 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting

December 14-15, 2011

JW Marriott

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC

Meeting Summary

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Welcome and Introductions

Mark Joyce, EPA, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and
Outreach (OFACMO), GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO); Cynthia
Jones-Jackson, EPA, Acting Director, OFACMO; and Diane Austin, Chair,
Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Mr. Mark Joyce (EPA, OFACMO), Acting DFO for GNEB, welcomed new and
existing members to the meeting. The Board will be celebrating
members’ work on the 14th Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental
Board to the President and Congress of the United States (hereafter
referred to as “report”) and beginning work on the 15th report. 

Ms. Cynthia Jones-Jackson (EPA, OFACMO) echoed Mr. Joyce’s comments.
She thanked the Board for the report and noted that OFACMO and EPA were
extremely pleased with it. New members Mr. David Anderson (Black and
Veatch Corporation) and Ms. Monique La Chappa (Campo Kumeyaay Nation)
would not be in attendance, but GNEB members Mr. Mike Vizzier (San Diego
Department of Environmental Health), Mr. Timothy Treviño (Alamo Area
Council of Governments), and Mr. Keith Takata (EPA Region 9), were
present. Mr. Takata’s region will be the lead EPA region for GNEB.
Mr. Larry Starfield accepted a new position at EPA and will be stepping
down from the Board. Ms. Jones-Jackson thanked Ms. Maria Elena Giner
(Border Environment Cooperation Commission [BECC]) for attending. Ms.
Michelle DePass, Assistant Administrator for the Office of International
and Tribal Affairs (OITA), will be speaking at the meeting and was
helpful in securing the attendance of several other Assistant
Administrators. She also thanked OFACMO staff members for their work in
planning the meeting. 

Dr. Diane Austin (University of Arizona), GNEB Chair, thanked members,
EPA staff and guests for attending. She noted that the deadlines had
been short for this year’s report, but they were met as a result of
the Board’s and EPA’s hard work. She welcomed new members and
thanked them for attending on short notice, and thanked the contractor,
The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc., for its support in preparing the
report. Mr. Joyce in turn thanked Dr. Austin for her work on the report.


Board members, staff and audience members introduced themselves, and
then Dr. Austin reviewed the agenda for the 2-day meeting. 

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

Maria Elena Giner, General Manager, BECC

Ms. Giner stated that the mandate of the BECC dovetails with GNEB, and
she saw opportunities for collaborations on projects from the 14th
report. The BECC was created out of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) but is an organization intended to certify projects
that will be financed by the NADB that will preserve, protect and
enhance the U.S.-Mexico border region by identifying, developing,
implementing and overseeing environmental infrastructure projects. The
NADB has a lending capacity of $3 billion. Those overseeing water and
wastewater projects are not willing to take on loans; these projects
still are grant dependent. As market opportunities have grown, it is
important for the BECC and the NADB to expand markets. Earnings from
loans will be funneled into the Capital Assistance Program that is
directed toward core sectors (water, wastewater and solid waste,
hazardous industrial waste and water conservation). The expanded sectors
are accessing loan programs and include air quality, public
transportation, clean and efficient energy, municipal planning and
international border crossings, as well as the new sectors:  energy
transmission and distribution, environmental goods and services with net
benefit to the border, and infrastructure to minimize future negative
environmental impacts. 

The BECC has certified 189 projects, 152 of which were NADB financed.
The BECC has built credibility with other funding agencies and investors
and has been able to pool together financing schemes. Technical
assistance is the cornerstone of project development. EPA has provided a
significant amount of funds to the BECC, and the BECC technical
assistance grants have helped 155 communities; 85 percent of the funds
have been applied to implemented projects. Training and capacity
building also are important when considering implementation of projects.
The BECC held five training events in 2011, a $130,000 investment. 

Social and environmental benefits were evident in projects on water and
wastewater, solid waste management, air quality, water conservation and
energy. For example, in water and wastewater, improvements were made
that benefitted more than 12 million border residents by eliminating 400
million gallons per day of untreated or inadequately treated sewage. 

The U.S.-Mexico Border Program funded by EPA has provided more than $33
billion in Project Development Assistance Program technical assistance
grants and $556.2 million in Border Environment Infrastructure Funds
(BEIF). Every dollar of BEIF funds has the leveraging strength of more
than $2 of other sources. Because of this program, wastewater treatment
coverage in Mexico’s border region, for example, has increased from 21
to 82 percent from 1995 to 2010. 

The U.S. contributions have decreased since 2007 to $25 million, and the
President’s budget has been $10 million since 2008; Congress increased
those budgets until 2011. The BECC and EPA developed a call for
applications in 2005 to provide transparency as to how the funds were
allocated to these projects. The BECC still is receiving approximately
200 applications each year. The BECC has conducted infrastructure needs
assessments for all 10 border states. In Mexico, many needs are
first-time infrastructure needs. Growth likely will surpass the
investments. Rehabilitation of existing systems also is needed in
Mexico. 

The BECC received funds from the World Bank to identify opportunities
for efficiencies in Mexican communities. Efficiency in utilities is a
fundamental aspect of sustainability, and the study examined global
efficiencies:  the physical efficiencies multiplied by collection
efficiencies. Some areas in Mexico have as low as 34 percent global
efficiency. In the United States, the primary gap in centralized
infrastructure exists in the rural setting, and an investment may be
required to connect to a centralized system. BECC assessment in
combination with available data provides a macro-level analysis to
identify targeted areas in the United States for further investigation.
Resources are required to invest in micro-level needs assessments to
ensure access to potable drinking water and adequate wastewater
disposal. The BECC is developing the baseline of health information to
assess the actual impact of certified projects. A case study was
conducted in the Valle de Juarez that showed the presence of parasites
in tap water, with Giardia affecting more than 67 percent of the
population. Another study considered the impact of road paving on
particulate matter (PM10) reduction; after roads are paved, it was found
that average PM10 levels decrease by approximately 20 percent, and peak
concentrations decreased by 80 percent. The BECC is working with EPA on
how it can help cities make better paving choices based on traffic and
population centers. Additionally, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
inventories were conducted for the six Mexican border states.
Electricity consumption and transportation create the greatest GHG
emissions. Water utilities are the largest energy consumers in most
communities. 

With the assistance of Border 2012 funds, the BECC has started three
Mexican Climate Action Plans in Baja California, Sonora and Coahuila.
Each plan developed 40 to 60 public policies. In the United States,
approximately 30 Climate Action Plans exist. Mexico has a national plan
as well, and U.S. plans generally are conducted by the states. U.S.
border state GHG emissions show commonalities with Mexican states in
terms of their sources. Climate Action Plans must include water
conservation. 

Discussion

Ms. Cecilia Aguillon (Kyocera Solar, Inc.), GNEB member, asked whether
any projects using recycled tires to pave roads were being considered.
Ms. Giner responded that 3 years prior, the BECC certified a project in
Tijuana to white-top roads using cool technologies. There was not
significant PM10 reduction. The BECC has promoted training for and the
use of rubberized asphalt but has seen that municipal governments in
Mexico only last 3 years, so the amount of paving that can be done
decreases. It is not a well-recognized industry in Mexico, so gaining
investment is difficult. Additionally, many tires now are being disposed
of at cement kilns. 

Mr. Jose Angel (California River Basin Region Water Quality Control
Board), GNEB member, explained that on the border, a curtain of dust
rises in the morning around the time people leave for work, and the same
thing happens during the evening rush hour. 

Dr. David Henkel (University of Mexico), GNEB member, asked what thought
had been given to water quality issues with respect to irrigation. Ms.
Giner responded that 80 percent of water is used for irrigation. The
BECC has held many meetings at the local and federal level on irrigation
opportunities. The cost of developing new water sources is high, and if
an opportunity to reduce water consumption can be identified, it should
be pursued. The Mexican National Water Commission (Comisión Nacional
del Agua, CONAGUA) has a national plan for water conservation as it
relates to climate adaptation that will examine opportunities in
irrigation; the BECC is about to begin a study on this. She will discuss
including water quality in this study with CONAGUA. 

Mr. Gary Gillen (Gillen Pest Control), GNEB member, mentioned that the
Board had seen a tire storage facility in Mexico and asked if the tires
were being used in cement kilns at the expense of air quality.
Ms. Giner replied that these are state-of-the-art facilities, and the
manufacturers of cement are international. 

Ms. Laura Gomez (EPA, OITA) asked for elaboration on the funding
received from the World Bank. Ms. Giner stated that the World Bank
grant was $100,000, and it was for a collaboration project between the
BECC and a border university. 

Mr. Stephen Niemeyer (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ]),
GNEB member, asked what “infrastructure to minimize future negative
environmental effects” meant. Ms. Giner replied that the BECC had
received many requests for urban renewal projects, such as
rehabilitating industrial parks. Projects must demonstrate a
quantifiable environmental result. The goal is to examine infrastructure
needs that will have an environmental benefit. Mr. Niemeyer asked how
this related to Congressman Rubén Hinojosa’s (Texas) legislation
intended to expand the BECC’s mandate. Ms. Giner stated that it was
related:  Congressman Hinojosa’s legislation proposes to remove the
word “environmental” before “infrastructure” in BECC’s
mandate. 

Mr. Nathan Small (New Mexico Wilderness Alliance), GNEB member, noted
that the BECC’s mandate expansion was interesting and might increase
funding to poor areas. He asked how the change came about and whether
there would be a rapid expansion into the new areas driven by fulfilling
the core needs. Ms. Giner noted that the change had just been approved,
but nothing moves rapidly in infrastructure. In the energy sector, the
BECC has four to five projects moving rapidly, with10 projects in the
pipeline. In the case of urban renewal, the BECC is seeing that
communities must be educated about the opportunities to take NADB’s
funding. Project sponsors want business certainty. The BECC and the NADB
will be pooling a budget of about $400,000 for technical assistance to
develop projects in the private sector. Many of these decisions made in
private industry are not made locally. The BECC still is in the phase of
identifying opportunities. The BECC has a results measurement framework
put into place 2 years ago, and the projects must demonstrate
environmental benefit. 

Mr. Robert Apodaca (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]), GNEB member,
noted that some border projects had been identified in New Mexico and
asked if she had worked with people at the state level because this
could represent a large leveraging opportunity. Ms. Giner responded that
she had, and many projects have partners. Regular state meetings are
held, as well as meetings with state legislatures. 

Mr. Thomas Ruiz (New Mexico Environment Department [NMED]), GNEB member,
noted that he was on the colonia infrastructure board, which will be
considering the funding available for infrastructure and housing. The
BECC should consider leveraging these funds. 

Mr. Timothy Treviño (Alamo Area Council of Governments), GNEB member,
asked about the slide on investment needs for the United States and
where the specific dollar figures stated are concentrated along the
border. The Texas Transportation Institute released a report in the
summer of 2011 that reveals that 85 percent of the population of Texas
now resides east of Interstate 35. What are the BECC and the NADB doing
to work with the State of Texas in trying to secure adequate funding for
these types of projects? If a gap in funding has been identified, and
municipalities do not want to expand their delivery systems, what ideas
do the BECC and the NADB have to finance projects in rural areas that do
not have adequate revenue streams? Ms. Giner responded that the
engineering aspects of projects were easy but finding a sponsor is
difficult, especially in an unincorporated community. She explained that
the issue raised was very serious. If the Board is interested, she could
sort data in a manner that will reveal which areas are unincorporated,
how the counties relate to it and how the data can be correlated. The
BECC has the data down to the county level. The reports should be
available by February 2012 and may be useful for the Board. Ms. Giner
met with EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe approximately 2 years
ago and mentioned that funding for the BECC had decreased significantly
since he had served as Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water
under the Clinton Administration.

Dr. Austin noted that when she gave a presentation in Arizona on a
project in Nogales, Sonora, on composting toilets, one of the county
staff members in attendance stated that some people in Arizona counties
have the same needs as in the colonias in Nogales, Sonora. 

Update on Border 2012/2020 Activities and Border Issues

Michelle DePass, Assistant Administrator, EPA, OITA

Ms. DePass thanked Dr. Austin for her dedication and thanked her staff
in attendance, Ms. Jane Nishida, Director of Regional Bilateral Affairs,
and Ms. Laura Gomez and Ms. Lisa Almodovar, project managers for the
program. She also thanked Ms. Jones-Jackson for the invitation to the
meeting and noted that she would have three opportunities to speak to
the Board that day. She is looking forward to strengthening
opportunities to partner with the Board on issues of science and
innovation. Many of the Board members have supported EPA in the Border
2012 effort. Accomplishments made through partnerships in Border 2012
include pesticide collection through binational state-level
partnerships. Pesticides were collected through cooperation with state
and federal agricultural agencies. Increased capacity has been developed
through trinational tribal partnerships as well. With the Tohono
O’odham Nation Office of Environmental Protection, the BECC and Border
2012, the San Francisquito, Sonora, Mexico, community was able to access
clean drinking water. Border 2012 has partnered with academia for
solutions toward improving air quality through Border 2012, particularly
with the University of Texas at El Paso, and examined options in
binational traffic flow at the Bridge of the Americas to determine the
impact on air quality and pollution exposure. Border 2012 has achieved
not only significant measurable results in projects such as those
outlined but also succeeded in the areas of social development. The
human capacity is an important aspect in the work that EPA conducts.
Border 2012 has partnered by connecting science experts from all levels
of government binationally with the community and has worked on the
“healthy communities” approach, in which the program works with the
economies, the state, the tribal governments, academia and other
organizations. The efforts along the U.S.-Mexico border have contributed
toward its advancement, although there is much more work to do, and the
program will work with the Board to make a better life for border
citizens. 

Looking forward, Border 2020 will be a continuing effort to build
healthy communities along the border, advance Agency and project actions
across the environmental and public health spectrum, and strengthen
binational partnerships. This work will involve cleaning the air through
anti-idling technology, providing safe drinking water through
infrastructure, and reducing exposure to hazardous waste and chemicals
through awareness and better management practices. Border 2020 is
different than Border 2012 in that it has an 8-year implementation
horizon; the project has established biennial action plans that will
create priority and near-term targets that pay attention to the
particular needs of a geographic area, region or community and adapt to
emerging issues and unanticipated resource constraints. Border 2020 has
established five fundamental strategies:  climate change; underserved
communities; children’s health; environmental education; and
strengthening tribal, state, national and international partnerships.
Work likely will continue to focus on air pollution reduction in the
binational airsheds; continue to increase homes connected to safe
drinking water and wastewater treatment; develop capacity to improve
collection and recycling of electronic waste (e-waste), plastics and
trash; and improve environmental and public health through chemical
safety. 

The public comment period closed on November 30, 2011, and much valuable
feedback was received. During the public comment period, the project
held its first border tribal consultation. Border 2020 met with the
tribes about the draft of the program in the San Diego region. The first
major topic of comments received was on capacity development. Border
2020 has received a request to support and train on scientific and
technical knowledge with partners at the local levels, for example, to
conduct workshops on renewable energy in the Arizona/Sonora regions and
provide trainings on water and wastewater utility management in the
California/Baja California region. A second major topic of the comments
was environmental education of border citizens on health and
environmental issues that affect them and why the issues matter for
future generations. In the Texas/Nueva Leon/Coahuila/Tamaulipas region,
Border 2020 was asked to provide trainings on safe handling of
pesticides and use of chemicals and hazardous substances. A third
category of comments received focused on public participation; creating
ways to encourage border citizens to participate with the program and
energize them to be active participants within the community, such as
through developing a public information system that relies on the input
of the public so that its members are engaged in the issues that affect
their communities; and continuing the bottom-up approach by having
communities identify their priorities through Border 2020 task forces.
Border 2020 continues to cross-review some of the recommendations that
were made in the Board’s 13th report, as it contains very helpful
recommendations for the current and future challenges that remain and
outlines a wide range of opportunities for improving the quality of life
and the environment in the border region. Border 2020 welcomes the
Board’s recommendations on how it can strengthen its partnerships
through science and innovation and looks forward to the Board’s
continued partnership and support. The program still is in negotiations
with Mexico, but a final document will be submitted to the leadership in
hopes of having it signed at the 2012 National Coordinators meeting in
Tijuana, Mexico. 

The one key element essential in the program’s achievements is
partnership. Through partnerships, the program has made some progress on
improving the health of border citizens. The current economic situation
has created many challenges that affect EPA’s work, and work will have
to continue with fewer resources. Innovation, however, rises to the
challenges. Through past collaboration with Mexico in Border 2012,
strong relationships and a bilateral environmental agenda have been
formed. 

Keith Takata, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9

Mr. Takata stated that he was proud to be a new member of the Board, but
he is not new to border work. More than 20 years ago, he helped to start
the border program in EPA Region 9. There has been tremendous change
since then; Border 2020 is EPA’s fourth border plan. EPA has
established border offices in Region 9 (San Diego) and Region 6 (El
Paso), along with the BECC and the NADB. In the 10-year Border 2012
program, EPA has invested more than $14 million in 200 projects, and the
related BEIF has invested more than $500 million toward 90 water and
wastewater projects. A company called Metales, a U.S.-owned smelter in
Tijuana, abandoned a facility and left more than 444,000 tons of lead.
With pressure from nongovernmental organizations and EPA funds, Mexico
cleaned up that site last year. The land now is being used as an air
emissions laboratory for the state of Baja California. Much of the lead
at Metales came from lead batteries. 

When the environmental problem is located in Mexico, but the source of
the problem originates in the United States, all of the differing laws
and economic realities make it difficult to accomplish projects at the
border. The New River is an example:  there were 15 million gallons of
raw sewage crossing the border into Calexico. A treatment plant was
built with the help of EPA that removed most of the discharge, reducing
the presence of bacteria by 90 percent. There still are, however,
industrial and slaughterhouse discharges in the New River on the Mexican
side that affect the United States. Another issue was the buildup of
tire dumps along the border, and with the BECC, EPA removed 8 million
tires from the dumps. Much more needs to be done, and EPA needs GNEB’s
continued vigilance. In San Diego and Tijuana, much work is conducted on
wastewater problems, and many of them have been solved. Every year,
however, 500,000 tons of sediment and 500 tons of trash flow into the
United States during rain events. EPA also has conducted much work in
collecting obsolete pesticides, but hundreds of thousands remain that
need proper disposal. There are $800 million in project needs for
wastewater infrastructure, yet the annual budget is $10 million. The
need is great, and the outlook for funding is uncertain at best. Despite
this, both regional offices are committed to making border work a
priority and continuing close collaboration with Mexico as good
neighbors. The Board’s ideas and support are needed. 

Discussion

Ms. Alison Krepp (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[NOAA]), GNEB member, asked when Border 2020 action plans would be
available for review. Ms. DePass replied that EPA still was negotiating
with Mexico in terms of the structure of Border 2020. When those
negotiations are complete, EPA can release the action plans to the
public. Ms. Krepp asked for a timeframe in which this might be
accomplished. Ms. Almodovar (EPA, OITA) stated that the biannual reports
will be released at the beginning of 2013 with that year’s
appropriation budget. If Border 2012 is signed in August 2012, there
will be a few months to develop the action plans. 

Mr. Angel noted that New River was one of his organization’s key
projects, particularly the Mexicali sanitation program. There has been
progress, but not yet success. The New River remains one of the more
polluted rivers in the United States as it enters California. The state
hopes that the federal departments will recognize that there is a
continued infrastructure need in Mexicali and in the Calexico/Imperial
Valley area. The state-level organizations believe that they have a role
to play. In terms of capacity building, California entered into a
memorandum of understanding with the state of Baja California through
which it provided a 5-day workshop on wastewater treatment and utility
management and offered that information to Border 2020. Ms. DePass
asked that California partner with Border 2020 to disseminate the
information. 

Mr. Luis Olmedo (Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.), GNEB member, stated
that environmental justice (EJ) was not necessarily a component of
Border 2020 and asked if there were plans in Border 2020 to address the
New River by investing more aggressively in resource and human capital
to ensure that the job there is completed. Regarding tire dumps, he
asked about the challenges of working binationally. Ms. DePass stated
that one of her first meetings when she assumed her current position was
a Border 2012 National Coordinators meeting in San Diego. Mr. Ruiz from
NMED had asked a question about EJ, and Ms. DePass had written NMED’s
platform on EJ. EJ is critical in the way that EPA sees its work and why
it performs its work. Recognizing that this is a binational program and
that EPA must negotiate and work with Mexico, the focus has been on
underserved communities. EJ is a concern that Administrator Lisa Jackson
has embraced. As EPA works toward children’s environmental health and
the impacts that the projects will have in protecting and improving the
environmental health of communities, these are the communities most
underserved. On the U.S. side, the border community has the highest
unemployment, disease rates and environmental health risk in the
country. Additionally, these communities have the fewest opportunities
in terms of a clean and safe infrastructure. She and her staff have been
working with the regions to underscore this. One challenge of working
binationally is, as stated, making EJ work in negotiations with Mexico.
Her office works multinationally and with all 565 sovereign nations in
the United States. Each nation (tribal or otherwise) has different
priorities. If there is a site that Board members think is most
important locally, they should let the federal leadership or tribal
leadership know so that it can be addressed. 

Mr. Takata noted that Border 2020 is similar to a strategic plan with
broad objectives. Once Border 2020 is adopted, EPA plans to move to the
action level with the 2-year action plans. Border 2020 also contains
some cross-cutting strategies; instead of EJ, the terms “underserved
communities” and “children’s health” are used. EPA is committed
to trying to solve the remainder of the New River problem. He helps to
chair a regional workgroup in California, and EPA also has a water
taskforce. That is where a plan will be developed. In terms of tires,
the physical problem is that there is a dump on tribal land, but most of
the material came from elsewhere. The United States cannot tell the
tribe not to take the material, and there is an economic incentive to
keep taking the material. There are conflicting laws and differing
economic incentives, and the only way to solve the problem is to bring
people together. Ms. Almodovar added that EJ is a term that has a
differing definition in the United States and Mexico. Mexico has agreed
to change the term to underserved or underrepresented communities. 

Mr. Ruiz stated that there appeared to be good focus on EJ by using
Mexico’s terms, and it is one of the Border 2020 five fundamental
strategies. Goal one, climate change, however, is a politically charged
issue, but renewable energy and energy efficiency must be emphasized,
and perhaps climate change could be worded as such. 

Mr. Niemeyer noted that in Mexico, the northern border is the wealthiest
part of the country, but in the United States, the southern border is
the poorest. Therefore, Mexico does not have much incentive to work on
the border issues as it has greater needs. Fortunately, there is the La
Paz Agreement and the Border 2020 framework document that allows for
border implementation plans. Working together with other partners is
critical on border issues. Ms. DePass commented that the regional
leadership in place also is crucial. Border 2020 would not work without
the commitment and resources of the regional offices. Sometimes regional
funds lead the way to conducting work on the border.

Mr. Angel appreciates the challenge in working with Mexico but wondered
if EPA was driving to a lower common denominator for the sake of
harmony, such as downgrading definitions to make them more acceptable. 

Ms. Angela Palazzolo (U.S. Department of State), GNEB member, noted that
as a representative from the U.S. Department of State, she applauded
EPA’s sensitivity to terminology. It can be difficult to compromise
with Mexico, but EPA does it on a regular basis and manages to find the
strongest possible option. Ms. DePass agreed that it was a commitment
and that EPA would remain vigilant on EJ. 

Ms. Almodovar stated that there also had been negotiation on a website
for climate change. Ms. DePass noted that the border program was
successful in improving environmental health; she asked the Board
members for some of their ideas to ensure that all of the projects
continuing in a variety of regions could have lasting connectivity in
terms of the results and how to ensure that those municipally
responsible or in academia have an opportunity to share their best
practices. 

Ms. Krepp stated that when NOAA has projects that are spread across a
region, some of the capacity building that is missing is being able to
relate the work to regional impact or statements. This is difficult for
field staff to accomplish because the impact of the project is connected
to county demographics or regional statistics. Often missing is the
economic, demographic environmental engineering analysis.  

Dr. Henkel noted that he learned through the past year of the Board’s
work that GNEB has an appreciation of other units of government, but the
members approach the work as individuals. Board members have the
capacity to construct networks of their own. They can relate to the
regions and other local and state partners if they mobilize themselves.
The Board must have a discussion about how to accomplish this. The
report should not be out of the Board’s hands once it is delivered to
the President but should be a starting point for the members as well.
Board members should determine what can be done locally with the report.

Mr. Angel commented that from a water quality perspective, laws,
regulations and programs are viewed as the “instruments,” and
watershed management is viewed as the “orchestra.” There should be a
strong monitoring component of programs to determine whether they have
been successful. 

Ms. Palazzolo mentioned that she was part of the implementation process
during various Border 2012 programs. Challenges of accountability and
capacity building with the short Mexican government turnover mean that
EPA regional staff should use the consulates at the border as their
contacts in the local Mexican government. There can be a gap between the
hard work conducted in Washington and the regional staff in the field,
and officers at the U.S. consulates could help to bridge that gap. One
of her offers to regional staff is to use the Department of State’s
contacts at the border. EPA should contact her or Ms. Rachel Poynter to
assist with getting in touch with such contacts. Dr. Austin agreed that
this could be helpful. 

