January 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 1 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) January 8, 2009

1:00-3:30 p.m. Final Teleconference Summary

Mr. Mark Joyce, U.S. Environmental Protecti on Agency (EPA), Designated Federal Officer, GNEB, thanked Board members for their work on the draft for the Twelfth Report to the President and Congress, especi ally Dr. Diane Austin and Ms. Ann Marie Wolf. Mr. Joyce apologized for the collapsed time frame but noted th at an effort must be made to finalize the Report by Friday, January 16, 2008. The next GNEB meeting will be held in March, and there will be great opportunity to engage the new admini stration and draw attenti on to issues that the Board has been interested in for years.

Dr. Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB, reminded me mbers that the Board operates by consensus; therefore, if any issues arise in which consen sus cannot be reached, they should be discussed during the teleconference or afterward. The Bo ard must discuss the preliminary matter, particularly the recommendations, which have at tracted a number of suggestions and comments. Following this, the GNEB should examine the rest of the text, including the front matter, executive summary, discussion of context, a nd case studies; he asked members to raise

substantive issues and concrete suggestions rather than focu sing on copy editing changes. It should be possible for the contractor, Ms. Mary Spock of the Scientific Consulting Group, Inc., to compile the copy editing changes, and he did not want to devote time to issues more related to style than substance duri ng the call. Before the end of the cal l, the Board should discuss how to proceed. Depending on the issues raised, the Report could be passed to Ms. Spock to prepare a new draft, or it might be necessary to convene sm all subcommittees to exam ine specific sections.

Dr. Ganster noted that some Board members believe that there is a need to take the sections at the end of each case study and gr oup them together in an appe ndix, perhaps labeled “For More Information.” This change in structure would make for a cleaner report and allow for a better

flow of text.

Discussion of the Recommendations

Dr. Ganster noted that he had drafted the recomm endations and had tried to respond to the fact

that the Board is a federal committee. The Board advises the federal gove rnment, and therefore it is important to think about the government’s role. Some very help ful suggestions had been made regarding how to improv e the first section.

Ms. Linda Lawson, U.S. Department of Tran sportation, had submitted comments on the first

section. She noted that of the nine case studies, only one list ed EPA as the key partner. Nevertheless, the recommendations are focuse d on improving EPA programs and providing them with more funding. In the current draft, there is a disconnect between the recommendations and the case studies, and it is important to link them.

Mr. Stephen Niemeyer, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, asked Ms. Lawson

whether she recommended that the Board list EPA in all of the case studies. Ms. Lawson’sJanuary 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 2 concern is that the draft does not contain the substance to support what the Board’s message about funding. The question is the overall purpose of th e report. She had believed that the Board was going to investigate innovativ e activities in the field, highlight them, and encourage additional, similar activities. Mr. Joyce said th at Ms. Lawson’s impression of the overall purpose of the report was correct, but the purpose of featuring the case studies was to describe how the lessons learned from these projects will enable the development of better approaches to environmental problems in the future.

Dr. Ganster wrote the recommendations based on the fact that the case studies illustrate interesting interactions among various stakehol ders and the effectiven ess of Border 2012 in bringing stakeholders together; th at is why he noted that added resources to support the process would be very useful. He wanted to emphasize the important convening role that the Border 2012 process had played in several of the cases studied.

Dr. Ganster noted that in discus sions with others on the Board, que stions had been raised about

whether the word “innovation” belo nged in the title. The use of this word might not be apt because many of the projects are not particularly innovative, even though they are practical, onthe-ground efforts that seem to be producing resu lts. Mr. Michael Dorse y, San Diego Department of Environmental Health, suggested that given that th is report would be issued during the new administration, which supports clean technologies, perhaps using the term “clean technologies” in the recommendations and the title might be useful. Dr. Christopher Brown, New Mexico State University, stated that he believed that the case studies were highl y innovative, even though

some of them were not necessa rily high-technology. He thought that perhaps the thesis statement in the Introduction could be strengthened, but overa ll he was comfortable w ith the idea of saying

that the case studies were innovati ve. Ms. Lawson agreed that with the exception of the scrap tire case study, most of the case studie s were innovative, but she did not believe that the Board’s

recommendations addressed that issue. Dr. Ganster said that part of the concern about the use of

the term “innovative” stems from the fact that th e technologies described were not necessarily innovative; instead, it was their application and the collaborative effort s involving them that

could be described as innovative.

Dr. Carlos Rincón, EPA Region 6, pointed out that EPA is a stakeholder in each of the case studies, and it may be necessary to mention EPA as a key partner in each instance. This will indicate that the approaches described in the case studies can serve as positive examples for other projects in which EPA plays a role.

Dr. Brown said that one way to strengthen the recommendations would be to mention the importance of Border 2012 coordination as a “Point to Consider” in all instances in which it is applicable. This would make the linkage betwee n the case studies and the recommendations at the beginning of the report cl earer. Ms. Lawson agreed but expr essed concern that the Report should not simply call for more funding for EPA programs; this would be undesirable in the current tight funding climate for domestic pr ograms. Instead, the Report should make more specific and substantive recommendations si milar to those made in past Reports.

Dr. Ganster asked whether the Boar d wanted to be specific about the amount of funds devoted to Border 2012 in different years or whether it would be better to avoid specific mentions ofJanuary 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 3 money. It was noted that for those in the borde r region, there was a larg e increase in funding in the post-North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) period, but that funding later dropped drastically despite increased needs. Ms. Lawson said that it would be reasonable to make a statement of fact about funding in the Introduction, but funding should not be the focus of the Report.

Ms. Lawson suggested that the results of the case studies could be more accessible if they were pulled out and put in the key messages point at th e beginning of the Report or in a box for each case study. When reading the case studies, she ha d found it difficult to determine the results without reviewing the cases in great detail; other readers mi ght have the same problem. Dr. Ganster agreed that this was a good suggestion. He proposed adjusting the recommendations to state something such as: “These case studie s demonstrate that organizational and coordination efforts of federal agencies have been very effective in mobilizing participation on all levels and that continued support of this in the future w ould pay big dividends.” Such a statement would illustrate how energy in the border has been mobilized through Border 2012 and other efforts, including some at the state level, and investme nt in such approaches brings big benefits.

Ms. Allyson Siwik, Gila Resources Information Pr oject, suggested that the topic of fostering markets could be added to the recommendations, as it cuts across several case studies. This concept also would fit with the new administrati on, especially in terms of renewable energy and

the need to foster robust markets to obtain incr eased renewable energy generation capacity in the border region. If this geographic area is optimal for solar or wind energy, it is important to determine whether federal level regulations or tax incentives could strengthen the market. The same could apply to some of the issues relate d to materials reuse. Dr . Ganster agreed that facilitating this growth is a very appr opriate role for the federal government.

Mr. Enrique Manzanilla, EPA Region 9, noted that the Board must remember that an element in all of these case studies is community mob ilization—the bottom-up approach. Mr. Manzanilla

added that the recommendations should indicate le ssons learned from the cas e studies in terms of what works and therefore needs continued suppo rt. What legal, financial, structural, and coordination impediments could be addressed that would facilita te more of these types of projects? Some of these lessons will identify some impediments, such as the legal impediment to transboundary emissions trading in Paso del Norte in terms of federal law and state law in the

three border states other than Texas. Mr. Manzanilla agreed that the Board should highlight these considerations, includin g impediments, and develop recomm endations around key, core elements

that have been learned from these case studies.

Mr. Hans Huth, Arizona Department of Envir onmental Quality, who was standing in for Board member Ms. Susan Keith, provided some perspe ctive on impediments based on his experience working on the biodiesel project in Sonora and in Arizona. The projects are relatively small and without much funding, but when other municipal ities learn about them, they become very interested in learning about the technology and perhaps applying it in their own communities. There is no formal mechanism for transferring th e knowledge base from the project participants to other stakeholders that might be interest ed in adopting the technologies. The GNEB and EPA could provide a way to document formally how to make biodiesel, fibercrete, and so on byJanuary 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 4 creating a document on the subjects by encapsulating what has been learned so that it can be shared throughout the broader border community.

