Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting

March 19–20, 2008

Hilton Washington Towers

Washington, DC 

Meeting minutes

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Welcome

John Wood, Acting Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB);
Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
(OCEM), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); and Elaine Koerner,
Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Board, EPA

Mr. John Wood (Cameron County, Texas, Commissioner), GNEB Acting Chair,
called the meeting to order at 9:53 a.m.  He thanked the participants
for attending the meeting and stated that the GNEB is an independent
federal advisory committee. He reminded the participants of the EPA
mission, which is to protect human health and the environment. 

Ms. Elaine Koerner, DFO for the GNEB, welcomed the participants to the
meeting. She explained that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson would be
arriving shortly to address the group.

Mr. Rafael DeLeon, Director of the EPA’s OCEM, welcomed the group,
noting that there was much ground to cover in the next 2 days.

In response to a question about the Chair, Ms. Koerner said that Dr.
Paul Ganster was unable to attend this meeting.

Mr. Wood asked GNEB members and resource specialists for their
report-outs, emphasizing the importance of GNEB members sharing their
activities with one another.

Dr. Christopher Brown (New Mexico State University) explained that his
research laboratory at New Mexico State University focuses on
environmental issues along the U.S.-Mexico border, mostly using
Geographic Information Systems (GIS). He is conducting a binational
transportation GIS project along the U.S.-Mexico border for the Federal
Highway Administration, working with a colleague from the University of
Juárez. Dr. Brown described his presentation at the recent Border
Officials “Cross-Talk” 2008 conference, which brought together
border commissioners to discuss important border issues. He was asked to
prepare a scoping paper and ask penetrating and insightful questions.
After his presentation, when it came time to ask his questions, none of
the commissioners were able to provide a satisfactory response. At the
conference, he also met with Mr. John Dickson, Director, Office of
Mexican Affairs, U.S. Department of State, who emphasized the importance
of sharing the great work being done along the border with those in
Washington, DC. Dr. Brown decided to take his advice and prior to this
meeting, met with Mr. Dickson and his staff to discuss how to better
balance security initiatives and environmental protection; he also
disseminated copies of the latest GNEB Report. He plans to continue this
dialogue.

Mr. Jeff Scott, EPA, announced that the next Border Governors Conference
will be held August 13–15, 2008, in Los Angeles, California. A Border
2012 National Coordinators Meeting is scheduled for September 3–4,
2008, in Juárez, Chihuahua. He is hoping to discuss the Committee for
Environmental Cooperation’s (CEC) work to improve chemical management
at this meeting. CEC’s work also could inform the upcoming GNEB
Twelfth Report on Innovation, Including Incentives, To Prevent/Reduce
Pollution at the U.S.-Mexico Border. 

Mr. Rafael Guerrero (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]) mentioned
that the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service is working with
its Mexican counterparts to develop an initiative to conserve private
land in Mexico; the USDA has offered to share its expertise on the
subject. Unfortunately, the USDA does not have statutory authority to
work in Mexico. Mr. Guerrero added that he recently attended a meeting
on addressing border issues using geospatial sciences.

Ms. Susan Keith (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality) reported
that Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano, who chairs the Western
Governors’ Association, is working to focus attention on environmental
issues, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change.
Mexican officials seem eager to work on these issues.

Ms. Shannon Sorzano (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
[HUD]) discussed HUD’s work along the U.S.-Mexico border. HUD works
with colonias on the U.S. side of the border, the Mexican government on
housing financing in Mexico, and U.S. and Mexican border cities, using
GIS for cross-border planning.

Mr. Wood asked the new GNEB members in attendance to further discuss
their backgrounds. 

Dr. Diane Austin said that she has worked for the University of Arizona
since 1994, studying the Arizona-Sonora border, especially in the
Brownsville area. Most of her work involves identifying methods to
reduce pollution.

Ms. Marissa Stone said that she is the Communications Director for the
New Mexico Environment Department. She mentioned that her department
recently hired a New Mexico Border Environment Justice Liaison.
Additionally, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is a strong supporter
of the environment. 

Mr. Jerry Agan is a county judge in Presidio County, Texas. He explained
that in addition to their judicial duties, judges in Texas also manage
the day-to-day operations of their counties. As such, he plays the role
of emergency manager for Presidio County. He also is the chair of the
first responders group of the Rio Grande Council of Governments, which
disburses approximately $3–4 million per year to support disaster
response efforts. This group currently is in the process of developing a
cross-border communications system, transitioning from analog to
digital.

Mr. Scott manages the border program for EPA Region 9, which supports a
number of border-related programs covering issues such as pesticides,
toxics, and agriculture. He has worked for EPA for almost 25 years. He
currently serves as the U.S. Co-Chair of the Border XXI Hazardous and
Solid Waste Workgroup. 

Ms. Allyson Siwik is the executive director of the Gila Resources
Information Project (GRIP). GRIP is a nonprofit environmental advocacy
group based in Silver City, New Mexico. She also serves as the U.S.
Co-Leader of the Border 2012 New Mexico-Chihuahua Rural Task Force. She
looks forward to bringing the rural perspective to border issues.

Keynote Remarks

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson thanked the GNEB members for their
hard work and noted that he, the President, and Congress highly value
advisory committee input. Although his decisions may not always align
with advisory committees’ recommendations, he very much appreciates
their feedback in support of his role as a decision-maker. He thanked
Mr. Wood for serving as acting chair in Dr. Ganster’s absence. He
welcomed the new GNEB members, including Mr. Luis Ramírez Thomas
(Ramírez Advisors Inter-National, LLC), Mr. Michael Connolly (Campo
Kumeyaay Nation), Judge Agan, Dr. Austin, Ms. Siwik, Ms. Marissa Stone,
and Ms. Laura Yoshii (not in attendance). 

EPA Administrator Johnson said that he read the GNEB’s annual Report
with great interest. There are many complex issues along the border that
need to be addressed. He thinks that the sister city emergency response
plans are an especially valuable method for dealing with issues along
the border. EPA already has begun work on a number of the GNEB’s
recommendations. 

Homeland security and emergency response are high priorities for EPA.
There are a number of challenges along the borders, both to the north
and south. Funds needed or perceived to be needed are far more than the
actual funds available. Although seeking additional resources is very
important, opportunities to use funds more efficiently and effectively
must also be pursued. EPA Administrator Johnson said that he is a large
supporter of opportunities that stem from innovation and is looking
forward to the release of the next GNEB Report.

Mr. Wood thanked EPA Administrator Johnson for his remarks and added
that he was pleased that the Administrator had commented on the GNEB’s
next Report on innovation.

Discussion

Mr. Stephen Niemeyer (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) gave an
example of EPA funding resulting in innovation. With EPA funds, the
Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy developed a new
brick kiln design that significantly reduced emissions. El Paso Electric
subsequently built 30 of these kilns.

EPA Administrator Johnson noted that EPA also is working with
organizations and companies to bring methane to markets. He gave an
example of a brick company in the southern United States that hoped to
expand. To do so, the company required a large amount of energy. A new
landfill was under construction in the area, and ultimately, the gas
from the landfill was captured and used to power the new brickyard. It
was a win-win situation. 

Mr. DeLeon mentioned that EPA Administrator Johnson had served as a DFO
earlier in his career and thanked the Administrator for all of the
support he has provided to the GNEB. Ms. Koerner presented EPA
Administrator Johnson with a plaque to thank him for his support. EPA
Administrator Johnson confirmed that he had, in fact, served as a DFO
earlier in his career. As a result, he understands the importance of the
relationship between a DFO and an advisory committee.

Panel Discussion on Eleventh Report:  Natural Disasters and the
Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

Erika J. Clesceri, Ph.D., Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian
Assistance Bureau Environmental Officer, United States Agency for
International Development (USAID); Dana Tulis, Deputy Director, Office
of Emergency Management, EPA, and U.S. Co-Chair, Border 2012 Program
Emergency Preparedness and Response Border-Wide Workgroup; and Alejandro
Posadas, Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT),
Mexico Embassy

Ms. Koerner introduced the panelists as experts in their respective
fields who had been asked to provide the GNEB with their feedback on the
Eleventh Report.

Dr. Erika Clesceri, the Bureau Environmental Officer for the Democracy,
Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Bureau at USAID, thanked Ms.
Koerner and said that she was pleased to be invited to the meeting. Her
role at USAID is to interpret the National Environmental Policy Act for
USAID’s overseas work. USAID is organized into regional and functional
bureaus. Environmental compliance officers work throughout USAID and at
each individual mission. Dr. Clesceri oversees environmental compliance
for the Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Bureau. Her
oversight encompasses the work of the Office of Foreign Disaster
Assistance (OFDA), the Office of Food for Peace, the Office of
Transition Initiatives, the Office of American Schools and Hospitals
Abroad, and many others. Dr. Clesceri said that she views environmental
compliance procedures as an essential aspect of disaster preparedness.
It is within this capacity as environmental officer overseeing the
offices that manage humanitarian disaster response and preparedness for
USAID that she offers her comments. 

USAID’s role in disaster response is to facilitate and coordinate U.S.
government humanitarian assistance overseas. USAID was granted this
authority in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Recently, within
Mexico, USAID’s OFDA provided emergency relief supplies, hygiene kits,
water pumps, and temporary shelter in response to flooding in Tabasco
and Chiapas.

OFDA has a worldwide Disaster Risk Reduction Program that can, depending
on the year, amount to 10 percent of the total OFDA budget (the total
budget ranges from $300 to $500 million). Funds are used to support risk
reduction, including efforts to reduce the risk of flooding, which focus
on nonstructural flood mitigation measures, primarily in the form of
watershed management, community preparedness, retrofitting of vulnerable
group shelters, and early warning indicator systems that use an
end-to-end system to communicate flood mitigation plans to communities
based on either empirical flood data or modeled data. USAID communicates
with communities in need and offers options on how to proceed. USAID’s
mandate is to work with the most vulnerable segments of the world
population. USAID supports watershed management programs in four key
watersheds in Mexico; these watersheds were selected on the basis of
their richness and biodiversity, their environmental threat indices, and
indicators of acute poverty. Project prioritization within USAID is
based on these three factors. In addition, USAID provides funds to the
U.S. Forest Service to support fire control and fire management
programs, technical assistance, capacity building, and border training.
A command-and-control structure has been developed, which is very
important in the event of a disaster. The Office of American Schools and
Hospitals Abroad supports the building of hospitals and schools in
Mexico. The buildings funded by this program must meet the building
codes for the local area. 

Dr. Clesceri discussed the latest GNEB Report, Natural Disasters and the
Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico Border, noting that she appreciated
the recommendation for greater incorporation of environmental aspects in
disaster response. This is important because disaster relief
interventions can have environmental consequences (e.g., building
structures in a flood plain). USAID has supported the development of a
number of assessments for disaster situations, including the Rapid
Environmental Assessment, a participatory approach that involves a quick
assessment (within 3–5 days) and helps to prioritize issues (e.g.,
life, livelihood, and the environment). Unfortunately, the environment
often is not included in this list in disaster response situations. In
Indonesia, the World Wildlife Fund has partnered with the Red Cross to
work on disaster relief. Page 11 of the Eleventh Report lists population
growth as an issue related to flood control and flood mitigation. Dr.
Clesceri suggested that a strategy for addressing population issues be
developed. It also is important to address the root causes of
environmental disaster, such as acute poverty. For example, the USAID
mission in Haiti took a watershed-by-watershed approach and assessed
environmental vulnerabilities to inform its framework for development in
Haiti. The environmental vulnerabilities identified included population
issues, unplanned urbanization, and rural landscape deforestation. A
report, Environmental Vulnerability in Haiti, details this work. In the
short term, addressing the underlying problem of acute poverty may mean
converting some of the more vulnerable watersheds. In the long term, it
may mean creating jobs or altering trade policy. These issues often are
overlooked or examined after the fact, but they are key elements of
preparedness.

Dr. Clesceri highlighted some international climate change resources,
including the Humanitarian Early Warning Service, which provides data to
help predict droughts and floods. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration collects historical weather data, and a Peru-based
climate change group provides data for Mexico. USAID developed a manual
for development planning that provides guidance on dealing with climate
variability. Finally, to avoid the cycle of dependency, USAID works to
promote sustainability or the ability of a project to continue in the
absence of external funds in all of its interventions.

Ms. Koerner thanked Dr. Clesceri for her comments and asked the audience
to hold their questions until all three of the speakers had finished.
She explained that there would be time for public comment after the
panel presentations. Members of the public who wish to make comments can
sign up with Ms. Geraldine Brown. 

She introduced Ms. Dana Tulis, welcoming her to the meeting. Ms. Tulis
is the Deputy Director of EPA’s Office of Emergency Management and
serves as U.S. Co-Chair of the Border 2012 Emergency Preparedness and
Response Border-Wide Workgroup.

Ms. Tulis thanked the GNEB members for addressing the issue of disaster
response along the border. The Border 2012 Program, co-chaired by EPA
and SEMARNAT, created the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Border-Wide Workgroup to address emergency issues. This Workgroup
essentially functions as the steering committee of the Joint Response
Team (JRT), which was established by the 1983 La Paz Agreement. Ms.
Tulis serves as the Co-Chair for the JRT, along with the Mexican
Attorney General, who represents the Procuraduría Federal de
Protección al Ambiente (PROFEPA). The corollary in the United States is
the National Response Team, which is chaired by EPA and the U.S. Coast
Guard. Approximately 15 agencies meet monthly (and more frequently when
responding to an emergency) to coordinate their work, looking forward to
the future while incorporating important lessons learned from past
experiences. 

The Emergency Preparedness and Response Border-Wide Workgroup is one of
three border-wide workgroups. The other workgroups cover environmental
health and cooperative enforcement and compliance. In addition, there
are regional Border 2012 workgroups. There also is a Hazardous and Solid
Waste Policy Forum under Border 2012. The border area covered is 2,000
miles long and 63 miles wide, and there are now 15 sister city pairs.
Most of the work occurs at the sister city level, with support from the
regional level. 

The Emergency Preparedness and Response Border-Wide Workgroup currently
is updating the 1999 Joint Contingency Plan (JCP), which is the
day-to-day operating guide for emergency response. A major challenge has
been incorporating an all-hazards approach. The United States can take
this type of approach because it has the cooperation of the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) and because EPA has broadened its mission to
cover chemical, biological, and radiological hazards. Unfortunately,
PROFEPA does not have the authority to involve Mexican agencies, so the
JCP still has a chemical focus. Most responses occur at the local level,
so an effort has been made to ensure that the sister city plans take an
all-hazards approach. 

The Workgroup has established a new border partnership with the U.S.
Northern Command of the Department of Defense (DoD), which has helped to
strengthen the regional level work. EPA Region 9 was integral in
establishing this relationship. Mexican representatives will visit in
June for additional training at the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) location. 

A continuing challenge has been ensuring that first responders have
insurance coverage when they cross the border. The Workgroup is
addressing this issue and has contacted a number of Mexican subsidiaries
of U.S. companies about obtaining supplemental insurance for first
responders. Another issue is insurance coverage for vehicles that cross
the border.

First responders and their equipment need to be able to cross the border
quickly and return with ease, so the Workgroup has been working closely
with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to facilitate this access.
Information on first responders and their equipment has been sent to
Customs. Ultimately, there will be a pre-approved list of first
responders that should expedite border crossings. A recent change
requires that anyone traveling from the United States to Mexico or
Canada have an official passport. The Workgroup is working to obtain
passports for all of the first responders and will provide this
information to Customs. 

The Workgroup successfully negotiated for the inclusion of Protección
Civil (PC) as the second co-chair for the Border-Wide Workgroup. This is
very important because PC oversees the emergency reporting center in
Mexico. Realizing the limitations that exist, the Workgroup is working
closely with PROFEPA and PC in hopes of making progress toward taking an
all-hazards approach. 

The Workgroup is supportive of most of the recommendations in the
Report. As discussed earlier, the JCP has not been expanded to encompass
an all-hazards approach, so, unfortunately, it may not be able to
address all of the natural disaster recommendations. Again, at the local
level, the Workgroup is encouraging the sister city plans to adapt more
of an all-hazards approach.

Finally, the Workgroup would like to collaborate with the GNEB on the
update of the 1980 Natural Disaster Manual to pursue the all-hazards
approach. Ms. Tulis suggested including PC and other agencies on both
the U.S. and Mexico sides in the manual update.

Ms. Koerner thanked Ms. Tulis for her presentation, which provided
valuable information and thought-provoking feedback. She introduced Mr.
Alejandro Posadas from SEMARNAT; he will comment on the GNEB Report from
Mexico’s perspective.

Mr. Posadas said that he appreciated the invitation to comment on the
GNEB’s Eleventh Report and that he was representing the Environment
and Natural Resources Secretariat of Mexico. He is an environmental
official and a diplomat, so his comments will take a broader
perspective. The Report, as previous Reports, is a serious, timely, and
important analysis and roadmap of the actions taken and the pending
agenda to address prevention, preparation, and mitigation efforts to
respond to natural disasters and protect the environment along the
U.S.-Mexico border. The Mexican government recognizes the quality and
rigor of the Report and commends the inclusive, open, and deliberative
process involved in its making and in all the activities of the GNEB.
The Board’s contributions to U.S.-Mexico environmental cooperation
reflect the progress made to date in this area. The Report highlights
the border actions that can be achieved with continued collaboration.

Mr. Posadas identified three salient themes in the Report:  (1) the
strengthened culture of the U.S.-Mexico border region in environmental
cooperation, and especially in the prevention of and response to natural
disasters; (2) the need for federal governments to continue supporting
and strengthening cooperation through infrastructure financing and
expanding, deepening, and launching the necessary institutional
cooperation frameworks given the present context and challenges; and (3)
the importance of building and protecting trust and communication, as
these are pillars of effective environmental cooperation along the
border.

