State of the Border Region 

BORDER 2012: US MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM

Indicators Report 2005 

USGS 

Final Draft - April 19, 2006 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Report Overview ..................................................3

US-Mexico Border Region ..................................6 

Water....................................................................8 

Air ........................................................................11 

Land .....................................................................14 

Emergency Preparedness and Response ..............17 

Environmental Compliance..................................19 

About the Indicator Development Process...........22 

Future Direction ..................................................23 

* This report is available at the Border 2012Web site: http://www.epa.gov/border2012/. 

For more information about this publication and the Border 2012 Program, see the contact 

information provided at the end of this document. 

The Border 2012 Indicators Report 2005 is 

published by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the 

Mexican Secretariat of Environment and 

Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), the 

Border 2012 Program National Coordinators, 

and the Border Indicators Task Force (BITF). 

The Border 2012 coordinating bodies 

provided the indicator data. Special thanks to 

BITF members for helping to develop and 

organize this report. 

Note from the National Coordinators and BITF Co-chairs 

Jerry Clifford, National Coordinator 

Steve Young, BITF Co-Chair 

María Teresa Bandala, National Coordinator 

Salvador Sanchez, BITF Coordinator 
State of the Border Region 

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT– April 19, 2006

3

La Paz

Agreement

1983

Integrated Border 

Environmental Plan for 

US-Mexico Border Area 

(IBEP)

1992

Border XXI

1996

Border 2012

2002

La Paz

Agreement

1983

Integrated Border 

Environmental Plan for 

US-Mexico Border Area 

(IBEP)

1992

Border XXI

1996

Border 2012

2002

Report Overview 

Informing the Public: Getting Started 

The purpose of the State of the Border Region Indicators Report is to start informing the border 

communities and stakeholders about the state of the environment and progress made under the 

Border 2012: US-Mexico Environmental Program. The six goals of Border 2012 are outlined in 

the program’s Framework Document, signed on April 4, 2003.* Thus, where appropriate and 

feasible, 2003 is used as the baseline year. This report presents available information to aid in 

understanding the status of the region, identifying data gaps, and better preparing policy makers 

to address the needs of the communities they serve. 

The report incorporates environmental and public health 

information in the corresponding Border 2012 media and 

program sections: Water, Air, Land, Emergency 

Preparedness and Response, and Enforcement and 

Compliance. The indicator information is presented in an 

easy to understand format with brief data source information 

below each indicator. Complete underlying data and details 

will be available on-line in a supporting document.* 

Border 2012: A Binational Effort 

Border 2012 is a ten-year cooperative program designed “to protect the 

environment and public health in the US-Mexico border region, 

consistent with the principles of sustainable development.” Federal, 

state, tribal and local institutions and agencies collaboratively work to 

produce prioritized and sustained actions that consider the needs of the 

border communities. The actions implemented under Border 2012 are 

guided through a series of results-oriented goals and objectives, and 

measured by environmental and performance indicators. 

Border 2012 is the latest cooperative initiative implemented under the 

1983 La Paz Agreement and builds upon the previous efforts, 

particularly Border XXI, which marked the first binational attempt to 

develop environmental indicators.1

 More information about the Border 

2012 program is available at the Border 2012 Web site.*

 

1. Reduce water contamination

2. Reduce air pollution

3. Reduce land contamination

4. Improve environmental health

5. Reduce exposure to chemicals 

6. Improve environmental 

performance 

Border 2012 Goals

1. Reduce water contamination

2. Reduce air pollution

3. Reduce land contamination

4. Improve environmental health

5. Reduce exposure to chemicals 

6. Improve environmental 

performance 

Border 2012 Goals

NOTE: Given the challenges involved in developing indicators for the border region, this 

initial report presents information on a limited number of indicators, representing specific 

objectives under each goal. As data comparability improves among the multiple data sources 

and data availability increases for the region, future reports will continue to improve upon the 

content and detail of this effort. This report is also intended to complement the information 

presented in the Biennial Implementation Report.

*

 
State of the Border Region 

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT– April 19, 2006

 

4

Border Indicators 

In cooperation with the various entities operating 

under the Border 2012 program, the Border 

Indicators Task Force (BITF) develops and reports on 

environmental and performance indicators to 

communicate important information about the border 

region and to demonstrate progress towards meeting 

Program goals and objectives. 

Each of the indicators presented in this report is 

classified according to the Driving Forces-PressuresState-Impact-Response (DPSIR) Framework. 

DPSIR is based on the idea that socio-economic 

Driving forces lead to natural or human-induced 

Pressures, which lead to a State, which generates 

Impacts (sub-divided into Exposure and Effect) that 

evoke Reponses. The Responses compartment feeds 

back into every other compartment, showing that 

interventions can occur at each point along the causal 

spectrum. For more information see the Strategy for 

Indicator Development.* 

A representative, integrated set of 

binational indicators helps to describe 

the overall system, increasing 

understanding of the US-Mexico border 

region, assisting in highlighting data 

gaps, and providing a basis on which to 

make well informed decisions. As such, 

the BITF aspires to improve and expand 

upon the indicators presented in this 

initial report. 

Health-Based 

Environmental 

Indicators only 

Driving 

forces

Pressures 

Effect 

Response 

Impact 

State 

Exposure 

DPSIR Framework 

* Available at the Border 2012 Web site: 

http://www.epa.gov/border2012/

1 US-Mexico Environmental Indicators 1997 and a 

Summary of Selected Environmental Indicators, 

December 2000.

Definitions

Indicators are a single variable or 

output value from a set of data that 

describes the state of the border region 

in a way that is meaningful for 

stakeholders. More specifically: 

Environmental indicators

communicate information regarding the 

region’s environmental and health 

conditions. 

Classification: Driving Forces, 

Pressures, State, or Impacts

Performance indicators communicate 

information regarding environmental 

management activities and targeted 

response measures. 

Classification: Response

Definitions

Indicators are a single variable or 

output value from a set of data that 

describes the state of the border region 

in a way that is meaningful for 

stakeholders. More specifically: 

Environmental indicators

communicate information regarding the 

region’s environmental and health 

conditions. 

Classification: Driving Forces, 

Pressures, State, or Impacts

Performance indicators communicate 

information regarding environmental 

management activities and targeted 

response measures. 

