FINAL VERSION

Officially approved by the Chair and Board at the Brownsville, Texas 

GNEB Board Meeting, July24-25, 2007 subject to edits duly 

incorporated into text that follows

Meeting Summary/Minutes

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

Sky Room, Hotel Washington

515 15th Street NW

Washington, DC

March 13-14, 2007

Administration: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

March 13-14, 2007

Table of Contents

Participants ................................................................................................................ 1

Welcome and Introductions........................................................................................5

Panel Discussion on the Tenth Report: Environmental Protection and Border 

Security on the U.S.-Mexico Border ..........................................................................6

Keynote Remarks........................................................................................... 6

Panel I: Undocumented Human Crossings.....................................................7

Panel II: Hazardous Materials Crossings........................................................9

Public Comment Session .......................................................... 11

Speaker Briefings on Eleventh Report Theme: “Natural Hazards and the U.S.-

Mexico: Border Environment....................................................................................12

Introduction and Overview .........................................................12

Keynote Address............................................................................................13

USGS Senior Science Advisor for Earthquakes and Geological Hazards ....13

Office International Affairs, FEMA, DHS ....................................................14

Office of Preparedness and Emergency Operations, HHS ............................16

Consejo Consultivo Report........................................................................................18

Business Meeting and Strategic Planning Session ....................................................19

Membership Introductions and Goals............................................................19

Approval of the Minutes from Last Meeting.................................................19

Discussion of Eleventh Report ......................................................................20

Strategic Planning Session.............................................................................23

Remarks from the EPA Administrator ..........................................................25

Board Member Report-Outs..........................................................................27

Wrap Up and Adjournment ...........................................................................27

Appendix: List of Public Attendees...........................................................................28
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 3

March 13-14, 2007

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

Sky Room, Hotel Washington

515 15th Street NW

Washington, DC

March 13-14, 2007

Meeting Participants:

Non-Federal Board Members

 Paul Ganster, Ph.D., Director, Institute for Regional Studies of the Californias, San 

Diego State University, Chair, San Diego, California

 Christopher P. Brown, Ph.D., Associate Professor, New Mexico State University, 

Las Cruces, New Mexico

 Michael P. Dorsey, Chief, Hazardous Materials Division, San Diego County 

Department of Environmental Health

 Edward Elbrock, Rancher, Malpai Borderlands Group, Animas, New Mexico

 Gary Gillen, President, Gillen Pest Control, Richmond, Texas

 Susan Keith, Southern Regional Director, Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality (ADEQ), Tucson, Arizona

 Patti Krebs, Executive Director, Industrial Environmental Association (IEA)

 Jennifer A. Montoya, U.S. Program Director, Chihuahuan Desert Conservation 

Project, World Wildlife Fund, Las Cruces, New Mexico

 Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E., Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), 

Austin, Texas

 Robert Varady, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, 

University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

 Ann Marie A. Wolf, President, Sonora Environment Research Institute, Tucson, 

Arizona

 John Wood, Commissioner, Cameron County, City of Brownsville, Texas

Federal Board Members

 Daniel D. Darrach, Coordinator, U.S.-Mexico Border Affairs, U.S. Department of 

State (DOS), Washington, DC

 Marilyn DiSirio, Associate Director of Global Health, U.S. Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 

Atlanta, Georgia

 Carl Edlund, Director of Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region 6, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Dallas, Texas

 Linda Lawson, Director, Safety, Energy and the Environment, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT)
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 3

March 13-14, 2007

 Carlos Marin, Commissioner, U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water 

Commission, (IBWC), El Paso, Texas

 Gary Robison, Acting Associate Chief, Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS)

 Rosendo Treviño, Special Assistant to the Chief, U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), San Antonio, Texas

 Shannon H. Sorzano, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, 

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)

 James Stefanov, U.S. Geological Service (USGS), U.S. Department of Interior, 

(DOI), Austin, Texas

Resource Specialists and Agency Alternates

 Christina Machion Quilaqueo, Program Analyst, HUD,Washington, DC

 Rachael Poynter, Office of Mexico Affairs, DOS, Washington, DC

 Sally Spener, Public Affairs Officer, IBWC, El Paso, Texas

 Lana Corales, CDC, DHHS, Atlanta Georgia 

Consejo Consultivo de Desarrollo Sustenable Representative, SEMARNAT 

 Flavio Olivieri, Northwest Region Representative

EPA/OCEM Staff and Management

 Elaine Koerner, GNEB Designated Federal Officer (DFO)

 Rafael DeLeon, OCEM Director

 Mark Joyce, OCEM Associate Director

 Geraldine Brown

 Juliana Madrid

 Lois Williams

 Jannell Young-Ancrum

Speakers:

 Jerry Clifford, U.S. Coordinator, Border 2012 Program, and Deputy Assistant 

Administrator, Office of International Affairs, EPA

 David V. Aguilar, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, DHS

 John C. Twiss, Director, Law Enforcement & Investigations, U.S. Forest Service, 

USDA

 Larry R. Parkinson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Law Enforcement and Security, 

DOI

 Dana Tulis, Deputy Director, Office of Solid Waste andEmergency Response, EPA

 Bob Richard, Deputy Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety, DOT

 Todd Owens, Executive Director, Cargo and Conveyance Security, DHS, for Jayson 

P. Ahern, Assistant Commissioner, Office of Field Operations, CPB, DHS

 Jorge Navarro, Border Coordinator, Mexican Foreign Ministry

 David Applegate, Senior Science Advisor for Earthquakes and Geological Hazards, 

USGS, DOI

 Sonja Neiuwejaar, Deputy Director, Office of International Affairs, FEMA, DHS
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 4

March 13-14, 2007

 Dr. Kevin Yeskey, M.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary (Acting), Office of 

Preparedness and Emergency Operations, HHS

 Flavio Olivieri, NW Region Representative, Consejo Consultivo, SEMARNAT 

Public Commenters: 

 Juan Antonio Flores, Public Affairs Director, North American Development Bank 

 Karen Senhadji, International Affairs, DOI 

 Lisa Almodovar, Mexico Team Leader, OIA, EPA

Public Attendees: See Appendix
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 5

March 13-14, 2007

Meeting Summary/Minutes

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT

Background

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB or the Board) is an independent advisory committee 

that is managed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It advises the U.S. President and 

Congress on good-neighbor practices along the U.S.-Mexico border. The focus is on the environmental 

and infrastructure needs of the U.S. states that are contiguous to Mexico.

Day 1 – March 13. 2007

(9:00 a.m.)

Media event to publicly release the Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Tenth 

Report to the President and Congress preceded the Board meeting 

Welcome and Opening Remarks (10:00 a.m.)

Dr. Ganster, Ph.D,. Chair, welcomed Board members and guests to the Good Neighbor 

Environmental Board (GNEB) meeting and asked board members to introduce themselves. 

Elaine Koerner, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) asked members of the audience to 

introduce themselves. Self-introductions took place 

Chair Ganster then gave an overview of the Tenth Report for those who had not attended 

the media event preceding the meeting. He stated that the Tenth Report looked at the effects 

of security activities in two areas: ports of entry and in more rural areas of the border region. 

For the more rural areas, the Board recommended strengthening communication and 

collaboration among security agencies, environmental protection agencies, and land 

management agencies so as to both provide security and also maintain quality of life for 

border communities. The Board also recommended employing a mix of technology and 

personnel to reflect the differing geographical terrain and population groupings along 

diverse sections of the border.

For ports of entry, where hazardous materials (hazmat) can provide an added security risk, 

the Board recommends increasing the number of hazmat inspectors onsite. It also 

recommends establishing sites and hours specific for hazmat vehicles, which have increased 

due to expanded trade between the U.S. and Mexico. In addition, the Board calls for more 

extensive information sharing between environmental agencies and security agencies. 

Moreover, the Board says in its report, liability issues need to be resolved for cross-border 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 6

March 13-14, 2007

emergency responders. And, finally, information needs to be shared with tribal communities 

about hazardous materials being transported across their lands.

Morning Panel Sessions on the Tenth Report 

Keynote Remarks (10:15 a.m.)

Jerry Clifford, Deputy Assistant Administrator for International Affairs and U.S. 

Coordinator, Border 2012 Program, congratulated the GNEB on the Tenth Report and 

noted that the meeting attendees included a broad representation of federal agencies and 

other border security experts dealing with border security and environmental issues. Mr. 

Clifford was also pleased with the cooperation between the GNEB and the Border 2012 

program in solving the many public health and environmental border problems

For the GNEB reports and recommendations, Mr. Clifford asked that the Board consider the 

policy implications of their topics, recommendations, and advice for border enforcement and 

environmental protection agencies. 

For Border 2012, Mr. Clifford discussed the U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program Border 

2012 Midterm Report and enumerated the guiding principles. Principles related to GNEB 

included fostering public and stakeholder participation, reducing the highest public health 

and environmental risks, recognizing the sovereignty of U.S. tribes, and addressing the 

disproportionate environmental impacts on border citizens. 

Mr. Clifford then reported on the accomplishments of the Border 2012 in cooperation with 

Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC), North American Development 

Bank (NADBank), and the IBWC, including funds for water and wastewater infrastructure 

projects, removing tire piles and hazardous wastes, and improving tracking of information 

on border facilities and hazardous waste. Border 2012 is working with the American Indian 

Office to develop a North American conference on indigenous communities dealing with the 

environment and public health.

Mr. Clifford described the work of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) 

and its three major areas of focus. The CEC’s advisory groups have recommended 

integrating the work of the CEC, Border 2012, and the GNEB. The CEC would be glad to 

discuss areas of cooperation. In response to questions about funding related to policy

recommendations for the border region, Mr. Clifford said the EPA budget for FY2007 was 

just approved by Congress at the FY2006 level. By removing the earmarks, Congress was 

able to retain the FY2006 level for water and water infrastructure projects for the NADBank 

and the BECC. The Southwest Center for Environmental Research and policy (SCERP) is 

zeroed out for FY2007. For FY2008, the President recommended only $10 million for 

border infrastructure. The Office of International Affairs budget would be reduced by 20 

percent. The funds for extramural projects would be cut by 50 percent to $1 million. In 

Mexico, the same office received a 25 percent reduction under the new administration of 

President Felipe Calderón. 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 7

March 13-14, 2007

In response to a suggestion about partnering with DHS to fund some projects, Mr. Clifford

thought there might be opportunities to work with DHS to leverage resources for public 

health and environmental issues. The GNEB Tenth Report could facilitate this dialogue.

Panel 1: Undocumented Human Crossings (10:30 a.m.)

Chair Ganster introduced the first panel, which had been charged with discussing their 

feedback on the Board’s recommendations about security and environmental protection 

related to undocumented human crossings between ports of entry.

David V. Aguilar, Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, DHS, stated that DHS Border Patrol strategy 

is focused on reducing illegal entries of terrorists and drug and human smugglers, as well as 

using non-intrusive technologies and improving quality of life. The Border Patrol operates in 

three environments: urban, rural, and remote areas. Different strategies and technologies are 

needed for the different environments. The Border Patrol’s goal is to maximize the 

efficiency and effectiveness of resources while minimizing the intrusiveness of border patrol 

activities.

John C. Twiss, Director, Law Enforcement & Investigations, U.S. Forest Service, 

Department of Agriculture (USDA), stated that the Forest Service could support the 

recommendations of the GNEB Tenth Report. The Report shows a clear understanding of 

the issues, the agency’s mission, the value of risk, and the barriers to achieving both 

resource protections and border security. The Forest Service agrees with the need for 

collaboration among the various agencies and with employing a mix of technologies and 

people to achieve these goals. 

Mr. Twiss provided a brief Forest Service update regarding border security and natural 

resource issues, particularly in the 60-mile border of the Coronado National Forest, which is 

an unsafe area. The problems are importation of illegal drugs, armed drug and human 

smugglers, illegal growing of marijuana in more than 40 national forests, and damage from 

foot traffic, trash, abandoned vehicles, garbage, erosion, and destruction of wildlife habitat. 

Mr. Twiss lauded the efforts of Chief Aguilar in improving the relationship between the 

Border Patrol and the Forest Service by forming an interagency task force, employing a land 

management coordinator, developing an MOU between USDA and DOI, and co-locating 

facilities. Best management practices are being promoted for Border Patrol activities.

Mr. Twiss discussed the Tenth Report challenges as they pertain to the Forest Service. The 

Forest Service is identifying sensitive resources, strengthening communication with the 

public, and would consider establishing an office to analyze the impact of border security on 

the environment. The problem with the second challenge of clean-up is the safety of 

bringing in volunteers. The Forest Service agrees with the report’s third challenge as cited: 

damage to wildlife from fencing. 

Larry R. Parkinson, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Law Enforcement and Security, 

Department of Interior (DOI), stated that the GNEB Tenth Report was a balanced report. 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 8

March 13-14, 2007

The agency agrees with the conclusions and they look forward to working with the GNEB to 

implement the recommendations. The important aspect of the public’s and rangers’ safety

needs more development in the report. Rangers have been threatened by smugglers, who 

use a wide variety of sophisticated weapons and technology. Secretary Kempthorne, after a 

visit to the border area, said the government has lost control of public lands. In the remote 

areas, flexibility in types of barriers is the key. 

Mr. Parkinson focused on the collaboration between DOI, DHS, and the Forest Service 

based on a MOU signed by the three Secretaries that includes environmental sensitivity. 

DOI has a law enforcement component, and about 200 of 4,000 officers are deployed in the 

Southwest border area. He noted Chief Aguilar’s work in developing a Public Lands 

Liaison Agent in every Border Patrol sector, who would work with the public land managers 

to address environmental issues. He agreed with the Report’s statement that vigorous border 

security can actually prevent or limit harm to the environment by apprehending people as 

soon as possible, and also prevent some of the 200 deaths a year in the desert.

Panel I Questions and Comments

In response to a question about displacement of illegal persons and activities to Texas 

because of border patrol activities in Arizona, Chief Aguilar agreed that displacement would 

occur, but they are increasing resources and infrastructure to prevent criminal activity along 

the Texas border as well. By the end of September, a security system would cover 72 miles 

at the Texas border. Under the SBI Net program, $1.2 billion will be spent to increase 

surveillance. 

As to whether the National Guard could be used to provide safety for park management 

employees, Mr. Parkinson said the National Guard is assisting the Border Patrol in building 

infrastructure, but is not engaged in law enforcement activities. Chief Aguilar added that in 

Operation Jump Start, more than 6,000 National Guard personnel enabled them to gain over 

340 miles of additional surveillance. By the end of FY2008, DOI will have 18,500 

personnel, up from 12,550 currently working at the border. 

Robert Varady brought up the difference between border patrol activities which appeared to 

focus on illegal activity rather than on preventing terrorists from entering the country. Chief 

Aguilar responded that the vast amount of clutter and illegal activity at the border must be 

mitigated to prevent the possibility of terrorists entering the border. The ports of entry are 

guarded by the Office of Field Operations, not the Border Patrol. 

Mr. Parkinson added that in 2005, 366 illegal aliens from special interest countries, 

including Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, were apprehended at the borders. Three of 

these aliens later were convicted of terrorist activities.

Susan Keith expressed concern about the use of Border Patrol checkpoints in fragile 

environmental areas as opposed to highways in Arizona. Chief Aguilar responded that 

checkpoints use a wide range of technical devices to avoid environmental damage and need 

to cover remote areas, not just highways. 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 9

March 13-14, 2007

Panel II: Hazardous Materials Crossings (11:30 a.m.)

Chair Ganster stated that the next Panel would focus on hazardous material crossings.

Dana Tulis, Deputy, Office of Emergency Management, Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response, EPA, said she serves as the Co-Chair of the Border 2012 Emergency

Preparedness and Response Program Workgroup (BWWG), which was set up under the 

1983 La Paz agreement between the U.S. and Mexico under the auspices of EPA and its 

Mexican counterpart SEMARNAT. An official from the Mexican enforcement agency, 

Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (PROFEPA), serves as the other Co-Chair.

The Workgroup operates as the steering committee for the Joint Response Team (JRT), 

which is similar to the U.S. National Response Team (NRT). The NRT coordinates 14 

agency efforts and serves as a backup of resources for local and states’ first responders. The 

JRT includes U.S. and Mexican national agencies, as well as state and local agencies and 

tribes along both sides of the border.

Some of the BWWG accomplishments to date in emergency preparedness and response 

include developing 14 sister city emergency response plans, training personnel, conducting 

tabletop and field exercises on hazardous materials, and revising the Joint Contingency Plan 

to coordinate international, state and local efforts to improve communication.

The Workgroup’s initiatives for 2006/2007 have included testing and updating the 

notification system between Mexico and the U.S.; expediting cross-border responses for 

people and equipment under the Trusted Traveler Program; securing liability insurance 

coverage for local emergency cross-border responders, and strengthening partnerships with 

U.S. and Mexican offices at all levels, including CBP, NorthCom (DOD asset), Protección 

Civil, CENACOM, and Aduanas.

Bob Richard, Associate Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT), provided an overview of 

his administration, which works with other offices within DOT to regulate hazardous 

materials transportation. One of his collateral duties is as Chairman of the United Nations 

Subcommittee on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, which writes regulations on 

international transport. 

Prior to 1992, Mr. Richard said, Mexico did not have any hazardous materials regulations, 

so PHMSA worked with officials there to establish these regulations. PHMSA has 

responsibilities in the areas of enforcement, planning, and training, and writes regulations 

for carriers, shippers, manufacturers, and governments. PHMSA inspectors cannot cover all 

of the law enforcement activities, so this area is shared with state and local governments. 

Training has been done on both sides of the border for emergency response teams, carriers 

and shippers. 

The goal for the hazmat program is to prevent risk by working with hazmat transporters on 

increasing safety and security. PHMSA works with other Federal agencies, such as the 

Federal Aviation Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Homeland 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 10

March 13-14, 2007

Security (DHS) to enforce regulations under their modalities. PHMSA meets twice a year 

with Mexico to ensure that regulations are harmonized.

Development and dissemination of training and information materials is a major part of 

enhancing hazardous materials transportation safety. Other materials available include a CD 

on hazmat and security awareness, training videos, and an emergency response guidebook. 

Todd Owens, Executive Director, Cargo and Conveyance Security, Office of Field 

Operations, DHS, spoke on behalf of Jayson Ahern, Assistant Commissioner, Office of 

Field Operations, who was on travel to Canada. The Office of Field Operations has 

responsibility for operations within the 324 official ports of entry, of which 42 are on the 

Mexican border. Mr. Owens is responsible for cargo programs, including inspection 

technology, gamma and x-ray imaging systems, and all radiation portal detection equipment. 

The agency employs a risk management approach to detect whether the 29.5 million 

containers and trailers that enter the U.S. each year, whether by land or sea, contain 

hazardous materials, weapons of mass destruction, illegal humans, narcotics, or illegal 

weapons. Mr. Owens described some of the methods used to detect illegal or dangerous 

cargo: an automated targeting system, assignment of a risk score, and imaging systems. 

Radiation portal monitors enables screening to be improved compared with a year ago. An 

industry partnership allows the agency to secure the supply chain through the Customs 

Trade Partnership against Terrorism. 

In addition, the Free and Secure Trade (FAST) Program requires that all truck drivers 

carrying hazmat materials from Canada and Mexico possess a FAST card, which speeds up 

transport. A layered enforcement strategy allows them to assign a risk based on a risk score. 

Hazmat materials inspection is assisted by state and local officers.

Panel II Questions and Comments

Carl Edlund asked if the country is prepared for multiple types of threats. Ms. Tulis

answered that EPA is doing gaps analysis to prepare for five simultaneous events.

Flavio Olivieri asked whether Mexican trucks carrying hazmat materials were allowed to 

obtain a FAST pass and cross the border, and if RFID technologies are used to track hazmat 

containers. Mr. Richard said that Mexican hazmat trucks can come into a commercial zone 

in the U.S., but cannot go long-haul. RFID is one method to track hazardous materials. The 

type of approach depends on the degree of risk. 

Public Comment Session (12:30 p.m.)
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 11

March 13-14, 2007

DFO Koerner announced the meeting was open for public comments. Three people were 

signed up to speak: Karen Sennhadji, Juan Antonio Flores, and Lisa Almodovar.

Karen Senhdaji, U. S. Department of Interior (DOI), wanted to highlight the dedication of 

DOI biologists, archeologists and interpretative rangers, who have stayed onsite in their 

public lands positions along the border despite the challenges. The Bureau of Land 

Management staff has had a long history of working with the border patrol in exchanging 

information about eco-sensitive areas and different cultures. Ms. Senhadji also said that 

BLM also talked to colleagues about the importance of Border Patrol techniques in 

providing security.

Juan Antonio Flores, Public Affairs Director, North American Development Bank 

(NADBank) thanked the Board for its letters of support, which were instrumental in 

advancing the policy initiatives of the institution. The newly established joint Board of 

Directors for both NADBank and BECC has met twice, and a large number of projects have 

been approved for financing. The total amount of funding for projects is now $844.42 

million. The majority of the funds, around $493.9 million, come from EPA’s border fund. 

The total cost of the 98 projects is more than $2.5 billion. In the U.S.-Mexico border area, 

there are now 17 communities that are provided for the first time with wastewater treatment 

service. 

The problem is that EPA’s border fund has continued to diminish over the years, from $100 

million down to $50 million. Even worse, the FY2008 budget for the Border Environmental 

Infrastructure Fund (BEIF) is only $10 million. The pace of BECC and NADBank projects 

development and financing of basic water and wastewater infrastructure projects would be 

significantly impacted at that funding level were this figure to be the final funding figure. 

Mr. Flores invited GNEB members to the NADBank/BECC Board meeting on March 27, 

2007, in San Antonio, Texas. He said the NADBank/BECC Board would be considering 

several potential projects in the new sectors of renewable energy, air quality, etc., as well as 

basic water, wastewater, and solid waste projects. Many of these projects are private sector 

initiatives.

Questions and Comments for Mr. Flores

Stephen Niemeyer asked whether the explanation for the decreased funding was related to 

the slowness of fund disbursement for projects by the NADBank. Mr. Flores answered that 

NADBank is moving to accelerate fund disbursement by fully funding projects that are 

approved and under way. Funding is required up front for project development, and has 

been held up by political considerations. For example, $60 million was designated for the 

international wastewater treatment plant in Nogales, but has not been dispersed due to 

political and engineering dilemmas. NADBank needs to improve its coordination and 

oversight of local project sponsors to ensure that construction stays on track and funds are 

disbursed accordingly.

In response to questions from Ms. Keith, Mr. Flores explained that NADBank is capitalized 

with funds from both the U.S. and Mexican governments, and this does not require 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 12

March 13-14, 2007

Congressional approval. The BEIF grant is appropriated by Congress and administered by

NADBank. There is no annual federal grant program from Mexico to the Bank. Any funds 

from BEIF for projects in Mexico must be matched dollar-for-dollar by Mexico. 