As highlighted by the Report, natural disasters do not respect
geopolitical definitions and have serious impacts along the border. In
response to natural disasters, local communities, indigenous tribes,
local governments, and national governments have shown that they can
work together. Enhancing the culture of cooperation at the local and
regional levels will be a key factor in strengthening preparedness and
responsiveness to natural disasters. The Mexican government is strongly
committed to taking an integral, holistic approach to border cooperation
and management efforts, especially in the current context of enhanced
security concerns. For example, the Report’s recommendations to work
on a watershed basis and incorporate zoning and construction best
practices are a call to take cooperation efforts one step forward and
embrace an integral, prospective vision for border relations. The
Mexican government also notes the call for not lagging behind on
infrastructure financing. Much progress has been made through national
environmental institutions and federal, state, and local cooperation in
the past 20 years. It is important to remember and to remind
decision-makers in our national governments that the work is not
completed and that the nature of the challenge of the border regions
calls for continued support. The recommendation in the Report for the
Mexican national government to review, deepen, and strengthen its
institutional frameworks also is salient. As noted in the Report,
hazardous emergency arrangements and cooperation protocols along the
border are in development. Mexico is committed to continuing to work
with the United States and Canada to expand and enhance its
institutional frameworks and adapt or propose arrangements that can
strengthen prevention and responsiveness and provide additional support
to the vibrant network of relations and cooperation underway regionally
and locally along the U.S.-Mexico border. One example of cross-border
cooperation is the recent initiative between the Mexican Secretariat of
Environment and the State of California to cooperate on environmental
matters. Mexico recognizes and appreciates the level of cooperation it
maintains at the federal level with its U.S. counterparts, including
EPA, USDA, the Department of the Interior, and many others. The Border
2012 Program is an example of the possibilities for coordination,
cooperation, and information and experience sharing between federal,
state, and local governments and societies and of the United States and
Mexico’s commitment to protect the environment along the shared border
region. This and other initiatives should continue to be the building
blocks of a model for a prosperous, sustainable, and proud U.S.-Mexico
border. Mr. Posadas said that he looks forward to the discussion and
exchange of comments. 

Discussion 

Judge Agan shared an example of cross-border relations in his area.
Recently, a grass fire started on the U.S. side of the border, and the
U.S. Forest Service could not respond to it because they were fighting
another fire. Without any request being made, the Mexican Fire
Department appeared and brought the fire under control.

Mr. Guerrero asked Dr. Clesceri to identify the watersheds in Mexico
where program management is being provided by USAID. Are they along the
border? Dr. Clesceri responded that there were four watersheds, but she
did not know the specific sites and offered to provide a list at a later
time. Mr. Guerrero stated that he hoped that the lessons learned in
these watershed projects would be shared with others. 

Mr. Guerrero asked how USAID handles insurance issues. Dr. Clesceri
responded that USAID disaster responders are covered by their own
insurance. Ms. Tulis clarified that most of the federal responders have
insurance coverage; it is the local first responders that need coverage.


Mr. Guerrero commented that he thought it was important for USDA and the
Department of the Interior to be involved in the update of the 1980
Natural Disaster Manual. Ms. Koerner suggested contacting Ms. Rachel
Poynter of the Department of State for an update on that project. 

Mr. Guerrero asked Ms. Tulis who pays for emergency responders’
passports. Ms. Tulis replied that it is most often the local person
obtaining the passport who pays the fee. 

Mr. Michael Dorsey asked Dr. Clesceri for details on what USAID provides
in its hospitals program. He noted that she had mentioned building
hospitals to local building codes. In some areas, codes may not be
adequate or may not even exist. How does USAID handle this?  Dr.
Clesceri said that the American Schools and Hospitals Abroad Program
provides between $20 and $30 million in funding each year, mostly for
the construction of additional annexes, buildings, or dormitories for
hospitals, but the funds are sometimes used to purchase medical
equipment as well. USAID also funds infrastructure projects, such as
Internet connectivity. Dr. Clesceri said that she did not have details
on the Mexico programs but could obtain the details for the GNEB
members. Regarding the local building codes, USAID respects the local
government codes, but if the codes are absent or are glaringly
insufficient, U.S. building codes are pushed to the extent that they can
be. An environmental assessment is conducted before construction begins.

Mr. Scott commented that EPA has a Hospitals for a Healthy Environment
Program that provides information on green building and pollution
prevention for hospitals. Dr. Clesceri said that she was not familiar
with the program and would be interested in learning more about it. Mr.
Scott asked Dr. Clesceri how to obtain copies of USAID’s guide for
planning for climate change. Dr. Clesceri explained that the guide is
basically an adaptation manual, listing the issues to be considered as
well as highlighting the different resources available within and
outside of USAID. Dr. Clesceri said that she would send Ms. Koerner a
Web link to the report. Mr. Scott asked how to apply for USAID funds for
work along the border. Dr. Clesceri said that USAID’s Web Site has
information on available funding. Another source of information is the
Federal Business Opportunities (known as FedBizOpps) Web Site, which
lists Requests for Proposals. OFDA funds nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) and United Nations partner organizations to support disaster
preparedness and response but also accepts unsolicited proposals. Dr.
Clesceri said that she could put the GNEB members in touch with the
Mexico representatives at USAID. She will send their contact information
to Ms. Koerner, along with more details on USAID’s work with
watersheds in Mexico.

Mr. Ramírez observed that private sector companies also deal with the
issue of emergency vehicles crossing the border. He asked if there was
any possibility of creating a special form of identification for
emergency responders that would facilitate border crossing; passports
are expensive. Another issue that has come up in disaster response is
the recognition of the certifications of medical professionals (e.g.,
paramedics) on the other side of the border. Ms. Tulis said that the
cost of the passports would have to be absorbed by the locals; she did
not think that EPA’s funding rules would allow them to cover the cost.
EPA is working to expedite border crossing for the emergency responders
in its purview; the medical community is outside of EPA’s
jurisdiction. Mr. Ramírez suggested contacting the Department of State
about either reducing the cost of first responders’ passports or even
offering a waiver. Ms. Tulis said that the Workgroup had previously
discussed the possibility of cost waivers with the Department of State.
Dr. Brown suggested directing this question to Ms. Poynter or Mr. Dan
Darrach at the Department of State. 

Dr. Brown said that he was heartened to hear Mr. Posadas’ comments
about watershed planning as a focal point of binational cooperation. In
2005, at the Río Grande Río Bravo Basin Summit, a suggestion was made
to advance binational watershed councils or binational science advisory
groups. Unfortunately, there has not been much progress on this issue.
He asked Mr. Posadas for some insight on how to advance that discussion.
Dr. Brown said that he was considering arranging a meeting with the
border commissioners to discuss the issue. Mr. Posadas said that the
commissioner had been discussing the issue lately, but the process takes
time. He added that the Mexican Embassy is supportive of the idea; he
thinks that the Ambassador would be responsive to such efforts. In
addition, he suggested working with the Mexican Environment Ministry,
which is working on new or emerging initiatives that could support the
process. He said that he would be happy to work on the issue through the
Mexican Embassy. Ms. Koerner added that GNEB’s Fourth Report called
for a binational watershed approach.

Ms. Rosario Marin (California State Consumer Services Agency) asked if
it would be appropriate for the GNEB to draft some recommendations on
obtaining passports for first responders. Ms. Tulis stated that the
Office of Emergency Management is working with the Department of State
to establish a trusted traveler program, to either expedite crossing for
first responders or grant them a waiver. These actions, however, are
limited to the emergency responders within their purview. It does not
apply to local responders or to those in the medical community. She
requested the GNEB’s assistance in addressing the issue for these
groups. Mr. Wood said that the group could explore writing a letter or
including the issue in a subsequent report in the business meeting the
following day. Ms. Tulis offered to share information on the contacts
she has been working with at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Ms.
Koerner added that the group may want to discuss the issue with its
Department of State members, Ms. Poynter, and Mr. Darrach. She added
that the GNEB has a DHS representative.

Mr. Niemeyer said that he was disappointed to learn that they were not
able to incorporate an all-hazards approach in the revision of the JCP.
He asked Mr. Posadas if he would be willing to discuss this issue with
the Secretariat. Ms. Tulis stated that the issue has been raised up a
number of chains of command. Mr. Posadas responded that the Secretariat
is aware of the issue. It is not a lack of willingness or commitment but
a question of jurisdiction. Legally, the Mexican Environment Ministry
cannot go beyond its jurisdiction. Judge Agan added that it takes time
to establish these agreements.

Mr. Guerrero suggested adding a USAID representative to the GNEB. Ms.
Koerner stated that the group could discuss this the following day.

Public Comment

Elaine Koerner, DFO, EPA

Ms. Alejandra Goyenechea introduced herself and stated that she was with
the International Counsel for Defenders of Wildlife. She asked if any
action had been taken on a recommendation in the Tenth Report to convene
a meeting to discuss developing a border fence that would accommodate
wildlife crossing. Ms. Koerner explained that GNEB’s role is to make
recommendations; it is up to other groups to act on them. Ms. Goyenechea
asked if the construction of a levee wall had been considered. Mr. Wood
explained that the levee wall, as distinguished from a fence, is an
integrated solid wall that would be 18-feet tall and would be integrated
within the levee system along the border; this would improve the
effectiveness of the levees. In many counties, however, the current
levees are not 18-feet high, and the local areas would have to provide
the funding to extend them. Some areas are funding this extension but
some are not. Mr. Wood said that he thought that the levee issues would
be handled on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Niemeyer added that there still
are some concerns about the wall being built on a levee and what that
would do to the flow regime during a flood event. Unfortunately, this
was not considered in the environmental impact statement (EIS). He added
that Mexico hosted a conference on the fence last year and published a
report on the issue. Dr. Brown added that the REAL ID Act of 2005 gave
the Secretary of DHS the authority to issue environmental waivers, so
revising the EIS would probably not stop DHS from moving forward with
the fence.

Briefings on the GNEB’s Twelfth Report Theme:  Innovation, Including
Incentives, To Prevent/Reduce Pollution at the U.S.-Mexico Border

Elaine Koerner, DFO, EPA

Ms. Koerner said that the next step for the GNEB is to begin discussion
of its next Report. The theme for the Report is innovation to prevent
and reduce pollution in the border region. In the year ahead, GNEB
members will be organized into workgroups to more closely examine
innovation as applied to environmental problems at the border. To help
the GNEB further frame the parameters for the Report, the four speakers
have been invited to discuss how innovation is manifested in their
organizations. Discussions will range from very broad topics, such as
the role of the private sector in environmental innovation, to very
specific topics, such as the use of scrap tires.

Opportunities and Barriers for Environmental Innovation Along the
U.S.-Mexico Border

Chuck Kent, Director, Cross-Media Programs, Office of Policy, Economics,
and Innovation (OPEI), EPA

Mr. Chuck Kent introduced himself as the Director of Cross-Media
Programs for EPA’s OPEI, which focuses on innovation within EPA. The
environmental problem set and social expectations continue to change
rapidly, but, unfortunately, environmental laws and budgets do not. Any
agency, but especially EPA, has to continually rethink its mission and
determine how to accomplish it with limited resources. In EPA’s case,
there has been no substantial change in the law during the past 15
years, yet environmental problems continue to create new challenges. New
problems tend to be more complex; nonpoint source pollution is a perfect
example. Problems today are more diffuse and are more difficult to
manage from a regulatory standpoint. Solutions must focus on partnering,
collaboration, and capacity-building, not on rule-making and
enforcement. OPEI focuses on complex problems, on adaptive change and
collaboration, and on trying to build a better sense of what it means to
be an environmental steward.

An improved environmental protection system: (1) focuses on
environmental performance and results; (2) promotes environmental
responsibility and natural resource stewardship, not just pollution
control; (3) integrates environmental management more fully across
facilities, problems, and media; (4) uses market incentives to achieve
environmental goals; and (5) emphasizes partnerships and stakeholder
collaboration. 

The principles guiding OPEI’s activities include maintaining vital
elements of the current system including standards, permits,
inspections, and compliance assurance; pursuing creative new tools and
approaches that enhance system efficiency and effectiveness; involving
regulatory partners and interested stakeholders in design to secure
buy-in; and testing and evaluating results before adoption on a larger
scale.  

OPEI seeks to institute a performance-based regulatory system in which
companies are notified of the results sought by EPA. For example, a
company is notified that emissions from its factory are to be no greater
than a certain level. Ideally, the company will determine how to achieve
this level of emissions at the lowest cost. EPA then measures the
company’s performance to ensure that its goals are being met. 
Secondly, EPA seeks to promote a sense of environmental stewardship
throughout society. This is a very different approach for EPA. The
current EPA culture treats every entity the same, not taking into
account the bigger picture. This new approach takes into consideration
the totality of a company’s efforts to become more environmentally
friendly. 

Flexible air permits are an example of a performance-oriented regulatory
system. With flexible air permits, a company is allowed to release a
certain amount of air pollutants; the company then determines how to
accomplish this. This approach is especially useful for time-to-market
firms, such as chip manufacturers, where the speed of change is
absolutely vital to success. This, however, is a different approach than
the one taken under the current Clean Air Act (CAA); environmental
groups are not supportive of this approach, which has, however, been
tested and evaluated.

The Environmental Results Program (ERP) is highly relevant to the
U.S.-Mexico border region; the program was created to improve the
environmental stewardship of businesses that typically operate under the
radar in terms of state and environmental regulations, such as dry
cleaners, photo finishers, and auto body shops. ERP works with trade
associations to identify these companies and provides them with
checklists, best practices, and tools to help them understand their
environmental responsibilities and implement them in a cost-effective
way. The companies are asked to report annually to the state regulatory
authority on their progress. This approach has been very successful. In
most cases, companies just do not know how to improve their practices to
reduce their environmental impact. Currently, approximately 12 states
have ERPs.

OPEI promotes strong environmental stewardship through a number of
methods, including the promotion of the use of environmental management
systems (EMS). If a business implements an EMS, it is more likely to
identify environmental problems and work to address them. In the case of
manufacturing, there is a whole set of tools, toolkits, and ideas that
EPA borrowed from Japanese business practices on how to continually
examine the manufacturing process, the distribution process, and every
aspect of business to reduce waste. This lowers costs for businesses and
improves the environment at the same time.

The Office of Cross-Media Programs and the National Center for
Environmental Innovation (NCEI), are leading EPA’s change efforts,
focusing more on innovative ideas than on individual programs. NCEI
conducts pilot studies, evaluates the effectiveness of different
approaches, and, if an approach is found to be successful, works to
scale up the program. The Office of Cross-Media Programs is responsible
for the Performance Track Program, the Sector Strategies Program, and
the Smart Growth Program. The Performance Track Program works with
companies that want to protect the environment, offering incentives for
going beyond compliance. Currently, more than 500 facilities participate
in this program. The Sector Strategies Program involves working with
different manufacturing sectors to improve environmental performance.
This involves promoting EMS use, removing regulatory barriers, and
measuring results.  The Smart Growth Program works to reduce the
environmental impact of the built environment. This program provides
data, models, and analytical tools to help states and communities
understand the environmental impacts of different development options.

Ms. Koerner asked the presenters to send her any materials that they
would like to have distributed to the GNEB.

Opportunities and Barriers for Air Quality-Energy Innovation Along the
U.S.-Mexico Border

Sue Stendebach, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), EPA

Ms. Sue Stendebach said that she would give a few examples of the many
projects along the border related to air, transportation, and the power
sector. OAR examines air and energy together to determine how air
pollution and energy efficiency affect one another. GHGs are coupled
with criteria pollutants because, in most cases, they are inextricably
linked. Under Border 2012’s guidance, OAR is refining its goals and
objectives and recently added a GHG objective under its air goal. OAR
also is working toward a more integrated air strategy to meet its goals
and objectives. Another important aspect of its work is building and
strengthening partnerships.

Coordination and collaboration are not new concepts, but there still are
many opportunities for coordination and collaboration that have not been
pursued. OAR is focusing on these areas and, as a result, is finding
much greater efficiencies. Within EPA and even within OAR, oftentimes
there is little or no knowledge of related projects along the border.
Many groups work along the border; OAR is attempting to promote better
communication to avoid duplication of effort. For example, next week
representatives from OAR are meeting with officials from SEMARNAT and
the Instituto Nacional de Ecología (INE) to discuss planned and current
projects. Additionally, OAR is convening a group of transportation and
air quality NGOs, SEMARNAT, INE, and the Mexico City Government to
discuss ongoing and planned projects, including the Mexican national
emissions inventory update. The hope is that these meetings will offer
opportunities for collaboration and complementary projects, and at the
very least, be an opportunity to learn about other projects in progress.
Another important aspect of this coordination and collaboration,
especially form EPA’s standpoint, is the possibility for leveraging
funds. EPA also hopes to be able to offer its technical expertise to
other groups.

Ms. Stendebach gave the group an update on select OAR projects. SmartWay
is an innovative program to increase energy efficiency while
significantly reducing greenhouse gases and air pollution in the freight
industry. In Mexico, a suggestion was made to combine SmartWay’s
energy efficiency with diesel retrofits. Training on efficiency and
particulate matter (PM) is ongoing. After 6 months of sponsoring this
training, SEMARNAT decided to implement its own program called
Transporte Limpio. EPA is working to develop this new program with
SEMARNAT. The plan is to provide a small amount of funding to the first
trucks that sign up for the program. 

Border crossing is an ongoing challenge because of the constraint of
space and money. Nevertheless, SmartWay is examining the feasibility of
installing truck stop electrification on the Mexican side at the Otay
Mesa Border Crossing. This involves working with the governments on both
sides of the border and also with Customs, DHS, and many other agencies
and organizations that do not always communicate with one another. Ms.
Stendebach said that she recently had a discussion with a colleague
about possibly using solar energy to power the truck stop
electrification.

OAR has been working with SEMARNAT, Mexico’s Federal Electricity
Commission, and the United States-Mexico Foundation for Science to
develop tools that will help facilities measure their emissions. Both
GHGs and criteria pollutants are measured with these tools. The data
gathered will be entered into databases for use by Mexico and the United
States. This project may set the stage for cross-border emissions
trading.

The Methane to Markets Partnership is a collaboration between EPA,
USAID, and SEMARNAT to recover methane from oil and gas facilities,
landfills, coal mines, and agriculture and use it to generate energy. A
feasibility study on landfill capture in Ensenada, Mexico, is underway.
Another project is examining the use of anaerobic digesters on hog
farms. EPA and Petróleos Mexicanos are working closely to find other
areas where methane can be captured and utilized.

Ms. Stendebach said that Mr. Luis Troche of EPA’s Combined Heat and
Power Partnership had recently approached her to discuss the possibility
of installing solar panels on the rooftops of very large facilities,
such as shopping malls. This would allow the buildings to be powered by
solar energy and to sell any additional power generated to the grid or
to truck stop electrification. There are many benefits of such an
approach. Businesses would gain in the long term by using solar energy
power and through the sale of any excess power. The challenges include
legal issues, funding for the initial installation, and convincing
building owners that the investment will pay off in the future. 

Discussion

Ms. Patti Krebs (Industrial Environmental Association) asked Ms.
Stendebach if there was any cross-border offset trading. Ms. Stendebach
replied that currently there are no cross-border cap-and-trade or offset
systems. Under the CAA, EPA does not have the authority to enter into
such agreements. In addition, Mexico must have its own trading system in
place before cross-border trading can occur. Ms. Krebs mentioned that
indirect emissions are a major problem. At what point is a manufacturer
responsible for these types of emissions? Ms. Stendebach said that she
did not think that indirect emissions would be regulated in the near
future. The current approach is performance-based as compared to
requiring a certain level of emissions. 

Ms. Krebs asked Mr. Kent if companies that self-reported violations were
removed from the Performance Track Program. Mr. Kent replied that
businesses are encouraged to report their violations. In the case of the
Performance Track Program, the most responsible companies tend to report
issues and work to correct them. The program has worked to make
provisions to ensure that businesses are free to define problems, fix
them, and report them without the threat of being penalized.

Mr. Connolly said that he was pleased to see that industry-based demand
quantification for pollution was included. He is a member of the
Kumeyaay Tribe in San Diego County. The tribe’s past experience with
Smart Growth programs has been that developers compensate for the loss
of wildlife habitat by condemning inland lands, which are primarily
tribal lands. Thus, his tribe’s land often is next to many of these
protected areas; this limits the tribe’s economic development. He
would like to see more of a focus on the effects of such requirements.
Market trading programs seem to reward polluters for reducing their
emissions. In a tribal community without any industry, there is no
opportunity to create those reductions to offset pollution. Instead,
tribes have to pay for their industrial development. This is removing
wealth from the Native American community and rewarding the outside
community. Mr. Connolly worked on the Grand Canyon Market Trading
Program in which the concept of allocating tribal communities credits
upfront was discussed but never implemented. California has an incentive
program that pays $2.50 per watt of rooftop solar energy generated.
Under California law, utilities are not allowed to charge the homeowner
for the added cost of the net metering that goes along with these
rooftop programs. The result is that individuals who have the money to
buy into the system or who own single family homes are the ones who
benefit from the program. Poorer people either do not have the money for
the initial buy-in or live in apartment buildings. Ultimately, the costs
of the rooftop solar program are spread out by the utility company to
all the rate payers, so the poorer people are subsidizing the wealthier
people. He asked that these effects be considered when planning these
programs. Ms. Stendebach agreed that all of the issues he raised need to
be taken into account.

Mr. Michael Dorsey (County of San Diego Department of Environmental
Health) explained that the California Environmental Protection Agency
explored using a self-reporting approach, but it never came to fruition.
California is not part of the ERP, but agencies in California are
working on the same types of issues. As Chief of the Hazardous Materials
Division for San Diego County, he had developed three programs. One was
a green business program for the automotive industry, another was a
self-certification photographic waste program, and the other was a
compliance incentive program working with the biotech industry. He found
that working with the trade associations was critical. He added that a
privately-owned landfill in Otay Mesa is using methane to generate
electricity.

Mr. Guerrero said that there might be funding available for the work on
hog farms through the Conservation Innovation Grants from the USDA. In
addition, there may be some opportunities through USAID for working
together on innovative projects along the border. Ms. Stendebach said
that this is exactly the type of discussion and collaboration that is
needed.

Ms. Keith said that Mr. Connolly and Ms. Krebs were referring to the
lifecycle cost of the product; there can be unexpected outcomes that,
when combined, make an action less environmentally friendly. The
International Organization for Standardization (ISO) series is one
method of reducing the environmental impact of production. Many of the
larger companies today are trying to be more environmentally friendly
and are requiring that their suppliers be ISO 14000 certified, which
means that their products are produced in an environmentally friendly
manner. This is one nonregulatory method of encouraging environmentally
friendly production. There also is EPA’s Small Community Environmental
Protection Plan, which is an environmental management system for
communities. If a community has a plan and it self-reports a violation,
the penalty often is minimized. Developing these plans can prevent
problems from occurring in the first place. Mr. Kent said that EPA
strongly endorses systematic approaches such as ISO certification.
Research, however, has shown that although ISO certification and EMSs
are useful, it still is important to closely examine a company’s
environmental practices. 

Ms. Siwik explained that she is from the Southwest New
Mexico/Northwestern Chihuahua region of the border where the
Columbus/Palomas Port of Entry currently is being expanded from two to
16 lanes. Rural ports of entry such as Columbus/Palomas may present an
opportunity for implementing truck stop electrification systems. Ms.
Stendebach thanked her for the information. Ms. Stendebach said that she
was not aware of the expansion, and it sounds as though it may be a good
opportunity to implement truck stop electrification systems.

Ms. Marin said that California is leading by example by implementing
green building standards in state buildings. Without any government
intervention, a number of organizations (including Bank of America and
Wal-Mart) are now looking to become greener. It is important to
highlight that large corporations are doing the right thing. Mr. Kent
said that California has been a leader in setting policy to reduce
energy consumption. He agreed that government can lead by example. The
federal government is becoming more active in terms of green building.
Social expectations are also changing rapidly. Ms. Stone mentioned that
Governor Richardson issued an executive order mandating green building
for the New Mexico state government. New Mexico also is developing a
rule for truck stop electrification within the state.

Private Sector Leadership in Innovation for Environmental Protection at
the Border

Al Zapanta, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), United
States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce

Ms. Koerner introduced Mr. Al Zapanta, President and CEO of the United
States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce. 

Mr. Zapanta explained that the Chamber works with companies in the
United States and Mexico to improve the manufacturing process and help
ensure a clean environment. 

Mr. Zapanta discussed some of the Chamber’s innovative activities
along the border. Three years ago, the United States-Mexico Chamber of
Commerce completed the development of a database that includes all of
Mexico’s environmental laws. This database was created to help
alleviate a nontariff barrier for small- and medium-size businesses
hoping to conduct business across the border. The laws currently are
being translated to English; all translations will be certified by the
Mexican government. This is the only reliable searchable database of
Mexican laws outside of Mexico. For example, if a company wanted to
build a textile plant in Durango, they would simply select Durango’s
state and the system would return all of the laws and pertinent federal,
state, and city regulations for that area. This project was a
partnership between the Department of Commerce’s International Trade
Administration Environmental Technology Office, the United States-Mexico
Chamber of Commerce, and SEMARNAT (called SEMARNAP [Secretaría de Medio
Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pessac] when this project began).
SEMARNAP contributed two environmental lawyers and two IT systems
integrators. The United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce contributed
infrastructure and staff. The total effort during a 4-year period was
approximately $4.5 million. The project continues as a joint effort of
the United States and Mexican governments. 

The United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce has worked to help industry
in Mexico become more environmentally friendly. The Chamber received a
grant from the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) for a period of 4
years (the project is currently in its third year) to establish a clean,
lean production center in León, Guanajuato. In 1999, then-Governor of
Guanajuato, Vicente Fox, invited the Chamber to the area to help reduce
the amount of effluents and wastewater being produced by the leather
industry. As a result of that project, the Chamber received the grant
from IDB, which, in turn, had to be matched by the Chamber, SEMARNAT,
and the state environmental agency. Fifty percent of the funding came
from IDB, 30 percent from the Chamber of Commerce, and 10 percent each
from the state and local municipalities. With these funds, environmental
consultants were hired to review industrial processes and management in
five sectors:  (1) leather, (2) auto parts, (3) petrochemicals, (4)
plastics, and (5) health-related areas. The project will occur in five
Mexican states:  Jalisco, Guanajuato, Quintero, Aguascalientes, and San
Luis Potosí. Participating companies are required to provide 30 percent
of the cost for the environmental consultants. The goal is to help these
companies become greener and more efficient. 

The United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, along with Pro Mexico
Economic, Nacional Financiera, and the largest Mexican Chamber of
Commerce, is working to promote 2,000 medium-sized Mexican businesses. A
meeting focused on auto parts businesses is planned for April 9, 2008,
in León, Guanajuato. Medium-sized companies will be matched with large
companies in Mexico. A second meeting focused on aerospace and auto
parts businesses is planned for May 2008. The goal is to help Mexican
companies become suppliers, with the larger companies helping the
smaller ones, with an ultimate goal of bringing business back to Mexico.


Discussion

Ms. Koerner said that she applauded the United States-Mexico Chamber of
Commerce and Mr. Zapanta for including environmental protection in the
Chamber’s mission.

Mr. Connolly asked where the offices of the United States-Mexico Chamber
of Commerce were located. Mr. Zapanta replied that the Chamber has 10
U.S. offices and 10 Mexico offices. The U.S. offices are located in
Seattle, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Detroit,
Miami, New York, and Washington, DC. The Chamber hopes to open an
agriculture-focused office in Phoenix soon. The Mexican offices are in
Mexico City, Monterrey, Guadalajara, Aguascalientes, Veracruz, Puebla,
Media, and Cancún, among others. In the past, there were more U.S.
offices than Mexican offices, but this is changing as the Chamber opens
more and more offices in Mexico. Mr. Dorsey asked why there were no
offices in the border region. Mr. Zapanta replied that the major issue
along the border for the Chamber is the maquiladoras and U.S.-owned
companies; these entities are represented on the Chamber’s board. He
explained that the work the Chamber does is more over the border than on
the border. The Chamber has established offices in the centers of
business, transportation, and economics in the two countries.

Advances in Water Pumping Efficiency (Watergy™) in Mexico

Brian T. Castelli, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer,
Alliance to Save Energy

Mr. Brian Castelli explained that Watergy™ is the link between energy
and water, which is critical to municipal governments. In many of the
countries that the Alliance to Save Energy has worked in, the budget for
energy and water is between 60 and 80 percent of the entire budget for
the municipality. This means that there is less money to spend on other
important issues, such as health and education. 

The Alliance to Save Energy is an NGO that was created in 1977 by two
U.S. Senators, Senator Charles Percy and Senator Hubert Humphrey, in
response to the oil crisis. The Alliance’s mission is to advance
energy efficiency worldwide through policy, research, education,
technology deployment, market transformation, and communication
initiatives. The Alliance headquarters is in Washington, DC, but the
Alliance also has offices in Eastern Europe, South Africa, India, and
Mexico. The current Co-Chairs are Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas and
James Rogers, Chairman and CEO of Duke Energy. Mr. Rogers is a leader in
energy efficiency in the utility industry and currently he is promoting
the Save A Watt energy reduction program in the five states covered by
Duke Energy. One of the Alliance co-chairs is always from one of the
Alliance’s member companies. Currently, there are 146 company members,
including Home Depot and Wal-Mart.

Every liter of water that passes through a system has a significant
energy cost. Increasing water sector efficiency leaves more funds for
crucial and often underfunded public services. In Mexico, about 33
percent of water is lost in the system, resulting in a great amount of
energy being used to pump water that is never delivered to the customer.

Watergy™ is extremely cost-effective. Most of the measures taken when
working with water utilities and energy facilities provide a pay back in
just a few months (in rare cases, a few years). Savings usually amount
to at least 20 percent. Watergy™ uses the existing infrastructure and
reduces the need for new infrastructure.

The motors used to drive water pumps generally are very inefficient, so
pumping can use a lot of energy. Addressing pumping issues is one of the
most cost-effective interventions. Leak management is another effective
intervention. Moderating the pressure and using only the pressure needed
can be a very effective way to reduce energy consumption. Automated
controls and sensors can help a water utility manager determine the
level of demand and adjust the pressure accordingly. Metering and
monitoring also are critical components of these interventions.

There is a lack of awareness about the connection between water and
energy efficiency; most water utility managers view their jobs as
managing water, not energy. Other barriers include an aversion to risk
and a fear of change. To address these issues, it is important to convey
that the benefits of improving efficiency outweigh the risks. For some,
change implies that there is a problem with the status quo and
suggestions for improvement can inadvertently imply criticism of
performance and/or ability. Another barrier is that water needs to be
priced to recover the costs. Past experience, however, has shown that
people will pay for service improvement. Another challenge is financing
these energy efficiency measures. One of the best ways to address this
is through performance contracting, in which a third party finances the
changes and the utility pays them back using funds saved as a result of
the new efficiency. 

The Alliance’s Watergy™ Program now spans the entire border,
including Baja California (Tijuana), Sonora (Guaymas), Chihuahua
(Hidalgo de Parral), Coahuila (Monclova-Frontera), Nuevo León
(Monterrey), and Tamaulipas (Matamoros, Tampico). 

The Alliance helped Tijuana meet the needs of a rapidly growing city
using the same amount of water. Tijuana experienced rapid population
growth of more than 20,000 households per year (more than 80,000
people). The city’s water came from the Colorado River and had to be
transported over the mountains. An audit was performed, and the
solutions identified included automation, peak demand management, and
the use of a new water source. These changes resulted in saving 4.1
kilowatt hours of energy and $400,000 per year and a reduced rate of
water loss of 19 percent (one of the lowest in Mexico); water was
provided to 46,000 new households with only slightly higher water
production. In addition, the need for a large investment in an aqueduct
was deferred for 6 years. An important lesson that the Alliance has
learned is that there are always additional methods to improve energy
efficiency.

Another city in Mexico, Monclova, had sporadic water service, with
residents only receiving water for 6 hours every third day. In addition,
almost one-half (48%) of the water pumped was lost. An audit identified
a number of leaks. Variable speed drives for the motors were installed
to match the electric load to the demand for pumping. The Alliance also
identified electromechanical efficiency improvements and managerial and
operational improvements that could be made. These changes resulted in a
20 percent reduction in water loss and allowed water service 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week.  More than 10 million cubic meters of water, 6.1
million kilowatt hours (about 36% of previous energy use), and $727,000
were saved every year. 

The city of Hidalgo de Parral, Mexico, was able to ensure a continuous
water supply with a very small investment. Originally, this city had
water service for 12 hours every second day, and energy costs consumed
40 percent of the city’s total operating costs. In fact, a large
investment had been planned because the water treatment system could not
keep up with the demand. An audit determined that one-half of all of the
water pumped was lost to leaks. Improvements were made in the city’s
hydraulic operations and leaks were reduced. As a result, water became
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 3.65 million kilowatt hours
and $417,000 are now saved every year. In addition, the existing water
treatment plant was able to meet the demand. 

In Zihuatanejo, a small investment in water efficiency yielded big
improvements. At the outset, water was provided for 10 hours every third
day, electricity costs were high, and the utility’s planned solution
would have cost $14 million. Hydraulic operation improvements were made.
As a result, 120 pumping systems located in residential buildings and a
number of the booster pumps previously used were no longer needed. Water
became available 24 hours a day, and 100,000 kilowatt hours are saved
each year. The total cost of these improvements was $370,000.

Mr. Castelli added that USAID initially sponsored much of this work in
Mexico. Today, water utilities approach the Alliance on their own, which
is a real testament to the success of the USAID programs. Mr. Castelli
noted that U.S. water companies have not yet taken part in the
Watergy™ Program; unfortunately, they are very resistant to changing
their practices.

Discussion

™ Program because it has not yet been implemented in the United
States. He thought it might be useful to start by approaching the
smaller municipal water systems in the United States.

Dr. Brown mentioned that privatization is a very sensitive issue when it
comes to the public provision of services like water, especially in
Latin America. Does the Alliance’s approach encourage or require
privatization? Mr. Castelli responded that the Alliance has worked
mostly with public sector municipal water utilities. Dr. Brown asked if
private companies in the United States were reluctant to become more
efficient because they make a profit based on the amount of product they
sell. Mr. Castelli explained that electric company revenues are based on
the number of kilowatt hours they sell. Energy efficiency, however, is
much cheaper than building a power plant. It is not only cheaper, it
also is quicker and cleaner and does not cause any pollution. This is
the message that the Alliance is trying to communicate to regulators.
Water is becoming an increasingly valuable commodity, particularly
throughout the U.S. Southwest and in the border region, so it must be
used more efficiently. Changes will need to be made. One option is to
create a rate setting system for water similar to that for energy.  

