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

MEETING SUMMARY

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 14, 2011

Welcome and Introductions

Mark Joyce, EPA, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Management and Outreach (OFACMO), GNEB 

Acting Designated Federal Officer (DFO); Cynthia Jones-Jackson, EPA, Acting Director, OFACMO; 

and Diane Austin, Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Mr. Mark Joyce (EPA, OFACMO), Acting DFO for GNEB, 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 present. 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. Jones-Jackson 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 OFACMO 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 

Bank (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 BECC 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 are 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 services 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 evident 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 gallons 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 

Infrastructure 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 to 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 transparency 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 

infrastructure 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 utilities 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 gap 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 microlevel 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. A 
December 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 (PM10) reduction; after roads are paved, it was found that average PM10

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 choices 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 largest energy consumers in most communities. 

With the assistance of Border 2012 funds, the BECC has started three Mexican Climate Action Plans in 

Baja California, Sonora and Coahuila. Each plan developed 40 to 60 public policies. In the United States, 

approximately 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 PM10 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 had 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 seen 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 (EPA, 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 was 
4 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 educated 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 made 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 [USDA]), 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 board, 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 United 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. Austin 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 the Border 2012 effort. Accomplishments made through partnerships in Border 

2012 include pesticide collection through binational state-level partnerships. Pesticides were collected 
December 14-15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary 5

through cooperation with state and federal agricultural agencies. Increased capacity 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 impact 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 that 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 that 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-waste), 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 and 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 second major 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 approach 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 science 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 economic 
6 December 14-15, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

situation has created many challenges 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 formed. 

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 continued 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 conducted 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 negotiations 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 member, 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 completed. 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 had 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, the 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 terms 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 

members think is most important locally, they should let the federal leadership or tribal leadership know 

so that it can be 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 incentive 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, climate 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 the 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 

compromise 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. DePass 
8 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 

members for some of their ideas to ensure that all of the projects continuing in a variety of regions could 

have lasting connectivity 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 

building 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 economic, 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 

members 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 implementation 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 

Mexican 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. DePass 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 forums 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 forward 
December 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 With Senior Officials From 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 Congress 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 

submitted 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 meaningful 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 water 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 adequate 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 between development and 

infrastructure. The program has been collaborating with OITA as well as CONAGUA, the IBWC, the 
10 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 water 

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 website. 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 

projects 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 Waste 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 

opportunities 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. 

It has 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 agreement 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 their 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 2003 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 that 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 recycling 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 might 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 

Justice 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 discussions 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 winter 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 

waste 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 legitimate 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 on 

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 mentioned 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 agricultural 
12 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 of 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. Garcia 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 infrastructure 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 conversation 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, and 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. Jones-Jackson for inviting them. 

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 and 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 border 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 fourstrand 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 married 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 fosters. 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 comprehend 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 capita 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 doubted 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 for the future of the border area. 

Ms. Jones-Jackson 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 view 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 Health 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. 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 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 not 

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 Congressional 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. She 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 

membership for the Board, but at the last moment it was changed to a U.S.-only focus with only U.S. 

members. 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 following 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 suggestion. 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, stateto-state bilateral connections) that could be explored. 

Mr. Angel asked 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 

member 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 the 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 binational 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 

participate. 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 border 

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 Ambiente 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 joined 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. side of the border. EPA staff 

members 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 instances 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 legislative 
16 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 challenges 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 on 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 following 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 border, 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 communities. 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 

members to consider what they view as the greatest needs. 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 each 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 border 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 infrastructure 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 

issues 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 Administration did not release the new, 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 activity, 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 families. 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 statistical 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 initiative 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 oil. 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. 

Monitoring 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 SERI 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 government-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 

replacement 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 regarding 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 Century 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 bridges 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 projects 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; public 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 decided 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 wastewater. 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 met (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 broadband 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 beneficial to design such programs. It is important to clean up the border area on 
December 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 government 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 suggested 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 minnows 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 

interest,” 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 areas 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 invasive 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 PM10 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 rules 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 on 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 another 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 reduce 

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 planning 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. Treviño 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 bandwidth 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 

communicate. 

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: solid 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 infrastructure: 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 include 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. The 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 to 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 the 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 water 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 wastewater 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-Jackson 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 

would 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 perspective 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. The 
22 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 suggested 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 interrelationship, 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, or 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 referred 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 describe 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. Advisory 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 

member, and she knows border issues well. Ms. Krepp replied that may mean there will be increased 
December 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 place 

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 Administration 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 language 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 Congress. 

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 would 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 

understood. 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 should 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. 

Jones-Jackson and Mr. Joyce but 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 Congress 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 added 

that contextualizing is critical for the Board because it allows GNEB to create a report that discusses both 
24 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. Joyce 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 reclamation 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. Austin 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 

institutions 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 chapters. 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 water 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-Jackson 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 meet 
December 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 releasing 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 appointed 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 undertaking. 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. Producing 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 added that the Board has worked hard to be 

viewed as nonpartisan. The hope is that regardless of political affiliation, the Administration 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 now 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 potential 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 

June or July of 2012. He believed that the Board should not be guided by electoral calendars but may be 
26 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 commented 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 communities 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 

would 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-Jackson 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 determined 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 it 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 wastewater 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 supply 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 implications; 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 should 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 

members 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 videoconference, 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 representation 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-Jackson mentioned 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 scheduling. 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 meeting, 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 was 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 offered 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 email 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 

Microsoft 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. Austin 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 Reclamation 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 on water supply. 

 Ms. Gantner will send e-mails 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

Nongovernment, 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

Relations

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 Sur 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 Regional Mobility Authority

Brownsville, TX
32 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 Resources 

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 Commerce – 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 Designated 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 of 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 International and Tribal Affairs
December 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 International 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

Other 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, MD 
34 September 8-9, 2011, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Summary

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

JW Marriott Washington DC

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW

Washington, DC 20004

202-393-2000

AGENDA

Wednesday, December 14

8:30 a.m. Registration

9:00-9:30 Welcome and Introductions

 Mark Joyce

Associate Director 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 Members 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 Cooperation 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 Administrator

U.S. EPA Region 9

12:00-12:15 Public Comments

12:30-4:30 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

8:30-10:00 Discussion of GNEB’s 15th 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 Adjourn