FINAL/FINAL

Meeting Summary/Minutes

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

Double Tree Hotel, Terrace Ballroom

1515 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC

March 14-15, 2006

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

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

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

concern may exist about statistics or any other information contained within the minutes.

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

has administrative responsibility for the Board.

The Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

2

March 14-15, 2006

Double Tree Hotel, Terrace Ballroom

1515 Rhode Island Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC

March 14-15, 2006

Meeting Summary/Minutes

Day 1 - Tuesday, March 14, 2006 (9:00 a.m.)

Public/Press Event: Launch of the Ninth Report to the U.S. President and Congress

Presenters: Elaine Koerner, DFO, Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB); Paul Ganster, 

Chair, GNEB; Board member James Stefanov, U.S. Geological Survey; and Board member David 

Randolph, Arizona-Mexico Commission.

Others Present: Dave Ryan and Lina Younes, EPA Press Officers, members of the press, 

interested members of the public, and GNEB Board Members

Elaine Koerner, DFO, OCEM, opened the press conference and said the purpose of the press 

conference was to introduce the Ninth Report of the Good Neighbor Environmental Board to the 

President and Congress of the United States. The report is entitled: 

U.S.-Mexico Border Environment: Air Quality and Transportation & Cultural and Natural Resource, 

March 2006, and is the latest in a series of bilingual reports about how the Federal government can 

protect the environment along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Paul Ganster, Chair, GNEB, reported on the highlights of the Ninth Report. The two major topics 

covered were air quality and transportation and cultural and natural resources in the border region. 

Protection of air quality measures needs to be done in cooperation with commercial trucking and traffic 

at the border ports of entry. The main focus of the air quality recommendations was to strengthen 

planning and funding processes to ease port of entry congestion, to reduce air pollution by using lowsulfur diesel fuel, and to support public transportation. The cultural and natural resources section 

focuses in on controlling growth, increasing public education, and developing collaboration between 

border security and natural and cultural resources preservation efforts. Border security efforts should be 

careful to not destroy cultural and natural resources. The strategy is to support public-private 

partnerships to bring all resources to bear on the problems. Both issues are related to the rapid growth in 

the border area and its effect on the environment and the quality of life. 

Chair Ganster described the GNEB’s role, focus, and the diversity of its membership that has both 

public and private representation. The Board acts by consensus and meets in border communities twice a 

year to better understand local problems. The GNEB is a partner with the Border 2012 process, the U.S. 

and Mexico’s effort to address environmental issues.
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

3

March 14-15, 2006

GNEB Board member David Randolph, Arizona-Mexico Commission, discussed the rationale behind 

the air pollution and transportation recommendations as being related to rapid growth in population. 

Traffic at ports of entry is often backed up for hours and this creates a problem with air pollution and for 

commerce. The three main issues were 1) ports of entry and transportation infrastructure; 2) new 

technologies to reduce emissions from vehicles and identifying public and private funding sources; and 

3) encouraging the use of public transportation and alternate forms of transportation to reduce polluting 

emissions. Long-term planning, prioritization, and a multi-year funding mechanism are needed for the 

border transportation infrastructure. Staffing levels need to be improved. The use of non-intrusive 

technology at ports of entry can help to balance security and environmental needs.

GNEB Board member James Stefanov, U.S Geological Survey, addressed the closely-linked issues 

related to cultural and natural resources. The problem is based on population and urban growth and the 

unauthorized movement of undocumented immigrants across the borders that have detrimental effects 

on cultural and natural resources. Cultural resources include native Indian sacred sites and 

archaeological site preservation. Barriers are the lack of resources and public awareness. 

Recommendations include capacity building, public education, increasing public and private 

partnerships to manage growth, and ensuring that border security recognizes the importance of 

protecting Tribal lands and cultural sites.

DFO Koerner asked for feedback on the report and invited members of the press to the GNEB Board 

meeting. She announced that the Tenth report would be focused on how to maintain both strong 

security and strong environmental protection.

GNEB Board Meeting (10:00 a.m.)

Meeting Participants

Board Members

Non-Federal Board Members

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

University, Chair, San Diego, California

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

New Mexico

 Ron Curry, Secretary, New Mexico Environment Department, Santa Fe, New Mexico

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

Materials Division, San Diego, California

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

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

 Genevieve S. Long, Pro-Tem Mayor, City of Mission, Texas

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

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

Wildlife Fund, Las Cruces, New Mexico

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

 David Randolph, Border Coordination Officer, Arizona-Mexico Commission, Phoenix, Arizona
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

4

March 14-15, 2006

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

San Diego, California

 Robert Varady, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, University of 

Arizona, and Professor of Environmental Policy, Tucson, Arizona

Federal Board Members

 Rosendo Treviño III, State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Services, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture

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

 Linda Lawson, Director, Safety, Energy and the Environment, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT)

 John Ritchie, Border Coordinator, Office of Mexico Affairs, U.S. Department of State, 

Washington, DC

 Carl Edlund, Director of Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. EPA, Region 6, 

Dallas, Texas

 Carlos Marin, Acting Commissioner for U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water 

Commission (IBWC), El Paso, Texas 

Agency Alternates and Resource Specialists

 Alven Lam, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD

 Jacob Macias, Economic Development Representative for Arizona, Economic Development 

Administration, Seattle Regional Office, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) Seattle, 

Washington

 Richard Davis, Office of Global Health – NCE/ATSDR, Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Atlanta, Georgia

 Christina Machion Quilaqueo, Program Analyst, HUD, Washington, DC

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

Texas

Consejo, SEMARNAT Representative: Flavio Olivieri

EPA/OCEM Staff and Management

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

 Elaine Koerner, GNEB Designated Federal Officer (DFO) 

 Geraldine Brown 

 Lois Williams

 Megan Mareau 

Speakers/Panelists

 Honorable Stephen L. Johnson, Administrator, EPA

 Jerry Clifford, U.S. National Coordinator, Border 2012 and Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

EPA Office of International Activities

 Rafael DeLeon, Director, OCEM, EPA

 Sarah Froman, EPA
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

5

March 14-15, 2006

 Gary A. Ragatz, Branch Chief, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS)

 Sergio Sanchez, Executive Secretary, Clean Air Initiative for Latin American Cities, World Bank

 Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Director, Transportation Regional Program Division, OTAQ, EPA Office of 

Air and Radiation

 Jill Hochman, Director, Office of Interstate and Border Planning, FHA, U.S. DOT

 Alida Montiel, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona 

 Mariddie J. Craig, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Whiteriver, 

Arizona

 Daniel G. Carey, Director, Southwest Regional Office, National Trust for Historic Preservation

 David Tarler, National Park Service, (NPS), DOI

 Melida Tajbakhsh, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), DOI

 Kevin Stevens, Director, Secure Border Initiative Program, CBP, DHS

 Janet Bearden, Associate Director, International Compliance Assurance Division, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, EPA

 Brian Segee, Staff Attorney, Defenders of Wildlife

 Al Zapanta, President, U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce

 Flavio Olivieri, Consejo, SEMARNAT

Public Commenters (There were no public comments)

Guests {Names were taken from a copy of the sign-in sheet.}

 Timothy Borky, EPA

 Oscar Connillo, EPA

 Steve Cook, Daily Environment Report

 Tricia Elbrock, Malpai Borderlands Group, Animas, New Mexico

 Brian Hansen, Platts News Service

 Chris Hope, CBP, DHS

 Sherry Hutt, NPS

 Cynthia D. Jones-Jackson, Associate Director, OCEM, EPA

 Davis Jones, EPA

 Aurelia Micko, Department of State

 Phoebe L. Ng, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Whiteriver, Arizona

 Chris OH, CBP, DOI

 Jonathan Putnam, NPS

 Toni Rousey, EPA

 Christine Senteals, Hispanic Link, Washington, DC

 Marc Thomas, EPA, HQ

 P. Sanchez, UNIVISION

 D. Rick Van Schoik, SCERP

 Ron Slorkin, EPA

 Maven Williams, DHS
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

6

March 14-15, 2006

Background

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

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

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

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

Welcome and Introductions

Elaine Koerner, DFO, welcomed the Board members and described the agenda for Day One of the 

Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting. After the morning speakers, outside experts would 

provide feedback on the Ninth GNEB Report. In the afternoon, expert speakers would brief the Board on 

issues related to the Tenth Report: Environmental Protection and Border Security: How to Achieve 

Both. 