Classification: Response
State of the Border Region 

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT– April 19, 2006

 

5

Water 

5. Percentage of Households in the US-Mexico Border Region with Access to Piped Water 

6. Percentage of Households in the US-Mexico Border Region with Access to Sewerage Service 

7. Number of Wastewater Treatment Plants and Installed Capacity in the Mexican Side of the Border Region 

8. Rates of Reported Water-Borne Diseases in the California and Arizona Border Region 

Air 

9. Number of Days Exceeding Air Quality Standards 

10. Ozone Concentrations in the Border Region 

11. Particulate Matter (PM10) Concentrations in the Border Region 

12. Prevalence of Physician Diagnosed Asthma 

Land 

13. Estimated Abandoned Waste Tire Piles in the Border Region 

14. Amount of Pesticide Use in the US-Mexico Border Region 

15. Number of Farmworkers Trained in Safe Pesticide Use in the US Side of the Border Region 

16. Cumulative Number of Farmworkers Trained in Safe Pesticide Use in the Border Region 

Emergency Preparedness and Response 

17. Number of Emergency Incident Notifications Received by NRC 

18. Number of Emergency Incident Notifications Received by COATEA 

19. Progression of Signed Sister City Plans 

Enforcement and Compliance 

20. Regulated US Facilities within 100 km of the US-Mexico Border 

21. Number of Enforcement Actions in the US Side of the Border Region 

22. Compliance for Mexican Border Facilities 

23. Pollution Reduction from Federal Enforcement Actions in the US Side of the Border Region 

24. Number of Inspections of Facilities in the US-Mexico Border Region 

25. Penalties in Number and Dollar Value in the US Side of the Border Region 

Note: Environmental public health indicators are included in the corresponding media section.

What Are the Indicators Included in this Initial Report? 

The report begins by presenting general indicators to provide more contextual information about 

border region characteristics such as population, demographics, language, trade, and 

biodiversity. This introduction leads to five report sections that present indicators that align to 

specific Program goals and objectives (see blue text box). The report attempts to present 

binational border-wide indicators. However, in some instances, this was not possible and proxy 

indicators were used. In this regard, the intent of the report is to aid in identifying gaps in order 

to work towards acquiring more comparable data, thus enabling the development of more 

meaningful indicators. These indicators together represent the initial set of border indicators that 

will continue to be refined and expanded over time. 

US-Mexico Border Region 

1. Population Projections for the US-Mexico Border Region 

2. Native American Population on the US Side of the Border Region 

3. Languages Spoken at Home in the US Side of the Border Region 

4. US-Mexico Trade 
State of the Border Region 

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT– April 19, 2006

 

6

Source: Medium Projections from J. Peach and J. Williams. 2003. "Population 

Dynamics of the U.S.-Mexican Border Region." Unpublished, SCERP Monograph. 

* US Census reports tribal population number for American Indians and Alaskan Natives as one 

statistic. 

Source: http://factfinder.census.gov 

The US-Mexico Border Region 

The US-Mexico border region, as defined by the 1983 La Paz Agreement2

, is the area within 100 

kilometers (about 62.5 miles) on either side of the international border and extends 3,141 km 

(1,952 miles) from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. The border region is comprised of 

10 states (4 US and 6 Mexican) and 26 US tribes. 

Ninety percent of the border 

population resides in 15 paired, interdependent sister cities. Over the last 20 

years, population has grown rapidly in 

the border region to more than 11.8 

million people. This figure is expected 

to reach 19.5 million by 2030 

according to medium population 

projections. From 1990 to 2000, 

population growth in the border region 

was over two times that observed for 

either respective country nationwide. 

The remaining ten percent of the 

border population resides in rural areas. A 

major challenge will be providing services 

to these communities, especially colonias and tribal and indigenous communities, which may 

have substandard housing and unsafe public drinking water or wastewater systems. 

Native Americans compose a total of 

1.20% of the total US border region 

population. Tribal lands are 

predominantly located in the western 

half of the border region in 

California and Arizona. The most 

populous area is Arizona with tribal 

people composing 2.68% of 

Arizona’s border population. On the 

Mexican side of the border region, 

there are several indigenous 

communities, such as Pápagos, 

Kikapúes, Cochiní, Cucapá, Kiliwa, 

Kumiai, and Paipai, some of which 

share extensive family and cultural 

ties to US tribes. 

Figure 2. Native American Populations 

in the US side of the Border Region (2000)*

Number (Percent of Population) 

78,239

(1.20%)

31,124 

(2.68%) 28,029 

(0.95%) 6,990

(2.34%)

12,095

(0.57%)

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

California Arizona New

Mexico

Texas Total

Figure 1. Population Projections for 

US-Mexico Border Region

23.4

19.5

15.9

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

23

25

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Population (in millions)

High Medium Low

Driving 

forces

2

 “Agreement between the United States of America 

and the United Mexican States on Cooperation for the 

Protection and Improvement of the Environment in 

the Border Area” 

Driving 

forces
State of the Border Region 

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT– April 19, 2006

 

7

Source: TradeStats ExpressTM Home (http://tse.export.gov) 

Source: 2004 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 

http://Redlist.org

The US-Mexico Border Region is 

characterized by many social, 

economic, and political contrasts 

between the people who share the 

natural resources of the area. 

 

Languages spoken at home in the US 

side of the border region are 

predominantly English. The 

exception is Texas where 78% of the 

border population speaks Spanish 

and 42.6% of this population is 

bilingual. 

Trade between the US and Mexico has been 

substantially increasing over the past 10 

years. Since industry (maquiladoras) located 

in Mexican border municipalities produce a 

large percentage of export products, trade 

translates into increased trucking of products 

across the border. This can contribute to 

elevated vehicular emissions and affects air 

quality for residents on both sides of the 

border. 

In the border region, trade is also compounded by 

increasing population, production, and unplanned 

city expansion, which leads to greater 

environmental effects. This suggests that many 

border residents may be subject to unhealthy air, 

contaminated water, and lack of wastewater 

treatment. 

The US-Mexico Border Region is also 

characterized by great biological diversity 

including many rare and native species.

According to the International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources

(IUCN), there are four primary types of habitat 

composing most of the US-Mexico border region. 

Within these habitats there are 2,143 animal 

species of which ten are listed as globally 

endangered species and two are critically 

endangered. 

New 

Mexico

2%

54%

21%

23%

Figure 3. Language Spoken at Home in the US Side of the Border Region

U.S. Census Bureau Report (2000)

California

65%

12%

13%

10%

Arizona

69%

11%

3%

17%

Texas

21%

36%

42%

1%

English Only Spanish Only Bilingual (English and Spanish) Other

Figure 4. US-Mexico Trade

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Billions in US $

Exports from Mexico to U.S.