Christopher Brown asked how to support the need for more funds. Mr. Flores answered that 

Congress makes the decisions, but key stakeholders in the area, such as the U.S.-Mexico 

Chamber of Commerce, the Border Trade Alliance, etc., need to provide support. Chair 

Ganster added that the border environmental projects in general are having difficulty in 

gaining Congressional support throughout the country. After said discussion, Christopher 

Brown suggested that the Board write a Comment Letter on the topic.

Lisa Almodovar, Office of International Affairs, EPA, addressed the budgetary problem of 

the Border 2012 program, which would lose one-third of its budget in the proposed FY2008 

budget. Border 2012 is asking its stakeholders and partners to provide ideas about priorities 

and ways to help border communities with their environmental problems. She invited 

GNEB members to the National Coordinators meeting on May 22, 2007, in San Antonio and 

to provide comments on the Border 2012 program. 

Questions and comments for Ms. Almodovar

DFO Koerner asked if there was a deadline for comments. Ms. Almodovar responded that 

comments could be received prior to the May meeting or before November. In November, 

they will be putting everyone’s comments into a refined addendum for FY2008. Michael 

Dorsey was concerned because Border 2012 had been cut back every year, which he felt was 

unacceptable. Chair Ganster and DFO Koerner suggested that this issue be discussed in the 

following day’s GNEB business meeting. 

Afternoon Speaker Briefings on the Eleventh Report Theme: 

Natural Hazards and the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment

Introduction and Overview (2:00 p.m.)

Chair Ganster opened the afternoon session by stating that the Board would hear from 

several experts on the major issues for the GNEB Eleventh Report, whose theme was the 

environmental effects of natural hazards at the border. 

Chair Ganster asked members to focus on the policy implications related to environmental 

and infrastructure issues. To date, the Eleventh Report has been discussed at the GNEB 

Alpine Texas meeting and in a conference call. These discussions provided three options for 

structuring the report and developing workgroups as follows: 1) Focus on the context that 

would include the type of disaster, location, history, institutional framework. The types of 

disasters include wind and water, hurricanes, occasional tornadoes, fires and earthquakes; 2) 

Focus on context, mitigation, and preparedness, and then look at response, recovery, and 

rebuilding of human systems; and 3) Focus on context, effects, and responses related to 

human health, species, and eco systems effects. 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 13

March 13-14, 2007

Mr. Treviño, Ms. DiSirio, and Mr. Niemeyer suggested adding drought as a type of disaster 

due to the effects of desertification on agriculture, mass migration to the urban areas, and 

global climate change. 

Keynote Remarks (2:15 p.m.)

Jorge Navarro, Border Coordinator, Mexican Foreign Ministry, said that the new 

Ambassador of Mexico sends his greetings and recognizes the outstanding work of the 

GNEB. Mr. Navarro focused his remarks on emergency preparedness and responses by 

border communities to natural hazards that threaten the environment. The 1993 La Paz 

Meeting definition of the border has been changed to include 300 kilometers inside Mexico. 

The 14 pair cities on the border face the same problems from natural hazards, air pollution, 

and solid waste disposal which affect the well-being of populations. Mr. Navarro

enumerated several natural hazards which had occurred in Mexico such as dust clouds, 

flooding in El Paso, and forest fires in California. 

To provide a common response to these disasters, the U.S.-Mexico Joint Response Team 

was established by the La Paz agreement. The JRT has representatives from the U.S. and 

Mexico, federal, state, and local agencies responsible for emergency prevention, 

preparedness, and response in the border region. The JRT formed a Joint Contingency Plan 

(JCP) that established a federal mechanism for cooperation in responding to natural 

hazardous incidents. A better dialogue is needed between the U. S. National Response 

Center and the National Communications Center in Mexico. In Mexico, the Center for 

Environmental Emergencies of the Federal Attorney General for Environmental Protection 

also receives notification of disasters.

The main question is whether the JCP recognizes all natural hazards. The JCP provides the 

foundation for establishing sister city, bi-national, emergency responses. The JCP provides 

local emergency response teams with the mechanisms for addressing cooperative issues and 

concerns and recommendations for emergency response planning, exercises, and training

Mr. Navarro closed by stating that the Eleventh Report should prove very useful to Mexico 

and Mexican authorities and researchers would like to participate in a mutual dialogue on

the natural hazards report. Chair Ganster thanked Mr. Navarro for his remarks and agreed 

that input from Mexican authorities and researchers should be incorporated into the process. 

Speakers (2:30 p.m.)

David Applegate, Senior Science Advisor for Earthquakes and Geological Hazards, 

USGS, DOI, welcomed the opportunity to speak about the bi-national issues and policy

related to natural hazards at the border. The end goal is to reduce the vulnerabilities from 

both manmade threats and natural hazards. Reduction of some vulnerabilities may create 

other problems, such as the mass population movement into formerly rural and hazardous 

areas.

Mr. Applegate used a series of slides to cover the role USGS in managing six major natural 

hazards: earthquakes, hurricanes, flooding, drought, wildfires, and tsunamis. 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 14

March 13-14, 2007

The USGS has statutory responsibility for issuing warnings and notifications for 

earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides, and provides support for NOAA for measuring 

tsunamis and floods. Mr. Applegate is a member of a Subcommittee on Disaster Reduction 

which is part of the White House National Science and Technology Council, consisting of 

22 agencies that look at a wide range of natural disasters and their impact on society.

A detailed presentation of six types of hazards was presented. Some of the topics included 

the President’s Disaster Declaration; the Dare to Prepare Campaign; the Drought Impact 

Reporter; the earthquake potential from faults; hurricane and flooding damage in 

increasingly populous areas; debris flow from former wildfires; a potential tsunami in the 

San Diego/Tijuana area.; and measuring drought with stream gauge data.

Questions and Comments

Chair Ganster asked about rating the likelihood of hazards and the concentration of 

resources. Mr. Applegate replied that it was difficult to quantify the impacts of hazards 

because of the variability in intensity and the degree of suddenness.

Sally Spener commented that the IBWC operates and maintains the Rio Grande Flood 

Control Project, which consists of levees that were in danger of breaching in the El Paso 

flood of 2006. Ms. Spener hoped that the Eleventh Report would consider the issues and 

make recommendations related to flood control and prevention of environmental damage. 

Dr. Brown asked if the science advisory effort linked floods and droughts to global climate 

change. Mr. Applegate replied that the Climate Change Research Program is coordinating 

efforts related to climate change. 

(3:15 p.m.)

Sonja Nieuwejaar, Director, Office of International Affairs, FEMA, Department of 

Homeland Security, stated that it was FEMA’s mission to assist the United States in 

mitigating, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from both manmade and natural 

hazards. Ms. Neiuwejaar would focus on how the U.S. and its international counterparts are 

managing and responding to cross border events on the local, state, national, bi-national, and 

tri-national level. She provided a summary of emergency management challenges and 

suggested recommendations for moving forward.

One of the major incidents in 2006 was the Júarez La Montada Dam Safety Incident near El 

Paso. An international team consisting of the cities of El Paso and Júarez, the Army Corps 

of Engineers, and the IWBC, was assembled to avoid potential disaster. Although crossborder communication was good, there are no cross-border plans to address dam safety. The 

U. S. government could not provide direct assistance unless Mexico’s government requested 

it. The U.S. Ambassador must declare a disaster to allow the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) to provide assistance. 

In the Arizona/Sonora Cross-Border exercises; the states of Arizona and Sonora combined 

the four counties of Yuma, Pima, Santa Cruz, and Cochise under one region to hold bi-
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 15

March 13-14, 2007

national exercises in an improvised explosive and hazardous material event. A series of 

similar exercises demonstrated the need for sister-city, sister-state, and bi-national planning.

After Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. developed cross-border International Assistance Plans 

(IAS). The IAS established standard operating procedures for requesting assistance, 

reviewing offers, determining acceptability of offers, managing logistics and distributing 

commodities. Many U.S. agencies are involved in IAS including the State Department, 

FEMA, USAID, and DOD.

