Good Neighbor Environmental Bo ard (GNEB) Teleconference February 25, 2010 1:00-3:00 p.m. EST



### Final Summary

Dolores W e sson, Designated Officer for the Good Neighbor Environm ental Board, welcom ed everyone to the call and identified the proposed or der of the chapters as follows: institutions, clim ate, air, energy, habitat, health, water, wast e, and em ergency m a nagem e nt. She said that at this poin t , th ere is no t a s ecurity chap ter. Howeve r, those issues or priorities will be incorporated into oth er ch apters, n am e ly institu tion s.

Ms. W esson opened the m eeting by asking Dr. Brown to start with the ins titu tions chap ter. Dr. Brown noted the m o st recent dr aft h ad two sets of comm ent s. Ms. W e sson explain e d that Rachael Poy n ter overlaidthe State Departm ent’s comments over top the EPA version sent out this m o rning. Dr. Brown said th at he would welcom e additio nal comm entary from Ms. Poynter and Mr. Garcia in addition to their w r itten comments.

Dr. Ganster clarified the process by asking the ch apter edito rs to inco rporat e the writte n comments previous ly su bmitted a l on g with comm ents f r om the discuss i o ntoday, andsend them to Ms. W e sson no later than Monday, March 1st. He e mphasized that this process will put things on track to have the whole version ready to send out by next w e ek.

Ms. W esson reiterated D r . Ganster’s point that th e next omnibus draft is scheduled to go out on Wednesday, March 3rd. She comme nted it takes tim e to compile ev eryon e’s comm ents. Therefore, the absolute deadline is M onday, March 1st to incorporate comm ents.
Steve Niemeyer aske d Ms. W e sson to explain what ’s going to happen with the next omnibus. Ms. W e sson responded that this omnibus would be the next working draft, and it is also would be posted on the web and m a de available for public comm ent a tRio Rico.

Mr. Niem eyer ind i cated that h i s pref erence is to let ADEQ add their comm ents to the omnibus draft, and not have to deal with it right now. In response, Ms. Wesson believed that it would be helpf u l to r e ceive a ll co mments prio r incorpo r at ing them into the tex t

. Sh e also no ted that this would m ake it easier to work comm ents in to the f l ow of the text.

Ms. W e sson raised the question concerning the T r ans-boundary Environm ental Im pact Assessm ent (TEIA). She wanted to m ake sure th at everyone is on the sam e page and that there is agreem ent on the recommendations before m o ving forward. Mr. Niem eyer responded by stating his concern th at the im pact assessm ent a ddresses a sp ecific issue, and instead is beingapplied to aninf r astru cture def i cit. He noted thatit is f o r sp e cif ic pro j ects that will impact the environm ent of another country.

Dr. Brown responded to Mr. Niem eyer’s concer n by stating this inform ation was from his research and input from Mr. Ni em eyer. Mr. Niem eyer offered to provide som e deletions and apologized again for any mi sc ommunication of infor m ation. Ms. W e sson noted that E P A Region 9 provided good comments and suggested that any specific language be provided to Dr. Brown.

Dave Fege f r om Region 9 had two major comm ents f o r the I n stitu tion s c h apter. The f i rst is that the chapter should provide a definition of what the Board m e ans by TEIA, especially since it

m eans different th ings to different people. Mr . N i em eyer suggested that a piece he p r eviously wrote on border security and a section on TEIA should be incl uded throughout the introduction chapter. He m e ntioned that the section on TEIA, basically s ays there n e eds to be an agreem ent.
Dave Fege’s final comment asked for clarific ation on whether TEIA applies specifically to federal projects such as those that com e under the National Environm ental Policy Act (NEPA) or whether it would inc l ude state enviro nm ental pro j ects. Admittedly, M r . Fege noted th at he and Mr. Niem eyer failed to include Dr. Brown in on this discussion.

Enrique Manzanilla aske d that a sep arate call be scheduled to discuss how to streamline and further align exactly what the Board m a y want to convey to E P A and others with respect to TEIA and border security. Rachael Poynter noted that the State Department would like to be on the call. In the essence o f tim e, Ms. Wesson urged that the call be scheduled for tomorrow, February 26 at 3:00 Eastern Sta ndard Tim e , 12-noon Pacific Sta ndard Tim e and 1:00 Mountain. Mr. Niem eyer said he would send out an em ail to Enrique Manzanilla, Jose Garcia, Dr. Brown, Rachael Poynter, Dave F e ge, and Bill Bresnick.