Dr. Teresa Pohlman (Department of Homeland Security [DHS]), GNEB member,
recommended that EPA use metrics to measure progress instead of textual
information and generalizations about what has been done. EPA must find
a quantifiable way to measure progress and accomplishments that have
been achieved with the money and time invested. Ms. DePass stated that
EPA had determined how to measure project by project, but this is much
more difficult on the transboundary level. She agreed with
Dr. Pohlman’s idea. Dr. Austin added that qualitative data, such as
interview results, also are valuable. For example, with $40,000, the
size of a typical Border 2012 grant, there will not be measurable air
quality impact in Nogales, but there may be other impacts. Connections
that people make through those projects are key because they can have an
impact over time. Although quantitative measures are important,
qualitative measures are equally valid and help to track projects. The
challenge is how to measure and express the qualitative findings. Mr.
Takata agreed that there was a need to measure the work conducted, and
with Border 2012, an environmental indicators report was created. 

Mr. Russell Frisbie (International Boundary and Water Commission
[IBWC]), GNEB member, stated that IBWC maintains eight field offices
along the border, which could be useful in communicating information
about the Border 2012 and Border 2020 programs. The IBWC U.S. Section
maintains a number of citizens’ forums along the border not subject to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act that are much more informal than a
GNEB meeting. These forums could provide a good opportunity for the
Agency to make known what the U.S. government is undertaking in these
regions. 

Ms. Gomez stated that EPA needed to ensure that both social science and
hard science were communicated and linked. People need to be able to
understand the results. When EPA moves forward with Border 2020, the
Agency is open to Board suggestions on how it can be more creative with
its messaging. Ms. DePass thanked the Board for the discussion and all
of its service. 

Mr. John Wood (Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority), GNEB member,
mentioned that he had served on a citizen forum for the IBWC that was
quite educational. Those who serve become much more informed about what
the IBWC does and needs because it also is underfunded. It is important
to become involved on the local level. 

Public Comments

Dr. Austin noted that no one had signed up to offer public comments. 

Press Event at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars

Board members attended a press event at the Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars for the release of GNEB’s 14th report. 

Board Member Updates and Discussion With Senior Officials From EPA

Dr. Austin welcomed senior administrators from EPA, and Ms.
Jones-Jackson introduced the participants. She thanked Ms. DePass and
her staff because without OITA, there would not have been such
participation from senior managers. 

Mr. Mike Flynn (EPA, Office of Air and Radiation [OAR]) congratulated
and thanked the Board for its 14th report. He highlighted some of the
work conducted under Border 2012. The foundation of OAR’s work is the
completion of the GHG inventories and forecasts in the border states;
this can support climate action plans across the states. Secondly, there
are practical guides that address renewable energy and energy
efficiency, which are being translated into Spanish so that they can be
more useful across the border. Additionally, OAR is examining how
reducing idling at border crossings can be addressed and making
low-sulfur diesel fuel available, a major impediment to cleaner trucks
in Mexico. OAR is encouraging the availability of those fuels.
Additional work is being conducted on ambient air monitoring. OAR is
working with partners on the border to advance significant air issues. 

Mr. Randy Hill (EPA, Office of Water [OW], Office of Wastewater
Management) noted that he was present on behalf of Ms. Nancy Stoner, the
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, and appreciated the
opportunity to speak to the Board. One of his duties is serving as the
National Program Manager for EPA’s Border Water Infrastructure
Program. Ms. DePass spoke about some of these statistics; he noted that
he would like to amplify several points. Every 2 years, EPA conducts a
solicitation on both sides of the border for drinking water and
wastewater infrastructure projects. The most recent process was for
fiscal years 2011 and 2012; EPA received 200 project applications with
an estimated total construction cost of $800 million. This program has
been funded by Congress on the U.S. side at roughly $10 million per year
plus the equivalent amount in Mexico. For every dollar of U.S. federal
investments, it is estimated that there are $3 used for projects along
the border. The program hopes to fund 23 of the 200 submitted projects
for initial design and planning. There is a great deal of unmet need,
but there has been success in significantly increasing the access to
water and drinking water infrastructure in the border region. First time
access, however, is not meaningful unless there is continuous access. In
the wastewater industry, there is too much repair by replacement; new
systems are constructed instead of maintaining old ones. The program is
committed to incorporating not just access to wastewater and drinking
water along the border, but sustainable access. EPA is working to
incorporate considerations of energy efficiency, proper operation and
maintenance, proper operator training and climate readiness. The program
also is studying the economic benefit of adequate infrastructure along
the border. There has been significant growth that has required the
expansion of water and wastewater infrastructure, but that growth
eventually will stop unless there is access to adequate services. A
synergistic effect exists between development and infrastructure. The
program has been collaborating with OITA as well as CONAGUA, the IBWC,
the BECC and the NADB to develop new water goals for Border 2020. The
four objectives released for public comment are to:  increase the number
of homes connected to safe drinking water and adequate wastewater
treatment, help utilities along the border to implement sustainable
infrastructure practices, work binationally to identify and reduce
surface water contamination in specific high-priority water bodies or
watersheds, and provide the public with timely access to water quality
data on binational water bodies and watersheds in a readily accessible
and web-based format. More on these objectives and subobjectives are
available at OITA’s Border 2020 website. There is a high degree of
alignment between the draft Border 2020 water goals and some of the
recommendations in GNEB’s 14th report, such as the recommendations to
encourage and assist municipalities to conduct energy audits and to
prioritize projects that update criteria to incorporate energy
efficiency and renewable energy. Given that the Board will be examining
infrastructure for the 15th report, Mr. Hill can commit OW to working
closely with GNEB. 

Mr. Matthew Stanislaus (EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response [OSWER]) stated that his office was responsible for the cleanup
of contaminated properties, hazardous and nonhazardous solid waste, and
emergency response. The Repowering America’s Land Initiative is
attempting to connect the opportunities for clean energy by siting
projects on contaminated properties. OSWER has worked with the U.S.
Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory to examine
contaminated properties across the country and map those properties that
lend themselves to siting of renewable energy. It has been mapped based
on the various kinds of individual potential but specifically renewable
energy. In November 2011, OSWER announced a number of feasibility
studies that are being conducted, and a number of them are located on
the border. In emergency response, there are significant issues along
the U.S.-Mexico border. OSWER co-chairs the U.S.-Mexico Border 2012 Goal
5 activities with Mexican counterparts on emergency preparedness.
Through an interagency agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense’s
Northern Command, OSWER is working to strengthen the hazardous material
response capabilities and build capacity on both sides of the border.
Through this partnership, OSWER has brought emergency response equipment
to a number of first responders in several cities along the border and
worked with first responders in these cities to develop a mutual
training for emergency response. OSWER also has an initiative to address
the major problem of used tires piles and their consequences. The 10
border states and municipalities, along with the U.S. Rubber
Manufacturers Association, have signed a letter of understanding to
conduct scrap tire prevention activities. More than 8 million border
tires have been cleaned up since 2003 through Border 2012. Recently,
OSWER has reinitiated implementation of better practices for tires and
discussed under what circumstances tires can be burned as fuel.
Additionally, OSWER rolled out an electronic method of conducting notice
and consent that has received positive response. The President in 2010
released a national strategy for electronic stewardship. A number of
activities are included, such as green design as well as export and
mismanagement of e-waste. OSWER is advocating to certify recycling in
the United States to maximize recycling and ensure that a tracking
system is in place. Finally, Mr. Stanislaus asked for the Board’s
thoughts on handling lead batteries, as there are restrictions as to
what EPA can do. 

Ms. DePass stated that she would not speak again but wanted to thank her
colleagues for attending. She introduced Ms. Lisa Garcia, Senior Advisor
to the Administrator on EJ. 

Ms. Garcia noted that she had the pleasure of working with all of the
programs to advance and integrate EJ into all programs at EPA. EPA has a
roadmap called Plan EJ 2014 because 2014 is the anniversary of the
executive order on EJ signed by the President in 1994. It is aligned
with EPA’s strategic plan so that some of the performance measures and
metrics are aligned as well. Under the roadmap, EPA has worked with OITA
on Border 2020 and on Border 2012. She read some of the recommendations
from GNEB’s report, and one of the things included in Border 2020 was
to work on vulnerable populations and how communities would be brought
into the process. 

Mr. Derry Allen (EPA, Office of Policy [OP], Office of Strategic
Environmental Management) commented that he was representing Ms. Bicky
Corman, Deputy Associate Administrator of OP. OP does not manage
programs like the other offices and does not have special programs
relating to the U.S.-Mexico border region. Several months ago, the
National Academy of Sciences presented to EPA a report called
Sustainability and the U.S. EPA. It recommends a number of ways in which
EPA might go about integrating principles of sustainability into its
everyday work. The Administrator accepted the report with thanks and
then wanted to talk to people around the country to determine which
recommendations had support. The listening process has begun and
includes another advisory committee, the National Advisory Council for
Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), which is now starting a
special project on sustainability. Some of the other advisory boards at
EPA have decided to send members to participate in that process,
including the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, the
National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee and the Environmental
Finance Advisory Board. Sustainability must be central to GNEB’s
mission and is also of great interest to all of the departments in the
federal government. Sustainability applies to the border region as much
as it applies anywhere else and is a concept that can draw together many
of the interests of this group. If the Board or individual members would
like to offer some input on this topic by sending delegates to NACEPT or
by some other means, EPA would welcome it. 

Discussion

Mr. Angel commented that Mr. Hill’s statements showed an ominous trend
regarding unmet needs, so it is incumbent on those at the local and
state levels to bring this trend to the attention of policy-makers so
that it may be stopped or even reversed. He expressed concern that the
gains made in the past would be lost. 

Ms. Aguillon raised the issue of using tires for rubberized asphalt to
cover highways to keep them cooler and quieter; it is a good method to
recycle tires. She expressed belief that the concrete lobbying group
deterred progress on this front in Arizona. Additionally, in past years
there had been discussions in Washington about putting solar panels on
trucks to address the truck idling issue at the border. Mr. Flynn
responded that there are obvious reasons why trucks are idling at the
border, and solar panels may be something that should be examined. Mr.
Joyce commented that DHS was conducting some pilot projects at ports of
entry in which the truck stops were being electrified so that diesel
engines could be turned off. Dr. Austin added that Nogales, Sonora, was
the single largest port of entry for winter produce, and idling is a
serious issue there. 

Mr. Olmedo noted that as EPA moves on to Border 2020, there are many
issues that will not be solved within the border region of the United
States, such as air monitoring, idling and emerging unpermitted waste
recyclers on tribal lands. If the United States can address this issue
with sovereign nations within the country, it will be more equipped to
deal with international issues. Mr. Stanislaus responded that EPA
recently closed the public comment period on a rule on solid waste
originally finalized in the previous administration that streamlines
some of the rules for hazardous waste recycling. EPA was petitioned by a
number of environmental organizations to examine the EJ consequences of
hazardous waste recycling. It was found that hazardous waste recycling
mismanagement is affecting low-income communities disproportionately.
EPA proposed to restrict the rules significantly to provide more
accountability and prescriptive containment standards because even
legitimate recyclers can create negative impacts. Mr. Flynn added that
there was continued focus on what more EPA could do in terms of air
monitoring at the border. EPA is collaborating with the U.S. Department
of Transportation and its Mexican counterparts on the idling issue and
trying to unravel the solution. Dr. Austin added that from an
Arizona/Sonora perspective, there has been a drastic reduction in the
amount of air monitoring being conducted on the border because of budget
cutbacks. Mr. Olmedo mentioned the New River as a case study of trying
to resolve environmental issues from other countries and noted his
awareness of the challenges that the Agency is facing. 

Dr. Henkel commented that many questions surface repeatedly as the Board
learns more about the issues, which enables GNEB to think more broadly
about the capacities and different perspectives on the issues. Border
2020 is focused on healthy communities on one hand and binational
cooperation on the other, which raises a concern about food safety and
agriculture. A farm bill will be considered in 2013; a number of
residents of colonias come from agricultural backgrounds, and there is a
robust agricultural trade with Mexico. He expressed concern about how
the United States was handling water quality and public health issues
and access of poor communities to affordable food. He asked how EPA
views the issues of sustainability and EJ in these situations. Mr. Hill
replied that the link between food and water quality is something that
EPA has not spent a great deal of time considering. The Clean Water Act
expects that the states will develop water quality standards subject to
EPA approval, and EPA releases criteria documents, which are scientific
recommendations for an acceptable level of water quality for particular
uses. EPA models crop uptake and on the regulatory side is focused on
identifiable sources of water quality impairment such as point sources.
Many water bodies that are not meeting water quality standards are
impaired in large part because of agricultural contributions, so EPA is
collaborating with state and local governments and USDA and will be
examining the Farm Bill. EPA is attempting to ensure that the link
between agricultural output and water quality is a central
consideration. Ms. Garcia added that EPA was engaged in work with USDA
to focus on healthy foods and urban gardens as well as access to food.
She expressed appreciation of the discussion on colonias and would see
how this issue could be incorporated in work with other agencies and at
EPA. Mr. Apodaca noted that USDA had a number of programs that attempted
to address water quality standards and would be conducting some
initiatives that likely will be focused on the colonias. Additionally,
he asked about the definition of infrastructure in the border region.
Mr. Flynn responded that regarding the issue on agriculture, from an air
pollution standpoint EPA is examining best management practices. Mr.
Allen added that many of the links between water and agriculture being
described are at the heart of issues of sustainability; if there are
particular ideas on solving issues at the border region, they should be
added to a plan of how the Agency can develop principles of
sustainability about daily activities. Dr. Austin added that a
conversation was under way in Tucson on the source of water for
community gardens. Water is priced differently for agricultural or
residential use, and urban gardens pay the residential price, which can
be cost-prohibitive. If a community garden can demonstrate that it is
using water conservation measures, perhaps it could receive a reduction
in price. Mr. Hill mentioned that in October 2010, OW released a water
and wastewater infrastructure sustainability policy that summarizes what
actions utilities should take to make their operations more sustainable.
One aspect is examining rate structure to determine whether the cost of
providing service is being captured. It is not reasonable to expect that
the federal government will be funding all infrastructure needs, and it
will be up to states and local governments to determine how to operate
and maintain a water infrastructure sustainably. 