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

welcomed board members and guests to the GNEB meeting and introduced the Honorable Stephen L. 

Johnson, EPA Administrator.

EPA Administrator Johnson thanked the Board for their advice and noted that GNEB was the only 

EPA presidential advisory committee. The principle of collaboration with Mexico is important to EPA. 

The Border 2012 program has improved collaboration with Mexico and improved the lives of both U.S. 

and Mexican citizens. One priority is air emissions with a focus on developing clean vehicles and fuels 

by using ultra low sulfur diesel fuel. Other priorities are clean water, improved infrastructure, and land 

protection, such as removal of scrap tire piles. EPA is involved in international environmental issues 

because pollution knows no boundaries. 

EPA has an economic imperative to deal with the complicated issues in the GNEB Ninth Report and to 

protect the environment. The President has asked him to help solve the problem of how to maintain 

economic competitiveness and to protect the environment. The second area of interest was the interface 

of natural and cultural resources and environmental degradation and how to protect both tribal and 

archeological heritages. Administrator Johnson said he will be formally responding to the Ninth report 

and also noted the importance of collaboration and voluntary compliance in the report. He looks forward 

to the GNEB Tenth report on border security and the environment.

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

Diego State University, thanked Administrator Johnson for the collaboration between the Board, EPA, 

and OCEM.

Jerry Clifford, U.S. National Coordinator, Border 2012 and Deputy Assistant Administrator, EPA 

Office of International Activities, thanked the Board and Elaine Koerner, DFO, OCEM, for their 

participation and support. Mr. Clifford discussed the importance of the U.S.-Mexico Bilateral 

Commission. The Commission engages the senior leadership of both countries once a year. It has grown 

over the years and achieved success in improving the environment. Collaboration between EPA and 

SEMARNAT, the Department of Interior (DOI) and the Fish and Wildlife Service is vital. The Border 

2012 Program has achieved empowerment at the state, regional, and community levels on both sides of 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

7

March 14-15, 2006

the border. The GNEB helps to build capacity at the local level and has reached out to our Mexican 

colleagues in Consejo. 

Other important border environmental efforts and successes were noted:

 SCERP’s (SW Consortium For Environmental Research & Policy) efforts to build environmental 

policies for both sides of the border

 The World Bank, EPA, GNEB, and Border 2012 working with various governmental officials 

and organizations on the ultra low sulfur clean fuel issue. For example, Mexico recently adopted 

a plan to deliver low sulfur fuel to the border. 

 The Methane to Market partnership addressing greenhouse gas emissions through use of land 

fills, in Ensenada and Nuevo Laredo. EPA, USAID, and SEMARNAT are working on a letter of 

cooperation. USAID has committed one-half million dollars for the Methane to Market Program

 The Border 2012 efforts to reduce the scrap tire piles and stabilizing hazardous lead waste sites 

in Tijuana. The next Border 2012 coordinators' meeting is in Ensenada on April 26-27, 2006.

 U.S. proposal to the United Nations to reduce mercury pollution, most of which comes from 

outside the United States—mostly from China’s use of coal. Other large sources are chloralkaline facilities and mercury in electronic products worldwide. The U.S. has standards, but 

many other countries do not. 

 EPA’s launching of state-to-state partnerships between the U.S. and Mexico. For example, 

Texas has helped Chihuahua increase its environmental capacity. EPA works with 

SEMARNAT to replicate the capacity-building efforts.

 Radio frequency identification (RFID) to track hazardous waste across borders. RFID uses 

electronic chips on trucks or in materials that provides information to border officials to identify

hazardous materials and facilitate movement of commercial traffic.

Questions and Comments

Douglas Smith, Sony Electronics, was in favor of improving commerce, but noted that there was no 

mercury in cell phones. The problem comes from power plants. 

Jerry Clifford responded that there is some mercury in switches and other countries do not always use 

lead-free solder. The Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) is working to engage the 

private sector in “greening” the supply chain. A proposal to the federal governments in Mexico and 

Canada to set standards for safety and the environment is in process.

Roundtables on Ninth Report to the President and Congress

Air Quality and Transportation Panel

David Randolph, Workgroup Coordinator and Border Coordination Officer, Arizona-Mexico 

Commission, gave a brief overview of his presentation at the press conference for the Ninth Report and 

introduced the panelists who would provide expert feedback on the recommendations in the Ninth 

Report. Air quality was chosen because of the effect of air pollution on health. Transportation, growth 

of population and vehicle traffic, and increased business and trade at the border have created the air 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

8

March 14-15, 2006

pollution problem. The border crossing infrastructure is saturated causing 1-5 hour backups for trucks 

and the problem may double in the next 25 years. 

There are three aspects to improving transportation and air pollution problems: 

1. Long-range planning and multi-year funding is needed for improving the infrastructure at border 

stations. The Customs and Border Protection Agency, DHS, and the Federal Highway

Administration’s (FHWA) Joint Working Committee—a binational committee with Mexico and 

10 Border States—are working on a long-range plan. More and better-trained personnel would 

be needed with increased stations and use of non-intrusive inspection equipment.

2. Emissions controls, including low sulfur diesel fuel, vehicle maintenance, and vehicle inspection.

3. Increased use of mass public transportation across the border while recognizing security issues.

Gary A. Ragatz, Branch Chief, U.S. Customs and Border Protections (CBP), DHS, introduced Chris 

Hope, Chief of Environmental Compliance, CBP, who plays a vital role in the program. Mr. Ragatz 

described the CBP planning process for resources and infrastructure. GSA spent $364 million dollars to 

improve the Southwest border and within five years those facilities became obsolete. CBP is the lead 

agency for programmatic planning and is looking 30 to 50 years in the future to develop strategic 

resource assessments. Once a port of entry is in place, it is difficult to expand because communities are 

built around the ports. Ports of entry need to grow in concert with the transportation system. The biggest 

problem is international-level cooperation. CBP is working with Mexico to try to establish three top 

priorities. A multi-year authorization bill would be very helpful. Supplementation of General Services 

Administration (GSA) funding is needed because at present the shortfall for construction is $200 million 

dollars. 

Jill Hochman, Director, Office of Interstate and Border Planning, FHWA, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), was introduced as the key person in the U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Committee 

on Transportation Infrastructure. Ms Hochman focused on border crossing stations and related 

transportation infrastructure in the first section of the Ninth report. New funding is available under the

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act, SAFETEA-LU, legislation for state 

departments of transportation to improve movement of traffic crossings over to Mexico and Canada. 

There are 15 U.S. states that receive a dedicated stream of funding by formula from the Coordinated 

Border Infrastructure Fund.

