, with respect to State Land Office data or data from other sources.
Data pertaining to New Mexico State Trust Lands are provisional and subject to revision, and do not constitute an official record of title. Official records may be reviewed at the New Mexico State Land Office in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Compiled, edited and printed by the Land Office Geographic Information Center. V:\LOGIC\FRONT OFFICE\NMSouthernBorder20190327. Save Date: March 27, 2019 Print Date: March 27, 2019. Created by: Eleanore Nestlerode [e-mail]

505-827-5735

EXHIBIT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
SALLY MAGNANI
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN
Senior Assistant Attorneys General
MICHAEL P. CAYABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
HEATHER C. LESLIE
JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II
LEE I. SHERMAN (SBN 272271)
Deputy Attorneys General
300 S. Spring St., Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California

12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
OAKLAND DIVISION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
COLORADO; STATE OF
CONNECTICUT; STATE OF
DELAWARE; STATE OF HAWAII;
STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF
MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND;
COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS; ATTORNEY
GENERAL DANA NESSEL ON BEHALF
OF THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN;
STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF
NEVADA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF
NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON;
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF
VERMONT; COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WISCONSIN;

DECLARATION OF MYLES B.
TRAPHAGEN IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs,

26
27

4:19-cv-00872-HSG

v.

28
Decl. of Myles B. Traphagen In Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Injunction (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States of America;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PATRICK
M. SHANAHAN, in his official capacity as
Acting Secretary of Defense; MARK T.
ESPER, in his official capacity as Secretary of
the Army; RICHARD V. SPENCER, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Navy;
HEATHER WILSON, in her official capacity
as Secretary of the Air Force; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity
as Acting Secretary of the Interior; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, in
her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security;
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Decl. of Myles B. Traphagen In Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Injunction (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

I, Myles B. Traphagen, declare as follows:

2

1.

3
4

I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration. If called as a

witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth below.
2.

I am the Borderlands Program Coordinator for Wildlands Network in Tucson,

5

Arizona. I also serve as the Science Coordinator for the Malpai Borderlands Group based in

6

Douglas, Arizona. I reside in Tucson, Arizona.

7

3.

I hold a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of California Santa Cruz in

8

Environmental Studies and a Master of Science Degree from the University of Arizona in

9

Geographic Information Systems. The research I conducted for my Master’s Degree, “Habitat

10

connectivity for the white-sided jackrabbit (Lepus callotis) between the United States and

11

Mexico: The border divides a species,” used Landsat satellite imagery over a 30-year period from

12

1984 to 2014 to evaluate whether connectivity existed between the U.S. and Mexico populations

13

of the white-sided jackrabbit.

14

4.

Since 1996, I have conducted field surveys, inventories and research along the US

15

and Mexico border region and in Mexico. From 1996 to 1998 I worked for the U.S. Fish and

16

Wildlife Service (“Service” or “FWS”) at San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge in southeast

17

Arizona conducting bird surveys, native fish surveys and recovery of Rio Yaqui fishes which

18

reach their northernmost distribution in Cochise County of southeast Arizona.

19

5.

From 1998 to 2008, I conducted research as a consultant for the U.S. Forest

20

Service Rocky Mountain Research Station and Malpai Borderlands Group on the effects of fire,

21

grazing and climate in the borderlands of southwest New Mexico and southeast Arizona. During

22

this time period I also began researching the white-sided jackrabbit (Lepus callotis gaillardi), a

23

State of New Mexico Threatened species that reaches its northern distribution in Hidalgo County,

24

New Mexico, commonly referred to as the “Bootheel.”

25

6.

From 2000 to 2008, I worked for both Turner Enterprises and the Turner

26

Endangered Species Fund in New Mexico inventorying vegetation, monitoring bison

27

reintroduction, prairie dog reintroduction and rewilding the Bolson tortoise from Durango,

28

Mexico. I have held permits from the New Mexico Department of Game and Fish to survey
1
Decl. of Myles B. Traphagen In Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Injunction (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2

mammals in the state.
From 2007 to 2014, I was a U.S. Bureau of Land Management (“BLM”)

7.

3

Authorized Biologist and worked as a consultant on numerous renewable energy projects in

4

California and Nevada surveying and translocating desert tortoise.

5

8.

In 2010 and 2011, I conducted research for the New Mexico Department of Game

6

and Fish to assess the population status of the white-sided jackrabbit in New Mexico. The results

7

of this survey suggested that roadkill by the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (“CBP” or “Border

8

Patrol”) was a significant factor leading to a threefold population decline in less than decade.

9

9.

I have led botanical survey crews in California, Nevada, Arizona, Nebraska, South

10

Dakota and New Mexico and have produced over 100 reports for agencies and private groups,

11

and have written several publications, book chapters and maps concerning wildlife and plant

12

species.

13

10.

My current employment as Borderlands Program Coordinator with Wildlands

14

Network involves researching and advocating for wildlife corridors and connectivity. This entails

15

a significant amount of work in Mexico on projects such as trail camera trapping, mapping, and

16

designing projects for mitigating road and highway impacts to wildlife and enhancing habitat

17

connectivity.

18

11.

As the Science Coordinator the Malpai Borderlands Group, I implement research

19

and monitoring projects such as climate and weather monitoring and fire and grazing research. I

20

also review and coordinate a large array of projects that relate directly to conservation projects in

21

the borderlands of Arizona and New Mexico.

22

12.

I have analyzed the border-infrastructure projects outlined in the February 25,

23

2019, memorandum regarding “Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284” that the U.S.

24

Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) directed to the U.S. Department of Defense

25

(“DOD”), in which DHS requests DOD’s assistance in constructing pedestrian fencing along

26

approximately 218 miles of the U.S.- Mexico border. DHS has identified eleven separate projects

27

for border areas located in California, Arizona and New Mexico (“Section 284 Projects”).

28

13.

One of the Section 284 Projects, El Paso Project 1, is located in Doña Ana and
2

Decl. of Myles B. Traphagen In Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Injunction (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

Luna Counties in New Mexico, and involves removing 46 miles of vehicle barrier fencing and

2

replacing it with pedestrian fencing. El Paso Project 1 also includes construction of roads and

3

installation of lighting.

4

14.

In this declaration, I provide several examples specific to the El Paso Project 1

5

site, and to the border region more generally, to illustrate how the Section 284 Projects and El

6

Paso Project 1 will cause irreparable harm to wildlife, including to endangered species like the

7

Mexican Grey Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi).

8
9

15.

The specific design of border walls and fences significantly affects how the

walls/fences will impact wildlife movement. There are numerous types of fencing that fall into

10

two categories according to what type of traffic they are intended to exclude or deter: vehicle and

11

pedestrian. Within those two types there are many designs depending upon when they were built.

12

16.

Vehicle Fencing: Made of either short steel bollards or “Normandy-style” steel

13

crossbars, these are designed to deter “drive-thrus” of vehicles. They are the least detrimental to

14

wildlife because they allow most animals to cross under or between them. However, they can be a

15

formidable barrier for large animals like bison, Sonoran pronghorn or bighorn sheep. Pronghorn

16

do not jump and can have difficulty passing beneath the vehicle fencing. The Janos-Hidalgo bison

17

herd had roamed between southwest New Mexico and Chihuahua, Mexico for about 100 years,

18

but their movements were inhibited when the Normandy-vehicle barrier was installed along the

19

New Mexico-Mexico border. The herd has not been seen in several years.

20

17.

Pedestrian fencing: This fencing is designed to deter and impede people, and

21

therefore it is effective at impeding most animals from passing through. It ranges from 10 to 18

22

feet high, although 30-foot replacement fencing is currently planned for San Diego and some

23

areas of Arizona. The style of pedestrian fencing that DHS currently favors is known as steel

24

bollard. The most common type employed is 6 x 6 inch diameter square steel posts filled with

25

concrete. The spacing between the steel posts is 4 inches. The height of the most recent border-

26

wall-infrastructure projects is 18 feet, but some recent plans for replacement fencing call for 30-

27

foot bollards. The bollard fencing recently installed in the twenty-mile section west of Santa

28

Teresa, New Mexico, an area that is adjacent to and just east of the El Paso Project 1 site, is 18
3
Decl. of Myles B. Traphagen In Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Injunction (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

feet high with 4-inch gaps. The details of these fencing designs are extremely important to

2

understand in order to evaluate the effect they may have upon wildlife movement, migration and

3

connectivity.

4

18.

Mexican Gray Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi): The Mexican gray wolf is the rarest

5

subspecies of gray wolf in North America. It was once common throughout the southwestern

6

U.S., but was nearly eliminated from the wild by the 1970s. The Mexican gray wolf is listed as

7

endangered under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) (80 FR 2488). El Paso Project 1 will

8

harm the Mexican gray wolf and significantly impact its recovery by dividing its habitat and

9

impeding the wolf’s movement.

10

19.

For El Paso Project 1, the Trump administration plans to build an impermeable

11

bollard steel wall, precluding all animals greater than 4” wide from passing through. This wall

12

will prevent any connection between wolves from the U.S. and Mexico which is critical for the

13

wolf’s recovery. The Mexican Wolf Recovery Plan-First Revision, which is a wildlife plan the

14

Service approved under the ESA to facilitate the wolf’s revival, calls for a minimum of 320

15

wolves in the United States and 200 in Mexico to meet recovery goals. Ensuring that wolves can

16

access their entire range in the U.S. and Mexico is important to the wolf’s recovery because it

17

allows for greater utilization of habitat and prey availability and will promote the establishment of

18

meta-population connectivity.

19

20.

Carroll et al (2014) state, “Restoring connectivity between fragmented populations

20

is an important tool for alleviating genetic threats to endangered species. Yet recovery plans

21

typically lack quantitative criteria for ensuring such population connectivity. We demonstrate

22

how models that integrate habitat, genetic, and demographic data can be used to develop

23

connectivity criteria for the endangered Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi), which is currently

24

being restored to the wild from a captive population descended from 7 founders. We used

25

population viability analysis that incorporated pedigree data to evaluate the relation between

26

connectivity and persistence for a restored Mexican wolf meta-population of 3 populations of

27

equal size. Decreasing dispersal rates greatly increased extinction risk for small populations

28

(<150-200), especially as dispersal rates dropped below 0.5 genetically effective migrants per
4
Decl. of Myles B. Traphagen In Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Injunction (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

generation.” Impeding connectivity between the U.S. and Mexican populations runs counter to

2

published research that advises otherwise. An impenetrable border wall hamstrings binational

3

efforts that have occurred for 30 years.

4

21.