Mr. Niemeyer thanked Ms. DePass for inviting the participants to the
meeting. On the issue of EJ, he noted that a friend involved in Office
of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance had stated that the entire
border region constituted an EJ issue. 

Dr. Austin echoed Mr. Niemeyer’s thanks to all of the participants for
attending and to Ms. DePass and Ms. Jones-Jackson for inviting them. 

Mr. Gillen offered farewell comments to the rest of the Board, and Mr.
Niemeyer suggested that they be entered into the record verbatim. Dr.
Austin agreed, and the comments follow. 

Mr. Gillen’s Farewell Comments

I would like to thank Diane, Mark and Cynthia for allowing me a few
moments during our always-busy and too-few meetings.

To the Board members with whom I have served over the last 6 years, what
an honor it has been for this small-town, ordinary Texan to serve with
such prestigious, diverse and hard-working people. I mean each of those
words and do not use them lightly because you truly are an incredible
group of individuals. Your expertise and reach is amazing. You have been
my mentors, teachers and sometimes antagonists, but always my friends.

I do not live in the border region but with your help, generosity and
kindness, I have learned so much about this beautiful, harsh, yet
fragile region and the people who call it home.

Growing up in the Gulf Coast of Texas, I always thought of the border
area as a river. And it is in Texas. I will never forget my first trip
to the Tohono O’odham Nation and to the San Miguel gate. To see a
four-strand barbed-wire fence stretching out across miles of desert was
truly an education. I am not the same man I was 6 years ago because I
carry a little of each of you in my heart.

We have benefitted from strong and wise leadership from chairs like Paul
Ganster and more recently, Diane Austin. Smoothing our path have been
people like Elaine, Rafael, Mark, Cynthia, Ann-Marie, Stephanie, Geri
and Lois. To each of you, thank you!

To all of you with whom I have served, I want to thank you for your
friendship. I will truly miss seeing you three times each year, but I
have made friends for life. When my daughter got married in Tucson in
July—yes, an outdoor wedding in Tucson in July, but that is another
story—Ann Marie and Jack had dinner with me. When I needed a speaker
for my Chamber of Commerce, I called Steve Niemeyer. This is the kind of
friendships this Board fosters. If we had time, I would tell you all
about Sally Spener, who knows more about water issues than anyone I have
ever known. I would talk about John and Luis and Cecilia and Sylvia and
Theresa and Veronica, and so many others. I want to salute Mary Spock
who is trying to make a screenplay out of our 14th report if she can
just figure out how to put a love scene and a car chase in it. I wanted
Brad Pitt to play me, but Mary said Steve Martin would be more accurate.
What good times this has been!

To our new Board members:  I’m sorry I will not get to know you. I
envy you! You are embarking on an adventure that will change your life.
You will make good friends and learn so much. You will see things most
people in this country will never see.

I hope you comprehend just how important your work here is. You advise
the President. Think about that for a moment. You are the expert to whom
the most powerful man in the world looks for guidance on issues in the
border region. How many people can be called Advisors to the President? 

Never take lightly the advice you give. More than 15 million people will
be affected by your decisions. You see, according to the U.S./Mexico
Border Counties Coalition, if the border region were the 51st state, it
would be 40th in per capita income, 5th in unemployment, 2nd in
tuberculosis, 7th in adult diabetes, 50th in insurance coverage, and
50th in high school completion. You are their voice. Speak wisely. 

This Board works on consensus. That means you will not win every
argument, but argue strongly. You have an obligation and a challenge to
make certain that all voices are heard. 

I am a conservative. I believe government should only do what we cannot
do for ourselves. I believe the role of the federal government should be
limited to those items enumerated in our Constitution. Others believe
the government should have a larger role in our lives and should
supersede the sovereignty of the states. 

I disagree but respect these other opinions. Conservatives are sometimes
in short supply here. Your challenge is to respect opinions with which
you disagree. Listen to those other opinions and consider them. Then do
what is right. Most important:  attack the issues, not the proponent.
Although I have not won every argument, I have never doubted that my
position was considered. 

There are four U.S. states, six Mexican states, and 26 Tribal Nations in
this region. It is as diverse as this Board. You must hear their story
and make recommendations that will improve the lives of Americans. What
an honor you have been given. What an opportunity you have. 

I will close with my favorite saying:  “The noblest thing a man can do
is plant a tree that will someday provide shade for people he will never
know.” This is your chance to plant that tree. Thank you. 

Discussion

Dr. Austin thanked Mr. Gillen and commented that the greatest challenge
at this meeting would be saying goodbye to the members who were
completing their service. She noted that she had counted Mr. Gillen,
Mr. Wood and Ms. Ann Marie Wolf as mentors, and that is why she had
fought hard to keep them on the Board for extended terms to complete the
14th report, which would have been impossible without them. She believed
that the relationships formed with the departing members would continue,
and they could be counted on for honest, reasoned and measured opinions
in the future. 

Mr. Wood added that the experience on the Board had been fun and
educational. GNEB would remain in the departing members’ hearts and
minds and in what they would do for the future of the border area. 

Ms. Jones-Jackson stated that she only had known the departing members
for a short time but had come to know them better during the past few
meetings and sincerely appreciated the hard work, conversations and
points of view willingly shared. She read the farewell letter to the
departing members from Administrator Jackson and presented appreciation
plaques to Ms. Wolf, Mr. Gillen and Mr. Wood. Dr. Austin accepted
appreciation plaques for Mr. Dan Reyna (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services) and Ms. Patti Krebs (Industrial Environmental
Association), GNEB members who passed away in 2011. Mr. Larry Starfield
(EPA) was not available to receive his plaque in person because of the
responsibilities of his new position. 

Dr. Austin recessed the meeting at 6:33 p.m. 

Thursday, December 15, 2011

Discussion of GNEB’s 15th Report and Activities for the Coming Year

Dr. Austin highlighted the Board’s agenda for the day and explained
that GNEB needed to narrow its focus regarding the report topic, develop
a timeline and identify a structure for completing the report. The Board
members also will provide their report-outs. The first topic of
discussion was the GNEB Directive. The Office of General Counsel (OGC)
recently reviewed of all of EPA’s Federal Advisory Committees in terms
of why each of them was created and what they are expected to
accomplish. 

Dr. Austin explained that comments had been received following the
Federal Register notice of this meeting, which were based on certain
perceptions that some people have regarding Mexico. Mr. Joyce read the
comments that had been sent to the Board, noting that similar comments
had been received by other EPA Federal Advisory Committees. The
commenter was of the opinion that GNEB was not necessary and should not
be funded by taxpayers because of illegal immigration and crime issues
related to Mexico. It is perceptions similar to these that require the
Agency to ensure that its Federal Advisory Committees are operating
within their Congressional mandates. 

Dr. Austin said that this sets the context for the Board’s discussions
about its efforts for the next report. She was impressed with the number
of EPA staff members who had attended the meeting on the day prior and
viewed the report. She noted that these are challenging times, and that
is why OGC has reviewed Federal Advisory Committees. She read the
purpose of the Board, which states that the Board shall advise the
President and Congress on the need for implementation of the
environmental and infrastructure projects (including projects that
affect agriculture, rural development and human nutrition) within the
states of the United States contiguous to Mexico to improve the quality
of life of persons residing on the United States side of the border. The
enabling legislation details the annual reports of the Board as follows:
 “In general, the Board shall submit to the President and the Congress
of the United States an annual report on the environmental and
infrastructure projects referred to in subsection (a) of this section
that have been implemented and the need for the implementation of
additional environmental and infrastructure projects.” As she
understood it, subsection A was deleted from the legislation but not
removed from this section.

Mr. Joyce explained that, in terms of subsection A, the original
legislative language specified binational membership for the Board, but
at the last moment it was changed to a U.S.-only focus with only U.S.
members. Mr. Gillen added that there used to be Mexican representation
and asked why these representatives no longer were involved. Mr. Joyce
responded that there had been government and industry representatives
for five different sectors of Mexico, including two contiguous to the
U.S. border, but following an election in Mexico, the representative
groups were not reconstituted. 

Mr. Apodaca explained that when a consulate had been present, there had
been an individual from the Mexican Embassy. He asked whether Mexicans
could participate on an informal basis; as neighbors, the two groups
share common interests. Mr. Joyce asked the GNEB members on their
thoughts on the idea of Mexican representation, which he would be happy
to include. Mr. Apodaca will follow up on this idea and determine the
best suggestion. Dr. Austin agreed that there is nothing that prevents
the Board from seeking this participation. Dr. Henkel said that the
Board has points of contact (e.g., BECC, IBWC, state-to-state bilateral
connections) that could be explored. 

Mr. Angel asked Mr. Joyce how long the Board had been receiving
messages. Mr. Joyce replied that the messages were not only to GNEB, and
he thought that they dated back approximately 1.5 years. A Board member
thought that these types of messages were the result of a radical agenda
to “paint everyone with a broad brush.” Mr. Takata noted that EPA
staff members are used to receiving critical e-mails such as the one
that Mr. Joyce read. He was, however, surprised at how strong the
criticism is in Washington, DC, based on the television advertisements
that he has seen attacking what the Agency is trying to accomplish. This
type of opposition is not ever heard in California. His work is
binational, so his offices operate under a treaty, Border 2012 and
Border 2020. There are binational workgroups, and workgroups are aligned
by state, border state and subject matter (e.g., air, water, waste,
emergency response). These groups are comprised of U.S. and Mexican
representatives. GNEB could invite the Mexican representatives to
participate. A report detailing the needs on both sides of the border
would be of great benefit to EPA, but if the Board is restricted to
working on environmental problems on the U.S. side of the border, as
detailed in the legislative language, it is not as helpful. Mr. Joyce
commented that the relevant language to overcome this is “to improve
the quality of life of persons residing on the United States side of the
border.” For example, raw sewage originating from south of the border
traveling north across the border will impact those on the U.S. side.
Because of the language, GNEB’s focus must be on the northern side of
the border. In the broader context of improving quality of life on the
north side of the border, the Agency can address to a degree the issues
that occur south of the border.

Ms. Palazzolo encouraged the Agency to use the U.S. Department of State.
Although the Agency can negotiate directly with its counterpart, the
Mexican Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (Secretaría
del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, SEMARNAT), there is the
challenge of the constantly changing nature of leadership positions. The
U.S. Department of State has established contacts that the Agency can
use. She thought that it was a good idea to utilize the Border 2012 and
Border 2020 programs, which intimately understand the details of the
issues. 

Mr. Bill Bresnick, environmental counsel for DHS, introduced himself and
said that he looked forward to the day’s discussion.

Dr. Austin reiterated for those who joined the meeting late that the
topic of discussion was the legislation that created the Board and
selecting infrastructure as the topic for the Board’s 15th report. The
question is whether the Board is able to discuss issues in Mexico that
affect the U.S. side of the border. EPA staff members also have
discussed this issue with the White House Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ). Mr. Niemeyer emphasized the legislative language about
improving quality of life on the U.S. side of the border and cited two
instances in Texas law that allow inspections to be conducted in Mexico
to determine the status of environmental projects, but this authority
does not mean that these inspections will be well-received. Investing
money in Mexico benefits the State of Texas. For example, improving
wastewater treatment plants in Mexico that empty into the Rio Grande
River elevates the quality of life of Americans who draw their drinking
water from the Rio Grande. It is challenging to determine legislative
intent because it is unknown what was said in committee, but Mr.
Niemeyer spoke to the author of the legislation, who explained that it
was written to allow discussion and action on a wide variety of
environmental problems. 