Dr. Ganster asked Ms. Lawson, Dr. Brown, and Mr. Manzanilla to se nd him their specific suggestions for changes in the recommenda tions by mid-afternoon on Friday, January 9, 2009,

after which he would rework the recommenda tions and send a revised draft to all Board members by Wednesday, January 14, 2009. Ms. Siwik and Mr. Niemeyer also volunteered to be

involved in this effort.

Discussion of the Executive Summary

Dr. Ganster said that the Executiv e Summary would need to be re written as the Board reworked the rest of the Report, and there would be li ttle value in spending time on it during the call.

Discussion of the Introduction and Border Context Sections

Dr. Ganster asked Board members for their comments on the Introduction and Border Context sections. Ms. Lawson said that pages 1 through 11 need heavy-handed editing. Dr. Ganster said that Ms. Spock would provide the editing, and he and other Board members who wished to be

involved would review the text as well. Mr. Niemeyer noted that many points made in the

Introduction also have been disc ussed in previous Board Reports ; he suggested that it might make sense to refer to those previous Reports . Ms. Sally Spener, International Boundary and Water Commission, said that she would like some language about the role s of Ciudad Juárez and Fort Bliss in the Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalinati on Plant project to be cl arified; she considers this an important correction but not a substantive change. Dr. Brow n said that he would like to

insert a thesis statement into the Introduction; his understandi ng was that this Report was to provide a discussion of innovative approaches to pollution prevention in the U.S.-Mexico borderlands that promote environmental protectio n and protect the welfare of border residents. The current opening sentences do not make th at case strongly enough. Dr. Ganster asked Dr. Brown to provide an opening stat ement in line with his proposal.

Mr. Niemeyer said that several lines about the Rio Grande implie d that there would always be drought in this area, which is not accurate. He noted that he had sent a comment about this point

and wanted to make sure that it was being addressed.

Board members discussed possible ways to acknowle dge the contributions of the late Mr. Carlos Marin to the Board’s work. Several members sugge sted putting an “In Memory Of” box near the front of the Report. Dr. Brown as ked whether it would be appropria te to dedicate the Report to Dr. Marin, in recognition of hi s important work in the Border community. Board members agreed that such a dedication would be appropr iate, and a suggestion was made to include his photograph as well. Ms. Lisa Almod ovar, EPA, drew the Board’s at tention to another Report that included a dedication in memory of a deceased me mber and suggested that the format used in that Report might be appropriate.

Ms. Lawson noted that she would provide some corrected language for the discussion of tire recycling.January 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 5 Dr. Brown stated that the discus sions of case studies and case highlights on pages 4 and 5, with their accompanying tables, were confusing. He sugge sted that there should be a paragraph that explains the difference between case studies and cas e highlights. Dr. Ganster said that Ms. Spock could provide suggestions on how best to do this. Dr. Austin, University of Arizona, said that given the time crunch, sections had just been insert ed into a framework in this part of the Report under the assumption that editing would occur late r. Mr. Joyce said that he understood that Ms. Spock would be undertaking th e types of changes just discu ssed in consultation with key Board members, and Dr. Ganster agreed that th e changes would be made in this manner.

Discussion of Case Studies

The Board discussed the schedule and mechanism for comments and cha nges regarding the case

studies. All members with comments should send them to the group and Ms. Spock by close of business Friday, January 9, 2009. Ms. Spock will deal with editorial comments and send a list of

substantive issues to Dr. Austin and Ms. Wolf. Dr. Austin noted that she would be able to identify many of the substantive issues from the comments submitted on Friday, and she and Ms. Wolf should receive copies of all commen ts that Board members send to Ms. Spock. The goal is to send a revised versi on of the case studies to all Bo ard members by close of business Wednesday, January 14, 2009, so that it can be di scussed in the confer ence call on Friday, January 16, 2009. If the recommendations are complete by January 14, 2009, Ms. Spock will incorporate it into the draft so that Board memb ers can review the complete working draft of the

document before the conference call.

