December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 1 

## Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

**Meeting**
**December 14**
**- 15**  **, 2011 JW Marriott**  **1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC** 


### M **EETING** 

### S **UMMARY**



### W **EDNESDAY** 

### , **D ECEMBER**  

### 14, 2011
**Welcome and Introductions** Mark Joyce, EPA, Office of Federal Advisory Committee M anagement and Outreach (OFACMO), GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO); Cynthia Jones

- Jackson, EPA, Acting Director, OFACMO; and Diane Austin, Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GN EB) Mr. Mark Joyce (EPA, OFACMO), Acting DFO for GN EB, welcomed new and existing members to the meeting. The Board will be celebrating members’ work on the 14th Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the President and Congress of the United States (hereafter referred to as “report”) and beginning work on the 15th report. Ms. Cynthia Jones

- Jackson (EPA, OFACMO) echoed Mr. Joyce’s comments. She thanked the Board for the report and noted that OFACMO and EPA were extremely pleased with it. New members Mr. David Anderson (Black and Veatch Corporation) and Ms . Monique La Chappa ( Campo Kumeyaay Nation) would not be in attendance, but GNEB members Mr. Mike Vizzier (San Diego Department of Environmental Health), Mr. Timothy Treviño (Alamo Area Council of Governments), and Mr. Keith Takata (EPA Region 9), were pre sent. Mr. Takata’s region will be the lead EPA region for GNEB. Mr. Larry Starfield accepted a new position at EPA and will be stepping down from the Board. Ms. Jo nes - Ja ckson thanked Ms. Maria Elena Giner (Border Environment Cooperation Commission [BECC]) for attending. Ms. Michelle DePass, Assistant Administrator for the Office of International and Tribal Affairs (OITA), will be speaking at the meeting and was helpful in securing the attendance of several other Assistant Administrators. She also thanked OF ACMO staff members for their work in planning the meeting.
Dr. Diane Austin (University of Arizona), GNEB Chair, thanked members, EPA staff and guests for attending. She noted that the deadlines had been short for this year’s report, but they were met as a result of the Board’s and EPA’s hard work. She welcomed new members and thanked them for attending on short notice, and thanked the contractor, The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc., for its support in preparing the report. Mr. Joyce in turn thanked Dr. Austin for her work on the report. Board members, staff and audience members introduced themselves, and then Dr. Austin reviewed the agenda for the 2

- day meeting.2 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

**Major Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) and North American Development B**  **ank (NADB) Initiative** Maria Elena Giner

, General Manager

, BECC Ms. Giner stated that the mandate of the BECC dovetails with GNEB, and she saw opportunities for collaborations on projects from the 14th report. The BECC was created out of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) but is an organization intended to certify projects that will be financed by the NADB that will preserve, protect and enhance the U.S.

- Mexico border region by identifying, developing, implementing and overseeing environmental infrastructure projects. The NADB has a lending capacity of $3 billion. Those overseeing water and wastewater projects are not willing to take on loans; these projects still are grant dependent. As market opportunities have grown, it is important for the B ECC and the NADB to expand markets. Earnings from loans will be funneled into the Capital Assistance Program that is directed toward core sectors (water, wastewater and solid waste, hazardous industrial waste and water conservation). The expanded sectors a re accessing loan programs and include air quality, public transportation, clean and efficient energy, municipal planning and international border crossings, as well as the new sectors: energy transmission and distribution, environmental goods and service s with net benefit to the border, and infrastructure to minimize future negative environmental impacts. The BECC has certified 189 projects, 152 of which were NADB financed. The BECC has built credibility with other funding agencies and investors and has been able to pool together financing schemes. Technical assistance is the cornerstone of project development. EPA has provided a significant amount of funds to the BECC, and the BECC technical assistance grants have helped 155 communities; 85 percent of the funds have been applied to implemented projects. Training and capacity building also are important when considering implementation of projects. The BECC held five training events in 2011, a $130,000 investment. Social and environmental benefits were e vident in projects on water and wastewater, solid waste management, air quality, water conservation and energy. For example, in water and wastewater, improvements were made that benefitted more than 12 million border residents by eliminating 400 million ga llons per day of untreated or inadequately treated sewage. The U.S.

- Mexico Border Program funded by EPA has provided more than $33 billion in Project Development Assistance Program technical assistance grants and $556.2 million in Border Environment Infr astructure Funds (BEIF). Every dollar of BEIF funds has the leveraging strength of more than $2 of other sources. Because of this program, wastewater treatment coverage in Mexico’s border region, for example, has increased from 21 to 82 percent from 1995 t o 2010. The U.S. contributions have decreased since 2007 to $25 million, and the President’s budget has been $10 million since 2008; Congress increased those budgets until 2011. The BECC and EPA developed a call for applications in 2005 to provide transp arency as to how the funds were allocated to these projects. The BECC still is receiving approximately 200 applications each year. The BECC has conducted infrastructure needs assessments for all 10 border states. In Mexico, many needs are first

- time infras tructure needs. Growth likely will surpass the investments. Rehabilitation of existing systems also is needed in Mexico. The BECC received funds from the World Bank to identify opportunities for efficiencies in Mexican communities. Efficiency in utilitie s is a fundamental aspect of sustainability, and the study examined global efficiencies: the physical efficiencies multiplied by collection efficiencies. Some areas in Mexico have as low as 34 percent global efficiency. In the United States, the primary g ap in centralized infrastructure exists in the rural setting, and an investment may be required to connect to a centralized system. BECC assessment in combination with available data provides a macro

- level analysis to identify targeted areas in the United States for further investigation. Resources are required to invest in micro

level needs assessments to ensure access to potable drinking water and adequate wastewater disposal. The BECC is developing the baseline of health information to assess the actual impact of certified projects. ADecember 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 3

case study was conducted in the Valle de Juarez that showed the presence of parasites in tap water, with Giardia affecting more than 67 percent of the population. Another study considered the impact of road paving on particulate matter (PM 10 ) reduction; after roads are paved, it was found that average PM 10 levels decrease by approximately 20 percent, and peak concentrations decreased by 80 percent. The BECC is working with EPA on how it can help cities make better paving choi ces based on traffic and population centers. Additionally, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventories were conducted for the six Mexican border states. Electricity consumption and transportation create the greatest GHG emissions. Water utilities are the la

rgest energy consumers in most communities. With the assistance of Border 2012 funds, the BECC has started three Mexican Climate Action Plans in Baj a California, Sonora and Coahuila. Each plan developed 40 to 60 public policies. In the United States, app roximately 30 Climate Action Plans exist. Mexico has a national plan as well, and U.S. plans generally are conducted by the states. U.S. border state GHG emissions show commonalities with Mexican states in terms of their sources. Climate Action Plans must include water conservation.
Discussion Ms. Cecilia Aguillon (Kyocera Solar, Inc.), GNEB member, asked whether any projects using recycled tires to pave roads were being considered. Ms. Giner responded that 3 years prior, the BECC certified a project in Tijuana to white

- top roads using cool technologies. There was not significant PM 10 reduction. The BECC has promoted training for and the use of rubberized asphalt but has seen that municipal governments in Mexico only last 3 years, so the amount of paving that can be done decreases. It is not a well

- recognized industry in Mexico, so gaining investment is difficult. Additionally, many tires now are being disposed of at cement kilns. Mr. Jose Angel (California River Basin Region Water Quality Control Board) , GNEB member, explained that on the border, a curtain of dust rises in the morning around the time people leave for work, and the same thing happens during the evening rush hour. Dr. David Henkel (University of Mexico), GNEB member, asked what thought h ad been given to water quality issues with respect to irrigation. Ms. Giner responded that 80 percent of water is used for irrigation. The BECC has held many meetings at the local and federal level on irrigation opportunities. The cost of developing new water sources is high, and if an opportunity to reduce water consumption can be identified, it should be pursued. The Mexican National Water Commission ( 

### Comisión Nacional del Agua , CONAGUA) has a national plan for water conservation as it relates to climate adaptation that will examine opportunities in irrigation; the BECC is about to begin a study on this. She will discuss including water quality in this study with CONAGUA. Mr. Gary Gillen (Gillen Pest Control), GNEB member , mentioned that the Board had se en a tire storage facility in Mexico and asked if the tires were being used in cement kilns at the expense of air quality. Ms. Giner replied that these are state

- of

- the

- art facilities, and the manufacturers of cement are international. Ms. Laura Gomez (E PA, OITA) asked for elaboration on the funding received from the World Bank. Ms. Giner stated that the World Bank grant was $100,000, and it was for a collaboration project between the BECC and a border university. Mr. Stephen Niemeyer (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality [TCEQ]), GNEB member, asked what “ infrastructure to minimize future negative environmental effects” meant. Ms. Giner replied that the BECC had received many requests for urban renewal projects, such as rehabilitating industrial parks. Projects must demonstrate a quantifiable environmental result. The goal is to examine infrastructure needs that will have an environmental benefit. Mr. Niemeyer asked how this related to Congressman Rubén Hinojosa’s (Texas) legislation intended to expand the BECC’s mandate. Ms. Giner stated that it was4 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

related: Congressman Hinojosa’s legislation proposes to remove the word “environmental” before “infrastructure” in BECC’s mandate. Mr. Nathan Small (New Mexico Wilderness Alliance), GNEB member, noted that the BECC’s mandate expansion was interesting and might increase funding to poor areas. He asked how the change came about and whether there would be a rapid expansion into the new areas driven by fulfilling the core needs. Ms. Giner noted that the change had just been approved, but nothing moves rapidly in infrastructure. In the energy sector, the BECC has four to five projects moving rapidly, with10 projects in the pipeline. In the case of urban renewal, the BECC is seeing that communities must be edu cated about the opportunities to take NADB’s funding. Project sponsors want business certainty. The BECC and the NADB will be pooling a budget of about $400,000 for technical assistance to develop projects in the private sector. Many of these decisions mad e in private industry are not made locally. The BECC still is in the phase of identifying opportunities. The BECC has a results measurement framework put into place 2 years ago, and the projects must demonstrate environmental benefit. Mr. Robert Apodaca ( U.S. Department of Agriculture [ U SDA] ), GNEB member, noted that some border projects had been identified in New Mexico and asked if she had worked with people at the state level because this could represent a large leveraging opportunity. Ms. Giner responded that she had, and many projects have partners. Regular state meetings are held, as well as meetings with state legislatures. Mr. Thomas Ruiz (New Mexico Environment Department [NMED] ), GNEB member, noted that he was on the colonia infrastructure boar d, which will be considering the funding available for infrastructure and housing. The BECC should consider leveraging these funds. Mr. Timothy Treviño (Alamo Area Council of Governments), GNEB member, asked about the slide on investment needs for the Un ited States and where the specific dollar figures stated are concentrated along the border. The Texas Transportation Institute released a report in the summer of 2011 that reveals that 85 percent of the population of Texas now resides east of Interstate 35 . What are the BECC and the NADB doing to work with the State of Texas in trying to secure adequate funding for these types of projects? If a gap in funding has been identified, and municipalities do not want to expand their delivery systems, what ideas do the BECC and the NADB have to finance projects in rural areas that do not have adequate revenue streams? Ms. Giner responded that the engineering aspects of projects were easy but finding a sponsor is difficult, especially in an unincorporated community. She explained that the issue raised was very serious. If the Board is interested, she could sort data in a manner that will reveal which areas are unincorporated, how the counties relate to it and how the data can be correlated. The BECC has the data down to the county level. The reports should be available by February 2012 and may be useful for the Board. Ms. Giner met with EPA Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe approximately 2 years ago and mentioned that funding for the BECC had decreased significantly since he had served as Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water under the Clinton Administration. Dr. Austin noted that when she gave a presentation in Arizona on a project in Nogales, Sonora, on composting toilets, one of the county staff members in attendance stated that some people in Arizona counties have the same needs as in the colonias in Nogales, Sonora. **Update on Border 2012/2020 Activities and Border Issues** Michelle DePass, Assistant Administrator , EPA, OITA Ms. DePass thanked Dr. Austi n for her dedication and thanked her staff in attendance, Ms. Jane Nishida, Director of Regional Bilateral Affairs, and Ms. Laura Gomez and Ms. Lisa Almodovar, project managers for the program. She also thanked Ms. Jones

- Jackson for the invitation to the meeting and noted that she would have three opportunities to speak to the Board that day. She is looking forward to strengthening opportunities to partner with the Board on issues of science and innovation. Many of the Board members have supported EPA in th e Border 2012 effort. Accomplishments made through partnerships in Border 2012 include pesticide collection through binational state

- level partnerships. Pesticides were collectedDecember 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 5

through cooperation with state and federal agricultural agencies. Increased c apacity has been developed through trinational tribal partnerships as well. With the Tohono O’odham Nation Office of Environmental Protection, the BECC and Border 2012, the San Francisquito, Sonora, Mexico, community was able to access clean drinking water . Border 2012 has partnered with academia for solutions toward improving air quality through Border 2012, particularly with the University of Texas at El Paso, and examined options in binational traffic flow at the Bridge of the Americas to determine the i mpact on air quality and pollution exposure. Border 2012 has achieved not only significant measurable results in projects such as those outlined but also succeeded in the areas of social development. The human capacity is an important aspect in the work th at EPA conducts. Border 2012 has partnered by connecting science experts from all levels of government binationally with the community and has worked on the “healthy communities” approach, in which the program works with the economies, the state, the tribal governments, academia and other organizations. The efforts along the U.S.

- Mexico border have contributed toward its advancement, although there is much more work to do, and the program will work with the Board to make a better life for border citizens. Looking forward, Border 2020 will be a continuing effort to build healthy communities along the border, advance Agency and project actions across the environmental and public health spectrum, and strengthen binational partnerships. This work will involve cleaning the air through anti

- idling technology, providing safe drinking water through infrastructure, and reducing exposure to hazardous waste and chemicals through awareness and better management practices. Border 2020 is different than Border 2012 in th at it has an 8

- year implementation horizon; the project has established biennial action plans that will create priority and near

- term targets that pay attention to the particular needs of a geographic area, region or community and adapt to emerging issues and unanticipated resource constraints. Border 2020 has established five fundamental strategies: climate change; underserved communities; children’s health; environmental education; and strengthening tribal, state, national and international partnerships. Work likely will continue to focus on air pollution reduction in the binational airsheds; continue to increase homes connected to safe drinking water and wastewater treatment; develop capacity to improve collection and recycling of electronic waste (e

- was te), plastics and trash; and improve environmental and public health through chemical safety. The public comment period closed on November 30, 2011, and much valuable feedback was received. During the public comment period, the project held its first border tribal consultation. Border 2020 met with the tribes about the draft of the program in the San Diego region. The first major topic of comments received was on capacity development. Border 2020 has received a request to support and train on scientific a

nd technical knowledge with partners at the local levels, for example, to conduct workshops on renewable energy in the Arizona/Sonora regions and provide trainings on water and wastewater utility management in the California/Baja California region. A secon d maj or topic of the comments was environmental education of border citizens on health and environmental issues that affect them and why the issues matter for future generations. In the Texas/Nueva Leon/Coahuila/Tamaulipas region, Border 2020 was asked to provide trainings on safe handling of pesticides and use of chemicals and hazardous substances. A third category of comments received focused on public participation; creating ways to encourage border citizens to participate with the program and energize them to be active participants within the community, such as through developing a public information system that relies on the input of the public so that its members are engaged in the issues that affect their communities; and continuing the bottom

-up appr oach by having communities identify their priorities through Border 2020 task forces. Border 2020 continues to cross

- review some of the recommendations that were made in the Board’s 13th report, as it contains very helpful recommendations for the current and future challenges that remain and outlines a wide range of opportunities for improving the quality of life and the environment in the border region. Border 2020 welcomes the Board’s recommendations on how it can strengthen its partnerships through scien ce and innovation and looks forward to the Board’s continued partnership and support. The program still is in negotiations with Mexico, but a final document will be submitted to the leadership in hopes of having it signed at the 2012 National Coordinators meeting in Tijuana, Mexico. The one key element essential in the program’s achievements is partnership. Through partnerships, the program has made some progress on improving the health of border citizens. The current economic6 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

situation has created many ch allenges that affect EPA’s work, and work will have to continue with fewer resources. Innovation, however, rises to the challenges. Through past collaboration with Mexico in Border 2012, strong relationships and a bilateral environmental agenda have been f ormed. Keith Takata, Deputy Regional Administrator , EPA Region 9 Mr. Takata stated that he was proud to be a new member of the Board, but he is not new to border work. More than 20 years ago, he helped to start the border program in EPA Region 9. There has been tremendous change since then; Border 2020 is EPA’s fourth border plan. EPA has established border offices in Region 9 (San Diego) and Region 6 (El Paso), along with the BECC and the NADB. In the 10

- year Border 2012 program, EPA has invested more than $14 million in 200 projects, and the related BEIF has invested more than $500 million toward 90 water and wastewater projects. A company called Metales, a U.S.

- owned smelter in Tijuana, abandoned a facility and left more than 444,000 tons of lead. With pressure from nongovernmental organizations and EPA funds, Mexico cleaned up that site last year. The land now is being used as an air emissions laboratory for the state of Baja California. Much of the lead at Metales came from lead batteries. When the environmental problem is located in Mexico, but the source of the problem originates in the United States, all of the differing laws and economic realities make it difficult to accomplish projects at the border. The New River is an example: there were 15 million gallons of raw sewage crossing the border into Calexico. A treatment plant was built with the help of EPA that removed most of the discharge, reducing the presence of bacteria by 90 percent. There still are, however, industrial and slaughterhouse discharges in the New River on the Mexican side that affect the United States. Another issue was the buildup of tire dumps along the border, and with the BECC, EPA removed 8 million tires from the dumps. Much more needs to be done, and EPA needs GNEB’s cont inued vigilance. In San Diego and Tijuana, much work is conducted on wastewater problems, and many of them have been solved. Every year, however, 500,000 tons of sediment and 500 tons of trash flow into the United States during rain events. EPA also has co nducted much work in collecting obsolete pesticides, but hundreds of thousands remain that need proper disposal. There are $800 million in project needs for wastewater infrastructure, yet the annual budget is $10 million. The need is great, and the outlook for funding is uncertain at best. Despite this, both regional offices are committed to making border work a priority and continuing close collaboration with Mexico as good neighbors. The Board’s ideas and support are needed.
Discussion Ms. Alison Krepp (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA]), GNEB member, asked when Border 2020 action plans would be available for review. Ms. DePass replied that EPA still was negotiating with Mexico in terms of the structure of Border 2020. When those ne gotiations are complete, EPA can release the action plans to the public. Ms. Krepp asked for a timeframe in which this might be accomplished. Ms. Almodovar (EPA, OITA) stated that the biannual reports will be released at the beginning of 2013 with that year’s appropriation budget. If Border 2012 is signed in August 2012, there will be a few months to develop the action plans. Mr. Angel noted that New River was one of his organization’s key projects, particularly the Mexicali sanitation program. There has been progress, but not yet success. The New River remains one of the more polluted rivers in the United States as it enters California. The state hopes that the federal departments will recognize that there is a continued infrastructure need in Mexicali and in the Calexico/Imperial Valley area. The state

- level organizations believe that they have a role to play. In terms of capacity building, California entered into a memorandum of understanding with the state of Baja California through which it provided a 5

- day workshop on wastewater treatment and utility management and offered that information to Border 2020. Ms. DePass asked that California partner with Border 2020 to disseminate the information.December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 7

Mr. Luis Olmedo (Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc.), GNEB mem ber, stated that environmental justice (EJ) was not necessarily a component of Border 2020 and asked if there were plans in Border 2020 to address the New River by investing more aggressively in resource and human capital to ensure that the job there is co mpleted. Regarding tire dumps, he asked about the challenges of working binationally. Ms. DePass stated that one of her first meetings when she assumed her current position was a Border 2012 National Coordinators meeting in San Diego. Mr. Ruiz from NMED ha d asked a question about EJ, and Ms. DePass had written NMED’s platform on EJ. EJ is critical in the way that EPA sees its work and why it performs its work. Recognizing that this is a binational program and that EPA must negotiate and work with Mexico, th e focus has been on underserved communities. EJ is a concern that Administrator Lisa Jackson has embraced. As EPA works toward children’s environmental health and the impacts that the projects will have in protecting and improving the environmental health of communities, these are the communities most underserved. On the U.S. side, the border community has the highest unemployment, disease rates and environmental health risk in the country. Additionally, these communities have the fewest opportunities in te rms of a clean and safe infrastructure. She and her staff have been working with the regions to underscore this. One challenge of working binationally is, as stated, making EJ work in negotiations with Mexico. Her office works multinationally and with all 565 sovereign nations in the United States. Each nation (tribal or otherwise) has different priorities. If there is a site that Board me mbers think is most important locally, they should let the federal leadership or tribal leadership know so that it can b e addressed. Mr. Takata noted that Border 2020 is similar to a strategic plan with broad objectives. Once Border 2020 is adopted, EPA plans to move to the action level with the 2

- year action plans. Border 2020 also contains some cross - cutting strategies; instead of EJ, the terms “underserved communities” and “children’s health” are used. EPA is committed to trying to solve the remainder of the New River problem. He helps to chair a regional workgroup in California, and EPA also has a water taskforce. That is where a plan will be developed. In terms of tires, the physical problem is that there is a dump on tribal land, but most of the material came from elsewhere. The United States cannot tell the tribe not to take the material, and there is an economic inc entive to keep taking the material. There are conflicting laws and differing economic incentives, and the only way to solve the problem is to bring people together. Ms. Almodovar added that EJ is a term that has a differing definition in the United States and Mexico. Mexico has agreed to change the term to underserved or underrepresented communities. Mr. Ruiz stated that there appeared to be good focus on EJ by using Mexico’s terms, and it is one of the Border 2020 five fundamental strategies. Goal one, c limate change, however, is a politically charged issue, but renewable energy and energy efficiency must be emphasized, and perhaps climate change could be worded as such. Mr. Niemeyer noted that in Mexico, the northern border is the wealthiest part of th e country, but in the United States, the southern border is the poorest. Therefore, Mexico does not have much incentive to work on the border issues as it has greater needs. Fortunately, there is the La Paz Agreement and the Border 2020 framework document that allows for border implementation plans. Working together with other partners is critical on border issues. Ms. DePass commented that the regional leadership in place also is crucial. Border 2020 would not work without the commitment and resources of the regional offices. Sometimes regional funds lead the way to conducting work on the border. Mr. Angel appreciates the challenge in working with Mexico but wondered if EPA was driving to a lower common denominator for the sake of harmony, such as downgrading definitions to make them more acceptable. Ms. Angela Palazzolo (U.S. Department of State), GNEB member, noted that as a representative from the U.S. Department of State, she applauded EPA’s sensitivity to terminology. It can be difficult to compromis e with Mexico, but EPA does it on a regular basis and manages to find the strongest possible option. Ms. DePass agreed that it was a commitment and that EPA would remain vigilant on EJ. Ms. Almodovar stated that there also had been negotiation on a website for climate change. Ms. DePass8 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

noted that the border program was successful in improving environmental health; she asked the Board me mbers for some of their ideas to ensure that all of the projects continuing in a variety of regions could have lasting co nnectivity in terms of the results and how to ensure that those municipally responsible or in academia have an opportunity to share their best practices. Ms. Krepp stated that when NOAA has projects that are spread across a region, some of the capacity b uilding that is missing is being able to relate the work to regional impact or statements. This is difficult for field staff to accomplish because the impact of the project is connected to county demographics or regional statistics. Often missing is the ec onomic, demographic environmental engineering analysis. Dr. Henkel noted that he learned through the past year of the Board’s work that GNEB has an appreciation of other units of government, but the members approach the work as individuals. Board me mber s have the capacity to construct networks of their own. They can relate to the regions and other local and state partners if they mobilize themselves. The Board must have a discussion about how to accomplish this. The report should not be out of the Board’ s hands once it is delivered to the President but should be a starting point for the members as well. Board members should determine what can be done locally with the report. Mr. Angel commented that from a water quality perspective, laws, regulations and programs are viewed as the “instruments,” and watershed management is viewed as the “orchestra.” There should be a strong monitoring component of programs to determine whether they have been successful. Ms. Palazzolo mentioned that she was part of the i mplementation process during various Border 2012 programs. Challenges of accountability and capacity building with the short Mexican government turnover mean that EPA regional staff should use the consulates at the border as their contacts in the local Mex ican government. There can be a gap between the hard work conducted in Washington and the regional staff in the field, and officers at the U.S. consulates could help to bridge that gap. One of her offers to regional staff is to use the Department of State’ s contacts at the border. EPA should contact her or Ms. Rachel Poynter to assist with getting in touch with such contacts. Dr. Austin agreed that this could be helpful. Dr. Teresa Pohlman (Department of Homeland Security [DHS]), GNEB member, recommended that EPA use metrics to measure progress instead of textual information and generalizations about what has been done. EPA must find a quantifiable way to measure progress and accomplishments that have been achieved with the money and time invested. Ms. DeP ass stated that EPA had determined how to measure project by project, but this is much more difficult on the transboundary level. She agreed with Dr. Pohlman’s idea. Dr. Austin added that qualitative data, such as interview results, also are valuable. For example, with $40,000, the size of a typical Border 2012 grant, there will not be measurable air quality impact in Nogales, but there may be other impacts. Connections that people make through those projects are key because they can have an impact over time. Although quantitative measures are important, qualitative measures are equally valid and help to track projects. The challenge is how to measure and express the qualitative findings. Mr. Takata agreed that there was a need to measure the work conducted, and with Border 2012, an environmental indicators report was created. Mr. Russell Frisbie (International Boundary and Water Commission [IBWC]), GNEB member, stated that IBWC maintains eight field offices along the border, which could be useful in communicating information about the Border 2012 and Border 2020 programs. The IBWC U.S. Section maintains a number of citizens’ forums along the border not subject to the Federal Advisory Committee Act that are much more informal than a GNEB meeting. These forum s could provide a good opportunity for the Agency to make known what the U.S. government is undertaking in these regions. Ms. Gomez stated that EPA needed to ensure that both social science and hard science were communicated and linked. People need to be able to understand the results. When EPA moves forwardDecember 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 9

with Border 2020, the Agency is open to Board suggestions on how it can be more creative with its messaging. Ms. DePass thanked the Board for the discussion and all of its service. Mr. John Wood (Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority), GNEB member, mentioned that he had served on a citizen forum for the IBWC that was quite educational. Those who serve become much more informed about what the IBWC does and needs because it also is underfunded. It is important to become involved on the local level.
**Public Comments** Dr. Austin noted that no one had signed up to offer public comments.
**Press Event at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars** Board members attended a press event at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars for the release of GNEB’s 14th report. **Board Member Updates and Discussion W**  **ith Senior Officials F**  **rom EPA** Dr. Austin welcomed senior administrators from EPA, and Ms. Jones

- Jackson introduced the participants. She thanked Ms. DePass and her staff because without OITA, there would not have been such participation from senior managers. Mr. Mike Flynn (EPA, Office of Air and Radiation [OAR]) congratulated and thanked the Board for its 14th report. He highlighted some of the work conducted under Border 2012. The foundation of OAR’s work is the completion of the GHG inventories and forecasts in the border states; this can support climate action plans across the states. Secondly, there are practical guides that address renewable energy and energy efficiency, which are being translated into Spanish so that they can be more useful across the border. Additionally, OAR is examining how reducing idling at border crossings can be addressed and making low

- sulfur diesel fuel available, a major impediment to cleaner trucks in Mexico. OAR is encouraging the availability of those fuels. Additional work is being conducted on ambient air monitoring. OAR is working with partners on the border to advance significant air issues. Mr. Randy Hill (EPA, Office of Water [OW], Office of Wastewater Management) noted that he was present on behalf of Ms. Nancy Stoner, the Acting Assistant Administrator for Water, and appreciated the opportunity to speak to the Board. One of his duties is serving as the National Program Manager for EPA’s Border Water Infrastructure Program. Ms. DePass spoke about some of these statistics; he noted that he would like to amplify several points. Every 2 years, EPA conducts a solicitation on both sides of the border for drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects. The most recent process was for fiscal years 2011 and 2012; EPA received 200 project applications with an estimated total construction cost of $800 million. This program has been funded by C ongress on the U.S. side at roughly $10 million per year plus the equivalent amount in Mexico. For every dollar of U.S. federal investments, it is estimated that there are $3 used for projects along the border. The program hopes to fund 23 of the 200 submi tted projects for initial design and planning. There is a great deal of unmet need, but there has been success in significantly increasing the access to water and drinking water infrastructure in the border region. First time access, however, is not meanin gful unless there is continuous access. In the wastewater industry, there is too much repair by replacement; new systems are constructed instead of maintaining old ones. The program is committed to incorporating not just access to wastewater and drinking w ater along the border, but sustainable access. EPA is working to incorporate considerations of energy efficiency, proper operation and maintenance, proper operator training and climate readiness. The program also is studying the economic benefit of adequat e infrastructure along the border. There has been significant growth that has required the expansion of water and wastewater infrastructure, but that growth eventually will stop unless there is access to adequate services. A synergistic effect exists betwe en development and infrastructure. The program has been collaborating with OITA as well as CONAGUA, the IBWC, the10 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

BECC and the NADB to develop new water goals for Border 2020. The four objectives released for public comment are to: increase the number of homes connected to safe drinking water and adequate wastewater treatment, help utilities along the border to implement sustainable infrastructure practices, work binationally to identify and reduce surface water contamination in specific high

-priority wate r bodies or watersheds, and provide the public with timely access to water quality data on binational water bodies and watersheds in a readily accessible and web

-based format. More on these objectives and subobjectives are available at OITA’s Border 2020 w ebsite. There is a high degree of alignment between the draft Border 2020 water goals and some of the recommendations in GNEB’s 14th report, such as the recommendations to encourage and assist municipalities to conduct energy audits and to prioritize proje cts that update criteria to incorporate energy efficiency and renewable energy. Given that the Board will be examining infrastructure for the 15th report, Mr. Hill can commit OW to working closely with GNEB. Mr. Matthew Stanislaus (EPA, Office of Solid W aste and Emergency Response [OSWER]) stated that his office was responsible for the cleanup of contaminated properties, hazardous and nonhazardous solid waste, and emergency response. The Repowering America’s Land Initiative is attempting to connect the op portunities for clean energy by siting projects on contaminated properties. OSWER has worked with the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory to examine contaminated properties across the country and map those properties that lend themselves to siting of renewable energy. Ithas been mapped based on the various kinds of individual potential but specifically renewable energy. In November 2011, OSWER announced a number of feasibility studies that are being conducted, and a number of them are located on the border. In emergency response, there are significant issues along the U.S.

- Mexico border. OSWER co

- chairs the U.S.

- Mexico Border 2012 Goal 5 activities with Mexican counterparts on emergency preparedness. Through an interagency agree ment with the U.S. Department of Defense’s Northern Command, OSWER is working to strengthen the hazardous material response capabilities and build capacity on both sides of the border. Through this partnership, OSWER has brought emergency response equipment to a number of first responders in several cities along the border and worked with first responders in these cities to develop a mutual training for emergency response. OSWER also has an initiative to address the major problem of used tires piles and the ir consequences. The 10 border states and municipalities, along with the U.S. Rubber Manufacturers Association, have signed a letter of understanding to conduct scrap tire prevention activities. More than 8 million border tires have been cleaned up since 2 003 through Border 2012. Recently, OSWER has reinitiated implementation of better practices for tires and discussed under what circumstances tires can be burned as fuel. Additionally, OSWER rolled out an electronic method of conducting notice and consent t hat has received positive response. The President in 2010 released a national strategy for electronic stewardship. A number of activities are included, such as green design as well as export and mismanagement of e

- waste. OSWER is advocating to certify recy cling in the United States to maximize recycling and ensure that a tracking system is in place. Finally, Mr. Stanislaus asked for the Board’s thoughts on handling lead batteries, as there are restrictions as to what EPA can do. Ms. DePass stated that she would not speak again but wanted to thank her colleagues for attending. She introduced Ms. Lisa Garcia, Senior Advisor to the Administrator on EJ. Ms. Garcia noted that she had the pleasure of working with all of the programs to advance and integrate EJ into all programs at EPA. EPA has a roadmap called Plan EJ 2014 because 2014 is the anniversary of the executive order on EJ signed by the President in 1994. It is aligned with EPA’s strategic plan so that some of the performance measures and metrics are aligned as well. Under the roadmap, EPA has worked with OITA on Border 2020 and on Border 2012. She read some of the recommendations from GNEB’s report, and one of the things included in Border 2020 was to work on vulnerable populations and how communities would be brought into the process. Mr. Derry Allen (EPA, Office of Policy [OP], Office of Strategic Environmental Management) commented that he was representing Ms. Bicky Corman, Deputy Associate Administrator of OP . OP does not manage programs like the other offices and does not have special programs relating to the U.S.

-December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 11

Mexico border region. Several months ago, the National Academy of Sciences presented to EPA a report called Sustainability and the U.S. EPA . It recommends a number of ways in which EPA mi ght go about integrating principles of sustainability into its everyday work. The Administrator accepted the report with thanks and then wanted to talk to people around the country to determine which recommendations had support. The listening process has begun and includes another advisory committee, the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), which is now starting a special project on sustainability. Some of the other advisory boards at EPA have decided to send members to participate in that process, including the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, the National Environmental Ju stice Advisory Committee and the Environmental Finance Advisory Board. Sustainability must be central to GNEB’s mission and is also of great interest to all of the departments in the federal government. Sustainability applies to the border region as much as it applies anywhere else and is a concept that can draw together many of the interests of this group. If the Board or individual members would like to offer some input on this topic by sending delegates to NACEPT or by some other means, EPA would welcome it.
Discussion Mr. Angel commented that Mr. Hill’s statements showed an ominous trend regarding unmet needs, so it is incumbent on those at the local and state levels to bring this trend to the attention of policy

- makers so that it may be stopped or even reversed. He expressed concern that the gains made in the past would be lost. Ms. Aguillon raised the issue of using tires for rubberized asphalt to cover highways to keep them cooler and quieter; it is a good method to recycle tires. She expressed belief that the concrete lobbying group deterred progress on this front in Arizona. Additionally, in past years there had been discus sions in Washington about putting solar panels on trucks to address the truck idling issue at the border. Mr. Flynn responded that there are obvious reasons why trucks are idling at the border, and solar panels may be something that should be examined. Mr. Joyce commented that DHS was conducting some pilot projects at ports of entry in which the truck stops were being electrified so that diesel engines could be turned off. Dr. Austin added that Nogales, Sonora, was the single largest port of entry for winte r produce, and idling is a serious issue there. Mr. Olmedo noted that as EPA moves on to Border 2020, there are many issues that will not be solved within the border region of the United States, such as air monitoring, idling and emerging unpermitted was te recyclers on tribal lands. If the United States can address this issue with sovereign nations within the country, it will be more equipped to deal with international issues. Mr. Stanislaus responded that EPA recently closed the public comment period on a rule on solid waste originally finalized in the previous administration that streamlines some of the rules for hazardous waste recycling. EPA was petitioned by a number of environmental organizations to examine the EJ consequences of hazardous waste recycling. It was found that hazardous waste recycling mismanagement is affecting low