Ms. Palazzolo said that she has observed the challenges of reaching out
to counterparts in the Mexican government, and there is a disconnect
between how the Mexican federal and state governments are structured
compared to how the U.S. federal and state governments are structured in
terms of authority. U.S. states have a broad range of actions that they
can implement, whereas Mexican states do not. Although it takes more
time, it ultimately may be more effective to deal with the Mexican
government on the federal level.

Mr. Wood said that in his area cities on both sides of the border are
integrated, and it is impossible to separate what happens on either side
of the border in terms of impacts. Issues on both sides of the border
affect the other side. Mr. Frisbie added that wastewater treatment in
his area is operated on a cost-sharing basis, and there is direct
contact in areas in which funding is received from or provided to
Mexico. He emphasized Mr. Wood’s comments on the integration of border
towns and cities on each side.

Mr. Angel wondered whether it would be possible for GNEB to implement
the legislation successfully because some projects that benefit the life
of U.S. citizens cannot be implemented in the United States (e.g.,
monitoring). There have been many projects implemented south of the
border that benefit U.S. citizens directly. The legislation is broad and
cannot be implemented successfully by ignoring the other side and
exclusively implementing projects on the northern side. 

Dr. Austin asked the members if they anticipated any problems following
the legislation regarding the integrated nature of U.S.-Mexico border
towns. Ms. Jones-Jackson stated that there had been no clear decision
about whether GNEB can make recommendations that affect Mexico. OGC
understands the integrated nature of the border, but to ensure that the
Agency does not overstep its bounds, OGC has advised that EPA has
authority within the United States but not on the other side of the
border. Her recommendation would be to consider a project on the U.S.
side of the border. Any other intelligence that is gathered regarding
impacts on the Mexican side of the border can be included in the report.
She agreed that it was not possible to separate the environmental
impacts from either side.

Ms. Almodovar said that the language the Board uses may be the driver
for the recommendation. Adding a Mexican component would make
implementation more difficult for the Agency. If there are consequences
on the Mexican side, those sorts of recommendations could be included
without being the main recommendation. Mr. Joyce said that the
recommendations must have a U.S. focus. If there is pertinent action
that can be taken on the Mexican side that benefits the United States,
it can be included.

Mr. Treviño reiterated Mr. Wood’s and Mr. Frisbie’s comments that
the Board was taking too lightly the issues in Mexico that impact the
United States. He explained that a bank had received the authority to
provide funding to an area of Chihuahua to rehabilitate water facilities
during a dispute on water rights. The rationale was that rehabilitating
the water facilities would have clear benefit to Texas. The bank was
very involved in offering perspective and insight on legislation that
allowed U.S. funding in Mexico and the impact that funding would have on
Mexican communities. It was a huge risk to the U.S. community to take on
debt to finance a project in Mexico, but they realized that there was a
benefit to the United States. Examining and understanding these issues
is beneficial as the Board begins developing the report.

Dr. Austin asked the GNEB members to provide their report-outs and noted
that there seems to be a consensus that issues on the Mexican side of
the border must be considered. She asked the Board members to consider
what they view as the greatest needs. The Board members heard a great
deal of information from the BECC. Are there additional issues that have
not been mentioned? The Board must consider projects that have been
implemented or whether there are specific needs that must be met. She
asked each Board member to identify what he or she thought absolutely
must be included in the report.

Ms. Almodovar mentioned the previous day’s conversation about the
definition of infrastructure; there are mandates and agreements about
the topics on which border programs should be working. Funding
continually has been decreased, and money is linked to the
appropriations (e.g., pilots and demonstrations). There have been many
comments about how to address wildlife in the border area. Is there a
method to create infrastructure that could facilitate the government to
work on these issues (e.g., domestic animal health)? These issues are
not under EPA’s statutory authority, but is there infrastructure that
could be implemented to allow collaboration between agencies or provide
a message to the relevant agencies that this issue must be addressed?
Indoor air is an area in which help has been requested, but this issue
is not a transboundary problem, which is one of the criteria that GNEB
uses. There may be a list of issues that GNEB and/or the Agency may not
be able to act on but are important.

Dr. Austin asked the Board members to provide report-outs on the
activities of their organizations and provide any perspectives that they
have on the current topic of discussion.

Mr. Treviño explained that his agency is dealing with a number of
issues, but the biggest issue it will focus on during the next year is
air quality. The City of San Antonio remains in attainment and was lucky
when the Administration did not release the new, reduced measurements.
Complicating the potential reduction is the oil and gas exploration in
the region that includes four of the southern-most counties. The Texas
railroad commission had issued less than 100 permits prior to the first
year of the new activity, and within 1 year had issued more than 1,000
permits. The result in local communities is high-density truck traffic
and demands on community power, water and wastewater systems. There also
has been the complete displacement of individuals and families. The
resources available through the Section 8 housing vouchers program
cannot be used because families have realized that they can receive up
to 100 times more by renting to the oil companies. Shale gas is found to
the south of the metropolitan statistical area (MSA), and it is unknown
what impacts the hydraulic fracturing will have on the MSA. The State of
Texas has been petitioned regarding additional air quality monitoring,
and the state’s response has not been issued yet. Based on the
literature that those at his agency have read, the agency is concerned
about diminished air quality.

Mr. Niemeyer stated that there is a ready-to-print document available at
the TCEQ website that can be printed in English or Spanish. TCEQ
developed a border initiative and identified a list of accomplishments;
it is an organic document that is updated every 3 to 4 months. There are
38 irrigation districts in Texas that divert water from the Rio Grande
for agricultural or municipal uses. Compounding this is the dumping of
tires into canals, which interrupts the flow of water and facilitates
growth of disease vectors. Shale gas has become a significant issue for
his agency as well. It has a great investment potential for a number of
entities in terms of natural gas and oil. Hydraulic fracturing is a
significant issue, particularly considering the amount of water needed.
In contrast, the economic benefits of the effort have been realized; in
one community, state sales tax rebates have increased more than 700
percent. Monitoring is another aspect that probably will be needed.
Also, on November 20, 2011, Mexico put into effect an
emissions-certificate requirement for all vehicles imported into Mexico;
the certificates must have been issued no more than 6 months prior. 

Ms. Ann Marie Wolf (Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc.
[SERI]), GNEB member, reported that the top issues about which SERI is
concerned are the quality and safety of housing stock for low- and
mid-income families. Many of the homes are not habitable, and a
significant amount of funding is needed to replace these homes. There
are large numbers of mobile home communities, and many do not have
adequate heating, cooling or ventilation. Another important issue is
children’s environmental health, and the community advisory board’s
goal during the next 2 years is to develop a strategic plan to address
children’s environmental health issues in metropolitan Tucson,
Arizona. Asthma and allergies are significant issues within children’s
environmental health, and SERI focuses on indoor and outdoor air quality
to address these issues. Water supply is another significant issue in
Tucson, and the community will need to move to a “toilet-to-tap”
system within 10 to 15 years.

Mr. Wood reported that his organization has been working on a project
with Mexico for 15 years, and the key has been to communicate well with
the appropriate Mexican officials, including regular meetings. At the
meetings, the Mexican and U.S. officials discussed the current progress,
what needed to be done and how the effort would be accomplished jointly.
His organization has the authority to provide funds for projects in
Mexico. The efforts have made the border area safer, but there have been
unseen issues in terms of funding as a result of government-requested
changes that may disallow the use of a new railroad system as a result
of the need for an upgraded gate for which there are no funds. 

Mr. Frisbie said that environmental infrastructure is in need of
replacement or relocation; current replacement funding is set at $50
million in the Nogales, Arizona, area. His agency is attempting to solve
this problem and educate about the need to replace the infrastructure.
Another issue is dealing with general stormwater flows across the
border, which also involves significant infrastructure costs.
Conservation projects are important to deal with concerns regarding
water supply from the Colorado River, as is funding for infrastructure
projects in Mexico. His agency also has occasional issues and concerns
regarding the quality of water that is used for irrigation and municipal
purposes. Locating the sources of spikes that make Rio Grande water
unusable is important. 

Ms. Palazzolo said that a meeting of the Executive Steering Committee
(ESC) for a 21st Century Border was being held in Mexico City, Mexico,
which includes Mexican agencies and U.S. agencies such as DHS, SRE and
the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The ESC was established by
Presidents Felipe Calderón and Barack Obama and has three subcommittees
focused on infrastructure (co-chaired by the U.S. Department of State
and DHS), border security (chaired by DOJ) and secure flows of goods and
people (chaired by U.S. Customs and Border Protection). For the
Department of State, infrastructure includes bridges and border
crossings. The U.S. Department of State serves on all three of the
subcommittees as a policy member. Following the ESC meeting, a list of
2011 goals and those that were met as well as an action plan for 2012
will be released. The U.S. Department of State also serves on the BECC
and the NADB. Ms. Palazzolo has primary responsibility for the
implementation of the U.S.-Mexico emergency management agreement on
natural disasters and accidents. Currently, efforts are focused on
exchanging a compendium of existing federal-to-federal agreements that
deal with emergency management issues in Mexico, which will facilitate
the establishment of working groups to deal with identified priorities
within this area. There are numerous ongoing infrastructure projects as
well. She reiterated Mr. Wood’s point that productive meetings between
Mexican and U.S. counterparts are integral to success.

Mr. Takata reported that his organization recently completed the public
comment period for the Border 2020 effort; public meetings were held in
16 cities on both sides of the border with more than 500 people in
attendance. Two webinars were held in addition to numerous briefings for
stakeholders. The final report will incorporate all of the feedback
received. Region 9 decided to spend its $220,000 in discretionary funds
to focus on trash problems in the border area. Mr. Takata noted that the
last time that the Board addressed water issues was in its 8th report,
and it would be ideal to focus the next report on water or wastewater.
E-waste, including the formations in California and Arizona, is another
important topic on which the Board could focus. 

Mr. Apodaca has thought about the organizations that he has dealt with
in the past, and all have basic needs that need to be met (e.g.,
infrastructure issues of water, sewer and wastewater). How to create
economic opportunities is a significant issue that the Board has not
examined. Traditionally, infrastructure is viewed in terms of water,
sewer or similar types of issues, but broadband issues have become as
prevalent as infrastructure issues from education and health
perspectives. Another important issue was discussed the day prior—the
infrastructure to develop and address food insecurity issues and how to
get food to children on the border. 

Ms. Aguillon thought that it would be beneficial to bring renewable
energy and energy efficiency projects to the homeowner level, which is
challenging for a large agency. A partnership among federal, state and
local agencies could be beneficial to design such programs. It is
important to clean up the border area on the U.S. side in terms of
energy efficiency and education. She agreed that communications with
Mexico are a top-down process, and it takes several years to encourage
the Mexican government to design standards. Perhaps the Institute of the
Americas at the University of California, San Diego, could be used as a
resource to communicate; the institute sponsors forums that include
officials from both sides of the border. She also suggested briefing
Mexican counterparts regarding how they can implement programs on their
side of the border. 

Ms. Krepp reported that the realm of her activities included
partnerships and coordinating with other agencies. She thanked the IBWC
and Mr. Takata for their help in managing the Tijuana Estuary and
ensuring that it continues to function. She also serves on the Southwest
Border Interagency Group, which has been working with DHS on designing
protective area-based training for officers regarding the Tijuana
Estuary. This ongoing effort has built relationships between border
agents and NOAA staff in the field. NOAA also has a role in permitting
and regulations for turbines and other issues of this nature. NOAA is
part of the U.S. Department of Commerce and has been working to form a
partnership with the economic development administration within that
department that has several programs focused on community development at
the regional scale. This partnership will allow NOAA to be a conduit for
those programs into the work of this Board. 

Dr. Greg Eckert (Department of the Interior [DOI]), GNEB member,
introduced Mr. Ethan Taylor, International Programs Analyst at DOI, and
reported that during the past year SEMARNAT released more than 250
million silver minnows into the Rio Grande. The Commission on
Environmental Cooperation provided $1 million for conservation work and
invasive species management. On October 24, 2011, the SEMARNAT secretary
celebrated the inauguration of the “natural area of binational
interest,” comprised of 2 million hectares of protected area on both
sides of the border. Infrastructure and species and protected area
management all relate to the design of the infrastructure, but this must
occur at different scales. There must be a method in place to integrate
large-scale initiatives (e.g., road, energy) with large-scale wildlife
corridor initiatives and identify cumulative effects at the landscape
scale. It is necessary to examine the potential of all of these factors
to impact the large areas of the landscape over time. He would like to
see more wildlife crossings incorporated into highway projects.
Management of infrastructure is important to interior managers,
especially as transportation corridors tend to be a significant source
of invasive species, dust and noise pollution.