Ms. Nieuwejaar depicted twelve cross-border bi-national initiatives including contingency

plans with Mexico and Canada. The Cross Border Tri-National Initiatives of the Security 

and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) provide a framework for cooperation between emergencies 

and for a potential avian influenza pandemic in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. 

The challenges of cross-border emergency management include coordination, organization, 

legal, regulatory, operational, logistical, and financial. For organizational contacts, the 

definition of triggering events and responsibilities must be established. Legal and regulatory

challenges make it difficult to determine what help can be given and accepted. Medical 

licensing and credentialing varies from country to country. Customs duties, passport 

requirements, and resource manifests must be waived. 

Interoperability of equipment posed the largest challenge. Global standards are needed for 

emergency responses. Command and control over personnel needs further discussion. 

Mobilization of resources requires specification of locations and handling equipment. 

Financial challenges related to reimbursement of expenses and transfer of funds. In dealing 

with the public, messages must be clear and the same for both countries. Cross-border 

evacuation plans need development.

In looking forward, the present initiatives at all governmental levels need to be reviewed and 

coordinated. Best practices and information need to be shared between plans. The various 

single hazard events may need to be coordinated into one emergency response plan. Lastly, 

an overall mutual assistance plan needs to be focused more on mitigation and preparedness 

activities so that information, data collection, training, and exercises could be shared. 

Questions and Comments

Mr. Elbrock asked if drought should be considered a natural hazard. Ms. Nieuwejaar said 

that FEMA would treat drought the same as other emergency hazards, if it was so

designated. Mr. Applegate said that drought is a different hazard due to its slow onset, but 

should be mitigated because of its significant impacts

Mr. Varady commented that the U.S. should recognize Mexico as a good neighbor in 

managing emergencies. He thought that emergencies should be treated differently, with 

rules and regulations that are determined in advance. Ms. Nieuwejaar responded that 

regulations for accepting assistance were codified after Katrina and will be used in the next 

disaster.
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 16

March 13-14, 2007

Dr. Brown asked if FEMA had reviewed its procedures to identify problems. 

Ms. Nieuwejaar said that many agencies, including the White House Homeland Security

Council and the Government Accountability Office, asked what FEMA was going to do to 

address problems in emergency management. Assistance agencies including FEMA, the 

State Department, and USAID reviewed and addressed problems and issues related to their 

purview to develop a system for the next disaster.

John Wood described three examples of cross border assistance provided by the City of 

Brownsville to disasters on the Mexican side of the border. He thought that “red tape” 

needed to be set aside in time of life-threatening disaster. Mr. Wood also noted that his city

had established good relations with border officials to ease cross-border assistance. 

In response to a question about the new passport requirements in land boundary crossings, 

Rachel Poynter, Office of Mexico Affairs, U.S. Department of State (DOS), said that DOS 

and DHS have not yet resolved that issue. Ms. Spener thought this should be addressed in 

the Eleventh Report. Ms. Spener asked if undocumented aliens could receive aid from 

FEMA. Ms. Nieuwejaar said she would need to go back to the agency for the answer to that 

question.

Mr. Dorsey asked if there was a plan for transporting medical supplies and patients across 

the border if resources were inadequate in the neighboring country. Ms. Nieuwejaar said 

that USAID that would respond to an international disaster and determine if medical 

assistance could be provided to another country. FEMA could decide if medical assistance 

could be accepted in the U.S. States have the responsibility to determine if medical 

certification could be waived. 

Mr. Edlund added that there is a structure for responding to emergencies that involves the 

federal, state and local governments’ emergency support systems and FEMA is the lead 

agency. He thought the structure should be reviewed for the Eleventh Report. In response 

to a request, DFO Koerner said Ms. Nieuwejaari’s presentation would be sent to Board 

members on a CD.

(4:15 p.m.)

Kevin Yeskey, M.D., Deputy Assistant Secretary (Acting), Office of Preparedness and 

Emergency Operations (OPEO), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 

spoke from a medical and public health standpoint in describing the general approaches to 

hazards and challenges to international responses. The National Response Plan (NPR) 

currently being rewritten is for domestic response and is primarily a support mechanism for

states and localities. A pandemic influenza event would require more Federal resources. 

Dr. Yeskey then described the focus of HHS in preparedness, response and recovery

activities and public health considerations in an emergency.

The White House Report on Hurricane Katrina recommended a single unified command and 

control center within HHS for all health and medical responses. The December 2006 

Pandemic All Hazards Preparedness Act identified the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness 

and Response as the lead official within HHS. The Emergency Support Function Eight 

services include public health, primary care, acute care, in-patient care, and other duties such 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 17

March 13-14, 2007

as victim identification. Under the Incident Command System, HHS responses are 

structured under national standards. 

Some of the biggest public health problems include population displacement, rumor control, 

and secondary effects on the environment. One of the biggest issues for preparedness is 

medical staff capacity. The National Disaster Medical System has 6,000 volunteers in teams 

who are under the control of OPEO, and five rapid deployment teams, but very few of these 

people have passports and could not be deployed internationally without waivers. Medical 

volunteers can be federalized to move across state lines, but foreign nationals cannot be 

federalized. 

Response and recovery preparedness issues include clean-up of water, air, debris, insects, 

microorganisms, and toxins. Sanitation system restoration is needed to prevent wastewater 

going into rivers.

Questions and Comments

Chair Ganster indicated a concern about the population movement of around 100,000 

Mexican nationals in Tijuana who could be on the U.S. side of the border during a disaster. 

Dr. Yeskey answered that states have mutual aid agreements and the FEMA compact 

managed by DHS for bringing in resources. Chair Ganster asked about bringing in private 

companies’ medical resources. Dr. Yeskey agreed that private industry resources need to be 

utilized for medical assistance. 

Ms. DiSirio asked for an explanation of how the U.S. is able to respond to tsunamis or other 

disasters in foreign countries. Dr. Yeskey explained that requests from foreign nations are 

made through DOS to the President. USAID and DHS send a Disaster Assistance Response 

Team (DART) to assess the needs. DOD gets involved through its various commands, 

depending on the area. Funding for international responses is not structured as it is for 

national responses. In domestic disasters, HHS can deploy medical resources through 

mission assignments. Internationally, responses are slower, because resources are further 

away and duplication must be avoided. 

Ms. Spener commented that Mexico does not request foreign aid in the event of a disaster. 

Even though mutual aid does occur at the local level, she doubted that USAID’s response 

teams would be going into Mexico.

Mr. Niemeyer asked if HHS had MOUs with Mexico for medical assistance. Ms. DiSirio, 

CDC, said that there were no MOUs with Mexico. CDC responds to requests from the 

Officer of Federal Disaster Assistance in the International Emergency Refugee Health 

Branch or from the World Health Organization.

Consejo Consultivo Report (5:00 p.m.)

Flavio Olivieri, Northwest Representative, provided an update on the Consejo 

organizational structure and activities under SEMARNET. Personnel changes that have 

occurred include Felipe Calderón, President of Mexico; Juan Elvira, Secretary of the 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 18

March 13-14, 2007

Environment; and Mateo Castillo, Office of Civic Participation. The National Council 

meets on June 4-5, 2007 in Mexico City. Mr. Olivieri invited Chair Ganster to the NW 

Regional Consejo on March 28-30, 2007, in Tijuana. The National Council will accept new 

members by December, 2007. Some of the priorities and activities included development of 

a national strategic plan under the new President; follow-up on the recommendations 

responded to by the Secretary; collaboration with SEMARNAT on the National 

Environmental Public Participation Strategies; and follow-up on the All American Canal and 

border security systems.

Successes in 2006 included legal marine zoning in the sea of Cortez, participation in the 

Fourth World Water Forum, and development of the National Sustainable Development 

Education Program with the Department of Education.

Questions and Comments

In response to a question about marine environmental zoning, Mr. Olivieri explained that it 

was an effort by several agencies to agree on how to use and protect the Sea of Cortez in 

view of the competition between tourism, commercial industries, fisheries, and indigenous 

communities.

Chair Ganster asked about the sustainable development projects and how the new 

administration might affect future activities. Mr. Olivieri responded that the Calderón 

administration had used the word “sustainability,” in all their proposals. SEMARNAT 

seems to be getting more support and giving more authority to state governments. 

Information on environmental events is being shared with Consejo Councils. 

Ms. Krebs asked if businesses are regulated differently in the states or regions. Mr. Olivieri

replied that the federal law should be applied nationwide, although states may have different 

regulations. More authority is being given to the states and municipalities in the new 

Administration. 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 5:07 p.m.
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 19

March 13-14, 2007

Day 2 – March 14, 2007

(8:00 a.m.)

Business Meeting and Strategic Planning Session

Business Meeting

New Member Introductions, Goals for Board Membership

DFO Elaine Koerner opened the business meeting and welcomed the three new, nonFederal members: Patti Krebs, John Wood, and Susan Keith. Daniel Darrach, Department 

of State, and Gary Robinson, DHS, were recently appointed Federal members. After the 

new members spoke briefly about their interests, Chair Ganster presented them with GNEB 

pins. 

Sally Spener noted that President Bush, at a meeting in Mexico that week, issued a statement 

about the need for cooperation on trade, immigration, and security between both countries 

and acknowledged the need to protect their shared natural resources.

Approval of the Minutes

Chair Ganster asked if there were any changes to the minutes. Stephen Niemeyer and 

Christopher Brown provided DFO Koerner with some minor corrections and typographical

errors which would be incorporated before the minutes are posted on the website. Several 

members thought the minutes were well done. Gary Gillen moved adoption of the minutes 

with changes as provided to DFO Koerner. Dr. Brown seconded the motion and the minutes 

were approved unanimously. 

Dissemination Plan for the Tenth Report

DFO Koerner briefly reviewed the dissemination plan for the GNEB Tenth Report. She 

asked members to note the number of reports they would like to receive and indicate where 

they could distribute the report. Dr. Brown suggested making a one page summary of the 

key highlights, with a brief cover letter and a URL for the GNEB website link, for 

distribution to Congressional Offices and other busy, influential people. Ms. Montoya

offered to have the World Wildlife Fund office in Mexico City distribute the report to the 

Mexican border delegation. Another member suggested sending the report to the EPA 

attaché in Mexico.

DFO Koerner acknowledged that the distribution system was not systematic. She 

encouraged members to distribute copies to colleagues and at meetings and to report back to 

her for the tracking report. Around 4,000 copies had been printed. The possibility of using 

CDs or DVDs could be discussed in the future. 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 20

March 13-14, 2007

Discussion of the Eleventh Report (8:30 a.m.)

To focus the Board’s thinking on the GNEB mission of advising the President and Congress 

on environmental infrastructure issues, DFO Koerner proposed four questions as follows:

1. How are air, water, waste, and related infrastructure affected by border region natural 

hazards?

2. How are human and environmental health affected?

3. Why does the border region deserve special focus in terms of this issue?

4. What can and should the Federal Government do to better manage natural resources 

in the border region to better protect human health and the environment?

Mr. Niemeyer commented that state and local governments and other partners should be 

included in Question 4. Ms. Keith thought one of the main questions was “Why should EPA 

be involved? She added that if a huge earthquake happened in another state, it could affect 

Arizona in terms of population displacement, and health concerns would be paramount.

Mr. Gillen and Dr. Brown identified the need to heed Mr. Clifford’s urge to keep the report 

relevant to science-based policy and to focus on actionable events. DFO Koerner added that 

the report should clearly communicate what is the current policy and system and what 

changes are being recommended. Ms. Keith added that the report should focus on emerging 

issues that would need new policy. Ms. Montoya thought the focus should be on current 

programs and responsibilities. Mr. Stefanov said that the connection between the selected 

topic and the border environment needs to be clearly stated. 

Gary Gillen emphasized the importance of ensuring that GNEB’s work is focused on what is 

valuable to the President. DFO Koerner reminded them of the Standard Operating 

Procedures (SOPs) that were developed with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 

The goal was to create a more direct line with the Office of the President and have a 

dialogue between the GNEB and CEQ, starting with the Twelfth Report. Mark Joyce

described the step-wise process in more detail that would ensure GNEB reports would be 

useful to the President and the entire government. 

In response to a question from Ms. DiSirio, Mr. Joyce said there was no systematic way to 

document or assess whether action was taken on advisory committee recommendations. 

This assessment is more difficult because the recommendations involve many governmental 

agencies and programs. Chair Ganster reminded the Board of Robert Varady’s subgroup on 

evaluation that worked on assessing the impact of GNEB’s recommendations. Mr. Joyce

added that the GNEB has been an important force in changing EPA’s policies, even though 

it may take several years for the policies to be changed. Mr. Dorsey said that Congressional 

priorities and GNEB’s expert opinions were both important and that GNEB needs to make a 

better case for chosen topics. 

Mr. Edlund suggested allowing Mr. Clifford to review the conceptual outline of GNEB 

report topics. Mr. Joyce thought that CEQ would also be a good sounding board for drafts 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 21

March 13-14, 2007

of the reports. DFO Koerner reminded the Board that although the GNEB is in partnership 

with Border 2012, GNEB is an independent board. 

Chair Ganster raised the issue of outside support for doing research and drafting report. Mr. 

Joyce stated that Rafael DeLeon, Director of OCEM, was committed to getting a support 

contract for this Board and the other EPA/OCEM advisory committees, but that the process 

of governmental contracting was difficult. Some short-term support is possible. Several 

members made suggestions for hiring students or interns, such as through university grants 

and USGS contracts. DFO Koerner suggested the need for a conference call on the subject. 

Members agreed and several volunteered to participate: James Stefanov, Marilyn DiSirio, 

Rosendo Treviño, and Carl Edlund. The conference call to review options for hiring a 

student to do research and write reports would be held March 27 at 2:00 p.m. EST. 

To focus the Board on the Eleventh Report, Chair Ganster asked them to review a list of 

FEMA-declared disasters which had affected border counties from 1998 to the present. 

Chair Ganster asked members to suggest possible recommendations in the area of natural 

hazard disasters. Board members suggested the following:

 Bi-national preparedness plans, including command and control issues, personnel, 

communications, interoperability, and exercises 

 Emergency responders cross-border functions and problems, such as passports

 Flood protection that benefits the environment.

 Bi-national wildfire and flood disaster planning

 The relationship between border security and natural disasters, such as flooding

 Formal structures and their authority to engage in bi-national operations, such as the 

State Department, and structures that are needed

 Mexico’s policies and actions in border disasters

 Development of natural hazards preparedness plans and training programs.

Suggestions on research and review of plans and involvement and of other agencies, 

organizations, and governments in development of the report included:

 FEMA/DHS that are responsible for disaster management

 Collaboration and mutual agreements or MOUs with Mexico similar to the Border 

Liaison Mechanism

 HHS and CDC for health protection expertise and plans

 Local governmental emergency response plans, problems and gaps

 The 14 Sister City agreements on emergency responses

 County disaster preparedness plans developed after Katrina and their relationship to 

cross-border events. 

Suggestions for structuring the report included making a check lists in three parts: 1) actions 

that are immediately doable, 2) actions that are doable, but require more resources; and 3) 

barriers to actions. Another suggestion was to consider one or two worst case disaster 

scenarios, like an earthquake or hurricane, and determine what emergency responses would 

be required and how well prepared and equipped responders are to handle the disasters.
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 22

March 13-14, 2007

Chair Ganster asked DFO Koerner to discuss a possible theme and workgroups. DFO 

Koerner suggested the main theme: What are the environmental effects of natural hazards 

and what actions are needed? She suggested three workgroups based on Board expertise as 

follows:

1. Air quality, water quality, land and related infrastructure issues, such as drinking 

water plants, sewage treatment plants, etc. 

2. Wildlife and ecosystems

3. Human health. 

Key issues, such as the institutional framework, and context would be part of the 

introduction. Mr. Stefanov offered to be involved in writing the introduction. 

The discussion of themes and workgroup structure and issues yielded the following:

 Combining Workgroup 2 with 1 or as a subset of 1. 

 Grouping by context, mitigation and preparedness, and response and recovery.

 Focusing on disasters that would have trans-border effects and any event within 100 

miles of the border

 Focusing on the unique preparation and mitigation of natural hazards near the border

 Having members with different expertise in each workgroup

 Including drought as a natural disaster related to air quality and human diseases

It was determined that combining options 2 and 3 as the main framework so that items in 

option 1-3 would be repeated under preparedness, response and recover, and mitigation. 

Three workgroups were defined as context, planning and mitigation, and response and 

rebuilding. Members signed up for the workgroups and coordinators, as follows:

 Context: James Stefanov, Coordinator, Rosario Marin, Deputy Coordinator, Rachel 

Poynter, Gary Gillen, Robert Varady, Sally Spener, and Christopher Brown.

 Planning and Mitigation: Jennifer Montoya, Co-Coordinator, Michael Dorsey, CoCoordinator, Ann Marie Wolf, Susan Keith, Marilyn DiSirio, John Wood.

 Response and Rebuilding: Carl Edlund, Coordinator, Stephen Niemeyer Deputy 

Coordinator, Gary Robinson, and Edward Elbrock.

Ms. Keith was concerned about overlap with the Tenth Report in terms of disaster responses 

to hazmat hazards protocols, which have already been written down. Mr. Dorsey thought 

the natural disaster responses would be on a larger scale. Mr. Edlund offered to present a 

slide show to the Board on response procedures related to Katrina and other disasters. Ms. 

Montoya explained that not all counties were as well-prepared as Arizona. The focus in 

planning and mitigation would be on how to prevent land degradation from creating natural 

disasters. Commissioner Marin added that the issue of flood control models goes beyond 

emergency response and includes endangered species and collaboration with Mexico. 

To explain the importance of drought and desertification as a natural disaster, Mr. Treviño

offered to summarize the findings from the United Nations Convention on Drought and send 

it to members. DFO Koerner said the Context Workgroup would be tasked with 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 23

March 13-14, 2007

determining which issues would be included. Other members could be involved in the first 

conference call on context to have input into included issues.

DFO Koerner asked members to set dates and times for workgroup conference calls:

 Context: April 5 at 11:00 a.m. EST

 Planning and Mitigation: April 3 at 12:00 noon EST

 Recovery and Rebuilding: April 10 at 3:00 p.m. EST

Mr. Gillen offered to coordinate the photographs for the report and asked members to send 

him pictures related to their section of the report.

Strategic Planning (9:30 a.m.)

DFO Koerner reviewed materials in the GNEB folders related to Strategic Planning, 

including mission, vision, goals and principles, CEQ’s SOPs, and a work plan grid. DFO 

Koerner would add names of the new workgroups to the work grid. Ms. Montoya suggested 

removing the name of Karen Chapman from the planning committee, since she will be 

moving away. Chair Ganster offered to be on the Las Cruces meeting planning group and 

to help with the field visit. 

Mr. Niemeyer shared some concerns about the GNEB mission, vision and goals statements. 

He asked for clarification of the meaning of “community input.” DFO Koerner answered 

that this meant input from people in border communities. Mr. Niemeyer made several other 

suggestions for changes as follows:

 Change “enable” strategic allocation to “facilitate.”

 Change “result” to “The desired result.”

 Change “retain” independent perspective to “emphasize.”

DFO Koerner asked if members agreed with these changes and there were no objections, so 

the changes would be made. 

He also suggested that, under the SOP with CEQ the word “GNEB” be changed to OCEM 

since the final agreements were made between OCEM and CEQ. 

DFO Koerner asked if members agreed with these changes and there were no objections, so 

the changes would be made.

Dr. Brown voiced a concern about the role and status of Federal members in regard to 

recusing themselves from signing GNEB’s advisory letters. Various Federal members 

replied that there were various reasons related to their agencies’ policies and procedures that 

caused them to recuse themselves, but that these were rare occasions. Letters were reviewed 

by Federal members on a case-by-case basis. After some discussion, DFO Koerner said that 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 24

March 13-14, 2007

the legislation specifically calls for voting Federal Board members. She suggested further 

discussion of the role of Federal members at the next meeting.

Chair Ganster suggested writing a comment letter on Border 2012, including its successes 

and ideas for course corrections. Dr. Brown said he was in favor of this letter and also one 

on BEIF funding that was suggested in the public comments on Day 1. Chair Ganster

thought more study would be required to develop a statement. Ms. Montoya requested that 

members be provided a copy of the Border 2012 report. Mr. Niemeyer and Mr. Dorsey both 

stated that the Border 2012 letter should include the need for more funds. Mr. Dorsey, Dr. 

Brown, Ms. Wolf, and Mr. Niemeyer offered to help with the letter. A conference call to 

discuss the letter was set up for April 16, 2007, at 3:00 p.m. EST. The concept of a separate 

letter on BEIF funding was approved and Chair Ganster said a call for volunteers would be 

emailed to members. 

DFO Koerner asked what OCEM did that worked well for the GNEB in the past year and 

what areas need to be more effective or need more resources. Positive items mentioned 

included community meetings, field trips, a higher profile for GNEB reports, and a focus on 

timely and variable topics. Members also noted that the Chair was able to guide the Board 

to consensus on issues. The DFO and the OCEM staff received recognition for their support 

and responsiveness.

Chair Ganster asked members to discuss challenges for the future. Ms. Montoya would like 

to have a freer flow of discussion that does not depend on naming who speaks. To reduce 

the amount of paper, several members would prefer to have pre-meeting papers emailed to 

them: Mr. Dorsey, Dr Varady, Ms. Wolf, Mr. Stefanov, Ms. Krebs, Mr. Olivieri, Ms. DiSirio, 

Ms. Poynter, and Mr. Darrach. Dr. Brown and other members were concerned about the 

GSA system for purchasing airline tickets, which could be obtained for much less by

individuals, and which would allow people to fly to more than one place on the same ticket. 

Several members thought the Rogers travel agency was very helpful and accommodating. 

After this, several housekeeping items were reviewed by Lois Williams, OCEM, in terms of 

how to account for and receive payments. Chair Ganster said he would like the issue of 

transportation in government vans to be clarified. Mr. Joyce answered that the issue was 

being studied and guidance should soon be finalized. 

Khanna Johnston, OCEM, informally briefed the Board on lobbying policy with Congress. 

The anti-lobbying law that applies to Federal employees and contractors does not apply to 

GNEB members. However, use of appropriated funds, such as for travel, does prohibit 

indirect lobbying, which is telling someone else to lobby a Congressional representative for 

a program, legislation or funds. The charters that set up the FACA committee members do 

not allow lobbying. However, members could share findings and recommendations with 

Congress, because this is information-sharing. Ms. Johnston said that she was told that the 

connection between financing of travel and lobbying was too remote to be a concern. 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 25

March 13-14, 2007

Remarks from EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson (10:15 a.m.)

Stephen L. Johnson, EPA Administrator thanked members for their willingness to serve on 

the Board and for their work on the excellent Tenth Report. The Report’s themes, messages, 

and recommendations were in concert with EPA’s relationship with border nations and 

globally to improve the environment and security. He stated that the Inspector General had 

commented favorably on EPA’s responses to the hurricane disaster. He also said he was 

pleased to report that the President’s FY2008 budget had $10 million for the U.S.-Mexico 

border and EPA has as additional $40 million of unobligated funds. During 2006, 22,000 

more people at the border gained access to safe and clean water. Administrator Johnson

closed by stating that the U.S. has one of the world’s premier environmental protection 

agencies. He urged the Board to provide EPA with insights in the Eleventh Report on how 

to handle natural disasters. 

Board Member Report-Outs (12:30 p.m.)

James Stefanov, USGS, DOI, reported on several developments to improve data collection 

and monitoring along the border as follows:

 Development of the Colonia Health Infrastructure and Platting Status Tool (CHPST) 

that monitors progress, set infrastructure priorities, and measure quality of life

 Cooperation between USGS, IBWC, and INEGI to build bi-national GIS data sets 

for natural resources for the border region

 Coordination of the bi-national watershed delineations and hydrographic network

 Integration of bi-national and transboundary water quality data, contaminant data, 

and land cover/use data to look at linkages between environmental conditions and 

human health issues at the border

 Partnership between the zoos in San Diego and Mexico and SEMARNAT to set up a 

condor captive breeding facility at the request of the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico.

Christopher Brown, Ph.D. New Mexico State University, reported on several topics;

 A Federal Highway Administration grant to proceed on a border infrastructure needs 

assessment, Phase 2, under the joint bi-national transportation planning group that 

involves FHWA, the Mexican Secretaria de Communicación y Transporte, and 10 

border states’ departments of transportation

 A project with the World Wildlife Fund to do GIS mapping in the Paso del Norte 

region related to conservation

 Publication of a report by the New Mexico Journal of Science on water resource 

vulnerability in the Paso del Norte region in cooperation with the Southwest 

Consortium on Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP). 

 A final report on another SCERP project on developing a bi-national GIS system.

Sally Spener, IWBC, announced that President Bush had appointed Commissioner Marin as 

Commissioner of the U.S. section; he has been serving as Acting Commissioner. The 

Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant is being upgraded. However, the 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 26

March 13-14, 2007

international outfall interceptor that conveys sewage to the treatment plant is not being 

upgraded due to lack of funding.

Jennifer Montoya, WWF, reported that river restoration will receive $2.5 million of 

Governor Richardson’s capital budget. This is the start of a statewide initiative to integrate 

all of the state agencies that are involved in river management on the Rio Grande.

Carl Edlund, Region 6, EPA, handed out a one-page report that included an upcoming 

Border 2012 National Coordinators Meeting on May 22-24, 2007; an update of the U.S.-

Mexico Border 2012 video; a conference on scrap tire and used oil management; BEIF 

funding in the quarterly management report; and several other items. He also said that the 

EPA office had briefed Senator Feinstein’s office. DFO Koerner asked for a copy of the 

quarterly report to email to members.

Rosendo Treviño, National Resources Conservation Service, USDA, distributed fact sheets 

on USDA activities. The fact sheets included the reauthorization of the Farm Bill and 

information on an MOU between the USDA Secretary, and the Mexican Agriculture and 

Economic Secretary to reestablish the U.S.-Mexico Consultative Committee on Agriculture 

(CCA). Mr. Treviño is a member of the CCA Board. Mr. Treviño added that the NRCS has 

received large increases in funds for conservation since 1995. State conservationists focus 

their assistance on shared watersheds with Mexico. The U. S. and Mexican conservationists 

will stage a bi-national earth day celebration in Alpine, Texas on May 23. 

Lana Corrales, CDC, reported for Marilyn DiSirio, who had to leave for the airport, on 

CDC’s National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry activities. An environmental health workgroup involving CDC, Mexico, 

USEPA, and Border 2012 health task forces is working to reach consensus on border-wide 

priorities for FY2007 to promote health indicator projects on traffic and air pollution, 

dengue fever, and gastrointestinal illness in Baja, California, related to new water systems. 

She is also involved with the Border Indicators Task Force to improve environmental health 

and the Border Health Commission on lead poisoning. 

Stephen Niemeyer, P.E., Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, distributed a written 

report that included the Border 2012 meeting in Austin on February 27, 2007; a Water Work 

Table Meeting at the Border Governor’s Conference on February 21, 2007; a TCEQ and 

University of Texas conference on scrap tires and used-oil on February 26 to March 1, 2007; 

and a 2007 Border to Border Transportation Conference on April 17-19, 2007. Mr. 

Niemeyer pointed out that Deputy Secretary of State Buddy Garcia was appointed and was 

approved by the Texas Senate as the new TCEQ Commissioner. 

Rachel Poynter, Office of Mexico Affairs, Department of State, described her role in 

covering U.S.-Mexico environment and health issues and working with U.S. agencies such 

as EPA, DOI, USGS, and Fish and Wildlife. Three issues of interest to the Board included a 

communiqué related to migratory bird habitat conservation, a NEPA assessment of the 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and land requirements; and a meeting with all of the 

border governors. DHS, FEMA, and DOS are working on more rapid movement of 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 27

March 13-14, 2007

resources across the border. A plan would be developed similar to the one developed for the 

Canadian border.

Michael Dorsey, San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, discussed the 

emergency management institute at the University of Baja California in Tijuana that trains 

first responders. In October, 2005, a settlement with Equilon for $10.5 million enabled them 

to purchase emergency response equipment for the City of Tijuana Fire Department. 

Recently, Mr. Dorsey was appointed Chief of the Community Health Division in charge of 

the Vector Control Program, oversight of landfills and burn sites, occupational health, and 

radiological health.

Susan Keith, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, reported that ADEQ received a 

Border 2012 grant to clean up migrant waste and develop a stakeholder process for future 

clean-ups. ADEQ is studying air quality in the border sister cities and is working with 

IBWC on planning for the international Nogales wastewater plant.

Dr. Brown asked about the new RFID chip in passports that would allow more rapid border 

crossings. Ms. Poynter responded that the technology was being developed and undergoing 

a NEPA assessment of the effect on wait times at the border. Mr. Olivieri said that his 

passport is screened whenever he crosses into the U.S. from Mexico, but the technology for 

scanning passports for U.S. exits to Mexico was not yet in place. 

Wrap Up and Adjournment (1:20 p.m.)

DFO Koerner set up a conference call to plan for the July 24-25 GNEB meeting in 

Brownsville, Texas, for Monday, April 2, 2007 at 12 noon EST. Mr. Joyce congratulated 

the Board on their work in developing the recommendations for the Tenth Report that

received favorable comments from Administrator Johnson and other agency officials. 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:30 p.m.
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Advisory Board 28

March 13-14, 2007

Appendix

Mary Brandt, U.S. IBWC

Don Coelho, U.S. National Park Service

Eric Cook, Border Programs, GSA

Adam Domby, Congressman Girjalva’s Office

Luis Fernandez, EPA

Mike Feullo, BNA

Carey Fitzmaurice, EPA

Laura Gomez, OIA, EPA

Mark Harvey, Office of Law Enforcement, Security, and Emergency Management, National Park 

Service, DOI

Khanna Johnston, OCEM, AO, EPA

Ellie Kanipe, OSW, EPA

Emily Kilcrease, Office of International Affairs, DOI

Deborah Kopsick, RPI, ORIA, EPA

Teresa Kuklinski, EPA

Corinne Lackner, Defenders of Wildlife

Todd Owen, CBP, DHS

Jonathan Putnam, National Park Service

Toni Rousey, OCEM, AO, EPA

Russell Smith, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative

Sue Stendebach, EPA

Tim Sullivan, U.S. Border Patrol

Tyanne Stewart, AEIO, EPA

Kim Thorsen, Director, Office of Law Enforcement, Security, and Emergency Management, DOI