Dr. Austin said that for all case studies, sh e and Ms. Wolf needed help regarding contact information for key partners and information a bout funding. She noted that a decision had been made to not include dollar amounts of funding in the case studies; however, information about funding sources is needed. In all cases, key partners and funders should be mentioned; if they are overlooked, the Report could receiv e a negative reaction. Dr. Ganster commented that the many participants involved in each project tend to see their own roles as being the most important, so it may be hard identify key people; this is one ra tionale for putting this information in an appendix.

Ms. Siwik noted that some of the case studies mentioned both organizations and individuals’ names as key partners, whereas others menti oned organizations only and asked whether the

Board should be consistent. Dr. Austin noted th at in some cases including the names provided important information, particularly for large or ganizations such as EPA. In other instances, however, no information on individuals’ names was available, and given the timeframe, it would not be possible to obtain this information. Ms. Siwi k said that if names we re used, the possibility of omitting someone important could become a concern.

Dr. Ganster suggested mentioning institutions that participated and then saying “and others.” He

noted that some of the case studies involved a la rge numbers of participan ts, including federal, state, and local agencies; nongove rnmental organizations; and universities. It would be

worthwhile to include contact information for the principal institutional representatives so that if readers are interested in a topic, they could ge t in touch with these individuals. Mr. Niemeyer suggested putting contact information for indivi duals at the various organizations into an appendix. Dr. Ganster proposed listing the main partners involved a nd referring people toJanuary 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 6 institutions or the projects’ own Web sites. Dr. Austin said that for la rge organizations, it would be helpful to indicate the relevant subunit (e .g., Region 9 at EPA). She also noted that because the projects discussed in the case studies are relatively new, many do not have Web sites or even an official report on the project to which readers could be directed. Mr. Jo yce pointed out that it

had been mentioned earlier that to make the text flow better, the material on key partners, contact information, and references would be placed in an appendix in the back of the Report. Dr. Ganster agreed but acknowledged that it might not be possible to get contact information for every case study.

Dr. Ganster asked for discussion of the content of the case studies, in particular ideas for language to tie the case studies back to the Introduction or recommendations.

Mr. Joyce asked whether all Board members ha d seen Judge Jerry Agan’s comments about outdated information in the Ojinaga highlight. Mr. Joyce reminded Board members of the need for accuracy to preserve the Board’s credibility. Ms. Spener proposed that the Ojinaga case study should be deleted from the Report. Dr. Brown sa id that he had just found out before the

conference call that the trees men tioned in the case grew to a harv estable extent, but they could not be harvested because of a lack of money. He suggested either de leting or modifying the

discussion of this case. Dr. Gans ter said that he had visited th is site, as perhaps other Board members have, and that it had created a substa ntial forest on a flood pl ain and was preventing

dust circulation. He asked whether discussion of the project really needed to be deleted. Dr. Rincón said that the project had been only pa rtially successful and did not reach the goal of commercial benefits, and the trees are not in place currently. The Board decided to eliminate the case highlight from the Report.

Dr. Ganster asked for comments on the fibrous conc rete case study. Dr. Austin said that she had received very useful, specific comments on this case from Ms. Spener. Dr. Brown said that it

should be mentioned that this a nd other case studies relied on Border 2012. A note of that should

be included in the Points to Consider, thus strengthening the link back to the recommendations. Dr. Ganster said that some technical questions had been raised about this case study, and these

would be directed to Dr. Austin.

With regard to the scrap tire cleanup case study, Ms. Siwik said that she ha d been fact checking; she already had sent some of her comments to Dr. Ganster and would be sending additional comments, none of which would change the conc lusions of the case study. Dr. Ganster asked

whether Ms. Siwik had been able to determin e what happened to the tire bales in Deming.