Under the ESA, critical habitat is sometimes designated for listed species. But for

5

the Mexican Wolf, the Service instead re-introduced the species to Arizona and New Mexico as

6

an ESA section 10(j) non-essential experimental population in order to allow for more flexibility

7

in the recovery process within the 5,000 square-mile Mexican Wolf Experimental Population

8

Area (“MWEPA”). On January 16, 2015, the Service revised the regulations for the non-essential

9

experimental population of the Mexican wolf under section 10(j) to improve the population’s

10

ability to contribute to recovery (80 FR 2512). With the encouragement of Southwestern states

11

including New Mexico, and based on the Service’s collaborative relationship with Mexico,

12

recovery planning was reinitiated in December 2015, focusing south of Interstate 40 in Arizona

13

and New Mexico and into Mexico, which encompasses the historical range of the Mexican wolf.

14

22.

Newly Published Taxonomic Status of the Mexican Gray Wolf: On March 28,

15

2019, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine released their findings on

16

Evaluating the Taxonomic Status of the Mexican Gray Wolf and the Red Wolf. The report

17

concludes that the Mexican gray wolf is a valid taxonomic subspecies of the gray wolf. The

18

Mexican gray wolf’s size, morphology (physical characteristics such as head shape), and color

19

distinguish it from other North American wolves. Genetic and genomic analyses confirm that the

20

Mexican gray wolf is the most genetically distinct subspecies of gray wolf in North America. The

21

Mexican gray wolf represents a smaller form of the gray wolf and inhabits a more arid ecosystem

22

than the gray wolf. Furthermore, the current managed population of Mexican gray wolves are

23

direct descendants of the last remaining wild Mexican gray wolves; the known history of current

24

Mexican gray wolves suggests that there is continuity between them and the historic lineage.

25

There is no evidence that the genome of the Mexican gray wolf includes DNA from domestic

26

dogs. Preserving and maintaining Mexican wolf habitat in Mexico and the U.S. is critical to

27

ensuring the survival of this unique and rare subspecies.

28

23.

Long Distance International Wolf Dispersal, including in the El Paso Project 1
5

Decl. of Myles B. Traphagen In Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Injunction (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

Site: Mexican gray wolf habitat exists on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border, and wolves cross

2

the border to access this habitat. In January of 2017, a GPS-collared male Mexican Gray Wolf

3

(M1425), that was part of the U.S.-Mexico Bi-national Recovery Program in Mexico, crossed the

4

border from Chihuahua and spent four days in the U.S. before returning to its original starting

5

location in Mexico. While in the U.S., the wolf crossed the entire West Potrillo Mountains portion

6

of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument in New Mexico, and associated

7

wilderness areas and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (“ACECs”) in New Mexico.

8

Additionally, it occupied both Zones 1 and 2 of the Mexican Wolf Experimental Population Area

9

in New Mexico. The entire journey totaled 600 miles, of which 100 were in the U.S. (See Exhibit

10

A attached to this declaration, which is a map I generated using GPS data to depict Wolf M1425’s

11

journey which also shows the El Paso Project 1 site).

12

24.

The most important part of Wolf M1425’s epic excursion, in regard to this case, is

13

that it crossed the border at the proposed El Paso Project 1 site. Furthermore, it crossed back into

14

Mexico through an unfenced section of the border at El Paso-Juarez. This location is a steep and

15

rocky rugged mountain known as Mt. Cristo El Rey, and it has remained unfenced due to its

16

topography. If El Paso Project 1 is completed, then the prospects of Mexican Gray Wolves

17

dispersing and connecting to their northern counterparts will be next to zero, which will present

18

significant obstacles to the long-term genetic fitness of the species at large and decrease the

19

possibility that a healthy meta-population can grow (referenced above in paragraph 20 which

20

describes the work of Carroll et al).

21

25.

Additional Mexican Wolves Dispersing to the U.S. from Mexico: Wolf M1425 is

22

not alone in making cross-border journeys between the U.S. and Mexico. In 2017, another

23

Mexican gray wolf was documented crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Like Wolf M1425, this

24

second wolf also originated from Mexico and wore a GPS collar. This wolf, a female labeled

25

F1530, was born in 2016 at a captive-wolf-breeding facility in Cananea, Mexico, and was

26

released in October 2016 in Chihuahua, Mexico, approximately 90 to 100 miles south of the New

27

Mexico border. The last collar radio transmission from Mexico was from February 14, 2017, 21

28

miles south of the New Mexico international border, as at that time the GPS collar became
6
Decl. of Myles B. Traphagen In Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Injunction (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

inoperable. She was later observed in the U.S. in March, 2017, and was captured by the

2

Interagency Wolf Field Team on March 26, 2017, near the Chiricahua Mountains in Cochise

3

County, Arizona. She was then relocated to a wolf-breeding facility at the Sevilleta National

4

Wildlife Refuge in New Mexico. This wolf likely crossed the border in the lower San Bernardino

5

Valley near San Bernardino National Wildlife Refuge in Arizona. This stretch of border currently

6

has a vehicle barrier, but under the proposed Tucson Project 3, one of the Section 284 Projects,

7

steel bollard-pedestrian fencing will be installed, which will preclude any animals larger than four

8

inches in width from crossing the border. The combined impact of the Section 284 Projects,

9

especially in Arizona and New Mexico, will have devastating impacts on the connectivity

10

between Mexican wolf habitat in the U.S. and Mexico and will harm the species’ recovery.

11

26.

Secondary effects of Border Patrol activities on wildlife: In addition to border

12

barriers, the uncontrolled perennial presence of Border Patrol can severely impact animals. I

13

recorded evidence of this harm to species in Hidalgo County, New Mexico in an area west of the

14

El Paso Project 1 site. In that area Border Patrol vehicles outnumbered private vehicles 37 to 2

15

during a survey I conducted on Hidalgo County Road 1. Border Patrol vehicles result in roadkill

16

deaths for numerous species such as the white-sided jackrabbit, which in the U.S. only occurs in

17

Hidalgo County. A rise in the number of Border Patrol Agents in this same area (from 50 in 2000

18

to 300 in 2010), also led to more roadkill incidents due to increased vehicle use. I expect the same

19

impacts will occur to species such as the Western Narrow-mouthed Toad (Gastrophyrne

20

olivacea), a listed endangered species in New Mexico, that was documented by the New Mexico

21

Game & Fish Department along Highway 9 in Luna County near the El Paso Project 1 site. The

22

improved roads planned for El Paso Project 1 will allow Border Patrol vehicles to travel at faster

23

speeds which will likely cause more roadkill to sensitive species like the Western Narrow-

24

mouthed toad which often occupies low-lying depressions in the road that fill after warm-season

25

monsoon rains that occur between June and September.

26

27.

Wildlife Connectivity and Corridors: Wildlife connectivity and corridors should be

27

considered when evaluating a project’s environmental impacts, including under the National

28

Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), because habitat connectivity is critical to many species’
7
Decl. of Myles B. Traphagen In Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Injunction (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

survival. New Mexico recognizes the importance of wildlife connectivity, and on March 28,

2

2019, New Mexico’s Governor signed the Wildlife Corridors Act into law. The Wildlife

3

Corridors Act requires New Mexico state agencies to create a “wildlife corridors action plan” to

4

protect species’ habitat. Portions of El Paso Project 1 cross New Mexico State Trust Lands (as

5

shown in Exhibit B to this declaration), and the planned pedestrian fencing disrupts habitat

6

corridors in New Mexico—contrary to the Wildlife Corridors Act. Also, in my view the Mexican

7

gray wolf is a “species of concern” under the Act due to wolf mortality from vehicles on New

8

Mexico’s roads, which include roads along the border that will be constructed as part of El Paso

9

Project 1.

10

28.

New Mexico’s State Trust Lands in and around the El Paso Project 1 site,

11

including within the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument, the West Potrillo

12

Mountains Wilderness Study Area, and the Alden Lava Flow Wilderness Study Area, form an

13

important wildlife corridor for numerous species such as mule deer, javelina, pronghorn, bighorn

14

sheep, mountain lion, bobcat, coyote, bats, quail and other small game like rabbits. This area is

15

one of the largest undisturbed patches of Chihuahuan Desert grassland in the southwest and forms

16

an important ecosystem and crucial habitat for rare birds such as the Aplomado falcon, which is

17

present in both Luna and Doña Ana Counties, and Baird’s sparrow.

18

29.

Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument: The BLM currently manages

19

all of the public lands within this new national monument for a range of multiple uses, including

20

grazing, conservation of natural and archeological resources, and outdoor recreation activities

21

such as hunting, hiking, biking, and camping. Statewide, BLM-New Mexico hosted 2.9 million

22

visitors at 28 recreation sites in fiscal year 2013. Recreation on BLM-managed lands and waters

23

in New Mexico supported more than 1,900 jobs and contributed more than $172 million to the

24

state's economy in fiscal year 2012. The portions of this monument that would be impacted by a

25

border wall include the Greater Potrillo Mountains and Alden Lava Wilderness Study Areas,

26

which are both located approximately 30 miles southwest of Las Cruces. This monument and

27

BLM Wilderness Study Areas lie only ¼ mile north of the proposed El Paso Project 1 site. Within

28

this federally managed area there are 35 parcels of New Mexico State Trust Lands, which total
8
Decl. of Myles B. Traphagen In Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Injunction (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2

23,078 acres (See Exhibit B to this declaration).
30.

New Mexico Game Management Unit 25: The large expanse of land ranging from

3

the proposed El Paso Project 1 site on the border, north to Interstate 10 near Deming (33 miles

4

north of the border), and east to Las Cruces, NM and the Texas border, constitutes a very large

5

New Mexico Game and Fish Department Game Management Unit known as GMU-25. It is over

6

2 million acres in size, of which about 1.25 million of are federal and state public lands. GMU-25

7

contains 337 parcels of New Mexico State Trust Land totaling 268,821 acres. (See Exhibit B to

8

this declaration). These State Trust Lands are a vital engine for the local economy. Important

9

game animals like mule deer and pronghorn rely upon this vast landscape that is connected to an

10

equally large unfragmented grassland in Mexico. Both countries act as sources and sinks for

11

wildlife, largely as a function of the highly variable rainfall that serves as one of the primary

12

drivers of local and regional animal distribution.

13

31.

