March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 1

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting

March 19–20, 2008

Hilton Washington Towers

Washington, DC 

MEETING MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2008

Welcome

John Wood, Acting Chair, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB); Rafael DeLeon, Director, 

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management (OCEM), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA); and Elaine Koerner, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) for the Board, EPA

Mr. John Wood (Cameron County, Texas, Commissioner), GNEB Acting Chair, called the meeting to 

order at 9:53 a.m. He thanked the participants for attending the meeting and stated that the GNEB is an 

independent federal advisory committee. He reminded the participants of the EPA mission, which is to 

protect human health and the environment. 

Ms. Elaine Koerner, DFO for the GNEB, welcomed the participants to the meeting. She explained that 

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson would be arriving shortly to address the group.

Mr. Rafael DeLeon, Director of the EPA’s OCEM, welcomed the group, noting that there was much 

ground to cover in the next 2 days.

In response to a question about the Chair, Ms. Koerner said that Dr. Paul Ganster was unable to attend 

this meeting.

Mr. Wood asked GNEB members and resource specialists for their report-outs, emphasizing the 

importance of GNEB members sharing their activities with one another.

Dr. Christopher Brown (New Mexico State University) explained that his research laboratory at New 

Mexico State University focuses on environmental issues along the U.S.-Mexico border, mostly using 

Geographic Information Systems (GIS). He is conducting a binational transportation GIS project along 

the U.S.-Mexico border for the Federal Highway Administration, working with a colleague from the 

University of Juárez. Dr. Brown described his presentation at the recent Border Officials “Cross-Talk” 

2008 conference, which brought together border commissioners to discuss important border issues. He 

was asked to prepare a scoping paper and ask penetrating and insightful questions. After his presentation, 

when it came time to ask his questions, none of the commissioners were able to provide a satisfactory 

response. At the conference, he also met with Mr. John Dickson, Director, Office of Mexican Affairs, 

U.S. Department of State, who emphasized the importance of sharing the great work being done along the 

border with those in Washington, DC. Dr. Brown decided to take his advice and prior to this meeting, met 

with Mr. Dickson and his staff to discuss how to better balance security initiatives and environmental 

protection; he also disseminated copies of the latest GNEB Report. He plans to continue this dialogue.

Mr. Jeff Scott, EPA, announced that the next Border Governors Conference will be held August 13–15, 

2008, in Los Angeles, California. A Border 2012 National Coordinators Meeting is scheduled for 

September 3–4, 2008, in Juárez, Chihuahua. He is hoping to discuss the Committee for Environmental 

Cooperation’s (CEC) work to improve chemical management at this meeting. CEC’s work also could 
2 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

inform the upcoming GNEB Twelfth Report on Innovation, Including Incentives, To Prevent/Reduce 

Pollution at the U.S.-Mexico Border. 

Mr. Rafael Guerrero (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA]) mentioned that the USDA’s Natural 

Resources Conservation Service is working with its Mexican counterparts to develop an initiative to 

conserve private land in Mexico; the USDA has offered to share its expertise on the subject. 

Unfortunately, the USDA does not have statutory authority to work in Mexico. Mr. Guerrero added that 

he recently attended a meeting on addressing border issues using geospatial sciences.

Ms. Susan Keith (Arizona Department of Environmental Quality) reported that Arizona Governor Janet 

Napolitano, who chairs the Western Governors’ Association, is working to focus attention on 

environmental issues, including greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change. Mexican officials 

seem eager to work on these issues.

Ms. Shannon Sorzano (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]) discussed HUD’s 

work along the U.S.-Mexico border. HUD works with colonias on the U.S. side of the border, the 

Mexican government on housing financing in Mexico, and U.S. and Mexican border cities, using GIS for 

cross-border planning.

Mr. Wood asked the new GNEB members in attendance to further discuss their backgrounds. 

Dr. Diane Austin said that she has worked for the University of Arizona since 1994, studying the 

Arizona-Sonora border, especially in the Brownsville area. Most of her work involves identifying 

methods to reduce pollution.

Ms. Marissa Stone said that she is the Communications Director for the New Mexico Environment 

Department. She mentioned that her department recently hired a New Mexico Border Environment 

Justice Liaison. Additionally, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson is a strong supporter of the 

environment. 

Mr. Jerry Agan is a county judge in Presidio County, Texas. He explained that in addition to their judicial 

duties, judges in Texas also manage the day-to-day operations of their counties. As such, he plays the role 

of emergency manager for Presidio County. He also is the chair of the first responders group of the Rio 

Grande Council of Governments, which disburses approximately $3–4 million per year to support disaster 

response efforts. This group currently is in the process of developing a cross-border communications 

system, transitioning from analog to digital.

Mr. Scott manages the border program for EPA Region 9, which supports a number of border-related 

programs covering issues such as pesticides, toxics, and agriculture. He has worked for EPA for almost 

25 years. He currently serves as the U.S. Co-Chair of the Border XXI Hazardous and Solid Waste 

Workgroup. 

Ms. Allyson Siwik is the executive director of the Gila Resources Information Project (GRIP). GRIP is a 

nonprofit environmental advocacy group based in Silver City, New Mexico. She also serves as the U.S. 

Co-Leader of the Border 2012 New Mexico-Chihuahua Rural Task Force. She looks forward to bringing 

the rural perspective to border issues.

Keynote Remarks

Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA

EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson thanked the GNEB members for their hard work and noted that he, 

the President, and Congress highly value advisory committee input. Although his decisions may not 

always align with advisory committees’ recommendations, he very much appreciates their feedback in 
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 3

support of his role as a decision-maker. He thanked Mr. Wood for serving as acting chair in Dr. Ganster’s 

absence. He welcomed the new GNEB members, including Mr. Luis Ramírez Thomas (Ramírez Advisors 

Inter-National, LLC), Mr. Michael Connolly (Campo Kumeyaay Nation), Judge Agan, Dr. Austin, Ms. 

Siwik, Ms. Marissa Stone, and Ms. Laura Yoshii (not in attendance). 

EPA Administrator Johnson said that he read the GNEB’s annual Report with great interest. There are 

many complex issues along the border that need to be addressed. He thinks that the sister city emergency 

response plans are an especially valuable method for dealing with issues along the border. EPA already 

has begun work on a number of the GNEB’s recommendations. 

Homeland security and emergency response are high priorities for EPA. There are a number of challenges 

along the borders, both to the north and south. Funds needed or perceived to be needed are far more than 

the actual funds available. Although seeking additional resources is very important, opportunities to use 

funds more efficiently and effectively must also be pursued. EPA Administrator Johnson said that he is a 

large supporter of opportunities that stem from innovation and is looking forward to the release of the 

next GNEB Report.

Mr. Wood thanked EPA Administrator Johnson for his remarks and added that he was pleased that the 

Administrator had commented on the GNEB’s next Report on innovation.

Discussion

Mr. Stephen Niemeyer (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality) gave an example of EPA funding 

resulting in innovation. With EPA funds, the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy 

developed a new brick kiln design that significantly reduced emissions. El Paso Electric subsequently 

built 30 of these kilns.

EPA Administrator Johnson noted that EPA also is working with organizations and companies to bring 

methane to markets. He gave an example of a brick company in the southern United States that hoped to 

expand. To do so, the company required a large amount of energy. A new landfill was under construction 

in the area, and ultimately, the gas from the landfill was captured and used to power the new brickyard. It 

was a win-win situation. 

Mr. DeLeon mentioned that EPA Administrator Johnson had served as a DFO earlier in his career and 

thanked the Administrator for all of the support he has provided to the GNEB. Ms. Koerner presented 

EPA Administrator Johnson with a plaque to thank him for his support. EPA Administrator Johnson 

confirmed that he had, in fact, served as a DFO earlier in his career. As a result, he understands the 

importance of the relationship between a DFO and an advisory committee.

Panel Discussion on Eleventh Report: Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-Mexico 

Border

Erika J. Clesceri, Ph.D., Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Bureau Environmental 

Officer, United States Agency for International Development (USAID); Dana Tulis, Deputy Director, 

Office of Emergency Management, EPA, and U.S. Co-Chair, Border 2012 Program Emergency 

Preparedness and Response Border-Wide Workgroup; and Alejandro Posadas, Secretaría de Medio 

Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT), Mexico Embassy

Ms. Koerner introduced the panelists as experts in their respective fields who had been asked to provide 

the GNEB with their feedback on the Eleventh Report.

Dr. Erika Clesceri, the Bureau Environmental Officer for the Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian 

Assistance Bureau at USAID, thanked Ms. Koerner and said that she was pleased to be invited to the 

meeting. Her role at USAID is to interpret the National Environmental Policy Act for USAID’s overseas 
4 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

work. USAID is organized into regional and functional bureaus. Environmental compliance officers work 

throughout USAID and at each individual mission. Dr. Clesceri oversees environmental compliance for 

the Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance Bureau. Her oversight encompasses the work of 

the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), the Office of Food for Peace, the Office of Transition 

Initiatives, the Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad, and many others. Dr. Clesceri said that 

she views environmental compliance procedures as an essential aspect of disaster preparedness. It is 

within this capacity as environmental officer overseeing the offices that manage humanitarian disaster 

response and preparedness for USAID that she offers her comments. 

USAID’s role in disaster response is to facilitate and coordinate U.S. government humanitarian assistance 

overseas. USAID was granted this authority in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Recently, within 

Mexico, USAID’s OFDA provided emergency relief supplies, hygiene kits, water pumps, and temporary 

shelter in response to flooding in Tabasco and Chiapas.

OFDA has a worldwide Disaster Risk Reduction Program that can, depending on the year, amount to 10 

percent of the total OFDA budget (the total budget ranges from $300 to $500 million). Funds are used to 

support risk reduction, including efforts to reduce the risk of flooding, which focus on nonstructural flood 

mitigation measures, primarily in the form of watershed management, community preparedness, 

retrofitting of vulnerable group shelters, and early warning indicator systems that use an end-to-end 

system to communicate flood mitigation plans to communities based on either empirical flood data or 

modeled data. USAID communicates with communities in need and offers options on how to proceed. 

USAID’s mandate is to work with the most vulnerable segments of the world population. USAID 

supports watershed management programs in four key watersheds in Mexico; these watersheds were 

selected on the basis of their richness and biodiversity, their environmental threat indices, and indicators 

of acute poverty. Project prioritization within USAID is based on these three factors. In addition, USAID 

provides funds to the U.S. Forest Service to support fire control and fire management programs, technical 

assistance, capacity building, and border training. A command-and-control structure has been developed, 

which is very important in the event of a disaster. The Office of American Schools and Hospitals Abroad 

supports the building of hospitals and schools in Mexico. The buildings funded by this program must 

meet the building codes for the local area. 

Dr. Clesceri discussed the latest GNEB Report, Natural Disasters and the Environment Along the U.S.-

Mexico Border, noting that she appreciated the recommendation for greater incorporation of 

environmental aspects in disaster response. This is important because disaster relief interventions can 

have environmental consequences (e.g., building structures in a flood plain). USAID has supported the 

development of a number of assessments for disaster situations, including the Rapid Environmental 

Assessment, a participatory approach that involves a quick assessment (within 3–5 days) and helps to 

prioritize issues (e.g., life, livelihood, and the environment). Unfortunately, the environment often is not 

included in this list in disaster response situations. In Indonesia, the World Wildlife Fund has partnered 

with the Red Cross to work on disaster relief. Page 11 of the Eleventh Report lists population growth as 

an issue related to flood control and flood mitigation. Dr. Clesceri suggested that a strategy for addressing 

population issues be developed. It also is important to address the root causes of environmental disaster, 

such as acute poverty. For example, the USAID mission in Haiti took a watershed-by-watershed approach 

and assessed environmental vulnerabilities to inform its framework for development in Haiti. The 

environmental vulnerabilities identified included population issues, unplanned urbanization, and rural 

landscape deforestation. A report, Environmental Vulnerability in Haiti, details this work. In the short 

term, addressing the underlying problem of acute poverty may mean converting some of the more 

vulnerable watersheds. In the long term, it may mean creating jobs or altering trade policy. These issues 

often are overlooked or examined after the fact, but they are key elements of preparedness.

Dr. Clesceri highlighted some international climate change resources, including the Humanitarian Early 

Warning Service, which provides data to help predict droughts and floods. The National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration collects historical weather data, and a Peru-based climate change group 
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 5

provides data for Mexico. USAID developed a manual for development planning that provides guidance 

on dealing with climate variability. Finally, to avoid the cycle of dependency, USAID works to promote 

sustainability or the ability of a project to continue in the absence of external funds in all of its 

interventions.

Ms. Koerner thanked Dr. Clesceri for her comments and asked the audience to hold their questions until 

all three of the speakers had finished. She explained that there would be time for public comment after the 

panel presentations. Members of the public who wish to make comments can sign up with Ms. Geraldine 

Brown. 

She introduced Ms. Dana Tulis, welcoming her to the meeting. Ms. Tulis is the Deputy Director of EPA’s 

Office of Emergency Management and serves as U.S. Co-Chair of the Border 2012 Emergency 

Preparedness and Response Border-Wide Workgroup.

Ms. Tulis thanked the GNEB members for addressing the issue of disaster response along the border. The 

Border 2012 Program, co-chaired by EPA and SEMARNAT, created the Emergency Preparedness and 

Response Border-Wide Workgroup to address emergency issues. This Workgroup essentially functions as 

the steering committee of the Joint Response Team (JRT), which was established by the 1983 La Paz 

Agreement. Ms. Tulis serves as the Co-Chair for the JRT, along with the Mexican Attorney General, who 

represents the Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (PROFEPA). The corollary in the United 

States is the National Response Team, which is chaired by EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard. 

Approximately 15 agencies meet monthly (and more frequently when responding to an emergency) to 

coordinate their work, looking forward to the future while incorporating important lessons learned from 

past experiences. 

The Emergency Preparedness and Response Border-Wide Workgroup is one of three border-wide 

workgroups. The other workgroups cover environmental health and cooperative enforcement and 

compliance. In addition, there are regional Border 2012 workgroups. There also is a Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Policy Forum under Border 2012. The border area covered is 2,000 miles long and 63 miles wide, 

and there are now 15 sister city pairs. Most of the work occurs at the sister city level, with support from 

the regional level. 

The Emergency Preparedness and Response Border-Wide Workgroup currently is updating the 1999 Joint 

Contingency Plan (JCP), which is the day-to-day operating guide for emergency response. A major 

challenge has been incorporating an all-hazards approach. The United States can take this type of 

approach because it has the cooperation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and because 

EPA has broadened its mission to cover chemical, biological, and radiological hazards. Unfortunately, 

PROFEPA does not have the authority to involve Mexican agencies, so the JCP still has a chemical focus. 

Most responses occur at the local level, so an effort has been made to ensure that the sister city plans take 

an all-hazards approach. 

The Workgroup has established a new border partnership with the U.S. Northern Command of the 

Department of Defense (DoD), which has helped to strengthen the regional level work. EPA Region 9 

was integral in establishing this relationship. Mexican representatives will visit in June for additional 

training at the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) location. 

A continuing challenge has been ensuring that first responders have insurance coverage when they cross 

the border. The Workgroup is addressing this issue and has contacted a number of Mexican subsidiaries 

of U.S. companies about obtaining supplemental insurance for first responders. Another issue is insurance 

coverage for vehicles that cross the border.

First responders and their equipment need to be able to cross the border quickly and return with ease, so 

the Workgroup has been working closely with U.S. Customs and Border Protection to facilitate this 
6 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

access. Information on first responders and their equipment has been sent to Customs. Ultimately, there 

will be a pre-approved list of first responders that should expedite border crossings. A recent change 

requires that anyone traveling from the United States to Mexico or Canada have an official passport. The 

Workgroup is working to obtain passports for all of the first responders and will provide this information 

to Customs. 

The Workgroup successfully negotiated for the inclusion of Protección Civil (PC) as the second co-chair 

for the Border-Wide Workgroup. This is very important because PC oversees the emergency reporting 

center in Mexico. Realizing the limitations that exist, the Workgroup is working closely with PROFEPA 

and PC in hopes of making progress toward taking an all-hazards approach. 

The Workgroup is supportive of most of the recommendations in the Report. As discussed earlier, the 

JCP has not been expanded to encompass an all-hazards approach, so, unfortunately, it may not be able to 

address all of the natural disaster recommendations. Again, at the local level, the Workgroup is 

encouraging the sister city plans to adapt more of an all-hazards approach.

Finally, the Workgroup would like to collaborate with the GNEB on the update of the 1980 Natural 

Disaster Manual to pursue the all-hazards approach. Ms. Tulis suggested including PC and other agencies 

on both the U.S. and Mexico sides in the manual update.

Ms. Koerner thanked Ms. Tulis for her presentation, which provided valuable information and thoughtprovoking feedback. She introduced Mr. Alejandro Posadas from SEMARNAT; he will comment on the 

GNEB Report from Mexico’s perspective.

Mr. Posadas said that he appreciated the invitation to comment on the GNEB’s Eleventh Report and that 

he was representing the Environment and Natural Resources Secretariat of Mexico. He is an 

environmental official and a diplomat, so his comments will take a broader perspective. The Report, as 

previous Reports, is a serious, timely, and important analysis and roadmap of the actions taken and the 

pending agenda to address prevention, preparation, and mitigation efforts to respond to natural disasters 

and protect the environment along the U.S.-Mexico border. The Mexican government recognizes the 

quality and rigor of the Report and commends the inclusive, open, and deliberative process involved in its 

making and in all the activities of the GNEB. The Board’s contributions to U.S.-Mexico environmental 

cooperation reflect the progress made to date in this area. The Report highlights the border actions that 

can be achieved with continued collaboration.

Mr. Posadas identified three salient themes in the Report: (1) the strengthened culture of the U.S.-Mexico 

border region in environmental cooperation, and especially in the prevention of and response to natural 

disasters; (2) the need for federal governments to continue supporting and strengthening cooperation 

through infrastructure financing and expanding, deepening, and launching the necessary institutional 

cooperation frameworks given the present context and challenges; and (3) the importance of building and 

protecting trust and communication, as these are pillars of effective environmental cooperation along the 

border.

