PETITION TO INCLUDE THE
EL PINACATE AND GRAN DESIERTO DE ALTAR
BIOSPHERE RESERVE WORLD HERITAGE SITE ON THE
LIST OF WORLD HERITAGE IN DANGER
May 23, 2017

On behalf of:
Center for Biological Diversity
Tohono O’odham of Sonora
Greenpeace México
Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental
Fronteras Comunes
Wildlands Network
Conservation of Marine Mammals of Mexico
Photo credits:

Pronghorn: Miguel Ángel Sicilia Manzo/Conabio
Deer: Carlos Javier Navarro Serment/Conabio
Barrier: Alejandro Olivera/Center for Biological Diversity
Pygmy owl: Manuel Grosselet/Conabio
Jaguar: Noé Felipe Vargas González/Conabio

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pursuant to the World Heritage Convention, Mexico’s El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de
Altar Biosphere Reserve World Heritage property (“El Pinacate Site”) was inscribed on the World
Heritage List in 2013, in part, to protect the area’s extraordinary “biodiversity and threatened
species.” This diversity includes numerous, cross-border Sonoran Desert wildlife species like
imperiled Sonoran pronghorn, bighorn sheep, pygmy owl, and jaguar. The El Pinacate Site’s roughly
180-kilometer northern boundary aligns with the Mexico-United States border, and the U.S. border
areas have been deemed critical to El Pinacate’s “integrity and ecological connectivity” and to the
survival and recovery of many Sonoran species.
Unfortunately, Mexico’s El Pinacate World Heritage Site and much of its incredible wildlife
are now threatened by U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposed border wall, which is intended to
prevent immigration between the two nations. This 30-foot (9m) high, solid wall will stretch the
entire length of El Pinacate’s northern border, creating a permanent, impassable barrier for El
Pinacate’s wildlife and dividing the Sonoran ecosystem in two, potentially forever.
Under the World Heritage Convention, the World Heritage Committee may list a World
Heritage property as “in Danger” if it is “threatened by serious and specific dangers.” These dangers
can include “major public work[s]” deteriorating the property’s beauty or scientific value, human
encroachment on boundaries, or “planned . . . development projects” that threaten the property or
its wildlife.
As detailed in the Petition below, Mexico’s El Pinacate Site and its Outstanding Universal
Values, including the property’s unique wildlife populations, are now threatened by the United States
government’s proposed border wall, as well as by enhanced U.S. security efforts, which will prevent
cross-border wildlife migration and habitat use. The United States’ ecologically irresponsible
decision to build a border wall risks serious deterioration of the El Pinacate Site’s integrity and the
extraordinary Sonoran wildlife the Site was inscribed to protect.
Accordingly, Petitioners formally request that the World Heritage Committee list the El
Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve World Heritage property as “World
Heritage in Danger” pursuant to Article 11 of the World Heritage Convention. Listing the property
as “in Danger” would bring worldwide attention to this important conservation issue and also
highlight the threats the United States’ border wall poses to indigenous peoples who rely on and
consider the Site sacred.
PETITIONERS
The Center for Biological Diversity is a non-profit, non-governmental organization
incorporated in the United States, with an office and staff located in La Paz, Mexico. With over 1.3
million members and supporters around the world, the Center’s primary mission is to protect
threatened and endangered species and their habitats both in the United States and abroad. The
Center’s headquarters are located in Tucson, Arizona in the United States, and we have long worked
to protect wildlife inhabiting the U.S.-Mexico borderlands, including seeking protections for
Sonoran pronghorns, jaguars, ferruginous pygmy owls, and other species that will be harmed by the
United States’ proposed construction and expansion of a border wall.
1

 El Tribu de los O’odham en Sonora (“The O’odham Tribe in Sonora”) are
transnational indigenous peoples, most of whom are legal members of the Tohono O’odham Nation
(a U.S. federally recognized tribe located in Arizona, USA); are related by blood to families in the
Tohono O’odham Nation; and share one and the same culture and historical traditional territory
with members of the Tohono O’odham Nation. The O’odham Tribe in Sonora are represented by
their elected Traditional O’odham Leaders from the following communities: Son: Odiak (Sonoyta),
Ge Ka:ck (Pto.Peñasco), A:l Ka:wolk (Caborca), Pi’ichkin (Pitiquito), Wo’oson (El Bajío), Gu:dagi
Wahia (Pozo Verde), Cu:wi Gersk (San Francisquito), and S’cuk Su:dagi (Pozo Prieto), Ocuca (San
Manuel), and Imuris, and San Matilde. The traditional O’odham leaders in Sonora have repeatedly
been recognized as the representatives of their communities over time by Legislative Council of the
Tohono O’odham Nation in a series of legal resolutions: 43 -79 (1979), 95-562 (1995), and 05-725
(2015). The current Governor General José Martin García Lewis and Lieutenant Governor Nora
Judith Canez Parra of The O’odham in Sonora Tribe, having been duly elected on 29 Nov. 2015, are
the authorized petitioners for The O’odham in Sonora Tribe. The El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de
Altar World Heritage Site holds tremendous historic and present-day cultural importance for the
Tohono O’odham of Sonora, who still regularly use the Site for ceremonial purposes, as detailed in
the petition.
Greenpeace México, A.C. is a non-profit, non-governmental organization with 24 years of
public work in Mexico that acts to change attitudes and behavior, to protect and conserve the
environment, and to promote peace. Greenpeace México is economically and politically independent
and does not accept donations or pressure from governments, political parties, or companies, and in
Mexico is funded by the contributions of 75,000 people. Greenpeace México is an active member of
Greenpeace, the global organization that comprises 26 independent national/regional offices in over
55 countries across Africa, Europe, the Americas, Asia, and the Pacific, as well as a coordinating
body, Greenpeace International.
Centro Mexicano de Derecho Ambiental (“CEMDA”) is a non-governmental and nonprofit organization that has been working for the defense of the environment and natural resources
for 24 years. CEMDA is one of the main organizations of environmental civil society in Mexico
whose fundamental work is the strengthening, consolidation, harmonization, application, and
effective compliance of the current legal-environmental system.
Fronteras Comunes is an organization that promotes the exercise of the right to
information in communities that have been affected by pollution or are at risk of being
contaminated by industrial activities. Fighting for environmental justice is the basis of remediation
actions on pollution and repair of damage by hazardous waste and industrial emissions.
Wildlands Network is an international organization dedicated to reconnecting nature
throughout North America. We provide the science and vision necessary to preserve large-scale
ecosystems for species that need vast spaces to migrate, disperse, and adapt to climate change.
Conservation of Marine Mammals of Mexico is a Mexican organization dedicated to the
protection and conservation of marine biodiversity and its ecosystems, since 2000.

2

 ARGUMENT
I.

LEGAL BACKGROUND
A. The World Heritage Convention

The Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (“the World
Heritage Convention”), signed in 1972, is the primary, international legal instrument for preserving
the world’s most important and irreplaceable natural and historic sites. The Convention recognizes
that natural and cultural heritage “are increasingly threatened with destruction” and this
“deterioration . . . constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the
world.” 1 Accordingly, the Convention establishes a system whereby “the international community as
a whole . . . participate[s]” in the “collective protection of the cultural and natural heritage of
outstanding universal value.” 2 There are currently 193 Parties to the World Heritage Convention,
including both Mexico and the United States.
To implement the treaty, the Convention establishes the Intergovernmental Committee for
the Protection of the Cultural and Natural Heritage of Outstanding Universal Value, referred to as
“the World Heritage Committee.” 3 The Committee is composed of 21 State Parties, or members,
who rotate terms. 4
Based on Parties’ submissions of properties within their jurisdiction that constitute natural or
cultural heritage, the Committee establishes a “World Heritage List.” 5 Listed properties must have
“outstanding universal value” (“OUV”), which means “cultural and/or natural significance which is
so exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of common importance for present and
future generations of all humanity.” 6 At the time of listing, the Committee must adopt a Statement
of Outstanding Universal Value, “which will be the key reference for the future effective protection
and management of the property.” 7
Under the Convention, Parties commit to protect and manage World Heritage properties to
“ensure that their Outstanding Universal Value . . . are sustained or enhanced over time.” 8
Specifically, “each State Party . . . shall endeavor, in so far as possible, . . . to take the appropriate
See Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Culture and Natural Heritage, Nov. 16, 1972, 27
U.S.T. 37, at Preamble.
2 Id.; WHC Operational Guidelines, at I(B)(4).
3 World Heritage Convention, at Art. 8.
4 WHC Operational Guidelines, at I(E)(19), (21).
5 World Heritage Convention, at Art. 3; 11(1), (2).
6 Id. at Art. 11(2); WHC Operational Guidelines, at II(A)(49); II(D)(77) (listing criteria for OUV, including
properties that “contain the most important and significant natural habitats for in-situ conservation of
biological diversity, including those containing threatened species of Outstanding Universal Value from the
point of view of science or conservation,” “contain superlative natural phenomena or areas of exceptional
natural beauty and aesthetic importance,” and are “outstanding examples representing significant on-going
ecological and biological processes”).
7 WHC Operational Guidelines, at II(A)(51).
8 Id. at II(F)(96); World Heritage Convention, at Art. 4 (each Party has a duty to ensure “protection,
conservation, . . . and transmission to future generations of” the heritage in its territory).
1

3

 legal, scientific, technical, administration and financial measures necessary for the . . . protection,
conservation . . . and rehabilitation of [its] heritage.” 9
Additionally, the treaty recognizes that “it is incumbent on the international community as a
whole to participate in the protection of the cultural and natural heritage . . . , by the granting of
collective assistance” to complement actions of Parties within whose jurisdiction World Heritage
sites are located. 10 Accordingly, all Parties to the Convention “undertake . . . to give their help” in
protecting and conserving other nations’ heritage, and each Party “undertakes not to take any
deliberate measures which might damage directly or indirectly the cultural and natural heritage . . .
situated on the territory of other State Parties.” 11
B. The List of World Heritage “in Danger”
To assist in the protection of World Heritage properties, the World Heritage Committee
“shall establish . . . [a] ‘list of World Heritage in Danger,’” including properties for “which major
operations are necessary” for the properties’ conservation. 12 If a property deteriorates “to the point
where it has irretrievably lost those characteristics which determined its inscription on the List,” the
property may be deleted from the World Heritage List. 13
The World Heritage Committee’s Operational Guidelines for the Implementation of the
World Heritage Convention provide further guidance for the “in Danger” listing process. For
natural properties, a property may be listed as “in Danger” if:
(a) The property faces an “Ascertained Danger,” meaning it “is faced with specific and
proven imminent danger, such as:
…
(ii) Severe deterioration of the natural beauty or scientific value of the property, as by . . .
major public works,
(iii) Human encroachment on boundaries . . . which threaten the integrity of the
property,” or
(b) The property faces a “Potential Danger,” meaning it “is faced with major threats which
could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics. Such threats are, for
example: . . .
(ii) planned . . . development projects within the property or so situated that the impacts
threaten the property.” 14
When considering whether to list a property as “in Danger,” the World Heritage Committee
“shall request” that the Secretariat “ascertain . . . the present condition of the property” and its
World Heritage Convention, at Art. 5(d), (c).
Id. at Preamble.
11 Id. at Art. 6(2), (3).
12 Id. at Art. 11(4); WHC Operational Guidelines, at I(C)(15)(h).
13 WHC Operational Guidelines, at IV(A)(176)(d); IV(C).
14 Id. at IV(B)(180)(a), (b).
9

10

4

 threats, and the Committee may send a monitoring mission to evaluate the property. 15 If listed, the
Committee must then adopt a “programme for corrective measures.” 16
II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve World Heritage Site

Mexico nominated its El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve for
inscription on the World Heritage List in 2012. 17 In 2013, the IUCN evaluated the nomination and
recommended inscription, 18 and at its July 2013 meeting, the World Heritage Committee officially
inscribed the property on the World Heritage List. 19
The El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve World Heritage property
(“El Pinacate”) encompasses an approximately 714,566 hectare-area in the Sonoran Desert of
northwestern Mexico. 20 The property, which covers a large and remarkably undisturbed area of highquality desert habitat, is comprised of a large dormant volcanic area in the east (the Pinacate Shield)
and North America’s largest field of active sand dunes to the west (the Gran Altar Desert). 21 The
same area was declared a Biosphere Reserve and Natural Protected Area by the Mexican
government in 1993. 22
The northern border of the El Pinacate property aligns with the United States-Mexico
border; 23 however, the broader Sonoran Desert and its extraordinary habitat extend far into the
United States. In its 2013 evaluation, the IUCN noted that the El Pinacate property is part of “the
largest contiguous desert protected area complex in North America,” which includes Mexico’s Alto
Golfo de California and Delta del Rio Colorado National Biosphere Reserve to El Pinacate’s south
and the United States’ Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, Organ Pipe Cactus National

Id. at IV(B)(184).
Id. at IV(B)(183).
17 See National Commission of Protected Natural Areas, Nomination Format for Natural Property El Pinacate y
Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve for Inscription on the World Heritage List (Mar. 2012) (“WH Nomination”).
Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1410/documents/.
18 See IUCN, World Heritage Nomination – IUCN Technical Evaluation: El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere
Reserve (Mexico) – ID No. 1410 (Apr. 2013) (“IUCN Evaluation”). Available at:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1410/documents/.
19 World Heritage Committee Decision 37 COM 8B.16, Decisions Adopted by the World Heritage Committee at its
37th Session (Phnom Penh, 2013), WHC-13/37.COM/20, Paris, 5 July 2013 (“WHC Decision 37 COM 8B.16”).
Available at: http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1410/documents/.
20 Id. An official map of the property and its boundaries is available here:
http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1410/multiple=1&unique_number=1858.
21 Id. at 37.
22 Mexican Federal Register. Diario Oficial de la Federación. June 10th 1993. DECRETO por el que se
declara área natural protegida con el carácter de Reserva de la Biosfera, la región conocida como El Pinacate y
Gran Desierto de Altar, ubicada en los municipios de Plutarco Elías Calles, Puerto Peñasco y San Luis Río
Colorado, Son. http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=4744601&fecha=10/06/1993
23 IUCN Evaluation, at 88.
15
16

5

 Monument, and Barry M. Goldwater Range to the north. 24 These U.S. border areas “contribut[e] to
the integrity and ecological connectivity” of the El Pinacate World Heritage property. 25
B. El Pinacate and the Broader Sonoran Desert’s Wildlife
The El Pinacate area’s diverse landscape provides “extraordinary habitat diversity,” 26 hosting
over 540 species of vascular plants, 44 mammal species, 225 bird species, and over 40 reptile species,
including species endemic only to the Sonoran Desert. 27 In its nomination documents for the
property, Mexico highlighted the area’s habitat for the Sonoran pronghorn, bighorn sheep,
ferruginous pygmy owls and other owls, jaguar, desert pupfish, mule deer, gray fox, several bats,
cactus, and other species. 28
Of particular importance, the Mexican government emphasized El Pinacate’s habitat for the
“endemic Sonoran Pronghorn, which is only to be found in northwestern Sonora and in
southwestern Arizona (USA).” 29 The Sonoran pronghorn is “the fastest land mammal in America
and the second worldwide.” 30 Unfortunately, Sonoran pronghorn have suffered steep declines, and
only approximately 979 Sonoran pronghorn existed as of 2014 in Mexico and the United States
combined, declining due to historic hunting, livestock grazing, drought, and habitat fragmentation. 31
Sonoran pronghorn are protected as “critically endangered” in Mexico and under the United States’
Endangered Species Act. 32
Mexico further highlighted the Site’s historic and present-day cultural importance for the
indigenous people of the Tohono O’odham, whose traditional lands extend across the modern-day
U.S.-Mexico border. The El Pinacate Site is sacred to the Tohono O’odham because the origin of
their creation “occurred in El Pinacate peak.” 33 An exceptional knowledge of the local wildlife,
hydrology, and geography was critical to the O’odham people’s survival in the area’s inhospitable
landscape. 34
Ancestors of the Tohono O’odham began inhabiting the Site around 5,000 years ago, and
the area still contains many significant archaeological remains of the ancient Tohono O’odham
people, because, unlike many areas, the archaeological evidence of human occupation has remained
Id. at 88, 90.
Id.
26 WHC Decision 37 COM 8B.16, at 168.
27 IUCN Evaluation, at 88.
28 Mexico WH Nomination, at 61 (highlighting at-risk species that inhabit El Pinacate), 255.
29 Id. at 61, 62, 65.
30 Id. at 96.
31 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 2016. Recovery Plan for the Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana
sonoriensis), Second Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwest Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
USA, at 11, 3 (“Final U.S. Pronghorn Recovery Plan”).
32 Id. at 97; NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental-Especies nativas
de México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o
cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. Available at:
http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle_popup.php?codigo=5173091; 32 Fed. Reg. 4001 (March 11, 1967); see also
76 Fed. Reg. 25,610 (May 5, 2011).
33 Mexico WH Nomination, at 19.
34 See id. at 74.
24
25

6

 “virtually unchanged by erosion.” 35 This includes Tohono O’odham “geoglyphs, intaglio, camp
clearings, sleeping quarters, trails, mortars and petroglyphs.” 36
While the Site is not currently inhabited full-time by the O’odham, the O’odham still
regularly use the Site for ceremonial purposes and as an essential passage area “on their trip to the
Gulf of California to collect salt and sea shells.” Overall, the area “holds an exceptional testimony of
the presence of O’odham and their ancestors.” 37 Accordingly, authorities from the Tohono
O’odham in Mexico and the Tohono O’odham Nation in the United States have “committed to
protect and preserve the area,” and O’odham community members participate on the Advisory
Council for the protected area’s management. 38 More details on the Tohono O’odham, their history,
and their long-standing and current uses of the El Pinacate Site are included in Exhibit A, the
Statement of José Martín Garcia Lewis, Governor General of the O’odham in Sonora, Mexico.
1. IUCN Assessment of the El Pinacate Property
In 2013, the IUCN evaluated Mexico’s nomination of El Pinacate for World Heritage listing.
The IUCN found the El Pinacate property meets three World Heritage listing criteria, including: (1)
Criteria vii: “Superlative natural phenomena or natural beauty” for the property’s volcanic and dune
landforms that result in a “stunning desert landscape,” (2) Criteria viii: “Earth’s history and
geological features,” including volcanic and dunes landforms “of great scientific interest,” and
critically, (3) Criteria x: “Biodiversity and threatened species,” due to the area’s high species
diversity. 39 Among the threatened species inhabiting the property, the IUCN particularly highlighted
“the Sonoran Pronghorn, an endemic subspecies of Pronghorn restricted to Southwestern Arizona
and Northwestern Sonora and threatened by extinction.” 40
In its 2013 assessment, the IUCN acknowledged several already-existing “[t]hreats” to the
property, including “increasing concerns about the connectivity of the land both with[in] Sonora and
across the international border, including for Sonoran Pronghorn and Desert Bighorn Sheep.” 41 The
IUCN explained:
[T]he Sonoran Desert is bisected by the international border. [While] the border was
no obstacle whatsoever until very recently . . . [t]his changed over the last years,
when physical barriers were erected and border control was tightened. In the
Northwest of the nominated property, a high metal barrier prevents migration from
and to the Barry M. Goldwater Range. Elsewhere, the physical infrastructure is
restricted to vehicle barriers which are in principle permeable for wildlife. 42
Additionally, highlighting the importance of “[t]ransboundary cooperation to maintain and
enhance the management of the property,” the IUCN warned that:
Id. at 69.
Id.
37 Id. at 111.
38 Id. at 114.
39 IUCN Evaluation, at 93.
40 Id.
41 Id. at 91.
42 Id.
35
36

7

 [N]ew physical infrastructure, a high wall along the border, and augmented security
activities on the U.S. side, have generated negative impacts and have also introduced
a new barrier for wildlife movements. It is hoped that the present governmental
focus on security issues will not undermine the encouraging and functional working
relationships across the border. 43
Accordingly, the IUCN formally:
Encourage[d] the State Parties of Mexico and the United States of America to
strengthen cooperation on the conservation and management of the shared Greater
Sonoran Desert Ecosystem, building upon the existing agreements and working
relationships at all levels, which may eventually lead to the formal establishment of a
transboundary protected area;
Encourage[d] the State Parties of Mexico and the United States of America to further
cooperate on saving the Sonoran Pronghorn from possible extinction;
Encourage[d] the State Party, and the neighbouring State Party of the United States of
America to fully consider environmental concerns in security efforts along the
international border that forms the northern boundary of the property. 44
Finally, the IUCN’s evaluation recognized the importance of the Site for the Tohono
O’odham people living on both sides of the border, noting “the nominated property [is] part of their
native homeland and a spiritual place of origin, celebrated in sacred ceremonies.” 45 The IUCN noted
that all management of the Site must be coordinated with the Tohono O’odham, as well as
representatives’ concerns regarding their ongoing ability to participate in traditional “ceremonies in
the area, such as the revival of salt pilgrimages to the Gulf of California through the nominated
property.” 46
2. World Heritage Inscription
Supported by the IUCN’s recommendation, the World Heritage Committee inscribed the El
Pinacate property on the World Heritage List in 2013. 47 Based on the IUCN’s analysis, the
Committee found the El Pinacate area meets all three listing criteria, including Criteria x for sites
containing “biodiversity and threatened species.” 48 In its official “Statement of Outstanding
Universal Values” (“OUV”) for the Site, the Committee highlighted the area’s “extraordinary habitat
diversity,” including “diversity of life across many different taxa . . . with many species endemic to
the Sonoran Desert,” 49 including the “more than 540 species of vascular plants, 44 mammals, more
than 200 birds, over 40 reptiles.” The Committee specifically highlighted “the Sonoran Pronghorn,

Id.
Id. at 95.
45 Id. at 90.
46 Id.
47 WHC Decision 37 COM 8B.16, at 167.
48 Id. at 168.
49 Id.
43
44

8

 an endemic subspecies restricted to the South-western Arizona and North-western Sonora and
threatened by extinction,” as part of the Site’s OUV. 50
The Committee further adopted the IUCN’s recommendations, specifically “encourag[ing]”
strengthened cooperation on Sonoran Desert conservation and management, cooperation on
“saving the Sonoran pronghorn from possible extinction,” and “full[ ] consider[ation of]
environmental concerns in security effects along the international border” by both Mexico and the
United States. 51
III.

Border Management along the El Pinacate World Heritage Site
A. Current U.S. Fencing along the El Pinacate Site’s Northern Border

Since approximately 1990, the United States has constructed various types of fencing to
physically separate its border from Mexico. 52 As noted above, the portion of the United States that
abuts the El Pinacate World Heritage Site is comprised of three U.S. protected areas, contiguously
covering El Pinacate’s roughly 180-kilometer northern border. While the United States has
constructed various types of fencing along the border of these protected areas, most of that fencing
is low and permeable, allowing passage of both pedestrians and critically, wildlife. See Ex. B (detailed
map showing the various types of fencing along the El Pinacate-U.S. border).
Specifically, in its Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, the United States installed a 50
kilometer-long “vehicle barrier” in 2006 stretching nearly the length of Monument’s boundary with
Mexico to prohibit illegal off-road vehicle activity and thus promote, or at least not impair,
conservation. 53 This low, steel fence is designed to be passable to pedestrians, water, and wildlife,
specifically “allow[ing] . . . the highly endangered Sonoran Pronghorn to safely roam its natural range
uninterrupted.” 54 See Photo 1 below; Ex B. However, a small, roughly 8-kilometer section of higher
fencing, impenetrable to pedestrians and wildlife, exists on both sides of the San Pedro River. See
Ex. B.

Id. at 168-69.
Id. at 169-70.
52 While fencing has been constructed along much of El Pinacate’s border with the United States, largely to
protect the designated conservation areas, the majority of the U.S.-Mexico border has no barrier at all. As of
2015, along the entire approximately 1,950-mile (3,138-kilometer) U.S.-Mexico border, 653 miles (1,050kilometers) of border fencing had been constructed. U.S. Congressional Research Service. Border Security:
Immigration Enforcement Between Ports of Entry. Apr. 19, 2016, at 15. Available at:
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42138.pdf.
53 U.S. National Park Service, International Border Vehicle Barrier. Available at:
https://www.nps.gov/orpi/planyourvisit/barrier.htm.
54 Id.
50
51

9

 Photo 1: Vehicle barrier in Organ Pipe NM.
Photo credit: National Park Service

In the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, a similar, 53-kilometer vehicle barrier was
constructed, stretching along the majority of the Refuge’s border with Mexico. 55 Like the fence in
Organ Pipe, the fence along the Cabeza border is low and permeable to wildlife. See Photo 2 below.
Additionally, several sections of the Cabeza border have no barriers whatsoever. See Ex. B.

Photo 2: Vehicle barrier in Cabeza Prieta NWR

Finally, in the Barry M. Goldwater Air Force Range, a military bombing and gunnery range,
the United States has constructed “PF70” fencing along approximately 50 kilometers of the Range’s
roughly 65-kilometer border with El Pinacate. See Ex. B. PF70 fencing is a relatively high wall,
preventing passage of both pedestrians and wildlife. See Photo 3; Ex. B.

Photo 3: Fencing in Barry Goldwater Range
Photo Credit: Mike Christy

See Psomas, Federal Projects: Cabeza Prieta Vehicle Barrier Fence Design-Build. Available at:
http://psomas.com/markets/cabeza-prieta-vehicle-barrier-fence-design-build/.
55

10

 Accordingly, as the IUCN noted in its 2013 evaluation of the property, along most of El
Pinacate’s northern border with the United States, “physical infrastructure is restricted to vehicle
barriers which are in principle permeable for wildlife;” however, “a high metal barrier prevents
migration from and to the Barry M. Goldwater Range.” 56 In total, approximately two-thirds of El
Pinacate’s northern border currently allows relatively free passage of wildlife between the U.S. and
Mexican sides of the Sonoran ecosystem.
IV.

U.S. President Trump’s Proposed Border Wall

Just five days after his inauguration and following through on campaign promises to build an
“impenetrable, physical, tall, powerful, beautiful, southern border wall,” 57 U.S. President Donald
Trump formally directed U.S. agencies to “immediately contruct[ ] a physical wall on the southern
border” of the United States. 58 In a formal Executive Order (“EO”) issued on January 25, 2017,
President Trump directed that the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security “shall immediately . . . take
all appropriate steps to immediately plan, design, and construct a physical wall along the southernborder.” 59
The “wall” referenced in the EO “shall mean a contiguous, physical wall or other similarly
secure, contiguous, and impassable physical barrier,” stretching along the entire “contiguous land
border between the United States and Mexico.” 60 In addition, the EO directed the construction and
operation of new detention facilities “at or near the land border with Mexico,” and the hiring of
“5,000 additional border agents.” 61 And to further tighten security, U.S. federal land management
agencies must permit and enable immigration officers to access and “perform such actions” on all
federal lands – including the three U.S. protected areas bordering El Pinacate – as needed. 62
On February 20, 2017, U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly issued an official
Memorandum entitled Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement
Improvement Policies. 63 The Memorandum directs that the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol
(“CBP”), the U.S. immigration and border security agency, “shall immediately begin planning,
design, construction and maintenance of a wall, including attendant lighting, technology . . ., as well
as patrol and access roads, along the land border with Mexico.” 64

IUCN Evaluation, at 91.
BBC, Donald Trump’s Mexico Wall: Who Is Going to Pay for It? Feb. 6, 2017. Available at:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37243269.
58 Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements (Jan. 24, 2017), Sec. 2(a).
Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/25/executive-order-border-securityand-immigration-enforcement-improvements.
59 Id. at Sec. 4(a).
60 Id. at Sec. 3(e), (b).
61 Id. at Secs. 5(a), 8.
62 Id. at Sec. 12(a), (b).
63 Secretary John Kelly, Implementing the President’s Border Security and Immigration Enforcement
Improvement Policies (Feb. 20, 2017). Available at:
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/17_0220_S1_Implementing-the-Presidents-BorderSecurity-Immigration-Enforcement-Improvement-Policies.pdf.
64 Id. at 5.
56
57

11

 On March 17, 2017, CBP issued two “Requests for Proposals” (“RFPs”) seeking proposals
for contracts for the design and construction of border wall prototypes, including a “Solid Concrete
Border Wall Prototype” and an “Other Border Wall Prototype” to be constructed with non-concrete
materials. The published specifications for both types of walls require the walls to be: (1) at least 18feet (5.5m) high, but optimally up to 30 feet (9.1m), (2) sunk 6-feet (1.8m) underground, (3)
impossible for a human to scale unaided, (4) generally able to prevent a “physical breach . . . by
sledgehammer, car jack, pick axe, . . . Oxy/acetylene torch or other similar hand-held tools,” and (5)
the “north side of wall (i.e. U.S. facing side) shall be aesthetically pleasing.” 65 Proposals for
prototypes of the walls were originally due March 29, 2017, and if selected, prototypes will be
required to be built within 30 days.
In general, the United States has strong environmental laws protecting both wildlife and
protected heritage areas, which would normally require extensive review, evaluation, and
consultation of a border wall’s impacts. 66 However, in 2005, the United States legislature passed a
law referred to as the “Real ID Act,” which allows the U.S. Secretary of the Department of
Homeland Security to “waive all legal requirements,” including all environmental laws, as “necessary
to ensure expeditious construction of the barriers and roads” in “areas of high illegal entry” on the
border. 67 The U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security used this authority to waive environmental laws
before constructing the existing wall along the Barry M. Goldwater Range’s border with the El
Pinacate Site in 2007. 68 It is anticipated that the Secretary will similarly waive otherwise-applicable
environmental laws for the newly proposed border wall construction.
V.

REQUEST TO LIST MEXICO’S EL PINACATE WORLD HERITAGE PROPERTY AS “IN
DANGER” DUE TO THE UNITED STATES’ BORDER WALL EXPANSION AND INCREASED
BORDER SECURITY EFFORTS

Petitioners hereby formally request that the World Heritage Committee list the El Pinacate
and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve World Heritage property as “World Heritage in
Danger” pursuant to Article 11, Paragraph 4 of the World Heritage Convention and request
assistance to remedy the threats to this property. 69 As described above, the El Pinacate property was
inscribed in part to protect the Site’s Outstanding Universal Value of providing “extraordinary
habitat diversity,” including “more than 540 species of vascular plants, 44 mammals, more than 200
birds, over 40 reptiles” with particular emphasis on the endangered Sonoran pronghorn. 70

Solid Concrete Border Wall Prototype RFP, Amendment 7 (Apr. 1, 2017), at C.3.1(2). Available at:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&tab=core&id=68315a606ffc9ea04dc62b4d6b3ede
69&_cview=0; Other Border Wall Prototype , Amendment 7 (Apr. 1, 2017). Available at:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=5eb4c7553ad9aeb62ad3ecf7f216ef3c&tab=co
re&_cview=1.
66 These laws include, among others, the Endangered Species Act (requiring consideration and mitigation of
effects on imperiled species), the National Environmental Policy Act (requiring public notice and full
evaluation of all environmental impacts of U.S. projects), and the National Historic Preservation Act
(requiring evaluation of impacts of U.S. actions on World Heritage sites).
67 See P.L. 109-13 (2005) (emphasis added).
68 72 Fed. Reg. 2,535 (Jan. 19, 2007).
69 World Heritage Convention, at Art. 11(4).
70 WHC Decision 37 COM 8B.16, at 167-69.
65

12

 However, the El Pinacate property and its OUVs are now threatened by “serious and
specific dangers” from the United States government’s proposed construction of an impermeable
border wall and enhanced security efforts that will prevent cross-border migration and habitat use by
Sonoran wildlife. 71 Despite the Mexican government’s generally commendable conservation and
management of the El Pinacate property, the United States’ ecologically irresponsible decision to
build a wall risks serious deterioration of the Site’s wildlife and integrity, threatening the Site’s
OUVs. Accordingly, the El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve World Heritage
property qualifies for “in Danger” listing.
A. Legal Standard for an “in Danger” Listing
As detailed above, under the World Heritage Convention, a World Heritage property may be
listed as “in Danger” if it is “threatened by serious and specific dangers.” 72 The World Heritage
Committee’s Operational Guidelines state that a property may be listed if:
(1) The property faces an “Ascertained Danger,” meaning it “is faced with specific and
proven imminent danger, such as:
…
(ii) Severe deterioration of the natural beauty or scientific value of the property, as by . . .
major public works,
(iii) Human encroachment on boundaries . . . which threaten the integrity of the
property,” or
(c) The property faces a “Potential Danger,” meaning it “is faced with major threats which
could have deleterious effects on its inherent characteristics. Such threats are, for
example: . . .
(ii) planned . . . development projects within the property or so situated that the impacts
threaten the property;” 73
Finally, “major operations” must be “necessary” to conserve the property from its threats. 74
B. The World Heritage Property and Its OUV Species, including the Sonoran
Pronghorn, are “Threatened by Serious and Specific Dangers”
The United States’ imminent construction and expansion of an impermeable border wall
along the entire length of the U.S.-El Pinacate border and its planned enhanced border security
efforts constitute “serious and specific dangers” that threaten the El Pinacate property and its
OUVs. 75 In contrast to the current fencing along much of the border that was intentionally
constructed to be permeable to wildlife, the new, potentially 9-meter high, solid, impenetrable wall

World Heritage Convention, at Art. 11(4).
Id.
73 Id. at IV(B)(180)(a), (b).
74 World Heritage Convention, at Art. 11(4).
75 Id. at Art. 11(4).
71
72

13

 will create a permanent, impassable barrier for wildlife, dividing the Sonoran ecosystem in two,
potentially forever. 76
1. The Border Wall’s Impacts on Sonoran Wildlife and Biodiversity
As detailed above, the Sonoran Desert ecosystem extends well-beyond the Mexican border,
approximately 250 kilometers north into the United States. Unrestricted movement of wildlife across
the border has allowed the continuity of ecological and evolutionary processes for all borderlands
species for millions of years. 77 A solid wall along El Pinacate’s northern border would prevent this
historic movement, possibly leading to a cascade of negative effects for El Pinacate and the greater
Sonoran Desert’s wildlife.
In general, border fences – particularly impermeable border fences – “can cause declines and
even local disappearance of species.” 78 These barriers impede mobility that is essential for many
species’ dispersal, seasonal migration, search for food and water, and escape from predators;
fragment habitat and populations; and can even cause direct mortality. 79 Limiting species’ dispersal
can cause population level effects by “reduc[ing] gene flow between populations . . . , which can lead
to genetic divergence between populations and rapid loss of genetic diversity in small populations.” 80
In fact, “[e]ven slight decreases in dispersal may have large consequences for species’ populations,”
and “smaller isolated populations may . . . be subject to an increased risk of extinction.” 81 “Human
disturbance, vegetation removal and additional barriers, roads and lighting that accompany fences
likely further reduce border permeability” for wildlife. 82
Habitat connectivity is particularly important in the Sonoran Desert region, as geography,
elevation, and moisture gradients severely limit the range of many Sonoran species. 83 The species
most affected by the construction of the wall will be terrestrial species that have restricted habitats,
low reproductive capacity, require large territories, and/or exist in low densities. As such, large
carnivores and large herbivores will be impacted most severely, 84 especially at-risk species like

76 Solid Concrete Border Wall Prototype RFP, Amendment 7 (Apr. 1, 2017), at C.3.1(2); Other Border Wall
Prototype , Amendment 7 (Apr. 1, 2017).
77 Cordova, A. & C.A. del la Parra. 2007. A Barrier to our Shared Environment: The Border Fence between
the United States and Mexico, at 79. Available at:
http://www.inecc.gob.mx/descargas/publicaciones/519.pdf.
78 Trouwborst, A., F, Fleurke, & J. Dubrelle. 2016. Border Fences and their Impacts on Large Carnivores,
Large Herbivores and Biodiversity: An International Wildlife Perspective. RECIEL 25(3) 2016. DOI:
10.1111/reel.12169.
79 Id.; Cordova & del la Parra (2007), at 78.
80 Lasky, J.R., W. Jetz, & T.H. Keitt. 2011. Conservation biogeography of the US-Mexico border: a
transcontinental risk assessment of barriers to animal dispersal. Diversity Distrb. (2011) 1-15. DOI:
10.1111/j.1472-4642.2011.00765x.
81 Id.
82 Id.
83 Flesch, A.D., C.W. Epps, J.W. Cain, M. Clark, P.R. Krausman, & J.R. Morgart. 2009. Potential Effects of
the United States Border Fence on Wildlife. Conserv. Biol. 24: 171-181. doi:10.1111/j.15231739.2009.01277.x.
84 Trouwborst, et al. 2016.

14

 Sonoran pronghorn, bighorn sheep, jaguar, and others. 85 However, barriers can also “affect small
creatures like reptiles, insects, and . . . birds,” including ferruginous pygmy owls, and even plants “by
affecting processes like seed dispersal and pollination.” 86
The World Heritage Committee inscribed the El Pinacate property, in part, due to the area’s
tremendous “biodiversity and threatened species,” 87 including “more than 540 species of vascular
plants, 44 mammals, more than 200 birds, over 40 reptiles.” 88 Several of these species migrate across
the El Pinacate/U.S. border and will be severely impacted by the border wall. 89
Sonoran pronghorn
The Sonoran pronghorn (Antilocapra americana sonoriensis) exists only in one place on Earth –
in the Sonoran Desert of southwestern Arizona and northwestern Mexico. Unfortunately, the
Sonoran pronghorn is among the most endangered mammals, having suffered steep declines. 90 Prior
to European settlement, scientists estimate that around 35 million pronghorn, comprised of five
subspecies, inhabited North America, 91 but as of 2014, only approximately 979 individual Sonoran
pronghorn remain, occupying only approximately 12% of its historical range. 92 The Sonoran
pronghorn’s decline was caused by historic hunting, livestock grazing, drought, and habitat
fragmentation. 93
Due to these declines, Mexico protects the Sonoran pronghorn as “critically endangered”
under its NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010. 94 The Sonoran pronghorn was protected as “endangered”
in the United States in 1967. 95 In 2011, in an effort to re-establish a pronghorn population outside its
then-current range, the Service introduced “a nonessential experimental population” in a defined
area of Arizona. Pronghorn in this bounded area are generally treated as “threatened” under the U.S.
Endangered Species Act, and under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regulations, hunting and direct
take of this population is generally prohibited. 96
López-González, C. A., N. E. Lara-Díaz, D- Ávila-Aguilar & M. F. Cruz-Torres. 2012. Áreas de interés
binacional para mantener la conectividad de poblaciones de fauna silvestre compartida con potenciales
afectaciones por la construcción del muro fronterizo. Informe Final de la Universidad Autónoma de
Querétaro al Instituto Nacional de Ecología. 292 pp y 3 anexos digitales.
86 Trouwborst, et al. 2016.
87 Id. at 168.
88 WHC Decision 37 COM 8B.16, at 1668.
89 Mexico WH Nomination, at 61 (highlighting at-risk species that inhabit El Pinacate), 255.
90 Klimova, A. 2013. Diversidad Genética y Diferenciación Poblacional de Dos Subespecies amenazadas del
Berrendo (Antilocapra americana). Thesis. Available at: http://biblio.uabcs.mx/tesis/te2892.pdf.
91 Final U.S. Pronghorn Recovery Plan, at 10.
92 Id. at 11, 7.
93 Id. at 3.
94 NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010, Protección ambiental-Especies nativas de
México de flora y fauna silvestres-Categorías de riesgo y especificaciones para su inclusión, exclusión o
cambio-Lista de especies en riesgo. Available at:
http://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle_popup.php?codigo=5173091.
95 32 Fed. Reg. 4001 (March 11, 1967). The Sonoran pronghorn was listed under the predecessor statute to
the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), and was later included as an endangered species when the ESA was
enacted in 1973.
96 76 Fed. Reg. 25,610 (May 5, 2011).
85

15

 Mexico’s original proposal for the El Pinacate World Heritage Site, the IUCN’s evaluation of
the Site, and the World Heritage Committee’s ultimate inscription of the Site all specifically
highlighted the Sonoran pronghorn as a key species on the Site. 97 Most importantly, in inscribing the
property and recognizing the area’s “extraordinary habitat diversity” as one of the Site’s official
OUVs, the Committee specifically highlighted “the Sonoran Pronghorn” as one of the key species
for which El Pinacate provides habitat. 98
However, both the survival and the recovery of the Sonoran pronghorn are threatened by
the imminent construction of the U.S. border wall, as well as by substantially increased border
security activities. Pronghorn require “vast areas of unencumbered open range” that allow
pronghorn to “freely travel long distances between localized, seasonally sporadic rainfall” in search
of food. 99 Habitat fragmentation remains a key threat to the species, including fragmentation caused
by “physical barriers,” such as “border infrastructure, fences, . . . [and] roads.” 100 Fences are a
“particular” concern because pronghorn rarely jump fences, although they may try to crawl
underneath. Accordingly, unless a fence is raised 16 inches above the ground, it is “impassable to
pronghorn.” 101
The current international border fence in the pronghorn’s habitat “is primarily a vehicle
barrier fence that is passable” by the animals. 102 However, the United States’ proposed 18- to 30foot (5.5- to 9-m) high, impermeable border wall, dug six-feet into the ground, will unquestionably
be impassable to Sonoran pronghorn, permanently cutting off the species’ northern and southern
populations, preventing dispersal and much-needed gene flow. Particularly because the existing
Sonoran pronghorn population is already small, at-risk, and will now be further isolated, the border
wall threatens the existence and certainly the recovery of the Sonoran pronghorn. 103 As the United
States’ wildlife protection agency, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“the Service”), has noted, a
“reduction in the amount of usable pronghorn habitat or any loss in habitat connectivity would reduce
the resiliency of each population and increase the risk of extinction, especially during severe
drought.” 104
In addition to the border wall, increased border security activities along the U.S.-Mexico
border will harm and harass the existing Sonoran population, particularly because pronghorn are
extremely sensitive to disturbance. In its Recovery Plan, the Service listed “Border Activities” as one
of the top factors threatening the pronghorn’s existence, noting evidence of pronghorn “avoiding
areas of high cross-border violator traffic and law enforcement activities.” 105 During an observation
of border impacts from aircraft and vehicles in 2013, the Service reported that “Sonoran pronghorn
experienced some form of border-related potential disturbance once every 4 hours of observation,”