Imports from U.S. to Mexico

Linear (Exports from Mexico to U.S.)

Linear (Imports from U.S. to Mexico)

Biodiversity in the US-Mexico Border Region 

Four Primary Types of Habitat 

Sonoran Desert 

California coastal sage & chaparral 

Chihuahuan Desert 

Tamaulipan mezquital 

10 Globally Endangered Species 

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila) 

San Esteban Island mouse (Peromyscus stephani) 

Coachella Valley Fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata) 

Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

Bryant's woodrat (Neotoma bryanti) 

Ashy Stormpetrel (Oceanodroma homochroa) 

Mexican long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris nivalis) 

Worthen's sparrow (Spizella wortheni) 

Coahuilan box turtle (Terrapene coahuila) 

Black-spotted newt (Notophthalmus meridionalis) 

Two Critically Endangered Species 

Island gray fox (Urocyon littoralis) 

Flat-headed myotis (Myotis planiceps) 

Source: US Census 2000. 

Driving 

forces

Driving 

forces
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

8

WATER 

Population and industrial growth along the border has created large demands for clean and safe 

drinking water. Water is also the most limited resource in this primarily arid region, further 

emphasizing the need to protect it through means such as adequate infrastructure and efficient 

and responsible use. 

Do border communities have access to clean water? 

Data on the percentage of households in the US-Mexico border region with access 

to piped water within their house is available for some communities. The data are from the most 

recent census from the year 2000 (for both countries). 

In US border communities, 

access to piped water 

within their house is 90% 

or higher. Access in 

Mexican communities is 

lower, ranging from a low 

of 66% in Acuña to a high 

of 85% in Ciudad Juarez 

and Piedras Negras. These 

percentages are not 

representative of all cities 

or of outlying rural areas, 

which may have little or no 

access to piped water. 

 

Mexico’s National Water Commission (CNA) defines 

coverage as the number of people living in private homes 

that have running water within the home or on the lot or 

who have access to a public water intake or hydrant. The 

data are based on reports from drinking water service 

providers and show that clean water access increased 

from 1995 to 2004. This statistic differs from the one 

reported above in that it includes access to piped water 

either within the house, on the lot or from a public 

hydrant. 

99%

Dona Ana

97%

Luna

97%

Luna

99%

San Diego

98%

Imperial

98%

Imperial

83%

Mexicali

80%

Tijuana

80%

Tijuana

98%

Cochise

99%

Santa Cruz

98%

Pima Yuma

99%

98%

Cochise

99%

Santa Cruz

98%

Pima Yuma

99%

Cameron

98%

Hidalgo

97%

Webb

96%

Maverick

96%

Valverde

98%

Presidio

93%

El Paso

98%

Cameron

98%

Hidalgo

97%

Webb

96%

Maverick

96%

Valverde

98%

Presidio

93%

El Paso

98%

Luis Rio 

Colorado

80%

Agua Prieta

84%

Nogales

83%

Luis Rio 

Colorado

80%

Agua Prieta

84%

Nogales

83%

Ojinaga

84%

Ascension

67%

Juarez

85%

Ojinaga

84%

Ascension

67%

Juarez

85%

Acuna

Piedras

Negras 66%

85%

Anahuac

71%

Nuevo 

Laredo

80%

Reynosa

71%

Reynosa

71%

Figure 5. Percentage of Households in the US-Mexico 

Border Region with Access to Piped Water (2000)

Source: Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and World Health Organization 

(WHO). Basic Indicators 2003. Health Situation in the United States - Mexico Border. 

http://www.fep.paho.org/english/publicaciones/IndBas2003/IndBas2003.pdf

>= 90% < 90%

Objective 1.1 

Access to Potable Water on the 

Mexican Side of the Border Region 

Number of habitants with access to potable water 

divided by the total number of habitants in private 

homes. Expressed as a percentage of service 

coverage: 

1995 2000 2004

88% 91% 93% 

Source: CNA’s Department for Drinking Water and 

Sanitation in Rural Zones. 

State 
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

9

Objective 1.1 

Figure 7. Number of Wastewater Treatment 

Plants and Installed Capacity (L/s) in Mexican 

Side of Border Region (2004)

25

20

4

2

13

8

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000

Baja California

Sonora

Chihuahua

Coahuila

Nuevo León

Tamaulipas

Capacity (Liters/second)

(1,569,009)

(18,985)

(321,556)

(1,520,510)

(585,883)

(2,351,723)

(Population)

Source: CNA, 2004. Inventario Nacional de Plantas Municipales de 

Potabilización y de Tratamiento de Aguas Residuales en Operación. 

http://www.cna.gob.mx/eCNA/Espaniol/Publicaciones/InventarioNacional0

4/pt_general02.pdf. 

J. Peach and J. Williams. 2003. "Population Dynamics of the U.S.-Mexican 

Border Region." Unpublished, forthcoming SCERP Monograph. San Diego: 

SCERP/SDSU Press. Based on projections for 2005.

To meet objective 1.1, Border 2012 will be using 2003 

for its baseline year. Preliminary data identifies: 

• 98,515 homes (24,418-US and 74,097-Mexico) lack 

access to safe drinking water. 

• 690,723 homes (24,418-US and 666,305-Mexico) lack 

access to wastewater sanitation facilities. 

Source: CNA’s Department for Drinking Water and Sanitation in 

Rural Zones.and DRAFT Reporting and Tracking of Connections of 

US Homes to Water and Sewer Systems in the US-Mexico Border 

Area., Prepared for US EPA, OWM by Parsons, 9/30/05 

Do border communities have wastewater collection services? 

Access to wastewater collection services (sewerage service) in the border region 

is important as it prevents adverse effects to human health from exposure to excreta and the 

microorganisms that it contains. Subsequent treatment of the collected sewage is equally 

important as it prevents discharge of untreated waters to surface water and groundwater, 

preventing further detrimental effects to human health and the environment. 

In 2000, access to sewerage 

services was 90% or higher in 

US border communities. 

Access was much lower in the 

Mexican border communities 

with the lowest reported in 

Anahuac (68%). 

These statistics may or may not 

include subsequent treatment 

of the collected sewage. 

Improving both the collection 

and treatment of wastewater 

are priorities of the Border 

2012 program. 