Ms. Siwik said that some were used in reclamat ion of an old landfill, and some were used in a New Mexico Department of Transportation erosion control project. The tire bales were not used for the amphitheater. Mr. Manzani lla said that his group might ha ve some comments on this case study, but they were not likely to be very substantive.

Dr. Ganster asked if there were comments on the text box titled, “Innovation in Conserving Resources: Upper San Pedro Partne rship.” There were no comments.

Dr. Ganster then asked for comments on the Ka y Bailey Hutchison Desalinization Plant case study. He noted that a number of specific commen ts had been sent regarding this case study.January 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 7 Ms. Spener said that some of the comments were hers, and there were no major issues, but she had clarified the italicized description. She expl ained that the plant was not designed to reduce the arid region’s dependence on gr oundwater; in f act, it is a project that uses groundwater. She wanted to rephrase the descripti on to indicate that the intent of the project was to augment existing water supplies and protect fresh ground water supplies from brackish water intrusion. Ms. Spener said that she would send a correct ion about the populati on of Fort Bliss to Ms. Spock. Dr. Ganster expressed concern that the participation of Ci udad Juárez in the case may have been exaggerated. Ms. Spener said that she had rephrased a sentence in the Introduction to clarify that Ciudad Juárez was involved in the init ial studies to characterize the transboundary aquifer in the re gion, but the desalinization proj ect itself was developed by the water utilities in Fort Bliss. Ms. Spener said that the language used in the case study was taken directly from the El Paso Wa ter Utilities Web Site, but she questioned whether that language may have exaggerated the role of Ciudad Juárez . The project would have some ancillary benefit for Ciudad Juárez, however, because that community has been dealing with a serious problem of brackish water intrusion into the aquifer.

With regard to the Imperial Wetlands case study, Dr . Ganster said that th e major issue is that although the wetlands are quite succ essful at removing certain pollutants, selenium accumulates in the sediments and eventually the food chain. So me language has been added to point out that

the selenium issue will need to be addressed in the future. Dr . Ganster asked whether the added language was sufficient to address any concerns . Mr. Manzanilla responded that EPA staff had raised selenium as an issue, and he would fo rward Dr. Ganster some additional language that would further clarify that wastewater has diffe rent characteristics than river water, giving selenium as an example, and there are special considerations in the de sign and monitoring of wetlands used to treat river water. Ms. Spener commented that research near the New River Wetlands also raised selenium as an issue, and th is was mentioned in the first draft of the text. Therefore, the people involved ar e certainly aware that the bioaccumulation of selenium is a

concern. Dr. Ganster asked whether the Alamo Ri ver contributes to the wetlands. Ms. Spener

said that an earlier draft of th e text had indicated that for th e Imperial Wetland, the source water is entirely agricultural drainage from the Al amo River, but the Braw ley Wetland treats water from the New River. Mr. Niemeyer said that th e regional water quality co ntrol board should have definitive information. Ms. Spener agreed to cont act this board to determine whether the origin of the water for the Imperial Wetland is the Alam o River or whether it is agricultural drainage

from another source.

Dr. Ganster suggested that the section on the Campo Kumeyaay Wi nd Project could benefit from

additional contextual information on border ener gy issues, and he would try to add that information during the next week. Dr. Austin as ked Mr. Joyce or Ms. Ann Marie Gantner to send Mr. Mike Connolly the text of the current draft of this section to review, part icularly highlighting the framework. Mr. Joyce agreed to send Mr. Conno lly the draft but cautioned that Mr. Connolly might be difficult to reach.

Dr. Ganster asked for comments on the text box on the CETYS University master’s degree program. There were no comments.January 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 8 The Board then discussed the case study on emissions trading in Paso del No rte. Dr. Ganster said that some corrections had come in, but overa ll the case study appeared to be in acceptable condition. Mr. Niemeyer said that he had clarified some issu es in this case study, including the fact that despite the efforts made, El Paso Elect ric never actually sought credits. Board members agreed that including this information was impor tant to the credibility of the case study. Dr. Austin said that the slowness of getting the brick kilns constructed mi ght explain in part why the utility chose not to seek credits; sufficien t credits may have been available from other

sources. Mr. Huth noted that some of th e kilns were destroyed in flooding in 2006.