Ms. Keith, who works for the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality, said that in her area, water is very scarce, so there is much
more emphasis on conservation. She added that the North American
Development Bank (NADB) finances water projects in the border region.
Mr. Castelli said that, unfortunately, financing for energy and water
efficiency is scarce. Lines of credit or financing from an organization
such as NADB might spur more projects on water and energy conservation.
Ms. Keith said that the public utility director in Tombstone, Arizona,
found that he could save about $6,000 per day by simply managing the
pumping of the water. Mr. Castelli said that Tombstone had a very
enlightened utility manager. 

™ Program should be implemented in the United States. In reference to
a comment 

Mr. Castelli had made about engineers designing systems larger than they
needed to be, he said that the National Society of Professional
Engineers adopted a sustainable development standard as part of its
ethical standards. He did not, however, think that many engineers
understood the meaning of sustainable development. Mr. Niemeyer told the
story of a joint U.S.-Mexico project to build a wastewater treatment
plant on the Mexican side of the border. The plant reduced the amount of
effluent-contaminated wastewater going into the Río Grande by 90
percent. Someone involved with the project later commented that creating
a lagoon system instead of building the treatment plant would have saved
a considerable amount of money. An engineer that Mr. Niemeyer knows,
however, calculated the cost to pump the water through a lagoon system
and found that the energy costs would have been astronomical. Mr.
Castelli commented that there are many projects in the United States to
improve efficiency and reduce the cost of wastewater treatment. He was
surprised to hear that it would cost more to pump the water through the
lagoons; in his experience, water in lagoon systems was not pumped. 

Mr. Scott asked how the Alliance selects with whom they work. How does
the funding work between the Alliance and the utility? Mr. Castelli said
that the Alliance works as a consultant to the utility. The Alliance
reviews the current system, quotes the utility a price and the utility
pays the Alliance. The Alliance can help utilities locate financing. In
Mexico, the water utilities generally approach the Alliance. Mr.
Guerrero mentioned that, during the recent drought along the Río Grande
Basin, NADB had provided funding to help Mexican farmers improve their
irrigation efficiencies. This is the type of work that the USDA does,
providing technical and financial assistance to help farmers and
ranchers increase the efficiency of their irrigation systems. In the
Western United States, a question that often comes up is to whom does
the saved water belong? Mr. Castelli said that the same issues arise in
the climate arena. If an individual makes his/her home more efficient
and a cap-and-trade program is implemented in the United States, the
question becomes, who owns the carbon credit? The resident or the
utility? 

Mr. Connolly asked if there were programs to combine water storage and
energy in the area of renewable energy. Mr. Castelli said that the
Alliance does not work on renewable energy. Improving efficiency is the
first step. Mr. Wood commented on his hometown of Brownsville, Texas,
where the public utility board generates power, provides water, and
treats wastewater for the city. It would appear that they would have
many opportunities for improving efficiency. He added that he also
serves on a state regional water planning board; the majority of the
water in the region is used by irrigators, so he would be interested in
learning more on this topic. Mr. Castelli suggested that he contact the
California Energy Commission for information on irrigation. The
commission has worked successfully with Central Valley irrigators to
implement water conservation measures, such as turning off the pumps and
motors for irrigation during times of peak demand.

Tire Industry Involvement in Programs for Scrap Tire Management Along
the U.S.-Mexico Border

Tracey Norberg, Senior Vice President, Rubber Manufacturers Association
(RMA)

Ms. Tracey Norberg explained that RMA represents U.S. tire
manufacturers. The tire industry embraces the idea of shared
responsibility for environmental protection. 

The Scrap Tire Program was started in 1990 when RMA created the Scrap
Tire Management Council. The program is sponsored by all RMA tire
manufacturers and works with governments, scrap tire users, NGOs, and
the general public to accomplish its mission. RMA scrap tire strategic
goals include: promoting the elimination of all scrap tire piles in an
environmentally and economically sound manner, promoting the management
of all annually generated scrap tires in an environmentally and
economically sound manner, seeking public awareness of scrap tire
management success, and advocating for a legislative and regulatory
environment that is conducive to and supportive of the RMA scrap tire
mission. 

Since the program began in 1990, there has been steady improvement in
the number of scrap tires being utilized or “going to market.” In
1990, only 11 percent of scrap tires went to market but, by 2005, that
number was up to 87 percent. Most of these scrap tires are used to
produce tire-derived fuel (TDF). Scrap tires also are used in
construction projects, among other smaller applications. Fourteen
percent of tires are land-disposed every year. This is different from
stockpiles, as these are properly land-filled to minimize risks to the
environment. RMA does not promote land-filling scrap tires but, if they
must be land-filled, it is preferred that they are properly disposed to
minimize the environmental impact.

Texas has robust markets for scrap tires, particularly in the area of
TDF; scrap tires also are used for engineering applications in Texas.
Arizona has been a leader in rubber-modified asphalt applications.
California has a number of unique challenges, including the fact that
land-filling tires is legal and often the cheapest option. 

The area along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border presents unique and
special challenges to governments and industry. There are no federal,
state, or municipal laws or regulations on scrap tires in Mexico. U.S.
border states have laws and regulations, but there are few, if any,
markets along the border. Along the border, dumping (in remote areas) or
stockpiling (in densely populated areas) is common. Tire flow is mostly
from the United States to Mexico, but stockpiles exist on both sides.
The approach to developing a scrap tire infrastructure along the border
needs to take all of these factors into account.

Opportunities along the border, however, do exist. TDFs are used by
Cementos Mexicanos (CEMEX) in Mexico, and tire-derived aggregate (TDA)
is used in civil engineering on both sides of the border. RMA’s
approach is to encourage U.S. states to focus on scrap tires along the
border, to support and use TDA, and to host/sponsor workshops. The tire
industry is committing or has committed resources to assist in the
organization of workshops on market development. RMA has sponsored
workshops in Texas and New Mexico, works with the California Integrated
Waste Management Board, and currently is working on a cooperative
program with EPA. RMA representatives have met with representatives from
the Mexican National Congress to explain the different aspects of a
comprehensive approach to tire management.

In Mexico, there are no federal or state laws or regulations on scrap
tires, no fees are paid for disposal/transportation, there is limited
processing capacity, used tires continue to be imported, and private
funds are scarce. When used tires are brought to Mexico, they often
remain along the border region. It is unlikely that the flow of tires
into Mexico can be stopped. Many stockpiles exist, but there are no
accurate data to quantify the magnitude of the problem. No markets exist
in Mexico, which increases the rate of stockpile growth. 

RMA presented at two forums in Mexico and is working with SEMARNAT
through the Mexican Embassy to develop a scrap tire management plan for
the border. RMA also chairs an ad hoc working group that provides a
centralized information base and is a member, along with EPA, SEMARNAT,
and various states, of the Scrap Tire Task Force.

There are many opportunities for utilizing the scrap tires along the
U.S.-Mexico border. Scrap tires have been identified as a priority
issue, and state, federal, and international organizations are seeking
to fund programs. There is an abundant supply of tires and a
well-developed industrial base along the border. TDF is an acceptable
use for tires, and potential end users exist along the border. In
addition, there is considerable interest in rubber-modified asphalt.
Civil engineering applications would be an easy fit, and the
transportation system along the border is well developed.

Although there are many opportunities, many challenges exist as well.
Neither EPA nor SEMERNAT has a budget for scrap tire programs, and
cross-border projects involve working with multiple levels of
administrative processes from multiple agencies. 

Unless or until Mexico enacts scrap tire legislation, market development
will continue to be localized. The lack of funding for scrap tire
programs will limit stockpile abatement and market development programs.
Emphasis should be placed on using existing resources (both public and
private) to support scrap tire programs, including training programs on
how to start markets. Agencies across the border will need to coordinate
their efforts. If this is accomplished, these niche markets could expand
into regional markets.

A conference entitled “Scrap Tire Processing, Markets, and Finance”
is planned for May 5, 2008, in San Diego. Topics covered will include
obtaining and processing scrap tires, markets for tire-derived products,
and financing sources. This conference will provide useful information
for individuals interested in processing scrap tires and manufacturing
products from recycled rubber and will be useful for government
representatives interested in understanding the business aspect of scrap
tire management. 

RMA is sponsoring a workshop entitled “From Scrap to Profit: 2nd
Annual Symposium on Recycled Rubber in Plastics and Rubber Products,”
to be held May 6-7, 2008, in San Diego. This workshop will focus on
expanding the market for higher value-added products from scrap tires.
Topics will include:  making products from rubber-plastic compounds,
producing molded and extruded products with recycled rubber, national
and international trends and opportunities, environmental and human
health hot topics, marketing tire-derived products, leveraging green
building initiatives, and selling to the government. This workshop will
be useful for business owners, individuals interested in new business
opportunities, and government representatives. 

There will be a scrap tire session at the Border 2012 Tire Group meeting
to be held May 8–9, 2008, in San Diego. The session is open to anyone
interested in U.S.-Mexico border scrap tire issues.

Ms. Norberg thanked everyone for their attention. She explained that Mr.
Mike Blumenthal is in charge of the Scrap Tire Program for the RMA and
asked the participants to direct their detailed questions to him.

Discussion

Judge Agan observed that, in his area, oftentimes individuals will pay a
tire disposal fee, but the used tires are not disposed; instead they are
piled up in the back of the gas station or service center. Ms. Norberg
explained that there are two types of disposal fees:  (1) a fee that is
imposed by the state to support the state’s scrap tire management
program; and (2) a fee charged by the retailer for tire disposal.
Unfortunately, the second type of fee often is not actually used for
tire disposal. There currently is no tracking system for these types of
fees. She said that it appeared that the challenge in Judge Agan’s
area was that there was no market for the scrap tires. 

Ms. Sorzano asked how scrap tires are handled in Europe. Ms. Norberg
responded that Europe does not have comparable stockpiles because
Europeans do not drive as much as Americans. Europeans also have a
different perception of the value of tires. Americans tend to see scrap
tires as potentially having future value, so they retain them. In
addition, Europe has banned land-filling tires. Unfortunately, a ban
would not work in the United States simply because there are some areas
of the country where there are no markets for scrap tires. She suggested
phasing out landfills in areas with markets for scrap tires. 

Dr. Brown asked if it would be feasible to use scrap tires in earth
stabilization projects, such as for building large-scale retaining
walls. Ms. Norberg said that there are a number of issues with this type
of use. First, having a large number of tires together will generate
heat. Second, tires must be stable and effective from an engineering
perspective. Mr. Mark Joyce, EPA, gave an example in which scrap tires
were used to create a reef that ultimately had serious adverse
environmental consequences that resulted in the dismantling of the reef.
Ms. Norberg clarified that the issue with the tire reef was that the
tires floated to the surface of the ocean. It is crucial, however, to be
mindful of potential environmental impacts when exploring uses for scrap
tires.

Ms. Siwik observed that on the Mexican side of the border in her area,
individuals burn scrap tires and collect the steel belts. This is an
issue that the Border 2012 Waste Management Workgroup is working to
address. Ms. Siwik asked if this happened in other parts of Mexico. Ms.
Norberg responded that she did not know of this happening in other parts
of Mexico. She added that the problem with such a practice would be the
emissions from the open air burning. She mentioned that scrap tires can
be used in landfill leachate collection systems. 

According to Mr. Guerrero, companies on the Mexican side of the border
near Ft. Worth, Texas, sell used tires for use on Mexican vehicles. Ms.
Norberg said that using these tires can be very dangerous, but the
reality is that there is a market for these tires in Mexico. 

Mr. Dorsey said that California has an aggressive waste tire program
that will ultimately result in fewer tires ending up in landfills in the
future. He mentioned a television program that he recently saw about a
company that used the rubber from scrap tires for manufacturing. Ms.
Norberg responded that there is a growing market for tire rubber in
manufacturing, but melting the rubber is an energy-intensive process
with a risk of explosion. She noted that the chief issue with
land-filling tires in California is that monofills are legal. Dr. Austin
asked if the steel is recovered when TDFs are produced. Ms. Norberg
responded that steel is recovered in some cases. 

Ms. Ellie Kanipe from EPA’s Office of Solid Waste said that Border
2012 had cleaned up 3.5 million tires along the border. EPA created an
inventory of tire piles along the border; there are now more than 20
projects aimed at preventing future stockpiles and addressing those that
already exist. The Border 2012 group is now reaching out to states and
municipalities along the border, asking them to sign a letter of
commitment. In addition, SEMARNAT developed guidelines for managing tire
stockpiles. Mr. Joyce added that tire rubber now is being used in
asphalt. Its use offers many benefits, including significant reductions
in road noise and road spray as well as longer lasting asphalt. The
challenge has been in convincing asphalt manufacturers to use the tire
rubber. Dr. Brown agreed that it is difficult to convince the asphalt
manufacturers to change. He asked if RMA has had any discussions with
the American Society of Highway Engineers about this issue. Ms. Norberg
replied that RMA has been trying to start the conversation for the past
18 years, and they were just beginning to make some progress. Mr. Wood
said that in his hometown of Brownsville there was a project to bale
scrap tires. It ultimately was determined that there was no market for
baled tires, so they were unbaled and put into landfills. 

Mr. Koerner thanked everyone in attendance for contributing to an
interesting and informative day of discussion. The agenda for the
following day is to determine the structure of the Twelfth Report and
organize workgroups and conference calls. She asked the participants to
think about the Twelfth Report that evening.

Mr. Wood thanked the new GNEB members for agreeing to participate. He
said that the GNEB members are a distinguished group of experts. He
noted that Chair Ganster had published a book. Ms. Marin had recently
published a book about her experience as U.S. Treasurer entitled Leading
Between Two Worlds:  Lessons from the First Mexican-Born Treasurer of
the United States. In addition, Ms. Marin recently received the
Outstanding American by Choice Award, which recognizes the outstanding
achievements of naturalized U.S. citizens.

Mr. Wood thanked Ms. Koerner for her many years of service to the GNEB
and presented her with a plaque.  The meeting was recessed at 5:30 p.m.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Business Meeting

John Wood, Acting Chair, and Elaine Koerner, DFO, EPA

Mr. Wood called the meeting to order at 8:11 a.m. 

Ms. Koerner commented that the day’s work would include coming to a
consensus on the framework for the Twelfth Report and organizing
workgroups and conference calls. 

Approval of Minutes From Last Meeting

Mr. Wood asked the GNEB members whether there were any substantive
issues with the meeting minutes. Any smaller issues, such as grammatical
errors, can be e-mailed to Ms. Koerner. Dr. Brown said that he had not
had a chance to review the minutes but would do so that afternoon. He
asked if those who had reviewed the minutes could offer their comments,
and the group could approve the minutes as amended. Others with
revisions could send their comments to Ms. Koerner for incorporation.
Mr. Wood agreed with this approach. Mr. Niemeyer pointed out that the
Rio Grande Canalization Project was incorrectly referred to as the Rio
Grande Canalization Collaborative Project at least once in the report.
He also found an instance where an “of” should be a “from.” As
currently written, it changes the meaning of the sentence. Mr. Wood
asked him to note his edits and send them to Ms. Koerner. He added that
Ms. Sally Spener had sent some edits to Ms. Koerner. Mr. Wood put forth
a motion to approve the minutes on the basis that changes would be
submitted to Ms. Koerner; she will make those edits, and the group will
review them again. Ms. Sorzano moved and Ms. Stone seconded a motion to
approve the minutes with changes as provided to Ms. Koerner. The minutes
were approved unanimously.

Ms. Koerner asked the GNEB members to complete the form detailing the
number of Eleventh Reports needed and their planned dissemination
efforts and return the forms to Ms. Brown. The Reports can be shipped
directly to GNEB members, or GNEB members can provide EPA with mailing
labels for shipping. Mr. Niemeyer asked how many Reports were in a box.
It was later confirmed that there were 48 Reports in each box. Ms.
Koerner suggested that the GNEB members review the past year’s
tracking report to determine the number of Reports needed. Four thousand
copies of the Eleventh Report were printed. EPA’s Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR) will mail copies to
congressional representatives. Mr. Guerrero said that OCIR will
personally deliver a copy of the Report to each member of Congress from
the four border states. He asked whether GNEB members could distribute
copies of the Report to local media. Ms. Koerner said that the Reports
are public documents and can be given to anyone. She suggested that GNEB
members who talk to the press specify whether they are speaking for
their own organization or on the GNEB’s behalf. It may be good to
coordinate with the Chair to ensure a consistent message from the GNEB.

Ms. Koerner asked the GNEB members to consider how they could supplement
this effort, possibly by distributing copies of the report to
congressional representatives, members of the public, organizational
affiliates, or others. Dissemination to colleagues across the border is
appreciated. Mr. Wood explained to the new GNEB members that he ordered
one case of Reports the previous year and found that was not enough.
From civic clubs and organizations to local government planning groups,
everyone seemed to want a copy of the Report. He added that some GNEB
members have developed talking points and presentations on the Report.

Ms. Koerner asked Mr. Gary Gillen (Gillen Pest Control) to discuss
briefly some of his outreach efforts for previous GNEB Reports. Mr.
Gillen said that, in addition to local elected officials, he also has
provided GNEB’s Reports to social studies teachers at local high
schools. He prepared a PowerPoint presentation that he has taken to some
local civic clubs such as the Rotary Club and the Lions Club; these
groups seemed to like the presentation. A key to keeping the
audience’s attention is including pictures in the slides. He suggested
that GNEB consider preparing talking points on the new Report that could
be edited to suit one’s needs. Mr. Wood said that the PowerPoint
slides used the day before were available; maybe some changes and/or
modifications could be made to those slides. 

Mr. Guerrero asked if CD-ROMs of the Report were available. Ms. Koerner
said that there were no CDs for the Eleventh Report and suggested that
the group consider making CDs for future Reports. Mr. DeLeon said that
he would be willing to devote some resources to exploring putting the
Report on a CD-ROM. Dr. Brown mentioned that he has a 10-disk CD burner
in his laboratory and offered his assistance. Mr. Guerrero said that he
would first check with his student employees to determine what they
could do and then contact Dr. Brown if he needed assistance.

Ms. Ann Marie Wolf said that, in her experience, congressional
representatives often do not review the Report unless it is handed
directly them or to one of their staffers. She always takes multiple
copies to her congressman and makes sure that it gets into the staff’s
hands. Mr. Wood agreed that personal efforts are extremely important.
Last year, he gave the GNEB Report to his congressman and was pleasantly
surprised when the congressman mentioned reading the previous GNEB
Report. Dr. Brown added that congressional staffers are very fond of the
one-page summary. Most congressional representatives, especially border
state representatives, employ a staff person who focuses on natural
resource issues on the border. Ideally, the report should go to that
person. Mr. Brown offered to help other GNEB members find these
contacts. Mr. Niemeyer agreed that identifying the right staff member
can be very helpful. He mentioned that he would be interesting in seeing
Mr. Gillen’s PowerPoint presentation on last year’s Report.

Mr. DeLeon cautioned the new GNEB members to be careful when visiting
members of Congress to avoid lobbying. He suggested that the new GNEB
members familiarize themselves with the anti-lobbying regulations. After
this meeting ends, GNEB members are on their own personal time. Any
questions about this can be directed to him, Mr. Wood, or Ms. Koerner.

Discussion of Twelfth Report

Elaine Koerner, DFO, EPA

Ms. Koerner stated that GNEB has held two teleconferences and a
face-to-face meeting to discuss the Twelfth Report. Chair Ganster
identified some of the themes that emerged from those discussions and
invited speakers on those topics (role of the private sector, energy,
example of scrap tires). 

Ms. Koerner said that she would work with the group to determine the
framework for the Report and establish workgroups and conference calls.
She presented some initial ideas and encouraged the participants to add
additional ideas or to comment on the ideas presented.

There are five criteria for the Report. First, the Report must reflect
the mission of the GNEB, which is to advise the President and Congress
on environmental and infrastructure issues along the U.S.-Mexico border.
For example, the Report could include recommendations on how the federal
government can enable and encourage the private sector to reduce
pollution. Second, GNEB should identify and use both its in-house
expertise and outside expertise to inform the development of the Report.
Third, the group needs to consider previous or existing coverage of a
proposed topic. For example, Ms. Koerner said that she had asked Ms.
Kanipe if she thought, with the Border 2012’s 20 programs on scrap
tires, the issue was covered. Ms. Kanipe said that despite these 20
programs, she still thought that the GNEB could add value to the
discussion on scrap tires. Fourth, the GNEB needs to ensure that the
issue chosen is specific enough that it can be contained in one Report.
In the past, GNEB has identified specifically what it will and will not
focus on, making sure to note that a lack of discussion on a particular
issue does not imply that it is not important. Ms. Koerner asked the
GNEB to consider these criteria as a backdrop for the discussion of the
Twelfth Report.

Judge Agan said that Border 2012 has identified three areas of focus in
his geographic area, one of which is illegal dumping. In Presidio County
there are approximately 140 illegal dump sites; when it rains, the
runoff goes into the Río Grande. Scrap tires are one of the main
components in these illegal dump sites. This is a border-wide issue. He
suggested possibly working to restructure the tire disposal fee to
ensure that the funds are actually used for tire disposal. Ms. Koerner
asked if he was suggesting scrap tires or illegal dumping as an issue
for the Twelfth Report. Judge Agan said that he was putting either idea
on the table. 

Ms. Koerner discussed the initial ideas, asking the GNEB members to keep
in mind that the Report audience ranges from those very familiar with
border issues to those who know very little about the border. The
initial ideas included:  

Maquiladoras, which are integral to the economies of both countries and
unique to the border region. Some other topics that could be
incorporated under this theme include energy production and consumption,
material substitution, and Watergy™.

Scrap tires or illegal dumping. The discussion could include context,
TDFs, and material substitution.

Producer or consumer innovation from the binational perspective.

Energy. The discussion could include an examination of the current
system of energy production in terms of achieving greater efficiency and
alternative energy as another way to approach this challenge along the
border. One challenge with this topic in the past has been that DoD is
not represented on the GNEB.

Trade and the environment.

Dr. Austin stated that it seemed that the group was attempting to create
a document that policy-makers and other decision-makers could reference
when tackling specific problems along the border. She suggested moving
beyond case studies and identifying specific policy actions in the next
Report. She stressed the importance of keeping adoption in mind. A great
new innovation will not be a success if it is not adopted. There are
many potential barriers to adoption. For example, there may not be a
market for a product, there may be regulatory barriers, or there may be
a powerful group opposed to change. 

Dr. Brown mentioned Dr. Alan Sweedler, a scientist at San Diego State
University who studies border energy issues. His work may be useful if
the group decides to focus the next Report on energy. Dr. Sweedler has
studied the sources used to generate energy in the Unite States and has
suggested that the nation try to increase its use of what he refers to
as “indigenous electrical generation alternatives.” Increasing
alternative energy generation, particularly for electricity, would
reduce the Unite States’ dependence on the combustion of imported oil
and on coal combustion, which would reduce GHG, PM2.5, PM10, and sulfur
oxide emissions. This also would improve the security of the country
because it would reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil.
The U.S -Mexico border region has a tremendous amount of sunshine, wind,
and open space, making it an ideal setting for alternative energy
generation. He said that he would like to determine whether other GNEB
members might be supportive of this topic. He suggested starting with an
examination of current sources of energy and their impacts. The group
could then suggest alternatives. Ms. Koerner asked if the GNEB’s past
coverage of power generation would be incorporated and expanded on. Dr. 
Brown said that it would be, but the Report would not be repetitive. The
GNEB’s previous work examined air quality and transportation, whereas
his idea is to identify alternatives to coal-fired power plants for
energy generation. The equity issues (such as who benefits and who pays)
raised by Mr. Connolly during the previous day’s discussion could be
included in the analysis. Ms. Koerner clarified that a past GNEB Report
included a brief section on power generation. She thought that
revisiting power generation would not be a problem and could possibly be
a strength. If this topic is chosen, a volunteer will need to review and
summarize the GNEB’s past work in this area.

Mr. Guerrero asked whether the word “air” could be added before
energy in relation to Ms. Stendebach’s presentation the previous day
on the Methane to Markets Partnership. He views this as a potential
opportunity to work with the agriculture industry.

Judge Agan asked whether the Report would cover only one topic or
multiple topics. Ms. Koerner said that it is best to focus on one topic
if possible. Judge Agan added that if energy is the chosen topic,
subtopics will be needed. For example, in west Texas, there is a lot of
wind energy production. Mr. Niemeyer said that he recently read a New
York Times article about Texas being the leader in wind energy
production; last year Texas produced a gigawatt of wind energy. Much of
this wind energy production occurs on the border.

Ms. Siwik thought that agriculture should be captured somehow, at least
from the water and energy perspective. It was mentioned earlier that
irrigators are the top water users in many areas. It seems that there is
a lot of opportunity for innovation in the agricultural sector.

Mr. Niemeyer said that Mr. Kent’s presentation on partnering with
businesses to reduce pollution was very interesting. Texas started a
similar program, called the Clean Texas Program, in 1993 after a private
citizen convinced the state government to offer incentives to industry
for reducing pollution. A number of different industries are involved in
the program, and it since has been expanded to cover the public sector.
This program involved the entire state of Texas; this group needs to
focus on what is unique to the border. The example he gave to
Administrator Johnson the prior day about the use of brick kilns was
along the border in the Juárez-El Paso area. Another approach would be
to focus on innovations instituted on a statewide or regional basis that
would be applicable to the border area. He gave another example of
innovation in Texas; the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) received a grant from EPA to fund a program to trade inefficient
spray paint guns for high-volume, low-vapor guns in El Paso. Mr.
Niemeyer said that the challenge for the group will be to focus on one
issue. 

Ms. Koerner said that she had heard a lot of support for the issue of
energy. As discussed earlier, there is no DoD representative on the
GNEB. She asked the group for suggestions on how to reach out to DoD so
as to utilize their expertise. She asked for volunteers to act as
liaisons between the GNEB and DoD. Ms. Linda Lawson (U.S. Department of
Transportation), Ms. Stone, Ms. Marin, and Ms. Krebs volunteered to
reach out to DoD.

Ms. Keith mentioned that if alternative energy sources were to be a
topic, only the ones listed in the Federal Energy Act could be included
in the report. She added that the governor of Arizona issued an
executive order requiring an increase in the use of alternative energy
sources by a certain percentage over a period of time. She did not know
if used tires were included as an alternative energy source. Another
issue to consider is how these alternative energy sources would be
regulated. Is it difficult to permit an incinerator that uses scrap
tires? She stated the importance of considering alternative energy from
an air quality standpoint. Ms. Koerner said that it sounded like Ms.
Keith was reminding the group of the importance of identifying the
current federal and state institutional framework before moving forward.
Again, a volunteer would be needed to conduct this research. 

Mr. Gillen said that he was excited about the innovative ideas presented
the previous day. He added that, at times, industry does the right thing
on its own. He said that he would like to see this reflected in the
Report. Sometimes all that is needed is for government to step out of
the way or, as in the example shared by Ms. Marin the day before,
government simply needs to lead by example. Regulation is not always the
best approach. He said that Mr. Zapanta had offered to help the GNEB
identify border success stories; including success stories in which
private industry acted on its own will encourage other companies to
follow suit. It also is important to show the President that industry
can, and has, acted on its own volition to protect the environment, as
it may help shape future policy. Mr. Gillen said that in his 4 or 5
years on the GNEB, the group has always focused on academia or
government but never on private industry. Ms. Marin added that the GNEB
needs to highlight not just the creation of energy but also energy
efficiency. She suggested highlighting programs that have been
successful in increasing energy efficiency. 

Dr. Austin agreed with Mr. Niemeyer that it is important to focus on
what is unique about the border, both in terms of challenges as well as
resources. She suggested broadening the issue of scrap tires to waste to
resources. Scrap tires would be one of the wastes highlighted, but the
Report also could include success stories about the use of other wastes.
For example, many of the maquiladoras in her area are part of a program
to convert waste vegetable oil to biodiesel. The Report could focus on
waste products that can be converted to resources, focusing the actions
the private sector is taking and the types of policies that support or
hinder the use of wastes as resources. There is much waste along the
border; the challenge is determining how to turn those wastes into
resources. Ms. Koerner asked how energy would fit into that topic. Dr.
Austin responded that the connection is in using waste products to
create energy. Ms. Koerner asked the participants to consider how some
of the ideas already discussed could fit into their proposed ideas. 

Mr. Ramírez said that if energy is the chosen topic, in terms of oil
production, a number of issues would have to be addressed, including the
decrease in output and production by Mexico in the short term. In some
areas, oil and natural gas production has dramatically decreased. It
would be important to consider the effects of these decreases on the
United States. Another issue to cover would be financing or incentives
for technology development and implementation. He suggested working with
the electric utilities in the southwestern United States as they have
been pushed in recent years to become more efficient. For example,
construction of a large solar generation facility near Phoenix has
begun, wind energy generation is used across Texas, and Northern Arizona
University recently developed a new turbine for the production of
energy. Mr. Ramírez offered to contact these utilities. Mr. Gillen
clarified that his suggestion was not limited to the area of energy. 

Ms. Stone suggested examining how governments are supporting alternative
energy. For example, in New Mexico, Governor Richardson created new
state tax credits for solar and wind energy projects and for auto
companies that make their cars more fuel-efficient. These credits give
the businesses the incentive to change; New Mexico has many success
stories as a result. 

Mr. Dorsey said that although energy certainly is a current topic, it is
important for the GNEB to keep its mission in mind. The GNEB’s mission
is to advise the President and Congress on good neighbor practices along
the U.S. border with Mexico, with a focus on the environmental
infrastructure needs within the U.S. states contiguous to Mexico. Many
of these alternative fuels and alternative energy sources have impacts
on the environment. If energy is the Report topic, it will need to be
discussed from the perspective of its impacts on the environment. That
would mean identifying current energy sources along the border and how
they impact the environment. Alternative energies would then be
identified along with their potential environmental impacts, both
positive and negative. Mr. Wood said that in his area of Texas there is
a big push to establish wind-generating facilities. There is concern,
however, because some of the proposed locations for these facilities are
in the migratory pathway of birds, making this a hotly contested issue. 

In response to Judge Agan’s question about whether the report will
cover one or multiple topics, Mr. Wood said that a topic had already
been approved by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The topic
is “incentives to advance innovation that would lead to pollution
prevention.” In the past, the GNEB has divided each topic into
chapters; he suggested doing the same for the Twelfth Report. He said
that he was hearing a lot of support for covering the topic of energy
issues and incorporating the role of the private sector. If the GNEB
were to approach the topic of energy from the perspective of reducing
pollution while minimizing costs and advancing profits, this would be
consistent with its mission. He clarified that he was suggesting that
the Report cover one topic while incorporating related issues under that
main topic.

Judge Agan said that he wanted to expand on Dr. Brown’s remarks. The
electricity transmission lines for the Presidio-Hidalgo area along the
border, which has a population of approximately 60,000, often is cut
when there is a storm, leaving the entire area without power. In these
instances, the Presidio area often is without power for an entire day.
He thought that part of the focus of the Report should be on how to make
remote areas of the border more self-sufficient without adversely
impacting the environment. There are many opportunities along the border
for wind and power generation. 

Mr. Scott said that he was trying to determine what is unique about the
GNEB as compared to Border 2012. To him, it appears that the GNEB can
influence legislative action, financial action, and promote new ideas.
Ms. Koerner reminded the group that Border 2012 is a binational program
with a budget and quantified goals. The GNEB, on the other hand, is
strictly an advisory committee, with no operating budget and a different
set of performance measures. The GNEB’s role is to provide advice to
the federal government and make recommendations for government action.
This could mean supporting the environmental efforts of the private
sector by offering incentives or offering assistance to NGOs working
along the border. She encouraged the group to think about the unique
aspects of the GNEB when considering Report topics. She clarified that
the theme of the Report is “incentives to prevent and reduce pollution
along the border.” 

Dr. Austin proposed “waste to resources” as a topic, possibly
incorporating private sector innovation and energy efficiency. Dr. Brown
proposed energy assessment as a topic, including private sector
incentives under that umbrella; a third topic would be case studies
(projects and partnerships). Ms. Koerner asked whether there was support
for any of these ideas. She suggested taking the topic of incentives and
breaking it into energy and the role of the private sector and then
having a third workgroup examine case studies, which would cover
projects and partnerships. She asked those interested in that approach
to raise their hands. Six individuals raised their hands. Ms. Lawson
asked if air quality would be included. Ms. Krebs said that when energy
efficiency is increased, air quality automatically improves. Ms. Koerner
asked Mr. Gillen if he thought that the topic of energy was broad enough
to incorporate his ideas on private industry innovation. Mr. Gillen
asked for some time to consider the CEQ topic. He said that he was
supportive of having energy as the main topic but wanted to have some
time to think about the different topics that could come underneath the
broad topic of energy. 

After a 15-minute break, Ms. Koerner announced that it was time for the
group to decide on a framework, sign up for workgroups, and review the
work plan grid. The group also will need to designate planning
committees for the upcoming meetings. 

Ms. Koerner said that innovation is the overarching theme for the
Twelfth Report. Under innovation, the group has discussed energy,
private sector leadership, and incentives. Dr. Brown suggested that one
chapter of the Report be an examination of energy sources, uses, and
impacts on the border with an eye toward generating suggestions to
create incentives toward innovation. The second chapter could cover
private sector incentives and public/private partnerships, including
examples such as those presented by Mr. Kent. Ms. Krebs and Mr. Gillen,
who have private sector experience, and they could lead this effort. Mr.
Wood mentioned that during the break Mr. Guerrero suggested approaching
the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) about having a DOE representative
involved in the production of the Report. This representative would not
necessarily need to be a full GNEB member. This person would serve as a
resource during the report production. Mr. Wood asked if this sounded
reasonable. Ms. Koerner asked her federal colleagues if they thought
that this was something that could be done. Mr. Guerrero clarified that
he envisioned it as a request for assistance from DOE; it would be in
their best interest to be involved. Mr. Joyce agreed, saying that if the
report topic was to be energy and would include recommendations to the
President on the topic, DOE would have to be involved. He added that
this might be a good opportunity to acquire a DOE representative on the
GNEB. He said that he would contact the Secretary’s Office and inform
them that energy would be the Twelfth Report topic, so the GNEB would
need DOE’s involvement. Ms. Stone said that the New Mexico Environment
Department had a good relationship with the Assistant Secretary of
Energy, Dr. Inez Triay, and offered to contact her. Mr. Joyce suggested
approaching DOE from multiple angles. Ms. Lawson suggested drafting a
formal letter from the GNEB to DOE. Mr. Joyce said that he liked the
idea of a letter because it could be circulated within DOE to determine
who within DOE would be the most appropriate person to work with the
GNEB. 

Mr. Wood asked whether there were any strong objections to the proposed
framework; there were none. Mr. Joyce clarified that the current
proposal was that the Report include, under its overarching theme of
innovation, two major areas of emphasis, which would be:  (1) energy and
private sector incentives, and (2) innovation and partnerships. Ms.
Koerner confirmed that this was the approach. She added that the Report
also would consider adoption to create specific action items. Mr. Joyce
said that the GNEB’s work should be complementary to Border 2012 and
not duplicative. He asked the group whether these themes would be
complementary to the work of the Border 2012 workgroups. Mr. Scott said
that he thought the framework would be complementary. He suggested that
the GNEB consider the target audience for the Report. For example, if it
is the private sector, the GNEB may want to think of its recommendations
in terms of the Border 2012 workgroups, which are organized by topic
area such as air or water. The Border 2012 framework should be
considered to ensure that it is clear who should be taking the
recommended action. Mr. Joyce reminded the group that the GNEB makes
recommendations to the President and Congress.

Ms. Wolf said that she was mildly opposed to the topic of energy. The
direction the group is discussing today is very different than the one
discussed on previous conference calls. Based on previous discussions,
she was under the impression that the GNEB would examine innovative
activities to reduce pollution occurring along the border. She is not
sure how the topic became energy, and she did not understand how energy
was any different along the border as compared to energy in the rest of
the United States. Ms. Koerner asked Ms. Wolf for suggestions on how to
address her concerns, given the discussions thus far. Ms. Wolf said that
she thought the GNEB would be examining innovative ways to reduce
pollution across the spectrum, not just with respect to energy, and
would possibly identify incentives to offer to communities and industry
to reduce pollution along the border. She said that she did not see
energy in terms of the border. Solar power generation is happening
across the United States, and wind power is being generated in certain
areas, especially in the Midwest. Energy is now moving to a grid system,
so it is not obvious to her how the border community is unique. Ms.
Koerner asked if Ms. Wolf felt that taking a binational angle, possibly
listing a series of case studies based on transboundary innovation,
would be acceptable. Ms. Wolf agreed that this would be acceptable,
adding that the group might also examine different methods for reducing
pollution, identify areas needing further investigation, and explore
changing regulations and ways to increase incentives to reduce
pollution. Ms. Koerner suggested an overarching theme of transboundary
innovation, with energy sources, uses, and impacts and the role of the
private sector in a binational context as subtopics. Ms. Wolf agreed
that this framework was better but thought that, especially as the
recommendations were for the federal government, the focus should be
broader than just the private sector. The idea is to advise the federal
government on how it can encourage private industry and border
communities alike to reduce pollution along the border. Ms. Koerner
suggested that adding the transboundary angle addressed the question of
what is unique about the border. She asked how Ms. Wolf would change the
proposed subtopics. Ms. Wolf responded that she would remove energy as a
subtopic but possibly include an energy-related case study. The focus of
the Report would be more on how the federal government could use
incentives for industry, communities, and community groups to reduce
pollution. Ms. Koerner asked for clarification; for example, was she
referring to taking a binational angle and identifying incentives for
maquiladoras and sister city communities? Ms. Wolf said that she was.
Ms. Koerner noted that the private sector would be embedded within this
topic. She asked Ms. Wolf how energy would be incorporated. Ms. Siwik
stated that she agreed with Ms. Wolf. There is a great deal of
innovation occurring in communities; therefore, it is important to
include them along with private industry. Ms. Marin said that she views
energy as complementary. In many ways, the border is no different from
the rest of the United States in terms of increasing energy efficiency
and exploring new sources of energy. The border, however, does pose some
additional challenges. As Judge Agan stated earlier, there are isolated
areas along the border that need to become more energy efficient or need
alternative sources of energy, and this needs to be accomplished without
increasing pollution. Mr. Niemeyer did not think the theme should be
limited to transboundary innovation as there is a great deal of
innovation occurring only on the U.S. side of the border. He also did
not think that the focus should be limited to the private sector as
there are many public/private partnerships working in the area. EPA
funds have been used to support some very successful public/private
programs, including a program in which TCEQ worked with maquiladoras to
reduce the volume and toxicity of their waste, save energy, and reduce
their water use. He reminded the group that the Report should focus on
what is unique to the border. 

Ms. Koerner listed the overall theme of innovation, which would include
transboundary innovation. Using this lens of innovation, the group would
examine industry (including maquiladoras) and communities in the public
sector (including sister cities). Energy and partnerships were topics
that cut across the topics of industry and communities. Ms. Koerner
asked if the group agreed with what was listed. If not, what should the
main topic and the subtopics be? Ms. Keith asked where incentives fit
into the proposed structure. Ms. Koerner said that she thought they
would be embedded, and it would be understood that incentives would be
part of the toolkit to achieve innovation. As Mr. Gillen pointed out,
industry does not necessarily need incentives to do the right thing. Dr.
Brown asked if Ms. Koerner was suggesting that industry and community be
the two workgroups. She said that she was. 

Dr. Brown said, with all due respect to Mr. Niemeyer, Ms. Siwik, and Ms.
Wolf, that the reason he advocated strongly for energy is because energy
is connected to everything else, whether it is production or
transportation. Improving energy efficiency and developing alternative
energies has multiple benefits, including reducing emissions of GHGs,
PM10, PM2.5, sulfur oxides, and nitric oxides; there also is the
security angle that the group has not explored yet. Every barrel of oil
not purchased from unstable political regimes increases our security.
Mr. Dorsey said that if the Report focuses on energy, he would like to
see more about the environmental impacts of current energy generation
methods as well as alternative energy generation methods. 

Ms. Sorzano asked the group to consider what the GNEB has been able to
influence in the past. One of her concerns is that there is not always
much support for issues along the border. One great thing about Dr.
Brown’s approach is that energy is an issue that affects the whole
country. Unfortunately, the reality is that the congressional
representative from Minnesota does not care about what happens along the
border. Examining the positive contributions that the border area can
make to the rest of the country significantly increases the importance
of the role that the GNEB can play. The group could discuss energy
generation and environmental issues along the border but also note how
these same issues are important for the rest of the country. Dr. Austin
asked if Ms. Sorzano was saying that the GNEB should be advocating for
the use of alternative energy along the border. She does not think that
the GNEB is in a position to advocate for various types of alternative
energy. She said that she was getting the impression that the group was
planning this Report by starting with a recommendation it wanted to
make. She said that the group could use the idea of transboundary
innovation as a starting point and identify specific cases. The
workgroups would come from this initial research. She said that she
would prefer to keep the discussion more broad at this point. Ms. Keith
said that she agreed with Ms. Sorzano’s comments. She added that under
the Federal Energy Act, Davis Monthan Air Force Base was required to use
more alternative energy; this caused a public outcry because many of the
alternative energies caused more pollution or other environmental
problems. A list of all of the types of alternative energy listed in the
Federal Energy Act and their pros and cons was developed. If the group
decides to go with energy as the topic, there is at least a basis from
which to start. 

Ms. Koerner said that she was hearing two topics of interest, one is the
private sector and the other is energy. She also has heard a lot of
cross-cutting issues. One is the uniqueness of the border region but
also the value of action items to the entire country. Another is the
value of communities and partnerships in innovation. Another is to
always consider impacts on the environment. She proposed starting with
two workgroups:  one for the private sector and the other for energy.
Judge Agan said there are two subjects that have been discussed that do
not necessarily interact:  pollution and energy. He suggested taking a
vote to choose one of these topics before determining the workgroups.
Ms. Koerner suggested that pollution might be a cross-cutting issue that
could be folded into both private sector initiatives and energy
initiatives. She sees pollution prevention and alternative energy
fitting under the overarching theme of innovation. Ms. Wolf said that
she sees energy as an important part of the Report. As Ms. Koerner said,
the overarching theme is innovation for pollution prevention and
reduction. Source reduction and alternative energy fit under that theme
as subtopics. Ms. Krebs said that the California greenhouse gas
reduction requirements have spurred innovation. The energy sector plays
a major role in reducing carbon emissions. She thought the topic of
energy might be a little ahead of the times and suggested that the group
may want to hold off on the topic of energy until the federal government
has a GHG program in place. 

Ms. Lawson asked if the Report would be a collection of successful
examples from the public and private sectors. Will it include
recommendations to the federal government on how it can encourage the
continuation of these projects or the establishment of new ones? If the
report is divided into the public and private sectors, will all of the
examples be energy examples? Successful examples in a number of
different areas may not be as effective as examples that focus on a
specific area. Her vision was to include a number of success stories and
then make specific recommendations for action. The Report needs to focus
on innovation. The group knows that there is great work underway, so the
discussion at this point is more about how to organize the report. 

Mr. Scott suggested having public and private sectors as the two topics
under the overarching theme of innovation. The issues of energy and
pollution reduction could be addressed under each of those topics. Mr.
Joyce mentioned that many innovative approaches are public/private
collaborations. Mr. Gillen suggested establishing a third workgroup for
joint partnerships that would cover public/private collaborations. 

Mr. Gillen said that the group has not explored innovation in the
private sector, so everything to be included in the Report cannot be
listed at this time. Energy and pollution reduction could be left loose
for the time being, and after some initial research is completed, the
group can get more specific. Mr. Wood agreed with this approach. Ms.
Koerner asked if the GNEB members supported creating two workgroups, one
for the public sector and one for the private sector. A third group on
public/private partnerships will be formed at a later time as
public/private partnership examples are identified. 

Ms. Koerner asked for volunteers for the public sector workgroup. The
public sector workgroup will include:  Judge Agan, Ms. Marin, Mr.
Dorsey, Mr. Niemeyer, Ms. Siwik, Ms. Sorzano, Mr. Connolly, Ms. Keith,
and Mr. Wood. The private sector workgroup will include:  Mr. Gillen,
Mr. Ramírez, Ms. Wolf, Mr. Scott, Ms. Stone, Dr. Austin, and Ms. Krebs.

Ms. Koerner will ask the absent GNEB members to choose a workgroup.

Ms. Krebs asked if Border 2012 had the authority to implement
incentives. Mr. Scott said that they did not; there currently is no
mechanism for implementing cross-border incentives. Ms. Krebs asked if
the Report could identify areas ripe for innovation and suggest a credit
or other incentive. Ms. Koerner said that was one approach that could be
taken.

Mr. Gillen volunteered to be the coordinator of the private sector
workgroup. Ms. Krebs volunteered to be the deputy coordinator. For the
public sector workgroup, Mr. Niemeyer volunteered to be the coordinator.
Mr. Dorsey volunteered to be the deputy coordinator.

The private sector workgroup scheduled a conference call for Monday,
April 14, 2008, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The public sector workgroup
scheduled a conference call for Wednesday, April 16, 2008, at 3:00 p.m.
Eastern Time. The phone number is 866-299-3188 and the code is
2022330069#. 

Mr. DeLeon said that Ms. Koerner would be going on assignment after this
meeting; a replacement for her has not yet been identified. In the
meantime, GNEB members can direct their questions to Mr. Joyce. Mr.
DeLeon said that he or Ms. Koerner would forward Mr. Joyce’s contact
information to the GNEB members.

Travel Reimbursement

John Wood, Acting Chair, and Lois Williams, OCEM, EPA

Mr. Wood asked Ms. Lois Williams to discuss travel reimbursement with
the GNEB members. Ms. Williams explained that she had distributed travel
vouchers ahead of time to allow GNEB members to receive their
reimbursements in a more timely manner. Along with the travel voucher,
GNEB members should have received instructions on how to complete the
form. GNEB members will need to document transport to the airport and
from the airport to the hotel and list any parking fees paid. The
original hotel receipt is the only receipt needed. Mr. Wood said that
the GNEB members could complete their travel vouchers in advance and
leave them with Ms. Williams to expedite reimbursement. Mr. Joyce said
that most people will not know all of their final expenses until they
return home. He said that GNEB members could submit their expenses
before leaving and then mail to Ms. Williams any additional expenses
incurred on their return home.

Strategic Planning Session

John Wood, Acting Chair

Ms. Koerner said that GNEB members typically volunteer to work on the
planning committee in their area. 

Calexico, California, Meeting

Mr. Wood asked for volunteers for the planning committee for the
Calexico, California, meeting to be held June 18–19, 2008. Ms. Koerner
added that federal agency employees can sit on these planning committees
and suggest speakers for the meetings. The planning committees are open
to all GNEB members. GNEB members also can recruit others to help with
the meeting planning. Mr. Wood asked for volunteers for the Calexico
meeting. The following GNEB members volunteered:  Mr. Guerrero, Mr.
Connolly, Mr. Dorsey, Ms. Krebs, Ms. Marin, and Mr. Scott. Mr. Wood
asked for a volunteer to lead the planning team. Mr. Dorsey and Ms.
Krebs offered to be co-coordinators. The first planning committee
conference call was scheduled for Friday, April 18, 2008, at 12:00 p.m.
Eastern Time.

Mr. Connolly said that the Campo Indian Reservation, which is midway
between San Diego and Calexico, has the largest commercial-scale wind
energy project on a reservation in the United States; it is a
50-megawatt wind energy facility. He offered to arrange a tour and
suggested a start time of 4 or 5 p.m. the day prior to the meeting. Ms.
Koerner said that she would explore this with management; the group
could discuss it further on the April 18th conference call. 

Mr. Dorsey asked who would assist the planning committees in Ms.
Koerner’s absence. Mr. Joyce said that he would assist the committees
until a replacement was found.

There was a discussion about Calexico having only one hotel large enough
to accommodate the group. Ms. Koerner said that Dr. Ganster had
provisionally secured the library at the San Diego State University
Imperial Valley Campus for the meeting. She and Ms. Jannell
Young-Ancrum, EPA, will review the records to determine where GNEB
members stayed at the last meeting in Calexico and relay the information
on the planning call. 

El Paso, Texas, Meeting

Mr. Wood asked for volunteers to coordinate the El Paso meeting to be
held September 24–25, 2008. The following GNEB members volunteered: 
Dr. Brown, Mr. Guerrero, Mr. Gillen, Mr. Niemeyer, and Ms. Siwik. Ms.
Mary Brandt of the Department of State said that she had promised Ms.
Spener that she would not volunteer her for any tasks in her absence.
She offered the International Boundary and Water Commission’s (IBWC)
large conference room for the meeting; the room may not be large enough
for the public portion of the meeting, but it could be used for the
other parts of the meeting. Also, the IBWC may be able to provide
transportation for the meeting. A planning call was scheduled for
Monday, April 21, 2008, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Eleventh Report Distribution

Mr. Wood asked for a volunteer to track dissemination of the Eleventh
Report. There were no volunteers. Ms. Koerner said that this will be one
of the new DFO’s tasks. In the meantime, she will work with management
to develop a plan for the interim.

Consejos Consultivos para el Desarrollo Sustenable (Consejos) Dialogue

Mr. Wood asked for a volunteer to serve as the liaison between GNEB and
Consejos, which is GNEB’s counterpart in Mexico. Ms. Koerner explained
that Consejos provides advice to SEMARNAT. Mr. Dorsey asked if Flavio
was still coordinating with the group. Ms. Koerner replied that she did
not know. Mr. Dorsey offered to contact Flavio. Dr. Brown suggested that
if Flavio had moved on, then Mr. Dorsey should contact Mr. Carlos Rincon
from the EPA border office in Juárez, as he likely would know the name
of the appropriate person. Mr. Gillen asked if it would make sense for
this person to be someone who also is working on Border 2012 and the
governors conferences as these individuals already interact regularly.
Ms. Koerner tabled the issue for the time being.

Comment Letters and Federal Members

Ms. Marin said that it seemed to her that the GNEB, in its role as
advisor to the President and Congress, could advise them via a letter of
the importance of developing a protocol or a set of procedures by which
first responders along the border region would receive passports that
would enable them to easily and quickly cross the border for emergency
purposes. 

Ms. Koerner explained the process for drafting comment letters.
Throughout the year, GNEB members will identify issues that do not fit
under the annual Report topic or are of such importance that the issue
cannot wait for inclusion in the annual Report. It often is a specific
Board member who identifies an issue; usually, this Board member drafts
the comment letter. The DFO then circulates the letter for review, GNEB
members come to a consensus on the contents of the letter, and the
letter is finalized and sent. Comment letters tend to be about one page
in length. 

Judge Agan said that although personnel is one part of the issue of
border crossing in emergency situations, in his experience, the main
concern of the fire departments and emergency management services along
the border is getting equipment across the border and then getting it
back. He gave an example of a U.S. police officer who chased someone
across the border; the police did not get the car back for 6 months and
when they did, the radios and lights were gone. Mr. Wood said that in
his area, emergency responders have not had this problem; that does not,
however, mean that this might not happen in the future. 

Mr. Ramírez asked if the group needed to adopt a resolution to move
forward on the letter. Ms. Koerner explained that the letter drafting
process would be similar to the process for developing the annual
Report, except that it would be one person drafting the letter instead
of a workgroup. The letter then would be circulated to GNEB members;
there is typically a 2-week period during which comments are submitted.
In some cases, revisions are made, and the letter is sent to GNEB
members for additional review. In the past, she has set a date by which,
if she has not heard from a GNEB member, she will assume that he or she
agrees with the contents of the letter. Then the letter is finalized.
She added that there is another issue for federal employees that would
be discussed later in the day. Mr. Ramírez thought that stating that
the group passed a unanimous resolution would send a strong message; he
would be happy to put forward a resolution and volunteered to help draft
the letter. He said that he felt the letter should focus on ensuring
that first responders and their equipment can easily cross the border.
Making it easier for equipment to cross the border is especially
important for emergency response and to be able to share resources
across the border to help fight fires, clean up toxic spills, and so
forth. Mr. Wood said that he would appreciate Mr. Ramírez serving as
chair of the drafting committee. Mr. Ramírez said that he would be
happy to help draft the letter, but that he was not interested in
serving as chair. Mr. Wood asked for additional volunteers. Mr. Niemeyer
and Ms. Marin volunteered to help draft the letter. Mr. Wood assigned
Mr. Ramírez to spearhead this effort.

Mr. Gillen said that he was not sure that the GNEB had the expertise to
propose a solution to this problem. Are there organizations along the
border already working on these issues? If so, would it be appropriate
for the GNEB to recommend that the President seek input from these
organizations? The comment letter could serve as a catalyst by
recommending that the appropriate organization look into the issue. Mr.
Wood said that much of the work along the border depends on the
relationships between the specific sister cities and current leadership.
For example, for 8 years a particular mayor on the Mexican side of the
border in his area would not work with the City of Brownsville. After he
finished his term, things returned to normal. Judge Agan offered to
disseminate the draft letter to El Paso Mayor John Cook and the county
judges in his area for review. Ms. Koerner added that it would add
credibility to the letter if someone on the drafting committee reviewed
the GNEB’s past Reports and made reference to them as appropriate. Ms.
Koerner noted that Ms. Tulis, one of the speakers from the previous day,
had offered to serve as a resource.

Mr. Joyce explained that federal members of the GNEB are considered to
be part of the executive branch. The executive branch has positions on
certain issues, and federal agency employees cannot endorse a position
contrary to that of the executive branch. For this reason, there might
be instances in which federal members cannot endorse a position that the
GNEB takes. Mr. Wood did not think that this would preclude the GNEB
from drafting a comment letter. It simply means that there is the
possibility that federal members may not be able to sign off on certain
issues. Referring to federal members not being able to sign off on
certain issues, Mr. Guerrero said that he thought that some of the
letters that Mr. Rosendo Treviño, a GNEB member from USDA, had recused
himself from had to do with appropriations and/or soliciting funding.
There also may have been some policy issues of which he is not aware. He
suggested checking with Mr. Treviño to learn more about USDA’s
history on some of those issues. Mr. Ramírez noted that the GNEB roster
categorizes the members as federal and nonfederal. Can a letter be
signed only by the nonfederal members? Mr. Wood responded that this can
and has been done in the past. Each federal agency determines if it can
or cannot sign a specific letter.

Ms. Marin said that traditionally individuals are appointed to a board
for their expertise and for what they can bring to the table. As a
federal advisory board, the GNEB has been tasked with providing advice
on the best course of action, regardless of whether it conflicts with
the administration’s position on an issue. That said, she does not
think that any GNEB member should feel compelled to take an action that
may put his/her job at risk. The nonfederal members can support
positions that conflict with the administration’s position. Mr. Wood
agreed, saying that GNEB is an independent advisory board. The reality,
however, is that nonfederal GNEB members can be much more independent
than the federal employees. Ms. Koerner said that, in the past, the GNEB
has dealt with this on a case-by-case basis. Some past letters were only
signed by the nonfederal GNEB members. There is ongoing discussion about
preparing a standard phrase that would capture this. 

Ms. Brandt added that the Department of State was aware of the first
responder border crossing issues. She suggested talking to Ms. Poynter
who has been working on a bilateral, possibly even a trilateral,
disaster assistance agreement. Ms. Brandt said that she was not sure if
the agreement went to that level of detail, but it still would be
valuable to touch base with her to learn about the Department of
State’s activities on the issue.

Mr. Ramírez discussed the issue of credibility. The Border Trade
Alliance’s Travel and Immigration Committee, of which he has been the
chair for the past 9 years, has been providing DHS with solicited and
unsolicited comments on its inspection procedures and document
requirements, including the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The
Committee has advocated for deadline extensions to ensure that the
respective federal agencies, primarily DHS and the Department of State,
are prepared to implement these changes at airports, seaports, and land
ports of entry. He said that he would be happy to provide additional
information on their efforts. Mr. Wood thanked him for this offer.

Ms. Koerner asked if the group could move forward on the letter
currently under discussion. She asked whether the three volunteers
wanted to set up a conference call and set a deadline for completion of
the letter. Mr. Niemeyer suggested that Mr. Ramírez draft the letter
and then e-mail it to him and Ms. Marin. Mr. Ramírez agreed to do this.
The letter then will be sent to Judge Agan, who will circulate it to the
El Paso mayor and county judges for review, giving them a specified
amount of time to submit comments. The letter will then be sent to GNEB
members for review. Judge Agan said that he was meeting with the judges
on March 27, 2008, so it would be ideal if he had a copy of the draft
letter before that date. Mr. Ramírez estimated that it would take 2 to
3 weeks to complete the letter.

Performance Measures

Ms. Koerner said that performance measures are an important method for
determining the GNEB’s effectiveness. It is important to determine if
the Reports are being read, if the GNEB’s recommendations are being
acted on, and ultimately, if the GNEB is making a difference. In the
Ninth Report, GNEB members developed starter measures for monitoring the
GNEB’s performance. Ms. Koerner asked whether anyone was interested in
being the point person for performance measures. This would involve
reviewing the measures in the Ninth Report and capturing examples of the
GNEB’s effectiveness.

Mr. Dorsey said that although he was supportive of performance measures,
the GNEB is an advisory board, so it is difficult, if not impossible, to
measure its effectiveness. He said that he thinks the GNEB’s
effectiveness is measured by the fact that the President and Congress
continue to seek advice from the GNEB. Thus, in his opinion, it would be
very difficult to set up performance measures for the GNEB. 

Mr. Niemeyer said that he had sent Ms. Koerner e-mails about projects
related to the GNEB’s Tenth Report recommendations. Ms. Koerner
suggested that he lead the performance measure group and he agreed. 

Mr. Niemeyer said that he agreed with Mr. Dorsey. It is difficult to
capture the GNEB’s effectiveness because the group provides advice. He
encouraged the other GNEB members to send him any news stories or
information on projects related to the GNEB’s Tenth or Eleventh Report
recommendations. He asked them to include the source and date that the
item was found. He will compile the information and distribute it to the
group. He said that he felt that the GNEB could take credit for actions
related to its recommendations. Of course, it is difficult to determine
exactly what influence a recommendation had on an action. For example,
Congressman Silvestre Reyes of Texas proposed legislation based on one
of the GNEB’s recommendations; Mr. Niemeyer did not think that the
legislation had passed. IBWC, however, did receive additional funding
for levee construction, which was one of the GNEB’s recommendations.

Mr. Gillen thought that performance measures could be dangerous. He was
concerned about taking credit for someone else’s actions; this might
offend the person or group who took the action. In addition, focusing on
performance measures could make it appear that the GNEB’s
recommendations were not taken when, in fact, they were. For example,
the President might try to act on one of the GNEB’s recommendations
but run into difficulties, such as not being able to secure
congressional approval. He suggested that the GNEB continue to focus on
offering advice. He would recommend against utilizing performance
measures. 

Ms. Koerner said that Mr. Gillen’s note of caution was well taken. The
reality, however, is that there is a big push across the federal
government to develop performance measures for advisory committees. She
has tried to note that there is not a direct correlation to the number
of recommendations taken and that advisory committees serve a number of
purposes, some of which are more difficult to capture. The GNEB’s work
sparks dialogue on a number of different levels (federal, state, and
local) and enlightens federal policy-makers about environmental issues
along the border. Her view of the GNEB’s effectiveness is very broad.
It is still necessary, however, for GNEB members to think about
performance measures. Mr. Niemeyer volunteered to capture one type of
information; the group must be careful with how it uses that
information, but capturing it is a good first step. 

Mr. Niemeyer said that he envisioned listing the GNEB’s
recommendations and whether or not they have been implemented. The GNEB
is a federal advisory committee, subject to the rules of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA). In reading about FACA, he learned that
the advisory committees are required to submit an annual report on their
activities to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). Thus, EPA
is required to report on the GNEB’s effectiveness; therefore,
performance measures of some sort are needed. Mr. Joyce said that Mr.
Niemeyer was correct. All federal advisory committees, not just EPA’s,
are required to submit an annual report to GSA on their activities. The
reports are posted online. Advisory committees report the amount of
money spent and the number of reports and recommendations issued. At
this time, the annual report still is evolving. Mr. Joyce said that he
has some issues with the reports. For instance, the GNEB is asked to
list the percentage of the Board’s recommendations that have been
implemented. He said that he has refused to answer this question because
it is inappropriate. He believes that a committee’s effectiveness
should be measured qualitatively, with the committee detailing the work
it has performed and its impacts. That said, the more examples the GNEB
can provide of its work having a demonstrable effect on programs and
policies and, hopefully, on human health and the environment, the
better. The reality is that something must be submitted to GSA each
year. GSA and congressional staffers review the annual reports and, over
the long term, these reports are used to determine funding levels. 

Dr. Austin said that she sensed that there was some accountability push
behind this requirement. As an applied anthropologist, her job is to
gather and make information available and hope that it is used. Given
these reporting requirements, it would be helpful, especially for new
members, to have a matrix listing the types of information needed. She
agrees that qualitative reporting would be preferable, but given the
reality of the reporting requirements, it would be helpful if GNEB
members were aware of the information required. This would allow the
members to better assist EPA management in meeting its reporting
requirements. Mr. Joyce thought developing a matrix was a good idea. Mr.
Joyce or Ms. Koerner will e-mail to the GNEB members a copy of the
annual report as well as the URL for the Web site where all of the
reports are posted. Mr. Joyce added that Mr. Gillen and Dr. Austin are
correct; advisory committees are charged with providing the best advice
and counsel possible; oftentimes, an advisory committee’s
recommendations are not immediately acted on. There are several cases in
which a recommendation was acted on years after it was initially made. 

Ms. Koerner thanked everyone for their comments and reiterated that
although the committee’s charge is to provide advice, it still must
satisfy these reporting requirements. The group should focus on giving
the best advice possible, while still keeping in mind how to fulfill
these requirements. 

Mr. Dorsey asked if the GNEB had any input in the development of these
performance measures. Mr. Joyce said that other federal and state
agencies, not just EPA, are going through the same process. In fact, it
is not just advisory committees; EPA research programs also are being
measured. He suggested that GNEB members consider what should be
measured and what they think would determine the committee’s level of
effectiveness. The annual report still is evolving, so there may be room
for some input from the GNEB. The current questions are broad and
open-ended, and they have been informed that some of the ways in which
they are asking the GNEB to characterize its effectiveness and success
are inappropriate. They are trying to work with the Board but, on the
other hand, the federal government is somewhat limited in its ability to
be flexible. Ms. Koerner said that GNEB members could help them make a
case for modifying the measures. 

Mr. Dorsey said that, although he understands that this is a requirement
of the federal government, he found it to be a bean counting,
bureaucratic exercise. For example, the County of San Diego Department
of Environmental Health relies on a number of advisory committees for
guidance and expertise. These committees are not asked to quantify their
effectiveness because their role simply is to provide advice.

Press Coverage

Ms. Koerner said that she had been in touch with Mr. Dave Ryan, the EPA
Press Officer who attended the press conference the previous day. She
said that she had received an e-mail from him with an Associated Press
story attached. The San Diego Union Tribune ran a story on the report.
Mr. Ryan is trying to contact Mr. José Lopez of the Mexican News Agency
to determine whether they ran a story. Unfortunately, CNN en Español
does not post its interviews on the Internet. She added that the
reporter who interviewed Mr. Niemeyer is in the process of creating an
MP3 of the interview. 

Mr. Niemeyer added that the Associated Press ran a Spanish language
story. He said that he e-mailed the story to Ms. Koerner last night, in
both English and Spanish. Unfortunately, the story includes some
misquotes. It seems that the reporter was confused about for whom Mr.
Wood was speaking. Mr. Niemeyer said that he had responded to a
question, saying that because of increased border security, it is now
more difficult for first responders to cross the border quickly, but the
reporter paraphrased him, making his comment about the border fence. In
fact, the majority of the story focuses on the border fence. This
article has been published in a number of Spanish language newspapers.
Ms. Koerner said that, unfortunately, despite best efforts to be clear
with reporters, the actual reporting of the stories is beyond the Board
members’ control. She added that it is clear that these issues are of
international interest. Ms. Koerner will continue to track the media
coverage and keep the members updated. 

Report-Outs

John Wood, Acting Chair

Ms. Brandt said that the IBWC received more than $20 million for levee
construction in 2008. The IBWC recently awarded a $9.4 million contract
to raise a 3-mile levee segment near the Hidalgo-Reynosa Bridge.
Construction is scheduled to begin in April and to be completed in 8
months. The IBWC also has authorized Hidalgo County Drainage District
Number One to proceed with work to raise a 3.7-mile levee segment in
Mission, Texas, under a cost-sharing agreement with the IBWC.
Construction is scheduled to begin in May 2008 and to be completed in 6
months. IBWC crews currently are working on a 5-mile levee segment in
Cameron County. IBWC received $11.7 million (this is a portion of the
$20 million mentioned earlier) for work in Doña Ana County in New
Mexico. IBWC’s in-house crew will begin construction in spring 2008. 

In the summer of 2007, construction to line a portion of the Colorado
River’s All-American Canal began pursuant to U.S. legislation that
directed that the project proceed without delay. To lessen some of the
impacts on Mexico, the IBWC has established a binational group of
federal, state, and expert NGO stakeholders to explore joint cooperative
actions for the use of Colorado River water in the United States and
Mexico. This group will work to develop water conservation, water
shortage management, water augmentation, and environmental initiatives
that will benefit the United States and Mexico. Mr. Wood said that in
his area residents are extremely concerned about the levee construction.
He asked whether, after the levees are constructed, they would be
certified by FEMA. Residents are concerned because FEMA’s maps will
determine whether residents are required to purchase flood insurance.
Ms. Brandt said that her understanding was that after the levees are
built, they would be certified according to FEMA’s standards. Mr. Wood
thanked her for her report. 

Mr. Niemeyer said that an EPA Border 2012 grant was awarded to the
Border Environment Cooperation Commission for a project in Piedras
Negras and Eagle Pass. In Piedras Negras, 208,000 scrap tires were
shipped to CEMEX, which used the tires to generate TDF. In Eagle Pass,
29,000 scrap tires were land disposed. A total of 237,000 tires along
the border were removed.

Mr. Ramírez said that if he recalled correctly, the Ninth GNEB Report
recommended multiyear funding for ports of entry. Congressman Reyes from
the El Paso area recently proposed legislation to provide $1 billion per
year for 5 years, plus 1,000 additional Customs Border Protection
inspectors for the southern and the northern borders. He is working to
secure the necessary co-sponsors. Secondly, on February 15, 2008, the
Secretary of Transportation, the GSA Administrator, the governor of
Arizona, and the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection
broke ground on the San Luis II Port of Entry, which is the first new
port of entry to be built on the border in several years. The design
phase for a new port of entry spans a number of years, so it may be
possible to incorporate environmentally friendly and energy saving
measures in the design. The building at the port will be large and may
provide an opportunity to install solar panels on the roof. Lastly, the
Arizona-Mexico Commission will host its plenary session June 19–20,
2008, in Phoenix, Arizona. That will create a conflict for the four GNEB
members from Arizona as this overlaps the Calexico meeting. He
encouraged these GNEB members to consider how they might be able to
attend some of the plenary sessions. If anyone is interested in
participating in this meeting, contact him as he may be able to work out
some arrangement for the meeting registration. He will send the agenda
and logistic information to Ms. Koerner for distribution to GNEB
members. Mr. Dorsey said that a second port of entry in Otay Mesa is in
the planning stages. 

Mr. Dorsey gave the group an update on the fall 2007 wildfires in San
Diego County. There were three fires in San Diego County, and more than
1,500 homes burned. His office, which is part of the Department of
Environmental Health, played a part in the recent recovery efforts. The
cleanup from the 2003 wildfires was just being completed when the 2007
wildfires started. The recovery from the recent fires was quick and
efficient, especially in comparison to the recovery from the 2003 fires,
because there was a process in place to guide the recovery and because
the federal, state, and local governments worked very well together. A
series of disaster assistance centers were set up throughout the county
right away; residents could go to these centers and meet with FEMA
representatives, insurance representatives, other state agency
representatives, Red Cross representatives, and so forth. Private
industry responded well. For example, an egg/chicken ranch had 20,000
birds killed by the fire, but they were not completely burned. Allied
Waste, a private company that manages a local landfill, offered its
landfill, and the chickens were moved and disposed of quickly before any
rodent infestation or odor problem occurred. The owner of that same
ranch had 100,000 birds in another area of the county; because a number
of roads were blocked off, he was unable to get feed to these birds. The
emergency operations center worked with the local sheriff and the
California Highway Patrol to transport feed and diesel fuel to the
ranch. The local government worked closely with EPA and state agencies
to remove debris. Residents could sign up to have a private contractor
remove debris from their home at no cost. Debris was removed from
approximately 800 homes between the end of December 2007 and the end of
February 2008. For the 2003 wildfires, it took several years to
accomplish a similar level of debris removal. He reiterated that much of
the success could be attributed to the coordination and cooperation of
the federal, state, and local governments. One environmental safety
concern was the ash from the fires. FEMA, unfortunately, does not
categorize this as hazardous, so it would not fund ash removal.  The
local government worked with the regional board and the California
Department of Toxic Substances Control to transport the heavy ash to a
lined landfill. Construction and demolition sites were established in a
number of locations for the disposal of concrete, wood, and other types
of debris. For the most part, the recovery process is complete.

Mr. Dorsey said that he would be presenting on the GNEB at the
California Environmental Health Association’s Annual Conference in San
Diego the following week. He was invited to provide an overview of the
GNEB’s activities and discuss the Tenth and Eleventh Reports. Mr. Wood
said that he was impressed that the wildfire recovery in San Diego went
so quickly and efficiently. He suggested that the San Diego wildfire
recovery be used as an example for wildfire recovery.

Mr. Scott applauded Mr. Dorsey and his colleagues for an excellent job
in responding to the wildfires in San Diego. He said that the EPA issued
a solicitation in January for applications for results-oriented
projects; the deadline for applications is May 30, 2008, and
approximately $1 million will be awarded. Mr. Guerrero asked if the
funds could be used for irrigation projects. Mr. Scott thought that that
type of project would meet the funding criteria. EPA is hosting a
pesticide collection event next week in Mexicali and in Imperial County.
This is coming on the heels of a very successful pesticide collection
event in Arizona. Lastly, EPA recently completed a project to help 20
companies in Mexicali develop environmental management systems in hopes
of moving them toward ISO 14001 certification. One important component
of this project was working to ensure that this type of progress could
continue in the future without federal funding. He said that he would
bring information from that project into the workgroup process. 

Ms. Stone announced that the New Mexico Environment Department recently
hired Mr. Tom Ruiz as a Border Coordinator. A Tribal Liaison also was
hired to work with the New Mexican tribes. In addition, the State of New
Mexico joined the City of El Paso to petition TCEQ to revoke ASARCO,
LLC’s pollution permit. With EPA’s new ozone standard, the counties
of San Miguel and Doña Ana will become nonattainment areas.

Mr. Niemeyer said that the GNEB wrote a comment letter to request
additional funding for U.S.-Mexico wastewater infrastructure. The
President’s budget originally allocated $10 million. The border
congressional delegation requested increased funding, and the final
result was an allocation of $25 million.  

Final Remarks

Mr. Wood thanked everyone for attending and for engaging in the
discussions. He has enjoyed serving as Acting Chair and thanked the GNEB
members and Ms. Koerner for their support. He added that he appreciated
everyone’s efforts to attend this meeting. He knew it was difficult
for a number of the participants to travel to Washington, DC. He asked
the group to give Ms. Koerner a round of applause for all of her hard
work. Ms. Koerner asked the participants to give the Acting Chair and
the Board’s new members a round of applause. She thanked everyone for
attending.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:32 p.m.

Action Items

Dr. Clesceri will send details on USAID’s watershed projects in Mexico
to Ms. Koerner, who will forward this information to the GNEB members.

Dr. Clesceri will send a Web link to USAID’s guide for planning for
climate change to Ms. Koerner, who will forward this information to the
GNEB members.

Dr. Clesceri will send contact information for USAID’s Mexico
representatives to Ms. Koerner, who will forward this information to the
GNEB members.

Mr. Posadas will work to advance the dialogue on developing binational
watershed councils or binational science advisory groups at the Mexican
Embassy.

With respect to the issue of expedited border crossing for first
responders, Ms. Tullis will send Ms. Koerner a list of the contacts she
has been working with at U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

GNEB members will send their edits to the October 3–4, 2007, meeting
minutes to Ms. Koerner, and she will incorporate the edits.

GNEB board members will complete the request form for copies of the
Eleventh GNEB Report and return them to Ms. Brown.

Mr. DeLeon will explore the possibility of putting the Eleventh Report
on CD-ROM.

GNEB members who have questions on lobbying regulations will direct
their questions to 

Mr. DeLeon, Mr. Wood, or Ms. Koerner.

A third group on public/private partnerships will be formed for the
Twelfth Report at a later time.

GNEB members will submit their travel vouchers to Ms. Williams for
reimbursement.

Ms. Koerner will explore with management the possibility of scheduling a
tour of the Campo Indian Reservation wind generation facility the day
before the Calexico, California, meeting.

Ms. Koerner and Ms. Janelle Young-Ancrum will identify the hotel where
GNEB members stayed for the previous Calexico, California, meeting and
report back on the Calexico planning committee conference call on April
18, 2008, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Mr. Dorsey will contact Flavio to determine whether he still is working
with Consejos. If Flavio is unavailable, Mr. Dorsey will contact Mr.
Carlos Rincon for assistance in identifying the Consejos liaison.

Ms. Koerner will continue to track the media coverage of the Eleventh
Report and will keep the GNEB members updated.

Mr. Ramírez will draft a comment letter on the importance of ensuring
expedited border crossing for emergency responders and their equipment,
e-mail it to Ms. Marin and Mr. Niemeyer for review and comment, and send
the revised letter to Judge Agan for dissemination to the Mayor of El
Paso and local county judges for their review. The letter will then be
circulated to GNEB members for review and comment.

Mr. Ramírez will send to Ms. Koerner for distribution to the GNEB
members the agenda and logistical information for the Arizona-Mexico
Commission plenary session on June 19–20, 2008, in Phoenix, Arizona.

GNEB members will send news stories or information on projects related
to the recommendations made in the Tenth or Eleventh Reports to Mr.
Neimyers. He will compile the information and circulate it to the GNEB
members.

Mr. Joyce and Ms. Koerner will e-mail to the GNEB members a copy of
GNEB’s annual report to GSA as well as the URL for the Web site where
all of the federal advisory committee reports are posted.

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting

Meeting Participants



Nongovernmental, State, Local, and Tribal Members of the Board

John Wood, Acting Chair

County Commissioner, Precinct 2

Cameron County 

City of Brownsville 

1100 E. Monroe

Brownsville, TX  78520

Phone:  956-983-5091

Fax:  956-983-5090 

E-mail:  jwood@co.cameron.tx.us 

Jerry C. Agan

Presidio County Judge

Presidio County Commissioners Court

P.O. Box 606

Marfa, TX  79843

Phone:  432-729-4452

Fax:  432-295-0307

E-mail:  eljuez@sbcglobal.net

Diane Austin, Ph.D.

Professor

University of Arizona

Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology

316 Anthropology Building

P.O. Box 210030

Tucson, AZ  85721-0030

Phone:  520-626-3879

Fax:  520-621-9608

E-mail:  daustin@email.arizona.edu

Christopher P. Brown, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

New Mexico State University

P.O. Box 30001/MSC MAP

Las Cruces, NM  88003-8001

Phone:  575-646-1892

Fax:  505-646-7430

E-mail:  brownchr@nmsu.edu

Michael L. Connolly

Councilman

Campo Kumeyaay Nation

1600 Buckman Springs Road

Campo, CA  91908

Phone:  619-478-2367

Fax:  619-478-2177

E-mail:	 tipaay@aol.com

Michael P. Dorsey

Chief

Hazardous Materials Division

County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health

P.O. Box 129261

San Diego, CA  92112-9261

Phone:  619-338-2395

Fax:  619-338-2319

E-mail:  michael.dorsey@sdcounty.ca.gov 

Gary Gillen

President

Gillen Pest Control

1012 Morton Street

Richmond, TX  77469

Phone:  281-342-6969

Fax:  281-232-6979

E-mail:  gary@gillenpestcontrol.com

Susan Keith 

Director

Southern Regional Operations 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

400 W. Congress, Suite 433

Tucson, AZ  85701

Phone:  520-628-6883

Fax:  520-628-6745

E-mail:  sjk@azdeq.gov

Patti Krebs 

Executive Director 

Industrial Environmental Association

701 B Street, Suite 1040

San Diego, CA  92101

Phone:  619-544-9684

Fax:  619-544-9514

E-mail:  iea@iea.sdcoxmail.com

Rosario Marin

Secretary

California State Consumer Services Agency

915 Capitol Mall, Suite 200

Sacramento, CA  95814

Phone:  916-653-2979

E-mail:  rmarin@scsa.ca.gov

Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.

Policy Analyst

Intergovernmental Relations Division/Border Affairs 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

MC-121, P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX  78711-3087

Phone:  512-239-3606

Fax:  512-239-3335

E-mail:  sniemeye@tceq.state.tx.us

Luis E. Ramírez Thomas, M.S.F.S.

President

Ramírez Advisors Inter-National, LLC

20118 N. 67th Avenue, Suite 300 #171

Glendale, AZ  85308

Phone:  602-820-3931

E-mail:  ramirezadvisors@cox.net

Allyson Siwik

Executive Director

Gila Resources Information Project (GRIP)

P.O. Box 91

Tyrone, NM  88065

Phone:  505-388-4350

E-mail:  asiwik@zianet.com

Marissa Stone

Communications Director

New Mexico Environment Department

1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050

Santa Fe, NM  87505 

Phone:  505-827-0314

E-mail:  marissa.stone@state.nm.us

Ann Marie A. Wolf

President

Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc.

3202 E. Grant Road

Tucson, AZ  85716

Phone:  520-321-9488

Fax:  520-321-9498

E-mail:  aawolf@seriaz.org

Federal Members of the Board

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

Shannon H. Sorzano

Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 8112

Washington, DC  20410

Phone:  202-708-0770

Fax:  202-708-5536

E-mail:  shannon_h._sorzano@hud.gov

U.S. Department of Transportation

Linda L. Lawson

Director

Safety, Energy and the Environment

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Room W84310

Washington, DC  20590

Phone:  202-366-4416

Fax:  202-366–0263

E-mail:  linda.lawson@dot.gov

Designated Federal Officer

Elaine M. Koerner

Designated Federal Officer

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 1601M

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-564-2586

Fax:  202-564-8129

E-mail:  koerner.elaine@epa.gov

Resource Specialists

Federal Agency Alternates

Rafael Guerrero

Natural Resource Manager

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

501 W. Felix

Building 23

Fort Worth, TX  76115

Phone:  817-509-3490

E-mail:  rafael.guerrero@ftw.usda.gov

Jeff Scott

Director

Multimedia Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA  94105

Phone:  415-972-3311

E-mail:  scott.jeff@epa.gov

EPA Participants

Frederick (Derry) Allen

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 1807T

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-566-2167

E-mail:   HYPERLINK "mailto:allen.derry@epa.gov" allen.derry@epa.gov 

Geraldine Brown

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 1601M

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-564-4235

E-mail:  brown.geraldine@epa.gov

Charles Darr 

ASPH Public Health Fellow

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Office of Solid Waste

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 4204M

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-564-2906

E-mail:  darr.charles@epa.gov 

Rafael DeLeon

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 1601M

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-564-4899

E-mail:  deleon.rafael@epa.gov

Marrietta Haggins

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 1601M 

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-564-3692

E-mail:  haggins.marrietta@epa.gov

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 1601M

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-564-2321

E-mail:   HYPERLINK "mailto:jones-jackson.cynthia@epa.gov"
jones-jackson.cynthia@epa.gov 

Mark Joyce

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management 

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 1601M 

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-564-2130

E-mail:  joyce.mark@epa.gov

Ellie Kanipe

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Office of Solid Waste

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 5304P

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  703-347-8985

E-mail:  kanipe.elisia@epa.gov

Charles Kent

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code: 1807T

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-566-2800

E-mail:  kent.chuck@epa.gov

Matthew Klasen

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 2842T 

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-566-0780

E-mail:  klasen.matthew@epa.gov

Toni Rousey

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 1601M

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-564-5356

E-mail:  rousey.toni@epa.gov

Gladys Sanmiguel (?)

U.S Environmental Protection Agency

EU-Mexico Border (?)

E-mail:  sanmiguel.gladys@epa.gov (?)

Sue Stendebach

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 6101A

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-564-8309

E-mail:  stendebach.sue@epa.gov

Luis Troche

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of International Affairs

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 1660R

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-564-2870

E-mail:  troche.luis@epa.gov

Dana Tulis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Office of Emergency Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 5104A 

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-564-7938

E-mail:  tulis.dana@epa.gov

Lois Williams

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 1601M

Washington, DC  20460

Phone:  202-564-2294

E-mail:  williams.lois@epa.gov

Other Participants

Mary Brandt

U.S. Department of State

International Boundary and Water Commission

Office of Mexican Affairs

Room 4258

Washington, DC  20520

Phone:  202-647-8106

E-mail:  brandtmm@state.gov

Brian Castelli

Alliance to Save Energy

1850 M Street, N.W., Suite 600

Washington, DC  20036

Phone:  202-857-0666

E-mail:  bcastelli@ase.org

Erika Clesceri, Ph.D.

U.S. Agency for International Development

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC  20523-8600

Phone:  202-712-0453

E-mail:   HYPERLINK "mailto:eclesceri@usaid.gov" eclesceri@usaid.gov 

Brigid De Coursey

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC  20590

Phone:  202-366-8914

E-mail:  brigid.decoursey@dot.gov

Alejandra Goyenechea

International Counsel

Defenders of Wildlife

1130 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20036

E-mail:  alejandra.goyenechea@defenders.org

Jorge Navarro

Mexican Embassy

2829 16th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC  20009

E-mail:  jnavarro@sre.gob.mx

Tracy Norberg

Rubber Manufacturers Association

1400 K Street, N.W., Suite 900

Washington, D.C.  20005

Phone:  202-682-4839

E-mail:  tnorberg@rma.org

Antonio Ortiz

Mexican Embassy

2829 16th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC  20009

Phone:  202-726-1680

E-mail:  aortizm@sre.gob.mx

Alejandro Posadas

Mexican Embassy

2829 16th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC  20009

Phone:  202-728-1777

E-mail:  alejandro.posadas@semarnat.gob.mx

Kathryn Washburn

Director of International Affairs

U.S. Department of the Interior

1849 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C.  20240

Phone:  202-208-3100

E-mail:  kwashburn@ios.doi.gov

Al Zapanta

President and CEO

U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Suite G-0003

Washington, D.C.  20004

Phone:  202-312-1520

E-mail:  zapantaz@aol.com

SCG Staff

Jen Hurlburt

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

656 Quince Orchard Road, Suite 210

Gaithersburg, MD  20878

Phone:  301-670-4990

Fax:  301-670-3815

E-mail:  jhurlburt@scgcorp.com



U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Meeting Day 1

March 19-20, 2008

Hilton Washington Towers Cabinet Room

1919 Connecticut Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20009

Phone: (202) 483-3000 

AGENDA

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

(9:00 A.M. Press Conference in State Room (media only) - Release of
Eleventh Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board: “Effects of
Natural Disasters on the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment”)

9:30 A.M.	Registration

10:00		Meeting Begins		

		Welcome—Commissioner John Wood, Acting Chair, GNEB

Rafael DeLeon, Director, EPA Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management (OCEM)

			       Elaine Koerner, Designated Federal Officer, OCEM

		Board Members, Attendees Self Introductions

10:10	Keynote Remarks—EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson

10:45 	Panel Discussion on Eleventh Report: “Natural Disasters and
Environmental Protection on the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment”

	Introduction, Summary of Recommendations—Commissioner John Wood,
Acting Chair



11:00	Panel Discussion 

Erika J. Clesceri, Ph.D. Democracy, Conflict and

Humanitarian Assistance Bureau Environmental Officer,

USAID-Washington 

- Dana Tulis, Deputy Director, EPA Office of Emergency Management and
U.S. Co-Chair, Border 2012 Program Emergency Preparedness & Response
Border-Wide Work Group 

- Alejandro Posadas, SEMARNAT, Mexican Embassy 

12:00		Public Comment Session

12:30 P.M.	Lunch

1:30        	Briefings on Board’s Twelfth Report Theme: 

               	“Innovation, Including Incentives, to Prevent/Reduce
Pollution at the U.S.- Mexico Border”

               	 Introduction, Background – Commissioner John Wood,
Acting Chair 

1:45	Opportunities and Barriers for Environmental Innovation Along the
U.S.-Mexico Border

- Chuck Kent, Director, Cross-Media Programs, Office of Policy,
Economics, and Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

- Sue Stendebach, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA 

2:30	Private Sector Leadership in Innovation for Environmental
Protection at the Border – Al Zapanta, President and CEO, U.S.-Mexico
Chamber of Commerce 

 

3:15	     	Break

3:30	Energy and Innovation to Protect the Environment at the Border 

- Brian Castelli, Executive Vice President, Alliance to Save Energy

	

·

·

¸

S

T

Ä

Ú

Ü

t

u

Â

Ä

Ú

Ü

@

$

@

@

@

$

$

ase in Point for Innovation at the Border 

- Tracey Norberg, Vice President, Rubber Manufacturers Association 

		

5:00 		Additional Discussion, Report Outs 

5:30 	      	Day One of Meeting Ends

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

	

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Meeting Day 2

March 19-20, 2008

Washington Hilton Towers Cabinet Room

1919 Connecticut Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20009

Phone: (202) 483-3000 

AGENDA

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Business Meeting and Strategic Planning Session

7:30 A.M.	Registration

8:00		Business Meeting

		- New Member Self Introductions, Goals for Board Membership

		- Approval of Minutes from Last Meeting

		- Dissemination Plan for Eleventh Report

8:30		Discussion of Twelfth Report

		- Determine Structure

		- Set up workgroups, including coordinators

		- Set up first workgroup teleconference calls

		- Other logistics

9:30		Performance Measures

		- Review of existing performance measures

		- System for tracking effectiveness during 2008

10:00		Break

10:15		Strategic Planning Session – Part 1: 

		- Successes, lessons learned during 2007

- Goals for 2008

		

11:30 – 	Lunch

12:30 P.M.	Strategic Planning Session – Part 2: Next Steps

- Follow-up to release of Eleventh Report (tracking system for
dissemination, for receiving response from CEQ) 

- Tools, techniques to develop Twelfth Report

- Calexico meeting preparations

- Other steps 

2:00		Report-Outs (continued)

3:00		Meeting Ends

These minutes are an accurate description of the matters discussed
during this meeting.

_______________________________________

Paul Ganster

Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board was created by the Enterprise for
the Americas Initiative Act of 1992. The board is responsible for
providing advice to the President and Congress on environmental and
infrastructure issues and needs within the states contiguous to Mexico. 
The findings and recommendations of the Board do not represent the views
of the Agency, and this document does not represent information approved
or disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency.

  PAGE  12 		March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)
Meeting Minutes

March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting
Minutes	  PAGE  1 