 

Mexico’s National Water Commission 

(CNA) reports that as of December of 

2004 the number of wastewater treatment 

plants in the six Mexican Border States 

totaled 72 with a total treatment capacity 

of 10,031 liters per second. The higher 

density of treatment plants in Baja 

California is probably reflective of the 

higher population density in this region. 

99%

Dona Ana

97%

Luna

97%

Luna

98%

San Diego

99%

Imperial

99%

Imperial

81%

Mexicali

85%

Tijuana

85%

Tijuana

98%

Cochise

98%

Santa Cruz

98%

Pima Yuma

99%

98%

Cochise

98%

Santa Cruz

98%

Pima Yuma

99%

Cameron

98%

Hidalgo

96%

Webb

96%

Maverick

95%

Valverde

98%

Presidio

94%

El Paso

99%

Cameron

98%

Hidalgo

96%

Webb

96%

Maverick

95%

Valverde

98%

Presidio

94%

El Paso

99%

Luis Rio 

Colorado

79%

Agua Prieta

93%

Nogales

88%

Luis Rio 

Colorado

79%

Agua Prieta

93%

Nogales

88%

Ojinaga

90%Ascension

70%

Juarez

93%

Ojinaga

90%Ascension

70%

Juarez

93%

Acuna

73%

Piedras

Negras

89%

Piedras

Negras

89%

Anahuac

68% Nuevo 

Laredo

89%

Reynosa

80%

Reynosa

80%

Figure 6. Percentage of Households in the US-Mexico 

Border Region with Access to Sewerage Service (2000)

Source: Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and World Health Organization 

(WHO). Basic Indicators 2003. Health Situation in the United States - Mexico Border. 

http://www.fep.paho.org/english/publicaciones/IndBas2003/IndBas2003.pdf

>= 90% < 90%

State 

State 
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

10

Objective 4. 2 

Are there health problems possibly associated with water quality? 

Numerous environmental health problems can be associated with the lack of 

access to clean water necessary for good hygiene and food handling practices, and from the 

absence of wastewater treatment, which can expose people to raw sewage and contaminate water 

supplies. Based on available data, three diseases are presented here that may be associated with 

the lack of access to clean water. However, it is important to note that these diseases can be 

contracted through both contaminated water and food. Hepatitis A is a highly contagious virus 

that attacks the liver. Salmonellosis is a bacterial infection that usually affects the gastrointestinal 

system (the stomach and intestines). Shigellosis is a bacterial infection affecting the intestinal 

tract. 

Based on self-reporting by health practitioners in the two states, in 2004 rates of these diseases 

per 100,000 people were higher in the Arizona border region as compared to California. Also 

note that incidence of Hepatitis A, salmonellosis, or shigellosis may not be a representative 

indicator of exposure to unclean water because, at least in the US, there is a concerted effort to 

use vaccinations to prevent these diseases. 

Additional data for the New Mexico and Texas border region are available, but only for noncomparable dates, and therefore, are not included for this indicator. Environmental health data 

for Mexico is available from a national reporting system, but it is not publicly available at the 

municipal level. 

 

 

For more information on Environmental Health see 

http://www.epa.gov/ehwg/projects_publications.html 

Figure 8. Rates* of Reported Water-Borne Diseases in the 

California & Arizona Border Region (2004)

8.41

2.17

15.47

11.45

9.46

5.71

0

5

10

15

20

25

California Arizona

Hepatitis A Salmonellosis Shigellosis

By County

0

10

20

30

40

San Diego

Imperial

Cochise

Pima

Santa Cruz

Yuma

*

Rates per 100,000 people

Sources: www.azdhs.gov/phs/oids/stats/pdf/t1cases_by_county2004.pdf, 

 www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/dcdc/html/cdtables.htm, 

 http://borderhealth.cr.usgs.gov/datatables.html. 

Reporting Diseases

United States. In the US, the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention maintains a National Notifiable 

Diseases Surveillance System. Data are reported at the 

county or regional level (within states) to the state 

departments of health, which submit the data 

electronically through the National Electronic 

Telecommunications System for Surveillance 

(NETSS). Reporting by the states is voluntary at the 

federal level and may be mandated at the state level. 

Due to voluntary reporting, the statistics for these 

diseases are likely lower than actual conditions due to 

under-reporting. The list of diseases that are notifiable 

varies by state. Data are also maintained differently by 

each state (i.e., some may report at the state level and 

others to the county level). 

Mexico. For Mexico, data are available through 

Sistema Unico de Informacion para la Vigilancia 

Epidemiologica (SUIVE), Secretaria de Salud. The 

data are reported electronically at the level of 

jurisdiction through el Sistema Nacional de 

Epidemiologia (SINAVE). Reporting to municipal, 

state, and federal agencies is mandatory at the time of 

diagnosis. 

Effect 
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

11

Objective 2.1 

AIR 

Air quality is a major concern throughout the border region. Pollutants from a number of sources 

including motor vehicles, power plants and industrial facilities, agricultural operations, dust from 

unpaved roads, and open burning of trash affect urban and regional air quality in the border region. 

What is the quality of the air? 

Air quality standards are set to protect people from potential harmful exposures to 

air pollutants. Air quality can be assessed by examining the number of days that a standard is 

exceeded within a monitored area. Air quality data are presented for five regional monitoring areas 

with monitors located on both sides of the border. The most persistent and pervasive pollutants 

found in the sister cities are ozone and particulate matter (PM10), which is why these are 

highlighted. 

Based on examination of the number of days where standards were exceeded (days when any one 

monitor in a region exceeded a standard) for ozone and PM10, air quality has improved in some of 

the border regions. The regions of Tijuana/San Diego and Mexicali/Imperial Valley had the 

highest number of days exceeding the standard for ozone. The regions of Mexicali/Imperial Valley 

and Ciudad Juarez/El Paso have the highest number of days exceeding the standard for PM10. In 

contrast, Nogales/Nogales and the Lower Rio Grande Valley had better air quality with only a few 

days where standards were exceeded over a five year period. 

State 
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

12

What is in the air? 

 Once released into the air from emission sources, pollutants may remain stable or 

be transformed into other compounds. They can be located near the point of release, moved long 

distances by wind, or transferred to other environmental media resulting in soil or water pollution. 

Once in the environment, air pollutants may remain for hours, days, or years. Emissions sources, 

pollutant properties, and atmospheric conditions influence how pollutants are distributed in the 

atmosphere, which are typically measured as concentrations. 

From 2001 to 2005, concentrations of 

ozone were higher than the binational 

standard of 0.08 ppm in Mexicali/ 

Imperial Valley and Tijuana/San Diego. 

Ozone concentrations in Ciudad Juarez/ 

El Paso improved during the past five 

years decreasing to below the standard in 

2004 and 2005. Ozone concentrations in 

the Lower Rio Grande Valley were also 

lower than the standard. 

Annual mean concentrations of PM10 

(mean for year of interest with the two 

prior years) from 2001 to 2005 in Lower 

Rio Grande Valley were lower than the 

binational annual standard of 50 μg/m3

. 

Concentrations in the other four border 

monitoring areas exceeded the standard 

with the highest concentrations observed 

in Mexicali/Imperial Valley. 

Objective 2.1 

Source: Data from the EPA Air Quality Systems (AQS) Database 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/airs/airsaqs/sysoverview.htm 

Ozone (O3)

Ozone is a photochemical oxidant and the major component of 

smog formed through complex chemical reactions between 

precursor emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and 

oxides of nitrogen (NOx) in the presence of sunlight. These 

pollutants are emitted by transportation and industrial sources. O3

is reactive and damages lung tissue, reduces lung function, and 

increases sensitivity to other irritants.

US Standard = 8 hour average = 0.08 ppm

Mexican Standard = 8 hour average = 0.08 ppm

Particulate Matter (PM)

Particulate matter (PM) with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 microns or 

less (PM10) consists of ground geologic material entrained into the air by 

agricultural processes, unpaved roadways, and quarry and cement 

manufacturing. Fine PM (diameter of 2.5 microns or less) or PM2.5 

consists of sulfates, nitrates, other gases, soot and finer ground geologic 

materials. Exposure to PM is a major human health concern including 

effects on breathing, aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease 

and premature death. 

US Standard = 24-hour average = 150 μg/m3

US Standard = annual standard = 50 μg/m3

Mexican Standard = 24-hour average = 120 μg/m3

Mexican Standard = annual standard = 50 μg/m3

Selected Air Quality Pollutants

For more information on US-Mexico Air Quality and other air pollutants (CO, NO2, SO2) see http://www.epa.gov/ttn/catc/cica/airq_e.html.

State 

State 
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

13

Objective 4.1 

Are there health problems possibly associated with air quality? 

While air quality standards provide a platform to understand current air quality 

conditions, it is important to understand the possible impact of air pollution on human health. 

Long-term exposure to elevated air pollution is associated with diminished lung function and 

cardiovascular disease. Vulnerable groups (children, the sick and elderly) are more likely to suffer 

ill effects. A number of epidemiologic studies have linked changes in air pollutant concentrations 

with increased risk of pneumonia, respiratory infections, and exacerbation of asthma. For example, 

evidence indicates that exposure to vehicle emissions aggravates or triggers asthmatic symptoms 

and airway reactivity. Asthma is a complex disease and multiple factors are implicated in the 

development and exasperation of this disease, thus at this time it is not possible to directly relate 

air pollution to the onset of asthma. 

Despite a surplus of information 

regarding asthma prevalence, data 

are not reported in a standardized 

format. Reporting mechanisms and 

disease definitions vary 

considerably between border states 

and countries, limiting the ability to 

make comparisons. 

The data shown in this graph 

represent a small sample study of 

school aged children to assess the 

prevalence of asthma diagnosis 

within one sister city pair. 

However, asthma may result from a 

combination of air quality and other 

contributing factors. 

 

For more information on US-Mexico air quality see http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/org.htm#air

and for Environmental Health information see http://www.epa.gov/ehwg/projects_publications.html. 

Figure 12. Prevalence of Physician Diagnosed Asthma 

2001*

15.1%

26.5%

6.6% 5.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

6-7 years 13-14 years

Calexico, CA

Mexicali, B.C.

*

Sample size of 37 children

Source: Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. U.S.-Mexico 

Border Environmental Health Surveillance Demonstrations Phase Two. 

September 2001. 

Effect 
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

14

Objective 3.3 

LAND 

Land absorbs contaminants from the air, water and human/industrial activities. People live on 

land and generate both solid and liquid waste. Land is affected by construction, transport, 

agriculture and pesticide use, housing, and unplanned development. Pressing concerns of the 

Border 2012 program are the presence of tire piles and the use of pesticides along the border 

region for they pose both environmental and health problems. 

Are the waste tire piles being cleaned up? 

Throughout the border region, millions of scrap tires have accumulated in several 

waste tire piles. Composed of tires from both Mexico and the US, the piles tend to result from a 

robust market for partially used tires. The exact number of tires at some locations is not known. 

Border 2012 is working on a strategy to help reduce future tire piles and cleanup existing ones 

(abandoned and poorly managed). The program is focusing on clean-up at three of the largest 

piles in Mexico (INNOR, El Centinela, and Ciudad Juárez) as their relative size and proximity to 

more densely populated areas increase the risks to human health and the environment. 

Tire piles create ideal breeding 

grounds for mosquitoes, rodents, 

and other vectors of disease, 

which leads to a potential 

increase in the incidence of 

malaria, dengue fever, and West 

Nile Virus, and encephalitis. 

Further, tire pile fires are difficult 

to extinguish and can burn for 

months, emitting noxious fumes 

and generating liquid wastes that 

contaminate soil, groundwater, 

and surface water. 

Through the combined efforts of 

EPA, SEMARNAT, regional 

waste task forces, affected states, 

and Tribes, tire piles are being 

cleaned up. Thus far, over 2 

million tires have been removed from the border region in 4 locations, and clean-up is complete 

at the INNOR site in Mexicali. In addition, other areas such as the Pala Band of Mission Indians 

are working to remove tires from their reservation. In 2003, they removed 34,000 tires with the 

assistance of the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Tires removed are being put to 

productive uses as part of Border 2012’s commitment to recycling and reuse. Tires removed are 

used in cement kilns as tire derived fuel, in asphalt as crumb rubber, and in erosion control 

embankments in bales, among other creative uses. 

Figure 13. Estimated Abandoned Waste Tire Piles in the Border Region

2004-2005 

Percent Removed (Original Number of Tires)

Tijuana

40,000*

Ciudad Juárez

16% (4,500,000)

Ciudad Acuna

0% (380,000)

Matamoros

0% (600,000)

Mexicali

Llanset

0% (400,000)

Clean-up completed

Clean-up in progress

Future clean-up expected

Mexicali

INNOR 

100% (425,000)

Mexicali

El Centinela

77% (1,200,000)

Nogales

0% (150,000) San Luis Rio 

Colorado

0% (150,000)

Agua Prieta

80,000*

Piedras

Negras

0% (50,000)

Reynosa

0% (300,000)

* Estimates on original number of tires piles are not available. Number removed is shown. 