Mr. Manzanilla said that he w ould provide comments about emissi ons trading not being allowed

under the federal Clean Air Act or st ate law in three of the border states. He also noted that the summary referred briefly to water in addition to air issues. He said that if water was to be mentioned, more context relating to it would be desirable. Dr. Gans ter suggested that perhaps the recommendation should say that an appropriate role for the federal government is to facilitate the transboundary emissions trading pr ocess for all areas al ong the border. Mr. Man zanilla said that it would be necessary to go into greater depth than that because the problem involves statutory, technical, and bilateral impediments rather than facilitation. A lthough the concept of transboundary emissions trading is sound, the hurdles to its imp lementation are significant. Dr. Ganster suggested that the Report should identify the impedi ments to be clearer about its

recommendation. Mr. Manzanilla offered to look for information from additional analyses on emissions trading.

Dr. Ganster stated that the text box on the Jo int Advisory Committee (JAC) for the Improvement of Air Quality in the Paso del Norte Air Basi n had been well vetted and asked Board members whetehr they had any further comments. Ms. Siwik said that she had one sentence to add at the end about the idea of using the JAC model in othe r places along the border and for other media. She agreed to send this addition to Dr. Ganster.

Dr. Ganster asked for comments on the Community Assist of Southern Arizona (CASA) case study and brought up the use of the term promotora , which is the feminine of promotor . In common language, promotora often is used because most of the trained community volunteers are women, but men are involved as well. Dr. Ganste r said that this issue had been raised in a previous Report and that he woul d see how the situation had been handled in that instance. Board members did not have any other comments on the CASA case study.

Dr. Ganster asked for comments on the text box on spray guns. There were no comments.

With regard to the waste biodiesel case study, Dr . Ganster reported that there had been input

from several sources. Mr. Huth said that he ha d incorporated portions of a summary that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality ha d prepared into Dr. Austin’s summary, and he

would forward that material to Dr. Ganster and Ms. Spock by the end of the day. Mr. Huth said that the changes had not altered the length of the section signif icantly; they consist of updated data, a figure that provides information on car bon dioxide offset, and acknowledgments of

stakeholders. Mr. Huth and Dr. Austin discu ssed the inclusion of information on monetary amounts of donations and future events; they agreed that it wa s important to keep the case

studies consistent in thei r handling of these items.January 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 9 Other Sections

The Board decided to include a copy of the Nove mber advice letter on cross-border emergency response in the Report, but there would not be time to prepare a busine ss section of the type included in previous Reports.

Logistics

The Board decided that e-mails regarding change s in the Report should be sent to everyone, including Ms. Spock, except in instances where th e message is directed to one specific person.

Mr. José Garcia of EPA and Ms. Almodovar were added to the e-mail list. Ms. Gantner will email members Ms. Spock’s contact information; re mind them to send comments to all, including Ms. Spock and Dr. Ganster; and provide information on the schedule for submitting comments for the benefit of those who had not participated in the conference call. Dr. Ganster mentioned that although the Board greatly va lues the input of resource peopl e, ultimately, it is the Board

members who must come to consensus.

Action Items

• Ms. Lawson, Dr. Brown, Mr. Manzanilla, Mr. Niemeyer, and Ms. Siwik will send their specific suggestions pertaining to the reco mmendations to Dr. Ganster by noon on Friday, January 9, 2009. Dr. Ganster will then in corporate their suggestions into the recommendations with the goal of sending a re vised version of the recommendations to Ms. Spock by Wednesday, January 14, 2009, so that she can combine them with the revised

case studies and send the document to the entire Board for review before the conference call on Friday, January 16, 2009.

• Dr. Brown will provide Dr. Ganster with a suggested introductory statement.

• Ms. Lawson will provide corrected language for the discussion of tire recycling.

• Board members with comments on the case studi es will send them to the group by close of business Friday, January 9, 2009. Ms. Spock then will address the editorial issues and compile a list of substantive issues, which she will send to Dr. Ganste r, Dr. Austin, and Ms. Wolf on Monday, January 12. Board memb ers should copy Dr. Austin and Ms. Wolf when sending comments to Ms. Spock so that they can get a head start on answering substantive questions. Ms. Spock will send the re vised version of the case studies to the Board for review on Wednesday, January 14, 200 9, in preparation for the January 16, 2009,

conference call.

• Ms. Siwik will send additional comments on th e tire cleanup case study to Dr. Ganster.

• Mr. Manzanilla will send additional language rega rding the selenium issue in the Imperial

Wetlands to Dr. Ganster.January 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 10 • Ms. Spener will contact the regional water qua lity control board to determine whether the origin of the water for the Imperial Wetlands is the Alamo River or agricultural drainage

from another source.

• Dr. Ganster will add additional contextual info rmation on border energy issues to the Campo Kumeyaay Wind Project case study.

• Mr. Joyce will attempt to contact Mr. Connolly to ask him to review the current draft of the Campo Kumeyaay Wind Project case study, wi th an emphasis on the discussion of the

framework.

• Mr. Manzanilla will provide comments for th e Paso del Norte case study about emissions trading restrictions under the fede ral Clean Air Act or state law in three of the border states. He also will seek additional analyses of the impact of emissions trading.

• Ms. Siwik will send Dr. Ganster an additional sentence for the text box on the JAC for the Improvement of Air Quality in the Paso del Norte Air Basin.

• Dr. Ganster will examine prior Reports to determine the customary use of promotor or promotora

.

• Mr. Huth will forward to Dr. Ganster and Ms. Spock a summary of the information his agency had submitted to Dr. Austin for her review and approval, as well as information from a report by his agency that he had incorporat ed into Ms. Austin’s draft on waste-based

biodiesel.

• Ms. Gantner will send Ms. Spock’s contact info rmation to all members, remind all members of the deadlines for submitting comments, and ask everyone to send copies of their e-mails to all, including Ms. Spock.January 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 11 • PARTICIPANTS

NONGOVERNMENTAL, STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL MEMBERS

Chair Paul Ganster, Ph.D.

Director Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias Associate Director, International Programs San Diego State University 5500 Campanile Drive, AL-377 San Diego, CA 92182-4403 Telephone: 619-594-5423

E-mail: pganster@mail.sdsu.edu

Diane Austin, Ph.D. Associate Research Anthropologist Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology University of Arizona 316 Anthropology Building

P.O. Box 210030 Tucson, AZ 85721-0030 Telephone: 520-626-3879

E-mail: daustin@email.arizona.edu

Christopher P. Brown, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Geography Director of the Spatial Applications Research

Center Department of Geography, MSC MAP New Mexico State University

P.O. Box 30001 Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001 Telephone: 575-646-1892

E-mail: brownchr@nmsu.edu

Michael P. Dorsey

Chief Community Health Division County of San Diego San Diego Department of Environmental Health 9325 Hazard Way San Diego, CA 92123-1217 Telephone: 619-338-2395

E-mail: michael.dorsey@sdcounty.ca.gov Edward Elbrock Malpai Borderlands Group

P.O. Box 25 Animas, NM 88020 Telephone: 575-548-2270

E-mail: elbrock@vtc.net

Gary Gillen

President

Gillen Pest Control

1012 Morton Street Richmond, TX 77469 Telephone: 281-342-6969

E-mail: gary@gillenpestcontrol.com

Hans Huth (substitute for Susan Keith) Border Programs Coordinator Southern Regional Office Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 400 W. Congress, Suite 433 Tuczon, AZ 85701 Telephone: 520-628-6711

E-mail: huth.hans@azdeq.gov

Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E. Border Affairs Manager Intergovernmental Relations Texas Commission on Environmental Quality MC-121, P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 Telephone: 512-239-3606

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

Allyson Siwik

Executive Director Gila Resources Information Project 305A N. Cooper Street Silver City, NM 88061 Telephone: 505-388-4350

E-mail: asiwik@zianet.comJanuary 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 12 Marissa Stone

Communications Director New Mexico Environment Department 1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050 Santa Fe, NM 87505

E-mail: marissa.stone@state.nm.us Ann Marie A. Wolf

President Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc.