Mark Joyce commented that he is un clear as to w h ere th ings ar e with the redrafting of the Border Security chapter. He recalled that a group was going to revis e and edit th e previous ly submitted
text. M r . Jo yce also indicated that th ere wa s m e ntion to include a few paragraphs in the institutional m echanis m s chapter. Mr. Niem eyer acknowledged that he som e how was privileged with draf tin g this ch apte r give n to him by Elaine Koerner fromthe Departm e nt of Hom e land Security (DHS). He narrowed down the conten t into one page and is recommending that the section be incorporated into other chapters. He does not believe that a chapter on border security is needed and deferred to Mr. Bresnick for his thoughts on the m a tter. Mr. Bresnick answered that if done properly, D H S would not have a problemwith it incorporating the section into other chapters.

Mr. Joyce asked if the issue of border security is no longer a priority even though the Board did an entire report on the subject two reports ago. Mr. Joyce e xpressed concern that C E Q is expecting a detailed report addressing priority issues with very precise recomm endat i ons. Mr. Niem eyer comm ented that m o st of the issues covered by the report on border security are adequately addressed in the em ergency res ponse, hazardous w a ste, air quality and transboundary impact chap ters. Addition a lly, he no ted the comment letter as another extensive reference source that will be incl uded in the introductory chapter. Mr. Bresnick added that given

2the tim e constrai nts, it m ade m o re sense to id entif y the securi ty issue s andaddress e ac h accord ingly within th e respective chapters.

Ms. W esson introdu ced clim ate as th e next chap te r. Ms. W e sson m e ntioned that she forwarded comments to everyone by Patti Krebs; she had not yet forwarded Mr. N i em eyer’s to the Board yet. Ms. W e sson asked Mr. Niem eyerto first address his comments.

Mr. Niem eyer noted that he was not able to locate his exa c t te xt; however, he asked that a few
sentenc es in the chap ter discuss the p o tential e c onomic impa cts on the Texas economy of cli m ate change legislation. Ms. Wesson co mmented that she m a y have cut it out; however, she agreed to do her best to find a place for it.

Mr. Niem eyer pointed out thatthe Western States W a ter C ouncil issued an advice letter regard ing th e need for targeted rese ar ch for sp ecific water sheds and the impacts of clim ate change. He agreed to ref erence this d o cum ent and inform ation from the clim ate change m odel in his tex t

. Ms . W esson noted thatshe will ge t th e two addition s f r om him by tom o rrow, February 26th.

Ms. W esson directed a q u estion to M r . Niem eyer regarding the deletion of recomm endations four through eight. Mr. Niem eyer said th ese recommendations were am biguous and not as specific as the first three. Ricardo M artinez empha sized that California al ready has som e of the

recomm endations in place and som e are outlined in the strategic guidelines adopted by the Board of Governors’ Conference lastyear in Monterey, Mexico.

Ms. Krebs stated that her comments were based on the perspective of peopl e who ar e actua lly in a position to imple m ent m a ndatory requirem e nts. Mr. Manzanilla acknowledged that Ms. Krebs comments were quite extensive and he would like to incorporate som e of them into another draft. Sue Stendebach added that the EPA, Board of Environm ental Cooperative Commission (BECC) and others are working with the Mexican and th e United States to us e co mparable

m e thodologies, and baseline dates. Ms. St endebach expressed som e conc ern that

recomm endation num ber eight was not strong enough and suggested that it read som ething like “strongly urge U.S. and Mexican federal, state an d local gov ernm ent entitie s to pursue relevant co-benefits when exploring and planning reduction efforts aim e d at either criteria for GHG”. Ms. Stendebach noted that wher e there are opportunities; we needto look at them together.

Dave Fege posed a question to Sue S t endebach and the State Departm e nt as to whether there is a bilateral fram e w ork or is it still in the planning stages. Rachael Poynter explained that the first

m eeting was held on Jan uary 26, which includ ed high level p articipation from each governm ent. She also noted a list of action item s resulting fr om that m eeting which ar e still in the clearance process within the USG. Ms. Poynter agreed to provide Ms. Stendebach with a m ore detailed explanation on the bilateral fram ework and the E n ergy and Clim ate Partnership of the Am erica’s for the paragraph.