In a changing climate where drought has become a frequent occurrence in the

14

Southwest, wildlife corridors are more important than ever for ensuring species’ survival. In

15

addition to the Mexican gray wolf discussed above, a perfect example in the region of interest to

16

this case, which will be impacted by the Section 284 Projects, is the pronghorn antelope

17

(Antilocapra Americana). The pronghorn relies upon “forbs” which are small annual plants that

18

are dependent upon seasonal rainfall. The West Potrillo mountains region, which is located in

19

Luna and Doña Ana Counties, along with the vast grasslands of Chihuahua to the south, is a large

20

area that is needed to fulfill the requirements of a species in search of infrequent and highly

21

variably distributed precipitation. In Mexico, the Chihuahuan subspecies of the American

22

pronghorn (Antilocapra americana mexicana) is listed as endangered. For millennia this species

23

has roamed the borderlands unimpeded by barriers. Major efforts are underway in Chihuahua to

24

recover the species, and re-introductions have occurred in the past year not far to the south. The

25

recovery of the Chihuahuan pronghorn in the region may be reliant upon its ability to be able to

26

roam long distances across the grasslands in search of forage.

27
28
9
Decl. of Myles B. Traphagen In Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Injunction (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2
3

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on April 4, 2019, at Tucson, Arizona.

4
5
6
____________________________________
Myles B. Traphagen

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
10

Decl. of Myles B. Traphagen In Supp. of Mot. for Prelim. Injunction (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

EXHIBIT A

/
1/iexican Wolf (Canis lupus baileyi)
:rossing of Border in 2017.

Jan 23 , 2017:
Wolf wanders into

Mt. Cristo Rey (4675 ') has
1.8 mile gap in border wall
due to rugged topography

..... Approximate path of male wolf
-

Santa Teresa Wall (OHS Waiver 1/22/2018)

-

Pedestrian fencing

-=- Proposed El Paso 1 Pedestrian Bollard
-

eni_nv"
___
a......

Cwno

Jan 22, 2017 :
Wolf spends a day at the
Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks
National Monument

New Mexico

;:I:,.,

USA

Santa Teresa Border Wall
(Completed Oct 2018)

Pu&-10

. "

/,

Texas
January 21 , 2017:
Male Mexican wolf (M1425)
crosses into the US
from location in Chihuahua , Mexico
about 150 miles to the south

--------I

Jan 24 , 2017:

Wolf crosses back to Mexico
over Mt. Cristo Rey
(No barrier exists here)

Chihuahua
Jan 25, 2017:
Wolf begins trek back
to mountains of Chihuahua after
traveling 100 miles in the US

s

I
'r-

EXHIBIT B

o

~ew Mexico State Trust Lands in
:I Paso Project 1 Area
-

Nevada
l"• veg.,,

Pedestrian fencing

Colorado
Oklahorr

Los A1111e1 ea

Arizdna

llOieoo

-=- Proposed El Paso 1 Pedestrian Bollard

+
n
+

Utah

California

Santa Teresa Wall (OHS Waiver 1/22/2018)

-

re:no

J'hoen;x

~ TiJu.in-:i

I

N~~M'exico

NM State Lands Alden Lava Wilderness Study
NM State Lands West Potrillo Wilderness Study
NM State Lands in El Paso 1 Project Area

() NM Game Mgt Unit 25

-- .

El Paso 1
Project Area
New Mexico

•
Alden Lava Flow Wilderness
Study Area

....

.....
... ....
ta:

us

,/'

_

•
•

Mexico

)

•

•

Chihuahua

23

0 2.5 5

10

15

20

•wawa::::J••-===::::::a•• Miles

Sources: Mexican Wolf Binational Recovery Team , IBWC, INEGI , ESRI

,

EXHIBIT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
SALLY MAGNANI
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN
Senior Assistant Attorneys General
MICHAEL P. CAYABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
HEATHER C. LESLIE
JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II
LEE I. SHERMAN (SBN 272271)
Deputy Attorneys General
300 S. Spring St., Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California

12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
OAKLAND DIVISION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
COLORADO; STATE OF
CONNECTICUT; STATE OF
DELAWARE; STATE OF HAWAII;
STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF
MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND;
COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS; ATTORNEY
GENERAL DANA NESSEL ON BEHALF
OF THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN;
STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF
NEVADA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF
NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON;
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF
VERMONT; COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WISCONSIN;

DECLARATION OF RAYMOND TREJO
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs,

26
27

4:19-cv-00872-HSG

v.

28
Declaration of Raymond Trejo (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States of America;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PATRICK
M. SHANAHAN, in his official capacity as
Acting Secretary of Defense; MARK T.
ESPER, in his official capacity as Secretary of
the Army; RICHARD V. SPENCER, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Navy;
HEATHER WILSON, in her official capacity
as Secretary of the Air Force; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity
as Acting Secretary of the Interior; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, in
her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security;
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Declaration of Raymond Trejo (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

I, Raymond Trejo, declare as follows:

2

1.

3
4

declaration. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth
below.
2.

5
6
7
8
9
10

I am Raymond Trejo. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this

I am a native son and lifelong resident of Deming, New Mexico, a community just

north of the Columbus Port of Entry in Luna County.
3.

I am currently the Southern Outreach Coordinator for the New Mexico Wildlife

Federation (“NMWF”).
4.

Prior to my work with the NMWF, I spent 26 years as a public-schools educator—

10 of those as a bilingual Spanish-English teacher and 16 as an administrator for Deming Public
Schools. As an administrator, I held several principalships, directorships and superintendent
positions.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

5.

I hold a Bachelor of Arts degree in Elementary Education, a Masters of Teaching

degree and a second Masters degree in Educational Leadership all from Western New Mexico
University.
6.

My personal life, including my habits, hobbies and personal economy will be

affected by border wall construction identified as El Paso Projects 1 and 2 in the February 25, 2019,
memorandum from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the Department of
Defense regarding a “Request for Assistance Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 284.” I understand that these
projects ultimately will stretch nearly 70 miles from far west to considerably east of Deming in
Luna County near the Columbus Port of Entry, and further east into Dona Ana County.
7.

DHS plans to construct roads and install lighting, in addition to constructing new

20

pedestrian fencing designed to stop all crossings in Luna County. These lands are currently home

21

to wildlife such as quail, turkey, deer, cougar, bear and other species that mate and nest throughout

22

the area without the threat to their habitat from an impassable wall or the increase of human activity

23

required to build it.
8.

24

I grew up in the area where El Paso 1 project is planned and have hunted here in

Luna and other New Mexico and Arizona counties throughout my life. Hunting is a deep-rooted

25

tradition for my family. I followed my grandfather around as a child as he hunted cottontail rabbits

26

for dinner. My father and uncles taught me to hunt for deer and now my children and grandchildren

27

do the same. Hunting has become part of my family's culture and we enjoy sitting down at the

28

dinner table to enjoy meals such as venison meatloaf, spaghetti and tacos.
1
Declaration of Raymond Trejo (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

9.

I have hunted Coues deer, mule deer and black bear for meat for my family and

2

friends throughout my life. Hunting is not just a sport for me or my family and friends: it is an

3

economic necessity. I regularly keep venison for meals throughout the year and we turn the bear

4

meat into summer sausage for friends and family.
10.

5

I have spent years training bird dogs for hunting along the border, and use them

almost exclusively to hunt for Montezuma quail. I typically keep three or four Pointers--big,

6

running dogs—as part of the family. I train and exercise them throughout the year in the open

7

spaces near the border to keep them fit and put them to work during hunting season.
11.

8
9
10

Arizona and parts of west Texas along the Mexican border. It was added to the federal endangered
species list in 1976 in Mexico 1 but is not so categorized in New Mexico.
12.

11
12

Montezuma quail is found exclusively in southwest New Mexico, Southeastern

The Montezuma quail requires grassland for nesting. However, grassland will

certainly be destroyed by the construction of a border wall and creation of more highway access
points.

13

13.

Even though quail flies, as do other birds, it does so somewhat horizontally—and

14

relatively close to the ground. Therefore, a 30-foot border wall would block the flight path of quail,

15

limiting their ability to breed and escape predators. Even a shorter wall construction could lead to

16
17
18
19

extinction or a massive population decline for the Montezuma, which already faces drought along
the border and is threatened by rains during nesting season.
14.

The Montezuma quail population has plummeted in the past and recovered. It is

likely to plummet again and may be unable to recover if construction of a massive wall goes forward
and is allowed to damage or destroy quail habitat.

20

15.

The ability to disperse is critical for quail and other species, especially during

21

breeding season. Being able to disperse ensures the natural distribution of the quail gene pool as

22

well as protecting individuals from predators.

23
24

16.

The ability to disperse is also critical for other wildlife in the Luna County area,

including the Sonoran pronghorn, the Mexican gray wolf, jaguar, javelina, Gould’s turkey and
others.

25
26
27
28

Glenn, C.R. 2006, “Earth’s Endangered Creatures”; Merriam’s Montezuma Quail Facts
(online). Accessed 3/29/19 at www.earthsendangered.com
1

2
Declaration of Raymond Trejo (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

17.

Construction of a wall will threaten the existence of human communities as well as

2

those of the animal kingdom. I have spent much of my time hunting in communities such as

3

Sonoita and Patagonia, AZ-

4

towns near the US-Mexico border. During hunting season, these

and similar towns come alive. Every RV park, hotel and camping site is full for four months
during the hunting season, as upland bird hunters from all over the country arrive.

5
6
7

18.

These beautiful rural human communities will suffer irreparable harm, as will

wildlife in this area, from construction of a border wall that blocks the flow of avid hunters as
well as disturbing the habitat of the elusive Montezuma quail that makes its home on the border.

8
9

10

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
true and correct.
Executed on March 3q 2019, at Deming, Luna County, New Mexico.

11

-?,, ~

12
13

Raymond Trejo

14
15

16
17

18
19
20

21
22
23

24

25
26
27

28
3
Declaration of Raymond Trejo (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

EXHIBIT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

XAVIER BECERRA
Attorney General of California
ROBERT W. BYRNE
SALLY MAGNANI
MICHAEL L. NEWMAN
Senior Assistant Attorneys General
MICHAEL P. CAYABAN
CHRISTINE CHUANG
EDWARD H. OCHOA
Supervising Deputy Attorneys General
HEATHER C. LESLIE
JANELLE M. SMITH
JAMES F. ZAHRADKA II
LEE I. SHERMAN (SBN 272271)
Deputy Attorneys General
300 S. Spring St., Suite 1702
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff State of California

12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
13
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
14
OAKLAND DIVISION
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; STATE OF
COLORADO; STATE OF
CONNECTICUT; STATE OF
DELAWARE; STATE OF HAWAII;
STATE OF ILLINOIS; STATE OF
MAINE; STATE OF MARYLAND;
COMMONWEALTH OF
MASSACHUSETTS; ATTORNEY
GENERAL DANA NESSEL ON BEHALF
OF THE PEOPLE OF MICHIGAN;
STATE OF MINNESOTA; STATE OF
NEVADA; STATE OF NEW JERSEY;
STATE OF NEW MEXICO; STATE OF
NEW YORK; STATE OF OREGON;
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND; STATE OF
VERMONT; COMMONWEALTH OF
VIRGINIA; and STATE OF WISCONSIN;

DECLARATION OF GABRIEL
VASQUEZ IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Plaintiffs,

26
27

4:19-cv-00872-HSG

v.

28
Declaration of Gabriel Vasquez (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity
as President of the United States of America;
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; PATRICK
M. SHANAHAN, in his official capacity as
Acting Secretary of Defense; MARK T.
ESPER, in his official capacity as Secretary of
the Army; RICHARD V. SPENCER, in his
official capacity as Secretary of the Navy;
HEATHER WILSON, in her official capacity
as Secretary of the Air Force; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the Treasury; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR;
DAVID BERNHARDT, in his official capacity
as Acting Secretary of the Interior; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, in
her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security;
Defendants.

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Declaration of Gabriel Vasquez (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

I, Gabriel Vasquez, declare as follows:

2
3
4
5

1.

I am Gabriel Vasquez. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this

declaration. If called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth
below.
2.

I am a founding member of the Young Philanthropists of Southern New Mexico, a

6

past board member of the Downtown Las Cruces Partnership, past secretary of the board of the

7

Hispano Chamber of Commerce de Las Cruces, and a graduate of the Greater Las Cruces

8

Chamber of Commerce Leadership Las Cruces 2010 class.
3.

9
10
11

I am a public lands advocate and community organizer trained in media relations

and public speaking through the University of Notre Dame-U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
Training Program.
4.

I have been vice president of communications at First Focus Campaign for

12

Children in Washington, D.C., a field representative for southwest New Mexico for U.S. Senator

13

Martin Heinrich, vice president of public relations at SameDay Security in Las Cruces, business

14

editor of the Las Cruces Bulletin and executive director of the Hispano Chamber of Commerce de
Las Cruces.

15

5.

Currently, I am a Las Cruces, NM, City Councilor. Our city council has passed a

16

formal resolution of opposition to erection of the border wall as a threat to the region’s economy,

17

binational relations and family ties between Mexican and New Mexican residents.1 The resolution

18

requests the executive and legislative branches of the federal government to look at “more

19

effective, comprehensive, and humane ways to address concerns about illegal immigration.”

20
21
22

6.

I hold a Bachelor of Arts in English with a minor in journalism and public relations

from New Mexico State University.
7.

I am Secretary of the Board of Directors for Friends of the Organ Mountains-Desert

Peaks (OMDP) monument. Friends of OMDP seeks to enrich our community and cultural diversity

23

through advocacy, conservation and restoration of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National

24

Monument to the east of the City of Las Cruces. The monument was established in 2014 to protect

25
26
27

1

See text of the February 21, 2017 resolution beginning at page 5, available at https://lascruces.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=863&meta_id=72477

28
1
Declaration of Gabriel Vasquez (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

prehistoric, historic, geologic and biologic resources of scientific interest within the 496,330-acre

2

holding.

3
4

8.

As a staff member of the New Mexico Wildlife Federation (NMWF), I have led

numerous expeditions to hunt, hike, and camp throughout the area along the New Mexico-Mexico
border where a border wall is likely to be built, and continue to do so in my personal capacity.

5

9.

As the director of community relations for NMWF, I authored the organization’s

6

2017 resolution opposing construction of the border wall, which was signed by 51 National Wildlife

7

Federation (NWF) state affiliates and which includes the information that our region “provides

8

habitat and movement pathways for a diverse complex of more than 700 neotropical wildlife

9

species (i.e., mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and insects) which frequently require

10

unrestricted movement across the U.S. and Mexico border to obtain critical sources of food and
water during seasonal changes.”

11
12

10.

The Coronado National Forest in New Mexico, connected to the Sky Island

mountain chain in Arizona, is on the US-Mexico border and is home to numerous endangered,

13

threatened and unique species, such as the jaguar, 2 the Santa Catarina geometer moth, the Sonoran

14

tiger salamander, 3 the lesser-long nosed bat, 4 rock-horned lizard, Tarahumara salamander, and the

15

file-tailed ground snake. The habitat of these species is found across the US-Mexico border and

16
17
18

their survival depends on their unrestricted movement across the U.S. and Mexico for food and
biodiversity.
11.

Every one of NWF’s affiliates signed the resolution and agreed that a contiguous

border wall across the U.S.-Mexico border would be detrimental to the conservation of wildlife

19

species and their habitat. Further, the resolution noted that a wall along the New Mexico-Mexico

20

border could harm outdoor recreation, as no one wants to hunt, hike, watch wildlife, or engage in

21

other outdoor activities in an active construction site.

22
23
2

24
25
26
27
28

The jaguar was added to the federal endangered species list in 1997. See
https://defenders.org/jaguar/threats
3
New Mexico and Arizona created a recovery plan for this federally listed salamander.
See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1999. Sonora tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum
stebbinsi) draft recovery plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Phoenix, AZ. iv+90pp.,
https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/SonoraSalamander/Son_Tige
r_Sal_RP_600.pdf
4
The bat was removed from the federal endangered species list only April 17, 2018 on
Bat Appreciation Day in the United States. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/04/lesserlong-nosed-bats-conservation-delisted-endangered-animals-spd/
2
Declaration of Gabriel Vasquez (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

12.

Citing adverse impacts to wildlife ranging from Sonoran pronghorn to Gould’s

2

turkey, the NWF has called the proposed barrier “one of the biggest potential ecological disasters

3

of our time,” noting that a border wall impassable to threatened and endangered wildlife such the

4

pronghorn and turkey as well as the Mexican gray wolf, jaguar, ocelots and desert bighorn sheep
would significantly fragment essential habitats along the U.S.-Mexico border. Further, fragmented

5
6
7

habitat could impact the ability of these species to survive, access resources and to interchange
genetic information required for survival and the maintenance of viable populations.
13.

Empirical research has identified that barriers—even those permeable structures

8

such as bollard walls—have negative effects on wildlife populations due to “loss of population

9

connectivity” and “reduction in effective population sizes subsequent to loss of connectivity.”5 As

10

barriers such as walls interrupt or reduce the movement of nearby animals, migration is reduced.
The reduced physical range results in a reduction in the numbers and variety of potential mates.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Species with small isolated populations limited by a barrier can become extinct because the poor
dispersal across border ecosystems leads to reduced gene flow between populations and consequent
loss of genetic diversity.
14.

I have hunted the Gould’s Turkey under the controls established by the New Mexico

Department of Game and Fish. The largest subspecies of wild turkey, Gould’s once was hunted to
near-extinction in southern Arizona and New Mexico but, due to conservation efforts, reached a
population of more than one thousand birds by 2014. 6 Declared an endangered or threatened
species under New Mexico’s Wildlife Conservation Act, the turkey is now managed under a

18

recovery plan designed to restore or maintain viable populations.7 However, since wild turkeys are

19

generally ground nesters seeking areas with dense vegetation for nest construction, wall

20

construction could irreparably harm Gould’s breeding grounds and habitat. Further, the turkeys

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

5

See Lasky, Jetz and Keitt, Conservation biogeography of the US-Mexico border: a
transcontinental risk assessment of barriers to animal dispersal, “Diversity and Distributions”
(first published May 3, 2011) pp. 673-687 accessed at
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00765.x .
6
See National Wild Turkey Federation, https://www.nwtf.org/conservation/article/skyisland-goulds, describing a 20-year restoration effort.
7
See the WCA at NMSA 1978, §§ 17-2-37 to 17-2-46 and specific recovery plan
requirements at NMSA 1978, § 17-2-40.1. See also
http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/download/conservation/species/birds/management-recoveryplans/Goulds-Turkey-Recovery-Plan.pdf
3
Declaration of Gabriel Vasquez (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

walk in order to migrate, so any type of border construction is likely to disrupt their movement,

2

thereby posing a threat to survival.8
15.

3
4
5

Desert Bighorn sheep hunted at low elevations in New Mexico along the border are

skittish and wary of people. They are therefore likely to abandon any border areas where a wall is
constructed or where construction attracts additional humans. New Mexico’s Desert Bighorn
population fell to fewer than 70 animals in 1980, leading the State to add the animal to its

6

endangered species list.9 Sheep numbers have increased in recent years, but a loss of habitat such

7

as that associated with wall construction, an increased number of humans and attendant noise, light

8

and activity could reduce the range of herds and ultimately irreparably harm the Desert Bighorn

9

Sheep’s chances for survival.
16.

10

I am also the founder and southern New Mexico coordinator of the Nuestra Tierra

Conservation project, a program that offers Hispanic and underserved youth opportunities to
11
12

explore New Mexico’s iconic border-area landscapes through hiking, fishing, camping and hunting,
among other outdoor activities.

13

17.

The purpose of the Nuestra Tierra program is to cultivate a passionate group of

14

young people to lead the next generation of conservation work, protecting our State’s and our

15

nation’s public lands and our most treasured cultural landscapes such as the desert areas along our

16
17
18
19

State’s southern border. Building on the existence of multicultural, multinational and multilingual
aspects common to Latino and Hispanic communities of our region, participants advocate across
cultures, national boundaries and languages for preservation of public landscapes. Further, they
engage in educational activities, among them most recently viewing and discussing an Outside
Magazine documentary on the ecosystems and livelihoods affected by border wall construction.10

20

18.

A reduction of the numbers and kinds of wildlife that can be anticipated if border

21

wall construction goes forward will also affect our Latino and Hispanic communities and our

22

traditional relationships across cultures, nations and languages—problems now being explored

23

through Nuestra Tierra Conservation Project.

24
25
26
27

Id. at p. 12, 2.1.8, “Movement”.
http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/download/education/conservation/wildlifenotes/mammals/Desert-bighorn-sheep.pdf
8
9

Outside Magazine March 14, 2019, “The River and the Wall” studied by Nuestra Tierra
participants, https://www.outsideonline.com/2392023/the-river-and-the-wall-documentary-review
10

28
4
Declaration of Gabriel Vasquez (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)

1

19.

A border wall tends to be a priority because of security concerns that are

2

considered paramount over most other considerations. Focusing on security may cause

3

decision-makers to overlook potential impacts on wildlife, economy and outdoor recreation.

4

However, those of us who live along the border are aware that security can be provided in many

5
6

ways that do not destroy habitat. We urge the Court to direct security concerns away from
policies and projects that could destroy wildlife habitat and ethnic community ties and
traditions.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
Declaration of Gabriel Vasquez (4:19-cv-00872-HSG)