Source: SEMARNAT. Subsecretaria de Fomento y Normatividad Ambiental. 2005.

State 

Response
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

15

Objective 4.3 

Are farm workers trained on pesticide safety? 

Communities along the border are confronted with a host of environmental 

problems, including pollution from agricultural activities. Border residents may suffer health 

problems related to environmental factors including the improper management of toxics, 

hazardous and solid wastes, and pesticides. 

 This inventory appears to show 

significant variation in the amount of 

pesticides used in the border region. 

However, this map may not be 

completely representative of the 

situation, as data were difficult to 

collect and often lacking due to 

reporting practices. For example, 

data were often lacking for Texas 

and Mexican states. 

Pesticide exposure can cause a 

variety of occupational illnesses in 

farm workers, including eye injuries, 

cancer, respiratory illnesses and 

dermatitis. Proper training in 

pesticide handling and use results in 

the protection of workers and their 

families from potential exposures 

and adverse health effects. 

 Both the US and Mexico have 

instituted various programs to train 

workers and instructors in the safe 

handling of pesticides. In the US side 

of the border region, 26,760 farm 

workers were trained from 2003 to 

2005 with the majority in California. 

Data are based on attendance at 

training sessions in several cities 

offered by the Association of 

Farmworker Opportunity Programs 

(AFOP) in California, Arizona, and 

New Mexico, and by the Texas 

Department of Agriculture in Texas. 

California’s PROTEUS Program 

provided supplemental data for 

training conducted in 2004. 

Figure 15. Number of Farmworkers Trained in Safe 

Pesticide Use in the US Side of the Border Region

9286

2287 1753

13026

491 962

709

4766 4057

8968

942

382

5891

CA AZ NM TX Total

No. Farmworkers Trained

2003

2004

2005

* *

Source: Pan American Health Organization (PAHO). Final Report Inventory of 

Agricultural Pesticides Used In The United States - Mexico Border Region. U.S.-

Mexico Border Field Office. 

760.62-120993.64

120993.64-263487

263487-648296.7

648296.7-1287881.53

1287881.53-2357628.21

2357628.21-4163367.66

No Data

Pesticide Use

760.62-120993.64

120993.64-263487

263487-648296.7

648296.7-1287881.53

1287881.53-2357628.21

2357628.21-4163367.66

No Data

Pesticide Use

Figure 14. Amount of Pesticide Use in the USMexico Border Region, 2000-2003 

* Data not reported for that year (2004 in AZ and NM) 

Source: Data for CA, AZ, & NM from AFOP/AmeriCorps, including Proteus data. 

 Data for TX provided by the Texas Department of Agriculture. 

Response

Pressures

State 
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

16

In Mexico, the Programa Nacional Contra Los Riesgos Por el Uso De Plaguicidas conducts 

training courses throughout the country. In 2004, courses were provided in Ensenada and 

Mexicali, training a total of 850 workers and 73 trainers (600 workers and 38 trainers in 

Ensenada and 250 workers and 35 trainers in Mexicali). The persons attending these training 

sessions include field workers, growers, and handlers, pest control advisors, employees of 

pesticide distributors, and members of the public. 

 

If the number reported as 

trained in the US and 

Mexico border region are 

added together, then a total 

of 27,683 workers were 

trained. As the Border 

2012 goal is to train 36,000 

farmers, this sum represents 

76.9% of the goal. 

For more information on the Waste Policy Forum see 

http://epa.gov/border2012/org.htm#forums.

Figure 16. Cumulative Total Number of Farmworkers Trained in Safe 

Pesticide Use in the US-M exico Border Region

13026

18715

27683

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

2003 2004 2005

Border 2012 Goal: 36,000

Source: Data for CA, AZ, & NM from AFOP/AmeriCorps, including Proteus data; Data for TX from 

the Texas Department of Agriculture; Data for BC from the California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation. 

Response
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

17

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE 

Preparing for a potential environmental or hazardous emergency improves the probability of 

adequately responding to incidents and protecting the environment and public from exposure to 

potentially harmful contaminants and possible serious environmental or health impacts. 

The US-Mexico Joint Response Team (JRT), established by the La Paz Agreement, is composed 

of representatives from US and Mexico federal, state and local agencies responsible for 

emergency prevention, preparedness, and response in the border region. The JRT developed a 

Joint Contingency Plan (JCP) that established a federal mechanism for cooperation for 

responding effectively to polluting incidents that may pose a significant threat to both countries 

or affects one to an extent that justifies a request for assistance. The first JCP was issued in 1988, 

revised in 1999, and is currently being updated. 

Is there an advisory communication mechanism for the border region? 

 A notification system was 

established as part of the JCP. Any actual or 

threatened spill, release, fire or explosion that 

has the potential to affect the other country is 

reported to either the National Response 

Center (NRC) in the US (www.nrc.uscg.mil) 

and/or the National Communications Center 

(CENACOM) in Mexico. Both centers run 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week. In Mexico, the 

Center for Environmental Emergencies 

(COATEA), SEMARNAT’s emergency office 

within the Procuraduria Federal de Protección 

al Ambiente (PROFEPA) also receives 

notifications and runs from 9-6 pm MondayFriday. In the near future, COATEA will also 

be in full operation (24/7). 

Various types of incident notifications ranging 

from releases of contaminants from nonmobile machinery, refineries, manufacturing 

plants, and other fixed facilities were received. 

The notifications were subsequently 

responded to in an appropriate manner 

through the execution of local response plans 

(Sister City Plans) and the US-Mexico Joint 

Contingency Plan. 

Figure 18. Number of Incident Notifications Received 

by COATEA 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Baja California Coahuila

Chihuahua Nuevo León

Sonora Tamaulipas

Total: 41 39 31 30 12

Figure 17. Number of Incident Notifications Received 

by NRC 

0

50

100

150

200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

California Arizona

New Mexico Texas

Total: 269 284 175 255 232

Objective 5.1. 

Source: National Response Center. www.nrc.uscg.mil. 2005 / 

COATEA (Centro de Orientación para la Atención de Emergencias Ambientales). 

PROFEPA, 2005. Dirección General de Inspección de Fuentes de Comunicación 

Response

State 

State 

Response
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

18

Source: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/ipbilateral.htm#mexicoborder; PROFEPA, 2005. Dirección General de Inspección de 

Fuentes de Comunicación 

Objective 5.2. 

Do border cities have an emergency plan in place? 

The JCP recognizes 

that chemical emergencies affect the 

local community first, and thus, 

provides the foundation for 

establishing Sister City Binational 

Emergency Response Plans (SCP). 

Fourteen sister city pairs were 

originally identified by the JCP along 

the US-Mexico border. At a later date 

an additional sister city pair was added 

for Rio Bravo –Weslaco. 

 

 

The plans provide local emergency 

response communities with the 

mechanism for addressing issues and 

concerns, consisting of cooperative 

measures and recommendations, 

including emergency response 

planning, exercises, and training. 

Considerable progress has been 

made since 1998 in establishing the 

SCPs. Two plans were signed in 

1998 and by 2005, 14 plans were in 

place. Ciudad Juarez/ El Paso is 

currently pending. Adding Rio 

Bravo-Weslaco increased the Border 

2012 goal to 15. 

To ensure that both the Joint Contingency Plan and the15 Sister City Plans are up to date and can 

be implemented during emergencies, binational exercises are conducted by federal, state and 

local agencies. The most likely scenarios are developed and the agencies in charge simulate a 

response, either in the field or indoors (table top exercise). Also, phone advisory tests verify that 

all required parties receive adequate notice. Results are used to prepare reports, which set the 

stage for JCP and SCP revisions. Since 2001, Mexico and the US conducted 12 binational 

emergency exercises. “Amigos in Peligro,” a 2005 binational exercise is described in 

http://www.epaosc.net/operacionaguila. 

For more information on Emergency Preparedness and Response, see 

http://www.epa.gov/border2012/epr_bwwg.htm and 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oswer/ceppoweb.nsf/content/ip-bilateral.htm#mexicoborder

Figure 19. Progression of Signed Sister City Plans

0

5

10

15

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

* Matamoros/Brownsville SCP was originally signed in 1997 and updated in 2002.

*

GOAL

Source: ABT Associates 

Response

US Mexico Sister Cities 
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

19

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 

Environmental laws exist on both sides of the border to regulate issues such as chemical 

production, pollutant discharge to air and surface waters, and the generation, transportation, 

storage, and treatment of hazardous wastes. These environmental regulations are complex, but 

have a simple aim of protecting human health and the environment. On both sides of the border 

these laws and their implementing regulations are enforced by federal governments with many 

authorities delegated to States and in some cases municipalities. 

How many facilities are in my community? 

 There are at least 19,000 regulated facilities in the US-Mexico border region with 

an estimated number of 8,689 facilities in the US 3

 and 11,059 facilities in Mexico.4 As shown 

geographically, most facilities in the US are located near cities with the highest number near San 

Diego followed by El Paso. 49% of the facilities are located in the California border region 

followed by Texas (31.2%), Arizona (15.4%), and New Mexico (4.1%).3

 The majority of the 

facilities in both the US and Mexico are regulated for handling hazardous waste. 

Facilities in the US are regulated through permits issued under the Clean Air Act or Clean Water 

Act for possible impacts to air and water; for the generation, storage, treatment, or disposal of 

hazardous waste under the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery Act (RCRA); and/or, the 

reporting of pollutant releases under the Toxic Release Inventory (TRI).

Figure 20. Regulated US Facilities within 100 km of the US-Mexico Border

Source: Extracted data are from EPA's Air Facility System (AFS); Permit Compliance System 

(PCS); Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System (RCRAInfo) via EPA's 

Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) System (November 2005 Refresh). aps produced 

by Abt Associates. 

Objective 6.2 

State 

3 US EPA IDEA System, 2005. 

4

 PROFEPA, 2006. 
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

20

Objective 6.3 

What happens when a facility violates environmental law? 

When a facility violates 

environmental law, the regulating agency 

may impose actions to enforce 

compliance and may also impose 

monetary penalties and/or criminal 

sanctions. Enforcement actions cannot be 

imposed unless a violation has occurred 

and has been detected by the regulatory 

agency. There is, however, not always a 

clear connection between a facility 

polluting the environment and 

compliance with the law as facilities may 

legally pollute under the conditions of a 

permit and violations may not always 

result in releases. 

Formal enforcement actions in the US may be administrative, civil judicial or criminal actions. In 

aggregate, the number of formal enforcement actions in the US side of the border region has 

decreased from 2001 to 2004, with differences within individual border states. When examining 

trends over time and differences among States, it is important to consider factors such as: federal, 

state, and local environmental priorities; the number and type of facilities operating in each state; 

and other environmental management activities not reflected in this enforcement action measure, 

such as compliance assistance and informal enforcement actions (eg. notices of violations). 

In Mexico, the inspection 

and monitoring policy for 

industrial and service 

establishments under 

federal jurisdiction is 

conducted through a 

national Annual Program 

of Inspection. Inspections 

result in the classification 

of facilities to be in 

compliance or not in 

compliance. This may 

result in a determination 

of non-serious or serious 

violations, which may 

lead to temporary, partial, 

or total closure of 

facilities. 

Figure 21. Number of Enforcement Actions in the US 

Side of the Border Region

143 103 110 85

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

2001 2002 2003 2004

California

Arizona

New Mexico

Texas

Total:

* Does not include criminal enforcement actions 

Source: USEPA Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) System 

(Includes Federal and State data reported to the data system)

Source: PROFEPA, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales y Pesca. 

Subprocuraduria de Auditoria Ambiental. 

Response

Figure 22. Compliance for Mexican Border Facilities 2001-2004

145

311

139

306

13

163

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Baja California Coahuila Chihuahua Nuevo Leon Sonora Tamaulipas

In Compliance Non-Serious Violations Serious Violations

Total # of 

Facilities: 1,992 1,423 2,405 2,805 910 1,524

Response
State of the Border Region

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT- April 19, 2006

21

Source: USEPA Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis 

(IDEA) System (Includes Federal and State data reported to the data 

system)

*Pollution reduction amounts are from Federal actions only. 

Source: USEPA Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) 

* More than one inspection may have occurred at a single facility. 

 

In order to protect human health 

and the environment and to enforce 

environmental laws, regulatory 

agencies may enforce actions that 

result in pollution reduction 

activities by regulated facilities. 

Amounts of pollution reduction are 

a function of the number and type 

of enforcement actions. 

Regulatory agencies may also conduct inspections 

to verify a facility’s compliance status, while 

companies may conduct their own audits to ensure 

environmental compliance and to improve pollution 

prevention. Due to the different regulatory policies 

and legal systems between the US and Mexican 

governments, the information on enforcement 

actions, compliance, pollution reduction, 

inspections, and penalties as presented cannot be 

directly compared. 

Penalties are monetary assessments paid by 

a regulated entity in response to a violation 

or noncompliance. Not all enforcement 

actions require a penalty and may require 

other remedies. Penalties act as deterrence 

to violating the law, and an incentive for 

staying in compliance with the 

environmental statutes and regulations. 

Penalties are designed to recover the 

economic benefit of noncompliance as well 

as to account for the seriousness of the 

violation. 

For more information on the Border 2012 Enforcement and Compliance Borderwide Workgroup, 

see http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/org.htm#borderwide

Figure 23. Pollution Reduction from Federal 

Enforcement Actions in the 

US Side of the Border Region

0.663 0.917 2.97

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

4

2003 2004 2005

Pollution Reduction 

(Millions of lbs.)

California

Arizona

New Mexico

Texas

Total

Total:

Baja California 

Coahuila 

Chihuahua 

Nuevo León 

Sonora 

Tamaulipas 

2001 2002 2003 2004

California 146 132 300 394

Arizona 69 76 70 50

New Mexico 44 17 31 42

Texas 134 150 211 171

Figure 24. Number of State and Federal Inspections of Facilities in 

US-Mexico Border Region

Source: USEPA Integrated Data for Enforcement and Analysis (IDEA) System; Semarnat, 

Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente, PROFEPA. México, May 2005.

For Mexican states 

inspections are 

combined across 

2001-2004

2002-2004

1079

649

1215

1267

909

1036

Figure 25. Penalties in Number and Dollar Value in the US 

Side of the Border Region 

30

25

36 37

$0

$500

$1,000

$1,500

$2,000

$2,500

$3,000

$3,500

2001 2002 2003 2004

Thousands US$

Response

Response
State of the Border Region 

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT – April 19, 2006

22

About the Border Indicator Development Process 

This first binational indicators report developed under the Border 2012 program represents an 

initial effort to provide important information about the region. The report marks the completion 

of the first quarter of the Program, 2003 to 2005. It presents an initial set of indicators, identified 

after a comprehensive review of potential indicators and consensus building. For more 

information about the border indicator selection and development process up to date, please visit 

www.epa.gov/border2012/indicators.htm. 

Acknowledgments 

Border 2012 thanks Salvador Sanchez, the former Border Indicators Task Force co-chair, for 

initiating and supporting the development of a binational set of indicators, and welcomes 

Armando Yañez as the new co-chair.

We would also like to thank the Border 2012 coordinating bodies for their assistance in 

developing this publication: Regional Workgroups, Border-wide Workgroups, Policy Fora, and 

local task forces. 

Specifically, we would like to thank the active members of the Border Indicators Task Force. 

Steve Young EPA, OEI / BITF Co-Chair Hal Zenick EPA, RTP / EHWG Co-chair 

Armando Yañez SEMARNAT / BITF Co-Chair Rebecca Daniels EPA, RTP 

Sandra Duque EPA, OEI Sally Edwards PAHO-FEP 

Iris Jimenez SEMARNAT Gary Noonan CDC, Atlanta 

Mike Hadrick EPA, OAR Raquel Sabogal CDC, Atlanta 

Alfonso Blanco EPA, OW Rocio Alatorre SALUD, Mexico 

Ángel Ortega CNA Matiana Ramírez SALUD, Mexico 

Rick Picardi EPA, OSW Vance Fong EPA, R9 

Marc Thomas EPA, OSW Gina Weber U.S. EPA, Dallas 

Mauro Corral SEMARNAT - DGGIMAR William Luthans U.S. EPA, Dallas 

Beatriz Oliveira EPA, OSWER Maria Sisneros EPA, R6, El Paso Office 

Gerardo Alvarado PROFEPA Victor Valenzuela TCEQ 

Enrique Ortiz PROFEPA Steve Niemeyer TCEQ 

Davis Jones EPA, OECA Norma Rangel Nuevo León 

Albes Gaona EPA, OIA Rick Van Schoik SCERP 

Nina Hapner 

Native American Environmental 

Protection Coalition (NAEPC) Paula Stigler Pala Band of Mission Indians 
State of the Border Region 

Indicators Report 2005 DRAFT – April 19, 2006

23

Future Direction 

Production of a subsequent, more comprehensive indicator report covering up to the Program’s 

mid-term (2003 to 2007) is anticipated for release in 2008. This next report will provide a more 

complete view of the environmental and public health conditions of the border region and 

progress made towards meeting Program goals and objectives. Work towards the next report as 

well as other future reports will result in an improved and expanded binational indicator set. In 

order to accomplish this, BITF’s goal is to further refine the existing indicators and continue to 

identify and develop optimal, quality indicators while increasing transparency and seeking 

harmonization across the various entities. 

Broad participation and representation is essential for developing and reporting indicators that 

are relevant and beneficial to border communities. Stakeholder input was instrumental in the 

development of this initial report, and the Border Indicators Task Force will continue to count on 

their involvement. However, more awareness and participation is needed as there are many data 

gaps and research needs for ongoing development of binational indicators. Through the 

Program’s outreach efforts, Border 2012 will build relationships with and invite citizens, 

governmental and non-governmental entities, tribes, academia, the private sector, and others to 

be partners in this indicators initiative. Data from all these sources are vital to building a 

sustainable long-term effort that effectively measures and reports on the environmental and 

public health conditions of the US- Mexico border region. 

Future indicator reports will continue to be available in both electronic and print formats to 

provide stakeholders with broader access to US-Mexico border information. Supporting 

documentation will also be available at www.epa.gov/border2012/indicators.htm. 

Comments? 

The Border Indicators Task Force welcomes your comments to help improve future editions. 

Please contact us via email at: (insert box address) 

Additional information about the Border 2012 program is available at www.epa.gov/border2012 

EPA, Office of Environmental Information 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

[T] 202 566-1810 

[F] 202 566-0699

SEMARNAT, Office of Statistics and Environmental 

Information 

México, DF, México 14210 

[T] 52-55 5628-0854 

[F] 52-55 5628-0853