3202 E. Grant Road Tucson, AZ 85716 Telephone: 505-827-0314

E-mail: aawolf@seriaz.org

FEDERAL MEMBERS

Department of State

Daniel D. Darrach

Coordinator

U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs U.S. Department of State, WHA/MEX 2201 C Street, NW, Room 4258 Washington, DC 20520 Telephone: 202-647-8529

E-mail: darrachdd@state.gov Department of Transportation

Linda L. Lawson

Director Safety, Energy and the Environment U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Room W84310 Washington, DC 20590 Telephone: 202-366-4416

E-mail: linda.lawson@dot.gov

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICER

Mark Joyce Designated Federal Officer Good Neighbor Environmental Board U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Cooperative Environmental Management 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code: 1601-M Washington, DC 20460 Telephone: 202-564-2130

E-mail: joyce.mark@epa.gov

RESOURCE SPECIALISTS

Lisa Almodovar U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Ariel Rios Building 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code: 2650R Washington, DC 20460 Telephone: 202-564-6401

E-mail: almodovar.lisa@epa.gov Rafael Guerrero Natural Resource Manager

Natural Resources Conservation Service U.S. Department of Agriculture

501 W Felix Building 23 Fort Worth, TX 76115 Telephone: 817-509-3490

E-mail: rafael.guerrero@ftw.usda.govJanuary 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 13 Christina Machion Quilaqueo Program Analyst U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development 451 Seventh Street, SW, Room 8112 Washington, DC 20410 Telephone: 202-708-0770

E-mail: christina.machionquilaqueo@hud.gov

Enrique Manzanilla

Director Communities and Ecosystems Division Region 9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street (CED-1) San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: 415-972-3843

E-mail: manzanilla.enrique@epa.gov

Sally Spener

Public Affairs Officer International Boundary and Water Commission 4171 N. Mesa, Suite C-100 El Paso, TX 79902 Telephone: 915-832-4175 EPA Regional Office Contacts

Region 9
Alhelí Baños-Keener U.S.-Mexico Border Specialist Region 9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 610 W. Ash Street, Suite 905 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 619-235-4767

E-mail: banos.alheli@epa.gov

Region 6 Border Carlos Rincón, Ph.D.

Border Office Director Region 6 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 4050 Rio Bravo, Suite 100 El Paso, TX 79902 Telephone: 915-533-7273

E-mail: rincon.carlos@epa.gov

E-mail: sallyspener@ibwc.gov

OTHER PARTICIPANTS

Ann Marie Gantner Contractor Intern from The Washington Center U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Cooperative Environmental Management 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Mail Code: 1601-M Washington, DC 20460 Telephone: 202-564-4330

E-mail: gantner.ann-marie@epamail.epa.gov

CONTRACTOR SUPPORT

Mary Spock

Writer/Editor The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. 656 Quince Orchard Road, Suite 210 Gaithersburg, MD 20878 Telephone: 301-670-4990

E-mail: mspock@scgcorp.comJanuary 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 14 These minutes are an accurate description of the matters discussed during this meeting.

_______________________________________

Paul Ganster

Chair Good Neighbor Environmental Board

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board was created by the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act of 1992. The board is responsible for providing advice to the President and Congress on environmental

and infrastructure issues and needs within the st ates contiguous to Mexico. The findings and recommendations of the Board do not represent the vi ews of the Agency, and this document does not represent information approved or disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency.