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 Protection Agency (EPA), Designated Federal Officer, 

GNEB, thanked Board members for their work on the draft for the Twelfth Report to the 

President and Congress, especially Dr. Diane Austin and Ms. Ann Marie Wolf. Mr. Joyce 

apologized for the collapsed time frame but noted that 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 administration and draw attention to issues that the 

Board has been interested in for years. 

Dr. Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB, reminded members that the Board operates by consensus; 

therefore, if any issues arise in which consensus cannot be reached, they should be discussed 

during the teleconference or afterward. The Board must discuss the preliminary matter, 

particularly the recommendations, which have attracted 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, and case studies; he asked members to raise 

substantive issues and concrete suggestions rather than focusing 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 during the call. Before the end of the call, 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 small subcommittees to examine 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 group them together in an appendix, 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 recommendations and had tried to respond to the fact 

that the Board is a federal committee. The Board advises the federal government, and therefore it 

is important to think about the government’s role. Some very helpful suggestions had been made 

regarding how to improve the first section. 

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

section. She noted that of the nine case studies, only one listed EPA as the key partner. 

Nevertheless, the recommendations are focused 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’s 
January 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 the report. She had believed that the Board 

was going to investigate innovative activities in the field, highlight them, and encourage 

additional, similar activities. Mr. Joyce said that 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 stakeholders and the effectiveness of Border 2012 in 

bringing stakeholders together; that 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 discussions with others on the Board, questions had been raised about 

whether the word “innovation” belonged 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 results. Mr. Michael Dorsey, San Diego Department 

of Environmental Health, suggested that given that this 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 highly innovative, even though 

some of them were not necessarily high-technology. He thought that perhaps the thesis statement 

in the Introduction could be strengthened, but overall he was comfortable with the idea of saying 

that the case studies were innovative. Ms. Lawson agreed that with the exception of the scrap tire 

case study, most of the case studies 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 the technologies described were not necessarily 

innovative; instead, it was their application and the collaborative efforts 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 between the case studies and the recommendations at 

the beginning of the report clearer. Ms. Lawson agreed but expressed 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 programs. Instead, the Report should make more 

specific and substantive recommendations similar to those made in past Reports. 

Dr. Ganster asked whether the Board 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 of 
January 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 3

money. It was noted that for those in the border region, there was a large 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 the beginning of the Report or in a box for each 

case study. When reading the case studies, she had found it difficult to determine the results 

without reviewing the cases in great detail; other readers might 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 studies 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 would 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 investment in such approaches brings big benefits. 

Ms. Allyson Siwik, Gila Resources Information Project, 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 administration, especially in terms of renewable energy and 

the need to foster robust markets to obtain increased 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 related to materials reuse. Dr. Ganster agreed that 

facilitating this growth is a very appropriate 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 mobilization—the bottom-up approach. Mr. Manzanilla 

added that the recommendations should indicate lessons learned from the case studies in terms of 

what works and therefore needs continued support. What legal, financial, structural, and 

coordination impediments could be addressed that would facilitate 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, including impediments, and develop recommendations around key, core elements 

that have been learned from these case studies. 

Mr. Hans Huth, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, who was standing in for Board 

member Ms. Susan Keith, provided some perspective 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 municipalities 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 the knowledge base from the project participants 

to other stakeholders that might be interested in adopting the technologies. The GNEB and EPA 

could provide a way to document formally how to make biodiesel, fibercrete, and so on by 
January 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 send him their specific 

suggestions for changes in the recommendations by mid-afternoon on Friday, January 9, 2009, 

after which he would rework the recommendations 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 Executive Summary would need to be rewritten as the Board reworked 

the rest of the Report, and there would be little 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 discussed 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 roles of Ciudad Juárez and 

Fort Bliss in the Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalination Plant project to be clarified; she considers 

this an important correction but not a substantive change. Dr. Brown said that he would like to 

insert a thesis statement into the Introduction; his understanding was that this Report was to 

provide a discussion of innovative approaches to pollution prevention in the U.S.-Mexico 

borderlands that promote environmental protection and protect the welfare of border residents. 

The current opening sentences do not make that case strongly enough. Dr. Ganster asked 

Dr. Brown to provide an opening statement in line with his proposal. 

Mr. Niemeyer said that several lines about the Rio Grande implied 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 acknowledge the contributions of the late Mr. Carlos 

Marin to the Board’s work. Several members suggested putting an “In Memory Of” box near the 

front of the Report. Dr. Brown asked whether it would be appropriate to dedicate the Report to 

Dr. Marin, in recognition of his important work in the Border community. Board members 

agreed that such a dedication would be appropriate, and a suggestion was made to include his 

photograph as well. Ms. Lisa Almodovar, EPA, drew the Board’s attention to another Report that 

included a dedication in memory of a deceased member 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 discussions of case studies and case highlights on pages 4 and 5, with 

their accompanying tables, were confusing. He suggested that there should be a paragraph that 

explains the difference between case studies and case 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 inserted into a framework in this part of the Report 

under the assumption that editing would occur later. Mr. Joyce said that he understood that 

Ms. Spock would be undertaking the types of changes just discussed in consultation with key 

Board members, and Dr. Ganster agreed that the changes would be made in this manner. 

Discussion of Case Studies 

The Board discussed the schedule and mechanism for comments and changes 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 comments that Board members send to Ms. Spock. The 

goal is to send a revised version of the case studies to all Board members by close of business 

Wednesday, January 14, 2009, so that it can be discussed in the conference 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 members can review the complete working draft of the 

document before the conference call. 

Dr. Austin said that for all case studies, she and Ms. Wolf needed help regarding contact 

information for key partners and information about 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 receive 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 rationale 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 mentioned organizations only and asked whether the 

Board should be consistent. Dr. Austin noted that in some cases including the names provided 

important information, particularly for large organizations 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. Siwik said that if names were 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 large numbers of participants, including federal, 

state, and local agencies; nongovernmental 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 get in touch with these individuals. Mr. Niemeyer 

suggested putting contact information for individuals at the various organizations into an 

appendix. Dr. Ganster proposed listing the main partners involved and referring people to 
January 8, 2009, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Draft Teleconference Minutes 6

institutions or the projects’ own Web sites. Dr. Austin said that for large 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. Joyce 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 had 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 said that he had just found out before the 

conference call that the trees mentioned in the case grew to a harvestable extent, but they could 

not be harvested because of a lack of money. He suggested either deleting or modifying the 

discussion of this case. Dr. Ganster said that he had visited this site, as perhaps other Board 

members have, and that it had created a substantial forest on a flood plain 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 partially 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 concrete 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 and 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 had 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 conclusions of the case study. Dr. Ganster asked 

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

Ms. Siwik said that some were used in reclamation 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. Manzanilla said that his group might have 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 Partnership.” There were no comments. 

Dr. Ganster then asked for comments on the Kay Bailey Hutchison Desalinization Plant case 

study. He noted that a number of specific comments 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 explained that the plant was not designed to reduce 

the arid region’s dependence on groundwater; in fact, it is a project that uses groundwater. She 

wanted to rephrase the description to indicate that the intent of the project was to augment 

existing water supplies and protect fresh groundwater supplies from brackish water intrusion. 

Ms. Spener said that she would send a correction about the population of Fort Bliss to 

Ms. Spock. Dr. Ganster expressed concern that the participation of Ciudad 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 initial studies to characterize the 

transboundary aquifer in the region, but the desalinization project 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 Water 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 the major issue is that 

although the wetlands are quite successful at removing certain pollutants, selenium accumulates 

in the sediments and eventually the food chain. Some 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 forward Dr. Ganster some additional language that 

would further clarify that wastewater has different characteristics than river water, giving 

selenium as an example, and there are special considerations in the design 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 this was mentioned in the first draft of the text. 

Therefore, the people involved are certainly aware that the bioaccumulation of selenium is a 

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

said that an earlier draft of the text had indicated that for the Imperial Wetland, the source water 

is entirely agricultural drainage from the Alamo River, but the Brawley Wetland treats water 

from the New River. Mr. Niemeyer said that the regional water quality control board should have 

definitive information. Ms. Spener agreed to contact this board to determine whether the origin 

of the water for the Imperial Wetland is the Alamo River or whether it is agricultural drainage 

from another source. 

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

additional contextual information on border energy issues, and he would try to add that 

information during the next week. Dr. Austin asked Mr. Joyce or Ms. Ann Marie Gantner to send 

Mr. Mike Connolly the text of the current draft of this section to review, particularly highlighting 

the framework. Mr. Joyce agreed to send Mr. Connolly 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 Norte. Dr. Ganster said 

that some corrections had come in, but overall the case study appeared to be in acceptable 

condition. Mr. Niemeyer said that he had clarified some issues in this case study, including the 

fact that despite the efforts made, El Paso Electric never actually sought credits. Board members 

agreed that including this information was important to the credibility of the case study. 

Dr. Austin said that the slowness of getting the brick kilns constructed might explain in part why 

the utility chose not to seek credits; sufficient credits may have been available from other 

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

Mr. Manzanilla said that he would provide comments about emissions trading not being allowed 

under the federal Clean Air Act or state 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. Ganster suggested that perhaps the 

recommendation should say that an appropriate role for the federal government is to facilitate the 

transboundary emissions trading process for all areas along the border. Mr. Manzanilla 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. Although the concept of 

transboundary emissions trading is sound, the hurdles to its implementation are significant. 

Dr. Ganster suggested that the Report should identify the impediments 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 Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) for the Improvement 

of Air Quality in the Paso del Norte Air Basin 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 other 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. Ganster said that this issue had been raised in a 

previous Report and that he would 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 had incorporated portions of a summary that the 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality had 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 significantly; they consist of updated 

data, a figure that provides information on carbon dioxide offset, and acknowledgments of 

stakeholders. Mr. Huth and Dr. Austin discussed the inclusion of information on monetary 

amounts of donations and future events; they agreed that it was important to keep the case 

studies consistent in their 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 November advice letter on cross-border emergency 

response in the Report, but there would not be time to prepare a business section of the type 

included in previous Reports. 

Logistics 

The Board decided that e-mails regarding changes in the Report should be sent to everyone, 

including Ms. Spock, except in instances where the 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; remind 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 values the input of resource people, 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 recommendations to Dr. Ganster by noon on Friday, 

January 9, 2009. Dr. Ganster will then incorporate their suggestions into the 

recommendations with the goal of sending a revised 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 studies 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. Ganster, Dr. Austin, and 

Ms. Wolf on Monday, January 12. Board members 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 revised version of the case studies to the 

Board for review on Wednesday, January 14, 2009, in preparation for the January 16, 2009, 

conference call.

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

• Mr. Manzanilla will send additional language regarding 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 quality 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 information 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, with an emphasis on the discussion of the 

framework.

• Mr. Manzanilla will provide comments for the Paso del Norte case study about emissions 

trading restrictions under the federal 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 incorporated into Ms. Austin’s draft on waste-based 

biodiesel. 

• Ms. Gantner will send Ms. Spock’s contact information 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.com
January 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.gov 
January 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.com
January 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 states contiguous to Mexico. The findings and 

recommendations of the Board do not represent the views of the Agency, and this document does not 

represent information approved or disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency.