FINAL VERSION 

Officially approved by the Chair and Board at the Alpine, Texas GNEB Board 

Meeting, October 24-26, 2006, subject to edits duly incorporated into text that 

follows

Meeting Summary/Minutes 

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

Omni Hotel 

675 L. Street 

San Diego, California 

July 18-19, 2006 

Meeting Theme: 

Environmental Protection and Border Security along the U.S. Mexico Border 

Note: The members of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board have requested that the following caveat be inserted into all Board meeting minutes: The 

minutes that follow reflect what was conveyed during the course of the meeting being summarized. The Board is not responsible for any potential inaccuracies 

that may appear in the minutes as a result of information conveyed. Moreover, the Board advises that additional information sources be consulted in cases 

where any concern may exist about statistics or any other information contained within the minutes. 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 2

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

Note: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Cooperative Environmental 

Management, has administrative responsibility for the Board. 

Table of Contents 

 Participants..................................................................................................................3 

 Welcome and Introductions ........................................................................................6 

 Remarks ......................................................................................................................6

 Speaker Presentations: 

 Security Activities along the U.S.-Mexico Border .........................................8 

 Community Right-to-Know and Border Security..........................................10 

 Emergency Response and Border Security: 

 The Environmental Connection ....................................................................11 

 Cargo Screening Technology.....................................................................................14 

 Public Comment Session ...........................................................................................15 

 Speaker Presentations: 

 Update from Mexico’s Northern Border Environmental Advisors ...............17 

 Building Security and Environmental Protection into the Supply Chain ......18 

 Potential Positive/Negative Impacts of the Triple Fence on Flora/Fauna .....20 

 Effects of Undocumented Human Crossings on National Forests Work ......21 

 

 Business Meeting.......................................................................................................23 

 Welcome ........................................................................................................23 

 Membership Status.........................................................................................23 

 Tenth Report Preparation Report Outs 

• Context Workgroup ...........................................................................24 

• Human Crossings Workgroup ...........................................................24 

• Materials Crossings Workgroup ........................................................25 

 Discussion: Role of Federal agency representatives......................................25 

 Discussion: Draft Comment Letter – Triple Fence........................................27 

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

 Discussion: Reporting to the President and Congress ...................................29 

 Approval of the Minutes from Last Meeting .................................................30 

 Other Business ...............................................................................................30 

 Business Meeting Ends..................................................................................31 

 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 3

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board 

Omni Hotel 

627 L. Street 

San Diego, California 

July 18-19, 2006 

Meeting Summary/Minutes 

DRAFT 

Meeting Theme: 

Environmental Protection and Border Security along the U.S. Mexico Border 

Day 1 – Tuesday, July 18, 2006 (9:30 a.m.) 

Meeting Participants:

Non-Federal Board Members 

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

State University, Chair, San Diego, California 

• Amanda Aguirre, CEO/President, Regional Center for Border Health, Inc. San Luis, Arizona 

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

Cruces, New Mexico 

• Michael P. Dorsey, Chief, San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, 

Hazardous Materials Division, San Diego, California 

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

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

• Rosario Marin, Secretary, California State Consumer Services Agency, Sacramento, 

California 

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

World Wildlife Fund, Las Cruces, New Mexico 

• Stephen M. Niemeyer, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Austin, 

Texas
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 4

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

• David Randolph, Border Coordination Officer, Arizona-Mexico Commission, Phoenix, 

Arizona 

• Douglas S. Smith, Director, Corporate Environmental Safety and Health, Sony Electronics, 

Inc., San Diego, California 

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

University of Arizona, and Professor of Environmental Policy, Tucson, Arizona 

• Ann Marie A. Wolf, President, Sonora Environmental Research, Tucson, Arizona 

Federal Board Members 

• James Stefanov, U.S. Geological Service, U.S. Department of Interior, Austin, Texas 

• Marilyn DiSirio, ATSDR, Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Georgia 

• Shannon H. Sorzano, Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Affairs, Department of 

Housing and Urban Development, Washington, D.C. 

Resource Specialists and Agency Alternates 

• Hector Aguirre, EPA Region 9 

• Miguel Flores, Director, Water Quality Protection Division, EPA Region 6 

• Sally Spener, Public Affairs Officer, International Boundary and Water Commission, El 

Paso, Texas 

• Derrith Watchman-Moore, Deputy Director, New Mexico Department of the Environment 

Consejo, SEMARNAT Representative: Flavio Olivieri

EPA/OCEM Staff and Management 

• Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, EPA

• Elaine Koerner, GNEB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) 

• Geraldine Brown 

• Lois Williams 

• Juan Zepeda Valdez (Intern) 

Speakers: 

• Honorable Denise Moreno Ducheny, California State Senator

• Enrique Villegas, Secretary of Ecology, Baja California. 

• Michael Hance, Field Operations Supervisor, U.S. Border Patrol

• Diane Takvorian, Executive Director, Environmental Health Coalition 

• Michael Dorsey, Chief, Hazardous Materials Division San Diego County Department of 

Environmental Health (DEH) 

• Leonardo Hurtado, Program Manager, SAIC, for Inspection Technology and Homeland 

Security Equipment in Border Crossings 

• Barbara Maco, Border Coordinator for Emergency Preparedness and Response, USEPA 

Region IX 

• Flavio Olivieri, Liaison, Consejo Consultivo de Desarrollo Sustenable 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 5

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

• Ing. José Luis Sánchez, Gupo Ambiental del Noroeste 

• Mike White, Conservation Biology Institute 

• Tina Terrell, Forest Supervisor, Cleveland National Forest 

Public Commenters: 

• Jennifer Neeley, Defenders of Wildlife 

• Rick Van Schoik, Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP) 

• Oscar Romo, Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve 

• Daniel Newbold, UCSD 

• Melody Sees, Los Coyotes Band of Indians 

• Jim Peugh, San Diego Audubon Society 

• Jorge Garcés, Managing Director, NADBank 

• Lorena Lopez Powers, EPA San Diego Border Office 

Guests : 

• Javier Avila, Office of State Senator Ducheny 

• Edward Cardenas, San Diego Fire Department 

• Deanneka Goodwin, Office of Congresswoman Susan Davis 

• David Heilig, USDA 

• Alven Lam, HUD 

• April Lee, Native Amreican Environmental Protection Coalition 

• Doug Liden, EPA 

• Suzanne Michel, University of San Diego 

• Charles Mallon, San Diego 

• Brian Martin, Border Patrol, El Cajon, California 

• Nick Martorano, EPA San Diego Border Office 

• Katie Meehan, University of Arizona, Tucson 

• Suzanne Michel, Independent Scholar 

• Jessica Piekeilek, University of Arizona 

• Jose C. Pierre, Tijuana, Mexico 

• Oscar Romo’s students from UCSD: Ryan Moreland, Tae Park, Alice Tsing, Amelia 

Giacalone, Franco Ocampo, Lawrence Chang, Edward Janowicz, Chris Wong, Cecilia 

Lavaniga, Daniel Neabold, Mitesh Patel, Cecilia Gonzalez 

• Christin Rubin, California State and Consumer Services Agency 

• Ron Saenz, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) 

• Stephen Siciliano, BNA 

• Paula Stigler, Pala Band of Mission Indians 

• Sean Sullivan, Sierra Club 

• Rick Van Schoik, SCERP 

• Tomas Torres, Director, EPA San Diego Border Office 

• Julieta Valdez, San Marino 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 6

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

Background

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

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

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

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

Welcome and Introductions

Rafael DeLeon, Director, Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM), EPA, 

welcomed board members and guests to the July 2006 meeting of the Good Neighbor 

Environmental Board (GNEB). He welcomed the Honorable Denise Moreno Ducheny, California 

State Senator and Enrique Villegas, Secretary of Ecology, Baja California. He thanked Elaine 

Koerner, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for her work with the GNEB and introduced GNEB 

Chair Paul Ganster, Ph.D. 

Opening Remarks

Dr. Ganster, Chair, explained that the GNEB meets three times each year, two times in border 

communities and once in Washington, DC. It is important for Board members to interact with 

people in border communities and listen to their concerns and issues. The GNEB’s Ninth Annual 

Report is available and includes recommendations on transportation and the environment, and the 

issue of cross border migration and its effects on cultural and natural resources. The Tenth Report 

will examine the intersection of environmental protection and border security along the U.S.-

Mexico border. Today’s meeting would focus on problems and issues for the Tenth Report. 

Dr. Ganster introduced the Honorable Denise Moreno Ducheny, California State Senator, who 

represents the California border territory from Imperial Beach to the Colorado River. Senator 

Ducheny has been a leader in the California legislature in terms of forging cross-border 

relationships in Baja, California, Baja California Sur, and Mexico 

Senator Denise Moreno Ducheney said that tomorrow some members of the California 

Transportation Commission will come to look at border infrastructure issues. To protect the ecology 

on both sides of the border, it is important to recognize geological, rather than political lines. The 

Tijuana River Watershed is bi-national and drains water from both countries. Since the international 

sewage treatment plant is only primary treatment, sewage problems have been found along the 

ocean at Imperial Beach and in Coronado. The goal is to obtain secondary treatment, which is 

demanded by Federal and state law and requires action by Mexico. 