Dr. Ganster remi nded participants that mi scellaneous comm e nts should be directed to Ricardo Martinez an d a cc to Dolores W e sson by tom o rrow.

3Ms. Stendebach inform e d Ms. W e ss on that sh e would provide her with infor m ation on the

m a ndatory reporting rule and a few item s that ad dress regulations on climate. Ms. Stendebach agreed to send points to Ricar do Martinez and cc Dolores W e sson.

Dolores W e sson introduced air as the next ch apter and asked Allyson Siwik to begin the discussion. Ms. Siwik, first acknow ledged receipt of Veronica Garc ia’s comm ents and agreed to have a follow-up conversation with her via phone to clarify som e language from the text. Ms. Siwik noted the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) comm ent on recomm endation num b er seven regarding the availability of resources through the Boar d of Environm ental Cooperative Co mmission (BECC) and the North Am erican Developm ent Bank (NAD Bank) for air quality projects. Ms. Siwik recognized DOT’s recomme ndation as a good effort to create harm onization and standards, but she is concer ned that the lack of resources m ay take a long tim e and delay the process for getting emission reduction in pl ace so that standards can be achieved.

In respons e to Ms. Siwik ’ s concern, Rachael Poy nte r clarified that when either a Mex i can en tity or a U.S. entity applies f or a NAD B a nk/BECC g r an t or loan; they have to m eet all of the requirem e nts that the N AD Bank and BECC pla ce on that project proposal. In other words, the project applicant already has to comp ly withthe regulations required by N AD Bank and BECC in order to a ctually ce rtif y that p r ojec t. Othe rwis e, that p r oje ct is no t sub mitted f o r approval. Ms. Poynter added that you cannot m ake the Mexi can federal governm e nt comp ly with a federal issue in order to have Mexican applicants. She emphasized the point that the NAD B a nk Board has already approved air quality projects on the Mexican side. Ms. Poynter offered to further explain the process of how project proposals are approved or not approved by the Board.

Meredith Deboom thanked Ms. Poynter for that e xplanation and agreed to share the infor m ation with the pe r son who submitted that c o mm ent to m ake sure it clears up an y concern. Allyson Siwik noted that sh e will leave recomm endation num b er 7 as it ex is ts in th e latest dr af t which incorporates Rachael Poynter’s re write of that recommendation.

Dave Fege conveyed that he does not disagr ee with the recomm endation. However, the implication of recomme ndation num ber 7 is to have a BEF like fund available. He asked Ms. Siwik to clarify which grant funds. Mr. Fege comme nted that the grant f unds com e directly from EPA and they com bine that with their lo an m oney through the water and waste water infrastructure projects. He not ed that from the earnings there is a sm all amount of funding used for grants, but nothing in the neighborhood that would allow them to provide grant m oney as distinguished from loans to Mexico and other border communities for the implem e ntation of air quality projects. Rachael Poynterinterjected that th ere are two possible pools. The Bank has loaned over a billion dollars in funds to the bo rder communities, and becau se of that it is now bringing in more m oney than before. She saidthat the m oney covers operating costs and goes into retained earnings which add to the growth of the Bank’s loanportfolio. There is also a legislative requirem e nt on the books from years ago to create a grant program when the Bank was not lending like it sh ould have been, and a certain am ount of the Bank’s capitalization was set aside in order to comply w ith that legislation. Ms. Poynteradded that the guidelines have been approv ed for the program and air quality p r oj ects could fall under th is area. She reiterated that these are the two so urces, whichare sep arate and apart f r om BEF f u nding thatis prim arily all toward water and waste water projects. Ms. P oynter also suggested that the report does not

4go into any level of detail re garding the techn i calities su rr ounding capitalized earnings and retained earnings.

Dr. Ganster commented that he did not notice a discussion on agricultu ral field burning as contributing to pollution. In response to Dr. Gans ter’s comment, Ms. Siw i k stated that there is a reference to it, but they can em phasize it m o re lik e he suggested. Ms. W e sson added that there is

som e reference to th e su bject m atter in recomm e ndation num ber 4. Dr. Ganste r said that part of a sentence in the text on page 7 should do it. Ms. Siwik concurred that it is not under the actual

recomm endation on page 7, but thought it was m e ntioned in the background section.