Ms. Hochman approved of all of the Ninth report recommendations, but she thought that bolstering 

infrastructure, personnel, and related resources, and long-range planning and coordination were the most 

important. Long-range planning and coordination are feasible, but it is necessary to develop priorities. 

Traffic forecasts, transportation planning studies, GIS software, and environmental work can be shared. 

Ms. Hochman had one correction—states do not have to reduce federal funds because of new funds to be 

spent in the same area.

Because of the new border fund, Texas has asked district engineers to work with GSA, the CBP, 

metropolitan planning organizations, and local governments to propose projects using the criteria of the 

new funds. The transportation sector is a supporting partner for Homeland Security and helps to identify

bottlenecks and suggests improvements. 

Merrylin Zaw-Mon, Director, Transportation Regional Program Division, OTAQ, EPA, Office of Air 

and Radiation (OAR), who oversees a voluntary program to reduce diesel emission, stated that the 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

9

March 14-15, 2006

Office of Air and Radiation wants to collaborate and commended the Board on their efforts to improve 

public health, air pollution, environmental conditions, and quality of life along the U.S.-Mexico border. 

Collaborative partnerships are working very well in the United States to reduce diesel pollution. The 

Ninth Report’s recommendation on low sulfur diesel fuel helps to support efforts such as Blue Skyways. 

The Report’s and Border 2012’s recommendations reinforce each other. 

Ms. Zaw-Mon focused on the Report’s second recommendation to use emerging technologies and fuel 

to reduce emissions. EPA was pleased when Mexico passed legislation to reduce fuel sulfur, especially

at the border. In 2007, EPA’s standards will go into effect and trucks crossing the border will need clean 

sulfur fuels. Mexico is discussing the provision of capital investment to enable refineries to reduce 

sulfur in fuels. The National Clean Diesel Campaign works with states, NGOS, engine companies, etc. 

to reduce diesel emissions. 

Several projects to reduce fuel emissions are under way, or have been completed, as follows:

 A retrofit demonstration project in San Diego/Tijuana

 A remote sensing project in Nogales

 Blue Skyways, a joint EPA Region 6 and 7 initiative using green energy technology on trucks

 Use of electrical supply outlets to truck reduce idling 

 Harmonization of the standards between U.S., Mexico, and Canada

 Transfer of technology used in a Mexico City diesel retrofit project to border cities 

 Smart Way, which works with shippers and carriers to save fuel and reduce pollution using 

technologies such as wide tires and truck stop electrification.

The Ninth Report recommendations on mass transportation, ride-sharing, walking and biking are 

important to reduce emissions, greenhouse gases and save fuel. A program in the U.S., The Best 

Workplace for Commuters, encourages the use of alternate modes and has over 1500 partners in 32 

states covering nearly 3 million employees. The Ninth Report has made excellent recommendations, and 

OAR will work with the Board to accelerate the clean-up of air pollution at border crossings.

Carlos de la Parra, Minister for the Environment, Embassy of Mexico, focused on the importance of 

trying to facilitate border crossing and the importance of the Ninth report recommendations in easing 

this problem. The recommendation to improve infrastructure needs to be connected with funding 

sources. Local communities residents who want to cross the border and others who benefit need to help 

pay for the infrastructure. Fuel emissions are related to purchase of older cars by Mexican citizens. Both 

countries need to have regulations to measure emissions from these older cars. Emissions control 

policies are often unpopular so politicians who are up for re-election do not want to support them. Local 

governments need to get involved in the problem

Sergio Sanchez, Executive Secretary, Clean Air Initiative for Latin America Cities, World Bank,

pointed out that air pollution was a world-wide problem. The International Energy Program states that 

emissions from vehicles will increase 2.4 times by the year 2015. The Ninth report is very sound in 

recommending that border crossing problems be solved through international cooperation. The report 

will help to promote bi-national standards for ultra low sulfur fuel. Public transportation is important 

because the number of cars per person is increasing in the border area, and cars are increasing faster than 

buses. A World Bank project addresses sustainable transportation related to specific projects: freight 

management, quality and efficiency of service, integration with other modes of transport, basic modes of 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

10

March 14-15, 2006

transport like cycling, and disincentives to use cars in crowded areas. For example, in Monterey they are 

fostering development of bus systems and cycling. 

The World Bank is looking for partners in a demonstration project for land use and transportation to 

prove that projects are feasible and generate long-term results. Cleaner fuels technologies have an 

important role in reducing pollution, but they are not the sole solution. The public transportation system 

needs to be improved. The World Bank would like to join efforts in developing information systems, air 

quality monitoring, inventory control, and establishment of base line data.

Cultural and Natural Resources Panel

James Stefanov, U.S. Geological Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Moderator, introduced 

the panel members and summarized the recommendations of the Cultural and Natural Resources section 

of the Ninth GNEB Report. The recommendations were to protect cultural and natural resources along 

the U.S.-Mexico border by building capacity, educating border residents about protecting resources, 

establishing public-private partnerships, managing growth through conservation efforts, and improving 

border security while protecting cultural and natural resources, particularly on tribal lands. 

Alida Montiel, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, spoke as a tribal representative and as a staff member 

of the Cultural Resources Working Group, which has representatives from the 22 federally-recognized 

Indian tribes in Arizona and all of which have cultural preservation offices. They are involved with 

federal agencies in carrying out several historic preservation acts, such as the National Native American 

Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) and Arizona’s Historic Preservation and Antiquities 

Acts. A major concern is the protection of sacred sites, some of which are used for religious ceremonies. 

Tribal lands cross the border and members need to be able to cross the border to attend ceremonies 

without having to clear time-consuming security barriers. More flexibility is needed so tribal members 

can fulfill their tribal obligations. 

Statutes on reservations are covered by Federal legislation, but off-reservation tribal lands are under 

State law, so tribes must lobby for both Federal and State legislation. The Arizona state legislature is 

working on a bill to protect the off-reservation, archeological and cultural sites. Legislation covers 

private lands; however, owners voluntarily respect sacred sites and notification about human remains.

Mariddie J. Craig, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, said that there 

were five Apache tribes in Arizona that have links in Mexico. In the past, the White Mountain tribal 

ancestors were able to cross the border without any difficulty. This week tribal representatives have 

come to Washington to speak to their representatives and to the GNEB about problems common to all 

the tribes. For cultural reasons, we want to be able to cross the border without difficulty. Two years ago 

a problem occurred with exposure of burial sites and destruction of archeological sites, and tribal 

members had trouble gaining access to the sites. 

Daniel G. Carey, Director, Southwest Regional Office, National Trust for Historic Preservation, 

stated that the Trust is non-profit, chartered by Congress, and has 250,000 members. Their mission is to 

provide leadership, education, and advocacy to restore historic resources and revitalize communities. In 

2001, the Caminos Del Rio was listed as one of 11 most endangered historic places in the border area. 

The Trust supports the GNEB Ninth Report and other efforts. Mr. Carey offered to provide assistance as 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

11

March 14-15, 2006

needed. The Ninth Report recommendations are good and reasonable, and bring timely attention to the 

lack of resources to preserve historical sites. 

One need is for an inventory of resources that need preservation. The designation of more national 

heritage sites is important and will also bring in tourism dollars. Federal legislation is in process 

concerning saving American Treasures for $30 million. H.B. 3159 creates incentives to give private 

individuals reasons to save historic resources. Public and private partnerships are important, such as the 

National Forest Service’s Passport in Time. 

David Tarler, National Park Service (NPS), DOI, who works with Native American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act Program (NAGPRA), first introduced Sherry Hutt, Director of NAGPRA, and 

Jonathan Putnam, Office on International Affairs, NPS. Mr. Tarler distributed Bilateral Operations: the 

Keys to Mutual Protection of Cultural Heritage, November, 2000 and El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro 

National Historic Trail as examples of bi-national efforts to preserve cultural heritage resources. Ms. 

Hutt’s office has produced a source book, “Protecting Archeological and Cultural Environment. 

Another valuable resource is Nelly M. Robles Garcia’s dissertation, “Management of Archeological 

Resources in Mexico.” 

Principles for effective protection and preservation of cultural sites that guided NPS cultural resources 

project, in cooperation with Mexico, include the following:

 A programmatic rather than an adhoc basis for projects

 Partnerships and cooperative agreements, such as a Year 2000 memorandum of understanding 

between NPS and the World Bank on cultural and natural resources conservation

 Consultation from local stakeholders

 Cooperation between land management, cultural resource professionals, law enforcement and 

attorneys on enforcement of civil and criminal laws.

 A survey of cultural and archeological sites, 

 Identification of statutes related to preservation

 Identification of projects already undertaken.

Melida Tajbakhsh, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), DOI, spoke about the importance of natural 

resource preservation, biological diversity, and the annual migration of animal species in Mexico and in 

the border area. Mexico has made several efforts to protect the natural environment, including the 

establishment of SEMARNAT, an Endangered Species Act, and the National Council for Protected 

Areas—including 3.3 million acres along the U.S.-Mexico border. The FWS works with Mexico in 

managing seven wildlife areas in the border area. FWS agrees that capacity-building is a number one 

priority in management of resources shared with Mexico. FWS has a grants program to build capacity to 

manage and conserve biodiversity in Mexico. Since 1995, has provided $5 million for 200 projects, 

which has generated $500 million in local public and private matching contributions. One-half of the 

projects are in the border area. 

Some examples of funded projects include: bilingual newsletters, bilateral education program, species 

preservation, ecotourism, roosting cave protection, natural resources management and training for 

resource managers and park guard and training in investigative techniques for customs agents. 

Workshops have been provided for managers and private land owners on conservation of species. A 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

12

March 14-15, 2006

great deal of voluntary assistance has been provided by universities near the border. The cooperation of 

state agencies in California, Arizona, and Mexico is very important.

The GNEB Ninth Report identified three major issues: increased coordination, increased land use 

management, and minimization of ecosystem degradation. There are other agencies working on these 

issues, so cooperation is needed among these groups. It would be helpful to develop a matrix identifying

the various activities along the border and aligning them with the three GNEB Report’s issues. 

Questions and Comments

Chris Brown: What mechanism do you use to highlight the importance of attending religious 

ceremonies?

Alida Montiel: In Sonora, people who want to cross over and back of the border for ceremonies, or to 

get a tribal enrollment, or to make annual visits to their tribe in Mexico have to work with the State 

Department and various embassies to get clearances. We emphasize that the border area is our home, our 

mountains, rivers, animals and plants, and sites for religious ceremonies and burials.

Rosario Marin: If the Board is to make recommendations, what would they be? The Board has 

constraints with security issues and illegal immigration.

Alida Montiel: The State Department needs to be educated about the issues and develop a mechanism to 

facilitate border crossings for medical, cultural and religious reasons. Tribal members need private time 

on sacred sites. Allowing economic exchanges across the border is also important.

Afternoon Session 2:00 p.m.

Speaker Briefings for Preparation of the Tenth Report: Environmental Protection and 

Border Security: How to Achieve Both

Chair Ganster reviewed the morning session and introduced the group of speakers who would provide 

expert advice for the Tenth Report on how to achieve environmental protection and border security. 

Kevin Stevens, Acting Director of the Secure Border Initiative Program, Customs and Border 

Protection (CBP), DHS, used a series of slides from DHS’s Industry Day on January 26, 2006, to 

describe DHS Secure Border Initiative (SBInet). The SBI has two parts: interior enforcement and border 

security. One of the goals of the initiative is to establish a legal temporary worker program so that 

people can cross the border to work, because U.S. businesses need the workers. 

CBP is responsible for border security. The focus is on the land borders with Mexico and Canada. A 

threat-based approach is used for planning purposes. In Canada, the presence of known extremist groups 

requires good intelligence, not barriers for lots of people. In Mexico, the focus is on the level of activity

because 99 percent of the 1.2 million illegal immigrants who were arrested between ports of entry came 

over the U.S.-Mexico border, with 50 percent crossing in Arizona. In one year, CBP will inspect 430 

million people, 132 million vehicles, and 23 million containers at ports of entry. Illegal entries include 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

13

March 14-15, 2006

arrests for assault, robbery, larceny, vehicle theft, and drug smuggling. One million pounds of drugs 

were confiscated between ports of entry.

Mr. Stevens showed videotapes of trucks filled with immigrants waiting to cross the border, using paths 

thorough the U.S. national parks, and making dashes along the freeway into the U.S. The problems are 

piles of trash, bandits preying on immigrants, and criminal violence against border control agents. With 

more control at ports of entry and in urban areas, the main problem now is in rural areas in Texas and 

Arizona. The goal in rural areas is prevent vehicular traffic, which can move quickly and destroy the 

environment. Barriers need to prevent the movement of vehicles, not people, who can be located 

through use of horses, planes, helicopters, cars, and by officers living in the area. 

Questions and Comments

Robert Varady: Two of the justifications for the secure border initiative are crime and terrorism, but the 

statistics do not mention terrorism and out of 1.2 million arrests, a small percentage is for crimes, the 

vast majority of arrests are of non-criminal immigrants.

Kevin Stevens: Arrests for crimes were 122,000 about 10 percent of the total. For more information, 

look at the website: www.CBP.gov, and look under the secure border initiative on Industry Day, January

26, 2006. 

Janet Bearden, Associate Director, International Compliance Assurance Division, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, (OECA), EPA, and Coordinator for the Commission for 

Environmental Cooperation (CEC), provided a summary of EPA activities on border security and 

identified issues related to the environment and border security. Achieving border security is difficult, 

but identifying the gaps is an important role for GNEB. In 2002, EPA formed a Customs Initiative, 

Partnering for a Safer Nation, to improve data sharing, compliance monitoring ands surveillance of 

imported chemicals, wastes and materials regulated by EPA and Customs. The initiative relies on 

partnerships with Mexico and Canada. EPA has statutory authority for imported chemicals that can be 

made into explosive weapons and hazardous materials. Regulation is shared with Customs and Border 

Protection, because EPA does not have any presence at the border. A line cannot be drawn between 

public health and security. Efforts should be based on a risk management approach.

A memo of understanding between EPA and CBP in January 2002 allowed for sharing of information on 

commodities coming into the country. Since 2004, EPA has been involved in the International Trade 

Data System (ITDS)/ACE (automated commercial environment), a voluntary program to improve the 

efficiency of international trade. The program would allow for a single entry form. The system will 

strengthen the ability to share information across the border with Mexico and Canada. Hazardous waste 

notification will be done electronically to reduce processing time for both commercial traders and the 

government. 

EPA is piloting the use of Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), a project to track hazardous wastes 

from maquiladoras in from Mexico. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires the tracking 

of chemical wastes, but at present there is no system in place. The pilot program will work with Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality and be included in the Security and Prosperity Initiative. Other 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

14

March 14-15, 2006

programs include an emergency response MOU between Customs and EPA, on-line training for U.S., 

Mexico, and Canada inspection agents to identify illegal drugs and endangered species, training for 

judges, eliminating differences in laws between countries, and developing and sharing protocols for 

detecting hazardous waste.

The major barriers are time, money, management, and competition with domestic obligations. The major 

issues are limited resources, limited help to states and tribes, erecting a wall at the border, environmental 

crime, including black market items and drugs. 

Questions and Comments

Paul Gangster: Will this approach develop cooperation with Mexico to share data and information so 

we can look at the entire region?

Ms. Bearden: The Mexican authorities recognize the need to operate bilaterally, and OECA has met 

with SEMARNAT. Mexican agencies have a lack of funds and need more training. 

Michael Dorsey: San Diego County is working on a task force with Tijuana on chemical emergency 

responses and exercises are taking place along the border. 

Ms Bearden: EPA has a sister city program with Mexico City, but 9-11 has made this difficult. 

Paul Ganster: A problem with a hydrochloric acid incident did not get dealt with efficiently, because of 

a lack of follow up training, so facilitation of the movement of personnel is important. 

Michael Dorsey: Some of the issues of movement of personnel are non-security, such as national 

sovereignty and command issues. 

Rich Van Schoik: Are agencies getting together to talk about polarizing issues where information is not 

shared?

Ms. Bearden: EPA’s Office of Federal Activities has responsibility for the National Environmental 

Policy Act and could engage in discussions on national security.

Brian Segee, Staff Attorney, Defenders of Wildlife, discussed how immigration policy affects wildlife, 

using a series of slides called, “Defending Wildlife by Balancing Border Security and Environmental 

Protection: Perspectives of a Non-Profit Wildlife and Habitat Conservation Organization.” Defenders of 

Wildlife has offices in Arizona, Mexico and Canada. Their first goal is to increase awareness of the 

natural environment at the border and that it is a shared ecosystem with Mexico. Walls built for security

purposes divide ecosystems unnaturally and destroy the natural movement of animal species in their 

native habitats. The movement of illegal immigration across the Arizona-Mexico border and the 

activities of the border patrol have endangered federally protected lands, national forest, wilderness 

areas, forest service wilderness areas and tribal lands. 

Short-term solutions are dedicated funding for security, for environmental programs, and for land 

management agencies like Fish and Wildlife and the Forest Service. These agencies have become 

border security agencies, so funds are taken away from preservation of natural resources. Better 

coordination is needed between security needs and environmental needs. 

Immigration policy needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner, including both economic and 

security constraints. Now, immigration policy is becoming border security and this is ruining the 

environment. Congress has waived environmental laws to build walls for border security by Homeland 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

15

March 14-15, 2006

Security. Last December, the House of Representatives passed an immigration bill, HR4437, Title 10, 

the Hunter Amendment, that requires five separate areas of double-layered wall construction. The 

largest border area covered by the bill extends across the whole Arizona-Mexico border. The use of 

sensors and walls that only block vehicles would do less ecological damage. The infrastructure and 

security strategies should be required to undergo review under the Endangered Species Act and other 

environmental reviews. The Defenders of Wildlife believe both the goals of security and environmental 

can be achieved, but has had little success to date.

Questions and Comments

Chris Brown: What has made the biggest change in Congressional attitudes towards border security?

Brian Segee: Illegal immigration is the most important issue as it affects all Americans and Congress has 

to respond.

Paul Ganster: Does your organization have a solution to this immigration problem?

Brian Segee: A comprehensive approach is needed for immigration policy reform, not just building 

walls. 

Board Member Report-Outs, Part I

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

Arizona, reported on Udall Center border activities and noted that their last newsletter had a report on 

the October 2005 GNEB meeting. An upcoming major event is the Fourth World Water Forum. Borderrelated events included a report on the NOAA-funded project on use of good climate data by water 

managers, and facilitation of water management through the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) in the 

San Pedro Basin. The Udall Center remains extremely active in border issues, especially water and 

climate. Dr. Varady will distribute copies of the Eighth GNEB Report at the World Water Forum. 

Carl Edlund, Director of Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, U.S. EPA, Region 6,

provided a handout to members on border activities of Region 6 and 9. Border 2012’s major focus is on 

development of air, water, waste, compliance, enforcement, and community programs. Two 

developments of note are the transportation collaboratives with Canada and Mexico: a West Coast 

Diesel Emissions Reduction Collaborative, and Blue Skyways, a transportation-related pollution control 

project. Both projects include diesel retrofits and electric outlets at truck stops. The next Border 2012 

meeting is April, 2006, in Enseñada. Reduction and prevention of waste tire piles is a major concern. 

The Air Waste Management Association will meet with SEMARNAT on wastewater issues on June 20-

22, 2006, in New Orleans.

The new agency emphasis is on planning and coordination between ecoregions, such as EPA Regions 6 

and 9 that have a shared ecosystem. They will collaborate on water infrastructure projects, tires, air 

quality, and sister city emergency response efforts. 

Stephen M. Niemeyer, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), stated that the Border 

2012 four-state workgroup has been reorganized into three geographical areas rather than by media, 

such as water and air, because the areas covered 700 miles and were too large. The U.S. states are 

meeting with their Mexican counterparts in San Francisco on April19-21, 2006. Copies of the Board’s 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

16

March 14-15, 2006

Eighth Report were sent to the Mexican agencies of the Border Governors Conference Water Work 

Table, but they did not use the recommendations because they were not involved in developing them. 

Speaker Briefings for the Tenth Report, Continued

Chair Ganster introduced the next speaker, Al Zapanta, and thanked him for scheduling the U.S.-

Mexico Chamber of Commerce’s Tenth Annual Border Issues Forum to coincide with the GNEB Board 

Meeting, so that the GNEB’s Ninth Report could be presented to the Forum. 

Al Zapanta, President, U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce, focused on the need for private-public 

partnerships on border issues. This year the Forum will focus on immigration. There will be two 

panels—one on border health and the other on environment and energy. Mr. Zapanta reviewed some of 

the presenters and topics of the Forum. One report will be on a project to reduce environmental 

contamination from five industries: tanning, medical, automotive parts and electronics, hospitals, and 

hotels. Clean Production Centers will focus on making industries “green and lean.” The private sector 

needs to play a role in improving the border environment because they are the major polluters. The 

Chamber will focus on “green” communities and sustainable economic development. 

In Mexico, the economy is looking good now, but job growth and manufacturing will diminish, and in 

10 to 20 years Mexico will not be able to compete in the world marketplace. A cleaner environment 

must become a competitive aspect of the global marketplace. At present, the number of supply bases for 

military uses is shrinking rapidly as they are moved overseas. U.S.-Mexico border needs to be the 

center of sustainable economic development in the future. The Chamber of Commerce is willing to help 

the GNEB in its efforts to improve the environment. 

Questions and Comments

Flavio Olivieri, Consejo: Will the Forum address the detrimental effects of border security measures on 

the growth of the border economy with the U.S. Senators and Representatives?

Al Zapanta: Two U.S. Senators will be the luncheon keynote speakers, and U.S. Congressional persons, 

representatives of Mexico, and several national figures are involved in the roundtable on immigration. 

The question is: How can we get the debate going in the media, Congress, national organizations, and 

the private sector? 

Rosario Marin: Will the issue of the illegal immigration and its effects on the border environment be 

raised at the roundtable? Mr. Zapanta responded that Paul Ganster and Richard Davis could present this 

issue, but it is not part of the agenda. 

Chris Brown: Could you expand on NAFTA’s effort to shore up the supply base for high-tech industries 

in view of several maquiladoras moving their operations to China?

Al Zapanta: The Chamber is focused on U.S.-Mexico’s Centers as being the agent for the new 

economic model for competition. Some of the industrial experiences in China have not been positive. 

Re-balancing is essential, because if Mexico and the whole Western hemisphere do not use high 

technology they will be left behind. Technology transfer is needed to help small minority industries in 

the U.S. and Mexico compete in a global economy and use “green” technologies.
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

17

March 14-15, 2006

Jennifer Montoya: The World Wildlife Fund is working on fresh water management around the globe by 

tightening water use for production. The focus in Mexico is on gaining market share by improving the 

environment and gaining brand recognition. For example, Home Depot may start to use building 

materials that are environmentally friendly. It is not the government that will make the change; it will be 

the community and the private sector. The GNEB needs to help make these connections and focus on 

green/economy issues.

Elaine Koerner: Does the private sector have technology that would help with the issue of 

simultaneously achieving border security and protecting the environment?

Al Zapanta: The technology is available. President Reagan’s amnesty program was one solution. The 

guest worker program is a good idea, but it is not in favor politically. With millions of illegal 

immigrants, we should use the term “migration,” not “immigration.”

Steve Niemeyer: What is the Chamber’s position on the dissolution of the BECC and the NADBank?

Al Zapanta: We are wholly against that, totally, in every form at this point...I am not saying it is perfect, 

but what do we have in its place to focus on these kinds of things?...Until I hear that, I am fighting for it.

Adjournment: There being no public comments, the meeting was adjourned at 5:25 p.m.

Day 2-Wednesday, March 15, 2006 (8:11 a.m.)

GNEB Business Meeting

Non-Federal Board Members Present: Paul Ganster, Ph.D., Chair, Christopher Brown, Ron Curry, 

Michael Dorsey, Edward Elbrock, Gary Gillen, Genevieve Long, Rosario Marin, Jennifer Montoya, 

Stephen Niemeyer, David Randolph, Douglas S. Smith, Robert Varady

Federal Members Present, Rosendo Treviño III, Carlos Marin, Linda Lawson, James Stefano, Carl 

Edlund

Federal Alternates and Resource Specialists Jacob Macias, Richard Davis, Sally Spener, Alven Lam, 

Aurelia Micko

EPA, OCEM: Elaine Koerner, Megan Moreau

Guest: Flavio Olivieri, Consejo, SEMARNAT

Welcome Remarks

Chair Ganster called the meeting to order, recognized the new members, and asked them to introduce 

themselves and state their interests in the GNEB. The new members were Ron Curry, Chris Brown, 

Michael Dorsey, Edward Elbrock, Genevieve Long, Rosario Marin, Jennifer Montoya, James Stefanov, 

Carlos Marin, and Carl Edlund. Official HHSAlternate Richard Davis also was new. Each member 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

18

March 14-15, 2006

reviewed their goals, activities and interests, and offered to both learn from the other members and to 

provide their expertise on Board issues. 

Approval of the Minutes

Chair Ganster found the level of detail in the minutes to be very useful and asked for a motion to 

approve the minutes of the Tohono O’odham Nation, October 17-19, 2005, Board meeting. Robert 

Varady noted the difference in statistics on Page 16 and 17 of the minutes and those provided by Mr. 

Stevens, CBP, in his presentation yesterday. It was decided that the variation could be due to a different 

area or time frame. DFO Koerner cautioned about the need to cite sources when providing statistics. 

The minutes should reflect what speakers actually say. Sally Spener noted some spelling errors in 

names of organizations. Gary Gillen moved, and Robert Varady seconded, a motion to approve the 

minutes with the corrections as noted. The minutes were approved unanimously. Chair Ganster asked 

members to send any minor changes to DFO Koerner. 

Dissemination Plan for the Ninth Report

DFO Koerner noted that the Request Form for dissemination of the GNEB Ninth Report was in the 

packet and asked member to fill out the form and help with the distribution. The distribution Tracking 

Report for the Eighth Report was attached. New members can request bulk copies to be sent to their 

offices and could add their own cover letter. Address label information can be provided to the storage 

facility in Cincinnati, Ohio, for distribution of bulk copies. Some members agreed to take the report to 

meetings: Edward Elbrock to the Malpai Borderlands Group and Genevieve Long to the Water District 

Managers. 

Discussion of the Tenth Report

Chair Ganster reviewed the member responsibilities to produce the Tenth Report including setting up 

workgroups, determining processes and responsibilities, identifying resource materials, deciding on 

dates for workgroup conferences, and other logistical issues. DFO Koerner suggested two ways to 

organize the workgroups based on previous discussions of the Tenth Report. She said the Board’s 

mission is on the environment, not immigration policy. The same approach that was used for 

transportation policy in the Ninth Report could be applied in covering immigration policy and how it 

relates to environmental concerns. Since the Report readership is broad, border security needs to be 

described. The theme would be on simultaneously protecting the environment and safeguarding the 

U.S.-Mexico border. The Report would be based on some of the issues discussed during GNEB’s 

October 2005 and present meeting.

The two frameworks were outlined on flip charts by DFO Koerner as follows:

Framework I:

1. What is the world of border security? Including definition, goals, threats and concerns; who, 

what, where, how and when; and fencing, border activities.

2. Nexus: What is the intersection of border security and environmental protection? Which 

activities produce which effects? Environmental impacts of a lack of border security, including 

vehicles, public health, and trash.
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

19

March 14-15, 2006

3. What are the tools and next steps? Technology, education, partnerships, and planning, 

sustainable economic development.

Framework II:

1. World of border security

2. Effects on the ecosystem- at points of entry and further inland

3. Effects on public health and the environment 

David Randolph thought the methodology used for one section of the Ninth Report – starting with 

general ideas of recommendations, and then providing supporting text, could be useful. The security

background is essential to include in the Tenth Report, and it would be important to have representatives 

from DHS and CBP join the board for that expertise. Health issues include human waste, biohazardous 

medical waste, the availability of health care services, and communicable diseases. The 

recommendations could be cleaning up waste sites, funding of clinics, and avoiding dumping illegal 

immigrants on available clinics. On ecosystems, the need to protect the flora and fauna could be tied 

with the exemption from environmental laws or the need for minimal standards. 

Steve Niemeyer agreed with these ideas and having a member of DHS or CBP on the board. The 

environmental aspects should include emergency response and hazardous waste. For example, last year 

an ammonia spill was not reported to EPA, hydroflouric acid is being manufactured across the border 

from El Paso, and 10 percent of the truck traffic in Laredo carries hazardous materials. DFO Koerner

agreed with hazardous waste and effects on public health. OCEM and DHS are working on getting a 

representative on the Board.

Rosario Marin stated the need to have a clear focus and mandate regardless of other the impact of 

recommendations on other agencies. GNEB’s report can be developed without acceptance of agencies 

who do not wish to participate, because GNEB’s mandate is to report to the President of the United 

States and to Congress.

Carl Edlund said air pollution at truck crossings is worsened by customs and security-related lengthy 

processes for hazardous materials. One potential solution is the use of pre-packaging and RFID scanning 

to reduce air pollution and improve information for border security about materials crossing the border.

Jennifer Montoya noted that the work done by Defenders of Wildlife and the recommendations in The 

Impact of Immigration Policy on Wildlife and Habitat in the Arizona Borderland could be used in the 

Tenth Report. The dissemination plan should be done ahead of time to provide guidance for the report.

Michael Dorsey agreed with Steve Niemeyer and the statements by yesterday’s presenters, but several 

items have not been resolved such as insurance and liability issues, mobilizing health, especially on the 

Tijuana side, the impact of national security on the ecosystem, and emergency response. 

Gary Gillen stated that the Report needs to recognize the positive role of business in cross border 

activity and protecting the environment. Businesses have a strong role to play in both environmental 

and border security issues. (He was asked by Jerry Clifford to correct a statement Clifford made at 

yesterday’s meeting: It was not pesticides that were used to make a bomb in Oklahoma City, it was 

fertilizers.) Carl Edlund added that for businesses the focus is on quantifiable savings for improving 

environmental measures. 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

20

March 14-15, 2006

Christopher Brown spoke in favor of looking at the broader framework of immigration issues and to 

bring the science background of the USGS to examination of the assumptions of security policy. While 

we have a charge to protect the environment, we need to include as much as we can about security

effects on the environment and economic issues.

Carlos Marin stated that border security is a major issue for the IBWC, especially of waste water 

treatment plants and large reservoirs. FEMA has established a group called Critical Infrastructure 

Protection that addresses transportation, agriculture, water, dams, etc and IBWC is the lead agency on 

water and dams. The group is moving slowly because of lack of funding. Perhaps GNEB could 

recommend higher levels of funding for this type of border security. Douglas Smith reported that there 

was a drug-related shootout at the Sony factory in Laredo, so criminal activity related to drugs needs to 

be part of border security. Stephen Niemeyer added that scores of people have been killed in Nuevo 

Laredo due to drugs-related violence.

Robert Varady thought that there should be an overt section on the politics and changes that have 

occurred in the last few years. Environmental groups have made progress in the last 30 years, but 

security efforts are destroying some of this progress. Chair Ganster agreed that this would be part of the 

context of the first section describing border security. 

DFO Koerner asked for agreement on a framework. David Randolph asked that the basic themes and 

issues need to be determined such as ecosystems, hazardous materials, emergency response, and 

immigration in Framework I. Ed Elbrock added insecurity. Further discussion yielded the following 

ideas:

 Topics were too broad and needed to be refined.

 Groups need to interact and share information and progress notes.

 Environmental topics need to be integrated with security issues.

 The framework needs to be based on topics or themes.

 Barriers, next steps, and partnerships would different for each workgroup.

 An overview section is definitely needed.

 The first framework would have too much crossover between groups. 

 Ports of entry and ecosystems need to be dealt with under each topic.

 One person needs to do the writing for each workgroup, so save review time.

 The emphasis should be more on environmental health than public health.

It was decided to use Framework II with revisions based on the group discussion. The revised 

framework includes: 1) World of border security; 2) Effects on ecosystem--at points of entry and further 

inland; and 3) Effects on public/environmental health/hazardous materials—at points of entry and 

further inland. Barriers, next steps, and partnerships would be determined by each workgroup. DFO 

Koerner would email the revised Framework.

Workgroup Structure, Process, Membership and Responsibilities
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

21

March 14-15, 2006

(Chair Ganster, DFO Koerner, Jim Stefanov, and David Randolph left the meeting to attend a panel 

discussion at the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce Forum and Megan Moreau, OCEM, led the next 

discussion.)

Under the guidance of Megan Moreau, the following workgroups Coordinators, Deputy Coordinators 

and members were determined:

Group 1, Context: Ned Norris, Coordinator, Rosario Marin, Deputy Coordinator; Members—Carl 

Edlund, Gary Gillen, Jacob Macias, Chris Brown, Douglas Smith, and Robert Varady

Group 2, Ecosystems: James Stefanov, Coordinator, Jennifer Montoya, Deputy Coordinator, 

Members—Edward Elbrock, Rosendo Treviño III, and Paul Ganster

Group3, Public and Environmental Health: Stephen Niemeyer, Coordinator, Michael Dorsey, Deputy

Coordinator, Members—Sally Spener, Ron Curry, Richard Davis, Robert Varady, Alven Lam.

Christopher Brown offered to provide maps, if people would send him source data. Megan Moreau said 

that people who were not present could be queried by DFO Koerner as to their preferences for 

workgroup assignments. Next, dates and times for teleconferences were set up for each workgroup: 

Group 1 - Border Security: Friday, March 31stat 3:00-4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time

Group 2 - Ecosytem: Thursday, March 30, 3:00-4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time

Group 3 - Environmental Health: Tuesday, April 4, 4:00-5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.

Afternoon Session (1:40 p.m.)

Business Meeting Reconvened

Paul Ganster reconvened the meeting and reported that a summary of this meeting, next steps, and 

action items would be sent to members by DFO Koerner. Megan Moreau reviewed the workgroup 

structure, leadership, membership, and teleconference dates and times. Members should let DFO 

Koerner know if their workgroup preferences changed. DFO Koerner reported on the meeting with the 

U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Commerce at which Chair Ganster took part in a panel where he reported on 

the GNEB Ninth Report and distributed copies to Congressional members and others. The Board was 

invited to the Chamber’s reception from 6:00-8:00 p.m. in the Montpelier Room, Madison Building. 

Consejo (Consultivo para el Disarrollo Sustenable) Update

Flavio Olivieri provided an update on the border activities of Consejo. The national board provides 

advice to the Secretary of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), not to the President of 

Mexico. The Secretary reviews the recommendations and then reports to the President. Department 

heads have to respond to the recommendations. There is a national board and five regional boards. 

Board members represent various groups such as non-governmental organizations, business, academia, 

state governments, regions, and Congress. Members are elected by their organizations. 

Regional and National Board technical workgroups develop recommendations, which are then validated 

by the Consejo and SEMARNAT, who then sends them to departments. Departmental responses are 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

22

March 14-15, 2006

sent back to Consejo, who may re-formulate the recommendations. Some of the past and present 

recommendations include:

 Maintain or increase Mexico’s contribution to CEC.

 Strengthen SEMARNAT’s staff in Border 2012 activities and projects.

 Include a BECC representative in the NW Consejo meetings.

 Strengthen implementation of Emissions and Pollutant Transfer Registry (RETC).

 Involve public participation in the Stockholm Convention National Implementation Plan.

 Provide technical information on the environmental impacts of the All-American Canal lining.

A record is kept of responses to recommendations, whether they were dropped or had an effect on 

programs or policies. Of the 180 recommendations from all sources, about 50 percent of the 

recommendations are dismissed or not acted upon and the others are in process or have been committed 

to action. 

Flavio Olivieri announced the IV Foro Mundial del Agua (Water Forum) will take place on March 16-

22, 2006, in Mexico City. Presentations would include local civic participation in environmental zoning 

issues. 

Questions and Comments

Jennifer Montoya: Would the NE Consejo have recommendations on protected areas that are looking at 

conversion from grazing to agriculture? 

Sr. Olivieri: Yes, we have natural and wildlife protection.

Jennifer Montoya: What educational outreach is done with staff and could this have long-term impacts 

on departments?

Sr. Olivieri: The SEMARNAT staff has more positive awareness of the importance of public 

participation. At the national level, Consejo can talk to department heads. The process of Consejo has 

become entrenched in SEMARNAT.

Robert Varady: If you know in advance that some recommendations would have no chance of success, 

couldn’t you reduce the number to those with a chance of success?

Sr. Olivieri: Board members want to have their say even if there is no chance of success.

Michael Dorsey: Could this Board make a recommendation to Mexico on the importance of 

environmental issues?

Sr. Olivieri: A mutual understanding of the issues is important for both boards. GNEB reports can be 

disseminated to Consejo and the Mexican government, and he could help with their review or 

acceptance of GNEB’s recommendations.

Board Member Report-Outs, Part II
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

23

March 14-15, 2006

James Stefanov, U.S. Geological Service, DOI, reported on the Natural Resources Working Group 

meeting on March 23, 2006 at DOI, collaboration on the All-American Canal, and his attendance at the 

next meeting of the IBWC. He also said that Secretary Gail Norton would be leaving her position. 

Christopher Brown, Ph.D., New Mexico State University, reported on on-going research projects, such 

as the Border Health Project. The entire U.S.-Mexico border region is being mapped by the Field 

Coordinating Committee, Water Resources Issue Team in cooperation with SCERP. He formerly was 

asked by his dissertation advisor to more forward on developing a GIS border-wide database. The GIS 

center is at USGS. Mr. Stefanov added that the data will be integrated from both countries. The 

information can be found on the USGS website.

Rosendo Treviño III, Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA, reported that 80 percent of a $44 

million budget item goes to farmers and ranchers in New Mexico for conservation work. A new 

conservation program makes payments for “green” efforts and good stewardship on farmlands, and 

186,000 lands contributed to this effort. All funds have to be spent in the United States; minorities and 

Indian tribes receive a relatively larger share. They are looking at watersheds that cover both sides of 

the border.

Jennifer Montoya, World Wildlife Fund, discussed world wildlife conservation in 27 countries that use 

the Panda logo. The Chihuahua desert program has only had funding for the last few years. They are 

looking at working across state lines and country borders to integrate management of river basins. They

will seek Federal funding of $25 million for New Mexico to purchase water under the Water Resources 

Development Act. 

Edward Elbrock noted that the Malpai Borderlands Group is working across the border with ranchers in 

Mexico to preserve natural resources. He was encouraged by the return of the jaguar to the U.S. Mr. 

Treviňo added that at a Forum on Cooperative Conservation, the Malpai Borderlands Group was 

featured because of good stewardship and given credit for the jaguar returning. 

Annual Board Strategic Planning Session

Elaine Koerner reviewed the papers in the Board Packet related to strategic planning: Ninth Report 

Background Information, Summary of Discussions on Contents of Tenth Report, Work Plan Grid for 

2006, the GNEB’s Mission, Vision, Goals and Principles, and the Performance Measures Workgroup 

Update. She asked members if they were planning to visit with Congressional members. Genevieve 

Long responded that she had appointments to visit two Texas Senators and Congressmen and would 

provide them with a copy of the Ninth Report. Other members offered to distribute the Ninth Report to 

their political and interest groups. DFO Koerner asked if the Board wanted to form a dissemination 

planning group for the Tenth Report. Jennifer Montoya, Rosario Marin and Carl Edlund offered to 

help. 

DFO Koerner announced the next GNEB meeting date was in San Diego, California on July 18-19, 

2006. The meeting after that is in Alpine, Texas on October 24-26, 2006. The workgroup for the San 

Diego meeting would be Paul Ganster, Doug Smith, Michael Dorsey, and Rosario Marin. 

Performance Measures Workgroup Report-Out
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

24

March 14-15, 2006

Robert Varady, Workgroup Chair, said that the performance measurement survey handed out at the last 

meeting has been analyzed and summarized, from responses of 15 Board members. The results could be 

found in the Business Section of the Ninth Report and are quite favorable for such items as attendance, 

participation, drafting the Eighth Report and GNEB letters, distributing reports, inviting guest speakers, 

briefing politicians, and exchanging information with other Board members. 

Cause and effect of the Board’s recommendations was difficult to determine, but Board members 

reported several areas where the Board’s reports and comment letters were influential. For example, 

with the IBWC Nogales wastewater treatment plant, Border 2012’s data collection, California State

Water Resources Board’s approaches to children’s environmental health, border problems with invasive 

plants, establishment of a relationship between the NRCS and SEMARNAT, and use of the Mimbres 

Basin as a pilot project for groundwater management and GIS data mapping.

The performance measure survey form could be revised as needed. Members were invited to join the 

workgroup; Chris Brown said he would help with indicators. Members would be queried each year for 

performance information. The use of the Internet for Board members to report their activities has been 

put on hold, because the OCEM intern has left and DFO Koerner was not sure that members would use 

the website. Michael Dorsey suggested that a listserv might be a better way to communicate. DFO 

Koerner could continue to use email queries as a method to track activities.

Review of GNEB Activities During 2005

The Board briefly reviewed GNEB activities that were successful and those that needed to be 

strengthened. Successes during 2005 included development, distribution, and press reporting of the 

Ninth Report; the visit to the Tohono O’odham Nation to gain tribal perspective; improvement of the 

relationship between GNEB and the U.S.-Mexico Chamber of Congress; and having representation from 

New Mexico on the Board. Areas to strengthen included adding a DHS representative to the Board and 

using more dynamic graphics and data, a written press release, and inviting border-area newspapers to 

the press conference for the Tenth Report. Pictures such as those shown by Kevin Stevens, CBP, of 

border immigration problems could make a big impact. 

GNEB Missions, Vision, Goals and Principals for 2006

David Randolph suggested writing a comment letter to the Secretary of Treasury in support of 

NADBank. DFO Koerner reminded them that the Board reports to Congress and the President, and 

copies are provided to key people. Chair Ganster reviewed the usual procedure for developing and 

approving letters of comment, which require Board approval. Some members were concerned about 

signing a comment letter unless they had their agency’s approval. Chair Ganster responded that 

members could recuse themselves from signing the letter. 
EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting 

25

March 14-15, 2006

Further discussion revealed that there are concerns in the United States and Mexico regarding NADBank 

progress in funding projects; these concerns have prompted suggestions that the two governments may

reduce or withdraw support for the NADBank. Chair Ganster said that both NADBank and BECC were 

new bi-national institutions with requirements for public participation, which complicated progress. 

Everyone knew that NAFTA would increase trade and traffic and required improved infrastructure. 

Final approval of NAFTA was dependent on promising improvement of infrastructure at the border. 

Aurelia Micko said the U.S. State Department is on the NADBank board and the latest objection was in 

a letter from the Secretary of Mexico to Secretary Snow. Jennifer Montoya asked if there was a legal 

obligation for the two nations to address these issues. Chair Ganster responded that the Border 2012 

legislation stated that the two nations should deal with border problems. Rosario Marin suggested ways 

to make the letter more effective by making a few suggestions, rather than just objecting. 

It was decided to write a comment letter supporting continued funding of NADBank. Steve Niemeyer 

and David Randolph would be asked to draft a letter, which would then be sent by email for member 

comments. After revisions, based on comments, a final draft would be sent out and if there were no 

objections, it would be considered approved. Consejo would be asked if they would like to send a letter 

of support also. 

DFO Koerner asked for discussion on the GNEB’s Mission, Visions, Goals and Principles for 2006 and 

stated that if no one objected they would stand as written in the Board handout. Rosario Marin noted 

that the charter clearly defines the Board’s mission. No objections or other discussion ensued. Chair 

Ganster thanked members for their participation, ideas, and enthusiasm, and appreciated the 

participation of Sr. Olivieri of Consejo. 

Adjournment: The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m. ###