Mr. Ruiz reported that one issue that has been identified as important
along the border in the past has been air quality, and a year-long air
monitoring project revealed disturbing levels of PM10 were found in the
rural sister cities of Palomas, Mexico, and Columbus, New Mexico. A
committee was established to gather resources to provide consistent air
monitoring for the two cities. There have been some efforts that have
run counter to the initial effort. There also are efforts focused on the
causative organism of Valley Fever; there is a significant disparity in
the number of cases reported in New Mexico compared to neighboring
Arizona, perhaps because of diagnostic criteria. This is an example of a
health study related to environmental conditions, and more of these
types of efforts need to be initiated to provide a clear picture of
environmental health status. Dairies and combined animal feeding
operations are tremendous threats to water quality but have fought
against rules and regulations to protect groundwater, despite proven
science about groundwater protection. Some infrastructure improvements
have improved air quality. He would like to see direct correlations
between health improvements and improvements in infrastructure. It is
necessary to be sensitive to the cumulative impacts of industry; this is
an EJ concern that must be taken into account. 

Mr. Angel reported that there is a strong partnership in place to
address water quality, create habitat, protect migratory birds and
provide recreational activities. His agency has a fairly new secretary
who is bringing additional resources to bear to engage in border
projects in California. Mr. Angel will be meeting with him on the
following day. A technical advisory committee was established and
submitted a strategic plan that calls for a series of infrastructure
projects on both sides of the border. Pollution is a significant issue
that must be addressed. 

Mr. Evaristo Cruz (Ysleta del Sur Pueblo), GNEB member, reported on
issues discussed during the recent Region 6 regional tribal caucus. One
topic was a recent audit of EPA’s Indian General Assistance Program
(GAP), which indicated that improvement was needed regarding how
performance of tribal programs on tribal lands is measured in terms of
climate change adaptation. As a result, GAP was required to issue a
guidance document, which may shift funding to a needs-based system. This
places additional administrative burden on all tribes because all tribes
participate in this program. Another issue discussed at the regional
tribal caucus was what methods tribes are employing to adapt to climate
change, which also relates to infrastructure needs. There have been
persistent drought conditions in west Texas, which has been devastating
for ranch livestock. His tribe is opposed to hydraulic fracturing
because of the water needed for it and the use of natural resources in
areas already affected by drought. Cost-effective collection and
transportation of household hazardous waste is another important issue
along the border, especially for the Pueblo Indians. The Kickapoo Tribe
of Texas has expressed concern regarding its lack of ability to control
air quality standards on tribal lands as a result of activities
occurring adjacent to the lands. 

Dr. Henkel said that the themes within the conversations about the
border region that he has been involved in have been persistent over
time. All large metropolitan areas depend on wealthy hinterlands willing
to support them. Two areas of concern are:  (1) public health and human
nutrition, and (2) water. Food systems and agricultural structure affect
public health and human nutrition. A subset of this is children’s
health and access to nutritious, regionally grown foods. Regionally
grown foods reduce transportation and environmental effects and spur
local economic development. Water includes two elements, conservation
and distribution. Nonpoint source pollution also is a significant issue
in terms of water quality. 

Mr. Gillen recommended that the members follow Mr. Takata’s suggestion
to focus on water. He re-read his farewell comments, captured verbatim
earlier in this summary. 

Dr. Austin explained that the Board members must determine how it is
going to produce a report that is useful, helpful and provides guidance,
within the next year. Prior to leaving this meeting, the Board must know
how it will organize the work and determine key issues. She noted that
air quality was mentioned often, but air quality itself is not an
infrastructure project. Other issues included water and wastewater
infrastructure and the various types of waste (e.g., municipal,
hazardous, electronic) and the infrastructure required to manage them.
Transportation is another issue that was discussed as well as the
cumulative impacts of industry (e.g., hydraulic fracturing). Several
questions arose around the topic of housing and vehicle emissions
testing. Bandwidth is another issue as is energy and energy efficiency.
Another infrastructure question is related to mapping and planning
tools. What are the infrastructure questions related to food
distribution and safety? The broad questions related to all of these are
within the mandate to improve the quality of life and health issues for
people living north of the border.

Mr. Treviño noted that emergency management personnel needed to be able
to communicate with each other. The Texas Department of Public Safety
requires emergency management plans to be developed by various regions
and that all emergency personnel use the same bandwidth frequency. This
requirement is difficult for rural communities to meet because they do
not have adequate resources to pay for the radios and communication
towers. The isolated areas that exist in the border region still need to
be able to communicate. 

Mr. Angel suggested that colleagues at the BECC have information on
needs. Dr. Austin asked to what extent the Board could complement the
BECC’s work. Ms. Almodovar stated that what EPA had seen from the BECC
are the needs within the core sectors:  solid waste, air and water. 

Ms. Krepp noted that there were first-time needs for infrastructure, but
there also are maintenance needs to ensure that what is in place can be
sustained. Additionally, she suggested that the Board consider two
issues on infrastructure:  access and protection. 

Ms. Palazzolo commented that the Board could discuss broadband under the
heading of communication and link that to some broader communication
issues in terms of emergency management and health information. The U.S.
Department of State retains a specialist in emergency management
communication at the federal level, and they could provide more
information to the Board. With Mexico, there is a long list of treaty
documents that address cross-border frequency issues in terms of
emergency management that constantly evolve. 

Mr. Niemeyer stated that emergency response had been covered in the
Board’s 11th report. When drafting the report on emergency response,
the Board noted a 1980 agreement between the United States and Mexico,
but nothing had been done with it. Some of these issues still have not
been addressed. If there is a major natural disaster on the border,
plans need to be in place and rehearsed. Water always is a pressing
issue. Far less than the 23 projects Ms. Giner listed as BECC priorities
may be funded. The key issue is lack of funding, but the Board cannot
ask for more money. He believed the public did not understand the
importance of the United States’ economic relationship with Mexico.
The next report needs to include a discussion of the environmental and
economic impacts of the relationship with Mexico on the United States as
a whole. 

Mr. Gillen noted that the Board had produced reports that were only on
one topic as well as reports on a multitude of topics. The former have
been very well done, and the latter spread the Board so thin that they
are difficult to produce. If there is any chance that the Board will not
meet as frequently as it has in the past because of budget limitations,
he would encourage GNEB to choose a single topic. The Board has never
completed a report on the effects of agriculture on the environment and
may want to examine this issue in the future. 

Ms. Wolf expressed hope that the Board would consider water as a topic.
Most everyone on the Board mentioned some aspect of problems with water.
Rural development or agriculture could be included in that topic. 

Mr. Takata commented that infrastructure and the environment could be
categorized three ways:  environmental infrastructure such as water and
wastewater, infrastructure that benefits the environment such as road
paving or transmission lines, and infrastructure that is neither but can
be created in a green or sustainable way.  

Ms. Almodovar stated that EPA was limited in water and wastewater
resources, but a group like GNEB could consider other low-cost tools or
alternatives to building a large water treatment plant that could be
taken to the communities. EPA’s border program was able to help one of
the tribes build the connections to pull water from the wells, for
example.

Ms. Jones-Jackson explained that the Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities
Committee just released its report on the impacts of agriculture on the
environment from nonpoint sources. If GNEB could expand and examine
other agricultural issues, that could be useful. 

Dr. Austin asked for comment from EPA colleagues on the point that Mr.
Gillen raised on one topic versus a survey of topics. It is difficult as
a Board to cover multiple topics and handle them all well, but would it
be more useful? Mr. Joyce responded that the report should not focus
solely on what EPA can do; the Board is government-wide, and the
recommendations can address agencies across the federal government. Mr.
Takata replied that the Board has a broader perspective than the Agency
and is an independent voice, but from EPA’s perspective, the more
concrete and focused the report, the better because such a report is
harder to ignore. Followup is important as well. He wondered whether
every other year, the Board could provide a report on how the government
responded to a prior report. Without followup, the government might not
feel accountable to the Board’s recommendations. 

Mr. Gillen stated that the Board had in the past spent hours trying to
determine how to quantify the success of GNEB. The Board concluded that
it could not control whether advice is taken or not. The intended party
may take the advice, but it will not come to fruition for many years.
After 14 reports and many advice letters, he was unsure how to determine
what was successful. If advice is not taken, it should not reflect on
the Board. Perhaps every fourth year, a recap or survey of issues should
be the topic of the report whether it is for the same or a new
administration. 

Dr. Henkel suggested that the Board consider its audience and the
message that it was attempting to deliver. GNEB has a legislative
mandate to advise the President and Congress. Part of what the Board is
trying to do is raise awareness about the issues. If infrastructure is
discussed broadly, it may be beyond the scope of the general public’s
understanding, but if GNEB can define the landscape of infrastructure
and its interrelationship, then it may select a few high-priority
themes. Another issue to consider is what may be actionable. Ms. Krepp
added that the Board’s service to the border region is valuable, and
GNEB should consider how this report will serve those needs. Does the
Board craft its reports with an eye toward funding potential and
Congressional priorities, or is it neutral of these considerations? Some
recommendations are more likely to be acted on than others in the
current political environment. 

Ms. Palazzolo asked which year the report on emergency management issues
had been released. 

Dr. Austin confirmed that it was in 2008. Ms. Palazzolo responded that
in 2008, the United States and Mexico drew up an agreement on emergency
management cooperation on natural disasters and accidents at the federal
level. It did not come into force in the United States until 2011.
Ms. Rachel Poynter (U.S. Department of State) is meeting with the
foreign ministry to deliver the U.S. compendium of federal-level
agreements that touch on emergency management issues. The next step is
for Mexico to provide its compendium to the United States, and then each
country will examine the priorities and use them to establish a number
of working groups. If the Board wants more in-depth information, she can
share it. 

Ms. Wolf again suggested water as a topic. In the past, the Board has
referred to previous reports and made statements about issues on the
topic that still are relevant. In this case, the Board would return to
the eighth report and note issues that still were problematic. Within
the topic of water, there is supply, quality and treatment. Many water
issues are unique to the border, and GNEB should choose such a topic.
Additionally, brief versions of recommendations should be included in
the beginning of the report as they have in the past. 

Mr. Angel suggested that the nexus of the environment and the economy or
the environment in health be addressed in the report so that the average
reader could relate to it. Mr. Gillen suggested that if health was to be
discussed, someone from the National Institutes of Health should be
included on the Board. 

Mr. Frisbie stated that contextualizing and focusing the topic are
important. Because this report is focused on a discrete region of the
United States, the impact is isolated from the interests of the
country-at-large. Finding a way to describe the crucial importance of
the border region to the country and the country’s economy as a whole
is a means to obtain greater resonance with Congress and other entities
that might provide some support to achieving the goals. 

Mr. Apodaca asked what federal agencies have done to address the issues
raised in the Board’s past reports. Mr. Joyce noted that advisory
committees are advisory by nature; they send in their best thinking to
the federal government, and the government acts as it sees fit. Advisory
committees are not implementing bodies. The more clear, actionable,
direct and specific the Board makes its recommendations, however, the
better the likelihood that they will be received. As far as direct
actions taken to implement the Board’s reports, Ms. Nancy Sutley,
Chair of CEQ, through the Southwest Border Interagency Working Group,
asked all of the federal agencies to note the actions they took in
response to the Board’s 13th report. The list is approximately 20
pages long, and CEQ will summarize it and share it with the Board. Ms.
Almodovar added that she could provide the Board with that information
from EPA. 

Ms. Krepp commented that Chair Sutley has taken a particular interest in
the work of the Board as compared to past CEQ chairs. Mr. Joyce
confirmed that was the case because she is a former Board member, and
she knows border issues well. Ms. Krepp replied that may mean there will
be increased accountability from agencies to the Board. The Southwest
Border Working Group only has been in place for about 2 years. 

Mr. Takata mentioned that the report states it is for both the President
and Congress. Has the Board ever reported to Congress? The
Administration will not be able to accomplish some things itself, but
would work on them if directed by Congress. The BEIF funds come not
through EPA’s budget but in a separate funding bill, for example. Mr.
Joyce responded that this question had been raised, and EPA’s OGC
stated that the Board does not advise Congress despite what the
legislative language says. There is a clear separation-of-powers issue.
Members of the Board as individuals can send the report to members of
Congress but cannot act as representatives of the Board. Before this
issue was settled by OGC, members would distribute reports to Congress. 

Mr. Angel stated that the law was clear that the Board should report to
the President and Congress. Mr. Joyce responded that this issue might
merit a conference call with OGC. Ms. Jones-Jackson added that EPA’s
OGC FACA advisor said that she would be willing to put something in
writing, and she has been asked to do so. One of the points that she
made was that because this Board has been established through an act of
Congress, it cannot advise Congress. OFACMO will present the advisor’s
comments to Dr. Austin when they are received.

Mr. Gillen noted that the federal employees on the Board had certain
rules that they were required to follow, but in Texas, where he had
served as a vice chair of a state agency, members are not allowed to
lobby but are allowed to act as a resource for the legislature. Ms.
Jones-Jackson responded that this is advice that OFACMO had been giving
to committee members. If members are doing something on their own time,
that is allowed. Mr. Angel added that his point was made to address the
fact that without Congressional appropriation, the President can go only
so far with recommendations. 