Bioterrorism and health concerns affect people on both sides of the border. Some diseases are airborne and others are people-borne. About 40,000 people who live in Tijuana commute to work in 

San Diego using the San Ysidro border crossing. About 25,000 trucks a day cross at Otay Mesa, and 

a third crossing is being studied. One major problem is a disconnect between a new truck crossing, a 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 7

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

state inspection station, and the freeway system, so city streets have to carry the truckload for all the 

transport from Baja California to the major international Port of Long Beach in Los Angeles. 

Traffic congestion is a concern for health due to air pollution. 

Border security, water resources, and wastewater are other problems that are shared between 

Mexico and the U.S. Tijuana is growing fast and is comparable to San Diego in population. 

Wildfires affect both sides of the border and require good emergency and fire fighting services. 

Protection and sharing of water resources is important, because California is an agricultural state 

and shares Colorado River water with six states and Baja California. People who reside in Tijuana 

spend about $3 billion a year in San Diego, and as growth continues, improvements in 

environmental infrastructures for water resources, waste water, and solid waste will be needed. EPA 

helped to clean up the tire pile in Santa Neba, which would be a huge health hazard if it ever caught 

fire. 

In this county, the Multiple Species Cogeneration Plan helps to preserve ecological corridors. Both 

Tecate and Tijuana politicians recognize that wildlife corridors are bi-national. The proposed 

security fences would be a problem for wildlife, so other ways need to be found to create border 

security. The 10 border-state legislators are meeting on a regular basis under the auspices of the 

Council of State Governments to work on border issues such as solid waste and air pollution. They 

are planning to develop a bi-national air quality group in San Diego-Tijuana, Mexicali-Calexico and 

the Imperial Valley. In San Diego-Tijuana local elected leaders and government officials will be 

brought together around shared watershed issues. Senator Ducheney closed by thanking GNEB for 

coming to San Diego to learn about their issues. 

Chair Ganster introduced Enrique Villegas, Secretary for Environmental Protection in Baja 

California, as an outstanding leader of cross-border collaboration who has worked closely with a 

number of California agencies to address environmental issues. 

Enrique Villegas, Secretary for Environmental Protection, Baja California, said that it was 

important to find a balance among economic, social, environmental and security issues along the 

border. Secretary Villegas described the cross-border and bi-national efforts related to the 

environment, including BECC, NADBank, the Border 2012 program, and the 10-State 

Environmental Alliance. They are working to solve problems and influence policy in Mexico and 

the U.S. with the goal of sustainable borders. 

The immigration issue affects Mexican communities, which have grown tremendously from internal 

migration and from people immigrating from the south. Growth has created problems with 

infrastructure, water, air, and the environment in general. Improvements in the quality of life in 

Tijuana and other Mexican communities would help to solve illegal immigration. Border security is 

not only fences, but quality of life. Secretary Villegas urged both sides to work together and to urge 

the federal governments of the U.S. and Mexico to maintain the current level of funding for border 

infrastructure and other issues. He said it is important to find ways to improve the environment, 

health, security, and communities in the border region. 

Chair Ganster thanked the two speakers, and then asked Board members and audience members to 

introduce themselves. After the introductions, he introduced Michael Hance, Field Operations 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 8

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

Supervisor, U.S. Border Patrol, who is assigned to Tactical Infrastructure Coordination and is 

concerned about the effectiveness of the infrastructure and its effect on the environment. 

Speaker Presentations

Security Activities along the U.S.-Mexico Border 

Michael Hance, Field Operations Supervisor, U.S. Border Patrol, reported that in the San Diego 

sector, he belonged to a Project Delivery Team that operates as a joint planning system and includes 

other disciplines such as environment, construction, engineering, project management, and cultural 

relations. Mr. Hance said he would discuss border issues based on his 22 years of experience with 

the Border Patrol and what he has learned from Team members. 

Mr. Hance showed slides that depicted hundreds of illegal persons and a small group of criminals 

standing along the border near a barbed wire fence, all waiting for an opportune moment to enter en 

masse into the U.S. in the Tijuana River Basin. A subsequent request to Congress and the state of 

California resulted in the arrival of the military and the construction of a sturdier primary fence. 

Although the number of drive-throughs was reduced, people still could climb over the fence, and 

criminals could dig under it or launch cars over the fence. 

Mr. Hance summarized the border infrastructure zone that included a primary fence, night-time 

stadium lighting, open observation areas, better roads, and a secondary fence. In 1996, Congress 

mandated a double fence along 14 miles of the border from the Pacific Ocean to the Otay 

Wilderness area. The fence covers the San Ysidro and Otay ports-of-entry. In the future, a tertiary 

fence will provide a boundary marker between Federal and private lands. In developed areas, the 

overall strategy is to stop vehicles at the first fence and allow a brief time to apprehend people 

before they get across the second fence where they hide in warehouses, trucks, and dumpsters. In 

the Otay Wilderness area, a different approach is used because there is more time to apprehend 

illegal crossers. The new fencing has reduced the number of crossers from 2,400 to 35 persons a 

day. 

In the future, they will take advantage of the proximity of the Tijuana river water, the water 

filtration plant, and a sewage treatment plant to use recycled water to irrigate vegetation and for dust 

control. New fences and concrete water runoffs were built for erosion control and restoration of 

native vegetation. 

In the Tijuana Estuary area, other security methods are used, including fly-overs and manpowerintensive foot patrols. In commercial areas, storm drains and tunnels are being used by smugglers 

to cross the border. The main problem is to maintain the manpower level needed to control border 

activities. In Imperial Beach, during 2005, 15,000 people were arrested and most of them returned 

to Mexico, but they were back in just a few days. 

Mr. Hance discussed plans to control the criminal element, to reduce their operational imprint from 

5000 to 200 acres along the border, and to restore the denuded area in the estuary to its natural 

environment. Placing a “Surf Fence” at the beach area has controlled illegal immigration and 

improved protection of migrating and nesting birds. In the wilderness area, trails are used by illegal 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 9

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

crossers, who kill the vegetation, which causes erosion and silting into coastal marsh areas, 

destroying bird and animal habitats. 

The current infrastructure only protects 14 miles in west San Diego County. In the East County, the 

strategy is to use a technological fence of cameras and sensors, and vehicle barriers. More vehicle 

barriers are needed, because the International Fire Break created a lot of roads for smugglers of 

people and drugs to use. 

Questions and Comments

In response to several questions from Board members, Mr. Hance explained that: 

• The amount of Federal government funds used in this operation was $68 million. 

• The movement of illegal crossers from the California border area to Arizona was not the 

intention of the Border Patrol. In the East County, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, a team 

of Border Patrol agents and Emergency Medical Technicians, called Border Rescue and 

Trauma Unit (BORSTAR) was created to help people in distress. Operation Jump Start will 

help by bringing in the military to relieve pressure on the Border Patrol. 

• For the first nine miles, fence construction was in compliance with The National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

In May 2005, U.S. Congress passed legislation granting a waiver of regulatory laws related 

to the environment for border security, which enabled construction to continue even though 

the Regional Water Regulatory Board wanted them to start the approval process all over 

again under CEQA. 

• With regard to the type and length of fencing, the primary, heavy metal gauge fence stops 

vehicles, the second fence is 150 feet inside the primary fence and is aimed at stopping foot 

traffic, and the tertiary fence would protect private land. Fourteen miles of fencing cover this 

area and 6 miles cover Tecate. 

• In the estuary and where the fence is built up, animals won’t be able to migrate. 

Community Right-to-Know and Border Security 

Mike Dorsey, Chief, San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, Hazardous 

Materials Division, introduced Diane Takvorian, a member of the Environmental Justice Advisory 

Committee, California Environmental Protection Agency, who started a grass-roots organization in 

the 1980s called the Environmental Health Coalition (EHC). Ms. Takvorian has played a key role in 

environmental issues and was instrumental in getting community-right-to-know laws passed in 

California. 

Diane Takvorian, Executive Director, Environmental Health Coalition, provided an historical 

account of the Right-To-Know movement and legislation that enables the public and workers to 

obtain information about public health and environmental threats from toxic pollution and toxic 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 10

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

chemicals in the workplace and communities. The Environmental Health Coalition (EHC) started 

25 years ago and works in the low-income areas of San Diego and Tijuana. Right-to-Know 

legislation has been passed in several states, including California, which led to Federal legislation. 

In 1982, San Diego County passed the first Community-Right-to-Know law that covered both 

workers and the community. In 1986, Congress passed the Toxic Release Inventory Act as part of 

the Superfund legislation. In 1986, California passed Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water Act, 

and the Toxic Enforcement Act. 

As a result of these laws, there has been a reduction of atmospheric emissions of the 260 known 

carcinogens and reproductive toxins in California, and a 43 percent reduction in the U.S. 

Transparency has been one of the factors in leading industries to reduce their use of toxic chemicals, 

reduce their emissions, and to establish toxic release tracking systems. Trade agreements that 

incorporate Right-To-Know laws could protect workers in all countries. In Mexico, almost 60 

percent of the electronics workers report inadequate safety training; 38 percent have no safety 

equipment; and worker injury rates are 250 percent higher than in comparable U.S. industries. 

Metal and chemical hazards associated with the electronics industry include trichloroethylene 

(TCE) and lead poisoning of workers and their families. EHC attempted to compare chemical 

utilization in industries in Mexico and the U.S., but they found there was no systematic data 

collection. The EHC has developed a video titled, Maquiladoras, City of Factories, that 

demonstrates the experience of workers and community members who are exposed to toxic 

chemicals at work. NAFTA has not really improved public health or environmental quality and the 

HazTrack system has been cancelled. 

In Colonia Chilpancingo, which is near the Mesa de Otay Industrial Park, there were 23,000 tons of 

contaminated wastes at a toxic waste site and the community did not know about it. Once the 

community learned about the site, they demanded clean-up. EHC and residents filed a petition with 

the CEC, which agreed that it was a grave risk to human health. In 2004, the collective signed an 

agreement with the Mexican government to clean up the site. EPA was helpful in making this 

happen. In Phase I, 900 tons of waste has been removed. 

Ms. Takvorian mentioned the health risks to children from diesel fuel pollution resulting from the 

60 percent increase in truck traffic. For example, in Cuidad Juarez, it is estimated that 231 children 

have died from the effects of diesel air pollution and 36,000 suffer from respiratory illnesses. In 

conclusion, Right-to-Know regulations need to be included in all international or bi-national trade 

agreements, such as NAFTA. 

Questions and Comments

Douglas Smith, Sony Electronics challenged Ms. Takvorian’s statements about the amount of lead 

poisoning from the computer industry. He said Sony Electronics has received the Impresa Segura 

title, which includes training and Right-To-Know and also has ISO-14000 certification at its 

Tijuana plant. The newer televisions have zero amounts of lead in the solder, and lead in picture 

tubes is vitrified. Ms. Takvorian agreed that technology has advanced, but that older televisions are 

still being manufactured. She asked if a list of the chemicals used by Sony would be available to the 

community. Mr. Smith responded that ISO-14000 has a requirement to inform the community. Ms. 

Takvorian said that Sony is a great model for other companies. 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 11

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

Stephen Niemeyer asked if the 2002 CEC report on Metales y Derivado was a factual record. 

Ms. Takvorian answered affirmatively and said the Mexican government tried to get the owner to 

clean up the site, but he refused and escaped to the U.S. The CEC report helped to highlight the 

contamination even though it has no enforcement powers. Mr. Niemeyer asked if any of her 

information was published in peer-review journals. Ms. Takvorian answered that they had an article 

on environmental health in NIEHS about pollution and the health impacts in the San Diego area. 

She said it is difficult to get information from companies to do a scientific study, and Right-toKnow is needed to get that information. 

Shannon Sorzano asked if there was any information on the economic costs of implementing or not 

implementing the safety standards. Ms. Takvorian referred her to a study by Jane Hall at the 

University of California, Riverside, on the economic and public health costs. 

Miguel Flores wanted to know if there were similar organizations to EHC in the border area and 

what could be done to promote more of them. Ms. Takvorian responded that the work on the 

development of the PRTR (Pollution Release and Transfer Registry) system in Mexico was an 

effort of many NGOs in both the U.S. and Mexico. These organizations are waiting for the release 

of TRI (Toxic Release Inventory) information in 2006, which will be useful to environmental 

organizations. 

Michael Dorsey commented that Right-To-Know goes beyond notifying communities. Information 

on toxic substances is essential for first responders who work with accidents in these facilities on 

both sides of the border. This issue needs to be addressed for security also. 

Emergency Response and Border Security: The Environmental Connection 

Chair Ganster introduced Michael Dorsey, a GNEB member and a representative on the Border 

2012 California Baja-California Emergency Response Task Force, which works on improving 

environmental conditions at the border. 

Michael Dorsey, Chief, Hazardous Materials Division, San Diego County Department of 

Environmental Health (DEH), announced that Ricardo Castellanos was unable to attend, but that 

Barbara Maco from EPA Region 9 and the Border Coordinator on the Task Force will cover part of 

the presentation. Using a series of slides, Mr. Dorsey described the emergency response system in 

San Diego, Border 2012, and the Task Force activities. 

In San Diego County, they have 50 fire departments that work together under a Joint Powers 

agreement, and five of those are Native American. Both DEH and the City of San Diego’s Fire 

Department respond to chemical emergencies in San Diego County. The emergency response team 

is well-equipped and well-prepared to handle chemical emergencies compared to their counterparts 

in Tijuana. As part of a $10.75 million settlement, $50,000 was allocated to the Bomberos in 

Tijuana for such basics as detection equipment and hazard protection clothing. Emergency response 

teams have three ports-of-entry through which to transport equipment: San Ysidro, Otay Mesa, and 

Tecate. The bi-national agreement to fight fires across the border is not the same for emergency 

responses. 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 12

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

The Border 2012 program is an off-shoot of the La Paz Agreement between Mexico and the U.S. It 

is a bi-national cooperative agreement on environmental protection that extends 62 miles on either 

side of the border. Border 2012 is a partnership at all levels of government that works from the local 

level up. Border 2012 addresses environmental challenges to: reduce water contamination, reduce 

air pollution, reduce land contamination, reduce pesticide exposure and improve environmental 

health. One objective is to establish chemical emergency advisory notification between Mexico and 

the U.S. Another objective is that by 2012, 50 percent of the contingency plans will be 

implemented, thus strengthening emergency preparedness, risk reduction, and counter-terrorism. 

There are six sister-city plans operating in EPA Region IX, and three bi-national emergency 

preparedness response task forces. 

The San Diego-Tijuana Emergency Preparedness Task Force’s goal is to reduce chemical and 

hazardous exposures. A communication plan was signed in 2003 to designate which jurisdiction 

would respond to chemical emergencies and to establish a communication notification system for 

chemical emergencies. The plan does not allow U.S. responders to assist in Mexico for reasons of 

insurance, workers compensation, and sovereign immunity. This problem needs to be addressed, 

especially in view of a potential terrorist attack. 

Other activities of the Task Force have included: 

• A table-top exercise in Tijuana on how to respond to a release of ammonia from a tanker 

near the port-of-entry on the Mexican side 

• An exercise to communicate with Mexico about a hazardous spill, which failed because 

Mexico had changed their phone numbers to fax numbers 

• Updates of the sister city plan to account for bio-terrorism 

• An emergency management institute to train Mexican first responders 

• Collaboration with industry to plan for chemical spills, especially in Mexico 

• Expedition of border crossing protocols, like radio systems 

• Cooperation with Customs officials to allow equipment to cross the border 

• Information booths at conferences in Mexico 

Mr. Dorsey explained in detail the development of an Emergency Management Institute in Mexico 

similar to the California Specialized Training Institute to train first responders, fire departments, and 

emergency responders. Several organizations in Mexico have cooperated with the Task Force to 

establish the Institute, including the Autonomous University of Baja California, U.S. EPA, San 

Diego County, the Bomberos of Tijuana, the State Protección Civil agency, and PROFEPA. An 

advisory board with members from both sides of the border will provide advice on standardized 

curriculum and operation of the Institute in Mexico. 

Barbara Maco, Border Coordinator for Emergency Preparedness and Response, USEPA Region 

IX, said she serves on the San Diego-Tijuana, Imperial County-Mexicali, and the Arizona-Sonora 

Task Forces. She also serves on an Inland Joint Response Team made up of many agencies in 

Mexico and the U.S. involved in emergency preparedness. She is a member of the Coast Joint 

Response Team with the Mexican Navy and the Coast Guard. Ms. Maco said she would discuss the 

accomplishments of the three task forces in Region IX. 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 13

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

Some of the accomplishments of the Task Forces included: 

• The adoption of a Sister City Plan between Imperial County and the City of Mexicali to 

identify risks and develop plans to reduce the risk 

• A meeting with 45 members of industry to introduce the new plan 

• Facilitation of border crossings, which was led by the Mexican Consulate, to develop 

protocols to respond to natural and chemical emergencies. 

The Sister City plans cover four states and six cities: San Diego, Tijuana, Yuma, Arizona, Calexico, 

San Luis Rio Colorado, and Mexicali along the border. If there is a hazard emergency, including 

nuclear, radiological, or chemical it would involve all the cities. Updating personal protection and 

communications equipment is the key to sustainable emergency preparedness and expedited border 

crossing. The plan this year is to exercise the Plan and the border crossing protocols. 

There is a movement to establish the International Standard ISO-14000 for emergency management 

systems (EMS). The Nogales-Sonora Task Force certified Nogales businesses to that Standard. A 

similar program in Mexicali is focused on risk reduction, which involves industry workers, 

CANACINTRA, the Federal PROFEPA, Protección Civil, and Baja California. This program is 

focused on smaller businesses that will be certified to the Standard. EMS involves a systematic 

method of reducing emissions, an emergency plan, and sharing of information with the public. 

In Arizona-Sonora, the task force met on Tohono O’odham Nation land to identify tribal 

preparedness and homeland security measures. A tri-national plan was developed between the 

Nation, the State of Sonora, and the State of Arizona to address a facility close to the Nation. Ms. 

Maco concluded by asking the GNEB to help them use the resources to address border security and 

protect the public health and environment of border communities. 

Questions and Comments

Rosario Marin wanted to know if the emergency response task forces were preparing to meet a 

potential pandemic flu epidemic. Mr. Dorsey responded that the responders and the health 

department are working on a plan, but the task force is not. Ms. Maco added that the issue is being 

addressed under security and preparedness under the Security Prosperity Partnership Agreement 

between Mexico, U.S. and Canada. Chair Ganster thought this issue might be studied as part of the 

Tenth Report. Ms. Aguirre said that the States of Arizona and Sonora have been working on 

pandemic flu issues and communicable disease reporting especially related to the medical 

community and emergency personnel. DFO Koerner questioned whether this issue would come 

under the purview of the GNEB and added that EPA does have a Homeland Security Task Force 

and it is important to see how these issues intersect. 

Douglas Smith asked about the role of private industry in responding to emergencies. Mr. Dorsey 

answered that industry does not play a major role in responses in the San Diego area. On the 

Mexican side, they are trying to contact industries to see if they could assist the Bomberos. Ms. 

Maco added that the Chamber of Commerce in Tijuana has an active training program for first 

responders. The CANACINTRA in Mexicali has a training program on risk reduction and is a key 

part of the Baja California Emergency Management Institute. David Randolph shared a concern 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 14

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

about an emergency gap between cities that would require the county, the state, and the Federal 

government to cooperate in a response. Addressing the geographic and jurisdictional gaps is part of 

the Arizona-Sonora Task Force concerns. 

Cargo Screening Technology 

DFO Ganster introduced Leonardo Hurtado, Program Manager, SAIC, for Inspection 

Technology and Homeland Security Equipment in Border Crossings. Mr. Hurtado has a broad 

range of information and experience in the technologies available for border protection of hazardous 

wastes. 

Leonardo Hurtado said he was a Business Development Director for Sales in Latin America and his 

territory is in Mexico and other Latin American countries. Mr. Hurtado described the kind of 

inspection systems SAIC manufactures for use at the border to detect illegal and hazardous 

substances in cars, trucks, and rail cars that cross the border. The goal is to detect these substances 

electronically without having to stop traffic for inspection. In Mexico, there are 54 systems 

scanning vehicles. 

Different systems are used to scan rail cars, motor vehicles, and pallets at airports. In one case, they 

found $17 million in drug money stuffed in cans of Jalapeňo peppers and other places in a truck 

headed for Mexico. Some systems are located in towers along railroads and some are mounted on 

trucks. A system called “Relocatable” relies on gamma rays to detect illegal substances or cargos. In 

Mexico, applications are used to verify declarations and to detect contraband and nuclear 

substances. An analyst employed by Customs completes an inspection of a container in about 30 

seconds. The systems look at variations in density and color and emitted radiation. Even false 

compartments can be detected. 

Quick inspections reduce the idling time and pollution from motor vehicles. After an operator finds 

a suspicious area, then a secondary inspection is done to the container. These systems have enabled 

ports in Mexico to cut the amount of time a container stays in port from 11 to 2 days. The system 

captures pictures, license plates and the analyst’s voice. Systems are also used on containers that 

come into sea ports. 

Questions and Comments 

Chair Ganster asked what was the meaning of 98 percent reliability for gamma ray imaging. Mr. 

Hurtado said it was the amount of time the system is in operation. 

Mr. Flores wanted to know if they took images before and after the border entry. Mr. Hurtado 

answered that they were working on a method to scan an image and clear it with Mexican customs 

in the U.S., then scan the cargo again in Mexico to see if there are any differences. For example, if a 

cargo comes from China into a port in Mexico, it could be scanned there and then scanned again in 

the U.S. Mr. Flores asked if there were ways to tell whether a container had been opened before it 

reached the U.S. destination. Mr. Hurtado said that systems are being developed that could be used 

inside containers to detect changes. 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 15

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

Public Comment Session

Seven people spoke in the public comment session. 

Jennifer Neeley, Defenders of Wildlife ̧ said the organization is concerned about the impact on the 

environment from Border Patrol activities to end illegal immigration. She referenced a report called 

“On the Line,” which states that the U.S. Border Patrol’s decision to funnel people out of urban 

areas into remote areas has caused massive environmental damage in Arizona. There are eight 

Federally-protected parks near Mexico-Arizona border. She felt that compliance with environmental 

laws was no longer a priority with the Border Patrol. There has been no biological opinion for 

security activities in the Tucson area since 1994, which is required under Section 7 of the 

Endangered Species Act. She stated that the Border Patrol has not complied with the National 

Environmental Policy Act. The Arizona Border Control Initiative has been underway for three years 

and no Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) have been 

developed, since passage of the RealID Act that exempts the Secretary of Homeland Security from 

environmental laws. 

The Defenders of Wildlife report recommends the following: 

• Greater commitment to environmental laws by the Border Patrol 

• Better environmental training for agents 

• Increased funding for land management agencies 

• Better planning for Border Patrol activities 

• An increased willingness to cooperate with affected communities 

• Development of a programmatic EIS for the Tucson sector to replace the 2002 EIS which 

was opposed by EPA and later retracted. 

Rick Van Schoik, Southwest Consortium for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP) spoke 

about the partnership between SCERP and the GNEB. In the SCERP’s Border Institute VI in 2004, 

the Consortium looked at trans-boundary ecosystems management, including watersheds. SCERP 

has both informed and used the recommendations in GNEB’s Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth reports. The 

Border Institute 9 in 2007 will be dedicated to the topic of border security, development and 

environment. There is tension among federal, state, local, and tribal governments over control of 

infrastructure activities that affect communities. 

Oscar Romo, Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve, was outraged as an 

environmentalist at the destruction of the last remaining, underdeveloped, coastal areas in Southern 

California. Archeological sites more than 10,000 years old and endangered plants have been 

destroyed. In the Tijuana River Research Reserve, a restoration project was only able to restore 60 

species or 10 percent of the native species. 

Mr. Romo urged the government to fulfill its obligations under the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air 

Act, the National Environmental Protection Act, the Coastal Management Act, the California 

Coastal Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Management Environmental Policy Act, and the San 

Diego Multiple Species Act. He urged the GNEB to make recommendations to the President and 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 16

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

the U.S. Congress to find creative solutions, such as technology, to control the illegal crossing of 

people and products and to avoid the destruction of pristine border areas. 

Melody Sees, Los Coyotes Band of Indians, stated her concerns about the lack of compliance with 

environmental laws when building the infrastructure, the impact of immigrants and Border Patrol 

activities, insurance for Tribal emergency responders, and the potential pandemic Avian Flu 

preparations. The tribes are trying to prepare emergency response plans, but they do not get any 

funds from the Homeland Security Act or from states or counties. The Indian Health Councils and 

health clinics are not being included in the vaccination plans for the avian flu pandemic. She 

thanked the GNEB for recognizing tribal governments and including them in their discussions. 

Jim Peugh, San Diego Audubon Society, was adamant that the three miles of triple fence was not 

needed in Smugglers Gulch, Lichty Mesa, Tecate, and Mount Cuchumá because these are 

environmentally-sensitive, non-urban areas that only require a single fence. The triple fence was 

opposed by the San Diego Audubon Society and a number of other environmental commissions 

under NEPA and the Coastal Commission because of damage to the environment. The Coastal 

Commission’s recommendations were rejected for alternatives that were less environmentally 

damaging, cheaper, quicker to implement, maintainable, and would lower health and environmental 

impacts. 

The Tijuana River Valley and the Tijuana Estuary both will be impacted from the silt and erosion 

that will occur as a result of five million cubic yards of dirt used to fill Smuggler’s Gulch and from 

sloping the mesas. Mr. Peugh urged that the GNEB report recommend that these projects be revised 

to lower the environmental impact. 

Jorge Garcés, Managing Director, NADBank, said they had their first public Board meeting in 

June 21, 2006, in San Antonio, Texas. At the Board meeting, changes were made in the Bank’s 

fiscal policies to give them more flexibility in lending and investment activities. The Board 

approved several loans for projects along the U.S-Mexico border. At present, there are 94 projects 

and the Bank is participating in loans and grants totaling about $700 million out of a total project 

cost of $245 million. In the lending area, the loans have doubled in value from $105 million to $245 

million. The lending will continue to grow and grant money will decrease. 

The Board approved a $50 million grant from their capital for which guidelines will be submitted to 

the Board by September 21st. The grants will be primarily for water, wastewater, and solid waste. 

The grants will require a lending component from NADBank or other banks. The idea is to bring 

down the cost of subsidizing these projects by using the interest earned. Mr. Garcés feels that these 

two institutions have done a good job of funding environmental infrastructure along the border to 

benefit 6-7 million people. 

Lorena Lopez-Powers, San Diego Office, EPA, requested that a note be made about the 

collaboration with Mexico on the issues addressed by the Homeland Security Officer. 

Speaker Presentations

Update on Mexico’s Northern Border Environmental Advisors 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 17

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

Flavio Olivieri, Liaison, Consejo Consultivo de Desarrollo Sustenable, briefly described the 

Consejos who advise the Mexican Secretary of the Environment. In Mexico, sustainable 

development has a larger emphasis on social and economic development compared to the U.S. For 

example, in the Sea of Cortez, several tribes depend on fishing, so sustainable development 

incorporates protection of these resources. The advisory board provides recommendations for 

SEMARNAT (the Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales), whose officials have to 

respond to the recommendations. Sr. Olivieri went on to describe the structure of the Consejos, 

which include six regional councils and a national council. Councils have representation from a 

broad spectrum of sectors and two designated representatives, one from the state and one from the 

state congress. The 32 states elect their own representatives. 

At both the national and regional level, there are technical working groups that focus on different 

areas such as water, air, natural areas, and inter- or bi-national issues. All of the recommendations 

are voted on by the regional and national councils. SEMARNAT staff then sends the 

recommendations to the appropriate officials. To date, about 14 percent of the recommendations 

have resulted in policy changes. White papers are published every three years containing all of the 

recommendations. One of the major successes was environmental planning and zoning for the Sea 

of Cortez, which is being extended to the whole coastline. Sr. Olivieri showed a chart that depicted 

the responses to all the recommendations. 

Sr. Olivieri is a member of the International Relations and Border Affairs Technical Committee that 

has developed multi-lateral agreements which they are monitoring to ensure Mexico’s compliance. 

One of their concerns is the implementation and expansion of the Emissions and Pollution Transfer 

Registry to ensure that standardization is achieved on types of chemicals, levels of storage, and 

measurements, and reporting to enable tracking of chemicals. Standardization in reporting would 

help emergency responders. 

Another concern is about the level of funding going to Border 2012, NADBank, and the 

Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC). Grants are important to small communities for 

projects. Other concerns are the impact of security on the environment, and the waiting time at the 

border for trucks, which causes air pollution. Sr. Olivieri closed by inviting members to the next 

meeting of the Northeast Consejo on October 12-13, 2006, the Northwest Consejo meeting on 

September 21-22, 2006, in Mazatlan, and the National Council meeting on November 9-11, 2006, in 

Mexico City. 

Questions and Comments

In response to a question from Chair Ganster, Sr. Olivieri said that the Consejos are concerned 

about security and environmental issues, including air pollution, damage to ecosystems from 

fencing, and endangered species. He recommended that Mexico be more involved with security 

plans for the border, especially with technology that would need to be operated on both sides of the 

border. 

DFO Koerner asked about the process for reformulating Consejo recommendations. Sr. Olivieri 

answered that recommendations could be reformulated if they were sent to the wrong place, or if 

they were dissatisfied with the response, or to improve the quality of the recommendation. If the 

recommendation is very specific, the success rate is higher. 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 18

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

Chair Ganster wanted to know about the relationship between the Consejos and SEMARNAT. Sr. 

Olivieri said it was collaborative. 

At that point, Mr. Garcés clarified the difference between the funding of the BECC, whose funds 

come from the governments of Mexico and the U.S., and the NADBank, which generates its own 

funds. 

In response to a question from Manuel Flores, Sr. Olivieri said that public participation came about 

through the NGOs’ elected representatives, who had the obligation to be in communication with 

their groups and provide their ideas to the appropriate Consejo. 

Building Security and Environmental Protection into the Supply Chain 

Doug Smith introduced Ing. José Luis Sánchez, Grupo Ambiental del Noroeste who would speak 

on building security and environmental protection into the supply chain from the standpoint of the 

private sector in the services industry. (Ing. Sánchez spoke in English and was difficult to 

understand, so the transcript has missing words.) 

Ing. Sánchez said that his company transported hazardous materials and other solid waste for the 

maquiladora industry in Mexico. Maquiladoras order materials from the U.S. and the materials and 

products are returned to the U.S. Some of the waste is disposed of in the U. S. and some is disposed 

of in Mexico. The company has to comply with both the Mexican and U.S. RCRA and Customs 

regulations. A lot of paperwork was required from Mexican environmental agencies to bring the 

waste into the U.S., but in Mexico no one has to be informed. The company makes out a manifest 

and then disposes of the waste at a site. 

In Mexico, there are regulations from the Department of Transportation about handling of 

hazardous waste transportation, including labeling. The General Law of Ecological Equilibrium 

provides all of the information about the environmental aspects of hazardous waste disposal for 

both the U.S. and Mexico. Mexico recently passed a law defining all of the terms in waste handling 

or disposal. One problem is that Federal and state regulations are different. 

To dispose of waste in the U.S., the company in Baja California must use the Otay Mesa port-ofentry, which requires prior approval by USEPA 48 hours in advance and is only allowed 3 days a 

week. The problem is that it takes 10 hours to cross the border. Chemical materials cross the border 

everyday from the U.S. to the maquiladoras in Tijuana, but it is different for hazardous waste. There 

is only one landfill in Mexico for hazardous waste, so there is a movement toward recycling and 

thermal energy recovery. 

There are emergency response plans for hazardous waste spills, and people are trained in the U.S. 

All of the hazardous waste materials have to be classified as to whether they are corrosive, 

explosive, toxic, flammable or infectious waste. The company keeps complete documentation for 

what is in the load, so in an emergency, people will know how to handle it. The Tijuana Fire 

Department has a HazMat team that can respond to emergencies. If more assistance is needed, they 

call the Civil Protection Agency and the Police Department. 

SAIC provides technical assistance to users of chemicals in Mexico who need assistance with 

handling hazardous wastes. For the supply chain, transporters have to supply proper equipment for 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 19

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

HazMat transportation, and training for the drivers on how to handle the wastes in an emergency. 

SAIC also promotes the use of less toxic chemicals in manufacturer’s production, urges them to 

recycle, and provides training in the handling of chemicals. Personnel in mechanical shops that 

repair cars are educated on how to handle wastes for environmental protection. 

Questions and Comments

Chair Ganster wanted to know what happened to the requirements to return waste to the country of 

origin that were part of the phase-out of the maquiladoras under NAFTA. Sr. Sanchez answered that 

the maquila industry is still operating and the waste is being returned to the country of origin. U.S. 

waste is separated from the Mexican waste. James Stefanov asked what proportion of the 30,000 

tons of waste that goes back to the U.S. is from materials that cross from the U.S. to Mexico. Sr. 

Sánchez estimated that it was about 80 percent. Doug Smith and Stephen Niemeyer said it was very 

difficult to compare materials going in and waste coming out. 

Chair Ganster asked about the location of the nearest Mexican hazardous waste disposal to Tijuana, 

and about cost comparisons between transporting the waste to the U. S. vs. Mexico. Sr. Sánchez

said some waste is sent to Hermosillo for recycling and energy recovery, and that waste disposal 

was cheaper in Mexico. In response to a question from Elaine Koerner about whether the promotion 

of less toxic chemicals was good business, Sr. Sánchez said that the maquila industry to trying hard 

to change in the direction of using less toxic chemicals, such as water-based chemicals, especially if 

it is more efficient and cheaper. 

Sr. Sánchez further explained that the Mexican army does not get involved in emergency responses 

to major chemical disasters, but only to major community disasters, such as big storms. His 

company does not work with waste disposal for communities, but is working with small mechanical 

shops to properly handle waste oil. Sr. Sánchez also did not see any trend in purchasing chemical 

supplies from Mexico for companies working in Mexico. 

Potential Positive/Negative Impacts of the Triple Fence on Flora and Fauna 

Chair Ganster introduced Mike White, Conservation Biology Institute, who has been working on 

transborder conservation to facilitate the joining of habitat through establishment of corridors, 

migration of mammals, etc. Dr. White invited Board members to learn more about California’s BiNational Conservation Initiative. He discussed the impact of the security fence on the border region 

between Southern California and Northern Baja California, where the flora and fauna have built up 

over the centuries and are quite unique and diverse. Mr. White illustrated the diversity of the area 

with slides. 

There are indirect and direct impacts of the triple fence. Direct impacts include loss of vegetation 

and sensitive species, and water quality degradation. Most of the controversy is over the 14-mile 

fence in the Tijuana Estuary Research Reserve, which is listed under the RAMSTAD Convention. 

Indirect impacts include water run-off, light pollution, encroachment of exotic plants, and restricted 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 20

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

movement of wildlife. Because of the habitat threats, some of the endemic species are now on the 

endangered species list. 

The direct impact in the Smuggler’s Gulch area would impact 62 acres, although not all of it is 

pristine habitat. In California, there is a Natural Community Conservation Act which serves to set 

aside areas that are to be preserved in exchange for areas that will be developed. The fencing 

project would destroy some of the area designated to be preserved. Several Federal agencies are 

signatories to this Act, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, 

and others. On the U.S. side, the Border Patrol is planning to level the mesas to make a road that is 

flat to maintain vehicle speeds, which will take about 5.5 million cubic yards of dirt, leaving the 

mesas subject to erosion and sedimentation of the canyons. The rise in estuary levels would impact 

plant life. Mr. White discussed the impacts in terms of connectivity of habitats and the severing of 

ecosystems between Mexico and the U.S., thus inhibiting the movement of animals. 

Other activities that are degrading the environment are off-road vehicles, human traffic, trail and 

road construction, trash, fires, and development due to population growth. In the Environmental 

Impact Statement, some of the roads would be closed and the land re-vegetated, which would be a 

positive step. Illegal immigration has brought about 4,500 miles of people trails in an area 66 by 6 

miles, so this is another cause of degradation. The increase in the number of fires could cause the 

loss of some plant species, such as the Tecate Cyprus. The largest cause of habitat loss is 

urbanization and population growth, some of which is due to illegal immigration and security 

activities. 

Mr. White’s final point was that there are opportunities to enhance border security and still maintain 

the environment. A triple fence is not needed all the way to Yuma. Preservation of the natural 

environment provides more time for interdiction in some areas, and technology could be used to 

protect the environment and secure the border. 

Questions and Comments 

In response to questions from Shannon Sorzano regarding the different impacts of fencing layers 

and the ability of animals to adapt, Mr. White said that the longer the fence and the more layers, the 

more impact there is on large and small animals. He was unable to say whether species could adapt, 

but ecological processes are bi-national, which a triple fence would destroy. 

Christopher Brown suggested having a discussion with the Border Patrol regarding the contribution 

of some off-site acreage to mitigate the effects of the fencing, even though they are not signatories 

to the Multiple Species Conservation Plan. Mr. White added that it would be important to be 

involved in a discussion before an EIS plan is developed for the rest of the border. Chair Ganster

suggested a subcommittee to develop an advisory letter that could include avoiding the negative 

impacts and creating some positive scenarios. He felt that Border Patrol officials such as Mr. Hance

would be open to GNEB’s input. 

Mr. Brown asked if the plan was completed for the rest of the San Diego border. Suzanne Michel

responded that new Federal legislation was needed to modify the plan rather than regulatory 

changes. Ms. Montoya asked for an explanation of connectivity in the urbanized area of Tijuana and 

a clarification of Mr. White’s recommendation for the last three miles. Mr. White said that where 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 21

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

there was urbanization, connectivity was lost, but certain canyon areas to the East need to be 

protected. The major goal in the West was to minimize impacts, restore damage, and find 

alternatives. To the East, a natural area is needed along the border for protection of natural 

resources and security. 

Mr. Randolph asked for clarification on the segments where the fence imposes an environmental 

issue. Mr. White answered that from the edge of the Otay Mountain to the border is a sensitive 

habitat. In the Tijuana estuary, the biggest effect is sedimentation. The Border Patrol is opting for 

the present plan to implement security. Mr. Dorsey hoped that the Board would be able to use his 

ideas for the Tenth Report. Mr. Varaday commented on the effect of the fence on binational 

relationships. Mr. Niemeyer stated that the issue of transboundary environmental impact 

assessments needs to be addressed. 

Effects of Undocumented Human Crossings on National Forest Work 

Chair Ganster introduced Tina Terrell, Forest Supervisor, Cleveland National Forest, who would 

discuss the effects of undocumented immigrants on the national forest. 

Tina Terrell stated that the mission of the Forest Service in the border area is to protect the public, 

its employees, and the natural resources in the 1.5 million acres of National Forest lands within the 

Southwest Mexican border in the states of New Mexico, Arizona, and California. The Cleveland 

National Forest is composed of 500,000 acres located in San Diego, Orange, and Riverside 

counties, with 22 land miles along the border, mostly in San Diego County. Ms. Terrell then 

described the recreational opportunities, history, unique habitats, and cultural landscapes of the 

forest area. 

In 1995, the Forest Service worked with 42 Federal, State, and local partners to create the Border 

Agency Fire Council to deal with the environmental degradation from undocumented immigrants, 

fire and life safety, and emergency response in cooperation with Mexican agencies across the 

border. In 1997, the Forest Service staffed a Border Fire Prevention and Resource Protection Crew 

to extinguish illegal campfires, remove trash, repair infrastructure such as fences, construct erosion 

control structures, and monitor the effect of increased human presence on natural resources. 

Supervisor Terrell described some of the damage that has occurred despite their efforts, including 

the burning of over 370 acres of national forest, dumping of tons of trash, destruction of vegetation 

and wildlife habitat, erosion, and public safety issues caused by the creation of hundreds of miles of 

illegal trails. The definition of a wilderness area in the Wilderness Act of 1964 was “an area 

untrammeled by man.” Water resources are fouled by trash pollution and abandonment of stolen 

vehicles. Fires started by immigrants endanger the natural habitat and the lives of vacationers, 

Forest Service personnel, and other agencies’ employees, such as the California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection and Mexican fire-fighting agencies. 

As more people are living closer to the wilderness areas in San Diego County, the biggest concern 

is loss of life from wildfires. In 1998, the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior signed The 

Mutual Aid and Assistance Agreement with the Mexican counterparts to allow emergency 

responders to cross the border to help fight fires. 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 22

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

Ms. Terrell described the criminal activity by both immigrants and citizens near the border. Armed 

bandits have threatened, robbed, raped and assaulted undocumented immigrants, and smugglers 

have rammed law enforcement vehicles. The Cleveland Forest has five law enforcement officers to 

cover 500,000 acres. Law enforcement efforts to control smugglers of controlled substances such as 

marijuana, which is illegally grown in large quantities in the Forest, divert Forest Service officers 

from resource protection activities. In conclusion, the effect of undocumented immigrants and 

smugglers on natural resources and public safety is a major concern of the Cleveland Forest 

Service. 

Questions and Comments

Mr. Randolph asked about various legal and insurance issues that have obstructed emergency 

responders from crossing the border. Mr. Terrell said the fire protection agreement that was signed 

by the agency Secretaries in the U.S. and Mexico does not remove Federal responsibility for 

accidents. Government vehicles and equipment are taken across the border, but not airplanes. 

Ms. Montoya asked if there were other uses such as grazing and forest extraction that have been 

impacted by immigration. Ms. Terrell said that in the Coronado National Forest, which is right on 

the border, cows can cross the border and graze in the forest and carry diseases into the U.S., so 

fence-cutting is an issue. In response to Chair Ganster’s question about declining or increasing 

costs for fire protection, Ms. Terrell said that the Federal funding that established the fire-fighting 

crews was earmarked, and if this funding was removed, they would not be able to contain the fires. 

Ms. Koerner explained the plan for the next day’s business meeting and field trip. The Human 

Crossings Working Group would meet in the morning for breakfast. Members were asked to bring 

their suggestions for the Tenth Report to tomorrow’s business meeting. 

Adjournment: There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 5:20 p.m. 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 23

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

Day 2: Wednesday, July 19, 2006 (8:08 a.m.) 

Business Meeting

Board Members Present: Paul Ganster, Ph.D., Chair, Amanda Aguirre, Michael P. Dorsey, 

Edward Elbrock, Gary Gillen, Rosario Marin, Jennifer A. Montoya, Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E., 

David Randolph, Douglas Smith, Robert Varady, Ph.D., Ann Marie A. Wolf 

Federal Members/Alternates/Resource Specialists Present: Hector Aguirre, Carl Edlund, 

Marilyn DiSirio, Miguel Flores, Shannon H. Sorzano, Sally Spener, James Stefanov, Derrith 

Watchman-Moore 

EPA Members Present: Rafael DeLeon, Elaine M. Koerner, DFO, Geraldine Brown, Lois 

Williams 

Welcome 

Elaine Koerner, DFO, opened the Business Meeting of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board 

by stating that the previous day’s presentations were very informative and would be useful in 

developing the GNEB Tenth Report. DFO Koerner revised the agenda by moving the Approval of 

the Minutes to the end of the meeting and discussing membership issues and changes first. DFO 

Koerner thanked the Board for creating a climate where regardless of sector, political party, 

personal or cultural background, there was a spirit of open-mindedness, mutual respect, and an 

interest in learning from each other. 

Membership Status and Issues 

DFO Koerner reported on changes in the membership including the resignations of Len Smith, 

Department of Commerce, and his alternate Jacob Macias; and John Ritchie, Department of State. 

She also said that tribal member Ned Norris had resigned his Vice Chairmanship of the Tohono 

O’odham Nation, and may/may not be replaced as the tribal representative. Appointments to the 

GNEB are made by the EPA administrator, not by the person who steps down. The Board and EPA 

staff can recommend persons who would be appropriate for the GNEB. 

In response to Stephen Niemeyer’s question about whether a tribal representative had to be a tribal 

officer, DFO Koerner said that it was not a requirement. She also raised the possibility that the next 

tribal representative could be from a different tribe. Douglas Smith asked if the Department of 

Commerce representative would be from the economic development sector. DFO Koerner

answered, as an aside, that by law, only a representative from one federal agency -- the Department 

of Agriculture -- is mandated, along with other agencies as appropriate. In response to Mr. 

Niemeyer’s question, she replied that someone from the Economic Development Administration 

within the Department of Commerce had been deemed the most appropriate fit in the past. Mr. 

Niemeyer suggested that in selecting new members, one criterion should be to find someone who 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 24

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

could actively participate. DFO Koerner agreed that both active involvement and seniority were 

important, so that the person would have the ability to make things happen in his/her department. 

Later in the meeting, Rafael DeLeon reviewed OCEM’s efforts to obtain a representative from the 

Department of Homeland Security. They had contacted EPA’s Office of Homeland Security and the 

White House Council on Homeland Security who identified a person to contact in DHS. The 

contact would be made the following week. 

Tenth Report Preparations: Status of Workgroups

Context Workgroup 

Jennifer Montoya reported on the status of the Context Workgroup as requested by Workgroup 

Coordinator Christopher Brown, who had had to leave the meeting early. Ms. Montoya showed 

three slides that depicted the status of this workgroup and mentioned the possibility of 

videoconferencing. DFO Koerner said video conferencing was an interesting idea, and that she also 

would like to discuss the idea of cross-workgroup fertilization. Mr. Niemeyer agreed that the 

workgroups were at a point when they needed to review what other workgroups had written. The 

workgroup coordinators had decided to have a teleconference in the coming week to discover and 

fill the gaps. DFO Koerner thought there might be some sections of the Materials Crossing and 

Human Crossing Workgroups that could be inserted into the Context Workgroup. 

DFO Koerner announced that the Materials Crossing Workgroup would hold a teleconference on 

August 3, 2006, and the Human Crossings Workgroup would hold a teleconference on August 8, 

2006. She suggested also setting up a call for the Context Workgroup, and asked for members to 

identify themselves. Context Workgroup members present included Robert Varady, Douglas Smith, 

and Gary Gillen. (Christopher Brown, the Coordinator, had left early.) It was decided to set a 

tentative date for the Context Workgroup call at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 8, 2006. DFO 

Koerner asked for the next iteration of the workgroup reports to be completed and sent to her office 

before the end of August, so that a full draft text could be shared with all Board members at the 

beginning of September, 2006. 

Chair Ganster was concerned about the Spanish language translation of the Tenth Report, and 

suggested allowing time for review of the Spanish translation by Board members or Federal staff 

who were fluent in Spanish. Rosario Marin and Miguel Flores, EPA Region VI, offered to review 

the translation. Shannon Sorzano suggested that the State Department’s Translation Services could 

also review the report. Rafael DeLeon said they were working towards obtaining a contractor for the 

translation and requested that members adhere to the deadlines for comments to Workgroup 

Coordinators and to DFO Koerner’s office. 

Human Crossings Workgroup 

Jennifer Montoya, Workgroup Coordinator, reported that the Human Crossings Workgroup was 

going to review and restructure all of the relevant issues related to the Border Patrol activities and 

the impact on the environment. After reconfiguring the issues, the group would develop 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 25

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

recommendations. Next, they would identify information they don’t have and assign members to 

obtain the information. The Human Crossings draft report would be available for the next 

conference call. 

Materials Crossing Workgroup 

Stephen Niemeyer, Workgroup Coordinator, said the workgroup met during breakfast the previous 

day. DFO Koerner’s comments would be included as well as David Randolph’s comments. Two 

major issues: tracking of hazardous waste, and emergency response. Both Customs and EPA have 

Electronic Manifest Systems to detect hazardous materials, which might create some confusion. He 

said the workgroup had prepared a draft and would have a conference call on August 3rd to review 

the changes. He appreciated EPA’s involvement, because comments could be obtained from the 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and OCEM in Washington, DC, and EPA Regions 

VI and IX. 

Chair Ganster mentioned the value of having some photographs in the Tenth Report such as photos 

that showed the border with and without the triple fence, and one of a truck getting scanned by the 

SAIC imager. 

Discussion: Role of Federal Agency Representatives

DFO Koerner led a discussion of the role of Federal agency representatives in view of the recusal of 

several Federal agency representatives on the last GNEB Comment Letter. OCEM coordinated a 

conference call for the Federal representatives on June 28, 2006. Participants included John Ritchie, 

State Department; Carl Edlund and colleagues Miguel Flores and Bill Luthans, EPA Region VI; 

Jeanne O’Leary for Linda Lawson of Department of Transportation, Sally Spener, IBWC Alternate; 

and Manuel Ayala, USDA Alternate. The group consensus was that Federal members should be full 

participants, speak for their agency, take responsibility for clearance if needed, avoid lobbying or 

unethical conduct, and be able to recuse themselves from Comment Letters if needed. On the call, 

the representatives had requested additional time to adequately provide their agency’s response to 

letters and reports. 

Mr. Stefanov added that it takes a long time to get clearance from the Solicitor’s Office of the 

Department of Interior. It would be a conflict of interest for him to sign onto a Comment Letter 

involving NADBank, because the USGS is involved in providing resources and support to that 

agency. Shannon Sorzano agreed that the agency clearance process took a long time. She suggested 

several alternatives for Federal agency representatives: 1) be non-voting members; 2) recuse 

themselves, if needed to avoid conflicts; or 3) not send any letters. Ms. Sorzano quoted the Federal 

legislation that stated “the Board shall be composed of representatives of the U.S. Government,” so 

she felt that their participation was essential. 

The discussion yielded the following comments: 

• If there is an obvious conflict of interest or a benefit, then members should be able to recuse 

themselves. 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 26

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

• The Chair signs the letter, so individual members are not signing the letter, nor are the 

Federal agencies. 

• People are appointed with the full recognition that the Board’s mission is to advise the U.S. 

President and Congress. 

• Being in consensus with a Comment Letter by an agency may imply political approval, and 

this could not be done if the letter was in opposition to the President’s or agencies’ 

positions. 

• A recusal may be viewed as a negative statement, not a neutral one. 

• A statement could accompany letters or reports saying that the recommendations are a 

result of consensus and that input was received from all Board members. 

• If there is serious disagreement, perhaps the letter should not be forwarded. 

• Positions need to represent the whole Board, not just the non-Federal representatives, 

because then the Federal representatives would not be needed. 

• Consensus does not mean that there is not any disagreement. 

• The Board was created to give the President advice, even if he disagrees with it. 

• Recusal does not always mean opposition to the recommendations, but could mean lack of 

support or some other reason for not being in consensus. 

• The Executive Branch agencies have to support the President’s positions. 

• In the past, Federal agencies have repeatedly and consistently endorsed GNEB’s 

recommendations. 

With regard to the triple fence, Ms. Montoya asked if the White House was in favor of it. David 

Randolph responded that the DHS, Customs and Border Protection, and the Border Patrol all 

favor a triple fence in urban or congested areas, but that a single, anti-vehicular fence could be 

used in wilderness areas to allow migration of animals. 

Michael Dorsey proposed tailoring comment letters to be less political and also to allow 

minority positions. He added that, as a local government official, he may have to give advice 

that is contrary to that of the Board of Supervisor’s policy. Ms. Derrith Watchman-Moore,

speaking from the perspective of a cabinet-level position in the State of New Mexico’s 

Department of the Environment, said that the GNEB needs representatives from the highest 

level of state government even though the Board may take positions contrary to those of some 

State Governments. The Board needs to maintain its independence. She described the State’s 

Environmental Justice workgroup in which state employees had input, but did not vote. 

Robert Varady reminded the group that after discussing an issue, the Board did not take a vote 

but, instead, arrived at a position that almost everyone could live with, i.e., consensus. 

Similarly, Cabinet members provide advice to the President and are not always in agreement. 

Miguel Flores thought that advice should be consistent with the mission of the Board and then 

should identify the Board’s concerns with certain actions. 

After asking members to comment on two documents in their meeting folders, a FAQ on 

Travel, and a Meeting Evaluation form, DFO Koerner summarized the points of the previous 

discussion as follows: 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 27

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

• Comment letters should be viewed on a case-by-case basis, depending on the topic and 

a particular agency’s relationship to the topic. 

• The way the topic is expressed could make a difference in whether it could be 

supported, not just the topic itself. 

• The need for adequate time for review and comment is sometimes in conflict with the 

need for a timely comment letter. 

• A standard Comment Letter statement is needed. 

DFO Koerner then read a proposed standard statement: “This letter reflects the majority viewpoint 

of the Board.” The Federal representatives present were in agreement that the statement was 

appropriate, although the word “majority” needed to be defined. Mr. DeLeon said the statement was 

in compliance with FACA legislation. He added that consensus is not required for advice letters. 

Ms. Wolf reading from the by-laws noted that a quorum, or 51 percent of members, is needed to 

transact business and that consensus is sufficient to forward a recommendation. Mr. Niemeyer

agreed with using the word “consensus,” as long as the rights of the minority were respected. Mr. 

DeLeon suggested using the word “abstain” instead of “recusal,” because abstain was a neutral term 

and meant someone could not vote “yes” or could not vote at that time. Chair Ganster thought that 

both terms implied disagreement, but he suggested defining the word “consensus” in the By-Laws 

to indicate consensus did not mean complete unanimity. Ms. Marin added that recusal was used by 

the City Council when a member had a personal conflict and was not even part of the discussion. 

Ms. Sorzano said that although both abstaining and saying “no” should be allowed, the Board 

considers all opinions in the wording of advice letters. 

Discussion: Draft Comment Letter – Triple Fence

Chair Ganster suggested putting together a committee to re-draft the Triple Fence Comment Letter 

to include concerns raised by some members. The letter should offer reasonable alternatives to 

address legitimate issues based on members’ viewpoints, speakers’ presentations, and the field trip. 

Chair Ganster volunteered to chair the committee, and Gary Gillen and Christopher Brown 

(original drafter) offered to work on the committee. Members were concerned with the tone of the 

present draft, some of the negative or judgmental statements, and the degree of specificity, but still 

wanted to find ways to ensure that security activities were less intrusive to the environment. It was 

decided to provide guidance to the committee at this meeting so that everyone could be heard. Gary 

Gillen said that as long as the minority opinion could be heard, then he would support the letter 

even if he was in disagreement. 

Board Member Report-Outs

U.S. Department of Interior: James Stefanov, USGS, reported that on March 31, 2006, the DHS, 

USDA, and DOI signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding cooperative national 

security and counter-terrorism on Federal lands along the border. The MOU is nationwide and is 

intended to provide consistent goals, principles, and guidance related to border security operations, 

tactical infrastructure, public lands access, prevention of impacts, coordination of efforts, and 

implementation of environmental laws and regulations. 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 28

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

Mr. Stefanov alerted members to two other groups that are working on security and the 

environment: 1) the Border Land Management Task Force (BLMTF) that is working on 

intergovernmental relations on the Arizona-Mexico Border; and 2) a BLM-funded, Southern 

Arizona project working to mitigate environmental damages resulting from illegal immigration and 

smuggling operations. He would forward fact sheets to members via email. 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: Stephen Niemeyer, P.E., announced that Ralph 

Marquez had resigned as Commissioner of TCEQ on March 31, 2006. The President appointed Mr. 

Marquez to the Joint Public Advisory Commission to the North American Commission on 

Environmental Cooperation, so he will still be working on environmental issues. Mr. Niemeyer 

invited members to the August 25, 2006, Annual Border Governor’s Conference to be held in 

Austin, Texas. 

University of Arizona – Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy: Robert Varady, Ph.D., 

distributed copies of several documents including a chapter and a bibliography on the San Pedro 

River, an article on NAFTA and the environment, and reports on the Udall Center. He was pleased 

that Stephen Niemeyer and Jorge Garces added some helpful revisions on the NAFTA article. In 

January, Governor Napolitano and the Arizona legislature created the Arizona Water Institute, a 

joint effort of the University of Arizona, Arizona State University, and Northern Arizona 

University, to enhance research on water at the universities. Dr. Varady is the co-chair of a task 

force on border water research. 

EPA Region VI – Hector Aguirre, Region IX, spoke for Miguel Flores and reported on the 

following projects along the border: 

• Air pollution work by the International Joint Advisory Committee (IJAC) in the El Paso area 

has resulted in El Paso’s being in compliance with U.S. air quality standards for ozone and 

carbon monoxide. 

• In Cuidad Juarez, SEMARNAT has approved the city’s new air quality program, PROAIRE. 

• In Region 9, the Border 2012 and IJAC are looking at various ways to reduce vehicle 

emissions, such as using oxygenated gasoline and dedicated commuter lanes in San Diego, 

Tijuana, and the Mexicali, Imperial Valley areas. 

• Two initiatives for reduction of air pollution are the Blue Skyways Collaborative and the 

West Coast Diesel Collaborative to include renewable energy, clean diesel, diesel retrofits 

and other projects 

• In the area of water, EPA and BECC recently set priorities for water and wastewater 

infrastructure projects. BECC received 180 proposals at a cost of $754 million.

• On August 14, 2006, EPA Region VI and SEMARNAT will host a Regional Scrap Tire 

Workshop in Matamoros, Mexico.

• Two projects, in the Arizona-Sonora area will address migrant waste; one is waste clean-up 

in cooperation with the Tohono O’odham Nation.

• The Baja California Emergency Management Academy that will increase training capacity 

in the border region is nearing completion.
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 29

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

World Wildlife Fund (WWF): Jennifer Montoya reported on three projects: 1) the Chihuahuan 

Headwaters Program; 2) an NRCS conservation grant on agricultural water-saving technology; and 

3) an NRCS partnership on a water conservation program on Salt Creek in Texas. Hector Arias, 

Eco-Regional Coordinator for the World Wildlife Fund has resigned, so Ms. Montoya is the interim 

coordinator. The Headwaters Program works with communities to control erosion of grasslands in 

the Montane Forest in the Sierra Madre. In cooperation with U.S. AID and SEMARNAT, the WWF 

has trained local residents to build structures to prevent erosion and sedimentation of the Conchos 

Basin. SEMARNAT has agreed to continue to hire these crews and to train other Communidades 

on how to build the structures. 

Malpai Borderlands Group: Edward Elbrock said the Malpai Group is working with the BLM, 

ranchers, and students to clean up migrant trash. The Jaguar habitat in New Mexico and Arizona has 

been declared non-critical, but the Defenders of Wildlife may fight the decision in the courts. DFO 

Koerner noted that the trash project should be included in the Human Crossings section of the Tenth 

Report. 

New Mexico State University: Christopher Brown, Ph.D -- Jennifer Montoya reported out for Dr. 

Brown, explaining that she and Dr. Brown are on the Paso del Norte Watershed Council. Dr. Brown

is developing a database on the water resources in the Paso del Norte region. Ms. Montoya used a 

series of slides to describe some of Dr. Brown’s on-going projects: 

• The Paso del Norte goal to provide seamless access to bi-national water resources data 

• A Federal Highway Administration Project. 

• A SCERP and USGS project to develop a roadmap for border-wide geographic information 

systems (GIS) capability, whose purpose is to integrate data sets from the U.S. and Mexico. 

Mr. Stefanov added that the hydro data sets and the land cover-land-use data sets have been 

integrated. Chair Ganster said that SCERP and USGS have signed an MOU to continue to 

work on data integration.

New Mexico Environment Department: Derrith Watchman-Moore described a $5.9 million dollar 

water and wastewater infrastructure program promoted by the Governor of New Mexico and the 

Department of the Environment to help 23 colonias in the border area and in Albuquerque. The 

colonias are without adequate water and wastewater treatment, which has lead to food-borne 

illnesses, water-borne diseases, low-birth rates, etc. Even if the colonias residents are illegal, the 

children go to the public schools. There were no state or national efforts to address these public 

health problems. The Governor signed an Executive Order on environmental justice in New 

Mexico, and the project is part of that effort. 

Mr. Watchman-Moore believes this is a national issue which could be addressed by the GNEB. 

DFO Koerner asked if there was a link to the Tenth Report and the issue of colonias, border 

security, and the environment. 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 30

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

Discussion: Reporting to the President and Congress 

Rafael DeLeon, Director, OCEM, described the four advisory committees that OCEM manages: 

GNEB, the National Advisory Committee for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT), 

the National Advisory Committee (NAC), and the Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). He 

explained that the EPA Administrator had asked him to develop a framework for measuring their 

effectiveness and to raise the visibility of OCEM. In discussions with the Administrator, the Deputy 

Administrator, and the Chief of Staff the importance of having the advisory committees work link 

to the Adminstrator’s and President’s priorities was stressed. 

To measure effectiveness, it was decided to look at the distribution and promotion of the annual 

reports. The report is introduced at a press conference and provided to the Executive Office of the 

White House, the Chair of the Council on Environmental Quality, the Speaker of the House, 

Congressional members from border states, the Oversight Committees, Board members and their 

organizations. The CEQ Chair, James L. Connaughton, responds to the GNEB on behalf of the 

Executive Office of the President. Mr. DeLeon said the report’s release ought to be visible to the 

government and the public. 

Mr. DeLeon and DFO Koerner developed a standard operating procedure (SOP) to help identify 

issues on which the President and CEQ Chair would like to have advice. The first step would be to 

meet with the CEQ Administrator on a regular basis to obtain a list of issues. At the next GNEB 

meeting, members would discuss the CEQ list as well as its own issues. About 18 months later, a 

report would be issued. He thought it was important to provide advice that was needed by the 

President. The draft SOP was sent to CEQ three weeks prior, and when CEQ feedback is received, 

the SOP will be shared with the GNEB. 

Board members made the following comments on the SOP for identifying issues: 

• The SOP does not include Congressional input on issues, and ways need to be found to 

solicit their priorities, such as from the environmental subcommittees and staff, as well as 

the Congressional Border Caucus. 

• The Board needs to provide advice on border environmental issues deemed to be important 

and on which it has the expertise to address, although expertise could be obtained from 

outside experts if needed. 

• Ways to improve the GNEB reports’ impact is important to discuss, such as reporting to the 

Border Trade Alliance or the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce 

• The meeting with the CEQ Chair should be an exchange of ideas. 

• The response letter should come from the President, not from CEQ, and be printed in the 

next year’s report. 

• The GNEB letterhead could include the names, titles, and the residence of members. 

DFO Koerner thanked everyone for their suggestions, and stated that the next agenda items would 

be Approval of the Minutes of the March 13-14, 2006 meeting, the distribution of the Ninth Report, 

and the Alpine GNEB meeting attendance. The Comment Letter on the Triple Fence was set aside 
 Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 31

July 18-19, 2006 San Diego, California 

DRAFT/DRAFT/DRAFT 

and it was agreed that the Board would wait to see the revised draft that three members had agreed 

to produce. 

Approval of Minutes from the March 13-14, 2006 Washington, D.C. Meeting

Chair Ganster asked for approval of the minutes of the March 13-14, 2006 meeting. Ms. Spener

suggested revising the minutes regarding the discussion on lack of support for the NADBank on 

Page 24 as follows: “Further discussion revealed that there are concerns among government 

officials in the United States and Mexico regarding NADBank progress in funding projects. These 

concerns have prompted suggestions that the two governments may reduce or withdraw support for 

the NADBank.” Mr. Niemeyer suggested deleting “government officials,” because there were other 

persons also concerned. His suggestion was accepted by Ms. Spener. Chair Ganster said the 

previous wording was a correct statement from Gil Diaz, but the suggested wording would be more 

diplomatic. Mr. Niemeyer thought the comment from U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce 

President Al Zapanta -- that the Chamber was opposed to the loss of funding for NADBank -- 

should be included. He would send DFO Koerner an email regarding the exact wording. Rosario 

Marin moved and Chair Ganster seconded the approval of the minutes with the changes discussed. 

The minutes were approved as discussed. 

Other Business 

DFO Koerner asked members to send her information on where they had distributed copies of the 

Ninth Report, explaining that it also was useful as a baseline for distributing the Tenth Report. A 

count was made of the persons who would attend the October 24-26, 2006 GNEB meeting in 

Alpine, Texas, and the field trip. The Planning Committee is working on the agenda and field trip. 

People who had plane reservations close to the end of the field trip could be dropped off at the 

airport. 

Rosario Marin reported that she had received a response from Bob Benson regarding the potential 

Pandemic Influenza event at the border. Mr. Benson said his office reviewed the Pandemic 

Influenza plan for California and their suggestions for a bi-national plan were adopted in the State 

plan. A Pandemic Influenza Workgroup meets quarterly and focuses on public outreach and 

epidemiology. They are developing an Emergency Communications Response Plan, which includes 

a notification component. Ms. Marin added that there is a California Office of Bi-National Border 

Health. 

Mr. DeLeon asked members to fill out the Meeting Evaluation form and stated that the technology 

was now in the room to show the video clips from an earlier speaker. Video clips were then shown 

to members. 

Adjournment: 

Chair Ganster adjourned the meeting at 12:06 p.m.