See Mexico WH Nomination, at 61, 96-97, 99, 116, 121, 126; IUCN Evaluation, at 91.
Id. at 168-69.
99 Final U.S. Pronghorn Recovery Plan, at 90.
100 Id. at 44.
101 Id. at 45, citing Brown, D. E., and R. A. Ockenfels. 2007. Arizona's pronghorn antelope: a conservation
legacy. Arizona Antelope Foundation, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.190 pp.
102 Id.
103 See Lasky (2011).
104 Final U.S. Pronghorn Recovery Plan, at 103.
105 Id. at 36, 70.
97
98

16

 by either running or exhibiting a vigilance stance. 106 Accordingly, the Service’s Sonoran pronghorn
recovery plan specifically recommended the “minimiz[ation] and mitigat[ion of] impacts of borderrelated activity on Sonoran pronghorn habitat.” 107 However, the proposed increased border security
activity by the United States will only increase disturbance to the existing Sonoran pronghorn in the
El Pinacate Site and broader borderlands region.
In evaluating and later inscribing the El Pinacate property, both the IUCN and the World
Heritage Committee were highly aware of the impacts of then-existing border activities/barriers and
associated decreased habitat connectivity on Sonoran pronghorn. As noted above, the IUCN’s 2013
assessment of the Site specifically acknowledged “increasing concerns about the connectivity of the
land both with Sonora and across the international border, including for Sonoran Pronghorn” as an
already-existing “threat” to the Site. 108 Thus the World Heritage Committee formally “encourage[d]”
Mexico and the United States to strengthen cooperation on “saving the Sonoran pronghorn from
possible extinction” and “fully consider environmental concerns in security effects along the
international border.” 109 Unfortunately, by proposing and soon constructing a massive border wall
along the El Pinacate site, the United States is realizing and dramatically intensifying these
acknowledged threats.
Desert bighorn sheep
Similar to impacts on Sonoran pronghorn, the proposed U.S. border wall and security
activities will also threaten desert bighorn sheep (Ovis canadiensis). In its nomination documents for
the property, Mexico specifically highlighted the area’s habitat for bighorn sheep. 110 Similarly, in its
2013 assessment discussing the already-existing “[t]hreats” to the El Pinacate site, the IUCN noted
“increasing concerns about the connectivity of the land both with Sonora and across the
international border, including for . . . Desert Bighorn Sheep.” 111 And bighorn sheep were no doubt
among the “44 mammals” the Committee referenced in establishing the OUV for the El Pinacate
property. 112
Desert bighorn sheep were once broadly distributed in northern Mexico and in the
southwestern United States but declined severely due to hunting and fragmentation and loss of
habitat. The desert bighorn sheep is “subject to special protection” in Mexico, 113 and the Cabeza
Prieta National Wildlife Refuge was established, in part, to protect the species. In order to maintain
viable populations, this “species must extend to both sides of the border.” 114

Id. at 70.
Id. at 121.
108 IUCN Evaluation, at 91.
109 WHC Decision 37 COM 8B.16, at 169-70.
110 Mexico WH Nomination, at 61 (highlighting at-risk species that inhabit El Pinacate).
111 IUCN Evaluation, at 93 (emphasis added).
112 Id.
113 Mexico WH Nomination, at 61.
114 Cordova & del la Parra (2007); Pelz-Serrano, K., E. Ponce-Guevara, R. Sierra-Corona, R. List and G.
Ceballos. 2006. Recent records of Desert Bighorn Sheep (Ovis canadensis mexicana) in eastern Sonora and
Northwestern Chihuahua, Mexico. The Southwestern Naturalist 51:430-434.
106
107

17

 In their 2009 paper, Flesch et al. assessed the potential effects of construction of a U.S.Mexico border wall on wildlife by focusing on two Sonoran species – the desert bighorn sheep and
the ferruginous pygmy-owl. 115 At the time of the study, nine of eleven Sonoran Desert bighorn
sheep populations were “linked by gene flow and male dispersal” across the border. 116
Flesch et al. noted that “[b]ecause populations of bighorn sheep are often small and
fragmented, connectivity among them is particularly important.” Accordingly, construction of an
impermeable border fence between Mexico and the United States “would disrupt an extensive
population network of desert bighorn sheep. In addition to preventing transboundary movements,”
the wall would “eliminate or weaken linkages among some populations on both sides of the border,”
leading to potentially small population sizes at risk of extinction. 117 A border wall “would also reduce
probability of recolonization after local extinction, compounding effects of changing resource
availabilities due to climate change.” The authors further noted that, while their paper focused on
“physical barriers” on the border, “associated lighting, vehicle traffic, and human activity may
further degrade connectivity and warrant detailed consideration.” 118
Construction of a border wall and the attendant increased border security activities would
harm and threaten desert bighorn sheep, one of the key species the El Pinacate World Heritage Site
was inscribed to protect.
Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl
The proposed U.S. border wall and security activities will also threaten the ferruginous
pygmy-owl (Glaucidium brasilianum), a tiny owl that could fit in the palm of a human’s hand. In its
nomination documents for the property, Mexico specifically highlighted the area’s habitat for
ferruginous pygmy-owls, as well as other owls. 119 Owls were certainly among the “more than 200
birds” the Committee referenced in establishing the OUV for the El Pinacate property.” 120
Ferruginous pygmy-owls are “threatened” under Mexican conservation law, 121 and the species “has
declined to endangered levels in Arizona.” 122
While it is easy to envision how a border wall blocks connectivity for large, terrestrial
mammals, landscape connectivity for birds is often assumed. However, recent studies demonstrate
that vegetation gaps can slow or limit movements, especially by nonmigratory birds such as pygmyowls, whose flights involve steep descents from low perches followed by direct-level flight near the
ground. 123 As noted above, Flesch et al. (2009) evaluated the effects of a border wall on pygmy-owls
Flesch et al (2009).
Id.
117 Id.; see also Cordova & del la Parra (2007) (concluding that, if constructed, “the natural recovery of the
bighorn in northern Mexico and the viability of its populations in the border region would suffer”).
118 Id.
119 Mexico WH Nomination, at 63 (highlighting at-risk species that inhabit El Pinacate).
120 WHC Decision 37 COM 8B.16, at 169-70.
121 Mexico WH Nomination, at 63.
122 Flesch et al. (2009).
123 Enríquez-Rocha, P. y Rangel, J. L. 2008. Ficha técnica de Glaucidium brasilianum. En: Escalante-Pliego, P.
(compilador). Fichas sobre las especies de Aves incluidas en el Proyecto de Norma Oficial Mexicana PROYNOM-ECOL-2000. Parte 2. Instituto de Biología, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Bases de
datos SNIBCONABIO. Proyecto No. W042. México, D.F.
115
116

18

 and found that their flights reached only 1.4 meters above the ground on average, and only 23% of
flights exceeded 4 meters, the height of existing border fences (the U.S. proposal is for 5.4 to 9.1 m
wall). 124 Flesch concluded that “large vegetation gaps coupled with tall fences may limit
transboundary movements of pygmy owls,” reducing dispersal. Because pygmy owl populations in
Arizona are low compared to Sonoran populations, “maintaining a transboundary connectivity” is
important to “recovery of owl populations.” 125
Jaguar
Jaguars (Panthera onca) are one of the most iconic Sonoran species, 126 and in 2016, two jaguars
were documented as having crossed the border from Mexico into the United States. While the most
important corridors for jaguars between Mexico and Arizona are likely outside of the El Pinacate
Site, jaguars were noted in Mexico’s World Heritage nomination documents for the Site due to their
at least intermittent presence in the area. 127 However, construction of a border wall would “separate
the small segment of the borderlands [jaguar] population in Arizona from those in northeastern
Sonora, Mexico, thereby eliminating dispersal and preventing recovery in jaguar numbers or range
north of the border.” 128 Natural recovery of jaguars in the United States – and further recovery of
jaguars within Mexico – requires cross-border migration. 129
Other Sonoran Species
Many of the other “44 mammals, more than 200 birds, [and] over 40 reptiles” recognized as
part of the El Pinacate World Heritage Site’s OUV will be impacted by the United States’ proposed
border wall. 130
The Sonoran or Couse white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus couesi) occurs in multiple,
seemingly isolated, populations in the borderlands region. For example, a population persists in the
Ajo Mountains within Organ Pipe National Monument, while a somewhat larger population occurs
in the Cubabi Mountains 30 kilometers away in Sonora. Natural connectivity of these populations is
already limited, and due to the animals’ small size, even relatively low barriers may be an obstacle to
dispersal. Construction of a border wall would completely and irrevocably isolate populations in the
United States from those in Mexico. 131

Flesch et al. (2009).
Id.
126 Mexico’s proposal for El Pinacate’s World Heritage listing noted the Sonoran habitat for the jaguar.
Mexico WH Nomination, at 255.
127 Id.
128 McCain, E. B., & Childs, J. L. (2008). Evidence of Resident Jaguars (Panthera onca) in the Southwestern
United States and the Implications for Conservation. Journal of Mammalogy, 89(1), 1–10.
http://doi.org/10.1644/07-MAMM-F-268.1
129 Cordova & del la Parra (2007); Flesch et al. (2009).
130 WHC Decision 37 COM 8B.16, at 168.
131 López-González, C. A., N. E. Lara-Díaz, D- Ávila-Aguilar y M. F. Cruz-Torres. 2012. Áreas de interés
binacional para mantener la conectividad de poblaciones de fauna silvestre compartida con potenciales
afectaciones por la construcción del muro fronterizo. Informe Final de la Universidad Autónoma de
Querétaro al Instituto Nacional de Ecología. 292 pp y 3 anexos digitales.
124
125

19

 Mexico’s El Pinacate nomination proposal also noted that endangered desert pupfish
(Cyprinodon macularius) are present on the Site in a channel of the Sonoyta River. 132 Much of the
Sonoyta River’s high basin is located in the United States, contributing to water flow further south.
However, the current base flow of the main riverbed of the Sonoyta River as it crosses the border
into Sonoyta, Mexico is already greatly reduced. 133 A border wall will likely function as a dam for
many waterways crossing border areas, including the Sonoyta River, and will almost certainly alter
the hydrology of waterways within the Site that have consistent flow, as well as intermittent washes
or drainages. 134 If water is obstructed or water availability changes due to the U.S. border wall, the
desert pupfish of the Sonoyta River will be affected.
In addition, a 2011 paper published by Lasky et al. identified 313 other species, including
numerous Sonoran Desert species, that would be “potentially at risk from current border dispersal
barriers.” 135 Flesch el al. also noted desert tortoise and other non-migratory birds such as wild
turkeys and quail may be affected by a border wall.
2. The El Pinacate Site Is Threatened by U.S. Construction and Expansion of its
Border Wall and Qualifies as World Heritage “in Danger”
The United States’ construction of a border wall, as well as its planned enhanced border
security efforts, constitute “serious and specific dangers” that threaten the El Pinacate Site. The
United States’ actions are a “specific and proven imminent danger” to the El Pinacate property
because the U.S. actions constitute: (1) “major public work[s]” that will cause “[s]evere deterioration
of the natural beauty or scientific value of the property,” and (2) “[h]uman encroachment on
boundaries . . . which threaten the integrity of the property,” including its OUV-recognized wildlife
species like the Sonoran pronghorn, desert bighorn sheep, and ferruginous pygmy-owl. Additionally
and alternatively, the United States’ construction of a border wall and enhanced border security
activities are “major threats which could have deleterious effects on [the property’s] inherent
characteristics” because they constitute “planned . . . development projects . . . so situated that the
impacts threaten the property” and its OUV-recognized wildlife. 136 Accordingly, the El Pinacate and
Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve World Heritage property qualifies for “in Danger” listing.
Additionally, “major operations” are “necessary” to conserve the El Pinacate property and
its OUVs from the serious threats presented above. 137 While individuals and organizations within
both Mexico and the United States are advocating against the wall’s construction, international
Mexico WH Nomination, at 64, 101; see also De Lourdes, M. & M. Ruiz, El Agua en la Reserva de la
Biosfera el Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar, Sonora, México: Comunidades, Vida Silvestre y la Frontera con
Estados Unidos. Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 40, Spring 2000. Endemic Fish: 420-421.
133 Pinacate Biosphere Reserve and the Great Altar Desert Management Plan. Comisión Nacional de Areas
Naturales Protegidas. December 1995.
134 For example, in 2008, a U.S. concrete barrier constructed in a border storm water tunnel to prevent
immigration likely caused a flood in Nogales, Mexico, costing over $8 million in damage, including to 578
homes. An aboveground border to east “further escalated the damage” by stopping water that would have
flowed into the United States. See Brady McCombs. Mexico ties flooding in Nogales to U.S. Border Patrolbuilt wall. ARIZONA STAR. July 23, 2008. Available at: http://tucson.com/news/local/border/mexico-tiesflooding-in-nogales-to-u-s-border-patrol/article_a11265b0-17c3-5bed-b50a-72e5d17e1369.html.
135 Lasky et al. (2011).
136 Id. at IV(B)(180)(a), (b).
137 World Heritage Convention, at Art. 11(4).
132

20

 attention on this important conservation issue is essential to ensure that President Trump’s wall
and/or other border barriers are not built in a location or manner that impairs the El Pinacate Site
and the wildlife and other OUVs the Site is designated to protect. 138 The Committee’s involvement
and recommendations regarding this Site and the threats associated with the United States’
construction of a border wall are especially critical, since the Trump Administration has authority to
– and is likely to – exempt itself from any U.S. laws that would otherwise require consideration,
avoidance, and/or mitigation of the wall’s impacts on wildlife, the environment, or the El Pinacate
World Heritage Site. 139
Finally, we believe sending a monitoring mission to “ascertain . . . the present condition of
the property” and its threats would bring valuable attention to the issues and provide additional and
needed information regarding the implementation and enforcement of existing protective
measures. 140
3. The Border Wall Will Harm the Tohono O’odham and Their Cultural Practices
In addition to the threats to the El Pinacate Site’s recognized OUVs, the proposed U.S.
border wall will also severely harm the Tohono O’odham indigenous peoples and impair their longstanding religious and cultural practices both on the Site and in Arizona. As described above, both
Mexico’s nomination document and the IUCN recognized the Site’s historic and present-day
cultural importance for the Tohono O’odham, whose traditional lands are split by the U.S.-Mexico
border. 141 Both Mexico and IUCN noted the Site is sacred and still regularly used for ceremonial
purposes. 142
As further detailed in the Statement of José Martín Garcia Lewis, Governor General of the
O’odham in Sonora, Mexico, submitted concurrently as Exhibit A with this petition:
[The O’odham’s] customary uses of Schuk Toak (Pinacate Mountain) and its
surrounding desert stretching into . . . Arizona encompass all aspects of O’odham
life, from our creation to burial . . . At the Pinacate, our creator made and then
defended us against destructive forces before finally leaving us with a ceremony to
remember the creator by. In the Pinacate, since time immemorial, O’odham have
carried out ceremonies, including the Men’s Salt Ceremony and Pilgrimage, which
continues today in 2017. 143
Recognizing the importance of these ceremonies and the necessity for passage along the border, a
2007 Tohono O’odham Nation Resolution (No. 07-714), specifically “calls for protecting salt
Id.
See P.L. 109-13 (2005) (emphasis added). Even if construction of the wall on the northern border of the
Site moves forward, involvement of the Committee could also help lessen or mitigate the impacts of such
construction on the Site and its OUVs. Mitigation could include wildlife crossing structures, fence gaps large
enough to accommodate small and larger wildlife, and maintaining vegetation for owls near the border,
among other measures.
140 Id. at IV(B)(184).
141 Mexico WH Nomination, at 19, 4, 69, 111, 114; IUCN Evaluation, at 90.
142 Mexico WH Nomination, at 75; IUCN Evaluation, at 111.
143 Ex. B.
138
139

21

 pilgrimage routes including but not limited to ‘the Salinas and traditional salt pilgrimage routes in
Organ Pipe National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, the Barry M. Goldwater
Range, the EI Pinacate-Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve, and the Alto Golfo del California
Biosphere Reserve.’” 144
The O’odham’s customary use of the Site “is directly threatened by further United States
militarization of the binational border . . . in the form of a wall.” 145 As Governor General Garcia
describes, “a wall would deny the O’odham mobility . . . A wall constructed among our O’odham
people will deny us our human heritage: spiritual, cultural, social, and political” and harm “our right
to openly practice our religion, to care and manage for desert resources including species that
comprise our Himdag (culture), to maintain our family ties, . . . secure access to our material culture
in the Sonoran Desert,” among other issues. 146 Thus the O’odham “steadfastly oppose any physical
barriers that would hinder physical access for us O’odham in Sonora, Mexico and for Tohono
O’odham in the United States . . . for we are one O’odham people.”
VI.

CONCLUSION

As detailed above, Petitioners formally request that the World Heritage Committee request
assistance for and list the El Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve World Heritage
Site as “World Heritage in Danger” pursuant to the World Heritage Convention. 147 The El Pinacate
property was inscribed in part in recognition of the area’s “extraordinary habitat diversity.” 148
However, the property and its OUVs face “serious and specific dangers” from the harm that will be
caused to the property and its wildlife from the United States’ construction of a “secure, contiguous,
and impassable physical barrier” along the entire El Pinacate-U.S. border. 149
We ask that the Committee act quickly to review this Petition, in hopes that it may warrant
substantial discussion at the Committee’s next session to be held in Krakow, Poland in July of this
year. If you have any questions regarding this Petition or would like additional information, we
welcome and encourage you to contact us anytime.
Sincerely,

Sarah Uhlemann
International Program Director &
Senior Attorney
Tanya Sanerib
Senior Attorney
Center for Biological Diversity
Id.
Id.
146 Id.
147 Id. at Art. 11(4).
148 Id.
149 World Heritage Convention, at Art. 11(4); WHC Operational Guidelines, at IV(B)(177) (listing “in Danger”
criteria); Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, Sec. 3(e), (b).
144
145

22

 2400 NW 80th Street, #146
Seattle, WA 98117
+1-206-327-2344
suhlemann@biologicaldiversity.org
Alejandro Olivera
México Representative
Center for Biological Diversity
Álvaro Obregón 460-D Local 201
Colonia Centro, 23000
La Paz, BCS, Mexico
+521-612-104-0604
aolivera@biologicaldiversity.org
Distributed to:
World Heritage Center:
Mechtild Rössler
Director
UNESCO World Heritage Centre
7 Place Fontenoy, 75352, Paris 07 SP
France
M.Rossler@unesco.org
Mexico:
H.E. Juan Manuel Gomez-Robledo
Ambassador
Permanent Delegate of Mexico de l’UNESCO
Mrs Emma Maria José Rodriguez Sifuentes
Minister, Deputy Permanent Delegate
Maison de l'UNESCO
Bureaux B13.31- 32
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
France
dl.mexique@unesco-delegations.org

United States:
Mr. Chris Hegadorn
Chargé d’Affaires, Deputy Permanent Delegate
U.S. Mission to UNESCO
American Embassy
12, avenue Raphaël
75016 PARIS
France

Lazare Eloundou Assomo
Deputy Director
UNESCO World Heritage Centre
7 Place Fontenoy, 75352, Paris 07 SP
France
L.Eloundou-Assomo@unesco.org
Maestro Aurelio Nuño Mayer
Doctor Benito Mirón López
Licenciado César Guerrero Arellano
Licenciado Mauricio Yáñez Bernal
Mexican Commission for Cooperation with
UNESCO (CONALMEX)
Donceles No. 100, 2° piso
06020 Centro Historico
MEXICO, D.F.
Mexico
benito.miron@nube.sep.gob.mx
cesarg@nube.sep.gob.mx
conalmex@sep.gob.mx
mauricioy@nube.sep.gob.mx
Mr. Paul T. Mungai
Acting Executive Director
U.S. National Commission for UNESCO
U.S. Department of State
2401 E Street NW, #L-409
Suite 6200
Washington, DC 20037
23

 ParisUNESCO@state.gov
dl.usa@unesco-delegations.org

USA
dcunesco@state.gov

World Heritage Committee Members:
Angola:
H. E. Mr. Diekumpuna Sita N’sadisi José
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Maison de l’UNESCO
Bureau MR.31/32
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
France
dl.angola@unesco-delegations.org

M. M’pinda Simao
M. Manuel Teodoro Quarta
Angola National Commission for UNESCO
C.P. 1451
LUANDA
Angola
unesco2@snet.co.ao
mtquarta@hotmail.com

Azerbaijan:
H. E. Mr. Anar Karimov
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Maison de l’UNESCO
Bureau B.12.29
1, rue Miollis
75732 Paris Cedex 15
France
dl.azerbaidjan@unesco-delegations.org
Burkina Faso:
H. E. Mr. Alain Francis Gustave Ilboudo
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Maison de l’UNESCO
Bureau M4.35/36/37/38
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
France
dl.burkina-faso@unesco-delegations.org

Croatia:
H.E. Mr. Ivo Goldstein
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
of the Republic of Croatia to France
Permanent Delegate of Croatia to UNESCO
Maison de l’UNESCO
Bureau M.3.44
1, rue Miollis
75732 Paris Cedex 15
France

M. Elmar Mammadyarov
Mr. Elnur Sultanov
National Commission of the Republic of Azerbaijan
for UNESCO
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Shikhali Gurbanov Str. 4
1009 Baku
Azerbaijan
unesco@mfa.gov.az
M. Filiga Michel Sawadogo
Monsieur Sanmalmé Aristide Dabire
Commission nationale burkinabé pour l’UNESCO
Ministère des enseignements secondaire, supérieur et
de la recherche scientifique
03 B.P. 7046
OUAGADOUGOU 03
Burkina Faso
conasco@fasonet.bf
sanmalme@yahoo.fr
Mr. Radoslav Tomić
Kresimir Nemec
Mrs. Rut Carek
Croatian Commission for UNESCO
Ministry of Culture
Runjaninova 2
10 000 Zagreb
Croatia
unesco@min-kulture.hr
24

 dl.croatie@unesco-delegations.org

Rut.Carek@min-kulture.hr

Cuba:
H. E. Mrs. Dulce Maria Buergo Rodriguez
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Maison de l’UNESCO
Bureau M6.34
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
France
dl.cuba@unesco-delegations.org

Sr. Oscar León
Cuban National Commission for UNESCO
Ave. Kohly n° 151, esq. 32 Nuevo Vedado
La Habana
Cuba
cncu@cncu.minrex.gob.cu
oscarlg@cncu.minrex.gob.cu

Finland:
H. E. Mr Pekka Puustinen
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Maison de l'UNESCO
Bureau M3.35
1, rue Miollis
75732 Paris Cedex 15
France
dl.finlande@unesco-delegations.org

Indonesia:
H. E. Mr. Hotmangaradja Pandjaitan
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Maison de l'UNESCO
Bureau M1.24
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
France
dl.indonesia@unesco-delegations.org
Jamaica:
H. E. Mrs. Vilma Kathleen Mc Nish
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Avenue Hansen Soulie, 77
1040 Brussels
Belgium
dl.jamaique@unesco-delegations.org
emb.jam.brussels@skynet.be

Ms. Jutta Urpilainen
Ms. Johanna Maula
Ms. Zabrina Holmström
Finnish National Commission for UNESCO
Ministry of Education and Culture
International Relations
P.O. Box 29
FIN-00023 Government
Finland
unesco@minedu.fi
zabrina.holmstrom@minedu.fi
Dr. Muhadjir Effendy
Dr. H. Arief Rachman
Indonesian National Commission for UNESCO
Ministry of National Education
Gedung C., Lt 17
Jalan Jenderal Sudirman - Senayan
10270 Jakarta
Indonesia
aspnetind@cbn.net.id
H. E. Ms. Olivia Grange
Everton Hannam
Jamaica National Commission for UNESCO
ISA Building, 3rd Floor
14-20 Port Royal Street
Kingston
Jamaica
jamaicanatcom@jncunesco.gov.jm

Kazakhstan:
25

 H.E. Mr Nurlan Danenov
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
59, rue Pierre Charron
75008 Paris
France
unescokz@unescokz.org
unesco@mfa.kz

Kuwait:
H. E. Mr. Meshal Hayat
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Maison de l'UNESCO
Bureaux MS1.11/MS1.12
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
France
dl.kuwait@unesco-delegations.org
Lebanon:
H. E. Mr Khalil Karam
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Maison de l'UNESCO
Bureau M6.06
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
dl.liban@unesco-delegations.org
Peru:
H.E. Mr. Jose Manuel Rodriguez Cuadros
Ambassador
Permanent Delegate of Peru to UNESCO
Maison de l’UNESCO
Bureau M7.46-45-441, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
France
dl.peru@unesco-delegations.org

Philippines:
H.E. Ms. Maria Theresa P. Lazaro
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Maison de l’UNESCO
Bureau MS2.44

Mr. Arystanbek Mukhamediuly
Ms. Assel Utegenova
Kazakhstan National Commission for UNESCO
31 Kunayev street
010000 Astana
Kazakhstan
a.utegenova@mfa.kz
zh.shaimenova@mfa.kz
b.khabibulla@mfa.kz
M. Bader Al-Essa
Mrs. Nadiya Al-Wazzan
Kuwait National Commission for UNESCO
P.O. Box 3266
13033 Safat
Kuwait
knc.kwtnatcom@gmail.com

Mr. Henri Awit
Dr. Zahida DARWICHE JABBOUR
Lebanese National Commission for UNESCO
Rue Mme Curie
Ministère de la Culture
BEYROUTH
République Libanaise
info@lncu.org
Sra. Marilú Martens
Sra. Oriana María Suarez Perez
Peruvian National Commission of Cooperation for
UNESCO
Calle Del Comercio
N° 193 - San Borja
LIMA
Perú
comiunesco@minedu.gob.pe
comiunesco@gmail.com
vsanchez@minedu.gob.pe
Hon. Enrique Manalo
Lila Ramos Shahani
UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines
G/F Department of Foreign Affairs Bldg.
26

 1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
France
dl.philippines@unesco-delegations.org
Poland:
H. E. Ms. Krystyna Zurek
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Maison de l’UNESCO
B7.13
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
France
dl.pologne@unesco-delegations.org
krystyna.zurek@msz.gov.pl
Portugal:
H. E. Mr José Filipe Mendes Moraes Cabral
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Maison de l’UNESCO
Bureaux M2.25
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cédex 15
France
dl.portugal@unesco-delegations.org
Republic of Korea:
H.E. Mr. Lee Byong Hyun
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Tour Montparnasse (19th floor)
33, avenue du Maine
75015 Paris
France
dl.coree-rep@unesco-delegations.org
Tunisia:
H. E. Mr Ghazi Gherairi
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Maison de l’UNESCO
Bureau M1.44
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
France
dl.tunisie@unesco-delegations.org

2330 Roxaz Boulevard
Pasay City
Philippines
secretariat@unesco.gov.ph
Prof. Jacek Purchla
Mr. Slawomir Ratajski
Ms. Aleksandra Waclawczyk
Polish National Commission for UNESCO
Palac Kultury i Nauki, 7 P
Pl. Defilad 1
00-901 Warsaw
Poland
komitet@unesco.pl
s.ratajski@unesco.pl
H. E. Amb. Ana Martinho
Ms. Rita Brasil de Brito
Portuguese National Commission for UNESCO
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Largo das Necessidades
1350-215 Lisboa
Portugal
cnu@mne.pt
rita.brasilbrito@mne.pt
Mr. Lee Joon Sik
Mr. Dong-seok Min
Korean National Commission for UNESCO
26 Myeongdong-gil (UNESCO road)
Jung-gu
Seoul 100-810
Republic of Korea
kocom@unesco.or.kr
M. Naji Jalloul
Monsieur Mokhtar Khalfaoui
Mlle. Héla Souhabi
M. Tarak Jebali
Tunisian National Commission for Education,
Science and Culture
22 Rue de Carthagène
El Manar I
2092 TUNIS
27

 Tunisie
comnatu@edunet.tn
hela.souhabi@minedu.edunet.tn
Turkey:
H. E. Mr. Ahmet Altay Cengizer
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Maison de l’UNESCO
Bureau B11.39
1, rue Miollis
75732 PARIS Cedex 15
France
dl.turquie@unesco-delegations.org

United Republic of Tanzania:
H. E. Mr. Samwel William Shelukindo
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
Ambassade de Tanzanie
7ter, rue Leonard de Vinci
75116 Paris
France
ambtanzanie@wanadoo.fr
dl.tanzanie@unesco-delegations.org

Viet Nam:
H.E. Mr. Le Hong Phan
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
61, rue Miromesnil
75008 Paris
France
unescovn@yahoo.com

Zimbabwe:
H. E. Mrs. Rudo Mabel Chitiga
Ambassador, Permanent Delegate
10, rue Jacques Bingen

Prof. Dr. M. Öcal Oğuz
Ambassador Mr. Hüsnü Gürcan Türkoğlu
Assist. Prof. Dr. M. Akif Kireçci
Ms. Sema Dinçer
Ms. İrem Alpaslan
Turkish National Commission for UNESCO
Reşit Galip Cad. Hereke Sok. No :10
G.O.P. Ankara
Turkey
webmaster@unesco.org.tr
ocal@bilkent.edu.tr
semadincer@unesco.org.tr
iremalpaslan@unesco.org.tr
suleurun@unesco.org.tr
Professor Eliphas Bisanda
Dr. Moshi Kimizi
UNESCO National Commission of the United
Republic of Tanzania
P.O. Box 20384
Dar-es-Salaam
United Republic of Tanzania
moshikimizi@yahoo.co.uk
ericksq@yahoo.co.uk
joelsamuel@yahoo.com
musarochec@yahoo.com
H.E. Mr. Le Hoai Trung
Mr. Pham Vinh Quang
Ms. Tran Thi Hoang Mai
Viet Nam National Commission for UNESCO
8 Khuc Hao Street
Ba Dinh
Ha Noi
Viet Nam
unescovn@mofa.gov.vn
Prof. Jonathan Moyo
Ms. M. J. Chirapa
Dr. Washington T. Mbizvo
28

 75017 Paris
France

Zimbabwe National Commission for UNESCO
Ministry of Higher and Tertiary Education
P. Bag CY 7732
Causeway
Harare
Zimbabwe
zimnatcom@gmail.com

29

 Exhibit A:
Statement of José Martín Garcia Lewis,
Governor General of the O’odham in Sonora, Mexico

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland;
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed Border Wall

Statement of José Martín Garcia Lewis,
Governor General of the O’odham in Sonora, Mexico
April 26, 2017

Schuk Toak (Pinacate) photo:
CC BY-SA 3.0

1.0 Summary Declaration of the O’odham in Mexico
1. 1 Call for Investigation into the Pinacate World Heritage Site
2.0 O’odham Customary Uses of the Sonoran Desert in Four Ecological Zones

1
3
4

2.1 Suppression of O’odham Spiritual, Ecological, and Cultural Practices

5

2.2 O’odham Legal Rights in Light of US Border Militarization

7

2.3 United States’ Disloyalty to the O’odham People

9

2.4 Threats to Biological Species & O’odham Traditional Knowledge

10

Appendix I: Species in the Pinacate: Endemic, threatened, endangered,
under protective status.

11

Appendix II: Statement of Tohono O’odham Tribal Member, Ken Josemaria
regarding the Pinacate.

15

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall
The Pinacate, located in Northern Sonora, México is bordered on the North by three special
ecological and public use zones in Arizona, USA: the Barry M. Goldwater Military Range, the Cabeza
Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, and the Organ Pipe National Monument. Together the four special
areas comprise the international border between the United States and Mexico, a border that
physically bisects the traditional O’odham homeland into two pieces. That total area is part of the
original O’odham homeland.
O’odham customary use of the Pinacate and Desierto Gran Altar Biosphere Reserve and UNESCO
International Heritage Site is directly threatened by further United States militarization of the
binational border for O’odham in the form of a wall. We steadfastly oppose any physical barriers
that would hinder physical access for us O’odham in Sonora, Mexico and for Tohono O’odham in
the United States to the area of our original homeland, including the Pinacate; for we are one
O’odham people.
Some 2/3rds of the 2,000 O’odham in Sonora remain as legal members of the Tohono O’odham
Nation (TON), and the additional O’odham in Sonora unaffiliated with the TON are descendants of
O’odham by community and family ties. As the Governor General of the O’odham in Sonora, I
support The Tohono O’odham Nation’s Resolution no. 07-714 (Nov. 5th, 2007) which calls for
protecting salt pilgrimage routes including but not limited to “the Salinas and traditional salt
pilgrimage routes in Organ Pipe National Monument, Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, the
Barry M. Goldwater Range, the EI Pinacate-Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve, and the Alto
Golfo del California Biosphere Reserve.” [bold added].
A wall would deny the O’odham mobility, another in a long history of such denials. O’odham have
the right to move freely in our homeland - equal to all other citizens of the world in the exercise
of their patrimony. A wall constructed among our O’odham people will deny us our human
heritage: spiritual, cultural, social, and political. It will constitute an act of ecocide for species
living in the Pinacate and its perimeter, and commit cultural genocide against the O’odham in
Mexico who live in the Pinacate’s near environs covering four municipalities of Gral. Plutarco Elías
Calles, Puerto Peñasco, San Luis Colorado, and Altar.
We will defend those sovereign rights as indigenous peoples recognized by the United States under
the Obama administration which pledged to uphold the 2007 United Nations Declaration of the
Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP 2007). In addition to violating the norms of a UNESCO
International Heritage Site, a border wall will violate our rights under the United Nations UNDRIP
2007, articles 8, 11, 12, 13, 18, 19, 29, 30, 31, and 36 (see sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4 below).
As the Governor General of the O’odham in Mexico, I will defend our right to openly practice our
religion, to care and manage for desert resources including species that comprise our Himdag
(culture), to maintain our family ties, defend joint O’odham political principles with the TON,
secure access to our material culture in the Sonoran Desert, and support international law in the
near border area of the US and Mexico; the traditional O’odham Homeland. I therefore oppose
2

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall
the construction of any more barriers and walls between the Monument, Wildlife Refuge, Range,
and Pinacate Reserve.
Our O’odham communities on both sides of the border are quite aware of the deliberate US
strategy to funnel immigrants into the desert away from the border cities. Furthermore, we
demand that the United States Government stop using the Tohono O’odham Nation and
O’odham in Mexico border communities as a national border laboratory for US militarization,
that it specifically not award contracts to any US military contractors like Raytheon, Boeing,
Mexican contractors like Cemex, or foreign ones like the Israeli company, Elbit, since we are not
related to any of them them, and they are not protecting us.
We are already paying an unequal price for the failure of US
national security in this regard; because the US border
strategy has absolutely increased the physical insecurity of
the O’odham peoples in the border area of Arizona, USA and
Sonora, Mexico. A wall will only increase our insecurity.
1.1 Call for Investigation into the Pinacate World Heritage Site
1. Therefore, with our courageous and steadfast partner, the Center for Biological Diversity,
we O’odham in Sonora, Mexico call on the UNESCO International Heritage Site
Committee to undertake an immediate investigation into threats from a proposed wall
by the US Executive Administration against our customary uses of the Pinacate;
specifically, our spiritual, ecological, cultural, social, and political practices as part of that
heritage represented by the Pinacate-Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere Reserve.
2. We further call for the integration of a team of O’odham tribal members from Sonora
and Arizona be deployed as environmental and cultural monitors for the sake of
safeguarding the Pinacate Reserve; the lands our ancestors entrusted us with. The 1994
Pinacate management plan was to “promote and implement research of archeological,
historical, and cultural patrimony of the Pinacate and Desierto Gran Altar region based on
the conservation and uses of it by the O’odham culture”1. The O’odham cannot be part of
a management plan if they are denied entry into Pinacate biosphere reserve. Thus any
denial of O’odham in their attempts to physically access the Pinacate across the
international United States-Mexico border require recording and reporting by O’odham
environmental and cultural monitors to the International Heritage Site Committee, and
the UN High Commission on Human Rights, including the Permanent Forum for
Indigenous Rights, and the Office of the UN Special Rapporteur for Indigenous Rights.

1

Programa de Manejo, Reserva de la Biosfera El Pinacate y Gran Desierto Alta, Municipios de Puerto Peñasco,
General Plutarco Elías Calles, y San Luis de Colorado, Sonora, México. Agosto, 1994, 86. Author’s translation from
Spanish.

3

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall
3. We call for funding of four O’odham monitors annually from international
environmental donors to safeguard this monitoring measure from United States
governmental budgetary tactics related to international wall building that seeks to divide
the O’odham customary territory of the Pinacate, their use of it, and the O’odham
themselves.
2.0 O’odham Customary Uses of the Sonoran Desert in Four Ecological Zones
O’odham traditions related to the Pinacate are numerous and remain at the heart of O’odham
Himdag (culture). It is an area that the O’odham have continually traversed in prehistoric times,
a place Hia Ched O’odham inhabited for over four thousand years2; an area we still use despite
threats and the passing presence of Spanish, Apache, Mexican, and now American presence.
Our customary uses of Schuk Toak (Pinacate Mountain) and its surrounding desert stretching
into the range, refuge, and park in Arizona encompass all aspects of O’odham life, from our
creation to burial. O’odham do not separate themselves from the ecology of the Pinacate, nor
their culture from its ecology, or its ecology from their spiritual practices, these are all one in the
same. Each pre-historic and historic sites visited by O’odham in the Pinacate, as well as our
continued presence in the Pinacate, are all sacred. This is why the Pinacate is an unparalleled
cultural site. It is, in fact, one of two sites that constitute the centers of O’odham origin 3. The
other site is Babwuj or Baboquivari Mountain on the Tohono O’odham Reservation, in Arizona,
USA. At the Pinacate, our creator made and then defended us against destructive forces before
finally leaving us with a ceremony to remember the creator by. In the Pinacate, since time
immemorial, O’odham have carried out ceremonies, including the Men’s Salt Ceremony and
Pilgrimage, which continues today in 2017. The current Salt Ceremonial leader, Ken José Maria,
noted that in 1871 an O’odham who documented O’odham participation in the Salt Ceremony
Pilgrimage. (see: Ken Josemaria’s statement.)
Other non-O’odham naturalists historically also documented salt harvesting (Lumholtz, 1912).
My own fathers’ relative, Chihil Kahio “Scissor Leg” told me about out O’odham who went on
horseback traversing the desert to reach the salt lakes by the Sea of Cortez and return with salt
to our villages.
Natural rock formations that create living water tanks on the east side of the Pinacate are known
to O’odham as Moitjútjupo (many pools). Where the lava and dunes come together on the
Southwest side of the Pinacate range lays a formerly inhabited place, called Hótunikat, or Sunset
Crater.4 Our O’odham Himdag (culture) is present throughout the Pinacate Biosphere:
geoglyphs, intaglio, camp clearings, sleeping quarters, trails, mortars and petroglyphs.5 We
2

Programa de Manejo, 49.
Programa de Manejo, ibid, 52-55.
4
Julian D. Hayden, Changing Place Names in the Pinacate, p. 579-580, 2007, Dry Borders, Great Natural Reserves of
the Sonoran Desert, Richard Stephan Felger, Bill Broyles, University of Utah Press.
5
Programa de Manejo, ibid, 45-46.
3

4

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall
abundantly share the Pinacate with our relatives, the 560 plant species of vascular plants, 37
mammals, and over 230 birds and 42 reptiles and four amphibians 6, and especially the Bighorn
Sheep, Mule deer, Pronghorn Antelope, Golden Eagle, Great Horned Owl, Pygmy Owl, Desert
Tortoise, and Gila Monster, among many others.
The Pinacate was designated by the Federal Mexican Government as a biosphere in 1993 7. All
the O’odham patrimony mentioned were mentioned in the original nomination8 for the World
Heritage Listing in 2013 with UNESCO9 and officially seen as a contribution of O’odham “rational
and traditional use of natural resources which have contributed to the general conservation of
the region, and in particular, of the Pinacate and the Desierto Gran Altar”. Out of 34 proposed
sites heritage sites, it is one of only six such sites designated in Mexico.
It is at the heart of the traditional O’odham territory which both Mexico and the United States
took without consultation, and is still part of our patrimony as original peoples of the Sonoran
Desert. Both in the nomination documentation as a World Heritage Site and in the subsequent
management plan10, O’odham are named as partners in its preservation, which is tacit
recognition our historic presence.
2.1 Suppression of O’odham Spiritual, Ecological, and Cultural Practices
Among the O’odham are those who freely participate in religions that hold their unique places
of worship in sacred regard. In that vein, any unwarranted incursion into such places where
prayers are held, birth rituals are preformed, the faithful are confirmed, and where deaths are
consecrated, would be a violation of their constitutional right to practice their religion. It would
be a major human rights violation if they were prevented from participating in their major
religious ceremonies; Christmas, Passover, or Ramadan in churches, temples, or mosques,
respectively.
I have never heard of a United States Government invading those houses of worship in order to
then divide them in two by building a physical barrier, let alone a permanent wall inside. Clearly,
such a wall for the traditional spiritual practices of O’odham in Mexico would block those faithful
from hearing or reciting prayers, attending an all-night sing, from accessing a ritual celebrating
O’odham childbirth, from attending Native American Church ceremonies, or our two major
native ceremonies, the wine ceremony and the Vi:gita, from being in contact with their spiritual
leaders to plan spiritual gatherings, from planning and participating in traditional runs, or support
6

Programa de Manejo, ibid, 23,24, 25
Programa de Manejo, Reserva de la Biosfera El Pinacate y Gran Desierto Alta, Municipios de Puerto Peñasco,
General Plutarco Elías Calles, y San Luis de Colorado, Sonora, México. Agosto, 1994, p. 10.
8
Nomination Format for Natural Property, EL Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar, Biosphere Reserve, For inscription
on the World Heritage List, p. 6 . Accessed 4-14-17
9
Nomination Format for Natural Property, ibid. p. 68.
10
Programa de Manejo, ibid. See page 2. For research and documentation of “arqueological, historical, and
cultural patrimony, based on O’odham resource conservation and cultural practices” [unofficial translation], see p.
86.
7

5

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall
or participate in the O’odham Men’s Salt Ceremony and Pilgrimage. We identify the Pinacate as
one of two most holy O’odham places where the creation took place, no less holy to us than the
Western Wall is for Jewish peoples, or the Church of the Most Holy Sepulture is for Christians who
make pilgrimages there, or Mecca is for Muslims who hope to visit there at least once in their
lifetime.
We venerate the Pinacate.
So I ask President Trump of the United States Government, is he going to build a wall in all such
places of worship, or only in ours?
By constructing a wall on the North side of the Pinacate and Gran Desierto de Altar Bio-sphere,
Schuk Toak will be cut off from another portion of the traditional O’odham homeland, now
occupied by three other special US conservation zones. The United States will deny O’odham
from Mexico free access into those US conservation zones, and O’odham in the United States
free access into the Pinacate in Mexico. Exclusionary colonial religious practices informed the
formation of the UNDRIP (2007) and thus foresaw and now prohibits such denial of religious
rights:
Article 12
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to manifest, practice, develop
and teach their spiritual and religious traditions, customs and
ceremonies; the right to maintain, protect, and have access in
privacy to their religious and cultural sites; the right to the use and
control of their ceremonial objects; and the right to the
repatriation of their human remains. (italics added).
Our right is not limited to past or present spiritual practices alone. Just as peoples of other
religious practices hope to instill values inherent to their beliefs in their children, so too do the
O’odham. Articles 11 and 13 of the UNDRIP extend that protection to future generations:
Article 11
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to practise and revitalize their
cultural traditions and customs. This includes the right to maintain,
protect and develop the past, present and future manifestations of
their cultures, such as archaeological and historical sites, artefacts,
designs, ceremonies, technologies and visual and performing arts
and literature.
Article 13
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to revitalize, use, develop and
transmit to future generations their histories, languages, oral traditions,
philosophies, writing systems and literatures, and to designate
6

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall
and retain their own names for communities, places and persons.
2.2 O’odham Legal Rights in Light of US Border Militarization
The United States Government has repeatedly mischaracterized it actions in the traditional
O’odham homeland as domestic security measures, when in fact they are military in nature. A
series of US administrations have now carried out accumulative military actions in the past
sixteen years to date in O’odham communities and on the international border, including but
hardly limited to: scraping off vegetation for road building: installing ground censors, installing
metal barriers, nocturnal vehicle patrols at high speeds, drones, satellites, helicopters,
construction of forward operating bases, placement of an armed paramilitary force in our
communities (Border Patrol), placing cameras in cacti, installing mountain top cameras, fifteen
surveillance towers (recently approved for construction), the use of radio waves within the
Tohono O’odham Nation, highway checkpoints, and a highly restrictive and prohibitory territorial
control11. As previously stated, some 1,000 -1,300 O’odham in Sonora are legal members of the
Tohono O’odham Nation, and recognized by the Bureau of Indigenous Affairs, under the
Department of the Interior, US Federal Government, and are therefore affected by those actions
carried out by especially but not limited to the Department of Homeland Security of the US
government on the Tohono O’odham Nation.
United Nations DRIP 2007, Article 30 states:
Military activities shall not take place in the lands or territories
of indigenous peoples, unless justified by a relevant public interest
or otherwise freely agreed with or requested by the indigenous
peoples concerned.
States shall undertake effective consultations with the indigenous
peoples concerned, through appropriate procedures and in
particular through their representative institutions, prior to using
their lands or territories for military activities.
The United States government may have forgotten its original act, the Treaty of Mesilla, which
separated the O’odham homeland in 1852, but we haven’t. UNDRIP Article 30 Section 2 makes
an exception for “relevant public interest” for state military actions on indigenous lands, but such
a justification was not publically demonstrated for the complex of military installations and
implemented security protocols prior to or in the post September 11, 2001 period to date on the
Tohono O’odham’s southern border. Furthermore, the Traditional O’odham Government in
Mexico has not been consulted about the effects on us as part of the O’odham peoples impacted
by military activities using our lands or territories. Articles clearly state that as representational
11

See: Todd Miller, Border Patrol Nation, Chapter Five: Unfinished Business in Indian Country, City Lights Books,
2014. 115-150.

7

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall
traditional government, the Traditional O’odham Leaders in Sonora, México, which is a
government repeatedly recognized by the Tohono O’odham Nation in a series of legislative
resolutions, has the absolute political right to remain part of the Tohono O’odham Nation’s
political representation.12 As well, even though the United States Government conveniently
forgets about the O’odham in Mexico, which in effect the United States forcedly and illegally
separately from O’odham in the United States in the XIX Century, even now in 2017, under
UNDRIP 2007, the US Federal Government has an international obligation to consult us, as stated
in Article 36, Sections 1 and 2:
1.
Indigenous peoples, in particular those divided by international
borders, have the right to maintain and develop contacts, relations
and cooperation, including activities for spiritual, cultural, political,
economic and social purposes, with their own members as well as
other peoples across borders.
2.
States, in consultation and cooperation with indigenous peoples,
shall take effective measures to facilitate the exercise and ensure the
implementation of this right.
Our traditional O’odham Representatives have not been consulted about military
activities affecting our homeland, including the most recent potential threat of a border
wall with its anticipated horrendous effects on the Pinacate and Gran Desierto Altar
Biosphere. We have not been informed about their military actions, nor have we
consented to them. The United States Government is bound by Articles 18 and 19 to
seek our free and informed consent:
Article 18
Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making
in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives
chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures,
as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision
making institutions.
Article 19
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous
peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in
order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before
adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures
that may affect them.

12

See Tohono O’odham Legislative Council Resolutions: 43 -79 (1979) 95-562 (1995), and 05-725 (2015).

8

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall
Given that the O’odham in Mexico did not collectively choose to be separated from their
co-tribal members in 1852, but were separately by legal fiat, and the United States
Government did not then consult our elected traditional leaders, nor does it now in
2017 consult with our institutional representation, the Traditional O’odham Leaders of
Sonora, let alone respect or protect our rights under UNDRIP (2007), a border wall
would further separate us and force us to assimilate into being non-O’odham citizens in
Mexico, and deny our rights as citizens of the Tohono O’odham Nation. That action
would constitute violation of Article 8: Sections a, b, c, and d.
Article 8
1. Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be
subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their culture.
2. States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and
redress for:
(a) Any action which has the aim or effect of depriving them
of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural values
or ethnic identities;
(b) Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing
them of their lands, territories or resources;
(c) Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim
or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights;
(d) Any form of forced assimilation or integration;
2.3 United States Disloyalty to the O’odham People
Paradoxically, since first contact, we have respected the security needs of the United States.
O’odham have served in most US wars abroad. We protected Tucson in 1873 when the
Department of War requested we supply 150 warriors at San Xavier de Bac.13 We have never
been at war with the United States or any state therein. The Tohono O’odham Cultural Center
and Museum at Topawa (TON) displays some of our warriors’ proud past service to the United
States Armed Services.
The United Stats’ Government’s utter disregard for our sacred way of life is astounding. Such
disloyalty on the part of the US government to the O’odham people creates far more insecurity
than that posed by poor immigrants, because they have sewn distrust and while the seek and
engage in cooperative security agreements with the Federal Mexican Government, they
disregard the damage done to O’odham in particular. Generally, they are, as a matter of policy,
demonstrating to all other indigenous nations globally how our loyalty to the United States
Government is being repaid.

13

Edward Spicer, Cycles of Conquest, University of Arizona, 1962, 134.

9

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall
2.4 Threats to Biological Species & O’odham Traditional Knowledge
Related to the spiritual, cultural, and political violations mentioned above, the Border Wall
proposed by the United States denies our ecologically derived and customary mobility and
migration throughout the Sonoran Desert in México and the United States. For several milleliium,
O’odham ecological practices have sustained, with other beings, the natural resources of the
Sonoran Desert. However, United States’ militarization of the US southern border in the past
sixteen years has diminished our customary access to natural resources, denied our sustainable
and shared ecological management practices with other beings in the Sonoran Desert, and has
degraded Sonoran Desert environs to areas of unsustainable habitat which reduces species. In
totality, we are witnesses to an on-going act of ecocide by the United States’ government. Under
UNDRIP Article 29, our own rights to natural resource conservation have been violated.
Article 29
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to the conservation
and protection of the environment and the productive
capacity of their lands or territories and resources. . .
[partially cited].
The border wall proposal has been promoted with a careless disregard for what effects
a border wall would have on our legal rights of conservation and protection of the environment,
those to maintain and protect our cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, expressions, and
related oral traditions in the Pinacate, practices that we also promoted in cooperation with other
organizations. We anticipate a constructed wall would deny O’odham access to seeds and plant
medicines, delimit further generation of our scientific knowledge of fauna and flora in the
Pinacate. These are all rights protected under UNDRIP articles 29 and 31:
Article 31
1. Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control,
protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional
knowledge and traditional cultural expressions, . . . their
sciences . . . , seeds, medicines, knowledge of . . . of fauna
and flora, oral traditions. . . They also have the right to
maintain, control, protect and develop their intellectual
property over such cultural heritage, traditional knowledge,
and traditional cultural expressions. [partially cited].].
In Appendix 1 below, we list some (but not all) endemic, threated, or endangered plant, mammal,
aviary, and aquatic species of grave concern to the O’odham contained within and in the
peripheral areas to the Pinacate. We also document natural aquatic-hydrologic features under
threat.
10

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall
Appendix I: Species in the Pinacate: Endemic,
threatened, endangered, under protective status .
Endemic Plant Species 14
Croton wigginsii (Dune Croton)

Dimorphocarpa pinnatifida
(spectacle pod)

Eriogonum desertícola
(desert buckwheat)
Euphorbia platysperma
Heterotheca thiniicola

Pholisma sonorae

Pholisma sonorae
Stephanomeria schottii
14

Botanical Diversity of the Southwestern Arizona and Northwestern Sonora, Dry Borders, Great Natural Reserves
of the Sonoran Desert, Richard Stephen Felger, et al. 2007, 208.

11

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall
Threatened ^ ,endangered, and culturally relevant  Succulent Species15
echinomastus erectocentra acunensis
Pin cushion cactus.

Carnegiea gigantea Saguaro 

Carnegiea gigantea
Sahuaro 

(photot: WClarke -, CC BY-SA
3.0,https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53486726

Stenocereus thurberi Pitaya



Threatened^ ,Endangered , or Special Protective Status< Mammal Species16:
Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae ^
Long-nosed bat ^

Leptonycteris curasoae yerbabuenae ^

Ovis canadensis 

Ovis canadensis 
Bighorn Sheep

Cimarron Borrego



Antilocapra americana sonoriensisn
Borrendo sonorense

Murciélago ^


Antilocapra americana
sonoriensisn
Pronghorn



Taxidea taxus ^
Tejón ^

Taxidea taxus ^

American Badger^

Threatened^ ,Endangered , or Special Protective Status< Aviary Species17:
Aguila chrysaetos  Golden Eagle
Parabuteo unicintus ^ Harris Hawk^

Aguila chrysaetos 
Aguila Dorada 
Parabuteo unicintus ^ Halcón de Harris ^

Buteo jamaicsensis< Red Tail Hawk<

Buteo jamaicsensis< Halcón de cola roja<

15

Programa de Manejo, Reserva de la Biosfera El Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar, Municipios de Puerto Peñasco,
Gral. Plutarco Elías Calles y San Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora, México. Agosto, 1994. 26.
16
Programa de Manejo, Ibid, 25.
17
Programa de Manejo, Ibid, 26.

12

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall

Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl

Buho

Threatened^,Endangered , or Special Protective Status< Fish species18 :
Agosia chrysogaster Gila Longfin

Dace

Cyprinodon eremus ^

Agosia chrysogaster 
Charalito de Aleta Larga

Pup fish^

Cyprinodon eremus ^ Pupo del Desierto^
Fragile Landscape Hydrologic Features19:

1. Beaches (unusual and shallow inland
lakes): Playa Diaz, of "The Old Glasses
near the Cerro Colorado Crater", and
those formed in the Large craters like
El Elegante and El McDougal. (author

1.Playas (lagos intemos someros y poco usuales):
Playa Diaz, de “Los Vidrios Viejos cerca del crater Cerro
Colorado”, y aquellas que se forman en los
grandes cráteres como El Elegante y El McDougal.

translation).

Los vidrios.
(photo: geoarcheological XRF lab)
http://www.swxrflab.net/los_sitios_d
el_agua.htm

2. Intermittent tinaja.
2. 23 Perennial and historic tinajas,
including but not limited to
“Papago Tinaja” used by O’odham
traditionally.
3. Pits (natural deposits in the clay of
the bafles) or tanks: [the dew and
the tanks kiss].
4. Springs

1. Tinajas intermitentes (depósitos naturales en las rocas
de las montañas)
3. 23 tinajas perennes e históricas usados por los O’odham
de costumbre, incluso pero no solo lo del “Pápago”.

4. Charcos (depósitos naturales en la arcilla de los vafles) o
tanques: [el rocio s y los tanques beso”.
5. Manantiales

18

María De Lourdes Murguía Ruiz, El Agua en la Reserva de la Biosfera el Pinacate y Gran Desierto de Altar,
Sonora, México: Comunidades, Vida Silvestre y la Frontera con Estados Unidos. Natural Resources Journal, Vol. 40,
Spring 2000. Endemic Fish: 420-421., Plan de Manejo, ibid, 29.
19
Maria De Lourdes Murguía Ruiz, 2000, ibid. For playas, tinajas, charcos, manantiales, ojos de agua y pozos, See:
418-421. Salt lakes were also described by O’odham Salt Ceremony and Pilgrimage leader Ken Josemaria, April 20,
2017, e-mail correspondence with Blake Gentry.

13

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall
5. Artesian spring or wells (a form of
artesian spring located along the
area between tides of the Gulf).
7. “Agua Dulce”, the most prominent
portion of the river that extends over 3
kilometres and covers a total of 39 has.
Besides being a source of water for the
species that inhabit or move around
this reserve, the outcrops of
permanent surface water throughout
the year, originated the so-called
“pools” or “pozas”, known to O’odham
as Bacs/Wacs/Vacs ,a.k.a “seeps”. This
is located in the El Refugio- Agua Dulce
Ranch within the Biosphere on private
land.

7."Agua Dulce", la parte más prominente del río Sonoyta
que se extiende sobre 3 kilómetros y cubre un total de 39
ha. Además de ser una fuente de agua para las especies que
habitan o se mueven alrededor de esta reserva, los
afloramientos de agua superficial permanente a lo largo del
año, originaron las llamadas "piscinas" o "pozas", conocidas
por O'odham como Bacs / Wacs / Vacs, también conocido
como "seeps". Se encuentra ubicado en el Refugio Rancho
El Refugio -Agua Dulce dentro de la Biosfera en terrenos
privados.

8. Salt lake Tres Ojitos 20

8. Salinas Tres Ojitos

9. San Jorge Salt Lake.

9. Salinas San Jorge

20

6. Ojos de agua o pozos (una forma de manantial artesiano
localizado a lo largo de la zona de entre mareas del Golfo).

Maria De Lourdes Murguía Ruiz, 2000, ibid.419.

14

 Dividing the O’odham Homeland
Regarding the Trump Administration’s Proposed International Wall
_______________________________________________________________
Appendix II: Statement of Tohono O’odham Tribal Member, Ken Josemaria,
regarding the Pinacate
April 12th, 2017

My name is Ken Josemaria and I am a tribal member of the Tohono O'odham
Nation in Sells Arizona. I am currently a leader of the Tohono O'odham Men's
Salt Pilgrimage ceremony which has been happening once a year for the past 7
years. Historically in Jose Lewis Meranda’s journal dated 1871"Going for Salt"
he writes about his personal experience participating in the Salt Pilgrimage
ceremony. This journal is available at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington
DC. There is also a copy of Jose Lewis Meranda’s journal at the Him dag Ki
Museum in Topawa Arizona.
The Salt Pilgrimage ceremony starts in Arizona and we travel into Sonora
Mexico, Pinacate Biosphere, to the ocean and the salt fields along the coast of the
Sea of Cortez and back to our start in Tohono O'odham Nation Arizona.
Regarding the unfortunate abuse of natural resource in a "protected area" Pinacate
Biosphere this year I was surprised and bothered when we witnessed off-road
recreational vehicles in the area of the Salt. There are signs posted all along the
coastal road way stating "No off road vehicles in the Pinacate Biosphere ".
Recently pictures I saw from the salt area called Salinas Grande showed earth
moving heavy equipment and piles of salt that had been sorted. I understand these
salt fields are protected by the "World Heritage" recognition that this biosphere
has.
I would request that the initial reasoning for this status of World Heritage would
be realized again this day and every Tohono O'odham and Hia'ced O'odham
sacred site, tinaja, fresh water spring, archaeological and burial site would be all
equally protected from any intrusion what so ever indefinitely.
As a US citizen I must rely and depend on the conscience of the people in the
Mexican Federal Government and their stewards to reassert and maintain the
protection provided to Pinacate Gran Desierto de Altar Biosphere by its World
Heritage status. I pray this is all reconsidered immediately.
Ken Josemaria
Tohono O'odham Nation Men’s Salt Pilgrimage

15

 Exhibit B:

Map of Border Barriers along El Pinacate World Heritage Site

Secretary of Homeland Security Waivers Compared

By dominant geography and date Chertoff’s notice of determination was
published in the Federal Register. Order re-arranged to facilitate comparison.

Arizona Border Barriers
Yuma
Cocopah
Indian
Tribe

Yuma
County

95

Maricopa
County

Pinal
County

85
Barry M. Goldwater
Air Force Range

San Luis

9/22/05

1/19/07

10/26/07

4/8/08

4/8/08

California
[not covered by map]

Barry M. Goldwater
Range, AZ

San Pedro River, AZ

Hidalgo Co., TX
[not covered by map]

Intermittent along border with
Mexico

{1} The National Environmental
Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83
Stat. 852 (Jan. 1,1970) (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.))

{1} the National Environmental
Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83
Stat. 852 (Jan. 1,1970) (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.))

{1} The National Environmental
Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83
Stat. 852 (Jan. 1,1970) (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.))

{1} The National Environmental
Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83
Stat. 852 (Jan. 1,1970) (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.))

{1} The National Environmental
Policy Act (Pub. L. 91-190, 83
Stat. 852 (Jan. 1,1970) (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.))

{2} the Endangered Species Act
(Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884
(Dec. 28, 1973) (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.))

{2} the Endangered Species Act
(Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884
(Dec. 28, 1973) (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.))

{2} the Endangered Species Act
(Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884
(Dec. 28, 1973) (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.))

{2} the Endangered Species Act
(Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884
(Dec. 28, 1973) (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.))

{2} the Endangered Species Act
(Pub. L. 93-205, 87 Stat. 884
(Dec. 28, 1973) (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.))

{4} the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (commonly referred
to as the Clean Water Act) (Act
of June 30, 1948, c758, 62 Stat.
1155 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.))

{3} the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (commonly referred
to as the Clean Water Act) (Act
of June 30, 1948, c758, 62 Stat.
1155 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.))

{3} the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (commonly referred
to as the Clean Water Act) (Act
of June 30, 1948, c758, 62 Stat.
1155 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.))

{3} the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (commonly referred
to as the Clean Water Act) (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.))

{3} the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (commonly referred
to as the Clean Water Act) (33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.))

{5} the National Historic
Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89-665,
80 Stat. 915 (Oct. 15, 1966) (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.))

{5} the National Historic
Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89-665,
80 Stat. 915 (Oct. 15, 1966) (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.))

{4} the National Historic
Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89-665,
80 Stat. 915 (Oct. 15, 1966) (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.))

{4} the National Historic
Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89-665,
80 Stat. 915 (Oct. 15, 1966) (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.))

{4} the National Historic
Preservation Act (Pub. L. 89-665,
80 Stat. 915 (Oct. 15, 1966) (16
U.S.C. 470 et seq.))

{6} the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.)

{5} the Migratory Bird Treaty Act {5} the Migratory Bird Treaty Act {5} the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.)
(16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.)
(16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.)

{7} the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.)

{7} the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.)

{6} the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.)

{6} the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7401 et seq.)

{8} the Archeological Resources {7} the Archeological Resources {7} the Archeological Resources
Protection Act (Pub. L. 96-95, 16 Protection Act (Pub. L. 96-95, 16 Protection Act (Pub. L. 96-95, 16
U.S.C. 470aa et seq.)
U.S.C. 470aa et seq.)
U.S.C. 470aa et seq.)

4.1 mi.
double
fencing
(overlap
with PF70)

San Luis
Río Colorado

Ajo
Cabeza
Prieta
National
Wildlife
Refuge

15

Pima
County

{9} the Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.)

{8} the Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.)

{8} the Safe Drinking Water Act
(42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.)

{10} the Noise Control Act (42
U.S.C. 4901 et seq.)

{9} the Noise Control Act (42
U.S.C. 4901 et seq.)

{9} the Noise Control Act (42
U.S.C. 4901 et seq.)

{11} the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.)

{10} the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.)

{10} the Solid Waste Disposal
Act, as amended by the
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et
seq.)

{12} the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.)

{11} the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.)

{11} the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
(42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.)

{15} the Archaeological and
{12} the Archaeological and
{12} the Archaeological and
Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L. Historic Preservation Act (Pub. L.
86-523, 16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.)
86-523, 16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.)
86-523, 16 U.S.C. 469 et seq.)
{16} the Antiquities Act (16
U.S.C. 431 et seq.)

{13} the Antiquities Act (16
U.S.C. 431 et seq.)

{13} the Antiquities Act (16
U.S.C. 431 et seq.)

{17} the Historic Sites, Buildings, {14} the Historic Sites, Buildings, {14} the Historic Sites, Buildings,
and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C.
and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C.
and Antiquities Act (16 U.S.C.
461 et seq.)
461 et seq.)
461 et seq.)
{18} the Arizona-Idaho
Conservation Act of 1988 (Pub.
L. 100-696, 16 U.S.C. 460xx et
seq.)

86

{19} the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act (Pub. L. 90-542, 16 U.S.C.
1281 et seq.)

Organ Pipe
Cactus
National
Monument

{15} the Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act (Pub. L. 90-542, 16 U.S.C.
1281 et seq.)

{20} the Farmland Protection
{15} the Farmland Protection
{16} the Farmland Protection
Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.) Policy Act (7 U.S.C. 4201 et seq.)
{3} the Coastal Zone
Management Act (Pub. L. 92583, 86 Stat 1280 (Oct. 27,
1972) (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.)

{16} the Coastal Zone
Management Act (Pub. L. 92583, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.)
{4} the Wilderness Act (Pub. L.
88-577, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.)

{17} the Coastal Zone
Management Act (Pub. L. 92583, 16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq.)
{18} the Wilderness Act (Pub. L.
88-577, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.)

{13} the Federal Land Policy and {17} the Federal Land Policy and {19} the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (Pub L. 94Management Act (Pub L. 94Management Act (Pub L. 94579, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)
579, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)
579, 43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.)
{6} the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act (Pub.
L. 89-669, 16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee)

Reserva de la
Biosfera El
Pinacate y
Gran Desierto
de Altar

Lukeville

Port of
Entry

Tohono
O’odham
Nation

{18} the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act (Pub.
L. 89-669, 16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee)

{19} the Fish and Wildlife Act of {21} the Fish and Wildlife Act of
1956 (Pub. L. 84-1024, 16 U.S.C. 1956 (Pub. L. 84-1024, 16 U.S.C.
742a, et seq.)
742a, et seq.)

Sells
{14} the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (Pub. L. 73121, 48 Stat. 401, 16 U.S.C. 661
et seq.)
{8} the Administrative Procedure {9} the Administrative Procedure {21} the Administrative
Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.)
Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.)
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et
seq.)

Sonoita

{20} the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act (Pub.
L. 89-669, 16 U.S.C. 668dd668ee)

{20} the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (Pub. L. 73121, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)

{22} the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (Pub. L. 73121, 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.)

{21} the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et
seq.)

{23} the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et
seq.)
{24} the Otay Mountain
Wilderness Act of 1999 (Pub. L.
106-145)
[25} Sections 102(29) and 103 of
Title I of the California Desert
Protection Act (Pub. L. 103-433),
50 Stat. 1827

.

{26} the National Park Service
Organic Act (Pub. L. 64-235, 16
U.S.C. 1, 2-4)

8
Border Monuments

{27} the National Park Service
General Authorities Act (Pub. L.
91-383, 16 U.S.C. la-1 et seq.)

2

{28} Sections 401(7), 403, and
404 of the National Parks and
Recreation Act of 1978 (Pub. L.
95-625)

Gulf of California

{29} Sections 301(a)-(f) of the
Arizona Desert Wilderness Act
(Pub. L. 101-628)

Mar de Cortés

map overlap area
Legacy Pedestrian Fence
Nogales
11/17/16

{24} the Native American Graves {32} the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act Protection and Repatriation Act
(25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.)
(25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.)

VF300 Constructed Fence
West of Douglas
2/2/10

Legacy Vehicle Fence
Santa Cruz River
11/17/16

PF70 Fence
East of San Luis
1/2/13

{25} the American Indian
{33} the American Indian
Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C.
1996)
1996)
{26} the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (42 U.S.C.
2000bb)

{36} and the Multiple Use and
Sustained Yield Act of 1960 (16
U.S.C. 528-531)

PF225 Constructed Fence
East of San Pedro River
9/10/16

{27} the Federal Grant and
Cooperative Agreement Act of
1977 (31 U.S.C. 630305)
{7} the Military Lands
Withdrawal Act of 1999 (Pub. L.
106-65, 113 Stat. 885 (Oct. 5,
1999))
{8} the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670
et seq.)

Buenos
Aires
National
Wildlife
Refuge

Tohono
O’odham
Nation

90

Pima
County

Visiting appointments 2016-2017 at:

286
map overlap area

80
San
Pedro
Riparian
National
Conservation
Area

82

Santa Cruz
County

Sasabe

Coronado
National
Forest

Coronado
National
Forest

Sásabe

Pajarita
Wilderness

Cocopah
Indian
Tribe

Nogales
15

Santa
Cruz
River

Cochise
County

Sierra
Vista

191

80

Coronado
National
Memorial

Nogales

San
Pedro
River

92

Douglas

Naco
6.7 mi.
waiver
overlap

Naco

San
Bernardino
National
Wildlife
Refuge

2

Agua
17 Prieta

95

Gadsden

Organ Pipe
Cactus
National
Monument

Tohono
O’odham
Nation

1

Ali
Cuk

San Luis
San Luis
Río Colorado 2

{34} the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act (42 U.S.C.
2000bb)
{35} the National Forest
Management Act of
1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.)

Border Monument 144

Cartography, Waiver Comparisons, Photos
Kenneth D. Madsen
Associate Professor of Geography
The Ohio State University at Newark
madsen.34@osu.edu

{30} the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403)

{23} the Eagle Protection Act (16 {31} the Eagle Protection Act (16
U.S.C. 668 et seq.)
U.S.C. 668 et seq.)

Legacy Vehicle Fence
Tohono O’odham Nation
2/11/10

VF300 Constructed Fence
Tohono O’odham Nation
2/11/10

Legacy Vehicle Fence
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
2/14/10

{22} the Rivers and Harbors Act
of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403)

updated:
Observations:
3/31/17
* barriers cover 361 out of 443 miles of Arizona ‘s border with Mexico (81%)
* "legacy" fences were those constructed before the Secure Fence Act of 2006
PF70 = primary (pedestrian) fence (70 miles planned nationally, 78 actually built in Arizona);
relatively easy and pre-planned fencing put up shortly after the Secure Fence Act passed
PF225 = pedestrian fence (225 miles planned nationally, 44 in Arizona); 2007 and later
VF300 = vehicle fence (300 miles planned nationally, 160 in Arizona); 2007 and later
* double-fencing is rare in Arizona (generally near ports-of-entry) and is not mapped here except 4.1 mi. east of San Luis
* vehicle barriers generally require less disturbance and allow greater passage of wildlife
* pedestrian barriers are generally found close to urban areas and relatively accessible rural locations
* a substantial network of all-weather roads was built-up for these construction projects
* stretches of border not presently covered by barriers are generally in remote areas with rough terrain
* there are a variety of fence types within each of these categories; photos are illustrative rather than exhaustive
* waivers cover 333 out of 443 miles of Arizona’s border with Mexico (75%)
* one area west of Naco is covered by two different waivers (6.7 mi. overlap)
* there are several places where post-Secure Fence Act construction extends beyond Waivers
(i.e. Cocopah Indian Tribe; Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument; between Naco and Douglas)
* CBP frequently “voluntarily” complied with waived laws under the Obama administration
* the Tohono O’odham Nation required full compliance with waived laws and only allowed vehicle barriers

VF300 Constructed Fence
Guadalupe Canyon Road
2/2/10

Bureau of Land
Management
Private Ownership

Data acknowledgements:
Scott Nicol, Denise L. Gilman, David Taylor, ESRI, Clare Trainor, Krista
Schlyer, Juan Carlos Bravo, Matt Clark, Lily House-Peters, University of
Arizona Spatial Data Explorer, Department of Homeland Security