Mr. Niemeyer commented that an opinion was needed from someone outside
of EPA. The Board should have been notified of OGC’s decision when it
was made. Ms. Jones-Jackson stated that she had told Mr. Niemeyer via a
telephone call that OGC was advising OFACMO on the Board’s intent. She
wanted to ensure that OFACMO was managing the Board appropriately and
that the intent of the Board was understood. The OGC decision was
received about 2 weeks prior to this meeting. She apologized that
everyone did not receive the information simultaneously. Mr. Niemeyer
had believed the conversation on the intent of the Board had been
focused on what the Board should provide advice. 

Ms. Wolf commented that this issue had been resolved 4 years prior when
EPA suggested that the Board change its bylaws, and GNEB voted against
that. She expressed appreciation for the comments from Ms. Jones-Jackson
and Mr. Joyce but encouraged the new Board to seek outside counsel on
the issue. Her congressman does not agree with EPA and expects that she
advise him as part of GNEB because the law states such.

Mr. Wood stated that he and Mr. Niemeyer also visited their members of
Congress to provide them with the report. He has visited every
Congressman on the Texas/Mexico border at some point and mentioned the
report. In one case, the Congressman asked about the previous report and
had read it. It is important that this information be provided to
Congress because its members will be the ones to provide the funding for
recommendations. Dr. Austin agreed that there was a need to clarify the
issue. 

Ms. Aguillon asked whether CEQ had been explicit about which components
of infrastructure it wanted advice. Mr. Joyce replied that the purpose
of the Board is to convene a group of people who work on border issues
to advise federal agencies on what they see as priorities in the border
region. Ms. Aguillon added that it may be useful to focus on
“low-hanging fruit” issues that can garner results. 

Dr. Austin asked the Board to move on to the topic of the report. The
report should note why border issues matter to the country as a whole,
and contextualization can accomplish this. Mr. Bresnick added that
contextualizing is critical for the Board because it allows GNEB to
create a report that discusses both sides of the border and why the
recommendations are important to the residents of the four states that
border Mexico. 

Dr. Austin stated that the two major topics were air quality, but
without a link to what infrastructure will be covered, and water supply,
quality and treatment. Initially in the report, contextualization should
cover why the border matters. Then the broad set of issues will be
addressed, and finally the focus of the report will turn to water, for
example, and will address recommendations in prior reports that have and
have not been followed by actions. 

Dr. Henkel expressed the need for the Board to be flexible in
recognizing issues that have emerged since the eighth report. 

Mr. Joyce asked whether the Board would try to determine what had been
done in response to previous recommendations. Dr. Austin responded that
GNEB would use the eighth report as a starting point. Mr. Joyce
wondered where the Board would find information on what had been
accomplished, and Ms. Wolf suggested that the BECC may have data
available. Ms. Almodovar cautioned the Board that most of the BECC and
EPA data concern BEIF projects, but other projects also have been
conducted with tribes, universities and other entities along the border.
Dr. Austin stated that the Board will need to investigate what else has
been done and what needs remain. Ms. Wolf mentioned that she was on the
board of water reclamation for her county and has available data on how
much wastewater capacity has been added. 

Mr. Treviño queried whether the focus of the next report would be a
comparison of conditions existing at the time of the eighth report to
current conditions. Dr. Austin stated that it would not be strictly a
comparison but would use the eighth report as a baseline. Mr. Treviño
noted the use of the term nexus; the U.S.-Mexico border is a region
unlike any other and is truly interdependent. The creation of binational
institutions that focus on financing of environmental infrastructure
projects meant that there finally had been some recognition of border
issues. The BECC and the NADB, however, only are able to finance a small
portion of needed projects. At least on the U.S. side, small, rural
communities cannot afford to finance their projects. The same issues
keep presenting themselves:  the need for access to clean water, solid
waste disposal and access to power. Mr. Niemeyer agreed and stated that
GNEB still needed to raise the issue that there is not enough funding to
meet the needs of the border. Border issues cannot just be solved at the
national level but require local, state and federal support. 

Dr. Henkel suggested revisiting the eighth report to demonstrate that
many needs had not been addressed, and the problems are not diminishing.


Dr. Austin noted that there was time before the next meeting to conduct
the research needed for the next report. At the next meeting, the Board
can define the report sections and chapters. The target is to have a
report completed in a year, and GNEB has been informed that not as many
resources for face-to-face meetings will be available. 

Mr. Joyce asked whether the intent of the Board was to concentrate on
water infrastructure issues. Dr. Austin responded that the Board was
considering three parts to the report:  contextualizing the border
situation, an overview of various infrastructure needs, and a more
specific focus on water and wastewater. Mr. Angel noted that consensus
may not have been reached on whether water would be the focus.
Dr. Austin added that a period of data gathering was needed, and it
would be possible to broaden the topic and not narrow it until the next
meeting. Ms. Aguillon had believed that members would return to their
regions and determine what issues were critical. Dr. Austin agreed that
would be possible, but the reality of the schedule had to be considered.
The Board should discuss how many meetings it would have.

Ms. Jones-Jackson noted that EPA’s fiscal year is from October through
September. Within the following 9 months, the Board could have one more
face-to-face meeting and a number of teleconferences. OFACMO had to
reduce its travel funds by 20 percent and manages five committees
directly. To meet that, committees will hold just two face-to-face
meetings per fiscal year. She suggested that the Board decide when to
release its report and work backward to determine when the next meeting
would be held. 

Mr. Niemeyer believed that the Board needed to get started on its report
and choose a topic at the current meeting. He did not believe that
issuing a report in December was a good idea and suggested that GNEB
again attempt to release a report in 8 months. The goal would be to
return to the schedule of releasing the report in March. Ms. Aguillon
asked what the Board would do if a topic was chosen but another topic
was found to be more important once research was conducted. Dr. Henkel
suggested that GNEB focus on something specific. All Board members were
appointed because of their general familiarity with the border. 

Mr. Olmedo recommended that the Board address water infrastructure and
air quality. 

Dr. Austin noted that there would be one face-to-face meeting before the
end of September 2012. She agreed that December was late to deliver a
report but wondered how far the Board could back up the report’s
release each year. The location of the meeting and the report’s
release also would need to be determined. Mr. Angel suggested that the
Board release the report by September. 

Mr. Olmedo proposed that the Board consider an additional brief report
regarding financial challenges. It could be in letter form or in a brief
report. Dr. Austin stated that releasing a report in September would
mean deciding now what the topic would be and writing a draft by March.
The September 2011 meeting was critical for the previous report. She
suggested a teleconference in March and that the following meeting be
face-to-face. Mr. Joyce noted that if the Board wanted to have a report
completed for a September release, it would have to be finalized by
July. 

Mr. Niemeyer suggested that rather than creating one large report, the
Board could craft smaller reports on different topics. Each one of the
annual reports is a serious undertaking. Given that there are many water
experts on the Board, however, it would be possible to produce a report
on that topic by September. Mr. Joyce added that GNEB, by statute, was
required to produce an annual report, and that was taken to mean issuing
a report every calendar year. In producing the 14th report, members
believed that the timetable was too compressed. Despite everyone’s
best intentions, only a few members put a great deal of time into the
report, and that is generally what happens. Producing several small
letter reports can be worse in terms of time commitment and time
management. 

Ms. Almodovar noted that 2012 was an election year, and the Board would
need to consider to which administration it wanted to present the
report. Mr. Joyce added that the Board has worked hard to be viewed as
nonpartisan. The hope is that regardless of political affiliation, the
Administration would find the advice and counsel of GNEB useful and
relevant. He suggested that GNEB ignore the political cycle and assume
that the report will be valuable to whomever receives it. 

Dr. Austin asked when the best time to deliver the report might be. 

Mr. Takata found it impressive that such a report could be produced
every year with the few times that the Board met, and now GNEB is being
asked to accomplish this with fewer resources and fewer meetings.
Perhaps the Board should consider producing alternating short and long
reports every other year. A short report could be produced on water
infrastructure, for instance, and it could be stated that a broader
report would be produced the following year. 

Mr. Frisbie stated that he understood the desire to return to the
schedule of spring delivery of the report. It should not, however, be
the guiding consideration given the potential breadth of a subject as
broad and important as water. Recognizing that a large degree of work
would fall on him and his colleagues, he would be wary of agreeing to a
compressed 6-month schedule in which a finished product is expected by
June or July of 2012. He believed that the Board should not be guided by
electoral calendars but may be able to take advantage of that calendar
with the report and perhaps have an impact on a new administration. 

Mr. Joyce agreed that the electoral cycle should be ignored and that the
Board should focus on the business with which it has been tasked, but
even assuming a change of administration, the transition staff arrive in
Washington in January, at which point the report already would have been
issued. 

Mr. Angel commented that GNEB should not be spending more than 8 months
“plowing old ground.” The Board will be making a comparison between
the conditions that existed at the time of the eighth report and those
that exist presently in terms of water. He expressed his belief that
this could be accomplished in a shorter time period.  

Mr. Olmedo noted that the Board should not have to limit itself to one
topic, and he supported the topics of air quality and water quality. The
14th report was a testament to the fact that GNEB can take on a number
of topics. 

Dr. Henkel commented that the Board had discretion as to the focus of
the report. He believed the report would involve more than covering old
ground. If the timeframe for production of the report will be shortened,
the scope should be narrowed. Additionally, if there will be only one
face-to-face meeting and no field trips, the Board will have to produce
a different type of report than in the past. A draft of the front piece
of the report should be crafted by the next meeting. If it remains
undetermined whether both air and water should be considered, the
production of this contextual piece of the report may help to clarify
the topic. 

Dr. Austin shared Dr. Henkel’s concerns that the Board would not meet
in border communities to seek local input. Entertaining the possibility
of some type of virtual meeting (e.g., Skype) would be useful. It will
require a commitment from Board members to block out the time to attend
a virtual meeting. Perhaps the virtual meeting should be the first
meeting that the Board holds in 2012 as an information gathering meeting
with a face-to-face meeting to follow. This might allow the report to be
published in October or November.

Mr. Treviño stated that under Texas law, his organization could not
hold videoconferences because it violates the Open Meetings Act. He
asked if there was a federal violation to meeting virtually. Mr. Joyce
responded that if the meeting was decisional, and texts and drafts would
be discussed, the meeting notice would need to be published in the
Federal Register. A small group of members can work on preliminary
drafts together, but if the entire body is involved, it requires notice.


Ms. Jones-Jackson commented that under the timeline suggested by Dr.
Austin, a face-to-face meeting could be held in June or July along the
border; in September, a teleconference or virtual meeting could be held;
and in October or November, new fiscal dollars would be available and
another face-to-face meeting could be held to release the report. Dr.
Austin agreed that a virtual meeting could be held in March, a
face-to-face meeting in the summer to engage with border residents, and
the delivery of the report in the next fiscal year. 

Mr. Olmedo agreed that there still were outstanding questions on the
timeline of the report but proposed that air and water be the topics of
the next report and that a vote be taken. 

Mr. Angel stated that he could be flexible about the timeline and the
topic selected, and he supported water as a topic, but if Mr. Olmedo
agrees to take a lead role on the topic of air, and by the March meeting
there is sufficient information to draft a report addressing those two
topics as they relate to infrastructure, it can be taken forward. 

Mr. Niemeyer believed that the Board should select a topic and some
members to lead workgroups to begin moving forward on the report. There
are air quality issues, but they are limited to certain areas.

Dr. Austin confirmed that Mr. Angel will co-chair the group on water. If
the Board can commit to a teleconference or virtual meeting in March, a
face-to-face meeting in June and release of the report in October or
November, she supported putting two topics on the table. It is incumbent
on the people on those committees to bring the information forward by
March. The broad topics are all of the aspects of water that Ms. Wolf
has mentioned, and in addition someone must take the lead on air and
frame how it can be considered in terms of infrastructure. Mr. Angel
added that if it was determined before March that it was not possible to
cover a topic, all of the Board resources should be focused on the
remaining topic. 

Ms. Wolf cautioned the Board against selecting two topics. This was done
a few years ago with air and cultural resources, and it became a
difficult process. She advised the Board to pick one topic. Mr. Angel
responded that the topic was infrastructure, and the suggestion was to
consider two subcategories. Ms. Wolf suggested that the focus be on one
media. 

Returning to Ms. Wolf’s suggestion to consider supply, quality, and
treatment, Dr. Austin asked who was willing to chair groups that would
examine the issues surrounding potable water and treatment. Mr. Angel
stated that he would chair one of the groups. Mr. Niemeyer offered to
chair the water supply group and ask Mr. Frisbie or Ms. Sally Spener
(IBWC), GNEB resource specialist, to assist him. Mr. Frisbie agreed to
assist.  

Dr. Henkel offered to work on the context for the report but asked for
clarification of the topics. Dr. Austin replied that water supply was a
topic, and wastewater treatment and water quality could be another topic
or considered two different topics. She saw the topics as potable water
and wastewater treatment because water quality was crosscutting. Dr.
Henkel agreed to work on context and water quality. Mr. Cruz also will
work on the water quality issue. 

Mr. Treviño offered to work on context but asked for clarification of
the three topics. Dr. Austin asked the Board about drinking water as
opposed to wastewater treatment. The topics were clarified as water
supply, water quality and water treatment. Water supply will discuss the
infrastructure needed to transport water to people, agriculture, and so
on. Water quality is the assessment of the water; is treatment separate?
Ms. Wolf responded that supply would consider the questions of where the
water came from and whether there was enough to meet needs. The next
issue is the quality of the water and threats to the quality of the
water. Wastewater is a separate issue. Mr. Joyce asked, if the Board was
seeking data and information on infrastructure needs, how the
infrastructure was categorized. Dr. Austin asked whether people in each
of these sections had a clear idea of the information available. 

Mr. Niemeyer suggested that water treatment include both wastewater and
drinking water. Water quality is the ambient quality of the water;
perhaps this topic could be included with water treatment. 

Dr. Austin asked that when committees were being organized to collect
information, whether a separate category was needed for water quality or
whether it could be blended with one of the other two sections. 

Dr. Henkel stated that water supply was a topic of its own, and water
quality fell under the Clean Water Act. Water supply is the most
upstream conceptually and feeds into an examination of the quality of
that supply, and treatment includes what can be done about the quality
and future uses. There may be some overlap in the three topics, but that
should not be a problem. 

Dr. Austin summarized that water supply would involve:  where the water
came from and the policy surrounding it, what is available and what is
needed; water quality issues and a discussion of water uses along the
border and their water quality implications; and existing water
treatment on the border. Mr. Apodaca offered to help identify the gaps
in infrastructure and delivery needs. 

Dr. Eckert will locate the correct staff in the Bureau of Reclamation to
deal with water supply issues, and the Board should be able to find U.S.
Geological Survey data on water quality. 

Ms. Palazzolo will assist in the work on context. 

Mr. Frisbie noted that his organization managed some wastewater
treatment facilities and would be able to make some contribution in this
area as well. 

Dr. Austin stated that working group chairs needed to be the initial
point of contact but could assign someone else to chair at their first
teleconference, if needed. The next step is to contact all of the Board
members and make them aware of the initial working groups and what must
be accomplished by March, which is gathering all of the information
possible on the topic. As members are looking for information, they can
consider that, because the meeting will be a teleconference or
videoconference, experts can be located anywhere and still attend. The
meeting model will not change at this time; there will be presentations
and questions by several panels. The Board should consider who would be
the experts for each of these topics, including representation from the
communities that do not have infrastructure. If some border residents
are identified, the working group members may need to help them get to a
location at which they can participate in the videoconference. 

Ms. Jones-Jackson mentioned that EPA has a new contract with
videoconferencing capability. She asked Mr. Takata whether the regional
offices could be counted on to allow participants to utilize their
teleconferencing and videoconferencing capabilities. Mr. Takata
responded that he could not speak for Region 6, but Region 9 had
teleconferencing capability. 

Dr. Henkel noted that it would be helpful for the Board to solidify the
telecommunications capacity as soon as possible so that reasonable
questions could be asked about scheduling. In addition to the March
meeting, it will be important for the Board to decide on other meeting
dates so that speakers could be invited. 

Mr. Cruz commented that EPA Region 6 in Addison, Texas, has a co-op
building at which his regional tribal caucus meeting was held. 

Mr. Frisbie added that the IBWC, in each of its field offices and at
headquarters in El Paso, Texas, has conferencing capabilities as well. 

Dr. Austin suggested that a committee was needed to help organize the
March meeting because it will be different than previous meetings.
Organizers will need to have familiarity with various communications
tools and ideas about how the meeting might work. 

Mr. Treviño asked whether GNEB would be acting as an official advisory
board at this meeting, and as there is no physical location at which
people can offer public comment, he requested that the Board obtain an
opinion from counsel as to whether this would be in violation of FACA
rules. Mr. Joyce responded that in whatever media the conference was
held, there needed to be the opportunity for public comment. Dr. Austin
commented that people would be able to log in on their own computers or
attend a location such as a regional office that had conferencing
capabilities. It is incumbent on the Board to ensure that the public can
participate in the meeting. This meeting may garner more public
participation than previous ones because access will be simpler. 

Mr. Cruz commented that it would be useful to have critical mass at
different locations to help keep focused. Dr. Austin supported this
idea. 

Ms. Almodovar asked whether there was a lead for each one of the
sections and mentioned that there were a number of forums for the border
program at EPA, and most have a water group. Perhaps the Board could
meet when meetings of these groups were held, as experts already would
be present. Dr. Austin stated that the challenge might be coordinating
the timing of the meetings. 

Mr. Wood suggested that there be about 10 locations for the
videoconferences because it would save on travel for members of the
public. Additionally, all of the local congressional offices have
videoconferencing capabilities. 

Dr. Austin noted that a lead needed to be identified for each topic to
ensure that the conference call is set up. Mr. Treviño will serve as
the lead on the topic of context. Mr. Frisbie will take the lead of the
water supply group, and Dr. Henkel will lead the group on water quality.
Mr. Apodaca will lead the water treatment group. 

In terms of scheduling working group conference calls, Ms. AnnMarie
Gantner (EPA, OFACMO) stated that as soon as the group decided on a
date, they should contact her via e-mail. She will send e-mails and
subsequent reminders to the group. 

Dr. Henkel noted that opportunity should be offered to the Board members
who were not present to join a working group and asked whether the scope
of responsibilities could be drafted. Dr. Austin stated that she would
summarize the decisions that had been made and send them first to those
who had been present. Dr. Henkel asked how this would be shared with
the entire Board. Ms. Gantner would send the document to everyone and
ask members not currently on a group to join one and then follow up this
effort with an e-mail confirmation of the groups. Dr. Austin added that
if a member did not sign up for anything, she would contact him or her
personally. 

Mr. Cruz asked whether members would be in favor of using online
collaborative tools to edit documents or whether anyone could volunteer
an FTP site. Ms. Gantner said that might raise a FACA issue. Dr. Austin
responded that Dr. Henkel, Ms. Aguillon and Dr. Reed did a good job
editing the materials for their subgroup for the 14th report. Dr. Henkel
replied that the group used the track changes function in Microsoft
Word. 

Mr. Wood suggested that a future report focus on tribal lands along the
border and their unique needs, issues and problems. Mr. Joyce responded
that the Board could write a report on infrastructure needs on tribal
lands at some point. 

Dr. Austin thanked the Board members for all of their work and stated
that it will be a good year for the Board. No public comments were
offered, and Dr. Austin adjourned the meeting at 1:56 p.m.  

Action Items

Dr. Henkel will work on context and lead the group on water quality for
the report. 

Mr. Cruz will serve on the water quality group. 

Mr. Apodaca will identify the gaps in infrastructure and delivery needs
and lead the water treatment group. 

Dr. Eckert will locate the correct staff in the Bureau of Reclamation to
address water supply issues. 

Ms. Palazzolo will assist in the work on context. 

OFACMO will present the FACA advisor’s comments on whether the Board
can report to Congress to Dr. Austin when they are received.

Mr. Treviño will serve as the lead on the topic of context. 

Mr. Frisbie will take the lead on water supply. 

Ms. Gantner will send e-mails to the group about conference call dates
and subsequent reminders. 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting Participants

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

Diane Austin, Ph.D., Chair

Associate Research Anthropologist

Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology

University of Arizona

Tucson, AZ

Cecilia E. Aguillon

Director, Market Development and Government

	Relations

KYOCERA Solar, Inc. 

San Diego, CA

Jose Angel

Assistant Executive Officer

California River Basin Region Water Quality

Control Board – Colorado River Basin Region

Palm Desert, CA 

Evaristo Cruz

Director

Environmental Management Office

Ysleta del Sur Pueblo

El Paso, TX  

Gary Gillen

President

Gillen Pest Control

Richmond, TX  

David Henkel, Ph.D.

Professor Emeritus

Community and Regional Planning Program

School of Architecture and Planning

Albuquerque, NM

Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.

Borders Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator

Intergovernmental Relations Division

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

Austin, TX 

 

Luis Olmedo

Executive Director

Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.

Brawley, CA

Thomas Ruiz, M.S.

Border/Environmental Justice Liaison

Office of the Secretary

New Mexico Environment Department

Las Cruces, NM

Nathan P. Small 

Conservation Coordinator

New Mexico Wilderness Alliance

Las Cruces, NM

Timothy Treviño

Director of Public Relations

Alamo Area Council of Governments

San Antonio, TX

Mike Vizzier

Chief

County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous
Materials Division

San Diego, CA

Ann Marie A. Wolf

President

Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc.

Tucson, AZ

John Wood

Representative

Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority

Brownsville, TX

Federal Members of the Board and Alternates

Department of Homeland Security

Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D.

Director

Occupational Safety and Environmental Programs

Office of Chief Administrative Officer

Management Directorate

Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC

Department of the Interior

Greg Eckert, Ph.D.

National Park Service

Fort Collins, CO

Environmental Protection Agency

Keith Takata

Deputy Regional Administrator

EPA Region 9

San Francisco, CA

International Boundary and Water Commission

Russell Frisbie

International Boundary and Water Commission

Washington, DC

Department of State

Angela Palazzolo

International Relations Officer

U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs

Washington, DC

Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service

Robert M. Apodaca

Assistant Chief – West

USDA/NRCS

Albuquerque, NM

Department of Transportation

Linda Lawson

Director

Office of Safety, Energy and Environment

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy

Office of the Secretary of Transportation

Washington, DC

Department of Energy

Christopher Lawrence

Electricity Industry Specialist

Permitting, Siting and Analysis Division

Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability

Washington, DC

Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

Alison Krepp

NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division

Silver Spring, MD

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Valerie Piper

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development

Washington, DC

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Mark Joyce

Acting Designated Federal Officer

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

Washington, DC  

EPA Participants

Derry Allen

Office of Policy

Lisa Almodovar

Office of International and Tribal Affairs

Mike Flynn

Office of Air and Radiation

AnnMarie Gantner

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

Lisa Garcia

Office of the Administrator

Laura Gomez

Office of International and Tribal Affairs

Randy Hill

Office of Water

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

Stephanie McCoy

Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach 

Jane Nishida

Office of International and Tribal Affairs

Michelle DePass

Office of International and Tribal Affairs

Allie Silverman

Office of International and Tribal Affairs

Mathy Stanislaus

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Sue Stendebach

Office of Air and Radiation

Other Participants

Maria Elena Giner

Border Environment Cooperation Commission

Oscar Lei

University of Arizona

Jock Whittlesey

U.S. Department of State

Contractor Support

Mary Spock, M.S.

Writer/Editor

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

Gaithersburg, MD  

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

JW Marriott Washington DC

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC  20004

202-393-2000

AGENDA

Wednesday, December 14

8:30 a.m.	Registration

9:00-9:30	Welcome and Introductions	

Mark Joyce

			Associate Director and GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer

				

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

Acting Director

U.S. EPA Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

Diane Austin

Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

				

Board Members and Speakers

9:30-9:45	Overview of Agenda

		Diane Austin

		Chair

		Good Neighbor Environmental Board

9:45-10:45	Major Border Environment Cooperation Commission and North
American Development Bank Initiatives

			

			Maria Elena Giner

			General Manager

			Border Environment Cooperation Commission

10:45-11:00	Break

11:00-12:00	Update on Border 2012/2020 Activities and Border Issues

		

		Michelle DePass

		Assistant Administrator

		U.S. EPA Office of International and Tribal Affairs

		Keith Takata

		Deputy Regional Administrator

		U.S. EPA Region 9

		 

12:00-12:15	Public Comments

		

12:30-4:30	Press Event at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for
Scholars

5:00-6:00	Board Member Updates and Discussion with Senior Officials from
EPA		

Meeting Day 2

December 15, 2011

8:00 a.m.	Registration

8:30-10:00	Discussion of GNEB’s 15th Report and Activities for the
Coming Year

10:00-10:15	Break 

10:15-12:00	Continuation of Discussion

12:00-12:15	Break

12:15-1:30	Continuation of Discussion

1:30-2:00	Public Comments

2:00		Adjourn

  PAGE  24 		December 14-15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board
(GNEB) Meeting Summary

December 14-15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting
Summary	  PAGE  25 

  PAGE  34 		September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board
(GNEB) Meeting Summary

December 14-15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting
Summary	  PAGE  35 