Ms. Siwik noted that on the last call Dr. Ga nster rem arked as to whether or not a

recomm endation relatin g to the unre stricted flow of polluting vehicles from the U.S. into Mexico should be included. Ms. Siwik asked if anyone had a chance to give Dr. Ganster’s comment

som e more thought. Dr. Ganster said that this topic of discussion co m e s up periodically and deferred to Mr. Fege for his co mm ents. Mr. Fege raised the point that Mexico announced a program where they were going to start requiring som e proof of a s m og c heck on the U.S. side before a car was imported into Mexico. Mr. Fege indicated that he is happy with this issue not being referenced in the report because it app ears as though Mexico is looking for a way to imple m ent som e thing independently.

Ms. Stendebach added to what Mr. F e ge said by stating that to her knowledge there is a working group under the Air Policy Forum of Border 2012 with the specific task of addressing this issue. Ms. Stendebach comm ented that the group is working with their counterp arts in Mexico to review the proposal and what the U.S. side can do.

Ms. Siwik noted an additional piece of infor m ation from TCQ regarding Part of the Joint Advisory Committee’s strategic plan that addr es ses the proposal by Mexico and Tiajuana to nationalize US vehicles entering the country so they would be subjec t to INM. She clarified that this program is purely a proposal an d has not been imple m e n ted yet.

Dr. Ganster said it would be fine if that poin t is not includedbecause it sounds like there need s to be a fuller discussion if we were going to consider it. Ricardo Martinez agreed with Dr. Ganster and m e ntioned that this area could be another chapter in itself.

Allyson Siwik asked if there were any other co mm e nts. Dave Fege referenced a paragraph on page 3 and asked Ms. Stendebach if ULSD is not av ailable in all of Mexico yet. Ms. Stendebach said som e things have co m e up recently in M e xico which put a crimp in making ULSD m o re available. It was her understanding that Pem e x is working with Se m arnat in som e legal issues and it sound s like Pem ex will have a large h and inwriting that new law. Consequently, this

m atter takes ULSD of f the table unt il the law is co mpleted. Sh e is conf iden t thatevery thing will be done to have fairly strictULSD language. Mr. Fege res ponded that he was happy to know there is good inform ation and data to support those statem ents. Ms. Siwik expressed her appreciationfor everyon e’s comm ents.

Dolores W e sson called on Dr. Ganster to open the discussion on the border energy chapter. Dr. Ganster responded that he has not received mu ch input other than the feedback from Ross

5Pump frey, Steve Niem eyer, Alan Sweedler and coll eagues in Mexico. He noted that any input would be appreciated. P a tti Krebs asked Dr. Ga nster to clarif y whether he was referring to adopting LE AD certif ication f o r all n e w building s or was he thinking of implem e nting an entirely new system

. Ms. Krebs conveyed her co ncern regarding consiste ncy and suggested that the report not reference L E AD standards, but rather provide an example. Dr. Ganster and Ms. Krebs both agreed that the statem ent coul d read that a good m odel is LEED. Dr. Ganster said th at Ms. Krebs raised a good point about the need to have predictable accepted standards to f

ollow.

Dr. Brown suggested that the chapter include m o re specific details regarding Alan Sweedler’s ideology on the indigenous generation of electricity which m a y change the balance of energy use and the residuals that result from it. Dr. Br own offered to provide Dr. Ganster with the presentationthat M r . Sweedler m a de at the Sa n D i ego SCERP Conference. Dr. Ganster agreed to review it to see if there’s anything obvious that can be added to the chapter. Enrique Manzanilla asked Ricardo Martinez to send Dr. Ganster th e Joint De claration from the last Board of Governor’s m eeting on the energy work table.

Rachael Poynter comm e nted that the January 26, 2010 dialogue on clean energy and clim ate generated plenty of interest at the federal leve l. Ms. Poynter noted the D e partm e nt of Energy (DOE) and CEN Air we re engaged in discussions on the problem s confr onting the coordination of service o p erato r s across the bord e r, regu lato ry issues and other challe nges as outlined in the chapter. She also pointed out that som e one f r om the Wh ite House was the r e to d i scuss the process and the difficulty with implem en ting new transmission lines in the US.