As highlighted by the Report, natural disasters do not respect geopolitical definitions and have serious 

impacts along the border. In response to natural disasters, local communities, indigenous tribes, local 

governments, and national governments have shown that they can work together. Enhancing the culture of 

cooperation at the local and regional levels will be a key factor in strengthening preparedness and 

responsiveness to natural disasters. The Mexican government is strongly committed to taking an integral, 

holistic approach to border cooperation and management efforts, especially in the current context of 

enhanced security concerns. For example, the Report’s recommendations to work on a watershed basis 

and incorporate zoning and construction best practices are a call to take cooperation efforts one step 

forward and embrace an integral, prospective vision for border relations. The Mexican government also 

notes the call for not lagging behind on infrastructure financing. Much progress has been made through 
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 7

national environmental institutions and federal, state, and local cooperation in the past 20 years. It is 

important to remember and to remind decision-makers in our national governments that the work is not 

completed and that the nature of the challenge of the border regions calls for continued support. The 

recommendation in the Report for the Mexican national government to review, deepen, and strengthen its 

institutional frameworks also is salient. As noted in the Report, hazardous emergency arrangements and 

cooperation protocols along the border are in development. Mexico is committed to continuing to work 

with the United States and Canada to expand and enhance its institutional frameworks and adapt or 

propose arrangements that can strengthen prevention and responsiveness and provide additional support 

to the vibrant network of relations and cooperation underway regionally and locally along the U.S.-

Mexico border. One example of cross-border cooperation is the recent initiative between the Mexican

Secretariat of Environment and the State of California to cooperate on environmental matters. Mexico 

recognizes and appreciates the level of cooperation it maintains at the federal level with its U.S. 

counterparts, including EPA, USDA, the Department of the Interior, and many others. The Border 2012 

Program is an example of the possibilities for coordination, cooperation, and information and experience 

sharing between federal, state, and local governments and societies and of the United States and Mexico’s

commitment to protect the environment along the shared border region. This and other initiatives should 

continue to be the building blocks of a model for a prosperous, sustainable, and proud U.S.-Mexico 

border. Mr. Posadas said that he looks forward to the discussion and exchange of comments. 

Discussion 

Judge Agan shared an example of cross-border relations in his area. Recently, a grass fire started on the 

U.S. side of the border, and the U.S. Forest Service could not respond to it because they were fighting 

another fire. Without any request being made, the Mexican Fire Department appeared and brought the fire 

under control.

Mr. Guerrero asked Dr. Clesceri to identify the watersheds in Mexico where program management is 

being provided by USAID. Are they along the border? Dr. Clesceri responded that there were four 

watersheds, but she did not know the specific sites and offered to provide a list at a later time. Mr. 

Guerrero stated that he hoped that the lessons learned in these watershed projects would be shared with 

others. 

Mr. Guerrero asked how USAID handles insurance issues. Dr. Clesceri responded that USAID disaster 

responders are covered by their own insurance. Ms. Tulis clarified that most of the federal responders 

have insurance coverage; it is the local first responders that need coverage. 

Mr. Guerrero commented that he thought it was important for USDA and the Department of the Interior 

to be involved in the update of the 1980 Natural Disaster Manual. Ms. Koerner suggested contacting Ms. 

Rachel Poynter of the Department of State for an update on that project. 

Mr. Guerrero asked Ms. Tulis who pays for emergency responders’ passports. Ms. Tulis replied that it is 

most often the local person obtaining the passport who pays the fee. 

Mr. Michael Dorsey asked Dr. Clesceri for details on what USAID provides in its hospitals program. He 

noted that she had mentioned building hospitals to local building codes. In some areas, codes may not be 

adequate or may not even exist. How does USAID handle this? Dr. Clesceri said that the American 

Schools and Hospitals Abroad Program provides between $20 and $30 million in funding each year, 

mostly for the construction of additional annexes, buildings, or dormitories for hospitals, but the funds are 

sometimes used to purchase medical equipment as well. USAID also funds infrastructure projects, such as 

Internet connectivity. Dr. Clesceri said that she did not have details on the Mexico programs but could 

obtain the details for the GNEB members. Regarding the local building codes, USAID respects the local 

government codes, but if the codes are absent or are glaringly insufficient, U.S. building codes are pushed 

to the extent that they can be. An environmental assessment is conducted before construction begins.
8 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

Mr. Scott commented that EPA has a Hospitals for a Healthy Environment Program that provides 

information on green building and pollution prevention for hospitals. Dr. Clesceri said that she was not 

familiar with the program and would be interested in learning more about it. Mr. Scott asked Dr. Clesceri 

how to obtain copies of USAID’s guide for planning for climate change. Dr. Clesceri explained that the 

guide is basically an adaptation manual, listing the issues to be considered as well as highlighting the 

different resources available within and outside of USAID. Dr. Clesceri said that she would send Ms. 

Koerner a Web link to the report. Mr. Scott asked how to apply for USAID funds for work along the 

border. Dr. Clesceri said that USAID’s Web Site has information on available funding. Another source of 

information is the Federal Business Opportunities (known as FedBizOpps) Web Site, which lists Requests 

for Proposals. OFDA funds nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and United Nations partner 

organizations to support disaster preparedness and response but also accepts unsolicited proposals. Dr. 

Clesceri said that she could put the GNEB members in touch with the Mexico representatives at USAID. 

She will send their contact information to Ms. Koerner, along with more details on USAID’s work with 

watersheds in Mexico.

Mr. Ramírez observed that private sector companies also deal with the issue of emergency vehicles 

crossing the border. He asked if there was any possibility of creating a special form of identification for 

emergency responders that would facilitate border crossing; passports are expensive. Another issue that 

has come up in disaster response is the recognition of the certifications of medical professionals (e.g., 

paramedics) on the other side of the border. Ms. Tulis said that the cost of the passports would have to be 

absorbed by the locals; she did not think that EPA’s funding rules would allow them to cover the cost. 

EPA is working to expedite border crossing for the emergency responders in its purview; the medical 

community is outside of EPA’s jurisdiction. Mr. Ramírez suggested contacting the Department of State 

about either reducing the cost of first responders’ passports or even offering a waiver. Ms. Tulis said that 

the Workgroup had previously discussed the possibility of cost waivers with the Department of State. Dr. 

Brown suggested directing this question to Ms. Poynter or Mr. Dan Darrach at the Department of State. 

Dr. Brown said that he was heartened to hear Mr. Posadas’ comments about watershed planning as a focal 

point of binational cooperation. In 2005, at the Río Grande Río Bravo Basin Summit, a suggestion was 

made to advance binational watershed councils or binational science advisory groups. Unfortunately, 

there has not been much progress on this issue. He asked Mr. Posadas for some insight on how to advance 

that discussion. Dr. Brown said that he was considering arranging a meeting with the border 

commissioners to discuss the issue. Mr. Posadas said that the commissioner had been discussing the issue 

lately, but the process takes time. He added that the Mexican Embassy is supportive of the idea; he thinks 

that the Ambassador would be responsive to such efforts. In addition, he suggested working with the 

Mexican Environment Ministry, which is working on new or emerging initiatives that could support the 

process. He said that he would be happy to work on the issue through the Mexican Embassy. Ms. Koerner 

added that GNEB’s Fourth Report called for a binational watershed approach.

Ms. Rosario Marin (California State Consumer Services Agency) asked if it would be appropriate for the 

GNEB to draft some recommendations on obtaining passports for first responders. Ms. Tulis stated that 

the Office of Emergency Management is working with the Department of State to establish a trusted 

traveler program, to either expedite crossing for first responders or grant them a waiver. These actions, 

however, are limited to the emergency responders within their purview. It does not apply to local 

responders or to those in the medical community. She requested the GNEB’s assistance in addressing the 

issue for these groups. Mr. Wood said that the group could explore writing a letter or including the issue 

in a subsequent report in the business meeting the following day. Ms. Tulis offered to share information 

on the contacts she has been working with at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Ms. Koerner added 

that the group may want to discuss the issue with its Department of State members, Ms. Poynter, and Mr. 

Darrach. She added that the GNEB has a DHS representative.

Mr. Niemeyer said that he was disappointed to learn that they were not able to incorporate an all-hazards 

approach in the revision of the JCP. He asked Mr. Posadas if he would be willing to discuss this issue 
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 9

with the Secretariat. Ms. Tulis stated that the issue has been raised up a number of chains of command. 

Mr. Posadas responded that the Secretariat is aware of the issue. It is not a lack of willingness or 

commitment but a question of jurisdiction. Legally, the Mexican Environment Ministry cannot go beyond 

its jurisdiction. Judge Agan added that it takes time to establish these agreements.

Mr. Guerrero suggested adding a USAID representative to the GNEB. Ms. Koerner stated that the group 

could discuss this the following day.

Public Comment

Elaine Koerner, DFO, EPA

Ms. Alejandra Goyenechea introduced herself and stated that she was with the International Counsel for 

Defenders of Wildlife. She asked if any action had been taken on a recommendation in the Tenth Report 

to convene a meeting to discuss developing a border fence that would accommodate wildlife crossing. 

Ms. Koerner explained that GNEB’s role is to make recommendations; it is up to other groups to act on 

them. Ms. Goyenechea asked if the construction of a levee wall had been considered. Mr. Wood 

explained that the levee wall, as distinguished from a fence, is an integrated solid wall that would be 18-

feet tall and would be integrated within the levee system along the border; this would improve the 

effectiveness of the levees. In many counties, however, the current levees are not 18-feet high, and the 

local areas would have to provide the funding to extend them. Some areas are funding this extension but 

some are not. Mr. Wood said that he thought that the levee issues would be handled on a case-by-case 

basis. Mr. Niemeyer added that there still are some concerns about the wall being built on a levee and 

what that would do to the flow regime during a flood event. Unfortunately, this was not considered in the 

environmental impact statement (EIS). He added that Mexico hosted a conference on the fence last year 

and published a report on the issue. Dr. Brown added that the REAL ID Act of 2005 gave the Secretary of 

DHS the authority to issue environmental waivers, so revising the EIS would probably not stop DHS from 

moving forward with the fence.

Briefings on the GNEB’s Twelfth Report Theme: Innovation, Including Incentives, To 

Prevent/Reduce Pollution at the U.S.-Mexico Border

Elaine Koerner, DFO, EPA

Ms. Koerner said that the next step for the GNEB is to begin discussion of its next Report. The theme for 

the Report is innovation to prevent and reduce pollution in the border region. In the year ahead, GNEB 

members will be organized into workgroups to more closely examine innovation as applied to 

environmental problems at the border. To help the GNEB further frame the parameters for the Report, the 

four speakers have been invited to discuss how innovation is manifested in their organizations. 

Discussions will range from very broad topics, such as the role of the private sector in environmental 

innovation, to very specific topics, such as the use of scrap tires.

Opportunities and Barriers for Environmental Innovation Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

Chuck Kent, Director, Cross-Media Programs, Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (OPEI), EPA

Mr. Chuck Kent introduced himself as the Director of Cross-Media Programs for EPA’s OPEI, which 

focuses on innovation within EPA. The environmental problem set and social expectations continue to 

change rapidly, but, unfortunately, environmental laws and budgets do not. Any agency, but especially 

EPA, has to continually rethink its mission and determine how to accomplish it with limited resources. In 

EPA’s case, there has been no substantial change in the law during the past 15 years, yet environmental 

problems continue to create new challenges. New problems tend to be more complex; nonpoint source 

pollution is a perfect example. Problems today are more diffuse and are more difficult to manage from a 

regulatory standpoint. Solutions must focus on partnering, collaboration, and capacity-building, not on 

rule-making and enforcement. OPEI focuses on complex problems, on adaptive change and collaboration, 

and on trying to build a better sense of what it means to be an environmental steward.
10 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

An improved environmental protection system: (1) focuses on environmental performance and results; (2) 

promotes environmental responsibility and natural resource stewardship, not just pollution control; (3) 

integrates environmental management more fully across facilities, problems, and media; (4) uses market 

incentives to achieve environmental goals; and (5) emphasizes partnerships and stakeholder collaboration. 

The principles guiding OPEI’s activities include maintaining vital elements of the current system

including standards, permits, inspections, and compliance assurance; pursuing creative new tools and 

approaches that enhance system efficiency and effectiveness; involving regulatory partners and interested 

stakeholders in design to secure buy-in; and testing and evaluating results before adoption on a larger 

scale. 

OPEI seeks to institute a performance-based regulatory system in which companies are notified of the 

results sought by EPA. For example, a company is notified that emissions from its factory are to be no 

greater than a certain level. Ideally, the company will determine how to achieve this level of emissions at 

the lowest cost. EPA then measures the company’s performance to ensure that its goals are being met. 

Secondly, EPA seeks to promote a sense of environmental stewardship throughout society. This is a very 

different approach for EPA. The current EPA culture treats every entity the same, not taking into account 

the bigger picture. This new approach takes into consideration the totality of a company’s efforts to 

become more environmentally friendly. 

Flexible air permits are an example of a performance-oriented regulatory system. With flexible air 

permits, a company is allowed to release a certain amount of air pollutants; the company then determines 

how to accomplish this. This approach is especially useful for time-to-market firms, such as chip 

manufacturers, where the speed of change is absolutely vital to success. This, however, is a different 

approach than the one taken under the current Clean Air Act (CAA); environmental groups are not 

supportive of this approach, which has, however, been tested and evaluated.

The Environmental Results Program (ERP) is highly relevant to the U.S.-Mexico border region; the 

program was created to improve the environmental stewardship of businesses that typically operate under 

the radar in terms of state and environmental regulations, such as dry cleaners, photo finishers, and auto

body shops. ERP works with trade associations to identify these companies and provides them with 

checklists, best practices, and tools to help them understand their environmental responsibilities and 

implement them in a cost-effective way. The companies are asked to report annually to the state 

regulatory authority on their progress. This approach has been very successful. In most cases, companies 

just do not know how to improve their practices to reduce their environmental impact. Currently, 

approximately 12 states have ERPs.

OPEI promotes strong environmental stewardship through a number of methods, including the promotion 

of the use of environmental management systems (EMS). If a business implements an EMS, it is more 

likely to identify environmental problems and work to address them. In the case of manufacturing, there is 

a whole set of tools, toolkits, and ideas that EPA borrowed from Japanese business practices on how to 

continually examine the manufacturing process, the distribution process, and every aspect of business to 

reduce waste. This lowers costs for businesses and improves the environment at the same time.

The Office of Cross-Media Programs and the National Center for Environmental Innovation (NCEI), are 

leading EPA’s change efforts, focusing more on innovative ideas than on individual programs. NCEI 

conducts pilot studies, evaluates the effectiveness of different approaches, and, if an approach is found to 

be successful, works to scale up the program. The Office of Cross-Media Programs is responsible for the 

Performance Track Program, the Sector Strategies Program, and the Smart Growth Program. The 

Performance Track Program works with companies that want to protect the environment, offering 

incentives for going beyond compliance. Currently, more than 500 facilities participate in this program. 

The Sector Strategies Program involves working with different manufacturing sectors to improve 
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 11

environmental performance. This involves promoting EMS use, removing regulatory barriers, and 

measuring results. The Smart Growth Program works to reduce the environmental impact of the built 

environment. This program provides data, models, and analytical tools to help states and communities 

understand the environmental impacts of different development options.

Ms. Koerner asked the presenters to send her any materials that they would like to have distributed to the 

GNEB.

Opportunities and Barriers for Air Quality-Energy Innovation Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

Sue Stendebach, Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), EPA

Ms. Sue Stendebach said that she would give a few examples of the many projects along the border 

related to air, transportation, and the power sector. OAR examines air and energy together to determine 

how air pollution and energy efficiency affect one another. GHGs are coupled with criteria pollutants 

because, in most cases, they are inextricably linked. Under Border 2012’s guidance, OAR is refining its 

goals and objectives and recently added a GHG objective under its air goal. OAR also is working toward 

a more integrated air strategy to meet its goals and objectives. Another important aspect of its work is 

building and strengthening partnerships.

Coordination and collaboration are not new concepts, but there still are many opportunities for 

coordination and collaboration that have not been pursued. OAR is focusing on these areas and, as a 

result, is finding much greater efficiencies. Within EPA and even within OAR, oftentimes there is little or 

no knowledge of related projects along the border. Many groups work along the border; OAR is 

attempting to promote better communication to avoid duplication of effort. For example, next week 

representatives from OAR are meeting with officials from SEMARNAT and the Instituto Nacional de 

Ecología (INE) to discuss planned and current projects. Additionally, OAR is convening a group of 

transportation and air quality NGOs, SEMARNAT, INE, and the Mexico City Government to discuss 

ongoing and planned projects, including the Mexican national emissions inventory update. The hope is 

that these meetings will offer opportunities for collaboration and complementary projects, and at the very 

least, be an opportunity to learn about other projects in progress. Another important aspect of this 

coordination and collaboration, especially form EPA’s standpoint, is the possibility for leveraging funds. 

EPA also hopes to be able to offer its technical expertise to other groups.

Ms. Stendebach gave the group an update on select OAR projects. SmartWay is an innovative program to

increase energy efficiency while significantly reducing greenhouse gases and air pollution in the freight 

industry. In Mexico, a suggestion was made to combine SmartWay’s energy efficiency with diesel 

retrofits. Training on efficiency and particulate matter (PM) is ongoing. After 6 months of sponsoring this 

training, SEMARNAT decided to implement its own program called Transporte Limpio. EPA is working 

to develop this new program with SEMARNAT. The plan is to provide a small amount of funding to the 

first trucks that sign up for the program. 

Border crossing is an ongoing challenge because of the constraint of space and money. Nevertheless, 

SmartWay is examining the feasibility of installing truck stop electrification on the Mexican side at the 

Otay Mesa Border Crossing. This involves working with the governments on both sides of the border and 

also with Customs, DHS, and many other agencies and organizations that do not always communicate 

with one another. Ms. Stendebach said that she recently had a discussion with a colleague about possibly 

using solar energy to power the truck stop electrification.

OAR has been working with SEMARNAT, Mexico’s Federal Electricity Commission, and the United 

States-Mexico Foundation for Science to develop tools that will help facilities measure their emissions. 

Both GHGs and criteria pollutants are measured with these tools. The data gathered will be entered into 

databases for use by Mexico and the United States. This project may set the stage for cross-border 

emissions trading.
12 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

The Methane to Markets Partnership is a collaboration between EPA, USAID, and SEMARNAT to 

recover methane from oil and gas facilities, landfills, coal mines, and agriculture and use it to generate 

energy. A feasibility study on landfill capture in Ensenada, Mexico, is underway. Another project is 

examining the use of anaerobic digesters on hog farms. EPA and Petróleos Mexicanos are working 

closely to find other areas where methane can be captured and utilized.

Ms. Stendebach said that Mr. Luis Troche of EPA’s Combined Heat and Power Partnership had recently 

approached her to discuss the possibility of installing solar panels on the rooftops of very large facilities, 

such as shopping malls. This would allow the buildings to be powered by solar energy and to sell any 

additional power generated to the grid or to truck stop electrification. There are many benefits of such an 

approach. Businesses would gain in the long term by using solar energy power and through the sale of 

any excess power. The challenges include legal issues, funding for the initial installation, and convincing 

building owners that the investment will pay off in the future. 

Discussion

Ms. Patti Krebs (Industrial Environmental Association) asked Ms. Stendebach if there was any crossborder offset trading. Ms. Stendebach replied that currently there are no cross-border cap-and-trade or 

offset systems. Under the CAA, EPA does not have the authority to enter into such agreements. In 

addition, Mexico must have its own trading system in place before cross-border trading can occur. Ms. 

Krebs mentioned that indirect emissions are a major problem. At what point is a manufacturer responsible 

for these types of emissions? Ms. Stendebach said that she did not think that indirect emissions would be 

regulated in the near future. The current approach is performance-based as compared to requiring a 

certain level of emissions. 

Ms. Krebs asked Mr. Kent if companies that self-reported violations were removed from the Performance 

Track Program. Mr. Kent replied that businesses are encouraged to report their violations. In the case of 

the Performance Track Program, the most responsible companies tend to report issues and work to correct 

them. The program has worked to make provisions to ensure that businesses are free to define problems, 

fix them, and report them without the threat of being penalized.

Mr. Connolly said that he was pleased to see that industry-based demand quantification for pollution was 

included. He is a member of the Kumeyaay Tribe in San Diego County. The tribe’s past experience with 

Smart Growth programs has been that developers compensate for the loss of wildlife habitat by 

condemning inland lands, which are primarily tribal lands. Thus, his tribe’s land often is next to many of 

these protected areas; this limits the tribe’s economic development. He would like to see more of a focus 

on the effects of such requirements. Market trading programs seem to reward polluters for reducing their 

emissions. In a tribal community without any industry, there is no opportunity to create those reductions 

to offset pollution. Instead, tribes have to pay for their industrial development. This is removing wealth 

from the Native American community and rewarding the outside community. Mr. Connolly worked on 

the Grand Canyon Market Trading Program in which the concept of allocating tribal communities credits 

upfront was discussed but never implemented. California has an incentive program that pays $2.50 per 

watt of rooftop solar energy generated. Under California law, utilities are not allowed to charge the 

homeowner for the added cost of the net metering that goes along with these rooftop programs. The result 

is that individuals who have the money to buy into the system or who own single family homes are the 

ones who benefit from the program. Poorer people either do not have the money for the initial buy-in or 

live in apartment buildings. Ultimately, the costs of the rooftop solar program are spread out by the utility 

company to all the rate payers, so the poorer people are subsidizing the wealthier people. He asked that 

these effects be considered when planning these programs. Ms. Stendebach agreed that all of the issues he 

raised need to be taken into account.
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 13

Mr. Michael Dorsey (County of San Diego Department of Environmental Health) explained that the 

California Environmental Protection Agency explored using a self-reporting approach, but it never came 

to fruition. California is not part of the ERP, but agencies in California are working on the same types of 

issues. As Chief of the Hazardous Materials Division for San Diego County, he had developed three 

programs. One was a green business program for the automotive industry, another was a self-certification 

photographic waste program, and the other was a compliance incentive program working with the biotech 

industry. He found that working with the trade associations was critical. He added that a privately-owned 

landfill in Otay Mesa is using methane to generate electricity.

Mr. Guerrero said that there might be funding available for the work on hog farms through the 

Conservation Innovation Grants from the USDA. In addition, there may be some opportunities through 

USAID for working together on innovative projects along the border. Ms. Stendebach said that this is 

exactly the type of discussion and collaboration that is needed.

Ms. Keith said that Mr. Connolly and Ms. Krebs were referring to the lifecycle cost of the product; there 

can be unexpected outcomes that, when combined, make an action less environmentally friendly. The 

International Organization for Standardization (ISO) series is one method of reducing the environmental 

impact of production. Many of the larger companies today are trying to be more environmentally friendly 

and are requiring that their suppliers be ISO 14000 certified, which means that their products are 

produced in an environmentally friendly manner. This is one nonregulatory method of encouraging 

environmentally friendly production. There also is EPA’s Small Community Environmental Protection 

Plan, which is an environmental management system for communities. If a community has a plan and it 

self-reports a violation, the penalty often is minimized. Developing these plans can prevent problems 

from occurring in the first place. Mr. Kent said that EPA strongly endorses systematic approaches such as 

ISO certification. Research, however, has shown that although ISO certification and EMSs are useful, it 

still is important to closely examine a company’s environmental practices. 

Ms. Siwik explained that she is from the Southwest New Mexico/Northwestern Chihuahua region of the 

border where the Columbus/Palomas Port of Entry currently is being expanded from two to 16 lanes. 

Rural ports of entry such as Columbus/Palomas may present an opportunity for implementing truck stop 

electrification systems. Ms. Stendebach thanked her for the information. Ms. Stendebach said that she was 

not aware of the expansion, and it sounds as though it may be a good opportunity to implement truck stop 

electrification systems.

Ms. Marin said that California is leading by example by implementing green building standards in state 

buildings. Without any government intervention, a number of organizations (including Bank of America 

and Wal-Mart) are now looking to become greener. It is important to highlight that large corporations are 

doing the right thing. Mr. Kent said that California has been a leader in setting policy to reduce energy 

consumption. He agreed that government can lead by example. The federal government is becoming more 

active in terms of green building. Social expectations are also changing rapidly. Ms. Stone mentioned that 

Governor Richardson issued an executive order mandating green building for the New Mexico state 

government. New Mexico also is developing a rule for truck stop electrification within the state.

Private Sector Leadership in Innovation for Environmental Protection at the Border

Al Zapanta, President and Chief Executive Officer (CEO), United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce

Ms. Koerner introduced Mr. Al Zapanta, President and CEO of the United States-Mexico Chamber of 

Commerce. 

Mr. Zapanta explained that the Chamber works with companies in the United States and Mexico to 

improve the manufacturing process and help ensure a clean environment. 

Mr. Zapanta discussed some of the Chamber’s innovative activities along the border. Three years ago, the 

United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce completed the development of a database that includes all 
14 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

of Mexico’s environmental laws. This database was created to help alleviate a nontariff barrier for smalland medium-size businesses hoping to conduct business across the border. The laws currently are being 

translated to English; all translations will be certified by the Mexican government. This is the only 

reliable searchable database of Mexican laws outside of Mexico. For example, if a company wanted to 

build a textile plant in Durango, they would simply select Durango’s state and the system would return all 

of the laws and pertinent federal, state, and city regulations for that area. This project was a partnership 

between the Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration Environmental Technology 

Office, the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, and SEMARNAT (called SEMARNAP 

[Secretaría de Medio Ambiente, Recursos Naturales, y Pessac] when this project began). SEMARNAP 

contributed two environmental lawyers and two IT systems integrators. The United States-Mexico 

Chamber of Commerce contributed infrastructure and staff. The total effort during a 4-year period was 

approximately $4.5 million. The project continues as a joint effort of the United States and Mexican 

governments. 

The United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce has worked to help industry in Mexico become more 

environmentally friendly. The Chamber received a grant from the Inter-American Development Bank 

(IDB) for a period of 4 years (the project is currently in its third year) to establish a clean, lean production 

center in León, Guanajuato. In 1999, then-Governor of Guanajuato, Vicente Fox, invited the Chamber to 

the area to help reduce the amount of effluents and wastewater being produced by the leather industry. As 

a result of that project, the Chamber received the grant from IDB, which, in turn, had to be matched by 

the Chamber, SEMARNAT, and the state environmental agency. Fifty percent of the funding came from 

IDB, 30 percent from the Chamber of Commerce, and 10 percent each from the state and local 

municipalities. With these funds, environmental consultants were hired to review industrial processes and 

management in five sectors: (1) leather, (2) auto parts, (3) petrochemicals, (4) plastics, and (5) healthrelated areas. The project will occur in five Mexican states: Jalisco, Guanajuato, Quintero, 

Aguascalientes, and San Luis Potosí. Participating companies are required to provide 30 percent of the 

cost for the environmental consultants. The goal is to help these companies become greener and more 

efficient. 

The United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, along with Pro Mexico Economic, Nacional 

Financiera, and the largest Mexican Chamber of Commerce, is working to promote 2,000 medium-sized 

Mexican businesses. A meeting focused on auto parts businesses is planned for April 9, 2008, in León, 

Guanajuato. Medium-sized companies will be matched with large companies in Mexico. A second 

meeting focused on aerospace and auto parts businesses is planned for May 2008. The goal is to help 

Mexican companies become suppliers, with the larger companies helping the smaller ones, with an 

ultimate goal of bringing business back to Mexico. 

Discussion

Ms. Koerner said that she applauded the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce and Mr. Zapanta 

for including environmental protection in the Chamber’s mission.

Mr. Connolly asked where the offices of the United States-Mexico Chamber of Commerce were located. 

Mr. Zapanta replied that the Chamber has 10 U.S. offices and 10 Mexico offices. The U.S. offices are 

located in Seattle, Los Angeles, Las Vegas, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Detroit, Miami, New York, and 

Washington, DC. The Chamber hopes to open an agriculture-focused office in Phoenix soon. The 

Mexican offices are in Mexico City, Monterrey, Guadalajara, Aguascalientes, Veracruz, Puebla, Media, 

and Cancún, among others. In the past, there were more U.S. offices than Mexican offices, but this is 

changing as the Chamber opens more and more offices in Mexico. Mr. Dorsey asked why there were no 

offices in the border region. Mr. Zapanta replied that the major issue along the border for the Chamber is 

the maquiladoras and U.S.-owned companies; these entities are represented on the Chamber’s board. He 

explained that the work the Chamber does is more over the border than on the border. The Chamber has 

established offices in the centers of business, transportation, and economics in the two countries.
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 15

Advances in Water Pumping Efficiency (WatergyTM) in Mexico

Brian T. Castelli, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, Alliance to Save Energy

Mr. Brian Castelli explained that WatergyTM is the link between energy and water, which is critical to 

municipal governments. In many of the countries that the Alliance to Save Energy has worked in, the 

budget for energy and water is between 60 and 80 percent of the entire budget for the municipality. This 

means that there is less money to spend on other important issues, such as health and education. 

The Alliance to Save Energy is an NGO that was created in 1977 by two U.S. Senators, Senator Charles 

Percy and Senator Hubert Humphrey, in response to the oil crisis. The Alliance’s mission is to advance 

energy efficiency worldwide through policy, research, education, technology deployment, market 

transformation, and communication initiatives. The Alliance headquarters is in Washington, DC, but the 

Alliance also has offices in Eastern Europe, South Africa, India, and Mexico. The current Co-Chairs are 

Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas and James Rogers, Chairman and CEO of Duke Energy. Mr. Rogers is a 

leader in energy efficiency in the utility industry and currently he is promoting the Save A Watt energy 

reduction program in the five states covered by Duke Energy. One of the Alliance co-chairs is always 

from one of the Alliance’s member companies. Currently, there are 146 company members, including 

Home Depot and Wal-Mart.

Every liter of water that passes through a system has a significant energy cost. Increasing water sector 

efficiency leaves more funds for crucial and often underfunded public services. In Mexico, about 33 

percent of water is lost in the system, resulting in a great amount of energy being used to pump water that 

is never delivered to the customer.

WatergyTM is extremely cost-effective. Most of the measures taken when working with water utilities and 

energy facilities provide a pay back in just a few months (in rare cases, a few years). Savings usually 

amount to at least 20 percent. WatergyTM uses the existing infrastructure and reduces the need for new 

infrastructure.

The motors used to drive water pumps generally are very inefficient, so pumping can use a lot of energy. 

Addressing pumping issues is one of the most cost-effective interventions. Leak management is another 

effective intervention. Moderating the pressure and using only the pressure needed can be a very effective 

way to reduce energy consumption. Automated controls and sensors can help a water utility manager 

determine the level of demand and adjust the pressure accordingly. Metering and monitoring also are 

critical components of these interventions.

There is a lack of awareness about the connection between water and energy efficiency; most water utility 

managers view their jobs as managing water, not energy. Other barriers include an aversion to risk and a 

fear of change. To address these issues, it is important to convey that the benefits of improving efficiency 

outweigh the risks. For some, change implies that there is a problem with the status quo and suggestions 

for improvement can inadvertently imply criticism of performance and/or ability. Another barrier is that 

water needs to be priced to recover the costs. Past experience, however, has shown that people will pay 

for service improvement. Another challenge is financing these energy efficiency measures. One of the 

best ways to address this is through performance contracting, in which a third party finances the changes 

and the utility pays them back using funds saved as a result of the new efficiency. 

The Alliance’s WatergyTM Program now spans the entire border, including Baja California (Tijuana), 

Sonora (Guaymas), Chihuahua (Hidalgo de Parral), Coahuila (Monclova-Frontera), Nuevo León 

(Monterrey), and Tamaulipas (Matamoros, Tampico). 

The Alliance helped Tijuana meet the needs of a rapidly growing city using the same amount of water. 

Tijuana experienced rapid population growth of more than 20,000 households per year (more than 80,000 
16 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

people). The city’s water came from the Colorado River and had to be transported over the mountains. An 

audit was performed, and the solutions identified included automation, peak demand management, and 

the use of a new water source. These changes resulted in saving 4.1 kilowatt hours of energy and 

$400,000 per year and a reduced rate of water loss of 19 percent (one of the lowest in Mexico); water was 

provided to 46,000 new households with only slightly higher water production. In addition, the need for a 

large investment in an aqueduct was deferred for 6 years. An important lesson that the Alliance has 

learned is that there are always additional methods to improve energy efficiency.

Another city in Mexico, Monclova, had sporadic water service, with residents only receiving water for 6 

hours every third day. In addition, almost one-half (48%) of the water pumped was lost. An audit 

identified a number of leaks. Variable speed drives for the motors were installed to match the electric load 

to the demand for pumping. The Alliance also identified electromechanical efficiency improvements and 

managerial and operational improvements that could be made. These changes resulted in a 20 percent 

reduction in water loss and allowed water service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. More than 10 million 

cubic meters of water, 6.1 million kilowatt hours (about 36% of previous energy use), and $727,000 were 

saved every year. 

The city of Hidalgo de Parral, Mexico, was able to ensure a continuous water supply with a very small 

investment. Originally, this city had water service for 12 hours every second day, and energy costs 

consumed 40 percent of the city’s total operating costs. In fact, a large investment had been planned 

because the water treatment system could not keep up with the demand. An audit determined that one-half 

of all of the water pumped was lost to leaks. Improvements were made in the city’s hydraulic operations 

and leaks were reduced. As a result, water became available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and 3.65 

million kilowatt hours and $417,000 are now saved every year. In addition, the existing water treatment 

plant was able to meet the demand. 

In Zihuatanejo, a small investment in water efficiency yielded big improvements. At the outset, water was 

provided for 10 hours every third day, electricity costs were high, and the utility’s planned solution would 

have cost $14 million. Hydraulic operation improvements were made. As a result, 120 pumping systems 

located in residential buildings and a number of the booster pumps previously used were no longer 

needed. Water became available 24 hours a day, and 100,000 kilowatt hours are saved each year. The 

total cost of these improvements was $370,000.

Mr. Castelli added that USAID initially sponsored much of this work in Mexico. Today, water utilities 

approach the Alliance on their own, which is a real testament to the success of the USAID programs. Mr. 

Castelli noted that U.S. water companies have not yet taken part in the WatergyTM Program; 

unfortunately, they are very resistant to changing their practices.

Discussion

Mr. Dorsey asked Mr. Castelli why he thought U.S. water utilities were resistant to change. Is it because 

instead of being held to performance outcomes, they can just simply raise rates? Mr. Castelli replied that 

he thought that people in the United States did not want to be told how to run their operations. 

Additionally, they have not seen the results of the WatergyTM Program because it has not yet been 

implemented in the United States. He thought it might be useful to start by approaching the smaller 

municipal water systems in the United States.

Dr. Brown mentioned that privatization is a very sensitive issue when it comes to the public provision of 

services like water, especially in Latin America. Does the Alliance’s approach encourage or require 

privatization? Mr. Castelli responded that the Alliance has worked mostly with public sector municipal 

water utilities. Dr. Brown asked if private companies in the United States were reluctant to become more 

efficient because they make a profit based on the amount of product they sell. Mr. Castelli explained that 

electric company revenues are based on the number of kilowatt hours they sell. Energy efficiency, 
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 17

however, is much cheaper than building a power plant. It is not only cheaper, it also is quicker and cleaner 

and does not cause any pollution. This is the message that the Alliance is trying to communicate to 

regulators. Water is becoming an increasingly valuable commodity, particularly throughout the U.S. 

Southwest and in the border region, so it must be used more efficiently. Changes will need to be made. 

One option is to create a rate setting system for water similar to that for energy. 

Ms. Keith, who works for the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, said that in her area, water 

is very scarce, so there is much more emphasis on conservation. She added that the North American 

Development Bank (NADB) finances water projects in the border region. Mr. Castelli said that, 

unfortunately, financing for energy and water efficiency is scarce. Lines of credit or financing from an 

organization such as NADB might spur more projects on water and energy conservation. Ms. Keith said 

that the public utility director in Tombstone, Arizona, found that he could save about $6,000 per day by 

simply managing the pumping of the water. Mr. Castelli said that Tombstone had a very enlightened 

utility manager. 

Mr. Niemeyer said that, in his experience, Mexican water utility managers often plan to run for a political 

office in the future, so they are very focused on pleasing their constituents. He said that he thought the 

WatergyTM Program should be implemented in the United States. In reference to a comment 

Mr. Castelli had made about engineers designing systems larger than they needed to be, he said that the 

National Society of Professional Engineers adopted a sustainable development standard as part of its 

ethical standards. He did not, however, think that many engineers understood the meaning of sustainable 

development. Mr. Niemeyer told the story of a joint U.S.-Mexico project to build a wastewater treatment 

plant on the Mexican side of the border. The plant reduced the amount of effluent-contaminated 

wastewater going into the Río Grande by 90 percent. Someone involved with the project later commented 

that creating a lagoon system instead of building the treatment plant would have saved a considerable 

amount of money. An engineer that Mr. Niemeyer knows, however, calculated the cost to pump the water 

through a lagoon system and found that the energy costs would have been astronomical. Mr. Castelli 

commented that there are many projects in the United States to improve efficiency and reduce the cost of 

wastewater treatment. He was surprised to hear that it would cost more to pump the water through the 

lagoons; in his experience, water in lagoon systems was not pumped. 

Mr. Scott asked how the Alliance selects with whom they work. How does the funding work between the 

Alliance and the utility? Mr. Castelli said that the Alliance works as a consultant to the utility. The 

Alliance reviews the current system, quotes the utility a price and the utility pays the Alliance. The 

Alliance can help utilities locate financing. In Mexico, the water utilities generally approach the Alliance. 

Mr. Guerrero mentioned that, during the recent drought along the Río Grande Basin, NADB had provided 

funding to help Mexican farmers improve their irrigation efficiencies. This is the type of work that the 

USDA does, providing technical and financial assistance to help farmers and ranchers increase the 

efficiency of their irrigation systems. In the Western United States, a question that often comes up is to 

whom does the saved water belong? Mr. Castelli said that the same issues arise in the climate arena. If an 

individual makes his/her home more efficient and a cap-and-trade program is implemented in the United 

States, the question becomes, who owns the carbon credit? The resident or the utility? 

Mr. Connolly asked if there were programs to combine water storage and energy in the area of renewable 

energy. Mr. Castelli said that the Alliance does not work on renewable energy. Improving efficiency is 

the first step. Mr. Wood commented on his hometown of Brownsville, Texas, where the public utility 

board generates power, provides water, and treats wastewater for the city. It would appear that they would 

have many opportunities for improving efficiency. He added that he also serves on a state regional water 

planning board; the majority of the water in the region is used by irrigators, so he would be interested in 

learning more on this topic. Mr. Castelli suggested that he contact the California Energy Commission for 

information on irrigation. The commission has worked successfully with Central Valley irrigators to 

implement water conservation measures, such as turning off the pumps and motors for irrigation during 

times of peak demand.
18 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

Tire Industry Involvement in Programs for Scrap Tire Management Along the U.S.-Mexico Border

Tracey Norberg, Senior Vice President, Rubber Manufacturers Association (RMA)

Ms. Tracey Norberg explained that RMA represents U.S. tire manufacturers. The tire industry embraces 

the idea of shared responsibility for environmental protection. 

The Scrap Tire Program was started in 1990 when RMA created the Scrap Tire Management Council. 

The program is sponsored by all RMA tire manufacturers and works with governments, scrap tire users, 

NGOs, and the general public to accomplish its mission. RMA scrap tire strategic goals include: 

promoting the elimination of all scrap tire piles in an environmentally and economically sound manner, 

promoting the management of all annually generated scrap tires in an environmentally and economically 

sound manner, seeking public awareness of scrap tire management success, and advocating for a 

legislative and regulatory environment that is conducive to and supportive of the RMA scrap tire mission. 

Since the program began in 1990, there has been steady improvement in the number of scrap tires being 

utilized or “going to market.” In 1990, only 11 percent of scrap tires went to market but, by 2005, that 

number was up to 87 percent. Most of these scrap tires are used to produce tire-derived fuel (TDF). Scrap 

tires also are used in construction projects, among other smaller applications. Fourteen percent of tires are 

land-disposed every year. This is different from stockpiles, as these are properly land-filled to minimize 

risks to the environment. RMA does not promote land-filling scrap tires but, if they must be land-filled, it 

is preferred that they are properly disposed to minimize the environmental impact.

Texas has robust markets for scrap tires, particularly in the area of TDF; scrap tires also are used for 

engineering applications in Texas. Arizona has been a leader in rubber-modified asphalt applications. 

California has a number of unique challenges, including the fact that land-filling tires is legal and often 

the cheapest option. 

The area along both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border presents unique and special challenges to 

governments and industry. There are no federal, state, or municipal laws or regulations on scrap tires in 

Mexico. U.S. border states have laws and regulations, but there are few, if any, markets along the border. 

Along the border, dumping (in remote areas) or stockpiling (in densely populated areas) is common. Tire 

flow is mostly from the United States to Mexico, but stockpiles exist on both sides. The approach to 

developing a scrap tire infrastructure along the border needs to take all of these factors into account.

Opportunities along the border, however, do exist. TDFs are used by Cementos Mexicanos (CEMEX) in 

Mexico, and tire-derived aggregate (TDA) is used in civil engineering on both sides of the border. RMA’s 

approach is to encourage U.S. states to focus on scrap tires along the border, to support and use TDA, and 

to host/sponsor workshops. The tire industry is committing or has committed resources to assist in the 

organization of workshops on market development. RMA has sponsored workshops in Texas and New 

Mexico, works with the California Integrated Waste Management Board, and currently is working on a 

cooperative program with EPA. RMA representatives have met with representatives from the Mexican 

National Congress to explain the different aspects of a comprehensive approach to tire management.

In Mexico, there are no federal or state laws or regulations on scrap tires, no fees are paid for 

disposal/transportation, there is limited processing capacity, used tires continue to be imported, and 

private funds are scarce. When used tires are brought to Mexico, they often remain along the border 

region. It is unlikely that the flow of tires into Mexico can be stopped. Many stockpiles exist, but there are 

no accurate data to quantify the magnitude of the problem. No markets exist in Mexico, which increases 

the rate of stockpile growth. 

RMA presented at two forums in Mexico and is working with SEMARNAT through the Mexican 

Embassy to develop a scrap tire management plan for the border. RMA also chairs an ad hoc working 
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 19

group that provides a centralized information base and is a member, along with EPA, SEMARNAT, and 

various states, of the Scrap Tire Task Force.

There are many opportunities for utilizing the scrap tires along the U.S.-Mexico border. Scrap tires have 

been identified as a priority issue, and state, federal, and international organizations are seeking to fund 

programs. There is an abundant supply of tires and a well-developed industrial base along the border. 

TDF is an acceptable use for tires, and potential end users exist along the border. In addition, there is 

considerable interest in rubber-modified asphalt. Civil engineering applications would be an easy fit, and 

the transportation system along the border is well developed.

Although there are many opportunities, many challenges exist as well. Neither EPA nor SEMERNAT has 

a budget for scrap tire programs, and cross-border projects involve working with multiple levels of 

administrative processes from multiple agencies. 

Unless or until Mexico enacts scrap tire legislation, market development will continue to be localized. 

The lack of funding for scrap tire programs will limit stockpile abatement and market development 

programs. Emphasis should be placed on using existing resources (both public and private) to support 

scrap tire programs, including training programs on how to start markets. Agencies across the border will 

need to coordinate their efforts. If this is accomplished, these niche markets could expand into regional 

markets.

A conference entitled “Scrap Tire Processing, Markets, and Finance” is planned for May 5, 2008, in San 

Diego. Topics covered will include obtaining and processing scrap tires, markets for tire-derived 

products, and financing sources. This conference will provide useful information for individuals 

interested in processing scrap tires and manufacturing products from recycled rubber and will be useful 

for government representatives interested in understanding the business aspect of scrap tire management. 

RMA is sponsoring a workshop entitled “From Scrap to Profit: 2nd Annual Symposium on Recycled 

Rubber in Plastics and Rubber Products,” to be held May 6-7, 2008, in San Diego. This workshop will 

focus on expanding the market for higher value-added products from scrap tires. Topics will include: 

making products from rubber-plastic compounds, producing molded and extruded products with recycled 

rubber, national and international trends and opportunities, environmental and human health hot topics, 

marketing tire-derived products, leveraging green building initiatives, and selling to the government. This 

workshop will be useful for business owners, individuals interested in new business opportunities, and 

government representatives. 

There will be a scrap tire session at the Border 2012 Tire Group meeting to be held May 8–9, 2008, in 

San Diego. The session is open to anyone interested in U.S.-Mexico border scrap tire issues.

Ms. Norberg thanked everyone for their attention. She explained that Mr. Mike Blumenthal is in charge of 

the Scrap Tire Program for the RMA and asked the participants to direct their detailed questions to him.

Discussion

Judge Agan observed that, in his area, oftentimes individuals will pay a tire disposal fee, but the used tires 

are not disposed; instead they are piled up in the back of the gas station or service center. Ms. Norberg 

explained that there are two types of disposal fees: (1) a fee that is imposed by the state to support the 

state’s scrap tire management program; and (2) a fee charged by the retailer for tire disposal. 

Unfortunately, the second type of fee often is not actually used for tire disposal. There currently is no 

tracking system for these types of fees. She said that it appeared that the challenge in Judge Agan’s area 

was that there was no market for the scrap tires. 
20 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

Ms. Sorzano asked how scrap tires are handled in Europe. Ms. Norberg responded that Europe does not 

have comparable stockpiles because Europeans do not drive as much as Americans. Europeans also have 

a different perception of the value of tires. Americans tend to see scrap tires as potentially having future 

value, so they retain them. In addition, Europe has banned land-filling tires. Unfortunately, a ban would 

not work in the United States simply because there are some areas of the country where there are no 

markets for scrap tires. She suggested phasing out landfills in areas with markets for scrap tires. 

Dr. Brown asked if it would be feasible to use scrap tires in earth stabilization projects, such as for 

building large-scale retaining walls. Ms. Norberg said that there are a number of issues with this type of 

use. First, having a large number of tires together will generate heat. Second, tires must be stable and 

effective from an engineering perspective. Mr. Mark Joyce, EPA, gave an example in which scrap tires 

were used to create a reef that ultimately had serious adverse environmental consequences that resulted in 

the dismantling of the reef. Ms. Norberg clarified that the issue with the tire reef was that the tires floated 

to the surface of the ocean. It is crucial, however, to be mindful of potential environmental impacts when 

exploring uses for scrap tires.

Ms. Siwik observed that on the Mexican side of the border in her area, individuals burn scrap tires and 

collect the steel belts. This is an issue that the Border 2012 Waste Management Workgroup is working to 

address. Ms. Siwik asked if this happened in other parts of Mexico. Ms. Norberg responded that she did 

not know of this happening in other parts of Mexico. She added that the problem with such a practice 

would be the emissions from the open air burning. She mentioned that scrap tires can be used in landfill 

leachate collection systems. 

According to Mr. Guerrero, companies on the Mexican side of the border near Ft. Worth, Texas, sell used 

tires for use on Mexican vehicles. Ms. Norberg said that using these tires can be very dangerous, but the 

reality is that there is a market for these tires in Mexico. 

Mr. Dorsey said that California has an aggressive waste tire program that will ultimately result in fewer 

tires ending up in landfills in the future. He mentioned a television program that he recently saw about a 

company that used the rubber from scrap tires for manufacturing. Ms. Norberg responded that there is a 

growing market for tire rubber in manufacturing, but melting the rubber is an energy-intensive process 

with a risk of explosion. She noted that the chief issue with land-filling tires in California is that monofills 

are legal. Dr. Austin asked if the steel is recovered when TDFs are produced. Ms. Norberg responded that 

steel is recovered in some cases. 

Ms. Ellie Kanipe from EPA’s Office of Solid Waste said that Border 2012 had cleaned up 3.5 million 

tires along the border. EPA created an inventory of tire piles along the border; there are now more than 20 

projects aimed at preventing future stockpiles and addressing those that already exist. The Border 2012 

group is now reaching out to states and municipalities along the border, asking them to sign a letter of 

commitment. In addition, SEMARNAT developed guidelines for managing tire stockpiles. Mr. Joyce 

added that tire rubber now is being used in asphalt. Its use offers many benefits, including significant 

reductions in road noise and road spray as well as longer lasting asphalt. The challenge has been in 

convincing asphalt manufacturers to use the tire rubber. Dr. Brown agreed that it is difficult to convince 

the asphalt manufacturers to change. He asked if RMA has had any discussions with the American 

Society of Highway Engineers about this issue. Ms. Norberg replied that RMA has been trying to start the 

conversation for the past 18 years, and they were just beginning to make some progress. Mr. Wood said 

that in his hometown of Brownsville there was a project to bale scrap tires. It ultimately was determined 

that there was no market for baled tires, so they were unbaled and put into landfills. 

Mr. Koerner thanked everyone in attendance for contributing to an interesting and informative day of 

discussion. The agenda for the following day is to determine the structure of the Twelfth Report and 

organize workgroups and conference calls. She asked the participants to think about the Twelfth Report 

that evening.
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 21

Mr. Wood thanked the new GNEB members for agreeing to participate. He said that the GNEB members 

are a distinguished group of experts. He noted that Chair Ganster had published a book. Ms. Marin had 

recently published a book about her experience as U.S. Treasurer entitled Leading Between Two Worlds: 

Lessons from the First Mexican-Born Treasurer of the United States. In addition, Ms. Marin recently 

received the Outstanding American by Choice Award, which recognizes the outstanding achievements of 

naturalized U.S. citizens.

Mr. Wood thanked Ms. Koerner for her many years of service to the GNEB and presented her with a 

plaque. The meeting was recessed at 5:30 p.m.

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 2008

Business Meeting

John Wood, Acting Chair, and Elaine Koerner, DFO, EPA

Mr. Wood called the meeting to order at 8:11 a.m. 

Ms. Koerner commented that the day’s work would include coming to a consensus on the framework for 

the Twelfth Report and organizing workgroups and conference calls. 

Approval of Minutes From Last Meeting

Mr. Wood asked the GNEB members whether there were any substantive issues with the meeting 

minutes. Any smaller issues, such as grammatical errors, can be e-mailed to Ms. Koerner. Dr. Brown said 

that he had not had a chance to review the minutes but would do so that afternoon. He asked if those who 

had reviewed the minutes could offer their comments, and the group could approve the minutes as 

amended. Others with revisions could send their comments to Ms. Koerner for incorporation. Mr. Wood 

agreed with this approach. Mr. Niemeyer pointed out that the Rio Grande Canalization Project was 

incorrectly referred to as the Rio Grande Canalization Collaborative Project at least once in the report. He 

also found an instance where an “of” should be a “from.” As currently written, it changes the meaning of 

the sentence. Mr. Wood asked him to note his edits and send them to Ms. Koerner. He added that Ms. 

Sally Spener had sent some edits to Ms. Koerner. Mr. Wood put forth a motion to approve the minutes on 

the basis that changes would be submitted to Ms. Koerner; she will make those edits, and the group will 

review them again. Ms. Sorzano moved and Ms. Stone seconded a motion to approve the minutes with 

changes as provided to Ms. Koerner. The minutes were approved unanimously.

Ms. Koerner asked the GNEB members to complete the form detailing the number of Eleventh Reports 

needed and their planned dissemination efforts and return the forms to Ms. Brown. The Reports can be 

shipped directly to GNEB members, or GNEB members can provide EPA with mailing labels for 

shipping. Mr. Niemeyer asked how many Reports were in a box. It was later confirmed that there were 48 

Reports in each box. Ms. Koerner suggested that the GNEB members review the past year’s tracking 

report to determine the number of Reports needed. Four thousand copies of the Eleventh Report were 

printed. EPA’s Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations (OCIR) will mail copies to 

congressional representatives. Mr. Guerrero said that OCIR will personally deliver a copy of the Report to 

each member of Congress from the four border states. He asked whether GNEB members could distribute 

copies of the Report to local media. Ms. Koerner said that the Reports are public documents and can be 

given to anyone. She suggested that GNEB members who talk to the press specify whether they are 

speaking for their own organization or on the GNEB’s behalf. It may be good to coordinate with the Chair 

to ensure a consistent message from the GNEB.
22 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

Ms. Koerner asked the GNEB members to consider how they could supplement this effort, possibly by 

distributing copies of the report to congressional representatives, members of the public, organizational 

affiliates, or others. Dissemination to colleagues across the border is appreciated. Mr. Wood explained to 

the new GNEB members that he ordered one case of Reports the previous year and found that was not 

enough. From civic clubs and organizations to local government planning groups, everyone seemed to 

want a copy of the Report. He added that some GNEB members have developed talking points and 

presentations on the Report.

Ms. Koerner asked Mr. Gary Gillen (Gillen Pest Control) to discuss briefly some of his outreach efforts 

for previous GNEB Reports. Mr. Gillen said that, in addition to local elected officials, he also has 

provided GNEB’s Reports to social studies teachers at local high schools. He prepared a PowerPoint 

presentation that he has taken to some local civic clubs such as the Rotary Club and the Lions Club; these 

groups seemed to like the presentation. A key to keeping the audience’s attention is including pictures in 

the slides. He suggested that GNEB consider preparing talking points on the new Report that could be 

edited to suit one’s needs. Mr. Wood said that the PowerPoint slides used the day before were available; 

maybe some changes and/or modifications could be made to those slides. 

Mr. Guerrero asked if CD-ROMs of the Report were available. Ms. Koerner said that there were no CDs 

for the Eleventh Report and suggested that the group consider making CDs for future Reports. Mr. 

DeLeon said that he would be willing to devote some resources to exploring putting the Report on a CDROM. Dr. Brown mentioned that he has a 10-disk CD burner in his laboratory and offered his assistance. 

Mr. Guerrero said that he would first check with his student employees to determine what they could do 

and then contact Dr. Brown if he needed assistance.

Ms. Ann Marie Wolf said that, in her experience, congressional representatives often do not review the 

Report unless it is handed directly them or to one of their staffers. She always takes multiple copies to her 

congressman and makes sure that it gets into the staff’s hands. Mr. Wood agreed that personal efforts are 

extremely important. Last year, he gave the GNEB Report to his congressman and was pleasantly 

surprised when the congressman mentioned reading the previous GNEB Report. Dr. Brown added that 

congressional staffers are very fond of the one-page summary. Most congressional representatives, 

especially border state representatives, employ a staff person who focuses on natural resource issues on 

the border. Ideally, the report should go to that person. Mr. Brown offered to help other GNEB members 

find these contacts. Mr. Niemeyer agreed that identifying the right staff member can be very helpful. He 

mentioned that he would be interesting in seeing Mr. Gillen’s PowerPoint presentation on last year’s 

Report.

Mr. DeLeon cautioned the new GNEB members to be careful when visiting members of Congress to 

avoid lobbying. He suggested that the new GNEB members familiarize themselves with the anti-lobbying 

regulations. After this meeting ends, GNEB members are on their own personal time. Any questions 

about this can be directed to him, Mr. Wood, or Ms. Koerner.

Discussion of Twelfth Report

Elaine Koerner, DFO, EPA

Ms. Koerner stated that GNEB has held two teleconferences and a face-to-face meeting to discuss the 

Twelfth Report. Chair Ganster identified some of the themes that emerged from those discussions and 

invited speakers on those topics (role of the private sector, energy, example of scrap tires). 

Ms. Koerner said that she would work with the group to determine the framework for the Report and 

establish workgroups and conference calls. She presented some initial ideas and encouraged the 

participants to add additional ideas or to comment on the ideas presented.
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 23

There are five criteria for the Report. First, the Report must reflect the mission of the GNEB, which is to 

advise the President and Congress on environmental and infrastructure issues along the U.S.-Mexico 

border. For example, the Report could include recommendations on how the federal government can 

enable and encourage the private sector to reduce pollution. Second, GNEB should identify and use both 

its in-house expertise and outside expertise to inform the development of the Report. Third, the group 

needs to consider previous or existing coverage of a proposed topic. For example, Ms. Koerner said that 

she had asked Ms. Kanipe if she thought, with the Border 2012’s 20 programs on scrap tires, the issue 

was covered. Ms. Kanipe said that despite these 20 programs, she still thought that the GNEB could add 

value to the discussion on scrap tires. Fourth, the GNEB needs to ensure that the issue chosen is specific 

enough that it can be contained in one Report. In the past, GNEB has identified specifically what it will 

and will not focus on, making sure to note that a lack of discussion on a particular issue does not imply 

that it is not important. Ms. Koerner asked the GNEB to consider these criteria as a backdrop for the 

discussion of the Twelfth Report.

Judge Agan said that Border 2012 has identified three areas of focus in his geographic area, one of which 

is illegal dumping. In Presidio County there are approximately 140 illegal dump sites; when it rains, the 

runoff goes into the Río Grande. Scrap tires are one of the main components in these illegal dump sites. 

This is a border-wide issue. He suggested possibly working to restructure the tire disposal fee to ensure 

that the funds are actually used for tire disposal. Ms. Koerner asked if he was suggesting scrap tires or 

illegal dumping as an issue for the Twelfth Report. Judge Agan said that he was putting either idea on the 

table. 

Ms. Koerner discussed the initial ideas, asking the GNEB members to keep in mind that the Report 

audience ranges from those very familiar with border issues to those who know very little about the 

border. The initial ideas included: 

 Maquiladoras, which are integral to the economies of both countries and unique to the border region. 

Some other topics that could be incorporated under this theme include energy production and 

consumption, material substitution, and WatergyTM.

 Scrap tires or illegal dumping. The discussion could include context, TDFs, and material substitution.

 Producer or consumer innovation from the binational perspective.

 Energy. The discussion could include an examination of the current system of energy production in 

terms of achieving greater efficiency and alternative energy as another way to approach this challenge 

along the border. One challenge with this topic in the past has been that DoD is not represented on the 

GNEB.

 Trade and the environment.

Dr. Austin stated that it seemed that the group was attempting to create a document that policy-makers 

and other decision-makers could reference when tackling specific problems along the border. She 

suggested moving beyond case studies and identifying specific policy actions in the next Report. She 

stressed the importance of keeping adoption in mind. A great new innovation will not be a success if it is 

not adopted. There are many potential barriers to adoption. For example, there may not be a market for a 

product, there may be regulatory barriers, or there may be a powerful group opposed to change. 

Dr. Brown mentioned Dr. Alan Sweedler, a scientist at San Diego State University who studies border 

energy issues. His work may be useful if the group decides to focus the next Report on energy. Dr. 

Sweedler has studied the sources used to generate energy in the Unite States and has suggested that the 

nation try to increase its use of what he refers to as “indigenous electrical generation alternatives.” 

Increasing alternative energy generation, particularly for electricity, would reduce the Unite States’ 
24 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

dependence on the combustion of imported oil and on coal combustion, which would reduce GHG, PM2.5, 

PM10, and sulfur oxide emissions. This also would improve the security of the country because it would 

reduce the United States’ dependence on foreign oil. The U.S -Mexico border region has a tremendous 

amount of sunshine, wind, and open space, making it an ideal setting for alternative energy generation. He 

said that he would like to determine whether other GNEB members might be supportive of this topic. He 

suggested starting with an examination of current sources of energy and their impacts. The group could 

then suggest alternatives. Ms. Koerner asked if the GNEB’s past coverage of power generation would be 

incorporated and expanded on. Dr. Brown said that it would be, but the Report would not be repetitive. 

The GNEB’s previous work examined air quality and transportation, whereas his idea is to identify 

alternatives to coal-fired power plants for energy generation. The equity issues (such as who benefits and 

who pays) raised by Mr. Connolly during the previous day’s discussion could be included in the analysis. 

Ms. Koerner clarified that a past GNEB Report included a brief section on power generation. She thought 

that revisiting power generation would not be a problem and could possibly be a strength. If this topic is 

chosen, a volunteer will need to review and summarize the GNEB’s past work in this area.

Mr. Guerrero asked whether the word “air” could be added before energy in relation to Ms. Stendebach’s 

presentation the previous day on the Methane to Markets Partnership. He views this as a potential 

opportunity to work with the agriculture industry.

Judge Agan asked whether the Report would cover only one topic or multiple topics. Ms. Koerner said 

that it is best to focus on one topic if possible. Judge Agan added that if energy is the chosen topic, 

subtopics will be needed. For example, in west Texas, there is a lot of wind energy production. Mr. 

Niemeyer said that he recently read a New York Times article about Texas being the leader in wind energy 

production; last year Texas produced a gigawatt of wind energy. Much of this wind energy production 

occurs on the border.

Ms. Siwik thought that agriculture should be captured somehow, at least from the water and energy 

perspective. It was mentioned earlier that irrigators are the top water users in many areas. It seems that 

there is a lot of opportunity for innovation in the agricultural sector.

Mr. Niemeyer said that Mr. Kent’s presentation on partnering with businesses to reduce pollution was 

very interesting. Texas started a similar program, called the Clean Texas Program, in 1993 after a private 

citizen convinced the state government to offer incentives to industry for reducing pollution. A number of 

different industries are involved in the program, and it since has been expanded to cover the public sector. 

This program involved the entire state of Texas; this group needs to focus on what is unique to the border. 

The example he gave to Administrator Johnson the prior day about the use of brick kilns was along the 

border in the Juárez-El Paso area. Another approach would be to focus on innovations instituted on a 

statewide or regional basis that would be applicable to the border area. He gave another example of 

innovation in Texas; the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) received a grant from 

EPA to fund a program to trade inefficient spray paint guns for high-volume, low-vapor guns in El Paso. 

Mr. Niemeyer said that the challenge for the group will be to focus on one issue. 

Ms. Koerner said that she had heard a lot of support for the issue of energy. As discussed earlier, there is 

no DoD representative on the GNEB. She asked the group for suggestions on how to reach out to DoD so 

as to utilize their expertise. She asked for volunteers to act as liaisons between the GNEB and DoD. Ms. 

Linda Lawson (U.S. Department of Transportation), Ms. Stone, Ms. Marin, and Ms. Krebs volunteered to 

reach out to DoD.

Ms. Keith mentioned that if alternative energy sources were to be a topic, only the ones listed in the 

Federal Energy Act could be included in the report. She added that the governor of Arizona issued an 

executive order requiring an increase in the use of alternative energy sources by a certain percentage over 

a period of time. She did not know if used tires were included as an alternative energy source. Another 

issue to consider is how these alternative energy sources would be regulated. Is it difficult to permit an 
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 25

incinerator that uses scrap tires? She stated the importance of considering alternative energy from an air 

quality standpoint. Ms. Koerner said that it sounded like Ms. Keith was reminding the group of the 

importance of identifying the current federal and state institutional framework before moving forward. 

Again, a volunteer would be needed to conduct this research. 

Mr. Gillen said that he was excited about the innovative ideas presented the previous day. He added that, 

at times, industry does the right thing on its own. He said that he would like to see this reflected in the 

Report. Sometimes all that is needed is for government to step out of the way or, as in the example shared 

by Ms. Marin the day before, government simply needs to lead by example. Regulation is not always the 

best approach. He said that Mr. Zapanta had offered to help the GNEB identify border success stories; 

including success stories in which private industry acted on its own will encourage other companies to 

follow suit. It also is important to show the President that industry can, and has, acted on its own volition 

to protect the environment, as it may help shape future policy. Mr. Gillen said that in his 4 or 5 years on 

the GNEB, the group has always focused on academia or government but never on private industry. Ms. 

Marin added that the GNEB needs to highlight not just the creation of energy but also energy efficiency. 

She suggested highlighting programs that have been successful in increasing energy efficiency. 

Dr. Austin agreed with Mr. Niemeyer that it is important to focus on what is unique about the border, 

both in terms of challenges as well as resources. She suggested broadening the issue of scrap tires to 

waste to resources. Scrap tires would be one of the wastes highlighted, but the Report also could include 

success stories about the use of other wastes. For example, many of the maquiladoras in her area are part 

of a program to convert waste vegetable oil to biodiesel. The Report could focus on waste products that 

can be converted to resources, focusing the actions the private sector is taking and the types of policies 

that support or hinder the use of wastes as resources. There is much waste along the border; the challenge 

is determining how to turn those wastes into resources. Ms. Koerner asked how energy would fit into that 

topic. Dr. Austin responded that the connection is in using waste products to create energy. Ms. Koerner 

asked the participants to consider how some of the ideas already discussed could fit into their proposed 

ideas. 

Mr. Ramírez said that if energy is the chosen topic, in terms of oil production, a number of issues would 

have to be addressed, including the decrease in output and production by Mexico in the short term. In 

some areas, oil and natural gas production has dramatically decreased. It would be important to consider 

the effects of these decreases on the United States. Another issue to cover would be financing or 

incentives for technology development and implementation. He suggested working with the electric 

utilities in the southwestern United States as they have been pushed in recent years to become more 

efficient. For example, construction of a large solar generation facility near Phoenix has begun, wind 

energy generation is used across Texas, and Northern Arizona University recently developed a new 

turbine for the production of energy. Mr. Ramírez offered to contact these utilities. Mr. Gillen clarified 

that his suggestion was not limited to the area of energy. 

Ms. Stone suggested examining how governments are supporting alternative energy. For example, in New 

Mexico, Governor Richardson created new state tax credits for solar and wind energy projects and for 

auto companies that make their cars more fuel-efficient. These credits give the businesses the incentive to 

change; New Mexico has many success stories as a result. 

Mr. Dorsey said that although energy certainly is a current topic, it is important for the GNEB to keep its 

mission in mind. The GNEB’s mission is to advise the President and Congress on good neighbor 

practices along the U.S. border with Mexico, with a focus on the environmental infrastructure needs 

within the U.S. states contiguous to Mexico. Many of these alternative fuels and alternative energy 

sources have impacts on the environment. If energy is the Report topic, it will need to be discussed from 

the perspective of its impacts on the environment. That would mean identifying current energy sources 

along the border and how they impact the environment. Alternative energies would then be identified 

along with their potential environmental impacts, both positive and negative. Mr. Wood said that in his 
26 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

area of Texas there is a big push to establish wind-generating facilities. There is concern, however, 

because some of the proposed locations for these facilities are in the migratory pathway of birds, making 

this a hotly contested issue. 

In response to Judge Agan’s question about whether the report will cover one or multiple topics, Mr. 

Wood said that a topic had already been approved by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). The 

topic is “incentives to advance innovation that would lead to pollution prevention.” In the past, the GNEB 

has divided each topic into chapters; he suggested doing the same for the Twelfth Report. He said that he 

was hearing a lot of support for covering the topic of energy issues and incorporating the role of the 

private sector. If the GNEB were to approach the topic of energy from the perspective of reducing 

pollution while minimizing costs and advancing profits, this would be consistent with its mission. He 

clarified that he was suggesting that the Report cover one topic while incorporating related issues under 

that main topic.

Judge Agan said that he wanted to expand on Dr. Brown’s remarks. The electricity transmission lines for 

the Presidio-Hidalgo area along the border, which has a population of approximately 60,000, often is cut 

when there is a storm, leaving the entire area without power. In these instances, the Presidio area often is 

without power for an entire day. He thought that part of the focus of the Report should be on how to make 

remote areas of the border more self-sufficient without adversely impacting the environment. There are 

many opportunities along the border for wind and power generation. 

Mr. Scott said that he was trying to determine what is unique about the GNEB as compared to Border 

2012. To him, it appears that the GNEB can influence legislative action, financial action, and promote 

new ideas. Ms. Koerner reminded the group that Border 2012 is a binational program with a budget and 

quantified goals. The GNEB, on the other hand, is strictly an advisory committee, with no operating 

budget and a different set of performance measures. The GNEB’s role is to provide advice to the federal 

government and make recommendations for government action. This could mean supporting the 

environmental efforts of the private sector by offering incentives or offering assistance to NGOs working 

along the border. She encouraged the group to think about the unique aspects of the GNEB when 

considering Report topics. She clarified that the theme of the Report is “incentives to prevent and reduce 

pollution along the border.” 

Dr. Austin proposed “waste to resources” as a topic, possibly incorporating private sector innovation and 

energy efficiency. Dr. Brown proposed energy assessment as a topic, including private sector incentives 

under that umbrella; a third topic would be case studies (projects and partnerships). Ms. Koerner asked 

whether there was support for any of these ideas. She suggested taking the topic of incentives and 

breaking it into energy and the role of the private sector and then having a third workgroup examine case 

studies, which would cover projects and partnerships. She asked those interested in that approach to raise 

their hands. Six individuals raised their hands. Ms. Lawson asked if air quality would be included. Ms. 

Krebs said that when energy efficiency is increased, air quality automatically improves. Ms. Koerner 

asked Mr. Gillen if he thought that the topic of energy was broad enough to incorporate his ideas on 

private industry innovation. Mr. Gillen asked for some time to consider the CEQ topic. He said that he 

was supportive of having energy as the main topic but wanted to have some time to think about the 

different topics that could come underneath the broad topic of energy. 

After a 15-minute break, Ms. Koerner announced that it was time for the group to decide on a framework, 

sign up for workgroups, and review the work plan grid. The group also will need to designate planning 

committees for the upcoming meetings. 

Ms. Koerner said that innovation is the overarching theme for the Twelfth Report. Under innovation, the 

group has discussed energy, private sector leadership, and incentives. Dr. Brown suggested that one 

chapter of the Report be an examination of energy sources, uses, and impacts on the border with an eye 

toward generating suggestions to create incentives toward innovation. The second chapter could cover 
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 27

private sector incentives and public/private partnerships, including examples such as those presented by 

Mr. Kent. Ms. Krebs and Mr. Gillen, who have private sector experience, and they could lead this effort. 

Mr. Wood mentioned that during the break Mr. Guerrero suggested approaching the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) about having a DOE representative involved in the production of the Report. This 

representative would not necessarily need to be a full GNEB member. This person would serve as a 

resource during the report production. Mr. Wood asked if this sounded reasonable. Ms. Koerner asked her 

federal colleagues if they thought that this was something that could be done. Mr. Guerrero clarified that 

he envisioned it as a request for assistance from DOE; it would be in their best interest to be involved. Mr. 

Joyce agreed, saying that if the report topic was to be energy and would include recommendations to the 

President on the topic, DOE would have to be involved. He added that this might be a good opportunity to 

acquire a DOE representative on the GNEB. He said that he would contact the Secretary’s Office and 

inform them that energy would be the Twelfth Report topic, so the GNEB would need DOE’s 

involvement. Ms. Stone said that the New Mexico Environment Department had a good relationship with 

the Assistant Secretary of Energy, Dr. Inez Triay, and offered to contact her. Mr. Joyce suggested 

approaching DOE from multiple angles. Ms. Lawson suggested drafting a formal letter from the GNEB to 

DOE. Mr. Joyce said that he liked the idea of a letter because it could be circulated within DOE to 

determine who within DOE would be the most appropriate person to work with the GNEB. 

Mr. Wood asked whether there were any strong objections to the proposed framework; there were none. 

Mr. Joyce clarified that the current proposal was that the Report include, under its overarching theme of 

innovation, two major areas of emphasis, which would be: (1) energy and private sector incentives, and 

(2) innovation and partnerships. Ms. Koerner confirmed that this was the approach. She added that the 

Report also would consider adoption to create specific action items. Mr. Joyce said that the GNEB’s work 

should be complementary to Border 2012 and not duplicative. He asked the group whether these themes 

would be complementary to the work of the Border 2012 workgroups. Mr. Scott said that he thought the 

framework would be complementary. He suggested that the GNEB consider the target audience for the 

Report. For example, if it is the private sector, the GNEB may want to think of its recommendations in 

terms of the Border 2012 workgroups, which are organized by topic area such as air or water. The Border 

2012 framework should be considered to ensure that it is clear who should be taking the recommended 

action. Mr. Joyce reminded the group that the GNEB makes recommendations to the President and 

Congress.

Ms. Wolf said that she was mildly opposed to the topic of energy. The direction the group is discussing 

today is very different than the one discussed on previous conference calls. Based on previous 

discussions, she was under the impression that the GNEB would examine innovative activities to reduce 

pollution occurring along the border. She is not sure how the topic became energy, and she did not 

understand how energy was any different along the border as compared to energy in the rest of the United 

States. Ms. Koerner asked Ms. Wolf for suggestions on how to address her concerns, given the 

discussions thus far. Ms. Wolf said that she thought the GNEB would be examining innovative ways to 

reduce pollution across the spectrum, not just with respect to energy, and would possibly identify 

incentives to offer to communities and industry to reduce pollution along the border. She said that she did 

not see energy in terms of the border. Solar power generation is happening across the United States, and 

wind power is being generated in certain areas, especially in the Midwest. Energy is now moving to a grid 

system, so it is not obvious to her how the border community is unique. Ms. Koerner asked if Ms. Wolf 

felt that taking a binational angle, possibly listing a series of case studies based on transboundary 

innovation, would be acceptable. Ms. Wolf agreed that this would be acceptable, adding that the group 

might also examine different methods for reducing pollution, identify areas needing further investigation, 

and explore changing regulations and ways to increase incentives to reduce pollution. Ms. Koerner 

suggested an overarching theme of transboundary innovation, with energy sources, uses, and impacts and 

the role of the private sector in a binational context as subtopics. Ms. Wolf agreed that this framework 

was better but thought that, especially as the recommendations were for the federal government, the focus 

should be broader than just the private sector. The idea is to advise the federal government on how it can 

encourage private industry and border communities alike to reduce pollution along the border. Ms. 
28 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

Koerner suggested that adding the transboundary angle addressed the question of what is unique about the 

border. She asked how Ms. Wolf would change the proposed subtopics. Ms. Wolf responded that she 

would remove energy as a subtopic but possibly include an energy-related case study. The focus of the 

Report would be more on how the federal government could use incentives for industry, communities, 

and community groups to reduce pollution. Ms. Koerner asked for clarification; for example, was she 

referring to taking a binational angle and identifying incentives for maquiladoras and sister city 

communities? Ms. Wolf said that she was. Ms. Koerner noted that the private sector would be embedded 

within this topic. She asked Ms. Wolf how energy would be incorporated. Ms. Siwik stated that she 

agreed with Ms. Wolf. There is a great deal of innovation occurring in communities; therefore, it is 

important to include them along with private industry. Ms. Marin said that she views energy as 

complementary. In many ways, the border is no different from the rest of the United States in terms of 

increasing energy efficiency and exploring new sources of energy. The border, however, does pose some 

additional challenges. As Judge Agan stated earlier, there are isolated areas along the border that need to 

become more energy efficient or need alternative sources of energy, and this needs to be accomplished 

without increasing pollution. Mr. Niemeyer did not think the theme should be limited to transboundary 

innovation as there is a great deal of innovation occurring only on the U.S. side of the border. He also did 

not think that the focus should be limited to the private sector as there are many public/private 

partnerships working in the area. EPA funds have been used to support some very successful 

public/private programs, including a program in which TCEQ worked with maquiladoras to reduce the 

volume and toxicity of their waste, save energy, and reduce their water use. He reminded the group that 

the Report should focus on what is unique to the border. 

Ms. Koerner listed the overall theme of innovation, which would include transboundary innovation. 

Using this lens of innovation, the group would examine industry (including maquiladoras) and 

communities in the public sector (including sister cities). Energy and partnerships were topics that cut 

across the topics of industry and communities. Ms. Koerner asked if the group agreed with what was 

listed. If not, what should the main topic and the subtopics be? Ms. Keith asked where incentives fit into 

the proposed structure. Ms. Koerner said that she thought they would be embedded, and it would be 

understood that incentives would be part of the toolkit to achieve innovation. As Mr. Gillen pointed out, 

industry does not necessarily need incentives to do the right thing. Dr. Brown asked if Ms. Koerner was 

suggesting that industry and community be the two workgroups. She said that she was. 

Dr. Brown said, with all due respect to Mr. Niemeyer, Ms. Siwik, and Ms. Wolf, that the reason he 

advocated strongly for energy is because energy is connected to everything else, whether it is production 

or transportation. Improving energy efficiency and developing alternative energies has multiple benefits, 

including reducing emissions of GHGs, PM10, PM2.5, sulfur oxides, and nitric oxides; there also is the 

security angle that the group has not explored yet. Every barrel of oil not purchased from unstable 

political regimes increases our security. Mr. Dorsey said that if the Report focuses on energy, he would 

like to see more about the environmental impacts of current energy generation methods as well as 

alternative energy generation methods. 

Ms. Sorzano asked the group to consider what the GNEB has been able to influence in the past. One of 

her concerns is that there is not always much support for issues along the border. One great thing about 

Dr. Brown’s approach is that energy is an issue that affects the whole country. Unfortunately, the reality 

is that the congressional representative from Minnesota does not care about what happens along the 

border. Examining the positive contributions that the border area can make to the rest of the country 

significantly increases the importance of the role that the GNEB can play. The group could discuss energy 

generation and environmental issues along the border but also note how these same issues are important 

for the rest of the country. Dr. Austin asked if Ms. Sorzano was saying that the GNEB should be 

advocating for the use of alternative energy along the border. She does not think that the GNEB is in a 

position to advocate for various types of alternative energy. She said that she was getting the impression 

that the group was planning this Report by starting with a recommendation it wanted to make. She said 

that the group could use the idea of transboundary innovation as a starting point and identify specific 
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 29

cases. The workgroups would come from this initial research. She said that she would prefer to keep the 

discussion more broad at this point. Ms. Keith said that she agreed with Ms. Sorzano’s comments. She 

added that under the Federal Energy Act, Davis Monthan Air Force Base was required to use more 

alternative energy; this caused a public outcry because many of the alternative energies caused more 

pollution or other environmental problems. A list of all of the types of alternative energy listed in the 

Federal Energy Act and their pros and cons was developed. If the group decides to go with energy as the 

topic, there is at least a basis from which to start. 

Ms. Koerner said that she was hearing two topics of interest, one is the private sector and the other is 

energy. She also has heard a lot of cross-cutting issues. One is the uniqueness of the border region but 

also the value of action items to the entire country. Another is the value of communities and partnerships 

in innovation. Another is to always consider impacts on the environment. She proposed starting with two 

workgroups: one for the private sector and the other for energy. Judge Agan said there are two subjects 

that have been discussed that do not necessarily interact: pollution and energy. He suggested taking a 

vote to choose one of these topics before determining the workgroups. Ms. Koerner suggested that 

pollution might be a cross-cutting issue that could be folded into both private sector initiatives and energy 

initiatives. She sees pollution prevention and alternative energy fitting under the overarching theme of 

innovation. Ms. Wolf said that she sees energy as an important part of the Report. As Ms. Koerner said, 

the overarching theme is innovation for pollution prevention and reduction. Source reduction and 

alternative energy fit under that theme as subtopics. Ms. Krebs said that the California greenhouse gas 

reduction requirements have spurred innovation. The energy sector plays a major role in reducing carbon 

emissions. She thought the topic of energy might be a little ahead of the times and suggested that the 

group may want to hold off on the topic of energy until the federal government has a GHG program in 

place. 

Ms. Lawson asked if the Report would be a collection of successful examples from the public and private 

sectors. Will it include recommendations to the federal government on how it can encourage the 

continuation of these projects or the establishment of new ones? If the report is divided into the public and 

private sectors, will all of the examples be energy examples? Successful examples in a number of 

different areas may not be as effective as examples that focus on a specific area. Her vision was to include 

a number of success stories and then make specific recommendations for action. The Report needs to 

focus on innovation. The group knows that there is great work underway, so the discussion at this point is 

more about how to organize the report. 

Mr. Scott suggested having public and private sectors as the two topics under the overarching theme of 

innovation. The issues of energy and pollution reduction could be addressed under each of those topics. 

Mr. Joyce mentioned that many innovative approaches are public/private collaborations. Mr. Gillen 

suggested establishing a third workgroup for joint partnerships that would cover public/private 

collaborations. 

Mr. Gillen said that the group has not explored innovation in the private sector, so everything to be 

included in the Report cannot be listed at this time. Energy and pollution reduction could be left loose for 

the time being, and after some initial research is completed, the group can get more specific. Mr. Wood 

agreed with this approach. Ms. Koerner asked if the GNEB members supported creating two workgroups, 

one for the public sector and one for the private sector. A third group on public/private partnerships will 

be formed at a later time as public/private partnership examples are identified. 

Ms. Koerner asked for volunteers for the public sector workgroup. The public sector workgroup will 

include: Judge Agan, Ms. Marin, Mr. Dorsey, Mr. Niemeyer, Ms. Siwik, Ms. Sorzano, Mr. Connolly, 

Ms. Keith, and Mr. Wood. The private sector workgroup will include: Mr. Gillen, Mr. Ramírez, Ms. 

Wolf, Mr. Scott, Ms. Stone, Dr. Austin, and Ms. Krebs.

Ms. Koerner will ask the absent GNEB members to choose a workgroup.
30 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

Ms. Krebs asked if Border 2012 had the authority to implement incentives. Mr. Scott said that they did 

not; there currently is no mechanism for implementing cross-border incentives. Ms. Krebs asked if the 

Report could identify areas ripe for innovation and suggest a credit or other incentive. Ms. Koerner said 

that was one approach that could be taken.

Mr. Gillen volunteered to be the coordinator of the private sector workgroup. Ms. Krebs volunteered to be 

the deputy coordinator. For the public sector workgroup, Mr. Niemeyer volunteered to be the coordinator. 

Mr. Dorsey volunteered to be the deputy coordinator.

The private sector workgroup scheduled a conference call for Monday, April 14, 2008, at 12:00 p.m. 

Eastern Time. The public sector workgroup scheduled a conference call for Wednesday, April 16, 2008, 

at 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The phone number is 866-299-3188 and the code is 2022330069#. 

Mr. DeLeon said that Ms. Koerner would be going on assignment after this meeting; a replacement for 

her has not yet been identified. In the meantime, GNEB members can direct their questions to Mr. Joyce. 

Mr. DeLeon said that he or Ms. Koerner would forward Mr. Joyce’s contact information to the GNEB 

members.

Travel Reimbursement

John Wood, Acting Chair, and Lois Williams, OCEM, EPA

Mr. Wood asked Ms. Lois Williams to discuss travel reimbursement with the GNEB members. Ms. 

Williams explained that she had distributed travel vouchers ahead of time to allow GNEB members to 

receive their reimbursements in a more timely manner. Along with the travel voucher, GNEB members 

should have received instructions on how to complete the form. GNEB members will need to document 

transport to the airport and from the airport to the hotel and list any parking fees paid. The original hotel 

receipt is the only receipt needed. Mr. Wood said that the GNEB members could complete their travel 

vouchers in advance and leave them with Ms. Williams to expedite reimbursement. Mr. Joyce said that 

most people will not know all of their final expenses until they return home. He said that GNEB members 

could submit their expenses before leaving and then mail to Ms. Williams any additional expenses 

incurred on their return home.

Strategic Planning Session

John Wood, Acting Chair

Ms. Koerner said that GNEB members typically volunteer to work on the planning committee in their 

area. 

Calexico, California, Meeting

Mr. Wood asked for volunteers for the planning committee for the Calexico, California, meeting to be 

held June 18–19, 2008. Ms. Koerner added that federal agency employees can sit on these planning 

committees and suggest speakers for the meetings. The planning committees are open to all GNEB 

members. GNEB members also can recruit others to help with the meeting planning. Mr. Wood asked for 

volunteers for the Calexico meeting. The following GNEB members volunteered: Mr. Guerrero, Mr. 

Connolly, Mr. Dorsey, Ms. Krebs, Ms. Marin, and Mr. Scott. Mr. Wood asked for a volunteer to lead the 

planning team. Mr. Dorsey and Ms. Krebs offered to be co-coordinators. The first planning committee 

conference call was scheduled for Friday, April 18, 2008, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Mr. Connolly said that the Campo Indian Reservation, which is midway between San Diego and 

Calexico, has the largest commercial-scale wind energy project on a reservation in the United States; it is 

a 50-megawatt wind energy facility. He offered to arrange a tour and suggested a start time of 4 or 5 p.m. 
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 31

the day prior to the meeting. Ms. Koerner said that she would explore this with management; the group 

could discuss it further on the April 18th conference call. 

Mr. Dorsey asked who would assist the planning committees in Ms. Koerner’s absence. Mr. Joyce said 

that he would assist the committees until a replacement was found.

There was a discussion about Calexico having only one hotel large enough to accommodate the group. 

Ms. Koerner said that Dr. Ganster had provisionally secured the library at the San Diego State University

Imperial Valley Campus for the meeting. She and Ms. Jannell Young-Ancrum, EPA, will review the 

records to determine where GNEB members stayed at the last meeting in Calexico and relay the 

information on the planning call. 

El Paso, Texas, Meeting

Mr. Wood asked for volunteers to coordinate the El Paso meeting to be held September 24–25, 2008. The 

following GNEB members volunteered: Dr. Brown, Mr. Guerrero, Mr. Gillen, Mr. Niemeyer, and Ms. 

Siwik. Ms. Mary Brandt of the Department of State said that she had promised Ms. Spener that she would 

not volunteer her for any tasks in her absence. She offered the International Boundary and Water 

Commission’s (IBWC) large conference room for the meeting; the room may not be large enough for the 

public portion of the meeting, but it could be used for the other parts of the meeting. Also, the IBWC may 

be able to provide transportation for the meeting. A planning call was scheduled for Monday, April 21, 

2008, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

Eleventh Report Distribution

Mr. Wood asked for a volunteer to track dissemination of the Eleventh Report. There were no volunteers. 

Ms. Koerner said that this will be one of the new DFO’s tasks. In the meantime, she will work with 

management to develop a plan for the interim.

Consejos Consultivos para el Desarrollo Sustenable (Consejos) Dialogue

Mr. Wood asked for a volunteer to serve as the liaison between GNEB and Consejos, which is GNEB’s 

counterpart in Mexico. Ms. Koerner explained that Consejos provides advice to SEMARNAT. Mr. 

Dorsey asked if Flavio was still coordinating with the group. Ms. Koerner replied that she did not know. 

Mr. Dorsey offered to contact Flavio. Dr. Brown suggested that if Flavio had moved on, then Mr. Dorsey 

should contact Mr. Carlos Rincon from the EPA border office in Juárez, as he likely would know the 

name of the appropriate person. Mr. Gillen asked if it would make sense for this person to be someone 

who also is working on Border 2012 and the governors conferences as these individuals already interact 

regularly. Ms. Koerner tabled the issue for the time being.

Comment Letters and Federal Members

Ms. Marin said that it seemed to her that the GNEB, in its role as advisor to the President and Congress, 

could advise them via a letter of the importance of developing a protocol or a set of procedures by which 

first responders along the border region would receive passports that would enable them to easily and 

quickly cross the border for emergency purposes. 

Ms. Koerner explained the process for drafting comment letters. Throughout the year, GNEB members 

will identify issues that do not fit under the annual Report topic or are of such importance that the issue 

cannot wait for inclusion in the annual Report. It often is a specific Board member who identifies an 

issue; usually, this Board member drafts the comment letter. The DFO then circulates the letter for 

review, GNEB members come to a consensus on the contents of the letter, and the letter is finalized and 

sent. Comment letters tend to be about one page in length. 
32 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

Judge Agan said that although personnel is one part of the issue of border crossing in emergency 

situations, in his experience, the main concern of the fire departments and emergency management 

services along the border is getting equipment across the border and then getting it back. He gave an 

example of a U.S. police officer who chased someone across the border; the police did not get the car 

back for 6 months and when they did, the radios and lights were gone. Mr. Wood said that in his area, 

emergency responders have not had this problem; that does not, however, mean that this might not happen 

in the future. 

Mr. Ramírez asked if the group needed to adopt a resolution to move forward on the letter. Ms. Koerner 

explained that the letter drafting process would be similar to the process for developing the annual Report, 

except that it would be one person drafting the letter instead of a workgroup. The letter then would be 

circulated to GNEB members; there is typically a 2-week period during which comments are submitted. 

In some cases, revisions are made, and the letter is sent to GNEB members for additional review. In the 

past, she has set a date by which, if she has not heard from a GNEB member, she will assume that he or 

she agrees with the contents of the letter. Then the letter is finalized. She added that there is another issue 

for federal employees that would be discussed later in the day. Mr. Ramírez thought that stating that the 

group passed a unanimous resolution would send a strong message; he would be happy to put forward a 

resolution and volunteered to help draft the letter. He said that he felt the letter should focus on ensuring 

that first responders and their equipment can easily cross the border. Making it easier for equipment to 

cross the border is especially important for emergency response and to be able to share resources across 

the border to help fight fires, clean up toxic spills, and so forth. Mr. Wood said that he would appreciate 

Mr. Ramírez serving as chair of the drafting committee. Mr. Ramírez said that he would be happy to help 

draft the letter, but that he was not interested in serving as chair. Mr. Wood asked for additional 

volunteers. Mr. Niemeyer and Ms. Marin volunteered to help draft the letter. Mr. Wood assigned Mr. 

Ramírez to spearhead this effort.

Mr. Gillen said that he was not sure that the GNEB had the expertise to propose a solution to this 

problem. Are there organizations along the border already working on these issues? If so, would it be 

appropriate for the GNEB to recommend that the President seek input from these organizations? The 

comment letter could serve as a catalyst by recommending that the appropriate organization look into the 

issue. Mr. Wood said that much of the work along the border depends on the relationships between the 

specific sister cities and current leadership. For example, for 8 years a particular mayor on the Mexican 

side of the border in his area would not work with the City of Brownsville. After he finished his term, 

things returned to normal. Judge Agan offered to disseminate the draft letter to El Paso Mayor John Cook 

and the county judges in his area for review. Ms. Koerner added that it would add credibility to the letter 

if someone on the drafting committee reviewed the GNEB’s past Reports and made reference to them as 

appropriate. Ms. Koerner noted that Ms. Tulis, one of the speakers from the previous day, had offered to 

serve as a resource.

Mr. Joyce explained that federal members of the GNEB are considered to be part of the executive branch. 

The executive branch has positions on certain issues, and federal agency employees cannot endorse a 

position contrary to that of the executive branch. For this reason, there might be instances in which 

federal members cannot endorse a position that the GNEB takes. Mr. Wood did not think that this would 

preclude the GNEB from drafting a comment letter. It simply means that there is the possibility that 

federal members may not be able to sign off on certain issues. Referring to federal members not being 

able to sign off on certain issues, Mr. Guerrero said that he thought that some of the letters that Mr. 

Rosendo Treviño, a GNEB member from USDA, had recused himself from had to do with appropriations 

and/or soliciting funding. There also may have been some policy issues of which he is not aware. He 

suggested checking with Mr. Treviño to learn more about USDA’s history on some of those issues. Mr. 

Ramírez noted that the GNEB roster categorizes the members as federal and nonfederal. Can a letter be 

signed only by the nonfederal members? Mr. Wood responded that this can and has been done in the past. 

Each federal agency determines if it can or cannot sign a specific letter.
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 33

Ms. Marin said that traditionally individuals are appointed to a board for their expertise and for what they 

can bring to the table. As a federal advisory board, the GNEB has been tasked with providing advice on 

the best course of action, regardless of whether it conflicts with the administration’s position on an issue. 

That said, she does not think that any GNEB member should feel compelled to take an action that may put 

his/her job at risk. The nonfederal members can support positions that conflict with the administration’s 

position. Mr. Wood agreed, saying that GNEB is an independent advisory board. The reality, however, is 

that nonfederal GNEB members can be much more independent than the federal employees. Ms. Koerner 

said that, in the past, the GNEB has dealt with this on a case-by-case basis. Some past letters were only 

signed by the nonfederal GNEB members. There is ongoing discussion about preparing a standard phrase 

that would capture this. 

Ms. Brandt added that the Department of State was aware of the first responder border crossing issues. 

She suggested talking to Ms. Poynter who has been working on a bilateral, possibly even a trilateral, 

disaster assistance agreement. Ms. Brandt said that she was not sure if the agreement went to that level of 

detail, but it still would be valuable to touch base with her to learn about the Department of State’s 

activities on the issue.

Mr. Ramírez discussed the issue of credibility. The Border Trade Alliance’s Travel and Immigration 

Committee, of which he has been the chair for the past 9 years, has been providing DHS with solicited 

and unsolicited comments on its inspection procedures and document requirements, including the 

Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. The Committee has advocated for deadline extensions to ensure 

that the respective federal agencies, primarily DHS and the Department of State, are prepared to 

implement these changes at airports, seaports, and land ports of entry. He said that he would be happy to 

provide additional information on their efforts. Mr. Wood thanked him for this offer.

Ms. Koerner asked if the group could move forward on the letter currently under discussion. She asked 

whether the three volunteers wanted to set up a conference call and set a deadline for completion of the 

letter. Mr. Niemeyer suggested that Mr. Ramírez draft the letter and then e-mail it to him and Ms. Marin. 

Mr. Ramírez agreed to do this. The letter then will be sent to Judge Agan, who will circulate it to the El 

Paso mayor and county judges for review, giving them a specified amount of time to submit comments. 

The letter will then be sent to GNEB members for review. Judge Agan said that he was meeting with the 

judges on March 27, 2008, so it would be ideal if he had a copy of the draft letter before that date. Mr. 

Ramírez estimated that it would take 2 to 3 weeks to complete the letter.

Performance Measures

Ms. Koerner said that performance measures are an important method for determining the GNEB’s 

effectiveness. It is important to determine if the Reports are being read, if the GNEB’s recommendations 

are being acted on, and ultimately, if the GNEB is making a difference. In the Ninth Report, GNEB 

members developed starter measures for monitoring the GNEB’s performance. Ms. Koerner asked 

whether anyone was interested in being the point person for performance measures. This would involve 

reviewing the measures in the Ninth Report and capturing examples of the GNEB’s effectiveness.

Mr. Dorsey said that although he was supportive of performance measures, the GNEB is an advisory 

board, so it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure its effectiveness. He said that he thinks the GNEB’s 

effectiveness is measured by the fact that the President and Congress continue to seek advice from the 

GNEB. Thus, in his opinion, it would be very difficult to set up performance measures for the GNEB. 

Mr. Niemeyer said that he had sent Ms. Koerner e-mails about projects related to the GNEB’s Tenth 

Report recommendations. Ms. Koerner suggested that he lead the performance measure group and he 

agreed. 
34 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

Mr. Niemeyer said that he agreed with Mr. Dorsey. It is difficult to capture the GNEB’s effectiveness 

because the group provides advice. He encouraged the other GNEB members to send him any news 

stories or information on projects related to the GNEB’s Tenth or Eleventh Report recommendations. He 

asked them to include the source and date that the item was found. He will compile the information and 

distribute it to the group. He said that he felt that the GNEB could take credit for actions related to its 

recommendations. Of course, it is difficult to determine exactly what influence a recommendation had on 

an action. For example, Congressman Silvestre Reyes of Texas proposed legislation based on one of the 

GNEB’s recommendations; Mr. Niemeyer did not think that the legislation had passed. IBWC, however, 

did receive additional funding for levee construction, which was one of the GNEB’s recommendations.

Mr. Gillen thought that performance measures could be dangerous. He was concerned about taking credit 

for someone else’s actions; this might offend the person or group who took the action. In addition, 

focusing on performance measures could make it appear that the GNEB’s recommendations were not 

taken when, in fact, they were. For example, the President might try to act on one of the GNEB’s 

recommendations but run into difficulties, such as not being able to secure congressional approval. He 

suggested that the GNEB continue to focus on offering advice. He would recommend against utilizing 

performance measures. 

Ms. Koerner said that Mr. Gillen’s note of caution was well taken. The reality, however, is that there is a 

big push across the federal government to develop performance measures for advisory committees. She 

has tried to note that there is not a direct correlation to the number of recommendations taken and that 

advisory committees serve a number of purposes, some of which are more difficult to capture. The 

GNEB’s work sparks dialogue on a number of different levels (federal, state, and local) and enlightens 

federal policy-makers about environmental issues along the border. Her view of the GNEB’s

effectiveness is very broad. It is still necessary, however, for GNEB members to think about performance 

measures. Mr. Niemeyer volunteered to capture one type of information; the group must be careful with 

how it uses that information, but capturing it is a good first step. 

Mr. Niemeyer said that he envisioned listing the GNEB’s recommendations and whether or not they have 

been implemented. The GNEB is a federal advisory committee, subject to the rules of the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA). In reading about FACA, he learned that the advisory committees are 

required to submit an annual report on their activities to the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA). 

Thus, EPA is required to report on the GNEB’s effectiveness; therefore, performance measures of some 

sort are needed. Mr. Joyce said that Mr. Niemeyer was correct. All federal advisory committees, not just 

EPA’s, are required to submit an annual report to GSA on their activities. The reports are posted online. 

Advisory committees report the amount of money spent and the number of reports and recommendations 

issued. At this time, the annual report still is evolving. Mr. Joyce said that he has some issues with the 

reports. For instance, the GNEB is asked to list the percentage of the Board’s recommendations that have 

been implemented. He said that he has refused to answer this question because it is inappropriate. He 

believes that a committee’s effectiveness should be measured qualitatively, with the committee detailing 

the work it has performed and its impacts. That said, the more examples the GNEB can provide of its 

work having a demonstrable effect on programs and policies and, hopefully, on human health and the 

environment, the better. The reality is that something must be submitted to GSA each year. GSA and 

congressional staffers review the annual reports and, over the long term, these reports are used to 

determine funding levels. 

Dr. Austin said that she sensed that there was some accountability push behind this requirement. As an 

applied anthropologist, her job is to gather and make information available and hope that it is used. Given 

these reporting requirements, it would be helpful, especially for new members, to have a matrix listing the 

types of information needed. She agrees that qualitative reporting would be preferable, but given the 

reality of the reporting requirements, it would be helpful if GNEB members were aware of the 

information required. This would allow the members to better assist EPA management in meeting its 

reporting requirements. Mr. Joyce thought developing a matrix was a good idea. Mr. Joyce or Ms. 
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 35

Koerner will e-mail to the GNEB members a copy of the annual report as well as the URL for the Web 

site where all of the reports are posted. Mr. Joyce added that Mr. Gillen and Dr. Austin are correct; 

advisory committees are charged with providing the best advice and counsel possible; oftentimes, an 

advisory committee’s recommendations are not immediately acted on. There are several cases in which a 

recommendation was acted on years after it was initially made. 

Ms. Koerner thanked everyone for their comments and reiterated that although the committee’s charge is 

to provide advice, it still must satisfy these reporting requirements. The group should focus on giving the 

best advice possible, while still keeping in mind how to fulfill these requirements. 

Mr. Dorsey asked if the GNEB had any input in the development of these performance measures. Mr. 

Joyce said that other federal and state agencies, not just EPA, are going through the same process. In fact, 

it is not just advisory committees; EPA research programs also are being measured. He suggested that 

GNEB members consider what should be measured and what they think would determine the committee’s 

level of effectiveness. The annual report still is evolving, so there may be room for some input from the 

GNEB. The current questions are broad and open-ended, and they have been informed that some of the 

ways in which they are asking the GNEB to characterize its effectiveness and success are inappropriate. 

They are trying to work with the Board but, on the other hand, the federal government is somewhat 

limited in its ability to be flexible. Ms. Koerner said that GNEB members could help them make a case 

for modifying the measures.

Mr. Dorsey said that, although he understands that this is a requirement of the federal government, he 

found it to be a bean counting, bureaucratic exercise. For example, the County of San Diego Department 

of Environmental Health relies on a number of advisory committees for guidance and expertise. These 

committees are not asked to quantify their effectiveness because their role simply is to provide advice.

Press Coverage

Ms. Koerner said that she had been in touch with Mr. Dave Ryan, the EPA Press Officer who attended the 

press conference the previous day. She said that she had received an e-mail from him with an Associated 

Press story attached. The San Diego Union Tribune ran a story on the report. Mr. Ryan is trying to contact 

Mr. José Lopez of the Mexican News Agency to determine whether they ran a story. Unfortunately, CNN 

en Español does not post its interviews on the Internet. She added that the reporter who interviewed Mr. 

Niemeyer is in the process of creating an MP3 of the interview. 

Mr. Niemeyer added that the Associated Press ran a Spanish language story. He said that he e-mailed the 

story to Ms. Koerner last night, in both English and Spanish. Unfortunately, the story includes some 

misquotes. It seems that the reporter was confused about for whom Mr. Wood was speaking. Mr. 

Niemeyer said that he had responded to a question, saying that because of increased border security, it is 

now more difficult for first responders to cross the border quickly, but the reporter paraphrased him, 

making his comment about the border fence. In fact, the majority of the story focuses on the border fence. 

This article has been published in a number of Spanish language newspapers. Ms. Koerner said that, 

unfortunately, despite best efforts to be clear with reporters, the actual reporting of the stories is beyond 

the Board members’ control. She added that it is clear that these issues are of international interest. Ms. 

Koerner will continue to track the media coverage and keep the members updated. 

Report-Outs

John Wood, Acting Chair

Ms. Brandt said that the IBWC received more than $20 million for levee construction in 2008. The IBWC 

recently awarded a $9.4 million contract to raise a 3-mile levee segment near the Hidalgo-Reynosa 

Bridge. Construction is scheduled to begin in April and to be completed in 8 months. The IBWC also has 

authorized Hidalgo County Drainage District Number One to proceed with work to raise a 3.7-mile levee 
36 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

segment in Mission, Texas, under a cost-sharing agreement with the IBWC. Construction is scheduled to 

begin in May 2008 and to be completed in 6 months. IBWC crews currently are working on a 5-mile 

levee segment in Cameron County. IBWC received $11.7 million (this is a portion of the $20 million 

mentioned earlier) for work in Doña Ana County in New Mexico. IBWC’s in-house crew will begin 

construction in spring 2008. 

In the summer of 2007, construction to line a portion of the Colorado River’s All-American Canal began 

pursuant to U.S. legislation that directed that the project proceed without delay. To lessen some of the 

impacts on Mexico, the IBWC has established a binational group of federal, state, and expert NGO 

stakeholders to explore joint cooperative actions for the use of Colorado River water in the United States 

and Mexico. This group will work to develop water conservation, water shortage management, water 

augmentation, and environmental initiatives that will benefit the United States and Mexico. Mr. Wood 

said that in his area residents are extremely concerned about the levee construction. He asked whether, 

after the levees are constructed, they would be certified by FEMA. Residents are concerned because 

FEMA’s maps will determine whether residents are required to purchase flood insurance. Ms. Brandt said 

that her understanding was that after the levees are built, they would be certified according to FEMA’s 

standards. Mr. Wood thanked her for her report. 

Mr. Niemeyer said that an EPA Border 2012 grant was awarded to the Border Environment Cooperation 

Commission for a project in Piedras Negras and Eagle Pass. In Piedras Negras, 208,000 scrap tires were 

shipped to CEMEX, which used the tires to generate TDF. In Eagle Pass, 29,000 scrap tires were land 

disposed. A total of 237,000 tires along the border were removed.

Mr. Ramírez said that if he recalled correctly, the Ninth GNEB Report recommended multiyear funding 

for ports of entry. Congressman Reyes from the El Paso area recently proposed legislation to provide $1 

billion per year for 5 years, plus 1,000 additional Customs Border Protection inspectors for the southern 

and the northern borders. He is working to secure the necessary co-sponsors. Secondly, on February 15, 

2008, the Secretary of Transportation, the GSA Administrator, the governor of Arizona, and the Assistant 

Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection broke ground on the San Luis II Port of Entry, which is 

the first new port of entry to be built on the border in several years. The design phase for a new port of 

entry spans a number of years, so it may be possible to incorporate environmentally friendly and energy 

saving measures in the design. The building at the port will be large and may provide an opportunity to 

install solar panels on the roof. Lastly, the Arizona-Mexico Commission will host its plenary session June 

19–20, 2008, in Phoenix, Arizona. That will create a conflict for the four GNEB members from Arizona 

as this overlaps the Calexico meeting. He encouraged these GNEB members to consider how they might 

be able to attend some of the plenary sessions. If anyone is interested in participating in this meeting, 

contact him as he may be able to work out some arrangement for the meeting registration. He will send 

the agenda and logistic information to Ms. Koerner for distribution to GNEB members. Mr. Dorsey said 

that a second port of entry in Otay Mesa is in the planning stages. 

Mr. Dorsey gave the group an update on the fall 2007 wildfires in San Diego County. There were three 

fires in San Diego County, and more than 1,500 homes burned. His office, which is part of the 

Department of Environmental Health, played a part in the recent recovery efforts. The cleanup from the 

2003 wildfires was just being completed when the 2007 wildfires started. The recovery from the recent 

fires was quick and efficient, especially in comparison to the recovery from the 2003 fires, because there 

was a process in place to guide the recovery and because the federal, state, and local governments worked 

very well together. A series of disaster assistance centers were set up throughout the county right away; 

residents could go to these centers and meet with FEMA representatives, insurance representatives, other 

state agency representatives, Red Cross representatives, and so forth. Private industry responded well. For 

example, an egg/chicken ranch had 20,000 birds killed by the fire, but they were not completely burned. 

Allied Waste, a private company that manages a local landfill, offered its landfill, and the chickens were 

moved and disposed of quickly before any rodent infestation or odor problem occurred. The owner of that 

same ranch had 100,000 birds in another area of the county; because a number of roads were blocked off, 
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 37

he was unable to get feed to these birds. The emergency operations center worked with the local sheriff 

and the California Highway Patrol to transport feed and diesel fuel to the ranch. The local government 

worked closely with EPA and state agencies to remove debris. Residents could sign up to have a private 

contractor remove debris from their home at no cost. Debris was removed from approximately 800 homes 

between the end of December 2007 and the end of February 2008. For the 2003 wildfires, it took several 

years to accomplish a similar level of debris removal. He reiterated that much of the success could be 

attributed to the coordination and cooperation of the federal, state, and local governments. One 

environmental safety concern was the ash from the fires. FEMA, unfortunately, does not categorize this as 

hazardous, so it would not fund ash removal. The local government worked with the regional board and 

the California Department of Toxic Substances Control to transport the heavy ash to a lined landfill. 

Construction and demolition sites were established in a number of locations for the disposal of concrete, 

wood, and other types of debris. For the most part, the recovery process is complete.

Mr. Dorsey said that he would be presenting on the GNEB at the California Environmental Health 

Association’s Annual Conference in San Diego the following week. He was invited to provide an 

overview of the GNEB’s activities and discuss the Tenth and Eleventh Reports. Mr. Wood said that he 

was impressed that the wildfire recovery in San Diego went so quickly and efficiently. He suggested that 

the San Diego wildfire recovery be used as an example for wildfire recovery.

Mr. Scott applauded Mr. Dorsey and his colleagues for an excellent job in responding to the wildfires in 

San Diego. He said that the EPA issued a solicitation in January for applications for results-oriented 

projects; the deadline for applications is May 30, 2008, and approximately $1 million will be awarded. 

Mr. Guerrero asked if the funds could be used for irrigation projects. Mr. Scott thought that that type of 

project would meet the funding criteria. EPA is hosting a pesticide collection event next week in Mexicali 

and in Imperial County. This is coming on the heels of a very successful pesticide collection event in 

Arizona. Lastly, EPA recently completed a project to help 20 companies in Mexicali develop 

environmental management systems in hopes of moving them toward ISO 14001 certification. One 

important component of this project was working to ensure that this type of progress could continue in the 

future without federal funding. He said that he would bring information from that project into the 

workgroup process. 

Ms. Stone announced that the New Mexico Environment Department recently hired Mr. Tom Ruiz as a 

Border Coordinator. A Tribal Liaison also was hired to work with the New Mexican tribes. In addition, 

the State of New Mexico joined the City of El Paso to petition TCEQ to revoke ASARCO, LLC’s 

pollution permit. With EPA’s new ozone standard, the counties of San Miguel and Doña Ana will become 

nonattainment areas.

Mr. Niemeyer said that the GNEB wrote a comment letter to request additional funding for U.S.-Mexico 

wastewater infrastructure. The President’s budget originally allocated $10 million. The border 

congressional delegation requested increased funding, and the final result was an allocation of $25 

million. 

Final Remarks

Mr. Wood thanked everyone for attending and for engaging in the discussions. He has enjoyed serving as 

Acting Chair and thanked the GNEB members and Ms. Koerner for their support. He added that he 

appreciated everyone’s efforts to attend this meeting. He knew it was difficult for a number of the 

participants to travel to Washington, DC. He asked the group to give Ms. Koerner a round of applause for 

all of her hard work. Ms. Koerner asked the participants to give the Acting Chair and the Board’s new 

members a round of applause. She thanked everyone for attending.

The meeting was adjourned at 1:32 p.m.
38 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

Action Items

 Dr. Clesceri will send details on USAID’s watershed projects in Mexico to Ms. Koerner, who will 

forward this information to the GNEB members.

 Dr. Clesceri will send a Web link to USAID’s guide for planning for climate change to Ms. Koerner, 

who will forward this information to the GNEB members.

 Dr. Clesceri will send contact information for USAID’s Mexico representatives to Ms. Koerner, who 

will forward this information to the GNEB members.

 Mr. Posadas will work to advance the dialogue on developing binational watershed councils or 

binational science advisory groups at the Mexican Embassy.

 With respect to the issue of expedited border crossing for first responders, Ms. Tullis will send Ms. 

Koerner a list of the contacts she has been working with at U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

 GNEB members will send their edits to the October 3–4, 2007, meeting minutes to Ms. Koerner, and

she will incorporate the edits.

 GNEB board members will complete the request form for copies of the Eleventh GNEB Report and 

return them to Ms. Brown.

 Mr. DeLeon will explore the possibility of putting the Eleventh Report on CD-ROM.

 GNEB members who have questions on lobbying regulations will direct their questions to 

Mr. DeLeon, Mr. Wood, or Ms. Koerner.

 A third group on public/private partnerships will be formed for the Twelfth Report at a later time.

 GNEB members will submit their travel vouchers to Ms. Williams for reimbursement.

 Ms. Koerner will explore with management the possibility of scheduling a tour of the Campo Indian 

Reservation wind generation facility the day before the Calexico, California, meeting.

 Ms. Koerner and Ms. Janelle Young-Ancrum will identify the hotel where GNEB members stayed for 

the previous Calexico, California, meeting and report back on the Calexico planning committee 

conference call on April 18, 2008, at 12:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

 Mr. Dorsey will contact Flavio to determine whether he still is working with Consejos. If Flavio is 

unavailable, Mr. Dorsey will contact Mr. Carlos Rincon for assistance in identifying the Consejos 

liaison.

 Ms. Koerner will continue to track the media coverage of the Eleventh Report and will keep the 

GNEB members updated.

 Mr. Ramírez will draft a comment letter on the importance of ensuring expedited border crossing for 

emergency responders and their equipment, e-mail it to Ms. Marin and Mr. Niemeyer for review and 

comment, and send the revised letter to Judge Agan for dissemination to the Mayor of El Paso and 

local county judges for their review. The letter will then be circulated to GNEB members for review 

and comment.
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 39

 Mr. Ramírez will send to Ms. Koerner for distribution to the GNEB members the agenda and 

logistical information for the Arizona-Mexico Commission plenary session on June 19–20, 2008, in 

Phoenix, Arizona.

 GNEB members will send news stories or information on projects related to the recommendations 

made in the Tenth or Eleventh Reports to Mr. Neimyers. He will compile the information and 

circulate it to the GNEB members.

 Mr. Joyce and Ms. Koerner will e-mail to the GNEB members a copy of GNEB’s annual report to 

GSA as well as the URL for the Web site where all of the federal advisory committee reports are 

posted.
40 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB)

Meeting

Meeting Participants

Nongovernmental, State, Local, and Tribal 

Members of the Board

John Wood, Acting Chair

County Commissioner, Precinct 2

Cameron County 

City of Brownsville 

1100 E. Monroe

Brownsville, TX 78520

Phone: 956-983-5091

Fax: 956-983-5090 

E-mail: jwood@co.cameron.tx.us 

Jerry C. Agan

Presidio County Judge

Presidio County Commissioners Court

P.O. Box 606

Marfa, TX 79843

Phone: 432-729-4452

Fax: 432-295-0307

E-mail: eljuez@sbcglobal.net

Diane Austin, Ph.D.

Professor

University of Arizona

Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology

316 Anthropology Building

P.O. Box 210030

Tucson, AZ 85721-0030

Phone: 520-626-3879

Fax: 520-621-9608

E-mail: daustin@email.arizona.edu

Christopher P. Brown, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

New Mexico State University

P.O. Box 30001/MSC MAP

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8001

Phone: 575-646-1892

Fax: 505-646-7430

E-mail: brownchr@nmsu.edu

Michael L. Connolly

Councilman

Campo Kumeyaay Nation

1600 Buckman Springs Road

Campo, CA 91908

Phone: 619-478-2367

Fax: 619-478-2177

E-mail: tipaay@aol.com

Michael P. Dorsey

Chief

Hazardous Materials Division

County of San Diego Department of 

Environmental Health

P.O. Box 129261

San Diego, CA 92112-9261

Phone: 619-338-2395

Fax: 619-338-2319

E-mail: michael.dorsey@sdcounty.ca.gov

Gary Gillen

President

Gillen Pest Control

1012 Morton Street

Richmond, TX 77469

Phone: 281-342-6969

Fax: 281-232-6979

E-mail: gary@gillenpestcontrol.com

Susan Keith 

Director

Southern Regional Operations 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

400 W. Congress, Suite 433

Tucson, AZ 85701

Phone: 520-628-6883

Fax: 520-628-6745

E-mail: sjk@azdeq.gov

Patti Krebs 

Executive Director 

Industrial Environmental Association

701 B Street, Suite 1040

San Diego, CA 92101

Phone: 619-544-9684

Fax: 619-544-9514

E-mail: iea@iea.sdcoxmail.com
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 41

Rosario Marin

Secretary

California State Consumer Services Agency

915 Capitol Mall, Suite 200

Sacramento, CA 95814

Phone: 916-653-2979

E-mail: rmarin@scsa.ca.gov

Stephen M. Niemeyer, P.E.

Policy Analyst

Intergovernmental Relations Division/Border 

Affairs 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality

MC-121, P.O. Box 13087

Austin, TX 78711-3087

Phone: 512-239-3606

Fax: 512-239-3335

E-mail: sniemeye@tceq.state.tx.us

Luis E. Ramírez Thomas, M.S.F.S.

President

Ramírez Advisors Inter-National, LLC

20118 N. 67th Avenue, Suite 300 #171

Glendale, AZ 85308

Phone: 602-820-3931

E-mail: ramirezadvisors@cox.net

Allyson Siwik

Executive Director

Gila Resources Information Project (GRIP)

P.O. Box 91

Tyrone, NM 88065

Phone: 505-388-4350

E-mail: asiwik@zianet.com

Marissa Stone

Communications Director

New Mexico Environment Department

1190 St. Francis Drive, Suite N4050

Santa Fe, NM 87505

Phone: 505-827-0314

E-mail: marissa.stone@state.nm.us

Ann Marie A. Wolf

President

Sonora Environmental Research Institute, Inc.

3202 E. Grant Road

Tucson, AZ 85716

Phone: 520-321-9488

Fax: 520-321-9498

E-mail: aawolf@seriaz.org

Federal Members of the Board

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

Shannon H. Sorzano

Deputy Assistant Secretary for International 

Affairs

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

451 Seventh Street, S.W., Room 8112

Washington, DC 20410

Phone: 202-708-0770

Fax: 202-708-5536

E-mail: shannon_h._sorzano@hud.gov

U.S. Department of Transportation

Linda L. Lawson

Director

Safety, Energy and the Environment

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E., Room W84310

Washington, DC 20590

Phone: 202-366-4416

Fax: 202-366–0263

E-mail: linda.lawson@dot.gov

Designated Federal Officer

Elaine M. Koerner

Designated Federal Officer

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental 

Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 1601M

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-564-2586

Fax: 202-564-8129

E-mail: koerner.elaine@epa.gov
42 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

Resource Specialists

Federal Agency Alternates

Rafael Guerrero

Natural Resource Manager

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

501 W. Felix

Building 23

Fort Worth, TX 76115

Phone: 817-509-3490

E-mail: rafael.guerrero@ftw.usda.gov

Jeff Scott

Director

Multimedia Division

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-972-3311

E-mail: scott.jeff@epa.gov

EPA Participants

Frederick (Derry) Allen

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 1807T

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-566-2167

E-mail: allen.derry@epa.gov

Geraldine Brown

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental 

Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 1601M

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-564-4235

E-mail: brown.geraldine@epa.gov

Charles Darr 

ASPH Public Health Fellow

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Office of Solid Waste

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 4204M

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-564-2906

E-mail: darr.charles@epa.gov 

Rafael DeLeon

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental 

Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 1601M

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-564-4899

E-mail: deleon.rafael@epa.gov

Marrietta Haggins

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental 

Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 1601M 

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-564-3692

E-mail: haggins.marrietta@epa.gov

Cynthia Jones-Jackson

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental 

Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 1601M

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-564-2321

E-mail: jones-jackson.cynthia@epa.gov
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 43

Mark Joyce

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental 

Management

Ariel Rios Building 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 1601M 

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-564-2130

E-mail: joyce.mark@epa.gov

Ellie Kanipe

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Office of Solid Waste

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 5304P

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 703-347-8985

E-mail: kanipe.elisia@epa.gov

Charles Kent

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code: 1807T

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-566-2800

E-mail: kent.chuck@epa.gov

Matthew Klasen

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 2842T 

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-566-0780

E-mail: klasen.matthew@epa.gov

Toni Rousey

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 1601M

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-564-5356

E-mail: rousey.toni@epa.gov

Gladys Sanmiguel (?)

U.S Environmental Protection Agency

EU-Mexico Border (?)

E-mail: sanmiguel.gladys@epa.gov (?)

Sue Stendebach

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air and Radiation

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 6101A

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-564-8309

E-mail: stendebach.sue@epa.gov

Luis Troche

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of International Affairs

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 1660R

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-564-2870

E-mail: troche.luis@epa.gov

Dana Tulis

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

Office of Emergency Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 

Mail Code 5104A

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-564-7938

E-mail: tulis.dana@epa.gov

Lois Williams

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Cooperative Environmental 

Management

Ariel Rios Building

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Mail Code 1601M

Washington, DC 20460

Phone: 202-564-2294

E-mail: williams.lois@epa.gov
44 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

Other Participants

Mary Brandt

U.S. Department of State

International Boundary and Water Commission

Office of Mexican Affairs

Room 4258

Washington, DC 20520

Phone: 202-647-8106

E-mail: brandtmm@state.gov

Brian Castelli

Alliance to Save Energy

1850 M Street, N.W., Suite 600

Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202-857-0666

E-mail: bcastelli@ase.org

Erika Clesceri, Ph.D.

U.S. Agency for International Development

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20523-8600

Phone: 202-712-0453

E-mail: eclesceri@usaid.gov

Brigid De Coursey

U.S. Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

Phone: 202-366-8914

E-mail: brigid.decoursey@dot.gov

Alejandra Goyenechea

International Counsel

Defenders of Wildlife

1130 17th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

E-mail: alejandra.goyenechea@defenders.org

Jorge Navarro

Mexican Embassy

2829 16th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009

E-mail: jnavarro@sre.gob.mx

Tracy Norberg

Rubber Manufacturers Association

1400 K Street, N.W., Suite 900

Washington, D.C. 20005

Phone: 202-682-4839

E-mail: tnorberg@rma.org

Antonio Ortiz

Mexican Embassy

2829 16th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009

Phone: 202-726-1680

E-mail: aortizm@sre.gob.mx

Alejandro Posadas

Mexican Embassy

2829 16th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20009

Phone: 202-728-1777

E-mail: alejandro.posadas@semarnat.gob.mx

Kathryn Washburn

Director of International Affairs

U.S. Department of the Interior

1849 C Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20240

Phone: 202-208-3100

E-mail: kwashburn@ios.doi.gov

Al Zapanta

President and CEO

U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce

1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Suite G-0003

Washington, D.C. 20004

Phone: 202-312-1520

E-mail: zapantaz@aol.com

SCG Staff

Jen Hurlburt

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc.

656 Quince Orchard Road, Suite 210

Gaithersburg, MD 20878

Phone: 301-670-4990

Fax: 301-670-3815

E-mail: jhurlburt@scgcorp.com
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 45

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Meeting Day 1

March 19-20, 2008

Hilton Washington Towers Cabinet Room

1919 Connecticut Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20009

Phone: (202) 483-3000 

AGENDA

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

(9:00 A.M. Press Conference in State Room (media only) - Release of Eleventh 

Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board: “Effects of Natural Disasters 

on the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment”)

9:30 A.M. Registration

10:00 Meeting Begins

Welcome—Commissioner John Wood, Acting Chair, GNEB

Rafael DeLeon, Director, EPA Office of Cooperative 

Environmental Management (OCEM)

 Elaine Koerner, Designated Federal Officer, OCEM

Board Members, Attendees Self Introductions

10:10 Keynote Remarks—EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson

10:45 Panel Discussion on Eleventh Report: “Natural Disasters and 

Environmental Protection on the U.S.-Mexico Border Environment”

Introduction, Summary of Recommendations—Commissioner John 

Wood, Acting Chair
46 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

11:00 Panel Discussion 

Erika J. Clesceri, Ph.D. Democracy, Conflict and

Humanitarian Assistance Bureau Environmental Officer,

USAID-Washington 

- Dana Tulis, Deputy Director, EPA Office of Emergency 

Management and U.S. Co-Chair, Border 2012 Program Emergency 

Preparedness & Response Border-Wide Work Group

- Alejandro Posadas, SEMARNAT, Mexican Embassy 

12:00 Public Comment Session

12:30 P.M. Lunch

1:30 Briefings on Board’s Twelfth Report Theme: 

 “Innovation, Including Incentives, to Prevent/Reduce Pollution at 

the U.S.- Mexico Border”

 Introduction, Background – Commissioner John Wood, Acting Chair 

1:45 Opportunities and Barriers for Environmental Innovation Along the 

U.S.-Mexico Border

- Chuck Kent, Director, Cross-Media Programs, Office of Policy, 

Economics, and Innovation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) 

- Sue Stendebach, Office of Air and Radiation, U.S. EPA 

2:30 Private Sector Leadership in Innovation for Environmental Protection 

at the Border – Al Zapanta, President and CEO, U.S.-Mexico 

Chamber of Commerce 

3:15 Break

3:30 Energy and Innovation to Protect the Environment at the Border 

- Brian Castelli, Executive Vice President, Alliance to Save Energy

4:15 Scrap Tires: Case in Point for Innovation at the Border 

- Tracey Norberg, Vice President, Rubber Manufacturers Association

5:00 Additional Discussion, Report Outs 

5:30 Day One of Meeting Ends
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 47

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

Meeting Day 2

March 19-20, 2008

Washington Hilton Towers Cabinet Room

1919 Connecticut Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20009

Phone: (202) 483-3000 

AGENDA

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Business Meeting and Strategic Planning Session

7:30 A.M. Registration

8:00 Business Meeting

- New Member Self Introductions, Goals for Board Membership

- Approval of Minutes from Last Meeting

- Dissemination Plan for Eleventh Report

8:30 Discussion of Twelfth Report

- Determine Structure

- Set up workgroups, including coordinators

- Set up first workgroup teleconference calls

- Other logistics

9:30 Performance Measures

- Review of existing performance measures

- System for tracking effectiveness during 2008

10:00 Break

10:15 Strategic Planning Session – Part 1: 

- Successes, lessons learned during 2007

- Goals for 2008
48 March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes

11:30 – Lunch

12:30 P.M. Strategic Planning Session – Part 2: Next Steps

- Follow-up to release of Eleventh Report (tracking system for 

dissemination, for receiving response from CEQ) 

- Tools, techniques to develop Twelfth Report

- Calexico meeting preparations

- Other steps 

2:00 Report-Outs (continued)

3:00 Meeting Ends
March 19-20, 2008 Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB) Meeting Minutes 49

These minutes are an accurate description of the matters discussed during this meeting.

_______________________________________

Paul Ganster

Chair

Good Neighbor Environmental Board

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board was created by the Enterprise for the Americas Initiative Act 

of 1992. The board is responsible for providing advice to the President and Congress on environmental 

and infrastructure issues and needs within the states contiguous to Mexico. The findings and 

recommendations of the Board do not represent the views of the Agency, and this document does not 

represent information approved or disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency.