**FINAL/FINAL**



# Meeting Summary/Minutes
**The Good** 

## Neighbor **Environm ental 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 Envir onmental 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 respon sible for any potential inaccu

racies 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 min utes.
Note : The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , Office of Cooperative Environmental Management , has administrative responsibility for the Board.



### The Good Neighbor Environmental Board MeetingEPA 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 N eighbor 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 p ress,**  **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. Prot ection of air qualit y 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 conge stion, to reduce air pollution by using low
sulfur 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 sec urit y and natural and cultural resources preservation efforts. Border security efforts should be careful to not destro y cultural and natural resources. The strategy is to support public
- private partnerships to bring all resources to bear on the problems. B oth 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 ye ar 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 Randolp h**  **, 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 pol lution 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 transpo rtation and alternate forms of transportation to reduce polluting emissions. L ong - term planning, prioritization, and a multi
- ye ar funding mechanism are needed for the border transportation infrastructure. Staffing levels need to be improved. The use of no n - 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 capacit y building, public education, increasing public and private partnerships to manage growth, and ensuring that border security recognizes the importance of protect ing 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 securit y 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, Calif ornia  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 Count y 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. L ong, 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, L as Cruces, New Mexico  Stephen M. Niemey er, Texas Commission on E nvironmental Quality (TCEQ), Austin, Texas  David Randolph, Border Coordination Officer, Arizona
- Mexico Commission, Phoenix, ArizonaEPA 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 Varad y , Ph.D., Deputy Director, Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy , Universit y of Arizona, and Professor of Environmental Policy , Tucson, Arizona **Federal Board Members**

 Rosendo Treviño III , State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Serv ices, 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 Regi onal 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 Quilaq ueo, Program Anal ys t, 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 o f 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 Deput y Assistant Administrator, EPA Office of International Activities  Rafael DeLeon, Director, OCEM, EPA  Sarah Froman, EPAEPA 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 Securit y (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 Pl anning, 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 Trus t 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 Complian ce 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 publi c 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  Cy nthia 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 L ink, Washington, DC  Marc Thomas, EPA, HQ  P. Sanchez, UNIVISION  D. Rick Van Schoik , SCERP  Ron Slorkin, EPA  Maven Williams, DHSEPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

**6** March 14
- 15, 2006 

### Background The Good Neighbor Environmental Board (GNEB or the Board) is an independent advisory com mittee 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 th at are contiguous to Mexico. 

### Welcom **e 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 feedb ack 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 M anagement (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 onl y 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 deve loping 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 formall y responding t o 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 Internat** 

**ional 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 ye ar. Ithas grown over the ye ars 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 th e state, regional, and community levels on both sides ofEPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

**7** March 14
- 15, 2006 the border. The GNEB helps to build capacit y at the local level and has reached out to our Mexican colleagues in Consejo. Other important border environmental efforts and successes were noted:

 SC ERP’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 Ense n ada 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 coord inators' meeting is in Ense n ada 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 chlor
alkaline facilities an d 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 identi fy 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. Je rry Clifford responded that there is some mercury in switches and other countries do not alway s 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 safet y 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 C**  **oordination 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

w as 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 airEPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

**8** March 14
- 15, 2006 pollution problem. The border crossing infrastructure is saturated ca using 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 per sonnel would be needed with increased stations and use of non
- intrusive inspection equipment. 2. Emissions control s, including low sulfur diesel fuel, vehicle maintenance, and vehicle inspection. 3. In creased use of mass public transportation across the border while recognizing securit y issues. **Gary A. Ragatz, Branch Chief, U.S. Customs and Border Protections (CBP), DHS** , introduced **Chris Hope, Chief of Environmental Compliance, CBP** , who play s a vital role in the program. Mr. Ragatz described the CBP planning proc ess for resources and infrastructure. GSA spent $364 million dollars to improve the Southwest border and within five y ears those facilities became obsolete. CBP is the lead agency for programmatic planning and is looking 30 to 50 y ears in the future to de velop 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 sy stem. The biggest problem is international
- l evel cooperation. CBP is working with Mexico to try to establish three top priorities. A multi
- ye ar authorization bill would be very helpful. Supplementation of General Services Administration (GSA) funding is needed because at present the shortfall for co nstruction 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 b y formula from the Coordinated Border Infrastructure Fund. Ms. Hochman ap proved 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. L ong - range planning and coordination are feasible, but it is necessary to develop priorities. Traffic forecasts, transportation planning studies, GI S 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 sup porting 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 redu ce diesel emission, stated that theEPA 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, et c. 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 Skywa ys , a joint EPA Region 6 and 7 initiative using green energy technology

on trucks  Use of electrical suppl y 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 citie s  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 impo rtant 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 nearl y 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 cro ssing 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 n eed 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 politic ians who are up for re
- election do not want to support them. L ocal 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
- w ide problem. The International Energy Program states that emissions from vehicles will increase 2.4 times by the y ear 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 sus tainable transportation related to specific projects: freight management, qualit y and efficiency of service, integration with other modes of transport, basic modes ofEPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

**10** March 14
- 15, 2006 transport like cycling, and disincentives to use cars in crowded areas. For example, in M onterey they are fostering development of bus sy stems 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 techno logies have an important role in reducing pollution, but they are not the sole solution. The public transportation sy stem needs to be improved. The World Bank would like to join efforts in developing information s ys tems, 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 N atural Resources section of the Ninth GNEB Report. The recommendations were to protect cultural and natural resources along the U.S.
- Mexico border by building capacit y, educating border residents about protecting resources, establishing public
- private par tnerships, managing growth through conservation efforts, and improving border securit y while protecting cultural and natural resources, particularl y 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 federall y - 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 religio us 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 securit y barriers. More flexibility is needed so tribal members can fulfill their tribal obligations. Statutes on reservations are covered b y 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
- reservat ion, archeological and cultural sites. Legislation covers private lands; however, owners voluntaril y respect sacred sites and notification about human remains. **Mariddie J. Craig, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Inter Tribal Council of Arizona** , said that ther e 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 representative s 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 ye ars ago a problem occurred with exposure of burial sites and destruction of archeological sites, and tribal m embers 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 b y Congress, and has 250,000 members. Their mission is to prov ide 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 ef forts. Mr. Carey offered to provide assistance asEPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

**11** March 14
- 15, 2006 needed. The Ninth Report recommendations are good and reasonable, and bring timel y attention to the lack of resources to preserve historical sites. One need is for an inventory of resources that need pres ervation. 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 Camin o 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 Nel ly 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 stakehold ers  Cooperation between land management, cultural resource professionals, law enforcement and attorney s on enforcement of civil and criminal laws.  A survey

of cultural and archeological sites,  Id entification of statutes related to preservation  Id entificat ion 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. Me xico 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 h as 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 provid ed for managers and private land owners on conservation of species. AEPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

**12** March 14
- 15, 2006 great deal of voluntary

a ssistance 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 ecosy stem 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 : I f the Board is to make recommendations, what would they be? The Board has constraints with securit y 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: Environm **ental 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 securit y. 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 securit y. 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 y ear, CBP will inspect 430 million people, 132 million vehicles, and 23 million containers at ports of entry. Illegal entries includeEPA 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. n ational 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 millio n 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 , (OEC**  **A ), EPA**  , and **Coordinato r for the Commission for**  **Environmental Cooperation (CEC),** provided a summary of EPA activities on border securit y and identified issues related to the environment and border security. Achieving border securit y 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 reli es 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 an y 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 Sy stem (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 s ys tem 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 o f Radio Frequency I dentification (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 s ys tem in place. The pilot progr am will work with Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and be included in the Securit y and Prosperity Initiative. OtherEPA 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 agent s 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 bilaterall y, and OEC A has met with SEMARNAT. Mexican agencies have a lack of funds and ne ed more training. Michael Dorsey : San Diego Count y 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 thi s difficult. Paul Ganster : A problem with a hydrochloric acid incident did not get dealt with efficientl y, 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 sovereignt y 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 responsibi lity 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 Wildlif e by Balancing Border Securit y 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 ecos ys tem with Mexico. Walls built for security purposes divide ecos ys tems 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 federall y 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 securit y agencies, so funds are taken away from preservation of natural resources. Better coordination is needed between securit y needs and environmental needs. Immigration policy

needs to be addressed in a comprehensive manner, including both economic and securit y constraints. Now, immigration policy is becoming border securit y and this is ruining the envi ronment. Congress has waived environmental laws to build walls for border security b y HomelandEPA 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 do uble
- lay ered 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 securit y strategies sh ould 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 Comment s 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 organizatio n have a solution to this immigration problem? Brian Segee : A comprehensive approach is needed for immigration policy reform, not just building walls. 

### Board Mem **ber 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 Oct ober 2005 GNEB meeting. An upcoming major event is the Fourth World Water Forum. Border
related 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, especi ally 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 Reducti on Collaborative, and Blue Sky way s, 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 Ense ñ ada. 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 ecos ys tem. 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
- s tate 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 April 19
- 21, 2006. Copies of the Board’sEPA 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. 

### Speak**er Briefings for the Ten th 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 coul d 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 y ear 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, hospi tals, 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 econom y is looking good now, but job growth and manufacturing will diminish, and in 10 to 20 y ears Mexico will not be able to compete in the world marketplace. A cleaner environment must become a competi tive aspect of the global marketplace. At present, the number of suppl y 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 C ommerce 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 econom y with the U.S. Senators and Representatives? Al Zapanta : Two U.S. Senators will be the luncheon key note 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 whol e 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 b y tightening water use for production. The focus in Mexico is on gaining market share b y improving the environment and gaining brand recognition. For example, Home Depot may start to use buildin g materials that are environmentally friendl y. 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 p rivate sector have technology that would help with the issue of simultaneously

achieving border securit y and protecting the environment? Al Zapanta : The technology is available. President Reagan’s amnest y program was one solution. The guest worker program is a good idea, but it is not in favor politicall y. 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 : W e are wholly against that, totally , in every form at this point...Iam 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. 

### Adjournm **ent :**  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, Genevi eve Long, Rosario Marin, Jennifer Montoy a, Stephen Niemey er, David Randolph, Douglas S. Smith, Robert Varady **Federal Members Present** , Rosendo Treviño III , Carlos Marin, L inda 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 Montoy a, James Stefanov, Carlos Marin, and Carl Edlund. Official HHSAlter nate Richard Davis also was new. Each memberEPA 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 detai l 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 b y M r. S tevens, CBP, in his presentation y esterday . 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 actuall y say. Sally Spener noted some spelling errors in names of organizations
. Gary Gillen moved, and Robert Varad y seconded, a motion to approve the minutes with the corrections as noted. The minutes were approved unanimously
. Chair Ganster asked members to send an y 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. T he 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, Ohi o, 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 re sponsibilities 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 way s 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 co vering immigration policy and how it relates to environmental concerns. Since the Report readership is broad, border securit y needs to be described. The theme would be on simultaneously protecting the environment and safeguarding the U.S.
- Mexico border. T he 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, g oals, 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 s ecurit y, 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 ecos ys tem - 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. Th e 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 hea lth 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 ecos ys tems, 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 wa s not reported to EPA, h ydroflouric acid is being manufactured across the border from El Paso, and 10 percent of the truck traffic in L aredo 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 repo rt can be developed without a cceptance 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 b y customs and securit y - related lengthy processe s 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 b y Defenders of Wildlife and the recommendations in The Impact of Immigration Policy on W ildlife 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 D orsey agreed with Steve Niemey er and the statements by y esterday ’s presenters, but several items have not been resolved such as insurance and liability issues, mobilizing health, especiall y on the Tijuana side, the impact of national security on the ecos ys tem, 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 securit y is sues. (He was asked b y J erry Cl ifford to correct a statement Clifford made at ye sterday ’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 securit y 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 securit y is a major issue for the IBWC, especiall y of waste water treatment pl ants 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. P erhaps GNEB could recommend higher levels of funding for this ty pe of border securit y. Douglas Smith reported that there was a drug
- related shootout at the Sony factory in L aredo, so criminal activity related to drugs needs to be part of border securit y. S tephen 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 gr oups have made progress in the last 30 y ears, but securit y 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 ecos ys tems, hazardous materials, emergency response, and immigration in Framework I. Ed Elbrock added insecurit y. 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, an d 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 ecosy stems 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 s ecurity ; 2) Effects on ecos ys tem -- 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, Deput y Coordin ator; Members

— Carl Edlund, Gary

Gillen, Jacob Macias, Chris Brown, Douglas Smith, and Robert Varad y Group 2, Ecos ys tems: James Stefanov, Coordinator, Jennifer Montoy a, 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 Varad y , 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 31 s t at 3:00
- 4:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time Group 2
- Ecos yt em: 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 teleconfe rence 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 Olivier i**  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 areEPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

**22** March 14
- 15, 2006 sent bac k 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.  In clude a BECC representat ive 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 participat ion 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 prot ection. 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, C onsejo 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 succ ess? 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 Mem **ber Report**

**- Outs, Part II** EPA Good Neighbor Environmental Board Meeting

**23** March 14
- 15, 2006 James Stefanov, U.S. Geological Servic e, 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 coop eration with SCERP. He formerly was asked b y his dissertation advisor to more forward on developing a GIS border
- wide database. The GI S 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 pay ments 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 bo th sides of the border. Jennifer Montoya, World W ildlife 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 y ears. They are looking at working across st ate 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 wo rking across the border with ranchers in Mexico to preserve natural resources. He was encouraged b y the return of the jaguar to the U.S. Mr. Trevi ň o added that at a Forum on Cooperative Conservation, the Malpai Borderlands Group was featured because of g ood 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, W ork 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 cop y 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 fo rm 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 measur ement survey handed out at the last meeting has been anal yz ed 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 me mbers 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 c ould be revised as needed. Members were invited to join the workgroup; Chris Brown said he would help with indicators. Members would be queried each ye ar for performance information. The use of the Internet for Board members to report their activities h as 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 metho d 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 Ni nth 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 d yn amic 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 b y Kevin Stevens, CBP, of border immigratio n 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 co ncerns 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 NADB ank 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 b y m aking 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 conside red 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 th e Board handout. Rosario Marin noted that the charter clearl y 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. 

### Adjournm **ent :**  The meeting was adjourned at **4:35 p.m. ###**