Dr. Ganster was asked if he had spoken to a nyone at the DOE. He had not, but Ms. Poynter offered to try and identify a couple of the tec hnical experts from DOE that attended the m eeting for Dr. Ganster to contact.

Enrique Manzanilla asked Ms. Poynter if ther e was a Trilateral Ag reement signed in 2007 between Canada, Mexico and the United Stat es on energy. Ms. Poynter responded that Mr. Manzanilla mi ght be correct, however, the S t ate was no t the lead und er that specific agreem ent. She recalledthat the agreem ent wa s referenced at the p r eviou s North American Leaders m eeting. Mr. Manzanilla noted that the agreem ent would be useful to Dr. Ganster. Ms. Poynter agreed to send D r . Ganster the 2007 Trilat eral Agreem ent along with the notes from the leader’s m eeting as well. Ms. Stendebach ra ised the question about the trilateral on energy because sh e was m o re familiar with the U.S. Canada clean en ergy dialogu e. Ms. Poynter clarified that to her know ledge there was reference to a m e m o randum of understanding on energy, but not necess arily on clean energy. Add ition ally, Mr. Manzan illa noted th at he though t it was geared m o re towards energy research.

Dolores W e sson added that the CEC Article 13 Re port on green building m a y be of interest to Dr. Ganster. Ms. W e sson offered to send Dr . Ganster the CEC Article 13 Report and Ms. Stendebach agreed to send inform ation on EP A’s Voluntary Energy E fficiency Prog ram

.
Bill Bresn i c k commented that he los es contex t n ear th e end of the mi ddle senten ce o n
recomm endation num ber two where it reads “ t ailor-m ade cap and trad e and obsessed. ”

6Dr. Ganster agreed to revise the statem ent and thanked everyone for their assistance.

Dolores W e sson m oved on to the habitat chapter noting that it was written by Luis Florez along with his colleagues from Fish and Wildlife and the National Park Service. She noted that comments were from Mike Connolly and asked if anyone else had comm e nts on the chapter. Dr. Ganster responded that he would like to add a sent ence regarding the effect of clim ate change on the Multiple Species Conservation Pr ogram (MSCP) in the S a n Diego region and how clim ate is going to shift ecosystem s and habitat boundaries. He noted that the general problem is

m e ntioned in the chapter, but not specifically fo r an area like San Diego with its vast mi croclim ates and significant gr owth in urbanization.

Melida Tajbakhsh from the Mexico Branch of the Fish and W ildlife Service Division of Intern ational Conservatio nextended h er thanks f o r

the inv itatio n to partic ip ate in the ca ll.

Ms. Tajbakh sh noted th at it was not u n til recen tly that sh e had the opportu n ity to review the chapter on habitat and natural protected areas. She m a de the sugge stion to be careful of som e wording because it m a y infer ecological processes rathe r th anservic es which ar e part icularly relevant to the border area. Ms. Tajbakhsh stated that in additi on to the a ctiv ities in the border region; headquarters im plem ented a program called “ W ildlife without Borders Mexico” to develop Mexico’s capacity to m a nage wildlife

. In addition, they trained about 50 Mexican wildlife m a nagers th at created the first Mexican State W ildlife Agency mi rroring Texas Park an d W ildlif e. Ms. Tajbakhshclarif ied thatany f u rther contributions and/or sp ecific comments to the text by the F i sh and W ildlife Service must be cleared through the approp riate chain of command. Ms. Tajbakhsh is working on obtaining clearance for full participation, but in the interim she offered to provide additional information on the W ildlife without Bo rders Mexico Grants Program

. Dr. Ganster w elcom ed the inform ation from Ms. Tajbakhsh and stated that it m ay be helpful for the section on MSCP. Dolores W e ss on thanked Ms. Tajbakh sh f o r joinin g the ca ll.

Bill Bresn i ck expressed concern that recomm en dation num ber 3 under th e habitat chap ter seem s to suggest taking funds for vari ous projects out of the Departm ent of Hom eland Security’s budget and appropriating these funds to the Depart m e nt of Interior ( DOI). Mr. Bresnick explained that DHS has an on-going obligation for such projects and any suggestion that Congress should discontinue f unding DHS’s activities in th is area would be extrem ely counterproductive. He noted that m a y not have been the objective here. The suggested change by Mr. Bresnick was to omit “verses the DHS budge t.” Ms. Wesson reiterated Mr. B r esnick’s suggestion to just have the st atem ent read as “DOI budget”.

There were no further comm ents on the habitat chapter and Ms. W esson m oved to the health chapter. She noted th at Debbie Tellez and Carl os Rincón were online from Region 6. She asked them if they had an opportunity to review the environm ental health ch apter and how it’s now located with in the water and solid waste chap te rs. Ms. Tellez noted that sh e reviewed s olid waste, but had no comment. Ms. Wesson asked th e Board if they were fine with the proposal submitted by Ann Marie W olf. In response to M s . W e sson’s question, Ricardo Martinez answered that they have looked atit, but do not have any comm ents at this tim e. There were no further comm e nts on this chapter and Ms. W e ss on direc t ed atten tion to the water ch ap ter.

7Dolores W e sson opened the discussion on the wate r chapter. Dr. Brow n conveyed that the chapter had really good infor m ation, however, he wa s concerned about it be ing to lengthy and if there was a way to shorten it som e. Ms. W esson replied by indicating that there had been a few edits done thus far with, Ann Marie Wolf doing the last one.

Sally Spener pointed out that there w e re sign ificant changes m a de on the Nogales m a terials;

som e of whi c h involved factual inform ation. Co nsequently, the questionable additions m a y have to be deleted in the event no one can provi de verification of that inform ation.

Mr. Niem eyer directed h i s questi on to Veronica Garcia by asking if her folks could live with the previous draft or if the additions have to be in clu d ed. Mr. Niem eyer added that he rev i ewed the comments and was surprised to see changes m a de to language taken directly f r om the May le tte r. Ms. Garcia agreed to go b ack to her group regarding the m a tter and follow-up with Mr. Niem eyer tomorrow.

Maris sa Bardino asked Ms. W esson if she had received the comments fr om New Mexico on the water chapter. Mr. Niem eyer addressed Ms. Bard ino’s question stating that he thought Ms. W olf incorporated those comments. Additionally, Dr . Ganster agreed to se nd Mr. Niem eyer a few points which needed clarification th at should not change the m eaning.

Dolores W e sson identified the last chapter as emergency response and planning. She noted that Mike Dorsey would not be available, however, he asked Mr. Niem eyer to cover for him. Ms. Wesson m a de the rem ark that Mr. Dorsey did hi s best to incorporate all comm ents, but there were a few that he didn ’t incorporate because he f e lt they were in contradiction with th e others. Unfortunately, Ms. W e ss on and Mr. Niem eyer agreedthat they were unable to properly address Mr. Dorsey’ s position re garding this statem ent. Mr. Niem eyer opened th e f l oor f o r a ddition al
comments.

On recommendation number three, Mr. Bresnick noted that the word “u niform ” was inserted before the w o rd “preference” in the s e ntence. He commented that when d e veloping p r ocedures, DHS uses base procedures and then work out loca l protocols as a m eans of effectiveness in any given locale. As a result, local p r otocols m ay not be the sam e everyplace. He em phasized to th e Board that a llowing th e statem ent to rem ain is essentially recomm endi ng that DHS stop working out local protocols. Ms. Wesson as ked if deleting the word “uniform ” would take care of it. Mr. Bresnick responded that it was notthere before and he is not sure why it was added in. Ms. Wesson stated that she would talkto Mr. Dorsey about it today.

Mr. Niem eyer explainedthat th e whole point of the recommendation is to have som e thing in place so these guys can g e t in and ou t without a h uge hassle. Mr. Bresnick agreed with Mr. Niem eyer and stres sed the im portance of DHS be ing m a de aware of specific problems so they can be addressed acco rdingly, but he’s not sure th at uniform procedures is the answer.

Dr. Ganster recalled previous di scu s sions with Mr. Dorsey wher e he noted comp laints from people who work at different ports of entry that th e rules of the gam e seem to change from one to the other. Dr. Ganster believed the m a in point is that standard rules of the gam e would serve everyone well as long as everyone knows what the rules are, and that they are similar along the

8border. Dr. Ganster pointed out that Mr. Dorsey also raised th is sam e issue with resp ect to HAZMAT i nspections comi ng into the US where distinct differences exist from one port of entry to the next.

Rachael Poy n ter admitte d that sh e pr obably adde d the word “ unif o rm ” in there to cap ture precisely the discussion that Dr. Ganster just pointed out. Howeve r, she deferred to the experts
to m ake the final decision on the outcom e

. Dr. Ganster interjected and asked Ms. Wesson to try and resolv e the m atter whenever sh e speaks with Mr. Dorsey.

Bill Bresn i ck asked if he had mi ssed the dis c u ssion on the so lid and haza rdous waste chapter. Ms. W esson apologized and called attention to th e f act thatth er e is now only one chapter on
waste.

Dr. Ganster raised som e concern regarding r ecommendation num ber seven, suggesting that part of it include sharing export datawith Mexico on used tires an d Mexico sh aring their tire im port data. Dr. Ganster explained th at this would basically close a loop-hole for the unauthorized entrance of used tires into Me xico. Additionally, Dr. Ganster suggested that recommendation

num b er eight include a statem ent on using shredd ed tires for civil engineering projects. Mr. Niem eyer followed up to recomm endation num ber seven asking Dr. Ganster who is going to provide the enforcem ent of tires not being exported. Dr. Ganster cl arified that the intention was not the export of tires, but rather the export of unsafe tires. He noted that there is a very legitim ate tr ade in used tires, bu t the comp laints heard from people in Mexi co is thatsaf e tir es get mi xed in with unsafe tires. He added that there has not been a discussion of who the enforcer would be.

Mr. Niem eyer asked if this woul d include all tires in the U.S. Dr. Ganster responded that the purpose of the statem ent was probably to avoid port shopping and this is w hy there needs to be a standard. Ideally, the w hole pointis to help Mexico control the import of unsafe tires. Mr. Niem eyer then responded by asking if the U.S. cons um er is going to pay f o r the entire disposal. He indicated that Texas does nothave a disposal fee and it is voluntary depending on where the tire was purchased. Dr. Ganster deferred to Ve ro nica Garc ia for her suggestions on a

recomm endation that m akes sense. Ms. Garcia s t at ed that she would have to think about it. Mr. Niem eyer was unable to think of anything either, but suggested the existing phrase be re-worded. Dr. Ganster agreed to work on the re-wording or just deleting the reference to the d i sp osal fee.

The questio n was raisedby Bill Bres nick as to whether reco mmendation num b er nin e still ha s the National Guard Troops sentence in it. Ms. Wesson asked Veronica Garcia if she recalled who m a de the comm entand noted that it’s open for discussion. Ms. W e sson stated that Diane Austin recommended deleting the comm ent, but she’ s not sure why it hasn’t been deleted. Ms. Wesson presum ed that Ms. Austin was trying to keep it in for the orig inal proponent of the comment to discuss it today. Dr. Ganster m a de the comm entthat he remem bered having this discussion about the p r o b lem s with the accumu lati on of solid waste at a tim e when the National Guard was involved with the installation of the bord er fence. He m e ntioned that this should have been included in the board report on environm ent s ecurity. Mr. Bresnick added that he was in agreem ent with Ms. Austin’ s recomm endation to delete it.

9Mr. Bresnick also commented on the first reco mm endation that addresses port hours of operation which he stated is a legislative function set forth by Congress as opposed to an admi nistrative action. He is not sure w h ether som e of th e problem s reported are m ore than occasion a l inciden ces r ather than in stitu tion al pr oblem s that need an ins t itution a l f i x. He added a note that there is a s e curity overl ay on this particu l ar po int.

Dr. Ganster m e ntioned that Mr. Dorsey feels str ongly about this item and it has been discussed several tim e s over the years. It was suggested by Dr. Ganster that Ms. W e sson raise the point again with Mr. Dorsey to get cl arification on w h at he m eant or whether the m a tter needs to be addressed again. Dr. Ganster further noted that recomm endation num ber one basically deals with the port shopping on HAZMAT inspections and it also refers to the issue of not working with state in spectors in Texas, but working with state inspecto rs in Calif o rnia et c e tera.

Another m a tter of concern was raised by Mr. Br esnick regarding recomm e ndation num ber one. He asked what does the phrase “shipm ents of haz ardous waste and shipm e nts that mi ght be potentially h azardous, bu t are no t designated as such ” m ean. Mr. Bresnick stated that he is not sure how this can be done. Mr. Niem eyer responded that Mr. Dorsey should know som e thing, but it probably needs to be clarified.

Mr. Niem eyer referred b ack to a p r evious comment reg ardin g the Nation a l Guard in

recomm endation num ber nine. He read the secti on of the 10th report (page 22) that references the Nation a l Guard’s inv o lvem ent with solid was t e.

Dolores W e sson asked Mr. Bresnick to send her a nd Veronica Garcia his alternative language for

recomm endation num ber one. He agreed to se nd it to Ms. Wesson and suggested that she follow-up with Mr. Dorsey for clarification.

Dolores W e sson directed attention to recomm en dation num ber 11 which was inherited from the health chapter. She noted that this item has already been addressed. However, there’s now item

num ber 12 which used to be num ber11 on the Waste Policy Forum

. M s. W e sson pointed out that this is Diane Austin’ s comm ent. Mr. Niem eyer ind i cated that the W aste Policy Forum is listed as one of the policy forum s of the Border 2012 docum e nt. Mr. Niem eyer concurred with Dr. Ganster that the W a s t e Policy Forum does terri fic work. Dr. Ganster m a de the suggestion for Ms. W e sson to find out what m a y ha ve been Ms. Austin’s intention. There were no further issues on this chapter.

Final Notes : Ms. W e sson reiterated the need to have the next set of drafts by Monday so they can be compiled and sent out by W e dnesday. She emphasized thatthose with extensive comments to please be

mi ndful of the timing when working with her and the lead author. Dr. Ganster urged individuals to provide specific recommendations and not general statements about passages.

Ms. W esson noted that s h e will be sending every one an updated agenda for Rio Rico. She has received confirm a tion from Ji m Northup, Acting In teragency Borderlands Coordinator for DOI. He will be s p eaking on the mitigatio n projec ts. Dan Jam es will be cov e ring th e USGS protocol that’s now being developed fo r the monitoring of the border fence. Ms. W e sson asked Mr.

10Bresnick if he has identified a speaker for the first presentation. Mr. Bresnick responded that he does not have the nam e of a speaker confirm e d ye t. However, he assured Ms. W esson that

som eone will be at the meeting to pre sent.

Ms. W e sson pointed out that discussions are on- going with C E Q regarding their preference whether the roll-out should take place in San Antonio or W a s hington D.C. Dr. Brown responded by asking if this m eans that the Del Rio option is out. Ms. Wesson stated that the idea being discussed by the sm all planning group is to have the m eeting for the roll-out in San Antonio and then m ove to Del Rio for the actual board m eeting.

Mr. Niem eyer in terjected with an unrelated co mm e nt regarding Mr. Bresnick’s statem ent that CEQ had responded to DHS’s respon se to th e Board’s o r igin al Decem ber 2nd letter. Mr. Bresnick ap ologized for any mi sunderstand ing an d clarified th at CEQ will be sending their response to the Board in tim e to have it in this report.

Ms. W esson opened the rem aining tim e for discu ssion on any other issues. Mr. Niemeyer asked if Ms. W e sson or Mark Joyce coul d explain the transition of the Board after this m eeting. Mr. Joyce answered that he wouldn’t call it a transition a lthough the process is the sam e with som e

m e mbers term s expiring, new m e m be r s appoint ed and som e mem bers being renewed for additional term s. Mr. Niem eyer followed-up by stating that it was his und erstand i ng that several Board m e mbers will be leaving in a few weeks and they will be replaced shortly thereafter. Mark Joyce didn’t know whether a ll of them will be replaced, but he noted that roughly half of the non-federal m e m b er’s term s expire on Marc h 14, 2010. Mr. Niem eyer expressed concern as to how m a ny of those mem b ers will be replace d. Mr. Joyce responded th at the d ecis i on was purely the admi nistrator’s call. He added that the intentis to reappoint som e m e m b e r s as well as appoint som e new m e m b ers so th e Board has a f u ll com p liment in p l ace by the tim e of the June

m eeting.

Ms. W e sson extended w ords of appreciation to ev eryone for their hard w o rk on the report and then adjourned the m eeting at 2:51 p.m. EST.

11