- income communities disproportionately. EPA proposed to restrict the rules significantly to provide more accountability and prescriptive containment standards because even leg itimate recyclers can create negative impacts. Mr. Flynn added that there was continued focus on what more EPA could do in terms of air monitoring at the border. EPA is collaborating with the U.S. Department of Transportation and its Mexican counterparts o n the idling issue and trying to unravel the solution. Dr. Austin added that from an Arizona/Sonora perspective, there has been a drastic reduction in the amount of air monitoring being conducted on the border because of budget cutbacks. Mr. Olmedo mention ed the New River as a case study of trying to resolve environmental issues from other countries and noted his awareness of the challenges that the Agency is facing. Dr. Henkel commented that many questions surface repeatedly as the Board learns more about the issues, which enables GNEB to think more broadly about the capacities and different perspectives on the issues. Border 2020 is focused on healthy communities on one hand and binational cooperation on the other, which raises a concern about food safety and agriculture. A farm bill will be considered in 2013; a number of residents of colonias come from agricultural backgrounds, and there is a robust agricultural12 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

trade with Mexico. He expressed concern about how the United States was handling water quality and public health issues and access of poor communities to affordable food. He asked how EPA views the issues of sustainability and EJ in these situations. Mr. Hill replied that the link between food and water quality is something that EPA has not spent a great deal of time considering. The Clean Water Act expects that the states will develop water quality standards subject to EPA approval, and EPA releases criteria documents, which are scientific recommendations for an acceptable level of water quality for particular uses. EPA models crop uptake and on the regulatory side is focused on identifiable sources of water quality impairment such as point sources. Many water bodies that are not meeting water quality standards are impaired in large part because o f agricultural contributions, so EPA is collaborating with state and local governments and USDA and will be examining the Farm Bill. EPA is attempting to ensure that the link between agricultural output and water quality is a central consideration. Ms. Gar cia added that EPA was engaged in work with USDA to focus on healthy foods and urban gardens as well as access to food. She expressed appreciation of the discussion on colonias and would see how this issue could be incorporated in work with other agencies and at EPA. Mr. Apodaca noted that USDA had a number of programs that attempted to address water quality standards and would be conducting some initiatives that likely will be focused on the colonias . Additionally, he asked about the definition of infrastr ucture in the border region. Mr. Flynn responded that regarding the issue on agriculture, from an air pollution standpoint EPA is examining best management practices. Mr. Allen added that many of the links between water and agriculture being described are at the heart of issues of sustainability; if there are particular ideas on solving issues at the border region, they should be added to a plan of how the Agency can develop principles of sustainability about daily activities. Dr. Austin added that a conver sation was under way in Tucson on the source of water for community gardens. Water is priced differently for agricultural or residential use, and urban gardens pay the residential price, which can be cost

-prohibitive. If a community garden can demonstrate that it is using water conservation measures, perhaps it could receive a reduction in price. Mr. Hill mentioned that in October 2010, OW released a water and wastewater infrastructure sustainability policy that summarizes what actions utilities should take to make their operations more sustainable. One aspect is examining rate structure to determine whether the cost of providing service is being captured. It is not reasonable to expect that the federal government will be funding all infrastructure needs, an d it will be up to states and local governments to determine how to operate and maintain a water infrastructure sustainably. Mr. Niemeyer thanked Ms. DePass for inviting the participants to the meeting. On the issue of EJ, he noted that a friend involved in Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance had stated that the entire border region constituted an EJ issue. Dr. Austin echoed Mr. Niemeyer’s thanks to all of the participants for attending and to Ms. DePass and Ms. Jo nes - Ja ckson for inviting the m. Mr. Gillen offered farewell comments to the rest of the Board, and Mr. Niemeyer suggested that they be entered into the record verbatim. Dr. Austin agreed, and the comments follow. Mr. Gillen’s Farewell Comments
I would like to thank Diane, Mark an d Cynthia for allowing me a few moments during our always

-busy and too

- few meetings. To the Board members with whom I have served over the last 6 years, what an honor it has been for this small

- town, ordinary Texan to serve with such prestigious, diverse and hard

- working people. I mean each of those words and do not use them lightly because you truly are an incredible group of individuals. Your expertise and reach is amazing. You have been my mentors, teachers and sometimes antagonists, but always my friends. I do not live in the border region but with your help, generosity and kindness, I have learned so much about this beautiful, harsh, yet fragile region and the people who call it home.December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 13

Growing up in the Gulf Coast of Texas, I always thought of the bor der area as a river. And it is in Texas. I will never forget my first trip to the Tohono O’odham Nation and to the San Miguel gate. To see a four

strand barbed

- wire fence stretching out across miles of desert was truly an education. I am not the same man I was 6 years ago because I carry a little of each of you in my heart. We have benefitted from strong and wise leadership from chairs like Paul Ganster and more recently, Diane Austin. Smoothing our path have been people like Elaine, Rafael, Mark, Cynthia, Ann

- Marie, Stephanie, Geri and Lois. To each of you, thank you! To all of you with whom I have served, I want to thank you for your friendship. I will truly miss seeing you three times each year, but I have made friends for life. When my daughter got mar ried in Tucson in July

— yes, an outdoor wedding in Tucson in July, but that is another story

— Ann Marie and Jack had dinner with me. When I needed a speaker for my Chamber of Commerce, I called Steve Niemeyer. This is the kind of friendships this Board foste rs. If we had time, I would tell you all about Sally Spener, who knows more about water issues than anyone I have ever known. I would talk about John and Luis and Cecilia and Sylvia and Theresa and Veronica, and so many others. I want to salute Mary Spock who is trying to make a screenplay out of our 14th report if she can just figure out how to put a love scene and a car chase in it. I wanted Brad Pitt to play me, but Mary said Steve Martin would be more accurate. What good times this has been!
To our new Board members: I’m sorry I will not get to know you. I envy you! You are embarking on an adventure that will change your life. You will make good friends and learn so much. You will see things most people in this country will never see. I hope you compr ehend just how important your work here is. You advise the President . Think about that for a moment. You are the expert to whom the most powerful man in the world looks for guidance on issues in the border region. How many people can be called Advisors to the President? Never take lightly the advice you give. More than 15 million people will be affected by your decisions. You see, according to the U.S./Mexico Border Counties Coalition, if the border region were the 51st state, it would be 40th in per capi ta income, 5th in unemployment, 2nd in tuberculosis, 7th in adult diabetes, 50th in insurance coverage, and 50th in high school completion. You are their voice. Speak wisely. This Board works on consensus. That means you will not win every argument, but argue strongly. You have an obligation and a challenge to make certain that all voices are heard. I am a conservative. I believe government should only do what we cannot do for ourselves. I believe the role of the federal government should be limited to those items enumerated in our Constitution. Others believe the government should have a larger role in our lives and should supersede the sovereignty of the states. I disagree but respect these other opinions. Conservatives are sometimes in short supply here. Your challenge is to respect opinions with which you disagree. Listen to those other opinions and consider them. Then do what is right. Most important: attack the issues, not the proponent. Although I have not won every argument, I have never doubte d that my position was considered. There are four U.S. states, six Mexican states, and 26 Tribal Nations in this region. It is as diverse as this Board. You must hear their story and make recommendations that will improve the lives of Americans. What an honor you have been given. What an opportunity you have.
I will close with my favorite saying: “The noblest thing a man can do is plant a tree that will someday provide shade for people he will never know.” This is your chance to plant that tree. Thank you.14 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

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

- Ja ckson stated that she only had known the departing members for a short time but had come to know them better during the past few meetings and sincerely appreciated the hard work, conversations and points of vi ew willingly shared. She read the farewell letter to the departing members from Administrator Jackson and presented appreciation plaques to Ms. Wolf, Mr. Gillen and Mr. Wood. Dr. Austin accepted appreciation plaques for Mr. Dan Reyna (U.S. Department of He alth and Human Services) and Ms. Patti Krebs (Industrial Environmental Association), GNEB members who passed away in 2011. Mr. Larry Starfield (EPA) was not available to receive his plaque in person because of the responsibilities of his new position.
Dr . Austin recessed the meeting at 6:33 p.m. 

### T **HURSDAY** 

### , **D ECEMBER**  

### 15, **2011 Discussion of GNEB’s 15th Report and Activities for the Coming Year**  Dr. Austin highlighted the Board’s agenda for the day and explained that GNEB needed to narrow its focus regarding the report topic, develop a timeline and identify a structure for completing the report. The Board members also will provide their report

- outs. The first topic of discussion was the GNEB Directive. The Office of General Counsel (OGC) recently reviewed of all of EPA’s Federal Advisory Committees in terms of why each of them was created and what they are expected to accomplish. Dr. Austin explained that comments had been received following the Federal Register notice of this meeting, which were based on certain perceptions that some people have regarding Mexico. Mr. Joyce read the comments that had been sent to the Board, noting that similar comments had been received by other EPA Federal Advisory Committees. The commenter was of the opinion that GNEB was n ot necessary and should not be funded by taxpayers because of illegal immigration and crime issues related to Mexico. It is perceptions similar to these that require the Agency to ensure that its Federal Advisory Committees are operating within their Congr essional mandates. Dr. Austin said that this sets the context for the Board’s discussions about its efforts for the next report. She was impressed with the number of EPA staff members who had attended the meeting on the day prior and viewed the report. S he noted that these are challenging times, and that is why OGC has reviewed Federal Advisory Committees. She read the purpose of the Board, which states that the Board shall advise the President and Congress on the need for implementation of the environmental and infrastructure projects (including projects that affect agriculture, rural development and human nutrition) within the states of the United States contiguous to Mexico to improve the quality of life of persons residing on the United States side of the border. The enabling legislation details the annual reports of the Board as follows: “In general, the Board shall submit to the President and the Congress of the United States an annual report on the environmental and infrastructure projects referred to in subsection (a) of this section that have been implemented and the need for the implementation of additional environmental and infrastructure projects.” As she understood it, subsection A was deleted from the legislation but not removed from this section.December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 15

Mr. Joyce explained that, in terms of subsection A, the original legislative language specified binational me mbership for the Board, but at the last moment it was changed to a U.S.

- only focus with only U.S. me mbers. Mr. Gillen added that there used to be Mexican representation and asked why these representatives no longer were involved. Mr. Joyce responded that there had been government and industry representatives for five different sectors of Mexico, including two contiguous to the U.S. border, but f ollowing an election in Mexico, the representative groups were not reconstituted. Mr. Apodaca explained that when a consulate had been present, there had been an individual from the Mexican Embassy. He asked whether Mexicans could participate on an informal basis; as neighbors, the two groups share common interests. Mr. Joyce asked the GNEB members on their thoughts on the idea of Mexican representation, which he would be happy to include. Mr. Apodaca will follow up on this idea and determine the best sug gestion. Dr. Austin agreed that there is nothing that prevents the Board from seeking this participation. Dr. Henkel said that the Board has points of contact (e.g., BECC, IBWC, state

to

- state bilateral connections) that could be explored. Mr. Angel aske d Mr. Joyce how long the Board had been receiving messages. Mr. Joyce replied that the messages were not only to GNEB, and he thought that they dated back approximately 1.5 years. A Board me mber thought that these types of messages were the result of a radical agenda to “paint everyone with a broad brush.” Mr. Takata noted that EPA staff members are used to receiving critical e

- mails such as the one that Mr. Joyce read. He was, however, surprised at how strong the criticism is in Washington, DC, based on th e television advertisements that he has seen attacking what the Agency is trying to accomplish. This type of opposition is not ever heard in California. His work is binational, so his offices operate under a treaty, Border 2012 and Border 2020. There are b inational workgroups, and workgroups are aligned by state, border state and subject matter (e.g., air, water, waste, emergency response). These groups are comprised of U.S. and Mexican representatives. GNEB could invite the Mexican representatives to parti cipate. A report detailing the needs on both sides of the border would be of great benefit to EPA, but if the Board is restricted to working on environmental problems on the U.S. side of the border, as detailed in the legislative language, it is not as helpful. Mr. Joyce commented that the relevant language to overcome this is “to improve the quality of life of persons residing on the United States side of the border.” For example, raw sewage originating from south of the border traveling north across the b order will impact those on the U.S. side. Because of the language, GNEB’s focus must be on the northern side of the border. In the broader context of improving quality of life on the north side of the border, the Agency can address to a degree the issues that occur south of the border. Ms. Palazzolo encouraged the Agency to use the U.S. Department of State. Although the Agency can negotiate directly with its counterpart, the Mexican Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources ( Secretaría del Medio Amb iente y Recursos Naturales , SEMARNAT), there is the challenge of the constantly changing nature of leadership positions. The U.S. Department of State has established contacts that the Agency can use. She thought that it was a good idea to utilize the Border 2012 and Border 2020 programs, which intimately understand the details of the issues. Mr. Bill Bresnick, environmental counsel for DHS, introduced himself and said that he looked forward to the day’s discussion. Dr. Austin reiterated for those who joi ned the meeting late that the topic of discussion was the legislation that created the Board and selecting infrastructure as the topic for the Board’s 15th report. The question is whether the Board is able to discuss issues in Mexico that affect the U.S. s ide of the border. EPA staff me mbers also have discussed this issue with the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)

. Mr. Niemeyer emphasized the legislative language about improving quality of life on the U.S. side of the border and cited two i nstances in Texas law that allow inspections to be conducted in Mexico to determine the status of environmental projects, but this authority does not mean that these inspections will be well

- received. Investing money in Mexico benefits the State of Texas. For example, improving wastewater treatment plants in Mexico that empty into the Rio Grande River elevates the quality of life of Americans who draw their drinking water from the Rio Grande. It is challenging to determine legislative16 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

intent because it is unknown what was said in committee, but Mr. Niemeyer spoke to the author of the legislation, who explained that it was written to allow discussion and action on a wide variety of environmental problems. Ms. Palazzolo said that she has observed the challen ges of reaching out to counterparts in the Mexican government, and there is a disconnect between how the Mexican federal and state governments are structured compared to how the U.S. federal and state governments are structured in terms of authority. U.S. states have a broad range of actions that they can implement, whereas Mexican states do not. Although it takes more time, it ultimately may be more effective to deal with the Mexican government on the federal level. Mr. Wood said that in his area cities o n both sides of the border are integrated, and it is impossible to separate what happens on either side of the border in terms of impacts. Issues on both sides of the border affect the other side. Mr. Frisbie added that wastewater treatment in his area is operated on a cost

- sharing basis, and there is direct contact in areas in which funding is received from or provided to Mexico. He emphasized Mr. Wood’s comments on the integration of border towns and cities on each side. Mr. Angel wondered whether it would be possible for GNEB to implement the legislation successfully because some projects that benefit the life of U.S. citizens cannot be implemented in the United States (e.g., monitoring). There have been many projects implemented south of the border that benefit U.S. citizens directly. The legislation is broad and cannot be implemented successfully by ignoring the other side and exclusively implementing projects on the northern side. Dr. Austin asked the members if they anticipated any problems followin g the legislation regarding the integrated nature of U.S.

- Mexico border towns. Ms. Jones

- Jackson stated that there had been no clear decision about whether GNEB can make recommendations that affect Mexico. OGC understands the integrated nature of the borde r, but to ensure that the Agency does not overstep its bounds, OGC has advised that EPA has authority within the United States but not on the other side of the border. Her recommendation would be to consider a project on the U.S. side of the border. Any other intelligence that is gathered regarding impacts on the Mexican side of the border can be included in the report. She agreed that it was not possible to separate the environmental impacts from either side. Ms. Almodovar said that the language the Board uses may be the driver for the recommendation. Adding a Mexican component would make implementation more difficult for the Agency. If there are consequences on the Mexican side, those sorts of recommendations could be included without being the main recommendation. Mr. Joyce said that the recommendations must have a U.S. focus. If there is pertinent action that can be taken on the Mexican side that benefits the United States, it can be included. Mr. Treviño reiterated Mr. Wood’s and Mr. Frisbie’s comments that the Board was taking too lightly the issues in Mexico that impact the United States. He explained that a bank had received the authority to provide funding to an area of Chihuahua to rehabilitate water facilities during a dispute on water rights. The rationale was that rehabilitating the water facilities would have clear benefit to Texas. The bank was very involved in offering perspective and insight on legislation that allowed U.S. funding in Mexico and the impact that funding would have on Mexican c ommunities. It was a huge risk to the U.S. community to take on debt to finance a project in Mexico, but they realized that there was a benefit to the United States. Examining and understanding these issues is beneficial as the Board begins developing the report. Dr. Austin asked the GNEB members to provide their report

- outs and noted that there seems to be a consensus that issues on the Mexican side of the border must be considered. She asked the Board me mbers to consider what they view as the greatest ne eds. The Board members heard a great deal of information from the BECC. Are there additional issues that have not been mentioned? The Board must consider projects that have been implemented or whether there are specific needs that must be met. She asked ea ch Board member to identify what he or she thought absolutely must be included in the report.December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 17

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

- outs on the activities of their organizations and provide any perspectives that they have on the current topic of discussion. Mr. Treviño explained that his agency is dealing with a number of issues, but the biggest issue it will focus on during the next year is air quality. The City of San Antonio remains in attainment and was lucky when the A dministration did not release the ne w, reduced measurements. Complicating the potential reduction is the oil and gas exploration in the region that includes four of the southern

- most counties. The Texas railroad commission had issued less than 100 permits prior to the first year of the new a ctivity , and within 1 year had issued more than 1,000 permits. The result in local communities is high

- density truck traffic and demands on community power, water and wastewater systems. There also has been the complete displacement of individuals and fami lies. The resources available through the Section 8 housing vouchers program cannot be used because families have realized that they can receive up to 100 times more by renting to the oil companies. Shale gas is found to the south of the metropolitan stati stical area (MSA), and it is unknown what impacts the hydraulic fracturing will have on the MSA. The State of Texas has been petitioned regarding additional air quality monitoring, and the state’s response has not been issued yet. Based on the literature that those at his agency have read, the agency is concerned about diminished air quality. Mr. Niemeyer stated that there is a ready

- to

-print document available at the TCEQ website that can be printed in English or Spanish. TCEQ developed a border initiativ e and identified a list of accomplishments; it is an organic document that is updated every 3 to 4 months. There are 38 irrigation districts in Texas that divert water from the Rio Grande for agricultural or municipal uses. Compounding this is the dumping of tires into canals, which interrupts the flow of water and facilitates growth of disease vectors. Shale gas has become a significant issue for his agency as well. It has a great investment potential for a number of entities in terms of natural gas and oi l. Hydraulic fracturing is a significant issue, particularly considering the amount of water needed. In contrast, the economic benefits of the effort have been realized; in one community, state sales tax rebates have increased more than 700 percent. Monito ring is another aspect that probably will be needed. Also, on November 20, 2011, Mexico put into effect an emissions

- certificate requirement for all vehicles imported into Mexico; the certificates must have been issued no more than 6 months prior.
Ms. Ann Marie Wolf (Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc. [SERI]), GNEB member, reported that the top issues about which SERI is concerned are the quality and safety of housing stock for low

- and mid

- income families. Many of the homes are not habitable, and a significant amount of funding is needed to replace these homes. There are large numbers of mobile home communities, and many do not have adequate heating, cooling or ventilation. Another important issue is children’s environmental health, and the community advisory board’s goal during the next 2 years is to develop a strategic plan to address children’s environmental health issues in metropolitan Tucson, Arizona. Asthma and allergies are significant issues within children’s environmental health, and S ERI focuses on indoor and outdoor air quality to address these issues. Water supply is another significant issue in Tucson, and the community will need to move to a “toilet

- to

- tap” system within 10 to 15 years.18 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Mr. Wood reported that his organization has been working on a project with Mexico for 15 years, and the key has been to communicate well with the appropriate Mexican officials, including regular meetings. At the meetings, the Mexican and U.S. officials discussed the current progress, what needed to be done and how the effort would be accomplished jointly. His organization has the authority to provide funds for projects in Mexico. The efforts have made the border area safer, but there have been unseen issues in terms of funding as a result of governme nt

- requested changes that may disallow the use of a new railroad system as a result of the need for an upgraded gate for which there are no funds. Mr. Frisbie said that environmental infrastructure is in need of replacement or relocation; current replace ment funding is set at $50 million in the Nogales, Arizona, area. His agency is attempting to solve this problem and educate about the need to replace the infrastructure. Another issue is dealing with general stormwater flows across the border, which also involves significant infrastructure costs. Conservation projects are important to deal with concerns regarding water supply from the Colorado River, as is funding for infrastructure projects in Mexico. His agency also has occasional issues and concerns reg arding the quality of water that is used for irrigation and municipal purposes. Locating the sources of spikes that make Rio Grande water unusable is important. Ms. Palazzolo said that a meeting of the Executive Steering Committee (ESC) for a 21st Centur y Border was being held in Mexico City, Mexico, which includes Mexican agencies and U.S. agencies such as DHS, SRE and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). The ESC was established by Presidents Felipe Calderón and Barack Obama and has three subcommittees focused on infrastructure (co

- chaired by the U.S. Department of State and DHS), border security (chaired by DOJ) and secure flows of goods and people (chaired by U.S. Customs and Border Protection). For the Department of State, infrastructure includes brid ges and border crossings. The U.S. Department of State serves on all three of the subcommittees as a policy member. Following the ESC meeting, a list of 2011 goals and those that were met as well as an action plan for 2012 will be released. The U.S. Department of State also serves on the BECC and the NADB. Ms. Palazzolo has primary responsibility for the implementation of the U.S.

- Mexico emergency management agreement on natural disasters and accidents. Currently, efforts are focused on exchanging a compendium of existing federal

- to

- federal agreements that deal with emergency management issues in Mexico, which will facilitate the establishment of working groups to deal with identified priorities within this area. There are numerous ongoing infrastructure pro jects as well. She reiterated Mr. Wood’s point that productive meetings between Mexican and U.S. counterparts are integral to success. Mr. Takata reported that his organization recently completed the public comment period for the Border 2020 effort; publi c meetings were held in 16 cities on both sides of the border with more than 500 people in attendance. Two webinars were held in addition to numerous briefings for stakeholders. The final report will incorporate all of the feedback received. Region 9 decid ed to spend its $220,000 in discretionary funds to focus on trash problems in the border area. Mr. Takata noted that the last time that the Board addressed water issues was in its 8th report, and it would be ideal to focus the next report on water or waste water. E

- waste, including the formations in California and Arizona, is another important topic on which the Board could focus. Mr. Apodaca has thought about the organizations that he has dealt with in the past, and all have basic needs that need to be me t (e.g., infrastructure issues of water, sewer and wastewater). How to create economic opportunities is a significant issue that the Board has not examined. Traditionally, infrastructure is viewed in terms of water, sewer or similar types of issues, but br oadband issues have become as prevalent as infrastructure issues from education and health perspectives. Another important issue was discussed the day prior

—the infrastructure to develop and address food insecurity issues and how to get food to children on the border. Ms. Aguillon thought that it would be beneficial to bring renewable energy and energy efficiency projects to the homeowner level, which is challenging for a large agency. A partnership among federal, state and local agencies could be benefic ial to design such programs. It is important to clean up the border area onDecember 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 19

the U.S. side in terms of energy efficiency and education. She agreed that communications with Mexico are a top

- down process, and it takes several years to encourage the Mexican go ve rnment to design standards. Perhaps the Institute of the Americas at the University of California, San Diego, could be used as a resource to communicate; the institute sponsors forums that include officials from both sides of the border. She also suggest ed briefing Mexican counterparts regarding how they can implement programs on their side of the border. Ms. Krepp reported that the realm of her activities included partnerships and coordinating with other agencies. She thanked the IBWC and Mr. Takata for their help in managing the Tijuana Estuary and ensuring that it continues to function. She also serves on the Southwest Border Interagency Group, which has been working with DHS on designing protective area

-based training for officers regarding the Tijuana Estuary. This ongoing effort has built relationships between border agents and NOAA staff in the field. NOAA also has a role in permitting and regulations for turbines and other issues of this nature. NOAA is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce and has been working to form a partnership with the economic development administration within that department that has several programs focused on community development at the regional scale. This partnership will allow NOAA to be a conduit for those programs into the work of this Board.
Dr. Greg Eckert (Department of the Interior [DOI]), GNEB member, introduced Mr. Ethan Taylor, International Programs Analyst at DOI, and reported that during the past year SEMARNAT released more than 250 million silver minno ws into the Rio Grande. The Commission on Environmental Cooperation provided $1 million for conservation work and invasive species management. On October 24, 2011, the SEMARNAT secretary celebrated the inauguration of the “natural area of binational intere st,” comprised of 2 million hectares of protected area on both sides of the border. Infrastructure and species and protected area management all relate to the design of the infrastructure, but this must occur at different scales. There must be a method in place to integrate large

- scale initiatives (e.g., road, energy) with large

- scale wildlife corridor initiatives and identify cumulative effects at the landscape scale. It is necessary to examine the potential of all of these factors to impact the large area s of the landscape over time. He would like to see more wildlife crossings incorporated into highway projects. Management of infrastructure is important to interior managers, especially as transportation corridors tend to be a significant source of invasiv e species, dust and noise pollution. Mr. Ruiz reported that one issue that has been identified as important along the border in the past has been air quality, and a year

- long air monitoring project revealed disturbing levels of PM 10 were found in the rural sister cities of Palomas, Mexico, and Columbus, New Mexico. A committee was established to gather resources to provide consistent air monitoring for the two cities. There have been some efforts that have run counter to the initial effort. There also are efforts focused on the causative organism of Valley Fever; there is a significant disparity in the number of cases reported in New Mexico compared to neighboring Arizona, perhaps because of diagnostic criteria. This is an example of a health study related to environmental conditions, and more of these types of efforts need to be initiated to provide a clear picture of environmental health status. Dairies and combined animal feeding operations are tremendous threats to water quality but have fought against r ules and regulations to protect groundwater, despite proven science about groundwater protection. Some infrastructure improvements have improved air quality. He would like to see direct correlations between health improvements and improvements in infrastructure. It is necessary to be sensitive to the cumulative impacts of industry; this is an EJ concern that must be taken into account. Mr. Angel reported that there is a strong partnership in place to address water quality, create habitat, protect migratory birds and provide recreational activities. His agency has a fairly new secretary who is bringing additional resources to bear to engage in border projects in California. Mr. Angel will be meeting with him on the following day. A technical advisory committee was established and submitted a strategic plan that calls for a series of infrastructure projects on both sides of the border. Pollution is a significant issue that must be addressed.20 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Mr. Evaristo Cruz (Ysleta del Sur Pueblo), GNEB member, reported o n issues discussed during the recent Region 6 regional tribal caucus. One topic was a recent audit of EPA’s Indian General Assistance Program (GAP), which indicated that improvement was needed regarding how performance of tribal programs on tribal lands is measured in terms of climate change adaptation. As a result, GAP was required to issue a guidance document, which may shift funding to a needs

-based system. This places additional administrative burden on all tribes because all tribes participate in this program. Another issue discussed at the regional tribal caucus was what methods tribes are employing to adapt to climate change, which also relates to infrastructure needs. There have been persistent drought conditions in west Texas, which has been devastating for ranch livestock. His tribe is opposed to hydraulic fracturing because of the water needed for it and the use of natural resources in areas already affected by drought. Cost

- effective collection and transportation of household hazardous waste is an other important issue along the border, especially for the Pueblo Indians. The Kickapoo Tribe of Texas has expressed concern regarding its lack of ability to control air quality standards on tribal lands as a result of activities occurring adjacent to the lands. Dr. Henkel said that the themes within the conversations about the border region that he has been involved in have been persistent over time. All large metropolitan areas depend on wealthy hinterlands willing to support them. Two areas of concern are: (1) public health and human nutrition, and (2) water. Food systems and agricultural structure affect public health and human nutrition. A subset of this is children’s health and access to nutritious, regionally grown foods. Regionally grown foods red uce transportation and environmental effects and spur local economic development. Water includes two elements, conservation and distribution. Nonpoint source pollution also is a significant issue in terms of water quality. Mr. Gillen recommended that the members follow Mr. Takata’s suggestion to focus on water. He re

- read his farewell comments, captured verbatim earlier in this summary. Dr. Austin explained that the Board members must determine how it is going to produce a report that is useful, helpful and provides guidance , within the next year. Prior to leaving this meeting, the Board must know how it will organize the work and determine key issues. She noted that air quality was mentioned often, but air quality itself is not an infrastructure project . Other issues included water and wastewater infrastructure and the various types of waste (e.g., municipal, hazardous, electronic) and the infrastructure required to manage them. Transportation is another issue that was discussed as well as the cumulative impacts of industry (e.g., hydraulic fracturing). Several questions arose around the topic of housing and vehicle emissions testing. Bandwidth is another issue as is energy and energy efficiency. Another infrastructure question is related to mapping and p lanning tools. What are the infrastructure questions related to food distribution and safety? The broad questions related to all of these are within the mandate to improve the quality of life and health issues for people living north of the border.
Mr. Tr eviño noted that emergency management personnel needed to be able to communicate with each other. The Texas Department of Public Safety requires emergency management plans to be developed by various regions and that all emergency personnel use the same ban dwidth frequency. This requirement is difficult for rural communities to meet because they do not have adequate resources to pay for the radios and communication towers. The isolated areas that exist in the border region still need to be able to communicat e. Mr. Angel suggested that colleagues at the BECC have information on needs. Dr. Austin asked to what extent the Board could complement the BECC’s work. Ms. Almodovar stated that what EPA had seen from the BECC are the needs within the core sectors: so lid waste, air and water. Ms. Krepp noted that there were first

- time needs for infrastructure, but there also are maintenance needs to ensure that what is in place can be sustained. Additionally, she suggested that the Board consider two issues on infras tructure: access and protection.December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 21

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

-border frequency issues in terms of emergency management that constantly evolve. Mr. Niemeyer stated that emergency response had been covered in the Board’s 11th report. When drafting the report on emergency response, the Board noted a 1980 agreement between the United States and Mexico , but nothing had been done with it. Some of these issues still have not been addressed. If there is a major natural disaster on the border, plans need to be in place and rehearsed. Water always is a pressing issue. Far less than the 23 projects Ms. Giner listed as BECC priorities may be funded. The key issue is lack of funding, but the Board cannot ask for more money. He believed the public did not understand the importance of the United States’ economic relationship with Mexico. The next report needs to i nclude a discussion of the environmental and economic impacts of the relationship with Mexico on the United States as a whole. Mr. Gillen noted that the Board had produced reports that were only on one topic as well as reports on a multitude of topics. T he former have been very well done, and the latter spread the Board so thin that they are difficult to produce. If there is any chance that the Board will not meet as frequently as it has in the past because of budget limitations, he would encourage GNEB t o choose a single topic. The Board has never completed a report on the effects of agriculture on the environment and may want to examine this issue in the future. Ms. Wolf expressed hope that the Board would consider water as a topic. Most everyone on th e Board mentioned some aspect of problems with water. Rural development or agriculture could be included in that topic. Mr. Takata commented that infrastructure and the environment could be categorized three ways: environmental infrastructure such as wa ter and wastewater, infrastructure that benefits the environment such as road paving or transmission lines, and infrastructure that is neither but can be created in a green or sustainable way. Ms. Almodovar stated that EPA was limited in water and waste water resources, but a group like GNEB could consider other low

- cost tools or alternatives to building a large water treatment plant that could be taken to the communities. EPA’s border program was able to help one of the tribes build the connections to pull water from the wells, for example.
Ms. Jones

- Ja ckson explained that the Farm, Ranch and Rural Communities Committee just released its report on the impacts of agriculture on the environment from nonpoint sources. If GNEB could expand and examine other agricultural issues, that could be useful. Dr. Austin asked for comment from EPA colleagues on the point that Mr. Gillen raised on one topic versus a survey of topics. It is difficult as a Board to cover multiple topics and handle them all well, but woul d it be more useful? Mr. Joyce responded that the report should not focus solely on what EPA can do; the Board is government

- wide, and the recommendations can address agencies across the federal government. Mr. Takata replied that the Board has a broader p erspective than the Agency and is an independent voice, but from EPA’s perspective, the more concrete and focused the report, the better because such a report is harder to ignore. Followup is important as well. He wondered whether every other year, the Board could provide a report on how the government responded to a prior report. Without followup, the government might not feel accountable to the Board’s recommendations. Mr. Gillen stated that the Board had in the past spent hours trying to determine how to quantify the success of GNEB. The Board concluded that it could not control whether advice is taken or not. The22 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

intended party may take the advice, but it will not come to fruition for many years. After 14 reports and many advice letters, he was unsure how to determine what was successful. If advice is not taken, it should not reflect on the Board. Perhaps every fourth year, a recap or survey of issues should be the topic of the report whether it is for the same or a new administration. Dr. Henkel sugg ested that the Board consider its audience and the message that it was attempting to deliver. GNEB has a legislative mandate to advise the President and Congress. Part of what the Board is trying to do is raise awareness about the issues. If infrastructure is discussed broadly, it may be beyond the scope of the general public’s understanding, but if GNEB can define the landscape of infrastructure and its interrelation ship , then it may select a few high

-priority themes. Another issue to consider is what may be actionable. Ms. Krepp added that the Board’s service to the border region is valuable, and GNEB should consider how this report will serve those needs. Does the Board craft its reports with an eye toward funding potential and Congressional priorities, o r is it neutral of these considerations? Some recommendations are more likely to be acted on than others in the current political environment. Ms. Palazzolo asked which year the report on emergency management issues had been released. Dr. Austin confirmed that it was in 2008. Ms. Palazzolo responded that in 2008, the United States and Mexico drew up an agreement on emergency management cooperation on natural disasters and accidents at the federal level. It did not come into force in the United States until 2011. Ms. Rachel Poynter (U.S. Department of State) is meeting with the foreign ministry to deliver the U.S. compendium of federal

- level agreements that touch on emergency management issues. The next step is for Mexico to provide its compendium to the United States, and then each country will examine the priorities and use them to establish a number of working groups. If the Board wants more in

- depth information, she can share it. Ms. Wolf again suggested water as a topic. In the past, the Board has re ferred to previous reports and made statements about issues on the topic that still are relevant. In this case, the Board would return to the eighth report and note issues that still were problematic. Within the topic of water, there is supply, quality and treatment. Many water issues are unique to the border, and GNEB should choose such a topic. Additionally, brief versions of recommendations should be included in the beginning of the report as they have in the past. Mr. Angel suggested that the nexus of the environment and the economy or the environment in health be addressed in the report so that the average reader could relate to it. Mr. Gillen suggested that if health was to be discussed, someone from the National Institutes of Health should be included on the Board. Mr. Frisbie stated that contextualizing and focusing the topic are important. Because this report is focused on a discrete region of the United States, the impact is isolated from the interests of the country

- at

- large. Finding a way to d escribe the crucial importance of the border region to the country and the country’s economy as a whole is a means to obtain greater resonance with Congress and other entities that might provide some support to achieving the goals. Mr. Apodaca asked what federal agencies have done to address the issues raised in the Board’s past reports. Mr. Joyce noted that advisory committees are advisory by nature; they send in their best thinking to the federal government, and the government acts as it sees fit. Advis ory committees are not implementing bodies. The more clear, actionable, direct and specific the Board makes its recommendations, however, the better the likelihood that they will be received. As far as direct actions taken to implement the Board’s reports, Ms. Nancy Sutley, Chair of CEQ, through the Southwest Border Interagency Working Group, asked all of the federal agencies to note the actions they took in response to the Board’s 13th report. The list is approximately 20 pages long, and CEQ will summarize it and share it with the Board. Ms. Almodovar added that she could provide the Board with that information from EPA. Ms. Krepp commented that Chair Sutley has taken a particular interest in the work of the Board as compared to past CEQ chairs. Mr. Joyce confirmed that was the case because she is a former Board me mber, and she knows border issues well. Ms. Krepp replied that may mean there will be increasedDecember 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 23

accountability from agencies to the Board. The Southwest Border Working Group only has been in plac e for about 2 years. Mr. Takata mentioned that the report states it is for both the President and Congress. Has the Board ever reported to Congress? The A dministration will not be able to accomplish some things itself, but would work on them if directed by Congress. The BEIF funds come not through EPA’s budget but in a separate funding bill, for example. Mr. Joyce responded that this question had been raised, and EPA’s OGC stated that the Board does not advise Congress despite what the legislative languag e says. There is a clear separation

- of

-powers issue. Members of the Board as individuals can send the report to members of Congress but cannot act as representatives of the Board. Before this issue was settled by OGC, members would distribute reports to Co ngress. Mr. Angel stated that the law was clear that the Board should report to the President and Congress. Mr. Joyce responded that this issue might merit a conference call with OGC. Ms. Jones

- Jackson added that EPA’s OGC FACA advisor said that she woul d be willing to put something in writing, and she has been asked to do so. One of the points that she made was that because this Board has been established through an act of Congress, it cannot advise Congress. OFACMO will present the advisor’s comments to Dr. Austin when they are received. Mr. Gillen noted that the federal employees on the Board had certain rules that they were required to follow, but in Texas, where he had served as a vice chair of a state agency, members are not allowed to lobby but are allowed to act as a resource for the legislature. Ms. Jones

- Jackson responded that this is advice that OFACMO had been giving to committee members. If members are doing something on their own time, that is allowed. Mr. Angel added that his point was made to address the fact that without Congressional appropriation, the President can go only so far with recommendations. Mr. Niemeyer commented that an opinion was needed from someone outside of EPA. The Board should have been notified of OGC’s decision when it was made. Ms. Jones

- Jackson stated that she had told Mr. Niemeyer via a telephone call that OGC was advising OFACMO on the Board’s intent. She wanted to ensure that OFACMO was managing the Board appropriately and that the intent of the Board was unders tood. The OGC decision was received about 2 weeks prior to this meeting. She apologized that everyone did not receive the information simultaneously. Mr. Niemeyer had believed the conversation on the intent of the Board had been focused on what the Board s hould provide advice. Ms. Wolf commented that this issue had been resolved 4 years prior when EPA suggested that the Board change its bylaws, and GNEB voted against that. She expressed appreciation for the comments from Ms. Jo nes - Ja ckson and Mr. Joyce bu t encouraged the new Board to seek outside counsel on the issue. Her congressman does not agree with EPA and expects that she advise him as part of GNEB because the law states such. Mr. Wood stated that he and Mr. Niemeyer also visited their members of Co ngress to provide them with the report. He has visited every Congressman on the Texas/Mexico border at some point and mentioned the report. In one case, the Congressman asked about the previous report and had read it. It is important that this information be provided to Congress because its members will be the ones to provide the funding for recommendations. Dr. Austin agreed that there was a need to clarify the issue. Ms. Aguillon asked whether CEQ had been explicit about which components of infrastructure it wanted advice. Mr. Joyce replied that the purpose of the Board is to convene a group of people who work on border issues to advise federal agencies on what they see as priorities in the border region. Ms. Aguillon added that it may be useful to focus on “low

- hanging fruit” issues that can garner results. Dr. Austin asked the Board to move on to the topic of the report. The report should note why border issues matter to the country as a whole, and contextualization can accomplish this. Mr. Bresnick a dded that contextualizing is critical for the Board because it allows GNEB to create a report that discusses both24 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

sides of the border and why the recommendations are important to the residents of the four states that border Mexico. Dr. Austin stated that the two major topics were air quality, but without a link to what infrastructure will be covered, and water supply, quality and treatment. Initially in the report, contextualization should cover why the border matters. Then the broad set of issues will be addressed, and finally the focus of the report will turn to water, for example, and will address recommendations in prior reports that have and have not been followed by actions. Dr. Henkel expressed the need for the Board to be flexible in recognizing issues that have emerged since the eighth report. Mr. Joyce asked whether the Board would try to determine what had been done in response to previous recommendations. Dr. Austin responded that GNEB would use the eighth report as a starting point. Mr. Joy ce wondered where the Board would find information on what had been accomplished, and Ms. Wolf suggested that the BECC may have data available. Ms. Almodovar cautioned the Board that most of the BECC and EPA data concern BEIF projects, but other projects also have been conducted with tribes, universities and other entities along the border. Dr. Austin stated that the Board will need to investigate what else has been done and what needs remain. Ms. Wolf mentioned that she was on the board of water reclamatio n for her county and has available data on how much wastewater capacity has been added. Mr. Treviño queried whether the focus of the next report would be a comparison of conditions existing at the time of the eighth report to current conditions. Dr. Aust in stated that it would not be strictly a comparison but would use the eighth report as a baseline. Mr. Treviño noted the use of the term nexus; the U.S.

- Mexico border is a region unlike any other and is truly interdependent. The creation of binational ins titutions that focus on financing of environmental infrastructure projects meant that there finally had been some recognition of border issues. The BECC and the NADB, however, only are able to finance a small portion of needed projects. At least on the U.S . side, small, rural communities cannot afford to finance their projects. The same issues keep presenting themselves: the need for access to clean water, solid waste disposal and access to power. Mr. Niemeyer agreed and stated that GNEB still needed to raise the issue that there is not enough funding to meet the needs of the border. Border issues cannot just be solved at the national level but require local, state and federal support

. Dr. Henkel suggested revisiting the eighth report to demonstrate that many needs had not been addressed, and the problems are not diminishing. Dr. Austin noted that there was time before the next meeting to conduct the research needed for the next report. At the next meeting, the Board can define the report sections and ch apters. The target is to have a report completed in a year, and GNEB has been informed that not as many resources for face

- to

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

- Ja ckson noted that EPA’s fiscal year is from October through September. Within the following 9 months, the Board could have one more face

- to

- face meeting and a number of teleconferences. OFACMO had to reduce its travel funds by 20 percent and manages five committees directly. To meetDecember 14

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

that, committees will hold just two face

- to

- face meetings per fiscal year. She suggested that the Board decide when to release its report and work backward to determine when the next meeting would be held. Mr. Niemeyer believed that the Board needed to get started on its report and choose a topic at the current meeting. He did not believe that issuing a report in December was a good idea and suggested that GNEB again attempt to release a report in 8 months. The goal would be to return to the schedule of rele asing the report in March. Ms. Aguillon asked what the Board would do if a topic was chosen but another topic was found to be more important once research was conducted. Dr. Henkel suggested that GNEB focus on something specific. All Board members were app ointed because of their general familiarity with the border. Mr. Olmedo recommended that the Board address water infrastructure and air quality. Dr. Austin noted that there would be one face

- to

- face meeting before the end of September 2012 . She agreed that December was late to deliver a report but wondered how far the Board could back up the report’s release each year. The location of the meeting and the report’s release also would need to be determined. Mr. Angel suggested that the Board release the report by September. Mr. Olmedo proposed that the Board consider an additional brief report regarding financial challenges. It could be in letter form or in a brief report. Dr. Austin stated that releasing a report in September would mean deciding now what the topic would be and writing a draft by March. The September 2011 meeting was critical for the previous report. She suggested a teleconference in March and that the following meeting be face

- to

- face. Mr. Joyce noted that if the Board wanted to have a report completed for a September release, it would have to be finalized by July. Mr. Niemeyer suggested that rather than creating one large report, the Board could craft smaller reports on different topics. Each one of the annual reports is a serious under taking. Given that there are many water experts on the Board, however, it would be possible to produce a report on that topic by September. Mr. Joyce added that GNEB, by statute, was required to produce an annual report, and that was taken to mean issuing a report every calendar year. In producing the 14th report, members believed that the timetable was too compressed. Despite everyone’s best intentions, only a few members put a great deal of time into the report, and that is generally what happens. Produci ng several small letter reports can be worse in terms of time commitment and time management. Ms. Almodovar noted that 2012 was an election year, and the Board would need to consider to which administration it wanted to present the report. Mr. Joyce adde d that the Board has worked hard to be viewed as nonpartisan. The hope is that regardless of political affiliation, the A dministration would find the advice and counsel of GNEB useful and relevant. He suggested that GNEB ignore the political cycle and assume that the report will be valuable to whomever receives it. Dr. Austin asked when the best time to deliver the report might be. Mr. Takata found it impressive that such a report could be produced every year with the few times that the Board met, and n ow GNEB is being asked to accomplish this with fewer resources and fewer meetings. Perhaps the Board should consider producing alternating short and long reports every other year. A short report could be produced on water infrastructure, for instance, and it could be stated that a broader report would be produced the following year. Mr. Frisbie stated that he understood the desire to return to the schedule of spring delivery of the report. It should not, however, be the guiding consideration given the pot ential breadth of a subject as broad and important as water. Recognizing that a large degree of work would fall on him and his colleagues, he would be wary of agreeing to a compressed 6

- month schedule in which a finished product is expected by Ju ne or July of 2012. He believed that the Board should not be guided by electoral calendars but may be26 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

able to take advantage of that calendar with the report and perhaps have an impact on a new administration. Mr. Joyce agreed that the electoral cycle should be ignored and that the Board should focus on the business with which it has been tasked, but even assuming a change of administration, the transition staff arrive in Washington in January, at which point the report already would have been issued. Mr. Angel c ommented that GNEB should not be spending more than 8 months “plowing old ground.” The Board will be making a comparison between the conditions that existed at the time of the eighth report and those that exist presently in terms of water. He expressed his belief that this could be accomplished in a shorter time period. Mr. Olmedo noted that the Board should not have to limit itself to one topic, and he supported the topics of air quality and water quality. The 14th report was a testament to the fact that GNEB can take on a number of topics. Dr. Henkel commented that the Board had discretion as to the focus of the report. He believed the report would involve more than covering old ground. If the timeframe for production of the report will be shortened, the scope should be narrowed. Additionally, if there will be only one face

- to

- face meeting and no field trips, the Board will have to produce a different type of report than in the past. A draft of the front piece of the report should be crafted by the next meeting. If it remains undetermined whether both air and water should be considered, the production of this contextual piece of the report may help to clarify the topic. Dr. Austin shared Dr. Henkel’s concerns that the Board would not meet in border co mmunities to seek local input. Entertaining the possibility of some type of virtual meeting (e.g., Skype) would be useful. It will require a commitment from Board members to block out the time to attend a virtual meeting. Perhaps the virtual meeting should be the first meeting that the Board holds in 2012 as an information gathering meeting with a face

- to

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

- Ja ckson commented that under the timeline suggested by Dr. Austin, a face

- to

- face meeting could be held in June or July along the border; in September, a teleconference or virtual meeting could be held; and in October or November, new fiscal dollars would be available and another face

- to

- face meeting could be held to release the report. Dr. Austin agreed that a virtual meeting could be held in March, a face

- to

- face meeting in the summer to engage with border residents, and the delivery of the report in the next fiscal year. Mr. Olmedo agreed that there still were outstanding questions on the timeline of the report but proposed that air and water be the topics of the next report and that a vote be taken. Mr. Angel stated that he could be flexible about the timeline and the topic selected, and he supported water as a topic, but if Mr. Olmedo agrees to take a lead role on the topic of air, and by the March meeting there is sufficient information to draft a report addressing those two topics as they relate to infrastructure, it can be taken forward. Mr. Niemeyer believed that the Board should select a topic and some members to lead workgroups to begin moving forward on the report. There are air quality issues, but they are limited to certain areas.December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 27

Dr. Austin confirmed that Mr. Angel will co

- chair the group on water. If the Board can commit to a teleconference or virtual meeting in March, a face

- to

- face meeting in June and release of the report in October or November, she supported putting two topics on the table. It is incumbent on the people on those committees to bring the information forward by March. The broad topics are all of the aspects of water that Ms. Wolf has mentioned, and in addition someone must take the lead on air and frame how it can be considered in terms of infrastructure. Mr. Angel added that if it was determine d before March that it was not possible to cover a topic, all of the Board resources should be focused on the remaining topic. Ms. Wolf cautioned the Board against selecting two topics. This was done a few years ago with air and cultural resources, and i t became a difficult process. She advised the Board to pick one topic. Mr. Angel responded that the topic was infrastructure, and the suggestion was to consider two subcategories. Ms. Wolf suggested that the focus be on one media. Returning to Ms. Wolf’s suggestion to consider supply, quality, and treatment, Dr. Austin asked who was willing to chair groups that would examine the issues surrounding potable water and treatment. Mr. Angel stated that he would chair one of the groups. Mr. Niemeyer offered to chair the water supply group and ask Mr. Frisbie or Ms. Sally Spener (IBWC), GNEB resource specialist, to assist him. Mr. Frisbie agreed to assist. Dr. Henkel offered to work on the context for the report but asked for clarification of the topics. Dr. Austin replied that water supply was a topic, and wastewater treatment and water quality could be another topic or considered two different topics. She saw the topics as potable water and wastewater treatment because water quality was crosscutting. Dr. Henkel agreed to work on context and water quality. Mr. Cruz also will work on the water quality issue. Mr. Treviño offered to work on context but asked for clarification of the three topics. Dr. Austin asked the Board about drinking water as opposed to wast ewater treatment. The topics were clarified as water supply, water quality and water treatment. Water supply will discuss the infrastructure needed to transport water to people, agriculture, and so on. Water quality is the assessment of the water; is treatment separate? Ms. Wolf responded that supply would consider the questions of where the water came from and whether there was enough to meet needs. The next issue is the quality of the water and threats to the quality of the water. Wastewater is a separate issue. Mr. Joyce asked, if the Board was seeking data and information on infrastructure needs, how the infrastructure was categorized. Dr. Austin asked whether people in each of these sections had a clear idea of the information available. Mr. Niemeyer suggested that water treatment include both wastewater and drinking water. Water quality is the ambient quality of the water; perhaps this topic could be included with water treatment. Dr. Austin asked that when committees were being organized to collect information, whether a separate category was needed for water quality or whether it could be blended with one of the other two sections. Dr. Henkel stated that water supply was a topic of its own, and water quality fell under the Clean Water Act. Water s upply is the most upstream conceptually and feeds into an examination of the quality of that supply, and treatment includes what can be done about the quality and future uses. There may be some overlap in the three topics, but that should not be a problem. Dr. Austin summarized that water supply would involve: where the water came from and the policy surrounding it, what is available and what is needed; water quality issues and a discussion of water uses along the border and their water quality implicati ons; and existing water treatment on the border. Mr. Apodaca offered to help identify the gaps in infrastructure and delivery needs. Dr. Eckert will locate the correct staff in the Bureau of Reclamation to deal with water supply issues, and the Board sho uld be able to find U.S. Geological Survey data on water quality. Ms. Palazzolo will assist in the work on context.28 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

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

- Ja ckson mention ed that EPA has a new contract with videoconferencing capability. She asked Mr. Takata whether the regional offices could be counted on to allow participants to utilize their teleconferencing and videoconferencing capabilities. Mr. Takata responded that he could not speak for Region 6, but Region 9 had teleconferencing capability. Dr. Henkel noted that it would be helpful for the Board to solidify the telecommunications capacity as soon as possible so that reasonable questions could be asked about schedul ing. In addition to the March meeting, it will be important for the Board to decide on other meeting dates so that speakers could be invited. Mr. Cruz commented that EPA Region 6 in Addison, Texas, has a co

- op building at which his regional tribal caucus meeting was held. Mr. Frisbie added that the IBWC, in each of its field offices and at headquarters in El Paso, Texas, has conferencing capabilities as well. Dr. Austin suggested that a committee was needed to help organize the March meeting because it will be different than previous meetings. Organizers will need to have familiarity with various communications tools and ideas about how the meeting might work. Mr. Treviño asked whether GNEB would be acting as an official advisory board at this meetin g, and as there is no physical location at which people can offer public comment, he requested that the Board obtain an opinion from counsel as to whether this would be in violation of FACA rules. Mr. Joyce responded that in whatever media the conference w as held, there needed to be the opportunity for public comment. Dr. Austin commented that people would be able to log in on their own computers or attend a location such as a regional office that had conferencing capabilities. It is incumbent on the Board to ensure that the public can participate in the meeting. This meeting may garner more public participation than previous ones because access will be simpler. Mr. Cruz commented that it would be useful to have critical mass at different locations to help keep focused. Dr. Austin supported this idea. Ms. Almodovar asked whether there was a lead for each one of the sections and mentioned that there were a number of forums for the border program at EPA, and most have a water group. Perhaps the Board could meet when meetings of these groups were held, as experts already would be present. Dr. Austin stated that the challenge might be coordinating the timing of the meetings.December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 29

Mr. Wood suggested that there be about 10 locations for the videoconferences because it would save on travel for members of the public. Additionally, all of the local congressional offices have videoconferencing capabilities. Dr. Austin noted that a lead needed to be identified for each topic to ensure that the conference call is set up . Mr. Treviño will serve as the lead on the topic of context. Mr. Frisbie will take the lead of the water supply group, and Dr. Henkel will lead the group on water quality. Mr. Apodaca will lead the water treatment group. In terms of scheduling working group conference calls, Ms. AnnMarie Gantner (EPA, OFACMO) stated that as soon as the group decided on a date, they should contact her via e

- mail. She will send e

- mails and subsequent reminders to the group. Dr. Henkel noted that opportunity should be off ered to the Board members who were not present to join a working group and asked whether the scope of responsibilities could be drafted. Dr. Austin stated that she would summarize the decisions that had been made and send them first to those who had been present. Dr. Henkel asked how this would be shared with the entire Board. Ms. Gantner would send the document to everyone and ask members not currently on a group to join one and then follow up this effort with an e

mail confirmation of the groups. Dr. Austin added that if a member did not sign up for anything, she would contact him or her personally. Mr. Cruz asked whether members would be in favor of using online collaborative tools to edit documents or whether anyone could volunteer an FTP site. Ms. Gantner said that might raise a FACA issue. Dr. Austin responded that Dr. Henkel, Ms. Aguillon and Dr. Reed did a good job editing the materials for their subgroup for the 14th report. Dr. Henkel replied that the group used the track changes function in Micro soft Word. Mr. Wood suggested that a future report focus on tribal lands along the border and their unique needs, issues and problems. Mr. Joyce responded that the Board could write a report on infrastructure needs on tribal lands at some point.
Dr. Au stin thanked the Board members for all of their work and stated that it will be a good year for the Board. No public comments were offered, and Dr. Austin adjourned the meeting at 1:56 p.m.30 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 

### Action Items
 Dr. Henkel will work on context and lead the group on water quality for the report.  Mr. Cruz will serve on the water quality group.  Mr. Apodaca will identify the gaps in infrastructure and delivery needs and lead the water treatment group.  Dr. Eckert will locate the correct staff in the Bureau of Re clamation to address water supply issues.  Ms. Palazzolo will assist in the work on context.  OFACMO will present the FACA advisor’s comments on whether the Board can report to Congress to Dr. Austin when they are received.  Mr. Treviño will serve as the lead on the topic of context.  Mr. Frisbie will take the lead o n water supply.  Ms. Gantner will send e

- ma ils to the group about conference call dates and subsequent reminders.December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 31 

### Good **Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)** 

**Meeting Participants Nongovernm**  **ent, State, Local, and Tribal Members of the Board**  **Diane Austin, Ph.D. , Chair**  Associate Research Anthropologist Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology University of Arizona Tucson, AZ **Cecilia E. Aguillon** Director, Market Development and Government Re lations KYOCERA Solar, Inc. San Diego, CA **Jose Angel** Assistant Executive Officer California River Basin Region Water Quality Control Board

– Colorado River Basin Region Palm Desert, CA
**Evaristo Cruz** Director Environmental Management Office Ysleta del S ur Pueblo El Paso, TX **Gary Gillen** President Gillen Pest Control Richmond, TX **David Henkel, Ph.D.** Professor Emeritus Community and Regional Planning Program School of Architecture and Planning Albuquerque, NM **Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.** Borders Affairs Manager and Colonias Coordinator Intergovernmental Relations Division Texas Commission on Environmental Quality Austin, TX **Luis Olmedo** Executive Director Comite Civico Del Valle, Inc. Brawley, CA **Thomas Ruiz, M.S.** Border/Environmental Justice Liaison Office of the Secretary New Mexico Environment Department Las Cruces, NM
**Nathan P. Small** Conservation Coordinator New Mexico Wilderness Alliance Las Cruces, NM **Timothy Treviño** Director of Public Relations Alamo Area Council of Governments San Antonio, TX
**Mike Vizzier** Chief County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous Materials Division San Diego, CA
**Ann Marie A. Wolf** President Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc. Tucson, AZ
**John Wood** Representative Cameron County Regiona l Mobility Authority Brownsville, TX32 December 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

**Federal Members of the Board and**  **Alternates** Department of Homeland Security **Teresa R. Pohlman, Ph.D.** Director Occupational Safety and Environmental Programs Office of Chief Administrative Officer Management Directorate Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC Department of the Interior **Greg Eckert, Ph.D.** National Park Service Fort Collins, CO Environmental Protection Agency **Keith Takata** Deputy Regional Administrator EPA Region 9 San Francisco, CA International Boundary and Water Commission **Russell Frisbie** International Boundary and Water Commission Washington, DC Department of State **Angela Palazzolo** International Relations Officer U.S.

- Mexico Border Affairs Washington, DC Department of Agriculture, Natural Re sources Conservation Service **Robert M. Apodaca** Assistant Chief

– West USDA/NRCS Albuquerque, NM Department of Transportation **Linda Lawson** Director Office of Safety, Energy and Environment Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy Office of the Secretary of Transportation Washington, DC Department of Energy **Christopher Lawrence** Electricity Industry Specialist Permitting, Siting and Analysis Division Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability Washington, DC Department of Comme rce

– National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration **Alison Krepp** NOAA Estuarine Reserves Division Silver Spring, MD Department of Housing and Urban Development **Valerie Piper** Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Development Washington, DC **Acting Desi**  **gnated Federal Officer Mark Joyce**  Acting Designated Federal Officer Good Neighbor Environmental Board U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach Washington, DC **EPA Participants Derry Allen**  Office o f Policy
**Lisa Almodovar** Office of International and Tribal Affairs **Mike Flynn** Office of Air and Radiation
**AnnMarie Gantner** Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach
**Lisa Garcia** Office of the Administrator
**Laura Gomez** Office of Inte rnational and Tribal AffairsDecember 14

- 15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 33

**Randy Hill** Office of Water **Cynthia Jones**
**- Jackson**  Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach **Stephanie McCoy** Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach
**Jane Nishida** Office of Internatio nal and Tribal Affairs
**Michelle DePass** Office of International and Tribal Affairs
**Allie Silverman** Office of International and Tribal Affairs **Mathy Stanislaus** Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
**Sue Stendebach** Office of Air and Radiation **Othe r**  **Participants Maria Elena Giner**  Border Environment Cooperation Commission **Oscar Lei** University of Arizona **Jock Whittlesey** U.S. Department of State Contractor Support **Mary Spock, M.S.** Writer/Editor The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc. Gaithersburg, MD34 September 8

- 9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 

## G **ood N**  **e ig** **hb or**  **E n** **vi r**  **o n**  **m e**  **n t**  **a l B**  **o a**  **r d**  **JW Marriott Washington DC 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW**  **Washington, DC 20004 202** 
**- 393** 
**- 2000**  

## A **GEND A** 
**Wednesday, December 14**
8:3 0 a.m. **Registration**
9:0 0

- 9:30 **Welcome and Introductions**

 Mark Joyce Associate Direc tor and GNEB Acting Designated Federal Officer

 Cynthia Jones

-Jackson Acting Director U.S. EPA Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach

 Diane Austin Chair Good Neighbor Environmental Board

 Board Member s and Speakers


### 9:30

- 9:45 **Overview of Agenda**

Diane Austin Chair Good Neighbor Environmental Board
9:45

- 10:45 **Major Border Environment Cooperation Commission and North American**

**Development Bank Initiatives**
Maria Elena Giner General Manager Border Environment Co operation Commission
10:45

- 11:00 **Break**December 14

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

### 11:00

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

Michelle DePass Assistant Administrator U.S. EPA Office of International and Tribal Affairs
Keith Takata Deputy Regional Administrato r U.S. EPA Region 9
12 : 00

- 12: 15 **Public Comments**
12: 3 0

-4:30 **Press Event at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars**
5:00

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

# Meeting Day **2 December 15, 2011** 

8:00 a.m. **Registration**
8:3 0

- 10:00 **Discussion of GNEB’s 15 th**  

### Report and Activities for the Coming Year
10:00

- 10:15 **Break**
10:15

- 12:00 **Continuation of Discussion**
12:00

- 12:15 **Break**
12:15

- 1:30 **Continuation of Discussion**
1 :30

- 2:00 **Public Comments**
2 :00 **Adjou rn**