EPA/160/R-97/001
US - MEXICO
Border XXI Program
Comment and Response
Summary Report
June 1997
• Environment • Natural Resources • Environmental Health
-------
US-MEXICO
Border XXI Program
Comment and Response
Summary Report
June 1997
r
o
M
U
•o
VJ
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgement of Comment Sources
Glossary of Abbreviations Glossary-1
Chapter 1: Introduction „ 1-1
Chapter 2: Natural Resources 2-1
Chapter 3: Water 3-1
Chapter 4: Environmental Health 4-1
Chapter 5: Air 5-1
Chapter 6: Hazardous and Solid Waste 6-1
Chapter 7: Contingency Planning and Emergency Response 7-1
Chapter 8: Environmental Information Resources 8-1
Chapter 9: Pollution Prevention 9-1
Chapter 10: Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance 10-1
Chapter 11: General and Overall Comments 11-1
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: Directory of Contacts
June 1997
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF COMMENT SOURCES
The Border XXI Program and all the members of the Border XXI Workgroups would like to thank
the following agencies, institutes, organizations, and individuals that provided comments to the
Draft US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document (June 1996) during the public
comment period. Public involvement, especially from the border communities, is essential to the
development and success of the Border XXI Program. In addition, we would like to acknowledge
all the cooperating federal agencies that have supported this effort.
American Trucking Associations, Inc.; Karen Kelso
Arizona Toxics Information; Michael Gregory
Arizona Department of Commerce; Victoria Kessler
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality; Edna Mendoza
Arizona Western College; Marie McGee
Arizona Game & Fish Department; Duane Shroufe, Bruce D. Taubert
Arizona Department of Health Services; Maura Mack
Border Environmental Network; Richard Simpson
Border 2000 Environmental Health Education Program; Ernesto Velarde
Border Trade Alliance
Border Ecology Project; Marc Coles-Ritchie
Brownsville City Commissioner; Jackie Lockett
Bureau of Reclamation; Joe Smith
Bureau of Indian Affairs; Amy Heuslein
Cal/EPA-State Water Resources Control Board; Bart Christensen
Cal/EPA-Department of Toxic Substances Control; Pam LePen
Cal/EPA-Integrated Waste Management Board; Ricardo Martinez
California Farm Bureau Federation; William DuBois
California Department of Health Services-Environmental Health Investigations Branch;
Frank Carroll
Caltrans; Tim Vasquez
Camara Nacional de la Industria de Transformacion (National Chamber of Commerce of Industiral
Transformation); Bertha Campos F.
ii June 1997
-------
Acknowledgment of Comment Sources
Catholic Social Mission; Joanne Welter
City of Sierra Vista; George Michael, Jr.
City of San Luis; Gail Gallagher
City of Laredo Planning Department; Mary Mahoney
City of Yuma; Michael Little
City of Imperial Beach; Michael Bixler
Coastal Conservancy; Jim King
Comision de Cooperacion Ecologica Fronteriza (Border Environment Cooperation Commission);
Roger Frauenfelder
Cooperative Extension University of California; Carl Bell
County of Imperial; Thomas Fries
County of Valverde; Judge Kirtpactric
Defenders of Wildlife; William Snape, m
Douglas Arizona Public Meeting
Ducks Unlimited, Inc.; Lori Boon
El Paso Public Utilities Board; David Brosman
Environmental Defense Fund; Carlos Rincon
Environmental Health Coalition; Cesar Luna
Farm Labor Organizing Committee; Baldemar Velasquez
Friends of the Santa Cruz River; Sherry Sass
Imperial County Public Health Laboratory; Bob Freeman
Inter-American Legal Studies Program; Raul Sanchez
Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.; John Lewis
International Boundary and Water Commission; Yusuf Farran
League of Women Voters; Marion Truxal
National Environmental Justice Advisory Committee; Richard Moore
National Law Center for Inter-American Free Trade; Amy Mignella
New Mexico Department of Game & Fish; Santiago Gonjales
Ohio Coalition for Immigration Reform; Bud McCafferty
Otay Water District; Michael Coleman
Project Concern International; Daniel Shaughnessy
San Diego Offroad Coalition; Mark Smith
San Diego Association of Governments; Rob Rundle
June 1997
-------
Acknowledgment of Comment Sources
San Diego County Department of Parks and Recreation; Michael Kemp
San Diego State University; Richard Wright
Santa Cruz County Supervisor; Ron Morriss
Santa Cruz County Health Department; Mike Alcala, Ben Stepleton
Save Our Bay, Inc.; William Claycomb
SouthEastern Arizona Governments Organization; Michele Kimpel
Southern California Association of Governments; Viviane Doche-Boulos
Southwest Network for Environmental and Economic Justice; Jose Bravo
Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy; Erin Ross
Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy; Paul Ganster
Summary of Four Public Meetings; Karre Kjos
Surfrider Foundation; Gary Sirota
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; Diana Borja
Texas Center for Policy Studies; Mary Kelly
Texas Department of Health; David Smith
Texas General Land Office; Tyrus Fain
The Nature Conservancy of Texas; Ron Savage
The Good Neighbor Environmental Board; James Marston
Tohono O'odham Nation; Kenneth Cronin
Transboundary Resource Inventory Project; Tyrus Fain
Tucson Audubon Society; Wendy Laird
University of Texas at El Paso, The Center For Environmental Resource Management;
Bob Currey
Valley Proud Environmental Council; James Matz
Waste-Management Education & Research Consortium; Ron Bhada
Water Development Corporation; Philip Halpenny
Yuma Local Engineering Planning Committee; Christina Herrera
Yuma Public Meeting
Zapata International; Sebastian Mancillas
iv June 1997
-------
Acknowledgment of Comment Sources
INDIVIDUAL SOURCES
Anonymous Observer
Jaun Manuel Bueno
Lynn Burnett
Ronald Cook, Deborah R. Cook
Thomas Guerra
Heriberto Ortega Melendez
Ramon Mendoza
Benson Meservey
Bob Morse
Sherrie Nixon
Mary O'Rourke
Maurilio Sanchez Pachuca
Susana Rodriguez
Juan Saenz
Eugene Sprofera
Rachel Thomas
Antonio Tirado
June 1997
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
Glossary of Abbreviations
ACAAN
ADEQ
ADHS
Aduana
ADWR
AGFD
AID
APHIS
ASU
ATI
ATSDR
BANDAN
BBS
BECC
BHO
BLM
BMP
BOR
BRD
CaffiECC
Cal-EPA
CAMEO
CANACINTRA
CARB
CCA
CCPC
CDC
CDFG
CDHS
CEAS
CEC
CEQ
CERCLIS
CES
CESPM
CESQGs
CFC
CFP
CHP
Acuerdo de Cooperation Ambiental del Norte (see NAAEC)
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Arizona Department of Health Services
Mexican Customs
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Arizona Game and Fish Department
U.S. Agency for International Development
Agriculture Pest Health Inspection Service
Arizona State University
Arizona Toxics Information
Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry
Banco para el Desarollo de America del Norte (see NADBank)
Bulletin Board System
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (see COCEF)
Border Health Office
Bureau of Land Management
Best Management Practices
Bureau of Reclamation
Biological Resources Division of USGS
California Border Environment Cooperation Commission
California Environmental Protection Agency
Computer aided Management of Emergency Operations
Camara National de la Industria de Transformation (National Chamber of
Commerce of Industrial Transformation)
California Air Resources Board
Comision de Cooperation Ambiental de America del Norte (see CEC)
Comite Consultivo Publico Conjunto de la CCA (see JPAC)
Centers for Disease Control
California Department of Fish and Game
California Department of Health Services
Comision Estatal de Aguas y Saneamiento de Coahuila (Coahuila State
Commission for Water and Sanitation)
Commission for Environmental Cooperation (see CCA)
Council on Environmental Quality
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
Information System
Centra Ecologico de Sonora (Sonora Ecological Center)
Comite Estatal de Servicios Publicos de Mexicali (State Committee for
Public Services of Mexicali)
Conditionally exempt small quantity generators
Chlorofluorocarbons
Cooperative Fisheries Program
California Highway Patrol
June 1997
Glossary-1
-------
Glossary of Abbreviations
CICA
CICOPLAFEST
CICTUS
CIDESON
CIESIN
CILA
CITES
CLAM
CNA
CO
COAPES
COCEF
COLEF
CONABIO
CONACYT
COSAE
CWS
DEM
DFG
DGPS
DHHS
DIAAPROY
DLG
DOC
DOD
DOE
DOI
DOJ
DOQ
DOS
DOT
DRGs
DUMAC
EDI
U.S.-Mexico Information Center on Air Pollution
Comision InterSecretarial para el Control de Plaguicidas, Fertilizantes y
Subtancias Toxicas (Interagency Commission for Control of Pesticides,
Fertilizers and Toxic Substances)
Centra de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnologicas (Center for Scientific
and Technological Research)
Centra de Investigation y Desarollo de Sonora (Sonora Center for Research
and Development)
Consortium for International Earth Sciences Information Network
Comision Internacional de Limites y Aguas (see IBWC)
Convention on International Trade for Endangered Species
Comite Local para Ayuda Mutua (Local Committee for Mutual Assistance)
Comision Nacional de Agua (National Water Commission)
Carbon monoxide
Comision de Agua Potable y Alcantarillado del Estado de Sonora (Sonora
State Commision for Drinking Water and Sewers)
Comision de Cooperation Ecologico Fronterizo (see BECC)
El Colegio de la Frontera Norte (College of the Northern Border)
Comision Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad
(National Commission for Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity)
Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologfa (National Advisory Council for
Science and Technology)
Comision de Servicios de Agua del Estado de Baja California (Water
Utilities Commission for the State of Baja California)
Canadian Wildlife Service
Digital elevation model
Department of Fish and Game (California)
Differential Geographic Positioning System
Department of Health and Human Services
Disefio, Asesoria, y Administracidn de Proyectos, S.A. de C.V. (Project
Design, Assistance, and Management, Inc.)
Digital line graph
U.S. Department of Commerce
U.S. Department of Defense
U.S. Department of Energy
U.S. Department of Interior
U.S. Department of Justice
Digital ortho-quadrangles
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Department of Transportation
Digital raster graphics
Ducks Unlimited de Mexico, A.C.
Environmental Defense Fund
Electronic Data Interchange
Glossary-2
June 1997
-------
Glossary of Abbreviations
EJ
EPA
EPA/OW
EPAR6
EPAR9
EPCCHED
EPCRA
EPOMEX
EPWD
FCC
FDA
FOIA
FONSI
FWS
FY
GCD
GGA
GIS
GIWW
GLEEPA
GNEB
GPS
HAZMAT
HAZTRAKS
HCCCI
HHS
HMMD
HRSA
HUD
IADB
IB
ffiEP
ffiWC
ICC
ICMA
HD
Environmental Justice
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 6
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region 9
El Paso City and County Health and Environment Department
Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act
Programa de Ecologia, Pesca, y Oceanografia del Golfo de Mexico (Gulf
of Mexico Program for Ecology, Fisheries, and Oceanography)
El Paso Water District
U.S. Field Coordinating Committee (DOI)
Food and Drug Administration
Freedom of Information Act
Finding of No Significant Impact
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fiscal Year
Grupo Coordinador Estatal del Proyecto de Descentralizacion (State
Coordinating Group for the Decentralization Project)
Grupo de Gestion Ambiental Estatal (State Environmental Management
Group)
Geographical Information Systems
Gulf Intercoastal Waterway
General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection Act
Good Neighbor Environmental Board
Global Positioning System
Hazardous materials
Hazardous Waste Tracking System
"Hazardous Cargo Carrier Compliance Initiative"
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
County of San Diego - Hazardous Materials Management Division
Health Resources and Services Administration
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Inter-American Development Bank
Institute de Biologia, UNAM (Biology Institute, UNAM)
Integrated Border Environmental Plan, Integrated Environmental Plan for
the U.S.-Mexico Border Area, First Stage (1992-94) (see PIAF)
International Boundary and Water Commission (see CILA)
Interagency Coordinating Committee
International City/County Management Association
Imperial Irrigation District
June 1997
Glossary-3
-------
Glossary of Abbreviations
IMADES
IMSS
INAH
Inc.
INE
INEGI
INIFAP
INP
ISO 14000
ISSSTE
ITESM
ITT
IWMB
IWRC
IWTP
JCP
JMAS
JPAC
JRT
LEPC
LIDAR
LLRW
LOI
Ips
MCAS
MEXUS
MGP
MMS
MSCP
MSDS
MOU
Institute del Medio Ambiente y el Desarollo Sustentable del Estado de
Sonora (State of Sonora Institute for the Environment and Sustainable
Development) - formed through the joining of CIDESON and CES
Institute Mexicano del Seguro Social (Mexican Institute for Social Security)
Institute Nacional de Antropologia e Historia (National Institute for
Anthropology and History
Incorporated (see S.A. de C.V.)
Institute Nacional de Ecologia (National Institute for Ecology)
Institute Nacional de Estadistica, Geografia, e Informatica (National
Institute for Statistics, Geography, and Information)
Institute Nacional de Investigaciones Forestales, Agricola y Pecuaria
(National Institute for Investigations of Forests, Agriculture and
Livestock)
Institute Nacional de Pesca (National Institute of Fisheries)
International Standards Organization 14000 (14000 is a series of standards
on environmental management)
Institute de Seguridad Social y Servicios para los Trabajadres del Estado
(Institute for Social Security & Services for State Workers)
Institute Tecnologico de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey (Technology
Institute of Superior Studies of Monterrey)
Institute Tecnologica de Tijuana
Integrated Waste Management Board
Iowa Waste Reduction Center
International Wastewater Treatment Plant
Joint Contingency Plan
Junta Municipial de Alcantarillado y Saneamiento de Ciudad Juarez (Sewer
and Sanitation Municipal Authority for Ciudad Juarez)
Joint Public Advisory Committee for the CEC (see CCPC)
Joint Response Team
Local Emergency Planning Committee
Light, intensity, distancing, and ranging
Low-level radioactive waste
Letter of intent
Liters per second
Marine Corps Air Station
MOU on fisheries investigation between Mexico and the U.S. for the Gulf
of Mexico and the Pacific Ocean
Manufactured gas plant
U.S. Minerals Mines Service
Multi-Species Conservation Program
Material Safety Data Sheets
Memorandum of Understanding
Glossary-4
June 1997
-------
Glossary of Abbreviations
NAAEC
NAAQS
NADBank
NAFTA
NAS
NASQAN
NAWCC
NAWQAP
NBEP
NBH
NGO
NIEHS
Nffl
NIWTP
NJDEP
NMBHO
NMDFG
NMDOH
NMED
NMFS
NM-GIC
NMSU
NOAA
NOS
NOx
NFS
NRCS
NTDs
NWR
03
OCRM
ONG
OPS
OWD
OWM
P2
PAFN
PAH
PAHO
Pb
PCS
PEMEX
PHS
PM-10
North American Agreement on Evironmental Cooperation (see ACAAN)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
North American Development Bank (see BAND AN)
North American Free Trade Agreement (see TLC)
National Audubon Society
National Stream Quality Accounting Network
North American Waterfowl Conservation Commission
National Water Quality Assessment Program
Northern Border Evironmental Program (see PAFN)
National Biological Information Infrastructure
Nongovernmental organization
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
National Institute of Health
Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
New Mexico Border Health Office
New Mexico Department of Fish and Game
New Mexico Department of Health
New Mexico Environment Department
National Marine Fisheries Service
New Mexico Geographic Information Council
New Mexico State University
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
U.S. National Ocean Service
Oxides of Nitrogen
National Park Service
U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service
Neural tube defects
National Wildlife Refuge
Ozone
Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
Organizaciones no Gubernamentales (see NGO)
Organization Panamericana para la Salud (see PAHO)
Otay Water District
Office of Wastewater Management
Pollution Prevention/Prevention de la Contamination
Programa Ambiental de la Frontera Norte (see NBEP)
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Pan American Health Organization (see OPS)
Lead
Permit and Compliance System
Petroleos Mexicanos (Mexican Petroleum Company)
Public Health Service
Paniculate matter (size = less than 10 microns)
June 1997
Glossary-5
-------
Glossary of Abbreviations
PND
POTW
PROFAUNA
PROFEPA
PRTR
PSU
QA/QC
RETC
RMRS
RTP
RWQCB
S.A. de C.V.
SAGAR
SAHOPE
SARH
SCT
SCERP
SDSU
SE
SEAGO
SEDESOL
SEDUE
SEMARNAP
SEPs
SERC
SFFS
SIP
SIUE
SO2
SQGs
SRE
Plan Nacional de Desarollo (Mexico's National Development Plan)
Publicly owned treatment works
Asociacion para la Proteccion de la Fauna, A.C. (Association for the
Protection of Wildlife)
Procuraduria Federal de Proteccion al Ambiente (Federal Attorney General
for Environmental Protection)
Pollution Release and Transfer Registry
Pennsylvania State University
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Registro de Emisiones y Transferencia de Contaminantes (see PRTR)
Rocky Mountain Research Station
Research Triangle Park
Regional Water Quality Control Board
Sociedad Anonima de Capital Variable (see Inc.)
Secretaria de Agricultura, Ganaderia, y Desarollo Rural (Mexican
Secretariat for Agriculture, Cattle, and Rural Development)
Secretaria de Asentamientos Humanos y Obras Piiblicas del Estado (Baja
California State Secretariat for Human Housing and Public Works)
Secretaria de Agricultura y Recursos Hidraulicos (Mexican Secretariat for
Agriculture and Hydraulic Resources)
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (Mexican Secretariat of
Communication and Transportation)
Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy
San Diego State University
Secretariat of Energy
Southeastern Arizona Governments Organization
Secretaria de Desarollo Social (Mexico's Secretary for Social Development)
Secretaria de Desarollo Urbano y Ecologia (Mexican Secretary for Urban
Development and Ecology)
Secretaria de Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales y Pesca (Mexico's
Secretary for the Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries)
Supplemental environmental projects
State Emergency Response Commission
Subsecretaria Forestal y de la Fauna Silvestre (Subsecretariat for Forestry
and Wildlife)
State Implementation Plan
Secretaria de Infraestrucura Urbana y Ecologia, Sonora (Secretary for
Urban Infrastructure and Ecology, Sonora)
Sulfur dioxide
Small quantity generators
Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores - (Mexico's Secretariat for External
Affairs)
Glossary-6
June 1997
-------
Glossary of Abbreviations
SRN
SSA
SWRCB
TB
TCP
TDH
TDPS
Texas (STEP)
TGLO
TIGER
TLC
TLLRWDA
TNRCC
TNRIS
TPWD
TRI
TRIP
TSD
TSP
TWDB
TX-GISPC
UAAAN
UABC
UACH
UAG
UAM
UANL
UAS
UAT
UCANP
UCAI
UCD
UNAM
UNCED
Subsecretaria de Recursos Naturales, (Undersecretariat for Natural
Resources, under SEMARNAP)
Secretaria de Salud (Mexico's Secretary of Health)
State Water Resources Control Board (California)
Tuberculosis
Traditional cultural properties
Texas Department of Health
Texas Department of Public Safety
Texas Small Towns Environment Program
Texas General Land Office
Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing
Tratado de Libre Comercio (see NAFTA)
Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Texas Natural Resource Information System
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
Toxics Release Inventory
Transboundary Resource Inventory Project
Treatment, storage, and disposal
Total suspended particulates
Texas Water Development Board
Texas Geographic Information Systems Planning Council
Universidad Autonoma Agraria Antonio Narro (Antonio Narro
Autonomous Agrarian University)
Universidad Autonoma de Baja California (Autonomous University of Baja
California)
Universidad Autonoma de Chihuahua (Autonomous University of
Chihuahua)
Universidad Autonoma de Guadalajara (Autonomous University of
Guadalajara)
Universidad Autonoma Metropolitania (Autonomous Metropolitan
University)
Universidad Autonoma de Nuevo Leon (Autonomous University of Nuevo
Leon)
Universidad Autonoma de Sonora
Universidad Autonoma de Tamaulipas
Unidad Coordinadora de Areas Naturales Protegidas, INE (Division of
Coordination of Natural Protected Areas)
Unidad de Coordination de Asuntos Intemacionales, SEMARNAP (Office
of Coordination of International Activities)
University of California at Davis
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (Autonomous National
University of Mexico)
United Nations Conference on Environmental Development
June 1997
Glossary-7
-------
Glossary of Abbreviations
UNISON
UNM
UNT
Uof A
USAGE
USAID
USD
USDA
USFS
USGS
USMBHA
UT
UTA
UT-BEG
UTEP
UofU
VOCs
WEF
WERC
WGA
YPG
Universidad de Sonora (University of Sonora)
University of New Mexico
University of North Texas
University of Arizona
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Agency for International Development
United States Dollars
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S.-Mexico Border Health Association
University of Texas
University of Texas at Austin
University of Texas at Austin, Bureau of Economic Geology
University of Texas at El Paso
University of Utah
Volatile organic compounds
Water Environment Federation
Waste-Management Education and Research Consortium
Western Governors Association
Yuma Proving Grounds
Glossary-8
June 1997
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES OF THE BORDER XXI COMMENT AND RESPONSE SUMMARY REPORT
The purpose of this document, US-Mexico Border XXI Program Comment and Response Summary
Report (Summary Report), is to summarize all public comments received during the Border XXI
public comment period. This document demonstrates how the Border XXI partner agencies
considered and responded to comments received from the public. This Summary Report
consolidates all the major issues raised during the public review of the Draft US-Mexico Border
XXI Program Framework Document (Draft Framework Document) and discusses how issues,
concerns, and the public's perspectives were addressed in the Final US-Mexico Border XXI
Program Framework Document (Final Framework Document) that was published in October
1996. As a summary, this document presents the range of comments and concerns raised by the
public, but does not discuss each comment individually. However, all comments that were
received are addressed individually in a database. Individuals or organizations that submitted
comments may request this more detailed information by contacting the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency - Border Liaison offices in El Paso, Texas or San Diego, California. Contacts
for these offices are listed in Appendix 1 of this Summary Report.
Efforts have been undertaken to engage border communities in the development of the Border XXI
Program. The public participation process began with a series of domestic and binational scoping
meetings and symposiums, which took place mid and late 1995, to develop the Draft Framework
Document. These sessions were held to discuss the Border XXI program and the planned Draft
Framework Document. Once input from the public was received, a draft document was released
to the public on June 13, 1996. Several thousand copies were made available to the public by
direct mail-outs and by request, as well being available on the Internet at EPA's Border XXI
homepage.
The public participation process also included a series of domestic and binational meetings held
during the 45-day public comment period on the Draft Framework Document. The public
comments received during the domestic and binational meetings, as well as written comments
submitted to the two governments, were incorporated (when applicable) throughout the Final
Framework Document and are summarized in greater detail in this Summary Report.
SUMMARY OF BORDER XXI PROGRAM
The Border XXI Program (Border XXI or Program) is an innovative binational effort which brings
together the diverse U.S. and Mexican federal entities, responsible for the shared border
environment, to work cooperatively toward sustainable development through protection of human
health and the environment and the proper management of natural resources in both countries.
The Final Framework Document defines five-year objectives for the border environment and
describes mechanisms that each of the Border XXI Workgroups will use in fulfilling those
objectives. The principle goal of Border XXI Program is to promote sustainable development in
June 1997 1-1
-------
Introduction
the border region by seeking a balance among social and economic factors and the protection of
the environment in border communities and natural areas.
The central strategies of the Border XXI Program include the following: public involvement,
decentralization of environmental management through state and local capacity building, and
improved communication and cooperation among federal, state and local government agencies.
The Final Framework Document, as well as this Summary Report, are a product of significant
public input.
Nine binational Workgroups implement the Border XXI Program by integrating the efforts of
participating entities and defining specific projects to meet Border XXI Program objectives. The
Workgroups are: Natural Resources, Water, Environmental Health, Air, Hazardous and Solid
Waste,Contingency Planning and Emergency Response, Environmental Information Resources,
Pollution Prevention, and Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance. Each year, the nine
Workgroups will develop Border XXI Annual Implementation Plans. These plans will identify
federal funding levels for a given year and, based upon available funds, describe specific projects
that will advance the long-term objectives outlined in the Final Framework Document. The
Annual Implementation Plans ensure correlation of short-term budget realities with long-term
objectives in the Final Framework Document.
Interested individuals may request the following documents which are available to the public: US-
Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document (October 1996), US-Mexico Border XXI
Program Executive Summary (October 1996), and US-Mexico Border XXI Program 1996
Implementation Plans (October 1996) by calling EPA's toll-free 800 line at 1-800-334-0741 and
leaving a voicemail message request for documents.
DESCRIPTION OF OUTREACH EFFORTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE BORDER XXI
PROGRAM
U.S. Domestic Meetings
As an initial step in the development of the Border XXI Program, the EPA San Diego and El Paso
Border Liaison Offices held a series of public meetings during the fall of 1995. Domestic public
meetings were held during the week of October 16, 1995, in the United States-Mexico border
communities of San Diego and Calexico, California; and Yuma, Nogales, and Douglas, Arizona.
Concurrently, between October 11 and 24, 1995, domestic meetings were held in the communities
of Brownsville, McAllen, Laredo, Eagle Pass, and El Paso, Texas; and Las Graces, New Mexico.
The EPA Document entitled US-Mexico Border XXI Program Summary of Domestic Meetings
(June 1996) has detailed information on these meetings. This document is also available by
calling EPA's toll-free 800 line at 1-800-334-0741.
The attendees at the domestic meetings were predominantly representatives from nongovernmental
agencies, environmental citizen groups, local and state government officials, and interested
citizens; a few representatives of Mexican nongovernmental organizations and Mexican academic
institutions also attended. Many citizens and members of nongovernmental organizations stated
1-2 June 1997
-------
Introduction
that this was their "first opportunity" to discuss issues with federal, state, and local
representatives from the responsible environmental agencies.
Overall, the meeting participants were provided with the opportunity to identify and discuss many
of the problems and priorities, rather than formulate, or review, specific projects. There was
extensive discussion as to the goals and objectives of the Border XXI Program. Themes which
constantly emerged were the need for increased public access to environmental information and
environmental education resources; the importance of local empowerment through grants to border
communities and decentralization of environmental decision-making; and increased interagency
cooperation to decrease the burden that coordination with multiple entities places on border
communities.
After the public meetings, the Draft Framework Document was released to the public on June 13,
1996 for a 45-day public comment period.
Binational Meetings
Two binational symposiums were held, the first on October 30, 1995, in Tijuana, Baja California,
Mexico and the second on November 1, 1995, in El Paso, Texas, to discuss the development of
the Border XXI Program and Draft Border XXI Framework Document. Binational public
meetings were held along the border during the public comment period to discuss the Draft Border
XXI Framework Document on July 10, 1996 in Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico; July 12,
1996 in Nogales, Arizona; and July 17, 1996 in McAllen, Texas. These binational meetings were
moderated by members of the U.S. Good Neighbor Environmental Board and Mexico's Advisory
Committee on Sustainable Development, Region 1.
DESCRIPTION AND OVERVIEW OF THIS BORDER XXI COMMENT AND RESPONSE
SUMMARY REPORT
This Summary Report is divided into six sections: Acknowlegment of the comment sources,
Glossary of Abbreviations, Introduction (Chapter 1), summary of comments and responses by
Workgroup (Chapters 2-10), general and overall comments (Chapter 11) received by the U.S.,
and agency contacts (Appendix 1).
In the United States, ninety-eight (98) sources provided more than seven-hundred (700) comments.
The following is a breakdown of the numbers of comments for by Workgroup: Natural
Resources-132; Water-114; Environmental Health-53; Air-55; Hazardous and Solid Waste-49;
Contingency Planning and Emergency Response-19; Environmental Information Resources-38;
Pollution Prevention-11; Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance-16. The general and overall
comments category received 227 comments.
Letters and comments were received from a variety of sources including federal, state and local
governmental agencies, nongovernmental agencies (NGOs), academic organizations, individual
residents, environmental organizations, etc.
June 1997 1-3
-------
Introduction
This Summary Report is another step in the outreach process to encourage public participation.
The U.S. and Mexico encourage the public to continue to provide input and suggestions to
improve our public participation process.
1-4 June 1997
-------
2.0 NATURAL RESOURCES WORKGROUP COMMENT AND
RESPONSE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The comments received and their associated responses on the Natural Resources Workgroup
sections of the Draft US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document (June 1996) (Draft
Framework Document) are summarized in this Chapter. Thirty-four sources provided comments
from the general public, state and local governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), and educational institutions, among other sources, in the form of letters, electronic-mail
messages, facsimiles, and notes taken at community/public meetings. Comments were received
which fall under the following subject areas: Biodiversity and Protected Areas; Forest and Soil
Conservation; Marine and Aquatic Resources; Specific Past and Ongoing Projects; Objectives for
the Next Five Years; and Other. The Border XXI Natural Resources Workgroup responded with
modifications and/or additions to the Final US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document
(October 1996) (Final Framework Document) where appropriate.
This summary report does not address individual comments received, however, the range of
comments and concerns raised by the public is encompassed. The Agencies did address every
single comment received in a large database document that is available through the EPA Region 6
Border Liaison office in El Paso, Texas and the EPA Region 9 Border Liaison office in San
Diego, California. Appendix 1 of this report provides contact information for these offices.
For each of the subject areas listed above, a summary of the comments is identified by the pencil
icon (%) and italicized font in the text below. The Workgroup's response follows and is identified
by a pen-in-hand icon (£°) and standard font. Each comment and response segment is separated
by a horizontal bar.
BIODIVERSITY AND PROTECTED AREAS
Twelve sources provided comments that are concerned with addressing biodiversity and the
selection and management of protected areas. The comments address the priority of areas to
protect, sustainability through management of natural resources, development and management
of corridor habitats, bilateral commitments, coordination among agencies and organizations, and
invasion of non-native species.
Critical and endangered habitat protection should be a priority when addressing resource
ecosystems activities.
&n The Natural Resources Workgroup agrees with this comment and will consider this suggestion.
June 1997 2-1
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
It is important to establish a deadline for determining areas to protect in Laguna Madre. The
protection of natural resources in the Tamaulipas border zone should be a priority and undertaken
through locating, studying, establishing and developing protected areas. These areas with great
ecological and social demands, offer great benefits to biodiversity, and promote recreation,
cultural environments, family activities, and responsible eco-tourism.
£v A study has been initiated in Laguna Madre, Mexico, to determine the feasibility of
establishing a natural protected area. Mexico also is interested in protecting the Rio Grande-Rio
Bravo corridor and is elevating a strategy to undertake this initiative.
Comprehensive studies of candidate sites for protected area status in Chihuahua and Coahuila
are needed, Nuevo Leon needs assistance to identify candidate areas, and several sites in the
Sierra Madre require immediate attention.
&v CONABIO organized workshops in Mexico with specialists that established priority areas for
conservation of biodiversity. This includes the entire country as well as the border states.
The flora and fauna of the Maderas del Carmen range are fairly well known, making
additional studies here redundant. Biological studies in areas of Coahuila, such as the Sierra del
Burro, are more deserving and urgently needed.
&o We appreciate the additional information; the sites chosen for the first biological studies were
prioritized in Mexico. This does not mean, however, that other sites will not be studied in the
future.
The focus of managing and protecting natural resources in the border area should be balanced
with an understanding of the interdependence of growth management, economic development,
respect for individual property rights, and equity issues.
&n While we recognize that growth and economic development are important considerations, the
U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) is entrusted to protect and conserve natural resources,
thereby requiring DOI to comply with federal regulations. The Multi-Species Conservation
Program (MSCP) planning being conducted in the area is an excellent example of all levels of
government, NGOs, and communities working together to conserve and restore habitat, as well
as recover threatened and endangered species.
2-2 June 1997
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
EPA is encouraged to finance a mitigation bank in the San Diego-Tijuana region to promote
natural resource sustainability and its inclusion in the Natural Resources section of the Program
that would be compatible with coordinated local, state and federal efforts to create sustainable
multi-habitat and multi-species preserves. It would also provide a mechanism to ensure border
environmental infrastructure projects do not interfere with these efforts.
£n The MSCP planning, which you described, is an excellent example of all levels of
government, NGOs and communities working together to conserve and restore habitat, as well as
recover threatened and endangered species. The idea of mitigation banking within MSCP is one
method that EPA could consider when addressing border infrastructure development.
The mismanagement of the San Diego Bay and its environment has been the subject of recent
lawsuits regarding the poor condition of the bay from contamination. The San Diego Bay is vital
to migratory water birds and waterfowl and serves as a spawning and rearing area for various
marine fish species. These problems should be discussed in the Framework Document.
Northern Baja is currently upgrading its electrical power production system and a gas-fired power
plant that will emit hundreds of thousands of tons of greenhouse gas (COJ, is proposed. This
project and the effects of greenhouse gas should be discussed in the Framework Document.
&° We appreciate your information and realize that not all of the resource areas were included in
the Final Framework Document. Recognizing this, your information on the San Diego Bay will
be considered by the Natural Resources Workgroup for Border XXI planning activities.
The population of the endangered Sonoran pronghorn, believed to be an indicator species for
the Sonoran desert ecosystem and requiring a very large range, is declining in numbers. The
problem of their preservation is clearly ecological and economic. Continued and increasing
illegal hunting, which may be organized by "ejidatarios "for money, fragmentation of habitat by
roads, fences, unsustainable human development including livestock grating, and the use former
agricultural land for gold mining are influences on the population. The mining companies rent
or buy land from "ejidatarios" or the land owners for whom the high cost of extracting water has
made agriculture on these lands unfeasible. Mining impacts the land and water quality.
Increased cooperation is required in defining a scientific joint study to develop a management plan
and address the factors influencing the pronghorn's cross-border division into smaller and less
sustainable subpopulations, its population decline, and corridor requirements. Systematic, long-
term monitoring to learn more about water availability should be implemented on both sides of
the border to determine the Sonoran pronghorn's water needs and feeding habits. Projects to
characterize the transboundary aquifers in the Del Rio-to-Eagle Pass segment of the Rio Grande
and the watershed-based assessment of border infrastructure could help the Sonoran ecosystem
June 1997 2-3
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
recovery on both sides of the border. Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, Cabeza Prieta
National Wildlife Refuge and the Centra Ecologico de Sonora have proposed creating corridors
for the Sonoran pronghorn, but no concrete action has yet occurred.
£& The comments pertaining to the Sonoran pronghorn are valid conservation concerns.
Regarding "illegal hunting" the Natural Resources Workgroup believes that these concerns should
be addressed by the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup. Illegal hunting,
illegal trafficking, and commercialization of fish and wildlife and plants across the border
boundaries have become significant natural resource concerns.
Your observation that water quantity and quality are significant limiting factors in the biodiversity
of desert riverine systems is an important concern to the Natural Resources Workgroup. In this
regard, we are identifying hydrological databases for all the major watersheds in the border region
in order that DOI can better assess impacts to natural resources. In addition, the Water Resources
Workgroup has identified water issues pertaining to biodiversity and habitat needs.
Another objective under Chapter HI, Biodiversity and Protected Areas, has been added to the
Final Framework Document and reads as follows: "Ensure that proposed activities that adversely
impact the use and conservation of natural resources are in compliance with environmental
regulatory requirements."
The Draft Framework Document, by default because it is not a plan, does not address how to
reach the stated goals and develop a feedback loop which reports success or the need to modify
selected approaches. Preservation of biodiversity is a stated major goal and the most logical and
tangible action to do so would require a major purchase of natural open space, institutionalizing
transborder land use planning; identifying, purchasing, and preserving functional biological
corridors; developing restrictive transboundary zoning; and encouraging development of
conservation easements. Of these strategies, biological corridors is mentioned, yet only vaguely.
£% Border XXI is intended to be a framework document. The stated goals and objectives will be
subject to periodic re-evaluation and adjustments as necessary. The Workgroups, including the
Natural Resources Workgroup, will be working with other entities in the implementation phase
of the initiatives. Some of the biological corridors are mentioned with respect to the area in the
Lower Rio Grande. Similar concepts for other geographical areas along the border could come
about in the future.
The role of the County of San Diego as a partner with federal and state agencies in flood
control, habitat restoration, and acquisition projects in the river valley should be referenced in
the Framework Document. As a majority property owner in the valley, the County plays a major
role in public recreation and resource management. We continue to acquire land for the Tijuana
River Valley Regional Park, which should be added to the list of protected areas that are rich in
biodiversity and natural beauty.
2-4 June 1997
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
£° The comment is appreciated, but it appears to be adequately addressed. San Diego County
is a significant partner in borderlands cooperative projects. The County's partnership role is likely
to be recognized specifically in the Natural Resources Implementation Working Document
(NRIWD) where additional projects will be described.
Additional protected areas should include the Salton Sea in California and the Rio Hardy
wetlands in Baja California.
£n Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge and Rio Hardy wetlands have been added to the Final
Framework Document as protected areas.
Add a reference for the incorporation of consultation with Indian tribes as necessary to
determine whether tribes have any concerns regarding traditional cultural properties (TCP) and
because tribal permits and knowledge will be required for the protection of historic and
archaeological sites.
&% The tribes will be consulted and plans for this have been discussed. The following statement
has been added to the Final Framework Document: "In the U.S., these include National Forests;
National Parks and Monuments; National Wildlife Refuges; Public Lands, and Indian Trust Lands
and areas within those lands designated as cultural, historic, recreational, research, and
wilderness; Wild and Scenic Rivers; Estuarine Resource Reserves; state parks and wildlife area;
and Tribal cultural and religious areas."
Plans to manage the threat to natural habitat from invasion of non-native plant species, such
as saltcedar (Tamarix ramossisima) should be addressed. If not eradicated, this plant will
degrade a significant amount of wetland habitat.
£s The DOI acknowledges the problem of saltcedar encroachment along the U.S.-Mexican border
area. Individual bureau agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), are currently
implementing small eradication projects to control the spread of this phreatophyte plant in
wetlands habitat. Unfortunately, the problem of saltcedar control is cost prohibitive when
considering any form of physical or chemical control on a large scale. Saltcedar eradication also
requires revegetation of riparian areas that is essential for improving habitat, but is time
consuming and labor intensive. However, the extent and magnitude of encroachment into Mexico
is not defined. Your comment has been referred to our Mexican counterparts.
June 1997 2-5
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
FOREST AND SOIL CONSERVATION
Five sources provided comments that are concerned with human impact and soil erosion, soil
classifications, development and use of windbreaks, and altering the consumption of wood
products.
Soil erosion control, loss of forest land, grazing management, threatened and endangered
species management, and protection of species or areas from overuse are concerns. Erosion
control, restoration and revegetation are necessary, and priority should be placed on areas with
high saline soils. The conflict of traditional uses of threatened and endangered species by
indigenous people needs to be addressed.
Riparian and aquatic areas, grasslands, and the mountain "Sky Island" areas critical to the
biodiversity of the New Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua border region, are threatened by human
activities such as removing wild flora species, introduction of exotic species, illegal hunting,
wildlife trafficking, cattle grazing, and tourism. Properly managed human activities in these areas
would reduce its impacts. Wood consumption, in addition to use as fuel, has increased as
population increases and a balance must be reached. Human use threatens the Rio Grande and
Pecos River and their riparian vegetation. Fire suppression activities also affect the Sky Island
mountains located in the southern part of the Coronado National Forest.
&& The following statement has been added to page VI.2, second paragraph under the Natural
Resources section in the Final Framework Document: "Forestry and soil conservation concerns
include soil erosion control, loss of forest lands, threatened and endangered species protection and
habitat management including traditional uses among indigenous people."
In addition, reference to these concerns has been made to certain sections of the Final Framework
Document, including those discussing forest and soil conservation.
Windbreaks around agricultural lands, development of commercial plantations, and rural
aquaculture are mentioned as objectives. It is hard to imagine these as priority issues, and if they
are particular concerns of Mexico, this should be stated.
&* Some of these methods have been effective as soil erosion practices on both sides of the
border. This will need further discussion.
Consistent and compatible soil classification is an important priority of Transboundary
Resource Inventory Project (TRIP) and Texas General Land Office (TGLO), and is being pursued
in cooperation with U.S. Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS).
2-6 June 1997
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
The comment is acknowledged.
Provision should be made to stop desertification and increase green areas by discouraging
charcoal consumption in regional cuisine, discouraging ironwood and other wood for carving,
approving tax incentives to real estate owners who increase tree-shaded surface, and restricting
road construction and urban sprawl into forested or erosion-susceptible areas.
£% Your concerns regarding wood products were included by adding language to the Final
Framework Document in Chapter ffl, Section ffl.l, Natural Resources, Forest and Soil
Conservation, page ffl.4 and page HI. 12, and in Chapter V, page V.3.
MARINE AND AQUATIC RESOURCES
Eleven sources provided comments that are concerned with marine and aquatic resources.
Comments address priorities for protection, relevance of proposed studies, apparent omission of
sensitive areas, rivers and sedimentation, water quality, mitigation, coordination between agencies
and other organizations, and inadequate road infrastructure.
Discussions of aquatic habitats as priorities should include not only the typical concerns of
water quality and availability with regard to industrial, agricultural, and domestic uses, but
should also consider that bodies of waters (including lakes, lagoons, rivers, streams, and
estuaries, among others), are habitat for a large number and variety of species.
£n The following statement has been added to the Final Framework Document at page HI. 15, end
of fourth paragraph: "Any future water supply studies should include multi-purpose use including
fish and wildlife needs."
Describe the community interest in aquaculture and how this program was established as a
priority.
&& Aquaculture development is a priority which has been established by Secretaria de Medio
Ambiente Recursos Naturales y Pesca (Mexico's Secretary for the Environment, Natural
Resources, and Fisheries) (SEMARNAP) in Mexico as a community-based commercial harvest
of non-game fish. Section ffl.l in the Final Framework Document on Marine and Aquatic
Objectives for the Next Five Years addresses aquaculture development while protecting habitat
degradation.
June 1997 2-7
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
The San Pedro Riparian Conservation Area should be identified as a model for protecting
surface and groundwater as well as threatened wildlife.
&n The San Pedro Riparian Conservation Area has been included as one of the special
management areas in Chapter V in the Final Framework Document. DOI considers the San Pedro
watershed as a high priority natural resource area and has identified it for a separate Border Issue
Team because of its unique resource values. The Natural Resources Workgroup has used the area
to demonstrate desert watershed management for protection of biodiversity.
The importance of the Tamautipan brushland to the multitude of vertebrate and plant species,
including species sensitive to this area only, is discussed in Section VII. The ecological impact
of the El Cuchillo Dam also should not be ignored.
The document misstates or is unresponsive to public comment. Although public comment was
solicited, the draft plan reflects that in many cases the comment was either ignored,
misinterpreted, or was not positively responded to with specific action. For example, the Texas-
TamauUpas section states that direct wastewater discharges may be adversely affecting seagrass
habitat. Yet, it is widely known that open bay disposal of dredge material from federally-
subsidized maintenance dredging of the little-used Corpus Christi-to-Brownsville segment of the
Gulf Intercoastal Waterway (GIWW) is causing seagrass loss.
&n Paragraph 2, page Vm.3 of the Final Framework Document now reads, "Construction of
additional infrastructure, including storage dams, additional diversions, international bridges and
bridge expansion, intracoastal canals, and ports could have significant impacts in the future. The
cumulative effects of these projects are considered likely to significantly affect fish and wildlife
resources as well as recovery efforts of the endangered ocelot and jaguarundi, marine turtles,
migratory birds, and other listed endangered and threatened species. Impacts to the shared
resources need to be given maximum consideration."
For example, prior to construction of the Mexican extension of the Tamaulipas Intercoastal
Waterway canal, Mexico and the U.S. should conduct an assessment of its impact on the
transboundary ecosystem.
The Final Framework Document also addresses other concerns that include direct discharges of
wastewater and dredge spoil materials into the Laguna Madre, and debris in the marine
environment. Wastewater is known to be causing extensive loss of seagrass habitat, vegetation
that is critical to the Laguna's productivity, and its ability to serve as the overwintering ground
for redhead ducks.
^ Many objectives are stated without context or background that allows the commentor to assess
e relevance of the proposed plan. For example, the Draft Framework Document proposes to
2-8 June 1997
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
characterize the plankton in Laguna Madre, yet the purpose and relevance of this study are not
stated. Who will conduct the study and how it will benefit decision-making are not discussed.
£x We agree with this concern. The need to further describe the Laguna Madre ecology will be
identified as a concern that will be addressed in the Natural Resources Implementation Working
Document. Further inventory and characterization of plankton and other biological resources of
the Laguna Madre system are needed in order to identify threats to the ecosystem. Utilizing
existing data will result in a better management plan for the ecosystem. There is a need to
acknowledge the fact that the objectives and projects (purpose, goals/objectives, and plans)
presented in the document need to be better articulated by each of the Workgroups.
The Draft Framework Document does not mention the Salton Sea, Alamo River, Rio Hardy,
and Laguna Salada as significant wetland resources; the report should mention the Salton Sea as
a marine and aquatic resource, and should also discuss the environmental effect to the Salton Sea
and local drainage. Any plans to treat the New River and other natural resources should include
review by local jurisdictions who can deal with treatment of discharges to the river.
£n The Salton Sea, Alamo River, Rio Hardy, and Laguna Salada have been included in the list
of significant wetland resources in the region on page IV.2, Overview section, of the Final
Framework Document. The Salton Sea is listed as a marine and aquatic resource on page IV.3.
We agree that local entities should be involved in problem resolution.
The New River and the waters entering the U. S. from Mexicali is an issue requiring close
review. The issue is important to Imperial County and the recreational user of the area. Also,
farmers in the area, who have already paid for property damage flooding, may face further
liability.
&n The comments are acknowledged.
Agricultural, domestic, and industrial wastewaters affect the ecology of the Salton Sea and the
New and Alamo Rivers.
£n The U.S. supports and encourages the conservation of prime farmland with consideration
given to the protection of important habitats along the border.
Poorly constructed and maintained U.S. border patrol roads, especially on Spooners Mesa,
also produce sedimentation in the Tijuana River Estuary.
June 1997 2-9
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
&x The statement "unregulated road development" has been added to the top of page IV.3 in the
Final Framework Document.
^ Mitigation is often seen as a less expensive approach to control the impact of human activities
and as a way to pay to be able to destroy natural resources. Mitigation should only be used as
an enforcement tool when protective rules and regulations are broken.
&n Your concern regarding mitigation is well taken. Please note that the lead objective for
Marine and Aquatic Resources is to "Protect, conserve, and restore ...," and mitigation is only
a sub-objective to this ecosystem concern.
Include a discussion of uncontrolled harvest of marine species in marine waters of the border
region.
£$ Similar concerns about uncontrolled harvest of marine species are in the Final Framework
Document on page in. 13, under the Marine and Aquatic Resources section. The U.S. and
Mexico should consult on the uncontrolled fishery and explore the possibilities for the kind of
cooperative fishery management the U.S. and Canada share in their marine waters off Maine. The
concerns will be addressed in Natural Resources Implementation Working Document.
A discussion of EPA's relationship to other agencies that work on coastal environments should
be included. Texas submitted plans for coastal zone management, and TGLO's interest in working
with Tamaulipas on a coordinated coastal management plan should be noted.
In addition, reference is made to the impact of the expansion of the Rio Grande-Rio Bravo bridge
crossing, yet no mention is made of natural resource issues with intercoastal canals, ports, coastal
navigation, or marine debris.
&n On page Vffl.3, sixth paragraph, the following language has been added to the Final
Framework Document: "The State of Texas has been involved in a working relationship with FJPA
on the coastal area. Texas has submitted its plans for coastal zone management to U.S. National
Oceanic and Atomspheric Administration/Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
(NOAA/OCRM). This will have a significant impact on the eligibility of this area for federal
funds, alter the way permits are issued for development near beaches, bays, and estuaries, and
create a coordinating mechanism for various state, federal and local agencies involved with the
coastal environmental. TGLO has expressed interest in working with authorities in Tamaulipas
on a coordinated coastal management plan. This would include planning associated with all of
the Laguna Madre system and associated barrier islands."
2-10 June 1997
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
Marine oil spills, which pose a continuing threat to Mexico's and the United States' coastal
environments is not mentioned and there is no operative bilateral agreement for cooperation for
prevention, planning, or response.
£v Mexico and the U.S. support this idea, but the governments do not have the resources to carry
out such an objective at this time. However, Mexico and the U.S. have a joint oil and hazardous
spill response plan that addresses concerns to fish and wildlife resources.
SPECIFIC PAST AND ONGOING PROJECTS
Four sources provided comments that are concerned with additions and clarification to the projects
listed in various tables.
The projects listed in Table 3.3 should be listed in chronological order. Information regarding
accomplishments of some of the activities identified in Table 5.3 is missing, for example; the
ecology and conservation of herpetofauna. Additional projects should be listed in Table 3.3,
including the project during 1995-1996 on Mexico's wetlands conservation and management and
the production of training manual and the 1996 training courses to be implemented in Merida,
Yucatan, and the ongoing development of resource inventories of critical wetlands in Mexico.
&B The suggested additions have been incorporated into Table 3.2 of the Final Framework
Document.
Reference should be made to Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) as partners in the
Upper San Pedro River Basin Binational Education/Training Project. "Sonora" should replace
"Chihuahua " in all sections of the Reproduction of the Gould Turkey Project.
&D The AGFD has been added to the 1996 Implementation Plan for the Natural Resources
Workgroup. In addition the Final Framework Document has been corrected by replacing
Chihuahua with Sonora in all suggested sections.
Changes should be made to Table 5.3 which include replacing "masked quail" with "masked
bobwhite " in the ongoing project with the Instituto del Medio Ambiente y el Desarollo Sustentable
delEstado de Sonora (IMADES), FWS, and private ranchers in Sonora as partners; the ongoing
evaluation of river otter and beaver populations in Arizona to determine population status and
reestablish population into their historic range of distribution; and the ongoing evaluation of
June 1997 2-11
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
desert tortoise populations in Sonora to determine the distribution and rate of human exploitation
of the desert tortoise in Sonora and to continue a tortoise education program.
&° These projects were intended for inclusion in the Final Framework Document, yet were not
included. Discussion will be held with AGFD. These and other projects will be included in a
comprehensive list of projects that will be developed by the Natural Resources Workgroup.
The Tijuana River Watershed Geographical Information Systems (GIS) project identified in
Chapter III was not included in the Draft Framework Document.
&n There was not enough information pertaining to the Tijuana River Watershed GIS project to
include that project in the Final Framework Document.
Several projects have been conducted or are taking place in the border region by Ducks
Unlimited de Mexico, A. C. and include the 1991-1993 Laguna Madre wetlands classification, the
1992-1993 waterfowl harvest surveys in Sonora and Mexicali, the 1994-1995 study for the
elaboration of a management plan for the Babicora Lagoon, the 1994-1996 environmental
education project in Laguna Madre (phase II), the 1994-1996 seagrass study in Laguna Madres
(phase II), the 1996 mini-habitat project for the Mexican duck, and the 1996 proposal for wetlands
and upland classification.
£D The relevancy of waterfowl harvest survey data to natural resources implementation plan
activities will need to be further defined. The projects involving the Laguna Madre have no direct
federal involvement in terms of partners or cooperators. To the extent that these projects involve
conservation efforts in the Laguna Madre, the DOI would like to consider these activities as a
future reference to be considered in the Natural Resources Working Document. The remaining
projects listed are significant waterfowl/wetlands conservation concern for Mexico. However, the
Babicora Lagoons fall outside the geographical borders considered in Border XXI. This does not
mean that the FWS are not interested in these projects. In fact, the FWS continues to maintain
a conservation dialogue on the management of the Babicora Lagoons and will continue to work
closely with Mexico in these efforts.
OBJECTIVES FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS
Seven sources provided comments that are concerned with the need for more focused study areas,
coordination between agencies, priorities, and the need for community specific objectives.
2-12 June 1997
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
The fish and wildlife management activities in the document do not seem to reflect adequate
involvement from state fish and wildlife agencies of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas,
and their Mexican counterparts in developing the natural resources objectives for their respective
regions. State parks and wildlife agencies and their Mexican counterparts should become full
partners in the Natural Resources Workgroup to be involved in the annual inter-agency meetings
to review and update the Border XXI objectives. The accomplishments of border state parks and
wildlife agencies actively involved in important binational resource issues have been somewhat
overlooked in the Framework Document. It is the state agencies that have primary statutory
authority for managing resident wildlife resources in the U.S.
£n Cooperation of state, tribal, local organizations, and citizens working together with federal and
Mexican counterparts will be necessary for successful border efforts. The Natural Resources
Workgroup was only recently formed and future activities of this group will include all interested
parties.
The objectives listed in the Draft Framework Document are generic in nature and need to
focus more on specific problems in the border region.
&D Several similar comments were received and additional specific information has been included
in the Final Framework Document. In addition, the Annual Implementation Plans will be
important sources of information since they discuss and determine priorities for allocating
resources.
^v Explicit reference to erosion control and sediment management as they relate to water quality
and damage to natural resources is needed in Chapter III. An objective for the next five years for
watershed planning and management should include studies and projects to control erosion and
sedimentation of waterways.
£$ We agree that erosion and sediment management are important factors in protecting natural
resources. This is somewhat addressed and recognized in general terms under Chapter ffl, Forest
and Soil Conservation in the Final Framework Document.
It is important to clarify the scope and scale of effort of the work on the Tijuana Estuary.
Research and fact finding is needed over the next five years and the process that follows a baseline
inventory needs explanation. Furthermore, examples of objectives are needed, such as to promote
assessment and research on habitats and species of flora and fauna to initiate habitat protection
programs that emphasize biodiversity and sustained use in the Califomia-Baja California region,
and prioritize efforts to manage, protect, and revitalize natural resources once information is
developed.
June 1997 2-13
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
&n The following statements have been added to the Final Framework Document, page IV. 14,
first paragraph: "Promote training, assessment, and research on habitats and species of flora and
fauna. Initiate habitat protection programs that emphasize biodiversity and sustained use in the
California-Baja California region. Prioritize habitat management and planning."
The need to conduct a baseline inventory ofseagrasses in the Laguna Madre system should
be listed as an objective. This was discussed at the meeting in El Paso and was endorsed by
USGS, FWS, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), and the TGLO.
£n The following statement has been added to page Vin.23 of the Final Framework Document:
"Conduct a baseline inventory of seagrasses in the Laguna Madre system."
The suggested agricultural program listed as an objective in the Arizona-Sonora region should
include livestock management to protect riparian areas. Elevated fecal coliform levels, most likely
due to livestock, have been found along the Santa Cruz River in Arizona. A binational baseline
inventory of aquatic biota/flora/fauna on the Santa Cruz River should be conducted. In addition,
a vast majority of wetlands and riparian habitats in Arizona have been lost. Biodiversity is reliant
on these areas, and restoration of wetland habitat should be a top priority.
£$ These suggestions will be considered in future activities concerning the Santa Cruz watershed.
Objectives should be added to: (1) enhance protection of natural resources and long term
sustainability through baseline inventory of flora and fauna and water quality monitoring in the
New Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua area; (2) conduct biological inventories of the Santa Elena Canyon
Flora and Fauna Protected Area; (3) protect restore and manage the Mexican pronghom, native
fishes, Aplomado and Peregrine falcons, hummingbirds, beaver, and black bear in the New
Mexico-Texas-Mexico area; (4) implement management and education programs in the Santa
Elena Canyon Flora and Fauna Protected Area, Big Bend National Park, and the Big Bend Ranch
National Area; (5) establish infrastructure to promote projects with economic alternatives for
sustainable development and self sufficiency; (6) develop a joint best management plan and assess
human impact through collaborative efforts; (7) increase reforestation efforts including nursery
management; (8) collaboratively develop windbreaks around agricultural land and development
of wood and nonwood product plantations; (9) establish an aquaculture pro gram for rural areas
with emphasis on sustainable resource utilization; (10) establish guidelines through a baseline
inventory to protect aquatic species and water quality, and restore aquatic riparian corridors of
the Rio Grande and Pecos rivers; (11) conduct contaminant monitoring in the El Paso-Cuidad
Juarez and Presido-Ojinaga areas; and (12) inventory and monitor native fish and aquatic
organisms in the Chihuahuan Desert Ecosystem.
2-14 June 1997
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
&o While many of the suggested objectives are already addressed, most of them will be addressed
later. Some of the concerns have been addressed throughout the Final Framework Document,
specifically in Chapter ffl. Refinement of the discussion(s) of these objectives, to the extent
necessary, will occur by the individual Workgroups.
OTHER
Nine sources provided comments that do not fall into specific subheadings. These comments
address the need to include additional areas in border discussions, establishment of protected
areas, definition of climates, the need to specifically list endangered species, and industrial and
economic factors affecting land use.
Laredo, which has some of the same problems as the Lower Rio Grande Valley should also
be discussed in the Environmental Issues and Problems summary for Natural Resources. The
Document appears to only address the Lower Rio Grande Valley.
£x The Final Framework Document has been amended on page VOL 2, under the Natural
Resources section to replace "in the Lower Rio Grande Valley" with "along the Texas-Tamaulipas
border." Your comments are generally valid for projects directed for Lower Rio Grande Valley,
Texas. To this extent, the Natural Resources Workgroup will consider projects that are directed
towards environmental concerns in the Laredo, Texas area. It should be pointed out, however,
that the FWS and USGS have implemented contaminant investigations of fish and wildlife
resources along the Rio Grande near Laredo, Texas.
Development in inappropriate areas has placed San Diego residents at risk for exposure to
pollution, and better planning would prevent risk to humans and endangered species.
£n We appreciate your comment. Resolving issues of pollution, endangered species, and
development should be facilitated by planning efforts identified in the Final Framework
Document.
Sections in Chapter VI of the Draft Framework Document that address biodiversity and the
decrease of firewood in riparian zones appear in pan to be over-magnified by the author. An
examination of other natural resources, particularly a discussion of grazing activities and the
variety of mining, smelting and refining operations in the region of the active waterways would
better serve the document.
£D This subject is discussed in several areas of the document.
June 1997 2-15
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
Please add the project to study the changing land patterns along the border conducted during
1996-1997 to determine land use and climate changes along the Arizona-Sonora border.
£v The list of projects shown in the tables is not intended to be all inclusive. However, this and
other projects will be included in a comprehensive list to be developed by the Natural Resources
Workgroup in the upcoming working document.
Please add a disclaimer emphasizing that all areas have not been mentioned. Parks on the
north side of the border are not addressed.
£n The comment needs to be more specific in some areas. For example, some parks are listed
in the Brief Overview of Chapter IV of the Final Framework Document.
What is the major goal and plan for the expanded protection of species and habitat?
Protection of individual endangered species does not work because it does not approach the
development of humans and habitat together.
£D The following statement has been added to Chapter HI of the Final Framework Document:
"Issues and Problems identified in Chapter ffl and subsequent geographic chapters include many
of the important concerns but the ones listed are not all encompassing."
Increased road construction for border patrol activity and fire control, and increased
commercial highway traffic have negative impact on local and regional habitats. Artificial
barriers to the transfer of species and ecosystems has been created by the urbanization of the
border area, and the use of fences along the border. Consider using deer-friendly fences
combined with increased supervision. Roads in the coastal area were made by the Border Patrol
in the Tijuana Estuary and Reserve without permits and without doing an environmental impact
report. Environmental assessments should be done for additional roads and wilderness areas.
£n Your example of border security construction projects and their impacts to wildlife and
habitats further supports the need for integrated plans that consider natural resources. The Natural
Resources Workgroup will be developing a Natural Resources Implementation Working Document
to address species concerns that you have identified in your comments. The following phrase has
been added before the last sentence of Section m.2, Natural Resources, Issues and Problems: "and
security barriers and roads."
2-16 June 1997
-------
Natural Resources Workgroup Summary
Increased interest should be placed on photographic and bicycle tourism in the border states,
and on the investment on game species production and the use of privately-owned reservoirs to
increase outdoor span hunting and fishing to benefit local economies.
Every Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Arts degree curriculum in border state colleges and
universities should include at least two one-semester courses on regional binational environmental
issues concerning urban and rural areas. This will increase the decision-making process to
beyond only ecology issues.
£n These suggestions will be further discussed in the development of implementation plans.
Please continue to permit off-highway-vehicle use on designated roads and trails.
&% This comment has peripheral relevance to the Border XXI Framework Document. Individual
federal, state, and local governments regulate off-highway vehicle use. Your interest will be
considered in the development of management plans.
^ Broad inclusive statements concerning objectives for the regions are used when, in fact, those
regions do not contain all of the ecosystems, habitats, or environments mentioned in the
objectives. These oversights imply that the authors of the Framework Document did not attempt
to develop clearly stated and region-specific objectives, but instead relied on generic language.
For example, although the objectives for the Coahuila-Nuevo Leon-Texas region include "pollution
monitoring in the U. S. -Mexico coastal area...", this region contains no coastal zones. When these
statements are appropriately included for regional discussion, they are too broad and do not
provide sufficient foundation for the public to offer meaningful comment. The location for and
type of monitoring proposed, and the cost of monitoring efforts should be included. The NOAA
budget is hardly large enough to monitor for five years.
&n We appreciate your review and have removed inappropriate references. Your observation that
monitoring is a costly endeavor is acknowledged. However, there are various ongoing
contaminant studies being conducted by state and federal agencies in watershed borderwide. The
intent of Border XXI is to ensure public involvement and identify needs to ensure interagency
cooperation that will enhance our ability to address natural resource issues.
The Forest Service should be included in Border XXI.
£n The U.S. Forest Service, under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is a participating partner
in Border XXI.
June 1997 2-17
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
3.0 WATER WORKGROUP COMMENT AND RESPONSE
SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The comments received and their associated responses on the Water Workgroup sections of the
Draft US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document (June 1996) (Draft Framework
Document) are summarized in this Chapter. Forty-two sources provided comments from the
general public, state and local governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs),
and educational institutions, among other sources, in the form of letters, electronic-mail messages,
facsimiles, and notes taken at community/public meetings. Comments were received which fall
under the following subject areas: Water/Wastewater Infrastructure, Water Quality, Water
Quantity, Specific Past and Ongoing Projects, Objectives for the Next Five Years, and Other.
The Border XXI Water Workgroup responded with modifications and/or additions to the Final
US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document (October 1996) (Final Framework
Document) where appropriate.
This summary report does not address individual comments received, however, the range of
comments and concerns raised by the public is encompassed. The Agencies did address every
single comment received in a large database document that is available through the EPA Region 6
Border Liaison office in El Paso, Texas and the EPA Region 9 Border Liaison office in San
Diego, California. Appendix 1 of this report provides contact information for these offices.
For each of the subject areas listed above, a summary of the comments is identified by the pencil
icon (%&) and italicized font in the text below. The Workgroup's response follows and is identified
by a pen-in-hand icon (<&) and standard font. Each comment and response segment is separated
by a horizontal bar.
WATER/WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE
Twenty-two sources provided comments on water and wastewater infrastructure. Most were
concerned with the importance of making this a high priority for the Border XXI Program. Small
communities (i.e., colonias, Indian reservations) were designated as having the greatest need for
infrastructure support. In addition, sources commented on other issues, such as poor collection
systems in Ciudad Juarez, water infrastructure resources are significantly underestimated, there
should be more support to develop cost effective and innovative solutions for lack of
infrastructure, environmental impact from the El Cuchillo dam should be discussed, and point and
nonpoint sources of pollution need to be addressed.
A simple infrastructure project, such as a municipal sewer system would go a long way in
reducing groundwater pollution and reduce the public health risks from air-borne viruses.
&n The Water Workgroup concurs with this comment.
June 1997 3-1
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
^ Designating water and wastewater infrastructure as the highest priority is appropriate for near
term objectives, but it appears short sighted when the issue of water availability is considered.
Water availability requires long-term planning and needs to be acted upon now.
&s Assessing water availability is an objective of the Water Workgroup, as is promoting efficient
water usage. Specific projects will be identified in the Implementation Plans based on available
resources.
Colonias and other small communities along the border have the greatest need for water and
wastewater infrastructure. Many of the homes in these areas lack indoor potable water service
and wastewater disposal systems. Areas specifically mentioned include Indian Reservations,
especially the Tohono O'odham Nation, communities near Brawley in Imperial County, and Baja
California. However, when addressing the problem of these marginal communities, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Secretaria de Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales y
Pesca (Mexico's Secretary for the Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries) (SEMARNAP)
and the entire border community cannot afford to support the same conventional systems that have
proven to be to costly to sustain in this region. Innovative approaches must be found to meet the
needs of this population while reducing wasteful uses of existing water resources.
&n The EPA is establishing their own program to provide financial assistance for needed water
and wastewater infrastructure for Indian tribes on the U.S. side of the border. In addition, EPA
is working with the NADBank and U.S. states to establish a program to assist small communities
with their water and wastewater infrastructure needs. Refer to Appendix 4 of the Final Framework
Document.
The Water Workgroup acknowledges the comments as they relate to water quantity and
sustainability. Within the legal authority framework the issues of sustainability and water quantity
are considered by all affected parties in planning and in the implementation of specific projects.
The Draft Framework Document states that the wastewater collection system in Ciudad Juarez
is adequate for the projected wastewater volume through 2015. However, much of the collection
system consists of open ditches which constitute significant public health and groundwater
contamination problems. In addition, much of the Ciudad Juarez population is not connected to
the wastewater collection system.
The Ciudad Juarez sanitation authority has established, and is operating an exceptional industrial
pretreatment program that is barely mentioned. This program deserves recognition for the
substantial investment that has been made to protect regional water supplies.
3-2 June 1997
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
The Water Workgroup acknowledges the comments. No specific changes are recommended.
The resource requirement estimates for water infrastructure are underestimated or missing.
Language should be added in Chapter IV "...At this time, CNA has estimated resource
requirements to meet Tijuana. Ensenada. Mexicali. and Tecate 's present infrastructure deficiencies
as shown in Table 4.2." Resource estimates for water infrastructure in the U.S. border
communities, including Tribes, needs to be added. In addition, resource needs for Baja California
were far short of what has been proposed to the Border Environment Cooperation Commission
(BECC) and North American Development Bank (NADBank).
£D The changes suggested were incorporated in the Final Framework Document. The resource
requirement estimates have been revised and have been determined to be accurate at this time.
There is a lack of adequate wastewater treatment facilities, especially in Mexico, and in
colonias and migrant camps on both sides of the border. Specific concerns are that Nuevo Laredo
and International Wastewater Treatment Plants are over capacity, and that the wastewater outfall
from the Punta Bandera Sewage Treatment Plant is on the beach and has a significant chlorine
odor that travels north for several miles.
&n The adequacy of the resource requirements has been considered and no changes to the Final
Framework Document are necessary. The specific suggested objectives are within the framework
of the objectives in Chapter ffl, with more detailed discussions of specific projects in Chapters IV
through Vm.
In addition, there is concern that to provide adequate sewerage collection and treatment for
100 percent of the population using conventional methods would require a monumental investment
in the development and continual maintenance of wastewater infrastructure. This is an inefficient
and expensive means of dealing with waste and should not be considered as a long-term solution
to sustainable development in the border region. Border XXI should support the approach of
finding more cost effective and innovative solutions, possibly through assistance of BECC and
NADBank.
&n The Water Workgroup acknowledges the comments. Cost effective and innovative solutions
will be encouraged in project development.
^ Information is requested specific to the volumes of influent being directed to the Nuevo Laredo
Wastewater Treatment Plant. In addition, this comment source requests the integration of a
June 1997 3-3
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
nongovernmental working group that will have the opportunity to undertake continuous monitoring
of the fundamental aspects of the Nuevo Laredo plant.
£n The requested information and establishment of a nongovernmental working group should be
requested through the proper authorities in Mexico.
There is a need for dry or low-water waste disposal alternatives or suggestions for innovative
approaches to water and wastewater treatment. Concerns that improvement and expansion of
sewer systems as short-term goals are not being coordinated with long-term goals, such as
addressing projected water resource shortages for the future. Specifically, one comment source
suggests designing a financially attractive "clean-used-water purchased by cities " program to
encourage consumers to invest in installing and utilizing efficient water recycling technologies.
£** The Water Workgroup acknowledges these comments. Promoting efficient water usage is an
objective of the Water Workgroup in implementing workplans. Specific projects will be identified
based on available resources. The planning for proposed improvements includes consideration of
sustainability of the project. Specific approaches will be addressed during project development.
The Water Workgroup recognizes the importance of water conservation.
One comment source offers a pilot project for treatment of sewer water in Reynosa City and
neighboring towns. In addition, a new natural product that kills coliform bacteria in the
wastewater has been found to be very effective.
£& Specific technology for providing the necessary treatment of water and wastewater is
considered in specific project development. Alternative technologies is a criterion considered in
the project planning phase.
The construction by the Mexican government of the El Cuchillo dam on the San Juan River in
Nuevo Leon is creating environmental problems downstream in Tamaulipas and Texas. The dam
has blocked all downstream flow of the San Juan River. This extreme alteration of the
environment has caused social, economic, health, and ecological harms, which have not been fully
assessed. It is requested that the U.S. and Mexico place these issues of the El Cuchillo dam and
its downstream impacts on their immediate agenda.
&° The Water Workgroup acknowledges the comment. No specific changes to the Final
Framework Document are recommended.
3-4 June 1997
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
Both point and nonpoint sources of pollution should be addressed in the Framework
Document. One comment source offers to participate, along with representatives of Imperial
County, California, in preparing studies and developing priorities for any kind of watershed
planning or management activities that involve areas within Southern California. It is also
suggested that economic incentives be examined in relation to water quality planning.
The Yuma-San Luis areas are rural and support agricultural activities. There is concern of
nonpoint source pollution from pesticides.
£x The Final Framework Document is a strategy document which outlines long-term objectives
for the border region and a process through which the public and private sectors participate in the
accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are identified in annual implementation
plans developed by all the border Workgroups. These annual workplans will be developed based
on annual resource allocations. The specific comments will be addressed in the implementation
plan process consistent with available resources and objectives. The recently completed Colorado
River-New River study specifically quantified pesticide concentrations in the Yuma-San Luis area.
Results of this study are being used to design follow on investigation designed to assess seasonal
variability and to identify best management practices (BMPs) that minimize pesticide concentration
in surface and groundwater supplies.
The facilities planning process for wastewater management in the binational Santa Cruz River
Basin urgently needs to make progress. Not enough attention is being paid to decentralized
solutions to some ofNogales, Sonora 's urban needs. When priorities are established for the Water
Workgroup, this should be at the top of the list.
£n The Final Framework Document is a strategy document which outlines long-term objectives
for the border region and a process through which the public and private sectors participate in the
accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are identified in annual implementation
plans developed by all the Workgroups. These annual workplans will be developed based on
annual resource allocations.
The Nogales infrastructure project is included in the 1996 Implementation Plan for the Water
Workgroup and remains a high priority.
In addition, the City of San Luis has expanded its city limits. The city will need to expand the
existing sewage treatment plant and possibly build additional water treatment facilities to
accommodate the growth in these new areas.
&n The changes suggested were incorporated in the Final Framework Document.
June 1997 3-5
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
Border XXI should adopt a policy that will provide funding to public entities, (i.e. Santa Cruz
County) and other rural government entities to cover start-up costs for improvement districts
(engineering, legal and administrative costs) to include sanitary water, sewer, and wastewater
systems to service such areas as North Old Tucson Road and other projects as may be determined
by the public entity.
If projects are too small to be bonded as an improvement district, it may be possible to bundle
several projects, or it may be more financially feasible to arrange a loan or grant to complete
projects.
Establish criteria for qualifying projects. The first priorities should be locations where there are
building moratoriums due to high nitrates in groundwater or known high nitrates threatening
public and private wells caused by overuse of septic tanks.
Limited fitnds should be focused on small infrastructure projects that will have immediate
mitigation effects on environmental degradation.
The Final Framework Document is a strategy document which outlines long-term objectives
for the border region and a process through which the public and private sectors participate in the
accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are identified in annual implementation
plans developed by all the Workgroups. These annual workplans will be developed based on
annual resources allocations. The specific comments will be addressed in the implementation plan
process consistent with available resources and objectives. EPA is working with U.S. states and
NADBank to address the infrastructure needs of small U.S. communities.
WATER QUALITY
Sixteen comment sources expressed concerns with inadequate water quality through out the border
region and little discussion on water conservation. Specific comments requested that consistent
population projections be used for water quality planning, impacts from mining operations be
evaluated, and binational management of groundwater basins is needed. In addition, comments
also noted a lack of emphasis on pursuing binational cooperation on the Wellhead Protection Plan,
water quality issues with the New and Colorado Rivers, high levels of fluoride in wells in
Columbus-Puerto Palomas, and groundwater contamination from pipelines and low-level
radioactive facilities.
It is essential that border area planning be based on consistent population projections that are
generated at the local level and coordinated with the officially designated regional planning
agency. For any water quality planning that involves territory within Southern California,
representatives from the Southern California Association of Governments, Imperial County, and
other affected agencies should be invited to participate.
3-6 June 1997
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
£D The Final Framework Document is a strategy document which outlines long-term objectives
for the border region and a process through which the public and private sectors participate in the
accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are identified in annual implementation
plans developed by all the border Workgroups. These annual workplans will be developed based
on annual resources allocations. The specific comments will be addressed in the implementation
plan process consistent with available resources and objectives.
^ Mining operations impacts are not adequately addressed in the Arizona-Sonora region. They
suggest that evaluation of the impacts of mining and smelting operations on the environment
should be conducted. One source stated that mines in Cananea had previously had a pollutant
release, but corrective measures had been taken. The San Pedro River has problems with
sediments from the Canine Mine. In addition, there is concern as to possible groundwater
contamination from the Bisbee mine tailings ponds.
&n The changes suggested were incorporated in the Final Framework Document.
We support the Wellhead Protection Plan in Chapter V of the Framework Document. However,
several changes are suggested to Chapter V to further reiterate this support. The Wellhead
Protection Areas extend from the U.S. into Mexico, thus changes to the program should include
a binational element. There is concern that the Technical Committee has not placed an emphasis
on pursuing binational cooperation on the Wellhead Protection Plan, as it appears that such
cooperation would be difficult and time consuming to obtain. This concern is supported by the
lack of progress in binational cooperation regarding the International Wastewater Treatment Plant
Facility Plan. Nevertheless, informal communications with various Mexican representatives at all
three levels of government have seemed to indicate there is positive potential for Mexican interest
in binational participation.
&& The Final Framework Document is a strategy document which outlines long-term objectives
for the border region and a process through which the public and private sectors participate in the
accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are identified in annual implementation
plans developed by all the Workgroups. These annual workplans will be developed based on
annual resources allocations.
The Nogales wellhead protection project is included in the 1996 Implementation Plan for the
Water Workgroup. Expansion of the program will be considered during implementation of the
project.
Inventory transboundary surface and groundwater resources quantity and quality.
June 1997 3-7
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
£° The changes suggested were incorporated in the Final Framework Document.
A major concern to the Imperial Valley in California is the New River. The New River and
the Alamo are the two most polluted rivers in the U.S. The floatation of foam can be seen on the
New River and it is known to be polluted with toxins. For the Border XXI program to be
successful, it must be a complete comprehensive package. The International Boundary and Water
Commission (IBWC) projects here need funding. The impacts of North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) on our health need to be considered. The population growth due to
industrialization exceeds the infrastructure capacity of the region.
The New River pollution abatement programs (improvements to the existing Mexicali system and
long-term solutions to wastewater infrastructure deficiencies) must be given the highest possible
priority on a sustained basis until these critical problems have been satisfactorily resolved.
The Framework Document calls attention to the potential exposure to individuals that use the New
River for sport and other recreational activities. However, the highest risk of exposure is for those
individuals who have no direct access to potable water and store drinking water at the point-of-
use.
Add language to Chapter IV that reflects that industrial waste from Mexicali contributes to the
pollutant load of the New River.
£v Construction of wastewater infrastructure to assist in the clean up of the New River is an
ongoing activity and is identified on the list for the 1996 Workplan. A component of the projects
is construction of a weir to deal with the problems in the Alamo River.
Several specific water quality concerns were expressed in various public meetings in Southern
California. These concerns include:
• County park leach lines are polluting the community water source in Potrero (E. Coli
contaminated water was found in a nearby school);
• Buckman Springs area has illegal dumping of oil drums near a public water source; and
• Highway 94, a major border traffic route, lies adjacent to an important groundwater and
potable water source.
Activities that address water quality issues for Southern California were also suggested for
inclusion in the Final Framework Document. These include the following:
3-8 June 1997
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
The Campo Indian Reservation, in their efforts to develop a water quality management
program, has developed a water quality monitoring program in the U. S. and has requested
an EPA grant to test water in Mexico;
Water quality stations are being set up on both sides of the border;
The Colorado River is also being tested; and
Safe drinking water and sewage treatment should be mentioned in the Imperial County
section to the extent that it is mentioned for San Diego County.
The Water Workgroup acknowledges these comments. The changes suggested were
incorporated into the Final Framework Document.
The levels of fluoride in wells serving the residents of Columbus-Puerto Palomas exceed the
national recommended standards and pose a significant health threat.
£n The changes suggested were incorporated in the Final Framework Document.
Drinking water quality and groundwater contamination are major concerns through out the
border region. High consumption of bottled water indicates a lack of confidence in the water
supply. Specific regional issues include the following:
• Residents of New Mexico believe that many of the colonias in Dona Ana County have
contaminated water supplies, are concerned about potential contamination of groundwater
by the pipeline at Lakeside, and by the proposed low-level radioactive waste facility in
Hudspeth County, Texas.
• Inadequate sewage disposal and treatment creates pollution to groundwater, waterways,
and the Gulf. Some of this may migrate into Arizona. Possibly EPA could assist Mexico
in the border areas by providing funding and technical assistance.
• Mexican tourist trade is hindered by poor water treatment infrastructure.
• The omission of any discussion of water conservation in Chapter VI is particularly
noticeable.
£v The Final Framework Document is a strategy document which outlines long-term objectives
for the border region and a process through which the public and private sectors participate in the
accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are identified in annual implementation
June 1997 3-9
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
plans developed by all the Workgroups. These annual workplans will be developed based on
annual resources allocations.
Suggested changes to Chapter III included adding some discussion of industrial waste
monitoring and pretreatment.
&n The changes suggested were incorporated in the Final Framework Document. The Water
Workgroup will coordinate with the Enforcement Workgroup to promote compliance and
enforcement of the pretreatment requirements.
The Arizona-Sonora region residents are concerned about water in three ways: 1) surface
water pollution, 2) overuse of water on both sides of the border (groundwater or surface water)
to the detriment of water quality or sustainability (IfAmbos Nogales overpumps in the San Rafael
Valley or its counter part in Mexico, then this will have a severe impact on the cattle ranching
area to the east.) 3) potential contamination of groundwater through development of
industry/maquiladoras.
Other concerns that were stated include:
• Wastewater discharge from Douglas wastewater treatment plant is not being monitored.
Is EPA working on this problem?
• There should be a local Water Workgroup that includes the Arizona Department of Water
Resources (ADWR) and local planning groups.
• Binational management of groundwater basins is needed.
• Bisbee Junction's well may need to be shut down soon due to nitrate contamination.
• There is a lawsuit brought by the Gila Indian community claiming their water rights are
being violated.
• EPA could use their position on the BECC to promote water conservation.
&* The Water Workgroup acknowledges these comments. The changes suggested were
incorporated into the Final Framework Document.
There is no mention of the Colorado River in Chapter V of the Draft Framework Document.
The ecologically imperiled Colorado River lacks a comprehensive environmental management plan
which ironically harms the Sonoram desert ecosystem. Watershed planning and management
without addressing cumulative and synergistic impacts of such a major water system cannot be
3-10 June 1997
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
effectively developed. Existing law has not yet addressed the serious problems facing this river
system.
IBWC does not have the authority to overview the -whole basin approach with the Colorado River.
What will the new enforcement mechanisms be that will allow the IBWC to address issues
regarding water quality, conservation, and use along the border? Any approach must include
public participation and implementation authority.
For the Lower Colorado-New River Toxics Survey, the parties involved are only required to
increase communication, cooperation and coordination to achieve their objectives. Will the
parties involved be able to propose action plans to address these issues including targets and
timetables for both countries?
&D The Final Framework Document is a strategy document which outlines long-term objectives
for the border region and a process through which the public and private sectors participate in the
accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are identified in annual implementation
plans developed by all the Workgroups. These annual workplans will be developed based on
annual resources allocations. The specific comments will be addressed in the implementation plan
process consistent with available resources and objectives. Issues related to the Colorado River
are mentioned throughout Chapter V in the Final Framework Document. Enforcement issues are
referred to the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup. Follow-on studies to
address these issues are being discussed in the context of the implementation plan process,
consistent with available resources.
WATER QUANTITY
Fifteen comment sources expressed concern over the lack of emphasis on water quantity issues
discussed in the Draft Framework Document. Issues raised include increase access to potable
water, promote water conservation, financial resources should be prioritized, improve public
awareness of water and wastewater reclamation, there is a need for a binational water summit,
encourage binational cooperation of watershed management, overpumping, and suggested water
resource projects for the Workgroup to consider.
There is a lack of emphasis on water quantity issues in the Draft Framework Document.
Chapter HI gets close to saying a comprehensive binational assessment of water resources is
needed, but does not directly state this. The Water Workgroup should also be delegated the
responsibility to create a special Workgroup to address legal and treaty issues concerning
cooperation on groundwater resources.
In order to begin to resolve the water supply problems on the border, a first immediate step is to
find ways to increase access to potable water for those who are without and, at the same time,
decrease the demand for those who have unlimited access. Innovative low-cost methods, such as
improving storage capacity at the household level and increasing the number of borehole wells for
June 1997 3-11
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
public use in specific communities could increase supply to meet basic health requirements while
minimizing overuse of this scarce resource.
Border XXI should promote water conservation.
A good project for Border XXI would be to provide education to all areas along the border about
what can be done for effective water conservation.
Financial resources should be prioritized to increase supply for those without access and improve
conservation (through use of reduction and reuse) at the municipal, local and household levels.
&n The issue of water quantity receives much greater emphasis in the Final Framework
Document. Efficient water use, including water conservation, is an overiding borderwide
objective that is highlighted in Chapter HI. The Water Workgroup acknowledges these comments.
Within the legal authority framework the issues raised will be considered by the Water Workgroup
and parties in the planning and implementation of specific projects.
There is a lack of public awareness of water and wastewater reclamation. Population moving
into the area from water-rich locations are still consuming water at the same level without taking
into consideration the local circumstances. In addition, the lack of public awareness of
wastewater opportunities also results in inefficient water usage.
There is a large water shortage projected for the San Diego County area in the near future.
The Chamber of Commerce should include instructions on water usage with an emphasis on
recycling in all of the "welcome packets. "
There is a need for a binational water summit to discuss where future water supplies are going to
come from.
&% The Water Workgroup acknowledges the comments as they relate to water quantity and
sustainability. Within the legal authority framework the issues of sustainability and water quantity
are considered by all affected parties in the planning and in the implementation of specific
projects. These comments will be considered in subsequent workplans that will be developed.
Local and state agencies may be willing to cooperate in the management of water resources,
however, experience has shown that these agencies are limited in their authority to establish and
enforce rules and regulations as complex as establishing water management for a watershed
divided by an international border.
3-12 June 1997
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
The Border XXI program should recommend measures to seek international authority for the
management of watersheds by existing authorized commissions which include local participation,
or the creation of new commissions which include local participation.
The Water Workgroup should commit to aiding in the development of a binational watershed plan
for the Santa Cruz River Basin, for both use and recharge, so both countries can equitably share
this critical resource.
&D These suggestions will be considered by the Water Workgroup. Development of binational
watershed plans has been included as an objective for each geographical area in the Final
Framework Document.
There is concern with water availability from the Colorado River to the northern part of the
City of San Luis. In addition, San Luis, Arizona and San Luis, Rio Colorado, Mexico share an
aquifer. From a recent Bureau of Reclamation study, it appears that San Luis, Rio Colorado,
Mexico may be overpumping its allocation of water. There may be need to revisit the treaty
currently in place with regard to the water allocation issues for both cities.
fo There are no treaty allocations between the U.S. and Mexico for groundwater. Development
of binational watershed plans, including groundwater resources, has been included as an objective
for this area in the Final Framework Document. Concern in specific areas will be addressed
subject to available resources.
The city of Sierra Vista is being unfairly singled out for having recognized their water quantity
problem before it has occurred and are seeking solutions to address this future concern. The Draft
Framework Document references "overpumping due to the demand for drinking water in Sierra
Vista " and states that withdrawal of groundwater is greater than the natural basin recharge. This
comment source feels that the total pumpage is only 70 percent of the natural basin recharge.
There is a cone of depression created by Sierra Vista, Huachuca City, and Fort Huachuca due to
localized pumping, but it can not be suggested the total basin is pumping more than is being
recharged.
&D The Water Workgroup acknowledges the comment. The text in question was reviewed and
revised based on these and other comments.
New well drilling by Nogales, Sonora, increased withdrawals on the city wells at Kino
Springs, and the pumping plant at Guevavi are adding to the concern of where additional water
will come from in the future. Additional pumping will damage the riparian area between the
June 1997 3-13
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
border and the wastewater treatment plant. Future effluent from Sonora might be diverted away
from the Santa Cruz basin and utilized to recharge well fields that supply Nogales, Sonora.
A solution is suggested. Rio Rico Utilities has recently transferred agricultural water rights from
their fields at Rio Rico. Either the existing well could be used, or new wells could be drilled and
a pipeline run up to Nogales, Sonora. This would be direct recharge followed by direct use,
basically a closed biosphere loop. This option provides a cheaper system with large capacity than
extending the Sonoran southwest pipeline down to Cibuta.
EPA Border XXI and BECC stress the concept of developing sustainable water supplies in planning
for the water future of the border area. This solution makes a portion of the supply available to
the vagaries of nature but is completely managed.
fa The Water Workgroup acknowledges this comment. The Nogales infrastructure project is
identified in the 1996 Implementation Plan for the Water Workgroup. The comments will be
considered during the implementation of the project.
Water concerns of New Mexico residents are not represented in Chapter VI of the Draft
Framework Document. Water problems in Columbus-Puerto Palomas need to be mentioned. The
Mimbres Bolson has not yet been studied and the potential for it to be a secure water source is
unclear.
Water usage should also be addressed in this section. Withdrawal of surface water of the Rio
Grande for agricultural, domestic, and industrial uses is significant, with important ecological
impacts, including threatening the biodiversity and riparian habitats along the river. In many
areas the existence of the Rio Grande with associated habitats and ecosystems is threatened.
Continued growth along the river and continued demand for water imperils the river.
fa The changes suggested were incorporated in the Final Framework Document.
The single most pressing environmental issue in the El Paso-Ciudad Juarez area is the critical
lack of water resources. There are several sources of comments concerned with the lack of
discussion in Chapter VI of several water supply and water contamination problems in the El
Paso-Ciudad Juarez area. The only one mentioned in Chapter VI is the water supply for Ciudad
Juarez. Both cities share the same groundwater resources and they share the same water resource
problems. High drawdown rates coupled with little, if any, natural recharge will create a
significant economic hardship for area residences.
Both cities need to make significant investment in increased surface water utilization for potable
purposes, wastewater reclamation and desalination. El Paso has attempted to share information
on projects they have taken the lead on with Ciudad Juarez, however the cooperation of federal
government agencies on both sides is needed to make these plans successful.
3-14 June 1997
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
Projects underway: El Paso is actively pursuing year-round deliveries of Rio Grande Project
water and a conveyance channel to improve the quality of those deliveries.
Two major wastewater reclamation projects currently operating at full scale. A major reclaimed
water distribution system is being designed for the northwest part of El Paso.
A pilot study has determined that the production of potable water from brackish water is feasible.
The use of the Rio Grande River as a drinking water source for Ciudad Juarez needs to be
evaluated.
The Draft Framework Document fails to emphasize the fact that neither the local, state or federal
water authorities know the dimensions of the water resources they are drawing on or have the
authority to create a mechanism for their joint stewardship and sustainable use.
There is no bilateral agreement to substantially identify, prioritize, cooperatively map, measure,
or manage transboundry groundwater resources. A systematic cooperative effort to map the
transboundry aquifers is suggested. In addition, A binational, long-range master plan for the
sustainable sharing of common water resources must be accomplished as soon as possible. A
binational task force should be established to oversee the development and implementation of the
long-range water/wastewater master plan.
&n The comments are acknowledged. The Final Framework Document is a strategy document
which outlines long-term objectives for the border region and a process through which the public
and private sectors participate in the accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are
identified in annual implementation plans developed by all the Workgroups. These annual
workplans will be developed based on annual resources allocations.
OBJECTIVES FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS
Eleven sources provided specific input to the Water Workgroup's objectives. Many of the
comments were to clarify names or correct information presented in the Draft Framework
Document. Other suggestions included: focus on the border population that does not have potable
water and/or sewerage connections, promote wastewater reuse, the need for public access to
reliable test data, a comprehensive monitoring program for influent and effluent wastewater in
Mexico, review zoning regulations and practices appropriate revisions, develop a storm water
management plan, implement an effective pretreatment program, and improve data and
information dissemination.
For Chapter III in the Draft Framework Document, comment sources provided specific
objectives that should be added and suggested language to enhance the objectives that were
already listed. These comments included:
June 1997 3-15
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
Streamline EPA/SEMARNAP/IBWC cooperation to accelerate the "coordination of functions and
responsibilities with regional federal offices, and state and local agencies. " This objective should
also state that the "transfer" of functions and responsibilities to state and local agencies will be
done only where appropriate.
Objectives should specifically focus on the 250,000 target population in Mexico border cities
without potable water and 1.5 million target population without sewerage connections.
Objectives should be included to improve conditions in the migrant camps and colonias in a low
cost, socially acceptable, environmentally sound and financially sustainable fashion.
Perform an assessment of infrastructure operation and maintenance needs. Provide adequate
revenues for infrastructure operation and maintenance expansion.
Promote wastewater reuse.
Endorse the objective of systematically mapping and characterizing the ground-water resources and
associated geology shared by the U. S. and Mexico.
&n The changes suggested were incorporated in the Final Framework Document. The specific
suggested objectives are within the framework of the objectives in Chapter HI with more detailed
discussions of specific projects in Chapters IV through Vin.
Resource requirements in Chapter III of the Draft Framework Document for the Water section
appear to be unreaUsticalty low considering the Mexican border population is 5.3 million people.
Are state and local needs included? Table 3.7 (for all of Mexico) has identical numbers with
Table 4.2 (forBaja California only).
^D The adequacy of the resources requirements has been considered and no changes to the Final
Framework Document are necessary.
Objectives should be added to Chapter IV of the Draft Framework Document, Califomia-Baja
California region or add language to enhance or correct existing objectives. These objectives
include:
Add an objective related to water reclamation would provide a means to evaluate the potential to
reduce costs of water supply and wastewater treatment in the border area.
The New River study is not related to water supply quality for Baja California cities.
There is interest from area water districts to continue to be invited to provide input on the
Border XXI Program's objectives, especially for the International Wastewater Treatment Plant,
3-16 June 1997
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
South Bay Treatment Plant, border infrastructure issues, loan and grant funding, and sharing of
data (environmental, GIS) as planning levels increase along the border.
With regard to information presented for the International Wastewater Treatment Plant there are
several omissions and inaccuracies: Secondary treatment needs to be included as an objective.
How will treated wastewater be discharged during the interim period (March 1997 through June
1998)? Live stream and surf discharge of advanced primary treated effluent should not even be
considered as an alternative. The shallow depth of the diffusers does not guarantee adequate
dilution of the effluent prior to surfacing and the presence of the current known as the South Bay
Gyre poses the potential for effluent transport to the surf zone and the area beaches, creating a
public health hazard.
There is concern that industrial source control in Mexico is not sufficiently guaranteed to occur
such that the impact can be considered mitigated.
There should be public access to reliable and accountable test data both in the U.S. and Mexico.
A comprehensive monitoring program of both raw sewage in Mexico and treated effluent should
be included under objectives.
&0 The changes suggested were incorporated in the Final Framework Document.
The Final Framework Document is a strategy document which outlines long-term objectives for
the border region and a process through which the public and private sectors participate in the
accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are identified in annual implementation
plans developed by all the border Workgroups. These annual workplans will be developed based
on annual resources allocations. The specific comments will be addressed in the implementation
plan process consistent with available resources and objectives.
The Water Workgroup will coordinate with the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance
Workgroup to promote compliance and enforcement of the pretreatment requirements. The
international wastewater treatment plant for Tijuana has been included by the Water Workgroup
in the 1996 Implementation Plan and remains a high priority. Your specific comments on the
project will be considered during implementation of the project.
Objectives for Chapter V of the Draft Framework Document, Arizona-Sonora region, or
language to enhance or correct existing objectives were suggested. These objectives include the
following:
For the San Pedro River there is discussion in the text of the Chapter on the potential water
quantity conflicts, (i.e. overpumping the San Pedro aquifer) yet there is no established objective
to address this issue. There are currently several agencies working to gather information and
develop solutions. However, there is a lack of information on water use now and in the future in
the upstream part of the river in Mexico, and quantity of surface water and groundwater crossing
June 1997 3-17
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
the border. Work is currently underway to quantify the benefit and potential for increasing storm
water recharge. Once the benefit and feasibility is established, funding for such projects will be
critical.
Objectives for the San Pedro aquifer should include protection of water quality and quantity
including water monitoring and promotion of and education on water conservation and reuse.
There is potential contamination from U.S. sewage discharges into the Whitewater Draw andAgua
Prieta River.
ForNogales, there is a concern for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) testing and there is still
no systematic follow-up to the 1990 Nogales water data.
EPA should support regional water monitoring projects and allow local laboratories to do analysis
without federal interference (i.e. regional monitoring in Cananea and Aqua Prieta is funded by
U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Conduct a comprehensive zoning regulation and practices review and make appropriate revisions.
A review of similar activities and regulations in the portions of the Wellhead Protection Areas that
extend into Mexico is warranted.
Develop a comprehensive stormwater management plan. It is recommended that federal support
be provided for binational cooperation in developing a stormwater management plan.
Develop a water provider conservation program.
Implement an effective pretreatment program, including both technical assistance and
enforcement.
Support the development and utilization of an early warning monitoring network.
Improve data and information dissemination in a manner that is accessible to and readily
understood by lay persons in the community.
&& The changes suggested were incorporated in the Final Framework Document.
The Final Framework Document is a strategy document which outlines long-term objectives for
the border region and a process through which the public and private sectors participate in the
accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are identified in annual implementation
plans developed by all the border Workgroups. These annual workplans will be developed based
on annual resources allocations. The specific comments will be addressed in the implementation
plan process consistent with available resources and objectives.
The Water Workgroup will coordinate with the Enforcement Workgroup to promote compliance
and enforcement of the pretreatment requirements.
3-18 June 1997
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
Objectives for Chapter VI of the Draft Framework Document, New Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua
region, are not well represented. The priorities that are focused on here are not those of the
residents of New Mexico. For example, water quality issues near Columbus-Palomas may soon
exceed the water quality issues of New Mexico colonia residents. This issue was ignored in the
Draft Framework Document, but was discussed in public meetings.
Other objectives that should be included are as follows.:
The Mimbres Bolson has yet to be studied. It is the primary water source for hundreds of Mexican
and U.S. farmers and ranchers.
A major ecological issue along the Rio Grande is the large withdrawal of surface water from the
river for irrigation, domestic consumption, and industrial use. The river is rapidly approaching
a critical juncture between the growing use of diverted water from the Rio Grande and the
continued existence of even the remotest concept of a natural river.
&$ The changes suggested were incorporated in the Final Framework Document.
SPECIFIC PAST AND ONGOING PROJECTS
Six comment sources provide specific language that should be included in the Final Framework
Document's Specific Past and Ongoing Projects tables in the various chapters.
In Chapter III of the Draft Framework Document, clarify the inconsistencies regarding the
BECC's role with review of the technical, environmental, social, financial, and economic
feasibility of projects as well as community participation and project sustainability prior to
assistance from NADBank or other financial institutions.
Please make the following corrections: The total cost for projects certified by BECC is $91 million
and the certified project in El Paso is wastewater treatment to the colonias.
£n The changes suggested were incorporated in the Final Framework Document.
Specific projects that should be addressed in the Draft Framework Document are
recommended. The deficiencies in the wastewater system in Ambos Nogales result in raw sewage
flowing into the Nogales Wash. This situation should be recognized as a health hazard. Efforts
should be accelerated to undertake corrective action. Money was allocated for this project almost
two years ago. Planning on this should be started as soon as possible and all participants should
be required to meet until the problems causing the delay are resolved.
June 1997 3-19
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
Add the Tijuana River watershed monitoring and water quality modeling. This project monitors
stormwater and develops a model ofnonpoint source water pollution.
&x The changes suggested were incorporated in the Final Framework Document. In addition, the
Final Framework Document is a strategy document which outlines long-term objectives for the
border region and a process through which the public and private sectors participate in the
accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are identified in annual implementation
plans developed by all the Workgroups. These annual workplans will be developed based on
annual resources allocations. The specific comments will be addressed in the implementation plan
process consistent with available resources and objectives.
Add the Nogales-Santa Cruz County Wellhead Protection Program and the low-cost strategy
for treating and reusing wastewater on the U.S.-Mexico border to Chapter V of the Draft
Framework Document.
&& The Final Framework Document is a strategy document which outlines long-term objectives
for the border region and a process through which the public and private sectors participate in the
accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are identified in annual implementation
plans developed by all the Workgroups. These annual workplans will be developed based on
annual resources allocations. The specific comments will be addressed in the implementation plan
process consistent with available resources and objectives.
^ Several projects were recommended to be added to the projects table or language is added to
clarify or correct existing projects. For Chapter VI (New Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua) these include:
Rio Grande-Rio Bravo Alliance,
Water quality and coupling between surface and groundwater (West Texas, Southern New Mexico,
and Northern Chihuahua), water quality assessment plan for Columbus, New Mexico and Puerto
Palomas, Chihuahua,
Provision of safe drinking water for low income border communities.
For Chapter VII (Texas-Coahiula-Nuevo Leon): Pilot for integrated waste treatment and disposal
system.
The concerns expressed have been addressed. Insufficient information was provided for the
integrated waste treatment and disposal system to include it in the Final Framework Document.
3-20 June 1997
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
For Chapter VIII (Texas-TamauUpas) of the Draft Framework Document, there is no mention
of the coastal impact monitoring program conducted by the Texas General Land Office and a local
consortium with funds from EPA, assessing the impact on inflow from the Arroyo Colorado into
the Laguna Madre.
&% Only projects funded specifically with border funds were listed.
OTHER
Seven sources provided suggestions for other types of issues that the Final Framework Document
should address. These included: industrial facilities must include their costs of wastewater
treatment as a cost of doing business, more detailed discussion is needed on the interrelationship
of water supply, water quality and sanitation should be considered when dealing with water
resource management, concern about runoff from septic tanks, and drought impacts.
Border XXI must address the sources of water pollution. Industrial facilities must include their
costs of wastewater pretreatment as a cost of doing business or engage in pollution prevention.
The lack of environmental enforcement that characterizes the region must no longer be a free
subsidy to polluters.
£n The Final Framework Document is a strategy document which outlines long-term objectives
for the border region and a process through which the public and private sectors participate in the
accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are identified in annual implementation
plans developed by all the Workgroups. These annual workplans will be developed based on
annual resources allocations. The specific comments will be addressed in the implementation plan
process consistent with available resources and objectives.
The Water Workgroup will coordinate with the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance
Workgroup to promote compliance and enforcement of the pretreatment requirements.
There are three interrelated issues of importance when addressing the area of water and long-
term management of this resource in the border region - water supply, water quality and
sanitation. These areas area generally mentioned in Chapter III of the Draft Framework
Document, the subsection "Issues and Problems. " However, that subsection could address these
issues in greater detail.
£n Chapter HI is a broad overview of the issues. More detailed discussions specific for each of
the geographic areas are given in Chapters IV through VIE of the Final Framework Document.
June 1997 3-21
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
In Chapter IV (California-Baja California) of the Draft Framework Document, there is no
mention of the alternative wastewater treatment project, Ecoparque, which for a variety of reasons
is important, especially to the NGOs which built it. Beneficial reuse of the treatment water is an
especially important aspect of the project.
&n The Past and Ongoing Project tables only list projects funded with federal funds.
There is a concern about Tijuana runoff into the valley because of septic tanks. These septic
tanks need to be kept in good condition. Communication could be improved between both sides
of the border regarding facilities management.
^o The Water Workgroup agrees that cross-border communication regarding wastewater facilities
management could be improved. That is reflected in the objectives and specific activities being
identified in the annual workplans.
In Chapter VI of the Draft Framework Document, there is no mention of the current drought
in the Rio Grande basin, nor the efforts of the IBWC through Minute No. 293. At a minimum, the
drought and the steps being taken by both countries to manage joint water resources should be
mentioned. The manner in which the drought has affected local economics throughout the basin
is not mentioned.
Other areas in Chapter VI that do not have the attention they deserve are groundwater and coastal
environments. What proactive steps will need to be taken to manage a shared resource? With
regard to the coastal environment, there is no mention ofintracoastal waterways or their potential
impact on the border environment.
£o The Framework Document is a strategy document which outlines long-term objectives for the
border region and a process through which the public and private sectors participate in the
accomplishment of those objectives. Specific activities are identified in annual implementation
plans developed by all the border Workgroups. These annual workplans will be developed based
on annual resources allocations. The specific comments will be addressed in the implementation
plan process consistent with available resources and objectives.
In Chapter V, Page V.3, replace "propagation" with "survival." Also, explain whether 86
percent of the population receives high or low quality drinking water.
3-22 June 1997
-------
Water Workgroup Summary
The Water Workgroup believes "propagation" is a more appropriate word in this context.
With regards to quality of drinking water, the Workgroup does not agree that differentiation is
necessary.
The El Paso-Ciudad Juarez area has not been included in any planning and design study
during the period of 1989 through 1995. Moreover, with the exception of one simple wastewater
technician training course in Ciudad Juarez, this region has been completely ignored by EPA.
The Water Workgroup believes that the El Paso area has not been ignored by EPA. The
annual workplan process will account for all areas along the border as resources become available.
June 1997 3-23
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH WORKGROUP COMMENT
AND RESPONSE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The comments received and their associated responses on the Environmental Health Workgroup
sections of the Draft US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document (June 1996) (Draft
Framework Document) are summarized in this Chapter. Seventeen sources provided comments
from the general public, state and local governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs), and educational institutions, among other sources, in the form of letters, electronic-mail
messages, facsimiles, and notes taken at community/public meetings. Comments were received
which fall under the following subject areas: Mechanism for Implementing a Binational Program;
Environmental Health Data Needs; Training, Education, Communication Efforts; and Objectives
for the Next Five Years; Specific Past and Ongoing Projects; and Other. The Border XXI Air
Workgroup responded with modifications and/or additions to the Final US-Mexico Border XXI
Program Framework Document (October 1996) (Final Framework Document) where appropriate.
This summary report does not address individual comments received, however, the range of
comments and concerns raised by the public is encompassed. The Agencies did address every
single comment received in a large database document that is available through the EPA Region 6
Border Liaison office in El Paso, Texas and the EPA Region 9 Border Liaison office in San
Diego, California. Appendix 1 of this report provides contact information for these offices.
For each of the subject areas listed above, a summary of the comments is identified by the pencil
icon (%>) and italicized font in the text below. The Workgroup's response follows and is identified
by a pen-in-hand icon (/&) and standard font. Each comment and response segment is separated
by a horizontal bar.
MECHANISM FOR IMPLEMENTING A BINATIONAL PROGRAM
One source provided a comment specifically in support of the need for a binational program.
This section gives considerable attention to the Interagency Coordinating Committee (ICC) for
U.S.-Mexico Border Environmental Health. The fact that environmental health is now regarded
as one of the nine Border XXI Workgroups represents a major step towards addressing
environmental health issues in an integrated manner, bringing together experts from the
environmental and health sectors to work together collaboratively towards problem resolution.
This is a very important mechanism that is now in place and sanctioned by U. S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Secretaria
de Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales y Pesca (Mexico's Secretary for the Environment, Natural
Resources, and Fisheries) (SEMARNAP) and Secretaria de Salud (SSA)(Mexico's Secretary of
Health) to coordinate binational environmental health initiatives in the border region.
June 1997 4-1
-------
Enviromental Health Workgroup Summary
£° We appreciate supportive remarks.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DATA NEEDS
Comments were received from four sources that address strengthening relational databases,
prevention, AND disease prevention.
Databases on the connection between the spread of diseases and environmental conditions
need to be strengthened. Colonia conditions, air quality, and hazardous waste transport are of
particular concern.
£n Several activities described in the Workplan are directed at strengthening health and exposure
databases and the linkages between them including the Health Resources and Service
Administration-state data infrastructure project, Texas Department of Health Border Health
Survey, the Arizona Border NHEXAS Project, the California Department of Health Services GIS
Health Databases Project, and several health registry activities. Those being conducted in a
restricted geographic area will be evaluated for borderwide applications
^ Emphasis should be placed on public health issues along the border. Disease prevention and
the health needs of a population need to be discussed.
&& Section HI. 3 in the Final Framework Document has been modified to recognize the wide range
of health problems and several of the objectives seek to improve intervention/prevention
capabilities. Relevant activities are described in more detail in the Border XXI Implementation
Plans document, pages 40-59.
^ Although there are not many resources available for the collection of data and information,
pesticide residues need to be monitored. Proper inspection and detection is especially important.
With so many people increasingly getting sick with respiratory diseases, biological monitoring
should also be emphasized. An environmental approach to registry for disease should be
established. Lead blood levels, respiratory diseases, lupus, birth defects, neural tube defects,
pesticide poisoning, and availability of health services in the border region requires more
discussion.
There are many other initiatives in Arizona-Sonora, such as the Ambos Nogales Asthma Study, that
have not been identified.
4-2 June 1997
-------
Enviromental Health Workgroup Summary
£o Several projects cited in Table 3.7 of the Final Framework Document will obtain data on
pesticide levels (environmental and human). Issues related to biological monitoring will be
covered by human exposure monitoring and health surveillance activities. The activities are
described in more detail in the Border XXI Implementation Plans document, pages 40-59.
Language on important public health issues has been added to introduction of Section ffl.3. The
Ambros Nogales study has been cited in Chapter V, Table 5.3.
TRAINING/EDUCATION/COMMUNICATION EFFORTS
Comments were received from six sources addressing the determination of and education about
causal relationships for the industrial worker and for non-industrial issues, information sharing,
insufficient health services, and project and partner identifications.
It is essential to differentiate between Exposure Assessment and Health Studies. People must
be educated regarding determination of a causal relationship between a contaminant and a disease
found in people, and work toward removing that causal relationship. The importance of long-term
studies necessary to determine such relationships should be stressed. Female workers in maquilas
should be educated on the higher relative importance of the reproductive risks posed by the use
of toxic substances to their work in the maquilas.
Communication and sharing of information between regulatory agencies and physicians on health
effects of pesticides and their safe use is necessary.
£v Active information sharing with the health care provider and the community is a major goal.
The objective to "Improve capacity ... to assess relationships ..." is addressed in the first objective
on page III.23 in the Final Framework Document. The last objective on page ffl.24 for
Environmental Health, has been corrected to include this educational dimension: "Improve public
awareness and understanding of environmental exposure conditions and health problems by
providing information and educational opportunities."
In addition to identifying inadequate health surveillance mechanisms and insufficient
environmental health training as factors contributing to the environmental health of the border
communities, it is important to include the lack of available health services in these communities
as a contributor.
Support must be given to Ambos Nogales to fund research to identify links between the abnormal
prevalence and incidence of chronic diseases and pollution exposure and provide seed funds for
targeted environmental health education programs for these issues.
June 1997 4-3
-------
Enviromental Health Workgroup Summary
£D The contributing factors have been incorporated into the Introduction of Section m.3, page
ffl.21 of the Final Framework Document. Activities to address health concerns in Nogales are
being supported in current projects, and are described in more detail in the Border XXI
Implementation Plans document, pages 40-59. Environmental health education is also identified
as an initiative for 1997. Comments have also been brought to the attention of the Arizona
Department of Health Services.
^ Additional projects should be listed in the tables in Section III. 3 and Chapter V to include the
Model for Training Community Environmental Health Advisors, and the Analysis of Toxic Metals
in Retail Foods. Additionally, the phrase "the private sector and universities" should be added
to page III. 40, item 16 of the Draft Framework Document.
£D Both of the projects have been added to Table 3.7 in Section HI.3 of the Final Framework
Document, and the training project has been added to Table 5.3. The statement has been changed
to include institutions.
OBJECTIVES FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS
Comments were received from four sources and address the need to address specific diseases that
contribute to public health issues, the need to outline objectives with specific actions, community-
specific health concerns, monitoring and biological testing, and the identification of additional
projects that are working toward accomplishing the objectives.
Public health issues and problems that are directly related to the environment such as cholera,
dengue fever, and hepatitis A should be incorporated. The five-year objectives need to be
redefined to emphasize disease prevention. It is important to include specific actions for meeting
each objective to enhance the utility of this section.
£n These issues have been incorporated into the introduction to Section HI.3 in the Final
Framework Document to the extent they fit in the definition of environmental health established
by the ICC. Vector-borne diseases are not addressed by the ICC per se, but are referred to
appropriate Public Health Service (PHS) agencies.
The overview of objectives in Section m.3 has been modified to recognize this aspect. In the same
section, the second objective explicitly emphasizes this area. Table 3.7 has been modified to
indicate which objective each project addresses. The work plan also specifies which objectives
are being addressed.
4-4 June 1997
-------
Eimromental Health Workgroup Summary
To facilitate problem solving in the community, the health problems cited in Chapter Vshould
be referenced to the specific communities affected by the listed problems. Methods to decrease
these problems, such as registry ofnonchronic disease like respiratory and intestinal illness, and
biological testing of valley fever and tuberculosis in coordination with other monitoring efforts,
should be listed in the objectives.
fa A document containing information on community-specific environmental health concerns in
the Arizona-Sonora border region is available from Lee Bland, Chief, Office of Environmental
Health, Arizona Department of Health Services, 3815 N. Black Canyon Highway, Phoenix, AZ
85015. This reference has also been added to Chapter V, page V.7 in the Final Framework
Document.
The objectives section in Chapter V of the Draft Framework Document presents only a partial
listing of proposed and ongoing activities in the Arizona-Sonora border region. Several other
activities that should be included are the Ambos Nogales Asthma Study, the Arizona-Sonora
Binational Lupus and Multiple Myeloma Project, the Arizona-Sonora Binational Lead Poisoning
Project, the Border Environmental Health GIS Project, several initiatives underway by the Border
Ecology Project, Arizona Toxics Information and other NGOs, the Northeast Sonora-Cochise
County Health Council, San Luis R.C., Sonora-Yuma County, Arizona Binational Health and
Environmental Council, and community-based prevention/intervention research.
£v Corrections have been made to Chapter V, Table 5.3 in the Final Framework Document.
The table of environmental health projects in Chapter III of the Draft Framework Document
is not a compilation of projects and should be revised to be all inclusive.
£B The table in Section HI. 3 in the Final Framework Document reflects projects involving ICC
partnership, and the title has been corrected accordingly.
SPECIFIC PAST AND ONGOING PROJECTS
Comments were received from six sources and address expanding the list of projects and specific
correction and clarification to projects.
Funding should be used to improve the conditions that cause the problems that are proposed
for study in the table in Section III. 3 of the Draft Framework Document. Although focus has been
placed on studying, evaluating, and registering potential environmental health problems rather
June 1997 4-5
-------
Enviromental Health Workgroup Summary
than on intervention and mitigation to improve conditions, much of the information to be gained
from these studies is already known; additional studies would be redundant.
£D The second objective in Section ffl.3 in the Final Framework Document encompasses the
importance of intervention/prevention which would be of the highest priority when the nature or
source of the problem has been identified or confirmed.
The Draft Framework Document does not mention specific plans or projects to address the
protection of workers' health and the health of communities impacted by industrial activities. This
is a serious omission in light of the severe deterioration of human health along the border.
&% The definition of environmental health does recognize risks to individuals in the community,
work place, and home. The Final Framework Document provides an overview and commitment
to insure that environmental health is given highest priority. Moreover, several of the ongoing
projects use surveys that will help identify or confirm community or occupational exposures and
activities that increase health risks.
The Imperial County Public Health Department has been working with our Mexicali
counterparts for a number of years to improve public health on both sides of the border. Work
is currently being done with the Servicios Coordinados de Salud de Jurisdiccion No. 1, Mexicali,
Baja California, Mexico to deliver tuberculosis testing in Mexicali. A study for the San Diego
County Public Health Laboratory has just been completed to look at the amount of tuberculosis
in Tijuana, Ensenada, and Mexicali. Additional funding to continue to tuberculosis studies in
Mexicali is being explored. The Imperial County Public Health Laboratory is working with the
California EPA to perform water testing on the New River.
£n We appreciate the Imperial County Public Health Department bringing these activities to our
attention and ask that they continue to keep the California Department of Health Services (CDHS)
ICC representative (neutral) informed of these efforts as well as the ICC co-chairs Zenick (EPA)
and Falk (CDC).
The Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP) project to determine
health effects ofPMW and associated chemicals on children should be added to Table 8.3 of the
Draft Framework Document.
£D The SCERP project has been added to Table 8.3 in the Final Framework Document.
4-6 June 1997
-------
Enviromental Health Workgroup Summary
The Center for Health Policy Studies (CHPS), who has been chosen the Health Resources and
Services Administration to develop data infrastructure for the whole border, should be listed as
an ongoing partner in the Arizona-Sonora Border Data Infrastructure Project.
£n Since the intent is to make this a borderwide effort, this activity is identified in Table 3.7 in
the Final Framework Document.
A commentor made several suggestions for corrections or additions to the Draft Framework
Document regarding the specific past and ongoing environmental health projects listed in Chapter
III Borderwide Issues and Objectives, Chapter VI New Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua, Chapter VII
Texas-Coahuila-Nuevo Leon, and Chapter VIII Texas-Tamautipas. Suggestions included additions
of projects, corrections to project names, corrections to project time frames, clarification of
partners, and clarifications to the accomplishments.
£° The suggested changes, when appropriate, have been made to Tables 3.7, 6.3, 7.3, and 8.3
in the Final Framework Document.
OTHER
Comments were received from seven sources and include exposure to toxic environmental
conditions and the need to prevent exposure, birth defects, importation of tainted goods,
reorganization of Chapter, socioeconomic factors of environmental health, industrial contribution
to contamination, need to broaden input to objectives/issues, site-specific contamination issues,
air pollution as a factor, and expansion of Workgroup participants.
The Draft Framework Document does a good job of identifying many of the key environmental
and socioeconomic factors and conditions that contribute to the environmental health of border
communities. However, some of the serious public health problems in border communities that
are or may be associated with toxic environmental exposure are not discussed. These include
elevated blood lead levels in children; respiratory diseases (asthma); lupus; multiple myeloma;
birth defects; hepatitis A; infectious gastrointestinal diseases such as amoebiasis and shigellosis;
and pesticide poisoning.
£% Examples of diseases, such as those mentioned here, were added to Section HI.3, second
paragraph, page m.21 of the Final Framework Document. A more detailed discussion should be
done by state agencies to the extent that it is deemed necessary. Such a document has been
produced by Arizona and is available from Lee Bland, Chief, Office of Environmental Health,
Arizona Department of Health Services, 3815 N. Black Canyon Highway, Phoenix, AZ 85015.
June 1997 4-7
-------
Enviromental Health Workgroup Summary
Pesticide residue on fruits, grains and vegetables that are brought into the U.S. for sale is a
concern because the Mexican standards controlling the use of pesticides may not be as stringent
as U.S. standards. Also, lead-based paint is still used in Mexico. Although this paint is outlawed
in the U.S., items painted with these paints enter the U.S. for sale.
&$ The need for prevention and treatment of the diseases and ailments is recognized in Chapter
III, Section 3, under the second and fifth objectives in the Final Framework Document. The
issues involving items entering the U.S. for sale are well recognized by the Workgroup and are
an area of intensive discussion between the U.S. and Mexico.
It is important to note that there is a failure throughout the Draft Framework Document to
address the potential birth defects that may result from exposure to various contaminants.
£v Other than listing ongoing projects in Table 3.7, Chapter m of the Final Framework
Document is intended to provide a broad overview, not a project description which is available
in project workplans. A neural tube defects (NTD) project and a birth defects project are noted
as ongoing in Table 3.7. Moreover, a NTD initiative has been developed as part of the
Environmental Health Workplan. (See the Border XXI Implementation Plans document.)
^ Environmental health is a very complex issue with many factors, environmental and societal,
affecting the environmental health of a region and along the border. Lack of self-esteem, for
example, rather than poverty, must be addressed as a suprastructural factor in deficiencies in
environmental health. Abo, environmental monitoring and health surveillance are not a substitute
for an intelligent values- and behavior-modification campaign to promote attitude changes toward
environmental health issues.
In addition to sanitary and economic factors, cultural issues must be considered when evaluating
the causes of poor environmental health. This, too, is true in the Arizona-Sonora border region.
Public services must be improved and people must be more careful with their health.
£n The introductory text in Section ffl.3 of the Final Framework Document has been modified
to indicate "insufficient training and training education... general community to anticipate,
recognize, understand, and address these conditions." Also the fifth objective will incorporate
this dimension of education.
Although these comments raise important issues, these are concerns that must be addressed by the
local community which is changing behaviors of their institutions and residents. It is not within
the scope of the Border XXI Program.
4-8 June 1997
-------
Enviromental Health Workgroup Summary
Though the Draft Framework Document cited ASARCO and Nu-Mex Landfill at Sunland Park,
New Mexico, as impacting health, the document failed to include Chevron, Phelps Dodge,
Laundries, and Southern Pacific as contributors of chemicals to the air and noise in El Paso-
Juarez.
^D AS noted in Table 6.3, on page VI. 13 of the Final Framework Document, an Agency for
Toxic Substance and Disease Registry (ATSDR) consulate was initiated to determine the health
impacts of ASARCO and Nu-Mex landfill on Sunland Park residents.
The overview in Chapter V of the Draft Framework Document is brief and discusses some of
the principal environmental health issues affecting communities and some of the initiatives to
address the issues. Arizona Department of Health Services (ADHS) is developing a more complete
overview that focuses on community-specific issues.
£D A document containing information on community-specific environmental health concerns in
the Arizona-Sonora border region is available from Lee Bland, Chief, Office of Environmental
Health, Arizona Department of Health Services, 3815 N. Black Canyon Highway, Phoenix, AZ
85015. Reference to this more complete document has been added to the introduction in Chapter
V of the Final Framework Document.
Migrant workers, due to their working conditions and lack of sanitation, poor water supply
and quality, and exposure to pesticides, are especially vulnerable to adverse environmental
exposures. These issues need to address the migrant community moving back and forth across the
border.
Pesticide use in Imperial Valley is a concern.
The cause of birth defects in Imperial County and Mexicali is not mentioned. Also, there have
been several cases of encephalitis in Tijuana, yet this is not mentioned.
&n Numerous comments were provided and have been shared with the Border XXI Workgroup
cochairs and the ICC representatives from California. Specific to the migrant workers concerns:
Although migrant workers are not singled out specifically in Chapter ffl, health risks from
occupational exposure is targeted. Moreover, the Office of Minority Health, U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is addressing issues related to migrant health.
June 1997 4-9
-------
Enviromental Health Workgroup Summary
Air pollution risks need to be discussed as an environmental health issue. The EPA
publication, Compendium of EPA Binational and Domestic U.S. -Mexico Activities provides some
additional SCERP, Mexican, and U.S. university projects that should be added to Table 6.3 of the
Draft Framework Document.
£v The environmental health text in Chapter VI of the Final Framework Document has been
expanded. Some SCFJiP projects have been added to Table m.3.
There are additional people that should be invited to participate on the Environmental Health
Workgroup, including: Luis Ortega, M.D., Maura Mack, Ph.D., and Emma Torres withADHS;
and Michael Lebowitz, Ph.D and Anna Guiliano, Ph.D., with the University of Arizona.
£n Public participation is an over-arching issue for Border XXI. A strategy is currently under
active development.
4-10 June 1997
-------
5.0 Am WORKGROUP COMMENT AND RESPONSE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The comments received and their associated responses on the Air Workgroup sections of the Draft
US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document (June 1996) (Draft Framework Document)
are summarized in this Chapter. Twenty-two sources provided comments from the general public,
state and local governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and educational
institutions, among other sources, in the form of letters, electronic-mail messages, facsimiles, and
notes taken at community/public meetings. Comments were received which fall under the
following subject areas: Air Monitoring Data; Ambient Air Quality Standards; Big Bend National
Park Visibility; Emissions Inventories; Specific Past and Ongoing Projects; Mobile, Point, Area
Sources; Objectives for the Next Five Years; and Other. The Border XXI Air Workgroup
responded with modifications and/or additions to the Final US-Mexico Border XXI Program
Framework Document (October 1996) (Final Framework Document), where appropriate.
This summary report does not address individual comments received, however, the range of
comments and concerns raised by the public is encompassed. The Agencies did address every
single comment received in a large database document that is available through the EPA Region 6
Border Liaison office in El Paso, Texas and the EPA Region 9 Border Liaison office in San
Diego, California. Appendix 1 of this report provides contact information for these offices.
For each of the subject areas listed above, a summary of the comments is identified by the pencil
icon (%0 and italicized font in the text below. The Workgroup's response follows and is identified
by a pen-in-hand icon (<&) and standard font. Each comment and response segment is separated
by a horizontal bar.
AIR MONITORING DATA
Five sources provided comments that are concerned with the adequacy of planned air monitoring
efforts border wide, the effects that increased traffic at the border crossings will have on air
quality, and accomplishments to date of ongoing air monitoring efforts.
^ Although the Draft Framework Document states that there is an operating monitoring site in
Laredo, Texas for ozone (Oj), carbon monoxide (CO), volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
particulates smaller than 10 microns (PM-10), pesticides, and hydrocarbons, there is currently
only a paniculate filter at the site.
&n The following language has been added to the Final Framework Document, to replace the
language under VHL.15 "Air" 1st Row, 4th Column: "In Laredo, monitoring for PM-10 and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) is underway. Monitoring for ozone, CO, VOC, lead,
arsenic, and meteorological data will be initiated in August of 1996."
June 1997 5-1
-------
Air Workgroup Summary
In October 1994, the Integrated Environmental Border Plan provided approximately $30,000
to Tijuana for air monitoring programs at the Colegio de La Frontera (COLEF) and the Institute
Tecnologica de Tijuana (ITT), What has been done to date?
Provide the results of air pollution monitoring undertaken in the Nuevo-Laredo, Texas border
area.
£n Monitoring data related to border air quality is available through the U.S. -Mexico Information
Center on Air Pollution (CICA). Chapter HI of the Final Framework Document and the 1996 Air
Initiatives (U.S.-Mexico Border XXI 1996 Implementation Plans) provide information on accessing
CICA.
Mexican drivers are being directed to not use the El Paso port of entry when going to the
Northwest United States. This will increase traffic through the Douglas and Naco ports of entry.
Baseline air quality monitoring is needed in order to determine what changes are occurring to air
emissions as truck traffic increases.
&o Language has been added to the Final Framework Document to replace language under ffl.28
Subsequent to Objective 5 to read: "The Binational Air Workgroup will pursue the development
of an exploratory subgroup on Congestion and Air Pollution at Border Crossing to review ongoing
efforts and to make recommendations on ways to alleviate regional air pollution problems caused
by vehicular congestion at ports of entry. The subgroup would need to involve the participation
from a wide variety of governmental [e.g., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
Institute Nacional de Ecologia (Mexico's National Insitute for Ecology) (INE), Customs, Aduana,
Mexican Petroleum Company (PEMEX), state, local] and nongovernmental entities [e.g., private
sector, NGOs, academia]."
There should be air quality monitoring stations in Imperial County or Brawley. In addition,
Sunland Park, New Mexico should be included as part of the El Paso-Juarez airshed area with a
critical need for more air monitoring.
&& Chapter IV of the Final Framework Document discusses monitoring efforts in the San Diego-
Tijuana and the Imperial Valley-Mexicali areas. Chapter VI references Sunland Park, New
Mexico as part of the El Paso-Juarez airshed area.
5-2 June 1997
-------
Air Workgroup Summary
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Five sources provided comments commending the Program for its outreach efforts, detailing the
need for overview of the interrelationships between affected interest parties, the need to improve
border crossing procedures, and Mexican county or state specific needs for improved air quality.
The Border XXI program is commended for reaching out to all affected interests, building
partnerships, and forming effective implementation strategies to resolve air quality issues.
However, the affected interests should also include diverse stakeholders such as the building
industry, the transportation community, and economic development organizations. Also, the
Border XXI program is more narrowly focused than the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide
and does not deal extensively with interrelationships among the above listed affected interests.
£v Language was added to the Final Framework Document to address this comment, page HI.26,
last paragraph (after "... modeling and improvement strategies.") "These air quality
improvement strategies will serve as useful tools for local decision-makers as they grapple with
the interrelationships among air quality, land use, transportation, and economic development."
Household level burning contributes to air quality and is a public health issue, at least at the
local level. Unregulated burning of trash, manure, and agricultural fields create large areas of
smoke and pollution.
The increase in truck traffic along Arizona's southern border has resulted in increased noise
pollution. Border towns suffer enhanced air pollution due to long truck inspection lines. Mexican
vehicles, whose emissions are not regulated, waiting in long lines at border crossings in the
Arizona-Sonora area increase pollution.
Unpaved roads create PM-10 compliance issues.
Mexican air quality law should be reviewed and compliance should be enforced. Monitoring and
abatement assistance should be requested from Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
(ADEQ), who is charged with Clean Air Act compliance.
Air quality monitoring data is being reviewed by both federal governments, but nothing is being
accomplished. The Naco, Sonora landfill is always burning; there should be air quality
monitoring in Naco.
£n The following language was added to the Final Framework Document to address all of the
comments listed above:
June 1997 5-3
-------
Air Workgroup Summary
Page m.27, Table 3.10, Row 1, Column 4 to read "Through the Air Workgroup, the two
governments are working together to address air quality through emission inventory development,
monitoring, and air pollution abatement strategies. These efforts include components for training,
technical assistance, and public participation."
Page ffl.26, last paragraph, (after "... modeling and improvement strategies.") "These air
quality improvement strategies will serve as useful tools for local decision-makers as they grapple
with the interrelationships among air quality, land use, transportation, and economic
development."
Page ffl.26, fourth paragraph, (after "...further reducing air quality.") "There are numerous other
area emissions sources including residential fuel combustion, waste disposal (refuse burning), fires
(wildfires, prescribed burning, structural fires), agricultural production, brick manufacturing, wire
reclamation, and manure burning."
Page ffl.30, the last objective was added and states: "The Binational Air Workgroup will pursue
the development of an exploratory subgroup on congestion and air pollution at border crossings
to review ongoing efforts and to make recommendations on ways to alleviate regional air pollution
problems caused by vehicular congestion at ports of entry. The subgroup will need to involve
participation from a wide variety of governmental (e.g., EPA, INE, Customs, U.S. Department
of Transportation (DOT), state, local) and nongovernmental entities (e.g., private sector, NGOs,
academia)."
Santa Cruz County has complied with EPA requirements to implement a mitigation plan to
address "nonattainment. " However, according to EPA data, over 90 percent of the contamination
emanated from Nogales, Sonora. Mexican agencies in Nogales, Sonora should develop and
implement a comprehensive plan.
£n There is a specific discussion of Ambos Nogales efforts in Chapter V of the Final Framework
Document and in the Air Workgroup 1996 Implementation Plan.
In addition, the following language was added to the Final Framework Document to address this
comment:
Page m.27, Table 3.10, Row 1, Column 4 to read "Through the Air Workgroup, the two
governments are working together to address air quality through emission inventory development,
monitoring, and air pollution abatement strategies. These efforts include components for training,
technical assistance, and public participation."
Page m.26, last paragraph, (after "... modeling and improvement strategies.") "These air
quality improvement strategies will serve as useful tools for local decision-makers as they grapple
with the interrelationships among air quality, land use, transportation, and economic
development."
5-4 June 1997
-------
Air Workgroup Summary
BIG BEND NATIONAL PARK VISIBILITY
Three sources provided comments about the need to include the effects the Carbon plants have on
visible air quality in Big Bend National Park, and the need to include other newly defined sensitive
areas.
Visibility impairments surrounding the Big Bend National Park are widely reported in the news
media, yet not satisfactorily referenced with the Draft Framework Document. At a minimum, the
Presidential mandate to deal with the issue which the U.S. and Mexican federal officials received
in October should be referenced.
Please mention, in miles or kilometers, the diminished visibility range in Big Bend National Park.
An obvious problem the Draft Framework Document merely glosses over is the continuing
operation of the Carbon I and II coal-fired plants south of Piedras Negras, Coahuila. These
plants contribute to serious visibility degradation in the Big Bend National Park and the newly -
declared protected area ofMaderas del Carmen in Mexico. The Draft Framework Document
proposes Jurther regional air quality studies yet few details are provided about the scope of this
plan. Cross-border training, information exchange and studies are fine, but the people of this
region deserve more concerted and focused actions to deal with Carbon I and II issues.
&° In October 1993, the U.S. and Mexico agreed to form a binational technical work group to
"develop bilateral measures to preserve air quality and to address existing situations of substantial
air quality degradation including visibility problems" at Big Bend. The U.S. National Park
Service (NFS) is a member of the Workgroup. The EPA acknowledges that the Draft Framework
Document may not have provided sufficient treatment to the topic of visibility and Carbon I and
n, and added additional text to provide the public with more information about the importance of
air quality in the Big Bend region.
A comprehensive, bilateral study examining a very broad region around the Park, is currently
underway to more accurately assess the sources responsible for air quality problems. The study,
jointly managed for the U.S. by EPA and NPS, will provide detailed and precise information
about the factors affecting visibility and air quality. With the collected data, the U.S. and Mexico
will assess the relative importance of the factors affecting visibility, and will determine appropriate
actions.
EMISSIONS INVENTORIES
One source submitted a comment concerning the inadequate data available on Mexican air quality
and the significant need to collect reliable data and complete thorough emissions inventories along
the border.
June 1997 5.5
-------
Air Workgroup Summary
In order to develop appropriate remedies to air quality issues, and to identify the impact of
mobile source emissions on U.S. air quality and changes to policy effecting the U.S. trucking
industry, collecting reliable data on Mexican air quality and Mexican emissions inventories should
be a focus. Without reliable data, emission control strategies will fall disproportionately on U.S.-
based carriers, while potentially older and higher-polluting Mexican trucks are exempt from
control strategies.
There is insufficient data on Mexican air quality. We support the efforts of the government
agencies to obtain credible data on the sources of air pollution in order to determine the most
appropriate methods to mitigate emissions.
£D Existing language relative to emissions inventories was added. In sum, emissions inventories
will be developed in priority sister cities. The inventories will include data on all sources,
including trucks. These inventories will serve as a crucial component in determining the relative
impact of the myriad air pollution sources. The development of an emissions inventory
methodology for Mexico will help insure that the data is valid and consistent.
SPECIFIC AND ONGOING PROJECTS
One source provided several comments about including additional projects in the various chapters'
discussions of project partners and accomplishments. Projects involve characterization of
contributors to border emissions quality such as vehicle maintenance, paint shops or coal cleaning.
Past or ongoing projects are not properly recognized as Southwest Center for Environmental
Research and Policy (SCERP) projects, or are not listed in Tables 3.10, 4.3, 6.3, 7.3, and 8.3
of the Draft Framework Document. Those projects resulted in: the characterization of border
vehicles to determine vehicle emission, level of maintenance, and owners' willingness to pay for
repairs to reduce emissions, an estimation of heavy-duty vehicle emissions; in the San Diego-
Tijuana border region from transborder trucking; the vertical profiling of ozone and ozone
precursor for the El Paso-Ciudad Juarez Ozone Field Study; estimation of emissions from domestic
heating units to develop units to reduce air pollution in Ciudad Juarez; training to reduce VOC
emissions from paint and body shops; an assessment for coal cleaning opportunities in Mexico;
analysis of wind flow into Big Bend National Park; and characterization of air pollution
components in the Brownsville-Matamoros to Reynosa-McAllen area of the border.
£D Reference to SCERP projects has been added as Appendix 6 to the Final Framework
Document.
5-6 June 1997
-------
Air Workgroup Summary
MOBILE, POINT, AREA SOURCES
Seven sources provided comments that are concerned with sources of air pollution. These
comments address border crossing delays and port-of-entry management plans; industrial,
agricultural, and domestic contributions to diminished air quality through burn activities; toxin-
containing dust from current and past industrial and smelting activities; pesticide contaminants;
Mexican vehicle maintenance and the need for regular tests and stiff fines; Los Angeles' impact
on border air quality; charcoal used for cooking; and alternative heater fuels.
Air pollution is caused by delays at border crossings. We believe that the current situation
involving lengthy delays at the U.S.-Mexican border is unacceptable and due, in large part to the
overall delay in NAFTA implementation. Full and expeditious implementation of NAFTA would
ease the restrictive customs procedures that cause motor carriers to waste time and idle
unnecessarily, creating excess emissions. We are vitally interested in the effects that Mexican
motor carriers will have on the environment; reliable data is critical to understanding and abating
air pollution at border areas.
The proposed uniform port management and a continuance of the line release program at the U. S.
ports of entry should be identified as a priority for the Border XXI program. Ports of entry should
be fully staffed during peak periods.
&% The following language was added to the Final Framework Document, page HI.30, last
objective: "The Binational Air Workgroup will pursue the development of an exploratory
subgroup on congestion and air pollution at border crossings to review ongoing efforts and to
make recommendations on ways to alleviate regional air pollution problems caused by vehicular
congestion at ports of entry. The subgroup would need to involve the participation from a wide
variety of governmental (e.g., EPA, INE, Customs, DOT, state, local) and nongovernmental
entities (e.g., private sector, NGOs, academia)."
Concerns not clearly identified for the Douglas-Agua Prieta region include dust that contains
toxins from past industrial and smelting activities, emissions from current industrial activities, and
burning garbage. Annex 4 of the La Paz Agreement should be revisited for Carbon II issues, with
more players involved with the review to include social, economic, and environmental impacts.
Also, Annex 4 should be revisited due to the enormous expansion of the Nacozari smelter and the
imminent shutdown of the Cananea smelter.
What can the U.S. do to promote reduced emissions?
£n The following language was added to the Final Framework Document:
June 1997 5-7
-------
Air Workgroup Summary
On page V.7, under the Air Section, second paragraph: "Currently in Mexico, there is no
guidance by which to determine "nonattainment" with Mexican air quality standards.
Additionally, there is insufficient air quality monitoring data to determine if Mexican cities meet
the Mexican air quality standards. Aside from these limitations, Nogales, Agua Prieta and San
Luis Rio Colorado, Sonora potentially do not meet the Mexican air quality standards for
particulates and Agua Prieta, Sonora potentially does not meet the standard for SO2. This is based
on knowledge of sources and their potential emissions."
On page V.7, under the Air Section, end of the third paragraph: "There are numerous other
emissions sources including industrial sources, residential fuel combustion, waste disposal (refuse
burning), fires (wildfires, prescribed burning, structural fires), and agricultural production."
We agree that in light of the changes in smelter activity levels for the Nacozari and Cananea
smelters, we will assess the need to revise Annex IV of the La Paz Agreement as stated on page
V.22, under the Air Section, the last objective of the Final Framework Document. Particulate
monitoring at base sites in Ambos Nogales and Douglas-Agua Prieta will continue for the long
term as stated in on page V.21, under the Air Section, last line of the first objective in the Final
Framework Document.
Local and regional contributions to PM-10, sulfur dioxide (SOJ, nitrogen dioxide (NOJ, O3
CO, and pesticide contamination need to be addressed. Air pollution from fires (from a variety
of sources) is not adequately addressed.
Because it influences the San Diego-Tijuana air basin, Los Angeles needs to be included when
considering the San Diego-Tijuana air quality problem.
&n Through the Air Workgroup, the two governments are working together to address air quality
through emission inventory development (including industrial sources, mobile sources and area
sources), monitoring, and air pollution abatement strategies. The air quality improvement
strategies will serve as useful tools for local decision makers as they grapple with the
interrelationships among air quality, land use, transportation, and economic development. In
addition, the following language was added to the Final Framework Document on page HI.26, end
of the fourth paragraph: "There are numerous other emissions sources including industrial sources,
residential fuel combustion, waste disposal (refuse burning), fires (wildfires, prescribed burning,
structural fires), agricultural production, brick manufacturing, wire reclamation, and manure
burning."
Cars in Mexico need air pollution controls to limit dirty air drifting into the U.S.
&° Through the Air Workgroup, the two governments are working together to address air quality
through emission inventory development (includes mobile sources), monitoring, and air pollution
abatement strategies. These air quality improvement strategies will serve as useful tools for local
5-8 June 1997
-------
Air Workgroup Summary
decision makers as they grapple with the interrelationships among air quality, land use,
transportation, and economic development. In addition, the binational Air Workgroup will pursue
the development of an exploratory subgroup on congestion and air pollution at border crossings
to review ongoing efforts and to make recommendations on ways to alleviate regional air pollution
problems caused by vehicular congestion at ports of entry. The subgroup would need to involve
the participation from a wide variety of governmental (e.g., EPA, INE, Customs, DOT, state,
local) and nongovernmental entities (e.g., private sector, NGOs, academia).
Emissions problems in Tamautipas are not addressed. These problems include the ongoing
market for charcoal (vegetable carbon) for cooking. There is no enforcement on the pan of
Procuraduria Federal de Proteccion al Ambiente (Mexico's Federal Attorney General for
Environmental Protection) (PROFEPA) or required authorization on the pan ofSEMARNAP. The
result of uncontrolled use is 50,000 tons of emissions and a detriment to the environment.
&& Through the Air Workgroup, the two governments are working together to address air quality
through emission inventory development (including unique area sources such as emissions from
street vendors, restaurants and residential cooking and heating), monitoring, and air pollution
abatement strategies. These air quality improvement strategies will serve as useful tools for local
decision makers as they grapple with the interrelationships among air quality, land use,
transportation, and economic development.
Review car-ownership taxes or registration fees, making it costly and inconvenient to keep any
vehicle that does not pass vehicle emissions tests. Twice-yearly emissions testing for vehicles
registered in border towns would also reduce air contamination. Additional reductions in air
emissions could be achieved in winter by reducing kerosene smoke through the use of liquid
petroleum (LP) gas for heaters, possibly achieved by a once-only LP gas-for-oil burner exchange
subsidy for Nogales and other towns where topography causes thermal inversion.
&% Through the Air Workgroup, the two governments are working together to address air quality
through emission inventory development (includes mobile sources), monitoring, and air pollution
abatement strategies. These air quality improvement strategies will serve as useful tools for local
decision makers as they grapple with the interrelationships among air quality, land use,
transportation, and economic development. In addition, the binational Air Workgroup will pursue
the development of an exploratory subgroup on congestion and air pollution at border crossings
to review ongoing efforts and to make recommendations on ways to alleviate regional air pollution
problems caused by vehicular congestion at ports of entry. The subgroup would need to involve
participation from a wide variety of governmental (e.g., EPA, INE, Customs, DOT, state, local)
and nongovernmental entities (e.g., private sector, NGOs, academia)."
June 1997 5.9
-------
Air Workgroup Summary
OBJECTIVES FOR NEXT FIVE YEARS
Six sources contributed comments concerned with project and program objectives for the next five
years. These comments address bilateral development of fuel strategies including alternative fuels,
increasing the numbers of paved roads, the need for programs offering quicker implementation
of objectives, the Joint Advisory Committee for the Improvement of Air Quality for the Paso del
Norte Air Basin, and the lack of infrastructure as the cause of air pollution.
There needs to be a discussion of projects pertaining to bilateral development of fuel strategies
for either mobile or fixed sources, including alternative vehicle fuels, conversion of plants to use
natural gas, and renewable resources. The Air Workgroup should establish a subgroup on fuel
use strategies to make recommendations in these areas.
&B The following language has been added to the Final Framework Document: Increased
urbanization along the border has also led to a dramatic increase in electricity demand. As the
demand for more power has increased, and the region's power production base evolves, there is
a tremendous opportunity to realize substantial benefits from energy efficiency, as well as to
integrate cleaner, sustainable energy technologies into our society.
As a result, the Binational Air Workgroup will pursue the development of an exploratory subgroup
on fuel use strategies to review ongoing efforts and to make recommendations on ways to promote
energy efficiency and the increased use of renewable energy sources. The subgroup would need
to involve the participation from a wide variety of governmental (e.g., EPA, DOE, INE,
PEMEX, CFE, state, local) and nongovernmental entities (e.g., private sector, NGOs, academia).
Unpaved roads also contribute to respiratory problems. There are no specific objectives
related to increasing the number of paved roads to improve paniculate pollution conditions. We
suggest that reducing the number of unpaved roads by (a certain percentage) be made an
objective.
Five-year objectives are useless and too long a time for planning. These problems need to be
solved sooner through programs offering faster implementation.
&o Although limited resources may constrain our efforts, we are aiming to arrive at solutions as
soon as possible. The two governments are working together to address air quality through
emission inventory development, monitoring and air pollution abatement strategies. The
improvement strategies will serve as tools for local entities to address air quality, land use,
transportation, and economic development.
5-10 June 1997
-------
Air Workgroup Summary
Insufficient acknowledgment is given to the model Paso del None Basin initiative, or to the
local organizations and NGOs participating in the initiative.
Section VI.4 of the Draft Framework Document fails to mention the most significant example of
the principles of decentralization and binational involvement: the establishment of the Joint
Advisory Committee for the Improvement of Air Quality for the Paso del None Air Basin.
Recognition of the significance of this first-of-a-kind development is needed.
£& Chapter VI of the Draft Framework Document did elaborate on the Paso del Norte Air Basin
initiative. Additionally, the following language was added to the Final Framework Document
on page m.26 after the last line prior to Table 3.10 to read: "For example, bilateral agreement
was reached to establish a Joint Advisory Committee for the Improvement of Air Quality which
would recommend strategies for the prevention and control of air pollution in the Paso del Norte
air basin."
^ Air pollution is caused by lack of infrastructure. We suppon a well-developed infrastructure
as a primary method for reducing pollution from travel on unpaved roads and as an essential
element of economic growth. The Nonh American economy depends on safe, efficient highway
transportation. This goal can onfy be realized by full implementation of the Nonh American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) trucking provisions, coordination among governments and between
governments and industry, and the U.S. fulfilling its NAFTA commitments to open the border to
cross-border trucking.
£n The following language was added to the Final Framework Document: "The Binational Air
Workgroup will pursue the development of an exploratory subgroup on congestion and air
pollution at border crossings to review ongoing efforts and to make recommendations on ways to
alleviate regional air pollution problems caused by vehicular congestion at ports of entry. The
subgroup would need to involve the participation from a wide variety of governmental (e.g., EPA,
INE, Customs, DOT, state, local) and nongovernmental entities (e.g., private sector, NGOs,
academia)."
OTHER
Three sources provided comments that discuss paved roads and highways as one of the solutions
to air pollution, Mexican cars should meet U.S. control standards, a surcharge per car crossing
the border to fund road repairs, the need for Mexican drivers to take written driving tests to drive
in the U.S., an increase of air pollution in the maquiladoras, and that U.S. funding should support
the U.S. side of the border.
One of the solutions to the air quality problem would be to pave the roads and highways.
June 1997 5-11
-------
Air Workgroup Summary
The thousands of Mexican cars crossing the border every day should be up to U.S. operating
standards for emissions, safety, and insurance. A $1 surcharge per car crossing the border could
fund road repairs. Mexican drivers entering the U.S. should have to take a written driving test
to ensure they know the rules of the road.
There has been an increase in air quality problems, especially in the maquiladora industry, but
more general air quality problems have not been addressed.
U.S. money should be spent to improve the U.S. side of border crossings.
&0 Through the Air Workgroup, the two governments are working together to address air quality
through emission inventory development (includes mobile sources and unpaved roads),
monitoring, and air pollution abatement strategies. These air quality improvement strategies will
serve as useful tools for local decision makers as they grapple with the interrelationships among
air quality, land use, transportation, and economic development. In addition, the binational Air
Workgroup will pursue the development of an exploratory subgroup on congestion and air
pollution at border crossings to review ongoing efforts and to make recommendations on ways to
alleviate regional air pollution problems caused by vehicular congestion at ports of entry. The
subgroup would need to involve participation from a wide variety of governmental (e.g., EPA,
INE, Customs, DOT, state, local) and nongovernmental entities (e.g., private sector, NGOs,
academia).
5-12 June 1997
-------
6.0 HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE WORKGROUP
COMMENT AND RESPONSE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The comments received and their associated responses on the Hazardous and Solid Waste sections
of the Draft US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document (June 1996) (Draft
Framework Document) are summarized in this Chapter. Twenty eight sources provided comments
from the general public, state and local governmental agencies, and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs), and educational institutions, among other sources in the form of letters,
electronic-mail messages, facsimiles and notes taken at community/public meetings. Comments
were received which fall under the following subject areas: Hazardous and Solid Waste
Infrastructure, HAZTRAKS, Transport Issues, Disposal Issues, Training and Capacity Building,
Specific Past and Ongoing Projects, Objectives for the Next Five Years, and Other. The Border
XXI Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup responded with modifications and/or additions to the
Final US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document (October 1996) (Final Framework
Document) where appropriate.
This summary report does not address individual comments received, however, the range of
comments and concerns raised by the public is encompassed. The Agencies did address every
single comment received in a large database document that is available through the EPA Region 6
Border Liaison office in El Paso, Texas and the EPA Region 9 Border Liaison office in San
Diego, California. Appendix 1 of this report provides contact information for these offices.
For each of the subject areas listed above, a summary of the comments is identified by the pencil
icon (%>) and italicized font in the text below. The Workgroup's response follows and is identified
by a pen-in-hand icon (fa) and standard font. Each comment and response segment is separated
by a horizontal bar.
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE INFRASTRUCTURE
Seven sources provided comments that are concerned with the inadequate infrastructure of the
handling of hazardous and solid waste. These comments address the lack of adequate waste
disposal and treatment facilities, the need for effective enforcement, interest in the development
of a vulnerability atlas for region-wide planning, and legislative revisions or changes.
Many border environmental problems are due to lack of, or deficiencies in, physical
infrastructure. A shortage of adequate solid and hazardous waste disposal and treatment sites on
both sides of the border contributes to improper disposal of these materials and creates additional
costs for businesses that comply with environmental regulations.
£D We agree that inadequate infrastructure is an impediment to proper treatment, storage, and
disposal (TSD) of hazardous and solid waste along the U.S.-Mexico border. As a side note,
June 1997 6-1
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
however, there is adequate treatment, storage, and disposal capacity for hazardous waste in the
U.S. The vulnerability atlas under development by Mexico will address infrastructure needs for
part of the border zone, and is a top priority for the Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup.
^ Rapid industrialization has increased the need for hazardous and solid waste infrastructure.
A concern is the illegal transboundary shipment of hazardous waste finding its way to or through
Yuma which may be improperly disposed creating pollution and contamination. Improving the
monitoring of transborder movements of hazardous wastes, materials, and toxic substances is
recommended.
&% We agree that monitoring the movement of transboundary wastes is a priority need.
Improvement and expansion of the Hazardous Waste Tracking System (HAZTRAKS) database,
which tracks the movement of hazardous waste across the border, continues to be a top priority.
In addition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will continue to provide customs
training to customs officials of both countries, Secretaria de Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales
y Pesca (Mexico's Secretary for the Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries)
(SEMARNAP)/Procuraduria Federal de Protecci6n al Ambiente (Mexico's Federal Attorney
General for Environmental Protection) (PROFEPA) inspection officials, and appropriate state and
local officials on the identification and monitoring of the transboundary movement of hazardous
wastes along both the California-Baja California and Sonora-Arizona borders. Texas will provide
compliance monitoring seminars to educate waste handlers involved in the transboundary
movement of hazardous waste. In Arizona, a border Hazardous Cargo Carrier Study Group
composed of the Nogales U.S. Customs Port, and the Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) has developed the "Hazardous Cargo Carrier Compliance Initiative" (HCCCI),
a pilot project designed to address several hazardous material and waste transportation
identification issues.
Finally, the EPA and U.S. Customs have developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
outlining a joint effort to address illegal transboundary hazardous waste shipments across the U.S.-
Mexico border. Under the MOU, Customs collects and forwards to EPA copies of hazardous
waste manifests for hazardous waste exports and imports
Hazardous and solid waste management and disposal must come under direct operational
control of specialized full-time professional binational twin-cities teams. The members of these
teams shall have sufficient academic background (at least B.S. in Chemical Engineering plus M.S.
related to environmental regulations) and several years of industrial safety experience, to
undertake both preventive and emergency procedures.
Legislation should be revised, both in the U. S. and Mexico, to appropriate a relevant portion of
hazardous materials export/import custom duties, plus some portion from border-businesses'
insurance premiums, tofund.the above teams'Jull-time operation, equipment acquisition, scientific
research grants and awards to businesses for outstanding achievements on hazardous and solid
waste management.
6-2 June 1997
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
£$ We agree that close coordination between the two countries will enhance enforcement of
border waste disposal sites. Both the U.S. and Mexico require certification for personnel involved
in managing the disposal of hazardous and solid waste, and regulations to be followed for
managing, treating, transporting, storing, and disposing of waste. The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Workgroup is coordinating closely with the Enforcement Workgroup to address binational
enforcement issues. The Final Framework Document does not negate the sovereignty of the U.S.
or Mexico nor does it establish an authority to enact binational enforcement provisions.
The Draft Plan sidesteps a major looming question: What happens when maquiladoras convert
to national operations under Mexican law and are no longer required to return their wastes to the
country from which the chemicals resulting in the waste were purchased? Border XXI should have
answered questions such as how much and what types of waste are being produced in the border
region, where are they being produced, what management technologies are necessary to deal with
these wastes and what existing capacity is available. Answers to these questions were supposed
to come from the November 1992 Integrated Border Environmental Plan. Either they haven't or
the governments are less than forthcoming in making the data public.
£$ We recognize that the phase-out of the Mexico in-bond provision for the return of maquiladora
waste originating from U.S. raw materials, which will occur under NAFTA after the year 2000,
leaves open the question of the disposal of wastes from maquiladora industries along the border.
We are addressing this issue with two projects. 1) Mexico is currently undertaking a vulnerability
atlas to target geographic priorities for waste management activities; this includes searching for
ecologically and economically appropriate disposal and treatment sites (see "Objectives for
Next Five Years" in Draft Framework Document). 2) In 1997, FJ*A plans to provide a forum
for regulators and others to address the issue of the future treatment and disposal of maquiladora
waste, based on the phase-out of the Mexico in-bond provision, seeking to come to a set of
recommendations for resolving the issue. In addition, it appears that industries along the Mexican
side of the border will continue to have the option of treating or disposing of wastes in U.S.
facilities.
Development of a vulnerability atlas should involve development of a hazardous waste TSD
facility plan for the whole border region. Currently, TSD facilities are located large distances
from sites where waste is generated, increasing risks to border officials, community residents, and
facility workers because of the need for interim storage and long-distance and cross-border
transportation of materials. A regional development plan that manages the border as a whole
"waste-generating region " could greatly improve safety. The atlas could be a step toward an
informed dialogue on notification and siting issues, e.g., Carbon II disagreement, Spofford,
Dryden, Sierra Blanca controversies. The vulnerability atlas objectives should cover the coastal
area and specifically recognize marine oil spills as a risk.
June 1997 6-3
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
£*> We agree that a regional development plan that manages the border as a whole "waste-
generating region" would address some overarching safety issues. However, the border region
is widely varied, and the varied quantity and types of wastes generated in the border cities make
such a comprehensive plan impractical. We have broken the region down into geographic areas
in order to better meet the specific needs of each region.
We agree that the creation of a vulnerability atlas could lead to fruitful discussions on notification
and siting issues. We have identified this as the top priority objective for the coming five years,
and will further define the scope and products of the atlas in the coming year. The vulnerability
atlas will cover the entire U.S.-Mexico border zone, including the coastal zone in Mexico. The
atlas will analyze whether an area will be negatively impacted by the siting of a hazardous waste
facility. Thus, marine oil spills will not be covered by the atlas.
DISPOSAL ISSUES
Four sources provided comments that are concerned with the groundwater and aquifer
contamination from industrial waste disposal to existing sewer structures, lack of investigations
into maquiladoras disposal practices, and a lack of emphasis on proposed hazardous waste disposal
facilities.
Of significant concern is the contamination of ground and underground aquifers by industries
allowing and disposing of their chemical wastes into city sewer lines and unlined ponding areas
(i.e., commercial laundries, auto paint shops, dairies, and other industrial facilities). We believe
the EPA, state, county, El Paso Water District (EPWD) No. 1, and city do not have the resources
to completely enforce regulations pertaining to conservation and a clean environment in the El
Paso-Juarez area.
£n The contamination of surface and groundwaters by improperly treated or disposed of waste
and wastewater by industries along the border concerns us greatly. We agree that the issue of
limited resources can hamper enforcement efforts at the federal, state and local levels. In order
to balance the need for enforcement, we continue to emphasize proper management and disposal
of waste, reduction of chemical use at the source, and recycling. We will continue to provide
training in these areas. In addition, most states require industries to pretreat wastewater prior to
discharging it to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW) and to document their operations.
Concerns overpast dumping by maquiladoras has been presented to the EPA and Mexican
agencies over the past eight years. Detailed investigation is long overdue.
£% We share the commentor's concerns over waste disposal by maquiladoras along the U.S.-
Mexico border. Both countries are committed to improving the tracking of hazardous waste from
6-4 June 1997
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
maquiladoras to ultimate disposal facilities. Enforcement of violations by maquiladora industries
remains the jurisdiction of appropriate Mexican agencies. Inspections and complaint investigations
in Mexico have revealed violations and resulted in closed industries in the past several years.
Cooperative efforts to increase enforcement capacity for hazardous and solid waste issues are
ongoing in the border region. We do, and will continue to, follow up on allegations of illegal
dumping by border industries.
The former manufactured gas plant (MGP) in Douglas presents a potential for contamination
problems left from the MGP activities earlier in the century.
£n Historically MGPs have existed throughout the border region. The "gasification" process used
by MGPs has been documented over time in the Brown's Directory of North American and
International Gas Companies, and Arizona's Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) is
currently researching historic impacts of facilities, such as this one. Any information available
about the plant in Douglas is welcomed by ADEQ, and should be shared with Mike Foster,
ADEQ, at (520) 628-6711.
How does the Border XXI document address certain pollution problems such as oil-soaked rags
and how to clean and dispose of them? There is a need to find economically practical ways to
take care of chemical wastes, rather than raising the costs of treatment; pollution should be
treated as close as possible to the source of the problem. If the U.S. cannot properly dispose of
its own medical and industrial waste, how can Mexico be expected to do the same (based on
reduced economic abilities).
&& The Final Framework Document attempts to set out priorities for both countries for the next
five years in each medium and geographic area. In so doing, the two countries are addressing the
highest priority problems, such as those listed in the Final Framework Document. In addition,
we continue to promote pollution prevention in the Border program. The commentor should note
that under EPA rules, used oil rags are regulated under §279.10(c) (58 CFR 26420; May 3, 1993)
until the used oil is removed from the material. Once the used oil is removed to the extent
possible such that no visible signs of free-flowing oil remain in or on the material, then the
material or rag is not regulated under Part 279 unless it is going for energy recovery. State
regulations on this vary. Texas and California, for instance, do have contaminated rag regulations.
The Draft Framework Document recognizes the need for new hazardous and solid waste disposal
sites along the Border. The cities of Tijuana and San Diego, along with California Environmental
Protection Agency's (Cal-EPA) Integrated Waste Management Board (TWMB) and several
contractors are currently working together to promote and implement waste reduction and
recycling activities for businesses in the San Diego-Tijuana border region, including conducting
waste characterizations of specific border industries. We hope to expand efforts like this to other
areas where there is a need for solid waste disposal facilities. In addition, the Texas Natural
June 1997 6-5
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) and EPA are conducting a project to address
municipal solid waste management issues and needs along the Texas border.
In the 1995 California-Mexico Border Needs Assessment, Cal-EPA identified a very large
problem with domestic solid waste disposal in San Diego and Imperial counties.
fa We agree that there is potentially a large solid waste problem along the border of California
and Baja California, and believe this is implied in the Final Framework Document.
A number of multi-agency efforts are currently underway to address localized problems of solid
waste, such as the Recycling Market Development Zone, and the San Diego-Tijuana Border Waste
Wi$e Project, both of which address reducing solid waste generation and better defining recycling
possibilities. Now that the La Paz Binational Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup has been
expanded to include solid waste, we anticipate that efforts to address solid waste disposal along
the entire border will increase.
HAZARDOUS WASTE TRACKING SYSTEM (HAZTRAKS)
Four sources provided comments that expressed concern with the lack of discussion of
TRANSHAZ EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) and the lack of information from Mexico, were
interested in expanding HAZTRAKS to include other databases by other agencies that are
currently being developed, and an appeal to intensify efforts to track and reduce transboundary
shipments of hazardous materials and waste.
HAZTRAKS is an excellent initiative and has high possibility for success. However, the
document does not address the "sister" program, TRANSHAZ EDI, whereby maquiladoras will
use electronic means, or EDI, to communicate with permitting and enforcement agencies regarding
their hazardous waste shipment and disposal plans. This program should not only be encouraged,
but every effort should be made to require this method of communication, for this will more
efficiently help close the gaps in information so necessary for effective enforcement activities.
fa The two countries have agreed to focus on improving and expanding the use of HAZTRAKS
as a tracking and enforcement tool for hazardous waste management in the coming years. A pilot
project for EDI was recently concluded with Mexico, indicating that it would be most effectively
implemented at a later date, after other high priority activities have been concluded and when
Mexico is better positioned to take advantage of what EDI has to offer.
Improvement and development of HAZTRAKS should include the following goals:
6-6 June 1997
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
Because of privacy issues that differ with public access to information in Mexico and the U.S., an
alternative to opening HAZTRAKS Mexican data to the U.S. public would be to at least make the
data available to U.S. state governments, while maintaining public access restriction. Local
officials must deal with the realities of hazardous cargo movement through communities, yet they
currently have no access to the Mexican information, much of which ties to maquilas sitting short
distances from U.S. cities.
Development of an expanded HAZTRAKS system should include databases currently being
developed by U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and Customs agencies. Also, EPA's own
multiple approaches to tracking hazardous cargo shipments should be integrated into no more than
two separate computer systems.
&& We acknowledge that there are a number of related databases developed by EPA, DOT,
Customs, and states that do not integrate with HAZTRAKS or each other. EPA is currently
working to improve coordination with these agencies, particularly U.S. Customs. As part of this
effort we are discussing existing databases, in order to determine how best to use them in a
cooperative fashion. However, it is important to note that each of these databases is designed for
a specific purpose and that integrating them is not always appropriate, as it may limit their
individual effectiveness.
Both countries should intensify efforts to track and reduce transboundary traffic in hazardous
materials. While recent decision of the U.S. Customs Service to finally begin enforcing the
existing laws and regulations at the Nogales port of entry, that it has more or less ignored for
years, is a step in the right direction, and the long-promised HAZTRAKS system is finally starting
to come on-line. Neither effort goes far enough in either involving the public or in promoting
reduction in shipments of hazardous cargo.
£% We agree that monitoring the movement of transboundary wastes is a priority need.
Improvement and expansion of the HAZTRAKS database, which tracks the movement of
hazardous waste across the border, continues to be a top priority. In addition, EPA will continue
to provide Customs Training to Customs officials of both countries, SEMARNAP/PROFEPA
inspection officials, and appropriate state and local officials on the identification and monitoring
of the transboundary movement of hazardous wastes along both the California-Baja California and
Sonora-Arizona borders. Texas will provide compliance monitoring seminars to educate waste
handlers involved in the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. In Arizona, a border
Hazardous Cargo Carrier Study Group, composed of the Nogales U.S. Customs Port and the
ADEQ has developed the HCCCI, a pilot project designed to address several hazardous material
and waste transportation identification issues.
Finally, the EPA and U.S. Customs have developed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
outlining a joint effort to address illegal transboundary hazardous waste shipments across the U.S.-
Mexico border. Under the MOU, U.S. Customs collects and forwards to EPA copies of
hazardous waste manifests for hazardous waste exports and imports.
June 1997 6-7
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
TRANSPORT ISSUES
Four sources expressed concerns with the lack of effective regulation and enforcement of
transporting hazardous waste across the border and the lack of capable personnel and resources
to handle the transport of hazardous materials and waste safely. One source requested that data
on the volume of truck traffic be included in the Final Framework Document.
Considerable negotiation is required in order to assure both Mexico and the U.S. that
economic development between countries under the North American Free Trade Agreement
(NAFTA) does nothing harmful to the people that live in the zones shown within the boundaries
of the study area. If transportation of hazardous waste extends to San Bernardino, where the
Broadwell Hazardous Landfill has been cited, should not the mitigation also include the wear and
tear to the transportation corridors within the counties transporting the waste? If transportation
of hazardous waste is approved from Mexico to the U.S., should not such action require that
mitigation be included for granting such approvals? Accounting for those concerns expressed over
the lack of hazardous waste landfills in Mexico, should landfills scheduled to be constructed in the
U.S. become attractive to dispose of hazardous waste, how would the waste be transported in the
U.S. without affecting air quality?
£$ The DOT and Mexico's Ministry for Communications and Transportation (SCT) are
responsible for ensuring that all transportation regulations are met for hazardous waste
transporters. These include, in the U.S., specific liability insurance in the case of accidents.
Mitigation for wear and tear along transportation corridors is not included in specific fees.
Lack of capabilities ft. e., proper equipment and personnel training) to handle hazardous
materials in a safe manner to properly protect our personnel and environment is a concern.
How will U.S. Customs be able to identify the hazardous materials? How will the California
Highway Patrol (CHP) certify the safety of the trucks carrying these materials? How will the CHP
ensure that the designated routes of travel are away from local communities?
U.S. Customs has to be more aggressive to identify the type of material crossing at the border.
The CHP should be used to help assure safety of materials.
^o U.S. Customs agents receive specific training for the identification of hazardous wastes and
materials crossing through customs ports. EPA and State of California are providing Customs
training with more detailed materials.
In California, the Cal-EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and County of San
Diego - Hazardous Materials Management Division (HMMD) work with the CHP inspectors and
6-8 June 1997
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
are looking at how we can work more efficiently with the CHP to intercept illegal shipments of
hazardous waste crossing the border region.
^ NAFTA was implemented on January 1, 1994, and now specific data are available on volume
of trucking flows across the border. Include the hard data.
£n We continue to collect and analyze existing data on hazardous waste shipments across the
U.S.-Mexico border. U.S. data is publicly available through the HAZTRAKS system.
Chapter III of the Draft Framework Document should include something about continuing to
conduct inspections at U.S.-Mexico border crossings for illegal shipments of hazardous waste.
Chapter IV of the Draft Framework Document should include language that states: "This
information has important implications for emergency response planning and contingency
preparedness, as well as for authorities and regulators trying to ensure compliance with state and
federal requirements governing the transport, handling, (treatment, storage, recycling). "
• DTSC has been developing programs for Imperial County but this seems to be ignored in this
document.
• Additions to the table with regard to DTSC accomplishments: "of conducting investigations of
... with applicable laws and regulations, focused on all California-Mexico border crossings. "
&n We agree with these comments and have addressed them in the Final Framework Document.
We acknowledge past and ongoing efforts by California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas to
conduct inspections along the U.S.-Mexico border, and agree that this is a valuable activity. We
have addressed this in the Final Framework Document by adding the following statement:
"Continue to conduct inspections at the U.S.-Mexico Border crossing for illegal shipments of
hazardous waste." The tables have been changed to reflect a number of additional activities.
OBJECTIVE FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS
Five sources submitted eight comments on the objectives for the next five years. Commentors
expressed concern that the objectives are too generic; that solid waste issues have not been
addressed; and the objectives randomly address public input with no explanation as to the selection
criteria. One commentor noted that community concerns of the health effects of the burning
Matamoros dump were stated, however, the objectives do not address specific actions that need
to be taken.
June 1997 6-9
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
The statement of objectives for the next five years is entirely too generic and non-specific.
Proper management, treatment, and disposal, as well as compliance with regulations sound like
general charter/mission statements rather than objectives that can have measurable success. Are
the real objectives to be left up to the Workgroup?
Solid waste issues are practically ignored, and the objectives statement likewise say little on this
subject. Sufficient and adequate landfills both in El Paso and Ciudad Juarez are of concern, as
is the issue of importation of solid wastes from areas outside the border region.
£$ We have reinserted several solid waste projects that were inadvertently left out of the Draft
Framework Document in the Final Framework Document. We would like to clarify that the five-
year objectives for hazardous and solid waste, as established in the Final Framework Document,
do not address specific projects or sites. The specifics for each priority area will be addressed
under the auspices of the binational Workgroups and Sub-Workgroups, guided by the priority
listing in the Final Framework Document. Workgroup objectives referring to "waste" include
solid waste as well as hazardous waste. We currently have a San Diego-Tijuana solid waste
project underway, and will focus on one or more other areas in the next year.
The final statement of objectives for the next five years in the Final Framework Document
includes all of the issues of concern expressed by the public here, including improving the
monitoring of transborder movement of hazardous waste, targeting geographic priorities for solid,
as well as, hazardous waste management activities, maintaining an inventory of hazardous waste
generation, and a number of specific activities to improve waste management practices to promote
solid and hazardous waste minimization and recycling. See the final objectives statement for more
details.
EPA did correctly report Brownsville-Matamoros community concern about adverse health
effects from the burning Matamoros waste dump, yet none of the objectives are responsive to this
concern. The plan merely proposes more generalized air monitoring in the area, with no specific
actions proposed to deal with the notorious problems of the Matamoros dump.
£n The five-year objectives for hazardous and solid waste, as established in the Final Framework
Document, do not address specific projects or sites. However, one of the Workgroup's initiatives
for solid waste compliance along the Texas border is a project that has been undertaken by the
TNRCC through EPA funding. The TNRCC is conducting an assessment of waste disposal and
collection needs and ways to improve municipal waste management practices for Texas border
communities. We agree that there is a need to look at more specific actions dealing with the
problems associated with burning waste from landfills, such as that in Matamoros. In response
to this need, EPA will continue to work jointly with SEMARNAP and with the state and local
agencies in the Sister Cities program to address landfill management practices along the border.
6-10 June 1997
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
The Objectives for the Next Five Years seem to reflect some of the public input as contained
in the accompanying Summary of Domestic Meetings document, yet ignore others, without any
explanation or rationale for doing so. It would be better for improved citizen/public input and
good mil to address comments specifically, indicating which comments and suggestions are
worthwhile and feasible, and why they are so, and which are not worthwhile nor feasible, and the
reasons why they are not.
Objective 5a in the Draft Framework Document is incomplete. Criteria for design and
construction for what facilities?
£n in the Draft Framework Document, some federally funded state hazardous and solid waste
activities were inadvertently omitted. These have been added into the Final Framework
Document.
We rely on public input to alert us to problems and issues along the U.S.-Mexico border zone,
and request then- views on our priorities and objectives. However, the Workgroups will undertake
the difficult job of prioritizing proposed issues and projects to pursue with limited funding and
staff resources. While we acknowledge that there are many issues needing resolution, we hope
to focus mainly on those deemed to be the highest priorities and listed in our objectives for the
next five years. Therefore, not every comment contained in the Summary of Domestic Meetings
was incorporated into the Final Framework Document.
Item 5a in the Draft Framework Document was inadvertently shortened. This was addressed in
the Final Framework Document. The line should read: "Exchange technical information
regarding the criteria for the design, construction, operation, and monitoring of waste facilities
in the border area, including on minimum requirements for siting of waste facilities by both
countries in the border zone."
The Draft Framework Document reports that a Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup has
been formed to undertake projects and activities that promote sound waste management practices.
An overarching goal of the Workgroup is to build improved capability along both sides of the
border to develop and implement waste management programs. Other primary goals of the
Workgroup are to improve the monitoring of transborder movements of waste materials and to
promote pollution prevention and waste reduction practices. We recommend that the issues
described in this chapter of the RCPG be added to the agenda of the Workgroup if they are not
already being considered.
&n We agree. The Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup will address issues listed under the
Objectives for the Next Five Years for all geographic areas. Within each geographic area, we
plan to address more specifically, as listed in our annual implementation plans, the issues most
pertinent to that area.
June 1997 6-11
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
SPECIFIC PAST AND ONGOING PROJECTS
Three sources provided comments that requested specific projects be addressed.
Please include a portion of the summary on illegal dumping in border counties in the
hazardous and solid waste section overview in Chapter III of the Draft Framework Document.
This was a first-ever study of dumping of municipal solid waste and was funded under an EPA
grant.
£° We agree. State projects funded through EPA grants have been incorporated into the body
of the Final Framework Document. Pursuant to further funding, the TNRCC will work
borderwide with colonia residents, regional and local government officials, NGOs, and other
entities to arrive at workable solutions for addressing poor waste management practices. At this
writing, the summary data of illegal dumping in the border counties is being reviewed to ensure
that the data are consistent throughout the counties that reported. Once complete, the report will
be released and included in all future planning activities along the border. For clarification, the
Workgroup objectives have been revised to indicate whether hazardous and/or solid wastes are
being discussed.
The Final Framework Document has been revised to indicate that information-sharing between
the two countries on proposed and existing sites in the border area has been occurring for several
years under the "U.S.-Mexico Consultative Mechanism for the Establishment of New Sites and
for Existing Sites." We will continue to share this information, in recognition of the potential
cross-border impacts of waste sites.
Under projects, the Draft Framework Document states that a cleanup plan has been chosen
for the Alco Pacifico site in Tijuana. Was the community aware such a plan existed? We did a
health survey and everyone surveyed said "NO". Is Border XXI endorsing business as usual?
Where does it say that Border XXI pushes for a process that would encourage federal agencies of
both countries responsible for that lack of enforcement in cases such as Alco Pacifico to contribute
money for the cleanup. In this case the federal agencies from both countries are leaving it up to
the County of Los Angeles to pay the bill.
&n The clean-up of the Alco Pacifico site is being undertaken by SEMARNAP. The EPA
offered, and continues to offer, its advice and technical assistance for the cleanup of the Alco-
Pacifico site, and provided some contract support to do a preliminary assessment of the site.
SEMARNAP in Mexico chose to work directly with the County of Los Angeles to effect a
solution to the cleanup, and the County of Los Angeles created the funding mechanism for the site
cleanup from money that they received from a private party in settlement of a criminal
enforcement action.
6-12 June 1997
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING
Six sources provided several specific comments with regard to many different areas for training
and other educational/outreach activities.
Educate industry on how to reduce waste generation. Determine what industry's needs are.
Stress the concept of using the safest materials thereby reducing the amount of hazardous waste.
£n We agree that source reduction is an important component of reducing the generation of
hazardous wastes, and we believe this is implied in the Final Framework Document. The
Pollution Prevention Workgroup has produced four bilingual manuals, for the woodworking,
electronics, textile, and metal finishing industries, providing information on reducing the use of
chemicals at the source. We support this Workgroup's efforts. We have also conducted some
hazardous waste assessments of industries who volunteered to take part in the TRADFJt project,
and will continue to pursue ways to promote reduction of chemicals at the source.
Hazardous waste disposal needs to be simplified to make it easier for the public to follow.
This includes keeping trash rates down. Look at the economic impact on business and determine
what is affecting them and help them to find solutions. Develop reports, incentives, and studies
that create economically feasible local systems for treating hazardous waste at its source.
£% We will consider for future projects looking at ways to promote economically feasible local
systems for treating hazardous wastes at their sources and coordinate with the Pollution Prevention
Workgroup on this issue.
A binational recycling market should include Brawley.
£n The only project we currently have underway researching binational recycling markets is that
in San Diego-Tijuana, and was initiated by the two cities. We encourage and support any efforts
by the City of Brawley to undertake a similar initiative.
There is hazardous waste near Signal Mountain and there is a potential for problems
downstream in Laguna Salada where people fish.
June 1997 6-13
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
£" The hazardous waste at Signal Mountain is stored in a hazardous waste cell constructed
according to EPA regulations and both EPA and PROFEPA are aware of issues at this site and
are researching solutions.
Improve detection efforts of hazardous waste at the port of entry ofCalexico.
&x We agree that monitoring the movement of transboundary wastes is a priority need. EPA will
continue to provide Customs Training to Customs officials in identifying and monitoring the
transboundary movement of hazardous wastes. Cal-DTSC will continue to provide technical
support to U.S. Customs personnel by conducting hazardous waste inspections at the Calexico Port
of Entry, and through further training.
Promote the Comite Local para Ayuda Mutua (Mexico's Local Committee for Mutual
Assistance) (CLAM) project through the Camara Nacional de la Industria de Transformacion
(National Chamber of Commerce of Industrial Transformation) (CANACINTRA) for its
incorporation in the local emergency response groups which to date operate in Nuevo Laredo and
which have sought to work with the maquiladoras, national industry, and other groups.
CANACINTRA is coordinating and hosting the meeting between EPA and TNRCC scheduled for
August 13, 1996 entitled "Workshop on the Regulation of the Transboundary Movement of
Hazardous Waste " as part of the programs of training. Yet, CANACINTRA has not been contacted
at a local level nor has it been contacted directly by the government. In this context,
CANACINTRA's delegation at Nuevo Laredo offers its facilities, its technical support and its local
influence so that the EPA and TNRCC can count on having their meetings successfully executed
in this city.
£B The EPA thanks the CANACINTRA for its efforts in providing training facilities and support
for joint efforts by EPA and the TNRCC to conduct educational outreach efforts on the
transboundary movement of hazardous waste during the August 13, 1996 workshop. The EPA
looks forward to working more closely with CANACINTRA on future hazardous waste programs.
Regarding training courses for U.S. Customs, it should be noted that Mexican Customs (Aduana)
has been invited and has participated in these joint training sessions. The training sessions were
developed to include Aduana and to learn from each other through joint classroom problem
exercises. Future training will include a specific series of compliance outreach seminars to be
developed in partnership with TNRCC, DOT, Texas Department of Health (TDK), Texas
Department of Public Safety (TDPS), and other state and federal agencies to target transporters,
customs brokers, freight forwarders, and importers/exporters of hazardous wastes on proper
hazardous material/waste handling procedures.
6-14 June 1997
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
This Chamber of Commerce has not been provided the telephone number of the corresponding
area at the TNRCC in relation to programs focused on solid and hazardous waste.
You have designed \vithin the program, training courses for the U. S. Customs Service, yet nothing
is planned for Mexican Customs. We request that you include in these programs training for
Mexican Customs in coordination with the importers and exporters as well as custom brokers at
the border.
&s The TNRCC Industrial and Hazardous Waste Division responds to questions on the hazardous
waste and maquiladora program. Their number is (512) 239-6832. The TNRCC Waste Planning
and Assessment Division answers questions on the border solid waste program and can be reached
at (512) 239-6809. As a final note, EPA will continue to coordinate with PROFEPA to invite
U.S. Customs as well as Aduana officials to attend future training courses on identification of
transboundary hazardous waste/materials.
In the case ofAmbos Nogales, support must be given to commerce (retailers) participation in
consumer education, as required to encourage recycling and to reduce inadequate disposal of
household and backyard shops waste, including hazardous waste.
&& We agree that an educational campaign on household hazardous waste and pollution prevention
would assist in changing public attitudes towards waste reduction along the entire border. The
Environmental Information Workgroup and border offices will be undertaking work in
environmental education over the coming five years. We will recommend that they consider these
suggestions for educational campaigns. Our Workgroup will coordinate with them.
There is clearly an emphasis on providing training opportunities for enforcement activities,
waste management practices, and promotion of waste minimization and recycling. However, it
is unclear which entities will be receiving, or are eligible to receive, training on enforcement
activities for illegal waste practices. Will this training only apply to staff from federal agencies
or will there be opportunities for personnel from local municipalities with jurisdictional/regulatory
authority to also participate in these training efforts? Will the waste minimization and pollution
prevention training efforts include local government officials and community leaders? If so, are
there any options that will be provided to local communities regarding safe disposal practices of
wastes generated by conditionally exempt small quantity generators (CESQGs)? As the primary
industrial sector within border communities, aside from maquiladoras under building institutional
expertise and capability, what type of technical information exchange will take place? This section
(Chapter III of the Draft Framework Document) also mentions identifying training needs of
regulatory officials and industry, but does not specify what levels. I would recommend that this
effort include all levels to better utilize scarce resources.
June 1997 6-15
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
&> We acknowledge the lack of detail in the Final Framework Document regarding training
activities and the target audiences. The EPA and the states and counties are providing training
on a number of issues and generally target the broadest possible audience involved in
implementing any of the relevant regulations. EPA, with the assistance of a contractor, is
currently also developing a Hazardous Waste Management Training, and a Lab Sampling and
Analysis training course with the assistance of the Western States Hazardous Waste Project. Both
of these projects incorporate suggestions and assistance from state and county office personnel and
other experts in the area. We actively solicit suggestions on what training is most critical and for
whom it should be given, and will continue to do so. We are not currently providing training to
CESQGs through this Workgroup, but the Pollution Prevention Workgroup has developed manuals
for the woodworking, electronics, textile, and metal finishing industries in the border area to assist
them to better manage their wastes.
We agree to begin assessing needs for small businesses, CESQGs, and households for assistance
programs to deal with small quantities of waste. This assessment will focus on promoting sound
waste management practices, through the Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup and in
coordination with the Pollution Prevention Workgroup.
Cal-EPA/DTSC did workshops for industry on regulatory requirements for transborder
shipments of hazardous waste in Imperial and San Diego counties. These binational workshops
had attendance of over 120 people, the majority of which were from the maquiladoras. I would
think some mention of these should be included in this section (Chapter III) of the Draft
Framework Document.
ffa We agree. This information is reflected in Table 4.3 of the Final Framework Document.
We generally agree with the issue of hazardous waste as it is described in this section (Chapter
III of the Draft Framework Document) together with continuing efforts to monitor and control its
disposal. Of particular interest and related to issues of water quality, is the acquisition and use
of recycled 55-gallon drums by colonia residents in U.S. and Mexico to store water. From the
labels placed on the drums, it is evident that many were used to contain hazardous materials such
as petroleum-based products and chemicals typically used in manufacturing processes. Those who
use the drums see it as an inexpensive way of storing relatively large amounts of water and are
unaware of the potential risks it may cause. It would be helpful if the document recognized this
practice and established objectives which specifically address this problem. For example, possible
objectives might be "to educate the public on the potential hazards of using recycled drums for
water storage " and "to promote the destruction of drums used to store hazardous materials at the
manufacturing plant prior to disposal. "
Special attention should be devoted to populations that have the greatest exposure to hazardous
waste. We suggest the same objectives recommended for the overall border under hazardous and
solid waste also be used for California-Baja.
6-16 June 1997
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
We agree that the use of recycled hazardous materials in the colonial is a critical issue. We
will work with the Environmental Information Workgroup and the border offices to focus attention
on the education of colonia residents in this area. We will also suggest that the Regional Sub-
workgroups consider this issue as appropriate for the geographic areas.
OTHER
Four sources submitted comments on unique waste issues, such as burning of manure, waste tires
and low-level nuclear waste. One commentor suggested that no new facility should be allowed to
open in the border region without disclosure of its hazardous materials and waste use and
management practices.
Burning of manure in stockyards nearNogales, Sonora is a tremendous waste. Granted, that
the manure of dairy cattle (at least in the U.S.) has residues of additive salts which make it
unusable for agriculture, but otherwise the manure should be used for fertilizer — especially in
the poor soils of the desert. Paunch manure may be even more valuable than droppings. Local
Mexican farmers should be aware of this. On a cumulative basis, it would improve the soil, in
gardens, orchards, and woodlands.
Perhaps a demonstration project is needed to show the Mexican fanners what benefits would, result
from the use of the valuable resource.
£n The Union Ganadera de Sonora (Sonoran Cattlemen's Union), which operates the facility, is
currently researching avenues of distribution in the region for the fertilizer as an alternative to the
current piling. The U.S. has not been approached for technical assistance in this matter.
Hundreds of new facilities have gone into operation in our border communities since passage
of NAFTA, and for most of them we don't have even the most basic information about the kinds
and amounts of hazardous materials they use, store, and release. And many of them, just like
before NAFTA, are U.S. companies that are moving into Mexico precisely because they want to
be subject to less reporting and regulation.
We strongly recommend that no new facility be allowed to open in the border region without full
disclosure to the community of its toxic use, storage, release, and transfer.
£n We agree that we need more information on the types and amounts of hazardous wastes used,
stored, and released by industries operating in the border zone. The five-year objectives address
this under the section on improving monitoring. We cannot agree to recommend that no new
facility be allowed to open in the border region without full disclosure, since EPA has no authority
June 1997 6-17
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
to site facilities, but we agree that all facilities operating in the border zone should meet all
requirements for their operation as established in their respective country's laws and regulations.
We recommend that waste tires be mentioned and identified in the document as a separate
class of waste due to the following factors:
• California regulations separate solid waste facilities from waste tire facilities due to different
methodologies, objectives and properties exhibited by the waste.
• California and Baja California have serious difficulty in disposing of waste tires.
• Waste tires tend to be stockpiled illegally or disposed of illegally.
• Waste tires create afire hazard.
• If burned, waste tires become hazardous waste due to their high zinc content.
We recommend including in Table 4.3 of the Draft Framework Document that include training in
the area of waste tire management and disposal.
We recommend closure of landfills (on the California side) be addressed in a separate row in
Table 4.3 of the Draft Framework Document. Too often, landfills have detrimental impacts on
the environment and can create public health and safety concerns due to leachate and landfill gas
migration. Rather than providing training on design, operation and closure, board staff
recommends funds be directed to addressing environmental concerns impacting water and public
health, and possible solutions to these problems.
£B We acknowledge the unique problems posed by waste tires for waste disposal. We will not
recommend changes to the Final Framework Document to address this specific issue at this time
for several reasons. The chart referred to (Table 4.3 of the Draft Framework Document) lists
projects completed in 1996 or before, and therefore it is not appropriate to include potential future
activities. We will refer this issue to the Regional Sub-workgroups, and add it to the agenda of
the Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup to consider in the coming years. We are currently
working with the California Integrated Waste Management Board to review solid waste proposals
for 1997, including one dealing with waste tires.
Why is there not more focus included in the plan to store low level nuclear hazardous waste
in the Sierra Blanca area. There is the potential for earthquake activity there. Within the last few
years, nearby Alpine, Texas was the center of earthquake activity, less than 100 miles away. If
such activity occurred in the storage area, and there was simple leakage, underground water
would be affected. Air blown hazardous waste pollution could do unimaginable harm also to
populations in wind-blown distances. Nuclear waste affects the health of those exposed and of
6-18 June 1997
-------
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup Summary
future generations through genetic damage. Careless placement of nuclear waste storage could
expose local areas and populations to airborne and water borne contamination, and down-river
via the Rio Grande and wherever the wind goes from the storage area. Please include these
concerns in planning for environmental safety.
£n The five year objectives for hazardous and solid waste do not address specific projects or sites,
such as Sierra Blanca. However, under a 1992 bilateral agreement, both countries notify each
other of existing or proposed facilities which store, treat, or dispose of hazardous, toxic,
radioactive, or solid waste and which are required to be permitted, licensed, or approved by
federal, state, or local authorities.
It is important to note that EPA has no authority or jurisdiction over the location or licensing of
the proposed low-level radioactive waste site in the Sierra Blanca area. Low-level radioactive
waste (LLRW) includes materials contaminated with radioactivity from hospitals,' laboratories, and
other industries which handle or process radioactive materials. It does not include spent fuel from
nuclear power plants.
The Texas Low Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority (TLLRWDA) was formed by the
Texas Legislature to find a disposal site for LLRW produced in Texas. The TNRCC received
delegated legal authority to issue permits for LLRW disposal from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. A licensed disposal site would bring Texas into compliance with a federal law
requiring every state to either establish a LLRW disposal site or join with other states for regional
disposal.
The TLLRWDA uses numerous specific factors in identifying and locating a site. Factors that
exclude many areas from consideration include those with complex geology or faulting; major
mineral or energy deposits; unfavorable soil conditions, complex bedrock geology, or any
mountainous or rough areas; those subject to flooding and those that receive rainfall in greater
amounts than the evaporation rate; major river flood plains, coastal areas, wetlands, tidal flats,
swamps, marshes, or with shallow groundwater and aquifer recharge zones; habitats of protected
and endangered plants and animals, national and state parks, wildlife management areas or areas
of archeological or historical significance.
In an Environmental and Safety Analysis of March 1996, the TNRCC staff reported "A seismic
impact evaluation and other analyses demonstrate that tectonic processes will not significantly
affect the ability of the facility to meet regulatory performance objectives." For a copy of the
March 1996 Environmental Analysis, please contact Mr. Steven Neimeyer, TNRCC, P.O. Box
13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087.
At present, the TLLRWDA permit application is pending before the TNRCC due to a request for
a hearing by parties that are contesting the permit. The evidentiary hearings are presently
scheduled for January 1998.
June 1997 6-19
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
7.0 CONTINGENCY PLANNING AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
WORKGROUP COMMENT AND RESPONSE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The comments received and their associated responses on the Contingency Planning and
Emergency Response Workgroup sections of the Draft US-Mexico Border XXI Program
Framework Document (June 1996) (Draft Framework Document) are summarized in this Chapter.
Eleven sources provided comments from the general public, state and local governmental
agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and educational institutions, among other
sources, in the form of letters, electronic-mail messages, facsimiles, and notes taken at
community/public meetings. Comments were received which fall under the following subject
areas: Binational Joint Contingency Plan, Coordination and Communication Efforts, Objectives
for the Next Five Years, Training and Capacity Building, and Specific Past and Ongoing Projects.
The Border XXI Contingency Planning and Emergency Response Workgroup responded with
modifications and/or additions to the Final US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document
(October 1996) (Final Framework Document) where appropriate.
This summary report does not address individual comments received, however, the range of
comments and concerns raised by the public is encompassed. The Agencies did address every
single comment received in a large database document that is available through the EPA Region 6
Border Liaison office in El Paso, Texas and the EPA Region 9 Border Liaison office in San
Diego, California. Appendix 1 of this report provides contact information for these offices.
For each of the subject areas listed above, a summary of the comments is identified by the pencil
icon (%>) and italicized font in the text below. The Workgroup's response follows and is identified
by a pen-in-hand icon (£») and standard font. Each comment and response segment is separated
by a horizontal bar.
BINATIONAL JOINT CONTINGENCY PLAN
Two comments reflected concerns about the adequacy of existing procedures, both legal and
logistical, to support binational emergency response efforts.
The cross-border emergency response programs must provide mechanisms to address legal
differences and barriers before implementation of the Joint Continency Plan is feasible. For
example, individuals protected in the U.S. under current American insurance policies are not
likely be covered when responding to an emergency in Mexico. Replacement or repair of
equipment used in a cross-border response mil also not likely be possible using existing tax-based
funds. In both, a revolving fund would need to be established that would provide insurance and
other secured moneys in the event of a loss.
June 1997 7-1
-------
Contingency Planning Workgroup Summary
Individuals responding into the U.S. from Mexico also pose significant liability questions. Issues
involving liability for the potential negligence, of a Mexican responder must still be addressed.
In the U.S., if an American responder is negligent, our legal system provides private rights of
action to those injured by his or her negligence and our insurance system and other security
mechanisms protect the local or other authorities from financial harm stemming from the error;
these rights of action also provide a means for compensating the victim. No broad system of
individual causes of action exists in Mexico. Therefore, insurance and other protection
mechanisms do not exist to cover harms that might be caused by the responder.
Even if cross-border response calls were secured financially, at present, sufficient capabilities do
not exist on either side of the border to provide services on the other side of the border. Across
the entire border, only San Diego County has a sufficient capability to perform this service.
Therefore, requiring other border communities to provide additional services will not be feasible
until sufficient budgets are made available.
£D There are several issues surrounding cross-border emergency response which the Workgroup
has been working on over the past year, including liability, funding, and insurance. With regard
to insurance, fire departments and hazardous materials (HAZMAT) teams will need to purchase
a rider to their current insurance policies to cover them during response operations in Mexico.
Also, in the U.S., Superfund moneys can be used to participate in cross-border response if there
is a threat to the U.S. This would include replacing and/or repairing emergency response
equipment. Liability remains an issue that the U.S. and Mexico are working to resolve.
While it is true that contingency planning and emergency response capabilities are at various levels
in sister cities along the U.S.-Mexico border, many sister cities have the capabilities to provide
emergency response assistance during a cross-border chemical incident. When an emergency
response exceeds the capabilities of the local or state emergency responders, the U.S. federal
government will provide assistance in mitigating the effects of the chemical accident. The
Contingency Planning and Emergency Response Workgroup is providing technical assistance and,
in some cases, funding for sister cities to help them improve and further their chemical emergency
preparedness and response capabilities.
if there was a theoretical spill that stoned in Mexicali (point source) but went across the
border to the U.S., what is the protocol to deal with that? Do U.S. responders cross the border
to Mexico?
fa The Joint U.S.-Mexico Contingency Plan for Accidental Releases of Hazardous Substances
Along the Border (1988) provides a framework for cooperation between Mexico and the United
States in response to a polluting incident that may pose a significant threat to both Mexico and the
U.S. or that affects either the U.S. or Mexico to such an extent as to justify warning the other
party or asking for assistance. The purpose of the Plan is to protect human health and safety as
well as the environment by providing for coordinated responses to hazardous substance incidents
affecting the U.S.-Mexico inland border areas. If, in the scenario described, a spill took place
7-2 June 1997
-------
Contingency Planning Workgroup Summary
in Mexicali and crossed the border into the U.S., the Joint U.S.-Mexico Inland Contingency Plan
could be activated if a spill was beyond the capabilities of local and state responders. The state
and local responders should have a contingency plan in place to deal with such a situation. It
would be the nature of the spill, the equipment needed, and the response capabilities available in
the U.S. and Mexico that would determine whether U.S. responders would cross the border to
assist in mitigating the effects of the spill and protecting the public health and environment of the
U.S.
COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION EFFORTS
Four comments received for this subject area addressed specific issues or the inclusion of other
groups or stakeholders in contingency planning and emergency response. One commentor stressed
the importance of involving the insurance industry in these efforts. Three other commentors
addressed access to and exchange of information and the need to increase coordination activities.
Insurance companies have a very specific interest in risk reduction, as they would benefit from
lower accident rates; besides, they have access to qualified personnel (e.g., claims adjusters,
lawyers, etc.) whose experience can be a most valuable element to draft contingency prevention
policies and oversee their enforcement in their customer base.
&% The Contingency Planning and Emergency Response Workgroup agrees that insurance
companies can be valuable in the contingency planning process. Recently, a U.S. National
Response Team/U.S.-Mexico Joint Response Team (JRT) Workgroup on Cross-Border
Mobilization and Liability was formed. This Workgroup includes representatives from the
insurance community and these representatives have added valuable information regarding all
aspects of insurance coverage as it relates to HAZMAT response across the border. The
Workgroup will provide guidance to federal, state and local agencies regarding cross-border
mobilization and liability in the next several months.
Yuma County Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) needs maquiladora information
from San Luis, Rio Colorado.
&s The Contingency Planning and Emergency Response Workgroup will work with the
appropriate officials to arrange the provision of hazardous material information to be shared
among each of the sister cities.
Activities to prepare for and respond to hazardous material emergencies should be increased.
Promote coordination between local HAZMAT teams of the City of Yuma, Marine Corps Air
Station (MCAS) Yuma, and Yuma Proving Grounds (YPG). Promote coordination with Local
June 1997 7-3
-------
Contingency Planning Workgroup Summary
Emergency Planning Committees (LEPCs), and develop cross-border notification. Encourage
industrial facilities to maintain Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS).
£n The Workgroup agrees with this comment. The objectives of the Workgroup for the next five
years include promoting coordination between and among sister cities and agencies, and
organizations within each sister city; establishing a cross-border notification system; encouraging
industrial facilities to share information on the chemicals stored at the facility; and a general
increase in chemical emergency prevention and preparedness activities. Currently, U.S. facilities
are required to maintain MSDSs for all chemicals produced, used, or stored at their facility.
In Chapter III of the Draft Framework Document, Borderwide Issues and Objectives, add a
sentence on page III. 36, Item 8 that reads, "assure public access to computer-based inventories
of hazardous materials in each border community. "
£n The Workgroup also agrees with this comment and has added language to the Final
Framework Document to reflect it. The word "computer-based" has been deleted since it may
not be possible to ensure that a computer will be available in each sister city. The Workgroup,
however, will make every effort to make computers available to the sister cities.
OBJECTIVES FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS
One comment, which addressed objectives for the next five years, requested resources for a
specific project.
Provide equipment and staffing for emergency response centers. Establish a communications
center for sister city notification in Brownsville.
&n The Contingency Planning and Emergency Response Workgroup intends to provide equipment
and chemical substance databases to existing emergency response groups in the sister cities.
Chapter HI in the Final Framework Document, under the fourth objective (page ffl.38), states that
there will be a communications center for the entire border area, not for each sister city, and
staffing, equipment, etc. are implied in that statement.
TRAINING AND CAPACITY BUILDING
Five comments addressed training and capacity building. Each comment focused on a specific
need or issue in a border community.
7-4 June 1997
-------
Contingency Planning Workgroup Summary
In Ambos Negates, support must be given to negotiations to relocate railroad tracks out of
town. In the meantime, improvements should be made to emergency handling resources,
specifically training and equipment to control chemical spills from railroad tank cars, other
vehicles and industrial reservoirs.
&% The Contingency Planning and Emergency Response Workgroup agrees with this comment.
The Workgroup cochairs will work with the appropriate officials to organize training in
emergency response spill control as it relates to transportation issues.
comment is regarding the summary of the Yuma Domestic Meeting of October 18, 1995
workgroup topic area entitled "Emergency Response and Planning " in Chapter V of the Draft
Framework Document. Concerns were raised about poor emergency response capabilities in
Yuma, lack of equipment and proper training seem unfounded. Yuma County has adequate
capabilities in the area of emergency response capabilities for hazardous materials spills. There
are three fully equipped teams available. Officials in the area have received proper training on
many occasions. With respect to the issue of lack of equipment, Yuma County LEPC continues
to address this concern by applying for grant funds through the Arizona Emergency Response
Commission. As a result, several grants have been received.
^n The Workgroup agrees with these comments and has added language to Chapter V of the Final
Framework Document to reflect the comments.
The City of San Luis is concerned about the ability of its fire department to respond to
hazardous materials emergencies at the U.S. Customs Port of Entry. The city needs financial
assistance in training staff and also to purchase a HAZMAT vehicle and other supplies and
equipment. Yuma, the nearest city (25 miles away) with adequate capabilities could experience
response problems if the highway was blocked in an emergency.
&n EPA has provided a cooperative agreement to the State of Arizona for improving sister city
planning and emergency response capabilities along the U.S.-Mexico border. Those cooperative
agreement funds are targeted for Cochise and Santa Cruz counties, but will benefit the entire
Arizona-Sonora border area. Specifically, Yuma County's LEPC and San Luis will benefit from
the grant money provided to these two counties when products are completed and will be able to
participate in the technical assistance and training to be given as a result of the grant.
There are several problems regarding capacity in the California-Baja California border,
particularly in regions east of San Diego: problems with ammonia transportation and the lack of
emergency response teams east of San Diego; although there is a joint binational fire response
program for urban fire operations and equipment, wildfire fighting assistance in Mexico is lagging
June 1997 7.5
-------
Contingency Planning Workgroup Summary
due to lack of requests for assistance; there is a lack of proper equipment to deal with hazardous
materials spills and better cross-border communication and action is necessary.
£° The sister cities of Mexicali-Calexico and San Diego-Tijuana in California-Baja California
have coordinated closely on joint emergency planning and response efforts. There are also
response teams located in each of these areas. With regard to areas other than the sister cites, the
Workgroup will need to evaluate the contingency planning and emergency response capabilities
and needs along the entire U.S.-Mexico border. The information gathered on capabilities will
then be provided to all the sister cities so these capabilities can be shared and exchanged on a
regional basis.
Training for Naco Customs agents is needed; the other ports have received training. There
is also a need for the federal government to resolve many issues including insurance, equipment,
visas for crossing the border, green cards, and common radio frequencies.
£n The Workgroup agrees with the comment and will try to organize emergency response training
for the Naco Customs office. Regarding the remainder of the document, these issues are currently
being discussed and resolved in the U.S. and between the U.S. and Mexico.
SPECIFIC PAST AND ONGOING PROJECTS
In regards to specific past and ongoing projects, three comments were received. One comment
requested that a specific border community be considered for projects and a second comment
highlighted the need to consider risks posed by marine accidents in the Final Framework
Document. A third comment suggested including certain U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA)-sponsored projects in the Final Framework Document.
Nuevo Laredo should also be considered for training workshops, courses and technical
assistance in emergency prevention, preparedness and response.
&D The Workgroup agrees with this comment. This suggestion is reflected in Chapter Vm of the
Final Framework Document under the Contingency Planning and Emergency Response Section.
Oil spills or other environmental impacts associated with natural disasters are not addressed.
The document fails to address marine accidents and impacts which have probabilities for
environmental incidents that far outweigh those on our land border.
7-6 June 1997
-------
Contingency Planning Workgroup Summary
£n The U.S.-Mexico Inland JRT and the Workgroup have expanded in the last year to include
all federal, state, and local agencies involved in chemical emergency prevention, preparedness,
and response activities. Among those newly included federal agencies is the U.S. Coast Guard.
The U.S. and Mexican Coast Guards have developed a U.S.-Mexico Marine Joint Response Plan
and EPA as well as other federal agencies were involved in developing and implementing that
plan. Within the U.S.-Mexico Inland JRT and Workgroup there is much coordination between
the implementing activities of both the inland border area, however, the Workgroup coordinates
closely with the activities surrounding the U.S.-Mexico marine contingency planning.
^ Language should be added to the document that Southwest Center for Environmental Research
and Policy (SCERP)/EPA projects have developed a model for estimating the flow of a hazardous
substance release in Ambos Nogales and the vulnerability of the community and for estimating the
flows of hazardous materials across the border and the risk from transportation accidents.
£n The Workgroup agrees with this comment. The Final Framework Document does include
general information and provides references in Appendix 6 on the SCERP projects.
June 1997 7-7
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION RESOURCES
WORKGROUP COMMENT AND RESPONSE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The comments received and their associated responses on the Environmental Information
Resources Workgroup sections of the Draft US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework
Document (June 1996) (Draft Framework Document) are summarized in this Chapter. Fifteen
sources provided comments from the general public, state and local governmental agencies,
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and educational institutions, among other sources, in the
form of letters, electronic-mail messages, facsimiles, and notes taken at community/public
meetings. Comments were received which fall under the following subject areas: Access to
Environmental Data; Environmental Education; Specific Past and Ongoing Projects; Geographical
Information Systems(GIS); Objectives for the Next Five Years; Organization, Inventory of
Environmental Data; and Other. The Border XXI Environmental Information Resources
Workgroup responded with modifications and/or additions to the Final US-Mexico Border XXI
Program Framework Document (October 1996) (Final Framework Document) where appropriate.
This summary report does not address individual comments received, however, the range of
comments and concerns raised by the public is encompassed. The Agencies did address every
single comment received in a large database document that is available through the EPA Region 6
Border Liaison office in El Paso, Texas and the EPA Region 9 Border Liaison office in San
Diego, California. Appendix 1 of this report provides contact information for these offices.
For each of the subject areas listed above, a summary of the comments is identified by the pencil
icon (%) and italicized font in the text below. The Workgroup's response follows and is identified
by a pen-in-hand icon (<&) and standard font. Each comment and response segment is separated
by a horizontal bar.
ACCESS To ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
Seven sources provided comments concerning inadequate public access to environmental data.
The comments address the need to reduce the government's discretionary disclosure of
information; the need to enhance community access to information; the need to resolve differences
and standardize information access; the need for coordination among data collecting agencies; and
alternative distribution of gathered information.
Governments and industries should disclose the existing environmental information they
already hold.
£n The issue of disclosure is addressed in Chapter ffl of the Final Framework Document. The
first step will be the identification of existing data. In order to assist with this process, the
Environmental Information Resources Workgroup will be requesting every Workgroup to provide
June 1997 8-1
-------
Environmental Information Workgroup Summary
a contact to address environmental information data sources. The U.S. and Mexico are
researching the public's right-to-know in relation to trade secrets and confidential information.
Efforts will be taken to promote the exchange of this information which is stored on multiple
hardware and software platforms by federal and state governments and private industry.
Governments should generate and disseminate new data to fill the gaps in existing databases.
&n This request is addressed in the first objective on page ffl.44 of the Final Framework
Document. Once the data inventory is completed the data will be reviewed by this and other
Workgroups for gaps. We also plan to work with community members to identify additions to
the data. Mandating the generation of this data is beyond the scope of this Workgroup. However,
we can identify the missing data and define additions which should be added.
Standardized data collection, storage, and dissemination protocols should be established
jointly by and across both borders, and should include compatible or easily convened database
languages to allow linkages between different systems.
&n The second objective on page ffl.44 of the Final Framework Document does address the
"connectivity between the environmental information systems of the two countries" and "the
development of a consistent and centralized collaborative platform." The standardization of data
collection, storage, and dissemination will be an objective for the Environmental Information
Resources Workgroup.
Funding and other resources should be made available to build local government and
nongovernmental agencies' and organizations' capacity to access information.
&n The third and fourth bullets of the Final Framework Document, on page El.45, deal with
access to information. The Environmental Information and Training Centers will include "public
workstations that will be connected to the Internet and both Secretaria de Medio Ambiente
Recursos Naturales y Pesca (Mexico's Secretary for the Environment, Natural Resources, and
Fisheries) (SEMARNAP) and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on-line
environmental services." EPA will continue to encourage the use of grants to promote access to
electronic technology.
^ As pan of an intensive binational environmental education program to inform the public of the
storage, use, release, transfer and potential effects of toxic substances in the border region, and
applicable laws, regulations, standards and other decision making tools, the EPA and Institute
8-2 June 1997
-------
Environmental Information Workgroup Summary
National de Ecologta (Mexico's National Institute for Ecology) (INE) should translate the
available information into a usable format and disseminate it widely via the Internet, on-the-job
worker safety and pollution prevention training, hands-on integrated training for state and local
land use and emergency planners, and walk-in environmental centers in border communities.
&n The second objective on page ffl.46 of the Final Framework Document addresses the
promotion of environmental education opportunities in border communities. The Environmental
Information Resources Workgroup will be working with the local communities to "identify each
border community's most important environmental education, training and capacity needs." We
will be working with regional consortia, community colleges, community groups, and others to
identify which types of training have been developed to support the needs of the local
communities. We will work with other workgroups on the toxics decision-making process.
Fundamental differences on how the U. S. and Mexican governments allow the public or other
interested parties access to government generated information must be resolved for useful
binational information systems or cross-border regional plans to be created. The U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS)/ Instituto National de Estadistica, Geografta, e Informdtica (Mexico's National
Institute for Statistics, Geography, and Information) (INEGI) agreement on aerial photography
does not address access to the data collected.
&n A goal of the Environmental Information Resource Workgroup is to assist and address
overarching data issues, as this comment reflects. For example, the development of a unified GIS
system for the U.S.-Mexico border area outlined in the first objective on page IQ.46 of the Final
Framework Document, will require the compatibility of standards for Border XXI geospatial data
themes.
The key component to useful binational information system is a cooperative effort of all the
workgroups in addressing overarching data issues together. The Environmental Information
Resource Workgroup is a forum for this discussion, for which the Workgroup will be requesting
that every workgroup provide a contact to address environmental information resource issues.
Access to data is a subject of ongoing discussion and will also be addressed by the geospatial/GIS
subgroup.
Access to information, though a delicate subject with complex legal and administrative
dimensions, can have profound implications on cross-border planning and must be more explicitly
addressed in the Draft Framework Document.
There is insufficient updating and sharing of data along the border, not only between the two
borders but also between agencies within each country. Projects such as Transboundary Resource
Inventory Project (TRIP) should be strengthened with the participation of all the interested U.S.
and Mexican parties involved. The development of a Master Plan for the Use of Surface and
June 1997 8-3
-------
Environmental Information Workgroup Summary
Groundwater Resources in the El Paso-Ciudad Juarez area has to be based on binational shared
information. As the resources are shared across the border, so should the information used to
develop a useful, purposeful Master Plan be shared across the border.
£n The first objective on page m.44 of the Final Framework Document will provide an inventory
of environmental information for the border region. Access to data is a subject of ongoing
discussion and will also be addressed by the geospatial/GIS subgroup.
^ If upheld, the significant policy commitment statement in Section II. 6 of the Draft Framework
Document that "The governments mil provide access to federal research which supports state and
local environmental decision making," can lay the groundwork for significant work by the
Information Working Group and regional initiatives such as TRIP.
£% We agree, and this comment is already reflected in the Final Framework Document in
Chapter n. This policy commitment will lay the groundwork for all regional initiatives.
Providing greater support for Census Bureau and INEGI data collection for the border region,
not just either side of the border, mil ensure accurate population and economic data for the
region.
£n The Environmental Information Resources Workgroup will consider the need for accurate
population and economic data as part of a unified GIS. Initially, support is being directed by
USGS and INEGI to develop compatible digital base maps necessary for organizing all geographic
data sets along the border.
An objective should be identified for the Environmental Information Resources Workgroup to
work cooperatively with the Contingency Planning and Emergency Response Workgroup to address
the transportation of hazardous waste through our cities and towns to their final disposal
destinations. Transporting hazardous waste may create conditions for emergency response for
which data sharing is essential.
£D The Draft and Final Framework Documents address the need for other Workgroups to work
cooperatively with the Environmental Information Resources Workgroup. Cooperation is the key
to Workgroup success, and this is reflected in the opening paragraphs of Chapter ffl. 1 of the Final
Framework Document.
June 1997
-------
Environmental Information Workgroup Summary
EPA should devote more funds to the distribution of hard copy information and less to Internet
distribution of information.
£$ The Draft and Final Framework Document addresses the need for the distribution of and
public access to information in hard copy format as a priority requirement in the second
Environmental Information Resources objective, third bullet on page ffl.45 of the Final
Framework Document. In addition to providing information through the Internet, equal support
will be given to a variety of nonelectronic mechanisms.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
One source contributed a description of a partnership between educators and agencies that sponsor
environmental education and training for the future leaders in the environmental field.
Waste-Management Education and Research Consortium (WERC), a partnership of four
academic institutions in New Mexico and national laboratories and industrial organizations whose
mission is to increase our human and technological resources in the environmental area through
education and training, is not mentioned in the document. Please add a description of our
program in the Draft Framework Document, if possible. Our program is ongoing and promotes
and provides college education at all degree levels, training to address all hazardous waste issues
including regulations and transportation. We have established the Environmental Fellows
Program to provide graduate level education to emerging leaders from Mexico.
£n We agree with this comment and the changes are reflected in the Final Framework Document
in the Past and Ongoing Projects Table 3.13. We would also note that a key to the success of the
Workgroup's initiatives is cooperation with the Workgroups, federal/state/local agencies, and
consortia in the U.S.-Mexico border area.
SPECIFIC PAST AND ONGOING PROJECTS
Five sources provided comments that are related to project-level activities. The comments address
the omission of projects and project partners in certain areas of project development, the need to
discuss resources available and currently used for project development, and the omission of
reference to certain projects in Annexes (the 1996 Implementation Plans).
In keeping with EPA 's desire to develop partnerships with state and local organizations,
university and local GIS specialists should be included on the Environmental Resources
Workgroup, and should include the development of a border GIS coordinating committee.
June 1997 8-5
-------
Environmental Information Workgroup Summary
The Environmental Information Resources Section is notable in that it fails to mention the
significant GIS work carried out by the Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy
(SCERP) and its member institutions and of TRIP in coordinating with groups in both countries
for a common borderwide GIS. This omission contradicts the collaborative, cooperative tenor of
the Border XXI Program. These representatives should be members of the Environmental
Information Resources Workgroup.
Another objective should be the development of user friendly GIS applications for border
communities.
£D The Workgroup agrees with portions of this comment and they are reflected in the Final
Framework Document. The Workgroup made changes to the first objective, second bullet in
Chapter HI to ensure inclusiveness of all nongovernmental partners. The GIS subgroup will be
addressing the issue of GIS application in the border region. The Environmental Information
Resources GIS subgroup will have representation by government and nongovernmental entities.
Chapter VIII does not seem, to address information resource issues. For example, neither the
work currently underway on a joint GIS through the TRIP pilot project is cited, nor is the World
Bank/INE funding for development of GIS laboratories at the state and municipal levels. Also,
the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) has approved funding for aerial mapping
of the Laguna Madre region in conjunction with TRIP, SEMARNAP, and USGS.
Specific projects should be added to Tables 4.3 and 5.3 of the Draft Border XXI Framework
Document. These projects include the integrated cross-border GIS for the Imperial Valley-
Mexicali Valley interface for 1996-1997 to develop a comprehensive GIS for the valleys as a tool
for public and private agencies, GIS development for 1996-1997 for the application of a GIS
database for the identification and modeling of agricultural contamination affecting regional
groundwater in the Mexicali-Imperial valleys, and the GIS development continuing since 1995 to
analyze and model the effects of hazardous spills on human populations and aquifers in Ambos
Nogales.
Mention SCERP in the U.S.-Mexico Border GIS Projects, and SCERP/EPA-fundedproject at San
Diego State University (SDSU) is being used for specific applications by regional authorities.
Mention that the GIS-Tijuana River Watershed Project is an SDSU project with Mexican partners
and is supported by SCERP/EPA and the Department of Commerce. Mention that SCERP and
TRIP are actively involved in environmental data sharing networks in the border region.
Reference to the existing San Diego-Tijuana GIS project developed by SDSU/SCERP and Mexican
partners should be added.
&n With the exception of the project for aerial mapping of the Laguna Madre region, which will
be addressed by the Water Workgroup, these projects have been included in Table 3.13 of the
8-6 June 1997
-------
Environmental Information Workgroup Summary
Final Framework Document. To reduce duplication in the document, the environmental
information resources related projects are listed in Table 3.13.
We agree to the suggestion to add language about the San Diego-Tijuana GIS project developed
by SDSU/SCERP and Mexican partners, and it is reflected in Chapter ffl, Section ffl.7 of the
Final Framework Document.
GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Three sources provided comments about GIS information. The comments address the unified GIS
for the border region and the collaboration required among levels of government and
nongovernment groups, and the need to recognize major players in the arena of studies on
sustainability.
A long overdue bilateral objective is the development of a unified GIS for the U.S.-Mexico
border. TRIP exists to develop such an informational resource, and TRIP anticipates continued
participation in all aspects of this important work.
&n We agree with this comment, and have recognized the need to collaborate with federal, state,
local and nongovernmental organizations to accomplish the objectives set forth hi the Final
Framework Document.
GIS technology should be accessible to local jurisdictions. The federal government should
supply funds to make hardware, software, and training available.
Additionally, the Draft Framework Document should specifically recognize that border universities
and SCERPplay key roles in achieving the goals of sustainability. SCERP's participation should
be noted throughout the Draft Framework Document. The consortium has sponsored or
cosponsored four GIS workshops and has published a number of works on the development of a
border environmental GIS of the Califomia-Baja California border region, and the U.S.-Mexican
border region. Additionally, Table 3.2 in the Draft Border XXI Framework Document does not
mention SCERP, although SCERP has provided funding for or was a partner in a half-dozen of
the projects listed and has contributed to many SCERP border projects.
£s State and local agencies have used the EPA grant process to fund different aspects of GIS
technology. Other federal agencies have similar programs that agencies use to fund their GIS
needs that will assist in the objectives of the Border XXI program.
Appendix 6 of the Final Framework Document describes the cooperative agreement between EPA
and SCERP. Because of the numerous projects that SCERP is currently involved in, it was
June 1997 8-7
-------
Environmental Information Workgroup Summary
decided not to include each one in the tables in the document, but rather give a description of the
agreement between EPA and SCERP and to inform the reader where a full description of SCERP
projects can be found.
OBJECTIVES FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS
Five sources provided comments that were concerned with the project and program objectives for
the next five years. These comments address establishing adequate systems for dissemination of
information to the public, addition of information sources and repository locations, future
educational and work opportunities along the border, and general language changes or additions
to the document.
The Arizona-Sonora chapter should include an objective to making information deemed useful
to the local decision makers available to the lay community in an easily understood format. In
addition to federal agencies taking the lead responsibility for collecting data and information, state
and local agencies should take the lead responsibility for analyzing this information and
disseminating it to the public. To accomplish this, the state, local, and federal agencies should
be partners in this effort.
&& The issue of dissemination of information to the public is an issue that is border wide and is
reflected in the objectives of Chapter m. The key to success of the Workgroup objective are the
collaborating efforts of federal/state/local/NGOs to communicate the information and data to the
public.
Taxpayers, who pay for the acquisition of environmental data, should have the data made
available to them at any time. Excepting proprietary information (i.e., technological or
commercial processes), data related to the quality of border communities' environment discussed
in the Environmental Resources objective 3.b, such as air, water, and soil quality conditions must
be made available.
&n This referenced objective (now on page m.45 of the Final Framework Document), is
addressing the issue of proprietary information and respects the issue of confidentiality for
federal/state/local/NGO's data. Every agency has confidentiality issues that will need to be
addressed and shared between agencies and countries.
While TRIP does deal with natural resources and TRIP is correctly listed under "Natural
Resources," it should also be listed under "Information Resources" on page III. 4.
8-8 June 1997
-------
Environmental Information Workgroup Summary
£D To reduce duplication in the Final Framework Document, this project, as other projects, is not
crosslisted.
The use of outside consultants from other states [working in our area(s)] have an impact on
our economy. How many jobs were created on the border? How much money was put into the
border economy? Have studies found any measurable improvement in the environmental resources
or in environmental health? An Environmental Information Resources Strategy to include
additional human capacity development in the Texas-Tamaulipas, Brownsville, area. The
establishment of a Borderplex Civic Engagement Center to promote sustainable development and
the lessons learned at Habitat II should be included as an objective.
&n The questions contained in this comment are beyond the scope of the Environmental
Information Resources Workgroup. We do not have access to this data.
ORGANIZATION, INVENTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
Two sources provided comments that are concerned with the responsibility and continuity for data
organization and maintenance and the use of site-specific, rather than institutional or general,
information for the basis of multimedia baseline inventories for hazardous materials use and
pollution prevention.
As universities, the SCERP institutions are involved in training the next generation of border
leaders. Universities, as stable institutions with lower turnover of personnel, provide institutional
memory on border issues and serve as a repository of information to meet local, national, and
international needs.
&n Your comment is noted.
To account for potential pollutants and pollution prevention, onsite multimedia baseline
inventories for hazardous materials are needed throughout the border region. These should
integrate hazardous materials inventory information from site-specific lists such as those used in
inventories conducted by Arizona Toxics Information (ATI) and Enlace Ecologico in Agua Prieta
in 1993-1994. Using site-specific information from lists such as emergency planning, releases,
health and safety, and permitting to determine border site pollutants would result in a more
accurate inventory than the use of ambient monitoring and industry classification lists to conduct
deductive analysis of pollutants. The inventory information should be broadly accessible to the
public.
June 1997 8-9
-------
Environmental Information Workgroup Summary
&n We agree that multimedia baseline figures for hazardous materials used in the border region
would be useful. However, EPA does not track hazardous materials crossing the border, but
through the HAZTRAKS database, tracks the cross-border movement of hazardous waste.
Obstacles to developing and accessing baseline data include on-site inventories that may be
available in local communities in the U.S. or Mexico being generally inaccessible to EPA, and
issues of information confidentiality. We will continue to track cross-border movement of
hazardous waste and explore industry-specific as well as general pollution prevention activities
along the U.S.-Mexico border. We will also continue to seek better data to help us measure
baseline hazardous waste generation, treatment and disposal, and movement.
OTHER
Three sources provided comments concerning the importance of public right to know and Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA), language barrier to information decentralization, and contact lists.
^ Border XXIfails to recognize the importance of the public's right-to-know, and its approach
to information access allows the governmental authorities to select the type of information that will
be available for public viewing. As long as the governments are allowed discretionary release of
information, the public can not have true access to information to protect themselves and to avoid,
reduce, and eliminate environmental and health problems. A mechanism similar to the U.S. FOIA
under which access to information (barring confidential information) is mandatory should be
considered for the program.
£v We agree. All U.S. information related to Border XXI is subject to FOIA and Community
Right-to-Know laws. Border XXI Environmental Information Resources Workgroup objectives
call for data to be widely distributed. We encourage the public to work with the Environmental
Information Resources Workgroup, the EPA Border Offices, and the other Border XXI
Workgroups to find ways to improve access to information.
^ Decentralization and capacity building at the state and local level can lay the groundwork for
regional planning. But to be successful, the language barrier must be dealt with and EPA and
SEMARNAP should recognize that need and refer the language issue to the information working
group as a priority. TGLO, through TRIP, has published a glossary of English-Spanish
environmental terms and is making it available through the TRIP Home Page. The address of the
TRIP Home Page is http://www.glo.state.tx.us./infosys/gis/trip.
&$ We agree that the language barrier is an important issue and is taking steps to begin
confronting it. The Border XXI Home Page has established a direct link to the TRIP Home Page
to provide access to their bilingual glossary. As a first priority step, the Environmental
Information Resources Workgroup will include a bilingual component into a border-wide
8-10 June 1997
-------
Environmental Information Workgroup Summary
Environmental Information Inventory. Additionally, the Pollution Prevention Workgroup
publishes their manuals in English and Spanish, and the Contingency Planning and Emergency
Response Workgroup is converting their CAMEO software to Spanish.
A directory of the U.S. and Mexican officials is needed so they can be contacted when specific
problems are identified.
&° The Final Framework Document, Appendix 2, contains a Directory of Contacts, and Appendix
3 includes a description of the government agencies involved in the Border XXI program so that
they can address problems as they arise.
June 1997 8-11
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
9.0 POLLUTION PREVENTION WORKGROUP COMMENT AND
RESPONSE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The comments received and their associated responses on the Pollution Prevention Workgroup
sections of the Draft US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document (June 1996) (Draft
Framework Document) are summarized in this Chapter. Eleven sources provided comments from
the general public, state and local governmental agencies and nongovernmental organizations
(NGOs) among other sources, in the form of letters, electronic-mail messages, facsimiles and
notes taken at community/public meetings. Comments were received which fall under the
following subject areas: 1996 Initiatives, Industrial Involvement, Specific Past and Ongoing
Projects, and Other. The Border XXI Pollution Prevention Workgroup responded with
modifications and/or additions to the Final US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document
(October 1996) (Final Framework Document) where appropriate.
This summary report does not address individual comments received, however, the range of
comments and concerns raised by the public is encompassed. The Agencies did address every
single comment received in a large database document that is available through the EPA Region 6
Border Liaison office in El Paso, Texas and the EPA Region 9 Border Liaison office in San
Diego, California. Appendix 1 of this report provides contact information for these offices.
For each of the subject areas listed above, a summary of the comments is identified by the pencil
icon (^) and italicized font in the text below. The Workgroup's response follows and is identified
by a pen-in-hand icon (<&) and standard font. Each comment and response segment is separated
by a horizontal bar.
1996 INITIATIVES
One source provided a comment that stressed the overall importance of pollution prevention in
environmental management.
The Pollution Prevention Workgroup should continue to increase its efforts to work
cooperatively with other Workgroups to develop specific projects that encourage pollution
prevention activities.
£° One of the main objectives of the Pollution Prevention Workgroup is to cooperate and
coordinate with other Workgroups (See Chapter HI, Pollution Prevention Section of the Final
Framework Document). For example, the Pollution Prevention Workgroup coordinated with the
Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup to implement a project in which pollution
prevention audits are conducted at Mexican maquiladoras resulting in recommendations on ways
to reduce the generation of waste. The coordination activities will continue since pollution
prevention is a goal which all Workgroups can promote.
June 1997 9-1
-------
Pollution Prevention Workgroup Summary
INDUSTRIAL INVOLVEMENT
Three sources provided comments related to government assistance to industry in pollution
prevention activities. Two sources emphasized the value of pollution prevention assistance. One
source noted that voluntary compliance can not work by itself and that enforcement of existing
laws and regulations is also necessary to achieve environmental compliance. One source
commented on the need to address polluting industries not only in Juarez, Mexico but in El Paso,
Texas.
There is a concern that pollution prevention will not be effective if there is only voluntary
compliance. Without regulatory agencies enforcing environmental laws, only a few facilities will
participate in pollution prevention, especially if there are associated costs. Pollution prevention
assistance to the maquiladora industry should be a priority.
&° The goal of both countries is to achieve environmental compliance with each country's
respective environmental laws. This goal may be achieved through activities involving
enforcement, voluntary compliance, and pollution prevention. These activities complement each
other in achieving the ultimate goal of environmental compliance. The Pollution Prevention
Workgroup seeks to demonstrate that it is more cost effective to invest to reduce or prevent
pollution than to spend resources on regulation compliance, treatment, storage, and disposal. The
Pollution Prevention Workgroup strives to promote pollution prevention projects to reach as many
industrial sectors as possible.
In the case ofAmbos Nogales, support must be given to both big (maquiladora) and small
businesses to adopt voluntary pollution prevention measures.
&n An objective of the Pollution Prevention Workgroup is to provide technical assistance to small
and large businesses, with particular assistance directed at maquiladoras. An example of pollution
prevention activities in the Nogales area is the presentation by Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) of auto waste minimization workshops directed at small
businesses. Furthermore, ADEQ and Procuraduria Federal de Proteccion al Ambiente (Mexico's
Federal Attorney General for Environmental Protection) (PROFEPA) are planning pollution
prevention programs for maquiladoras along the Arizona-Sonora border. Similar activities,
targeting both large and small businesses, are being carried out at several points along the border.
^ Chapter VI, New Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua, only addresses the maquiladora industry in
Juarez, Mexico and fails to mention the big contaminating industries located in El Paso, such as
Chevron, Phelps Dodge, ASARCO, Southern Pacific, and others that also contaminate the area.
9-2 June 1997
-------
Pollution Prevention Workgroup Summary
£n Pollution prevention activities are directed at industry on both sides of the border. Training
seminars, workshops, conferences, and written material are presented in English and Spanish.
Furthermore, in regard to the companies specifically listed which are located in El Paso, these
companies are encouraged to participate in "Clean Industries 2000," a Texas Natural Resource
Conservation Commission (TNRCC) voluntary hazardous waste toxics release reduction program.
ASARCO is a Clean Industries 2000 participant and, as such, has committed to reduce hazardous
waste and/or toxic release inventory chemicals by 50 percent by the year 2000. These companies
are also subject to inspection and enforcement activities by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and TNRCC.
SPECIFIC PAST AND ONGOING PROJECTS
Five sources suggested that the Final Framework Document include additional projects or address
specified projects in alternative ways. One commentor discussed the importance of compatible
procedures for organizing and disseminating data on toxic sources and releases. Four other
sources suggested the inclusion or reclassification of specific projects.
The objective of initiating a "Registro de Emisiones y Transferencia de Contaminantes"
(Mexico's Pollution Release and Transfer Registry) (RETC) in Mexico and developing compatible
procedures for disseminating information from this database and the U.S. Toxic Release Inventory
(TRI) is welcome. However, the agencies should go well beyond this initiative to collect data from
border facilities according to the newly-expanded list of chemicals and industries subject to
reporting. Instituto Nacional de Ecologia (Mexico's National Institute for Ecology) (INE) should
expand the scope of the pilot Queretaro RETC to match that of the TRI and work with state and
local entities in Mexico to implement the improved RETC in border communities. Both agencies
should make the data available in English and Spanish.
&n One of our objectives in the Pollution Prevention Workgroup is to initiate a Pollution Release
and Transfer Registry (PRTR) (RETC in Spanish) in Mexico and develop common information
dissemination procedures and compatibility between the Mexican PRTR and the EPA TRI.
Information on this objective is included in Chapter ffl of the Final Framework Document.
In the U.S. all facilities are subject to TRI reporting to Local Emergency Planning Committees
(LEPC), local fire departments and the State Emergency Response Commission (SERC). These
Tier I reports are required under Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know (EPCRA)
Sections 311 and 312. Most states are also required to file a Tier n report which includes other
chemicals if requested by the SERC or LEPC. All the border states, Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona and California, have the Tier n requirement. Interested parties may request this
information through their LEPC. In regard to the implementation of RETC in Mexico, INE-
Secretaria de Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales y Pesca (Mexico's Secretary for the
June 1997 9-3
-------
Pollution Prevention Workgroup Summary
Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries) (SEMARNAP) is in the process of finalizing the
program, which is still subject to congressional approval.
The Draft Framework Document does not have a listing of ongoing pollution prevention
projects in the California-Baja California region and does not mention any pollution prevention
plans in the region in the five-year objectives.
The Pollution Prevention Workgroup's projects in the California-Baja California geographic
area were inadvertently omitted; however, these projects have been inserted. (See Chapter IV of
the Final Framework Document.) An example of the pollution prevention projects in this
geographic area is Border Waste Wi$e, a Solid Waste Reduction Initiative Project sponsored by
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA)/Integrated Waste Management Board
(IWMB), EPA, the cities of Tijuana and San Diego, San Diego State University, the Autonomous
University of Baja California, and private industry. This ongoing project assists companies on
both sides of the border in waste reduction (e.g., audits and training) and identifies ways to
expand binational markets for recycled materials and commodities. Other examples are specified
in the Pollution Prevention Table in Chapter IV of the Final Framework Document.
The Brownsville-Matamoros Eco-Industrial Park project should be recognized in the Draft
Border XXI Framework Document as an important priority project.
&s The Brownsville Economic Development Council and the City of Brownsville received a grant
in September 1995 from the U.S. Department of Commerce for a feasibility study for the
Brownsville-Matamoros Eco Industrial Park Project. The project will be applying to be included
in the EPA XL program. The projects included in the Final Framework Document are EPA-
sponsored projects which have already been approved for funding or are ongoing projects.
The Draft Framework Document should move the Wellhead Protection Program education
efforts that are discussed under "Pollution Prevention " objectives in Chapter V, Arizona-Sonora
to the section on "Environmental Information " objectives in order to improve the consistency of
the document's format.
£n The pollution prevention education efforts that are discussed in Chapter V of the Final
Framework Document are part of the Nogales Wellhead Protection Program, a pollution
prevention project. Because the project primarily deals with pollution prevention matters, it is
more consistent to place it in the Pollution Prevention section.
9-4 June 1997
-------
Pollution Prevention Workgroup Summary
Regarding Chapter III, Borderwide Issues and Objectives, it is suggested that an additional
sub-objective be included to "develop an initiative for on-site dry disposal systems for communities
beyond the reach of existing sewage networks. "
£x The purpose of the Final Framework Document is to give the objectives of the Workgroups,
in this case the Pollution Prevention Workgroup. Specific projects or initiatives are addressed by
the Annual Work Plans of the Workgroup. This proposed project will be presented to the
Workgroup for its consideration.
OTHER
Two commentors focused on the importance of educating residents and businesses and providing
adequate infrastructure and information regarding recycling and household hazardous waste
management.
^ Developing bilingual pollution prevention technical assistance information (e. g., fact sheets
and brochures) for small businesses should be encouraged.
£n An objective of the Pollution Prevention Workgroup is to expand technical assistance to small
businesses (See Chapter ffl, Pollution Prevention Section of the Final Framework Document),
through seminars, demonstrations, and distribution of written materials.
^ For the purpose of coordination between border teams, small business operations are primarily
comprised of small quantity generators (SQGs) or conditionally exempt small quantity generators
(CESQGs).
&n In regard to defining "small businesses" as SQGs or CESQGs, it is implied that pollution
prevention activities directed at these generators will be coordinated with regional and state border
teams prior to implementation of pollution prevention projects. Therefore, it is not necessary to
formally define the types of generators.
There is no language regarding household pollution prevention programs. Border
communities should be encouraged to develop and implement residential recycling and household
hazardous waste programs.
£% It is not the intention of the language in the objectives of Chapter HI to limit or restrict the
types of pollution prevention programs along the border. Household recycling or hazardous waste
June 1997 9-5
-------
Pollution Prevention Workgroup Summary
programs are encouraged and are being successfully implemented by local governments. To
further this goal, EPA has provided INE and Secretaria de Desarollo Social (Mexico's Secretary
for Social Development) (SEDESOL) with information and outreach materials from a number of
successful household hazardous waste programs, for their use in designing such programs for
Mexican border communities.
^ If pollution is to be curtailed effectively, better recycling must happen. People want to recycle
but they do not have proper collection systems or outlets for materials. Encouraging businesses
to use recyclable materials and to create new products for such materials should be a top priority
of both countries. Examples include finding uses or making products from waste tires (e.g.,
erosion control barriers, sandals), and promoting straw bale construction housing.
£D An objective of the Pollution Prevention Workgroup is to increase technical assistance and
outreach to federal, state, and municipal authorities, and the general public to develop initiatives
on recycling (See Chapter HI, Pollution Prevention Section). Both countries understand the
benefits of recycling and are promoting recycling activities to industry and the general public. For
example, studies are currently being conducted to identify ways to expand binational markets for
recycled material and commodities.
9-6 June 1997
-------
10.0 COOPERATIVE ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE
WORKGROUP COMMENT AND RESPONSE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The comments received and their associated responses on the Cooperative Enforcement and
Compliance Workgroup sections of the Draft US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework
Document (June 1996) (Draft Framework Document) are summarized in this Chapter. Fourteen
sources provided comments from the general public, state and local governmental agencies,
nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and educational institutions, among other sources, in the
form of letters, electronic-mail messages, facsimiles, and notes taken at community/public
meetings. Comments were received which fall under the following subject areas: Enforcement
and Environmental Regulations, Coordination and Communication Efforts, Implementation of
Environmental Compliance, Objectives for the Next Five Years, Specific Past and Ongoing
Projects, and Other. The Border XXI Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup
responded with modifications and/or additions to the Final US-Mexico Border XXI Program
Framework Document (October 1996) (Final Framework Document) where appropriate.
This summary report does not address individual comments received, however, the range of
comments and concerns raised by the public is encompassed. The Agencies did address every
single comment received in a large database document that is available through the EPA Region 6
Border Liaison office in El Paso, Texas and the EPA Region 9 Border Liaison office in San
Diego, California. Appendix 1 of this report provides contact information for these offices.
For each of the subject areas listed above, a summary of the comments is identified by the pencil
icon (<^) and italicized font in the text below. The Workgroup's response follows and is identified
by a pen-in-hand icon (£») and standard font. Each comment and response segment is separated
by a horizontal bar.
ENFORCEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
Five sources provided comments expressing concern with the adequacy of the compliance and
enforcement activities on both sides of the border. These comments address the need for
standardized cross-border industry standards, closer coordination between the two countries and
the need for closer monitoring of the enforcement activities, as well as the "strength" of the
enforcement outlined in the Final Framework Document.
The time frame for developing and accomplishing environmental standards for Mexico may
allow pollution to continue or be added to. If industry moves from the United States into Mexico,
the industry should meet the standards required in the United States.
£D Each country, exercising its sovereignty and acting within its own legal jurisdictional
framework, establishes the applicable standards for industry operating within its territory. The
June 1997 10-1
-------
Cooperative Enforcement Workgroup Summary
U.S. and Mexico both have strict laws to protect human health and the environment. North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) encourages upward harmonization of standards to
strengthen environmental and health protection. The North American Agreement on
Environmental Cooperation (NAFTA's Environmental Side Agreement) promotes strengthening
of collaboration in the development and improvement of environmental laws and regulations, as
well as their enforcement. The U.S. and Mexican authorities are working together to optimize
the action of enforcement in both countries.
There need to be stiff fines, and possibly a "3 Strikes and You Are Out" law, for Mexican
companies that pollute or dump into river(s) that flow into the U.S. or the ocean. In addition, a
"Plan" cannot be expected to be enforceable if we can not enforce the laws, agreements, treaties,
accords, etc.
£$ Each country uses a range of tools to respond to violations of environmental laws. In Mexico,
these include fines, as well as the authority to close violating facilities from the first inspection
visit. In the laws of both countries, increased sanctions are imposed on repeat violators. U.S.
and Mexican authorities are collaborating mutually to improve methods of detection and
inspection.
The purpose of Border XXI is not to impose environmental obligations additional to those with
which industry must comply. Rather, Border XXI is intended, inter alia, to promote activities
to enhance and increase, through collaboration and cooperation, the ability of authorities on both
sides of the border to implement their respective domestic legislation and relevant binational
agreements between the U.S. and Mexico. Both countries act within their own legal frameworks.
In Mexico, for example, from August 1992 through December 1996, Procuraduria Federal de
Protection al Ambiente (Mexico's Federal Attorney General for Environmental Protection)
(PROFEPA) conducted 12,347 inspections in its border states, resulting in 551 closures and the
imposition of fines for minor infractions against 9,294 facilities.
In the U.S., in the fiscal years 1993 through 1996, EPA and state environmental authorities
conducted over 3,500 inspections in the border area, and initiated more than 50 civil judicial
enforcement actions, 300 administrative enforcement actions, and issued over 500 notices of
violation under 7 federal statutes and equivalent state laws. EPA is supporting domestic
environmental enforcement and binational enforcement cooperation in the border area through a
program of state grants to each of the four border states. In 1996 and 1997 collectively,
California and Texas each received $180,000 in federal grant funds, and Arizona and New Mexico
each received $90,000 in grants, dedicated to domestic hazardous waste enforcement and
supporting binational enforcement cooperation. These grants are being supplemented through
cooperative agreements with two regional associations of state environmental enforcement agencies
to enhance border area enforcement cooperation.
In addition, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and PROFEPA are reinforcing their
activities of inspection and vigilance of pollution sources, collaborating mutually in implementing
10-2 June 1997
-------
Cooperative Enforcement Workgroup Summary
their respective training programs, in the detection of violations, and in encouraging voluntary
compliance.
Compliance and enforcement activities on both sides of the border require closer monitoring.
This can be accomplished by implementing joint efforts between EPA and the Arizona Department
of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)for consultation and training. Inspection programs should be
implemented and institutionalized.
£n AS reflected in the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Objectives (Chapter ffl) and the
Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Work Plan (1996-1997), the goals and activities of the
Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup include programming of inspections on
both sides of the border; continuing with the exchange of information regarding enforcement and
compliance on both sides of the border; and promoting collaboration and cooperation among the
authorities involved, in areas ranging from training and technical consultation to collaboration in
monitoring compliance and investigating cases of noncompliance.
One of the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance objectives is to promote the creation of
regional subgroups to facilitate interagency collaboration and cooperation in all of these areas
among all respective local, state and federal agencies on both sides of the border. PROFEPA and
EPA are currently considering a proposal to establish a cooperative enforcement subgroup for
Arizona-Sonora. The ADEQ has demonstrated interest and initiative by initiating a task force of
U.S. local, state and federal agencies to enhance binational collaboration and cooperation, in
support of the possible creation of an Arizona-Sonora enforcement subgroup.
A Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance paragraph was added to the "Issues and Problems"
and "Objectives" section of each geographic chapter (Chapters IV-Vni). This change underscores
the importance of the enforcement and compliance objectives to enhance environmental quality
in each of the individual geographic areas, as well as across the entire border. The change
clarifies the intentions of the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup to foster
interagency participation and collaboration in specific geographic areas among all local, state and
federal authorities on both sides of the border involved in environmental enforcement, including
through promotion of subgroups.
COORDINATION AND COMMUNICATION EFFORTS
Two sources provided comments that are concerned with promoting voluntary compliance efforts
with industry and with requiring industry to report to the public at risk, not only to agencies, the
chemicals in use on site.
Work with border business and trade groups to promote voluntary compliance and pollution
prevention should be added as an objective.
June 1997 10-3
-------
Cooperative Enforcement Workgroup Summary
&* One of the objectives of "Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance" states: "Encourage
voluntary compliance by industry through strategies such as environmental auditing and the use
of clean technologies and less-contaminating raw materials, as a complement to a strong program
of law enforcement." These efforts already include working with border business and trade
groups, as well as directly with industry management.
The United States and Mexico should go well beyond merely encouraging facilities to disclose
information on use and storage of chemicals to local response officials, but should require
industries to report that information to not only the responders, but also to land-use planners and
the general public in communities that are most at risk from potential releases of those chemicals.
£" Currently, EPA and PROFEPA are conducting compliance follow-up on the reporting of
confirmation of the use of Guias Ecologicas for hazardous waste export in Mexico and the
hazardous waste manifest and treatment, storage, and disposal facility reporting requirements in
the U.S., and are exchanging information by means of the Hazardous Waste Tracking System
(HAZTRAKS), which has permitted identification of violations of the laws of Mexico and the
United States.
IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE
One source suggested allowing supplemental environmental projects (SEPs) for
industries/businesses with small economic base rather than imposing economic sanctions for
violators, as well as promoting voluntary compliance in Arizona-Sonora.
^ Information on voluntary compliance through environmental auditing should be expanded to
include the Arizona-Sonora border region and its maquiladora industry.
Efforts to achieve compliance should also include a component that addresses noncompliance by
industries with a small economic base, perhaps through the promotion of SEPs when legal action
is taken.
£v EPA and PROFEPA have launched a border-wide campaign to promote voluntary compliance
through environmental auditing and pollution prevention. In July 1996, EPA sent letters to 200
U.S. parents of maquiladoras located in Mexico, including 23 maquiladoras located in Sonora,
whose operations were likely to present potential environmental risks, encouraging them to
participate in PROFEPA's voluntary auditing program. ADEQ, together with Nogales, Arizona,
Santa Cruz County, and Mexican authorities, has coordinated efforts to promote voluntary
compliance and pollution prevention among maquiladoras in Sonora. EPA and PROFEPA
welcome the participation of state and local authorities in developing coordinated actions in the
10-4 June 1997
-------
Cooperative Enforcement Workgroup Summary
future to encourage voluntary compliance in the Arizona-Sonora region through strategies for
pollution prevention through environmental auditing.
While the efforts of both governments to promote voluntary compliance have been invaluable, it
is indispensable that they be coupled with a strong enforcement program which effectively deters
noncompliance and seeks to maximize environmental performance. EPA's SEP Policy, revised
in May 1995, provides flexibility in reducing penalties in enforcement matters in exchange for
establishing commitments to conduct such SEPs. The use of SEPs to resolve enforcement matters
can provide environmental benefits in the border area, and EPA encourages their use. In addition,
EPA's Policy on Compliance Incentives for Small Businesses promotes small business
participation in compliance assistance programs by providing flexibility in resolving violations
detected through such assistance or through auditing. The policy allows for mitigation in these
cases of civil penalties against small businesses which are first-time violators, if the company
promptly corrects the violation. The policy is subject to certain limitations to protect public health
and the environment, and deter the most serious types of violations. For example, EPA reserves
the right to collect penalties where violations result in serious harm or reflect criminal conduct.
For its part, PROFEPA has a procedure for determining the amount of penalty to apply, based
on the classification of the size of the industries: micro, small, medium, and large. To determine
the corresponding penalty, the number of workers which the violating business has is considered,
as well as the gravity of the violations and their recurrence.
OBJECTIVES FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS
Four sources provided five comments that are adding objectives for enforcing additional
authorities for violating wildlife laws expanding the approach in the effort to continue to achieve
compliance with environmental requirements in the border area, allowing for citizen suits, lack
of protection of the environment, and improper prioritization of objectives.
Where in the Draft Framework Document are Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance
Guidelines set forth for coastal protection? There should be a provision to allow for citizen suits.
Efforts to achieve compliance with environmental requirements in the border area should: include
inspections conducted on both sides of the border by binational inspection teams; allow legal
actions to be commenced by either country; and make sanctions enforceable toward the parent
companies, with affiliates and parent companies held accountable for violations by their (Mexican)
maquiladora affiliates or branches.
£n The Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup objectives refer to "environment"
which includes coastal waters. Citizen participation, within the legal framework of each country,
is promoted in the objectives by means of the citizen suit and public complaint procedures in the
United States and Mexico, respectively.
June 1997 10-5
-------
Cooperative Enforcement Workgroup Summary
Due to national sovereignty, the two countries are prevented from conducting joint inspections or
bringing legal actions jointly against natural or corporate persons. The two countries may
collaborate jointly in situations involving legal violations by companies whose affiliates or parents
are located in another country.
Implement parks, natural protected areas and wildlife law enforcement activities [to]: a)
provide training opportunities to law enforcement personnel; b) develop guidelines to return
confiscated wildlife to the country of origin; and c) establish mechanisms to exchange law
enforcement information and cooperate on law enforcement investigations.
Distribute information on the establishment of the Mixed Committee for Inspection, Enforcement,
and Verification of Natural Resources at the state level. Nuevo Laredo requests to be included in
the project.
f£n The objectives and actions of the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup
include compliance with the regulatory regime for natural resource protection as well as for
industrial establishments. The Workgroup will promote continuing dialogue between the relevant
enforcement agencies in order to establish a framework for the return of confiscated flora and
fauna to the country of origin.
The numbering of the objectives in Section III of the Draft Framework Document for
Prevention (6); Voluntary Compliance (3); and Inspection, Legal Action, Sanction (1) implies the
wrong order of priorities for those objectives.
£n Clearly, compliance with environmental laws is the objective of every program of law
enforcement. The order in which the objectives appear does not necessarily indicate their priority,
nor does it condition the time for carrying out activities to achieve them.
SPECIFIC PAST AND ONGOING PROJECTS
One source asked to be included as a recipient of information pertaining to progress made by the
Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup (and other) committees, such as educational
video(s) and enforcement activities that are undertaken.
To date this delegation ofCANACINTRA does not have a copy of the video "Environmental
Auditing and Prevention of Contamination. " Please include CANACINTRA-Nuevo Laredo and the
Association ofMaquiladoras on the list to receive materials for distribution to local maquiladora
industry.
10-6 June 1997
-------
Cooperative Enforcement Workgroup Summary
Please release information on the results to date of the Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance
Workgroup so local industry and local groups may be briefed on the activities.
£n EPA and PROFEPA hope to complete the Environmental Auditing and Pollution Prevention
Video in 1997, and the distribution will be oriented to ensure its distribution to businesses and
industrial associations, as resources allow.
The Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup will annually publicize a report
regarding its activities, as well as the results of enforcement. This information will be publicized
by means of mechanisms to be established by the Environmental Information Workgroup.
OTHER
Two sources provided comments that are concerned with the number of planned inspections
providing adequate oversight of the industries in the state of Chihuahua and the correct
identification of Mexican states in the discussions.
The 2,600 inspections planned for the next five years by PROFEPA amount to no more than
one inspection per installation during this period within the state of Chihuahua, when every type
of industrial, commercial, and service center is accounted for.
&n In the estimation of the 2,600 inspections planned for the next five years, PROFEPA
considered only the sources of federal jurisdiction within its competence, established in the
General Law of Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (GLEEPA). Other federal,
state, and municipal institutions have the faculty to inspect industrial, commercial, and service
centers, whose numbers of inspections is not considered in this estimate.
The reference to the state of Chihuahua under "Enforcement" (Section VIII) should be the state
of Tamaulipas.
£D We agree. The English version of the Draft Framework Document erroneously mentioned the
state of Chihuahua, when in fact it should be Tamaulipas. This was corrected in the Final
Framework Document.
June 1997 10-7
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
11.0 GENERAL AND OVERALL COMMENT AND RESPONSE
SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
Many comments received on the Draft US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document
(June 1996) (Draft Framework Document) could not easily be categorized or assigned to a
particular Border XXI Workgroup. These general comments and their associated responses are
summarized in this Chapter. Fifty-seven sources provided comments from the general public,
state and local governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and educational
institutions, among other sources, in the form of letters, electronic-mail messages, facsimiles, and
notes taken at community/public meetings. Comments were received which fall under the
following subject areas: Environmental Education, Environmental Justice, Funding Mechanisms,
Implementation Issues, Integration of Research Efforts and Academia, Integration of Workgroups,
Interagency Coordination, Local Government and Community Participation, Outreach, Population
Growth, Private Sector/Economic Development, State Participation, Sustainable Development,
Transportation, Tribal Issues, and Edits. The general comments were distributed to several of the
Border XXI Team members for review. These Team members responded with modifications
and/or additions to the Final US-Mexico Border XXI Program Framework Document (October
1996) (Final Framework Document) where appropriate.
This summary report does not address individual comments received, however, the range of
comments and concerns raised by the public is encompassed. The Agencies did address every
single comment received in a large database document that is available through the EPA Region 6
Border Liaison office in El Paso, Texas and the EPA Region 9 Border Liaison office in San
Diego, California. Appendix lof this report provides contact information for these offices.
For each of the subject areas listed above, a summary of the comments is identified by the pencil
icon («^) and italicized font in the text below. The Workgroup's response follows and is identified
by a pen-in-hand icon (&>) and standard font. Each comment and response segment is separated
by a horizontal bar.
ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
One comment source is concerned that bilingual educational materials are needed by the schools
to educate children on the environmental values.
Schools along the border should instill environmental values in children from a very early
age. In order to accomplish this, bilingual brochures and teaching materials should be developed.
&n The Workgroups believe environmental education is important. Evidence exists that schools
on both sides of the border are teaching more and more about environmental issues.
June 1997 11-1
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Two sources provided comments that encourage increasing the level of community involvement
and listing environmental justice as one of the areas of concern.
Increasing the level of community involvement is encouraged. Border XXI issues are
important to the environmental justice community.
Environmental justice should be listed as one of the areas of concern in the Draft Framework
Document.
£D The workgroups agree that community participation in the Border XXI process should be
increased, look forward to this involvement, and welcome assistance.
The issue of environmental justice is definitely important and will be addressed. In the
Introduction chapter of the Final Framework Document (page 1.2), environmental justice is
defined and the Presidential Executive Order 12898 is referenced. We will work with other
existing organizations such as U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) National
Environmental Justice Advisory Council, to assist us in this issue.
FUNDING MECHANISMS
Twenty sources provided comments that expressed concern with the lack of sufficient resources
to support infrastructure improvement. Several were concerned with how the Mexican and U.S.
agencies could present plans for five years, when funding is budgeted annually. Suggestions are
made to look into more aggressive funding mechanisms, and provide funding to NGOs in order
to encourage their participation in the Border XXI program.
Lack of infrastructure is the basic reason why there are air and water quality problems along
many areas of the border. In border states that do not have sufficient resources, such as New
Mexico, the federal government's role in funding infrastructure improvements is very important.
Because of the growth caused by NAFTA and the associated environmental problems, both the
U.S. and Mexico must recognize their responsibilities regarding infrastructure financing, including
providing incentives for low interest loans.
&% This comment is well taken. The Workgroups acknowledge the comment on funding border
infrastructure. Appendix 4 includes important information regarding plans to finance the Border
XXI Program, particularly infrastructure financing. In addition, the U.S. Environmental
11-2 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
Protection Agency (EPA) recently transferred $170 million to the North American Development
Bank (NADBank) through a cooperative agreement. These resources will be used to fund the
Border Environment Cooperation Commission (BECC) certified infrastructure projects.
There should not be a "border timetable "for scheduling actions since this depends on the
availability of resources which is uncertain.
Final Framework Document outlines specific five-year objectives for each of the nine
Border XXI Workgroups and priority objectives for each of the geographic regions. However,
Workgroups chose not to explicitly prioritize the objectives within the document so as to not get
locked into commitments which may be logistically, financially, or politically infeasible in the
future. This prioritization will occur annually through the development of the Implementation
Plans. Timetables for actions are included for all the projects listed in the 1996 Implementation
Plans, and further information on the timing of specific projects can be obtained through the
identified contact.
The Draft Framework Document does not adequately prioritize projects or estimate resource
needs at the federal, state, or local levels.
£n The Workgroups agree with this comment. However, the annual implementation plans are
the process for establishing annual priorities. The public is welcome and encouraged to provide
ongoing comments to the National Coordinators, Workgroups, Border Offices, etc., on these
annual priorities.
Resource estimates are usually the most difficult portion of any plan. Budget estimates for some
programs can be found in the Final Framework Document in Appendix 4.1, Meeting the Financial
Needs of Border XXI, which identifies EPA funding allocations for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and
the 1997 Presidential request. In the future, the agencies will attempt to estimate the resource
needs along the border as discussed in Appendix 4. The two countries agreed to first attempt to
determine the resource estimates for water infrastructure by the Water Workgroup. As this
Workgroup gains experience, the other Workgroups will then be able to learn from the Water
Workgroup's experience.
Without more aggressive financing mechanisms the Draft Framework Document may be
unattainable. The following recommendations should be considered: explore using multiagency
joint funding approaches and block grants; specify the use of revolving funds and expand the use
of private/public infrastructure partnerships involving both U.S. and Mexican firms; explore the
feasibility of multiyear federal budgeting for border programs; develop mechanisms to expedite
equipment donations and other in-kind assistance to Mexico.
June 1997 11-3
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
£° These suggestions are interesting. The Workgroups can explore these ideas during their
annual meetings.
Where mil funding to implement the Draft Framework Document come from? How can the
budget process be altered to accommodate long-range planning objectives? How much money is
being spent on BorderXXI? Has funding been committed to the projects in the Draft Framework
Document? What are the budgets for next year and for the remainder of the program? Who is
responsible for managing and allocating the funds? How are the funds to be allocated?
£D Federal funding for implementation of all elements of the Final Framework Document is based
on annual appropriations by the U.S. Congress and Mexico's Ministry of Finance. Because of
fundamental operating procedures, it is important for both governments to coordinate, to the
extent possible, their resource requests to the U.S. Congress and Mexican Ministry of Finance and
report back with clear measures of success. The budget is on an annual appropriation basis;
however, the agencies working on Border XXI will use their budgets with short- and long-range
planning in mind.
There are strong reservations about the Border XXI program including paying for cleaning
up another country's environmental problems instead of reducing the national debt.
£n Although the Workgroups appreciate the sincerity of these concerns, both countries have
established policies to implement the La Paz Agreements and the side agreements to NAFTA
which created the BFX!C and the NADBank. Border XXI has been negotiated with Mexico under
the authority of these agreements.
The Draft Framework Document should discuss funding more specifically. Also, because EPA
and its Mexican counterparts operate under annual budgets, how can Border XXI plan for funding
five years in advance?
&° Appendix 4 of the Final Framework Document discusses funding in much more detail than the
Draft Framework Document did. Because of the number of agencies involved in Border XXI and
because budgets and funding for the border in individual agency budgets are not always designated
as border funding, it is difficult to identify all funding from all agencies that are involved in
Border XXI. However, the majority of the funding and the sources for FY96 have been
identified.
11-4 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
The comment source correctly notes that neither EPA nor Mexico knows the amount of funding
available for border projects for the full five years of Border XXI. The federal governments only
know, for certain, the funding available for the current fiscal year. This is a constraint that
neither EPA nor Secretaria de Medio Ambiente Recursos Naturales y Pesca (Mexico's Secretary
for the Environment, Natural Resources, and Fisheries) (SEMARNAP) can change because it is
part of the larger funding process that both federal governments follow. Both EPA and
SEMARNAP as well as other agencies involved in Border XXI will do their best to identify
projects on a timely basis, and then allocate funding accordingly, based on the objectives identified
in the Final Framework Document.
EPA is urged to seek full funding for the activities that will meet the objectives of the Border
XXI Program.
&& Each year the nine Border XXI Workgroups will develop Implementation Plans. These
Border XXI Annual Implementation Plans will identify federal funding levels for a given year and,
based upon available funds, describe specific projects that will advance the long-term objectives
contained in the Final Border XXI Framework Document. The development of these Annual
Implementation Plans will ensure correlation of short-term budget realities with the long-term
planning required to fulfill the Border XXI objectives. Accordingly, it must be emphasized that
project implementation is contingent upon the availability of resources which are appropriated
from the U.S. Congress and Mexico's Ministry of Finance and made available to EPA and
SEMARNAP, respectively.
"Support" does not always mean "grant funding. " Even though funding can be helpful, all
agencies, whether or not they have grant funding, should be encouraged to participate to
demonstrate support through policy and communication. Such policies can often provide all the
support that is needed to allow local partners to accomplish goals.
£n The comment source raises an important point that "support" does not necessarily mean
"grant funding" during the implementation of the Border XXI Program. The Border XXI
Program represents an important milestone in the long history of cooperation among numerous
environmental, health, and natural resources agencies in the U.S. and Mexico. Meeting the
challenge of translating long-term goals into tangible environmental improvements will require
monetary and/or nonmonetary support. Nonmonetary support could include training, capacity
building, guidance, facilitation, consensus building, or something as simple as providing a forum
for dialogue.
In order to capitalize NADBank, both the U.S. and Mexico should approve tax-free long-term
private investment accounts. These funds would be to finance only revenue-generating border
June 1997 11-5
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
environment-improvement infrastructure projects. Budget operation decentralization is necessary
to ensure that local authorities will commit to solving problems.
&n The issue of capitalization is more appropriately addressed by the NADBank. The
Workgroups agree with the comment about budget operation decentralization.
In Chapter IV, page IV. 3 of the Draft Framework Document, change the statement to read
"At this time, Comision Nadonal de Agua (Mexico's National Water Commission) (CNA) has
estimated resource requirements to meet Tijuana, Ensenada, Mexicali, and Tecate's present
infrastructure deficiencies as shown in Table 4.2."
^D The revisions to the Final Framework Document were made.
The Draft Framework Document does not provide accurate cost estimates. Also, the costs of
implementing the program are too high considering the U.S. national debt.
£% The Workgroups appreciate the comments. However, this type of response is beyond the
scope of Border XXI and our U.S.-Mexico program.
There is an important need for funding NGOs to participate in the Border XXI process (e.g.,
Workgroups) and projects.
^The Workgroups agree it is important to the success of the Program, that NGOs participate in
the Border XXI process. Border XXI has attempted to open up the process to all border residents
and organizations. Some funding has been provided through the Border XXI Grant Program to
help build institutional capacity of NGOs on the border. However, the Workgroups believe that
to fund all NGOs to participate in the Workgroups would be very costly (e.g., travel, salary, per
diem, etc.). NGOs and others in the border community are urged to provide input into the
Workgroups. Vehicles for this input include the Border Offices, the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board, the 800 line, contacting Workgroups directly either by mail, fax, phone,
or e-mail, and by participating in sub-regional Workgroups where they exist.
Despite the potential funding available from NADBank, the interest rates being offered are
too high for many communities. Air pollution abatement projects should be funded by NADBank.
11-6 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
&* Currently BECC is certifying projects for funding for water treatment, wastewater treatment
and solid waste landfills. These priorities are identified as such in the agreement creating the
BECC. The NADBank is exploring options for making infrastructure projects more affordable.
What has the U.S. obligated to Agenda 21 that emerged from the 1992 United Nations
Conference on the World Environment held in Brazil?
&& Agenda 21, a series of international environmental objectives which emerged from the United
Nations Conference on Environmental Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil,
provided the guiding principles for sustainable development on a global basis. Agenda 21
encourages citizens and governments at various levels to define specific programs that support
sustainable development, as it applies to their own community. In accordance with these
concepts, Border XXI promotes sustainable development in the border region which "meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs," as stated in the 1987 publication "Our Common Future" by The World Commission on
Environment and Development.
Funding levels dedicated towards the implementation of the Border XXI Program are decided each
year by the nine Border XXI Workgroups who will develop Border XXI Annual Implementation
Plans. These Border XXI Annual Implementation Plans will identify federal funding levels for
a given year and, based upon available funds, describe specific projects that will advance the long-
term objectives contained in the Final Border XXI Framework Document. The development of
these Annual Implementation Plans will ensure correlation of short-term budget realities with the
long-term planning required to fulfill the Border XXI objectives.
Is grant funding available through the Border XXI Program or EPA?
&n A U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Grants Program was established by EPA's Office of International
Activities which will further EPA's efforts toward implementing the Border XXI Program. This
grant opportunity was first established in 1995 with the issuance of 14 grants, and thanks to the
availability of funding in Fiscal Year 1997, was once again made available. A solicitation was
sent out in November 1996 announcing these grants with a deadline of January 13, 1997 for
submission of pre-proposals. EPA expects to award approximately 13 grants with a maximum
EPA funding of $40,000. Projects selected will emphasize application of community-based and
regional approaches to meeting goals of sustainable development, capacity building, and
coordination among key participants in addressing border environmental issues.
In addition to the U.S.-Mexico Border XXI Grants Program, EPA issues a large number of grants
which could help further the Border XXI goals in the U.S.-Mexico border region. Information
on these various grant programs is available on EPA's Internet homepage (http://www.epa.gov).
In addition, interested individuals or organizations may contact EPA's San Diego and El Paso
June 1997 11-7
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
Border Liaison Offices at (800) 334-0741 to speak to an EPA representative about grant
opportunities.
IMPLEMENTATION ISSUES
Sixteen sources provided comments on implementation of the Border XXI Program. Several are
concerned with how the Border XXI plan will be implemented, how agencies will be held
responsible for following through with activities outlined in the Final Framework Document, and
how projects will be coordinated. Some comment sources question the level of commitment that
has been made by Mexico and the U.S. Better integration of the past and ongoing projects with
the five-year objectives is needed. Priorities must be set and evaluation and measurement
activities must be implemented to determine the success or failure of the various projects.
There is a concern that the Draft Framework Document was just another plan, was not
building on the accomplishments of the previous plan, and that another plan would simply replace
the current one at the end of the five years targeted by the Border XXI Program. In addition, this
current plan is focused more on planning and information gathering, rather than project
implementation. There should be a better balance between these two aspects.
£% Effective implementation of the Border XXI objectives is a central goal of both governments.
How implementation will proceed has been described in two places: first, a general description
of the implementation process is given on pages 1.6-7 of the Final Framework Document, and
second, a separate publication has been issued with detailed descriptions of the 1996
implementation plans for all workgroups (EPA publication number 160-R-96-004). At the end of
the current five-year cycle the participants in Border XXI will reassess environmental conditions
in the border region in light of the outcome of all projects undertaken up to that point in time and
will then make a judgement on the best means of refining and carrying forward the objectives of
Border XXI into the next five-year cycle.
There is also a concern that the Border XXI plan established a framework for the
implementation of the goals and objectives. Is there a "Border Board" or a responsible binational
body responsible for overseeing the implementation of the Draft Framework Document? Do the
Workgroups have sole authority as to the coordination, implementation, and prioritization of the
border projects ?
&% The Border XXI Program defines a very clear framework for the implementation of its goals
and objectives. There are nine binational Workgroups which have identified five-year objectives.
Based on annual resource allocations, the Workgroups will design an annual Implementation Plan
which will move the workgroup forward in accomplishing its binationally agreed-upon objectives
11-8 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
and realizing the more general Border XXI Program themes. Together, the nine Implementation
Plans will move the larger Border XXI Program objectives forward. The Workgroup co-chairs
report to the National Coordinators (one for U.S. and one for Mexico). Ultimately the two
National Coordinators are responsible for ensuring the Program goals are being met. The
National Coordinators, as identified in the Final Framework Document and in the 1983 La Paz
agreement are the Assistant Administrator for International Activities of EPA and the International
Affairs Coordinator of SEMARNAP. Addresses and phone numbers for the National
Coordinators and their staff are included in Appendix 2.1 of the Final Framework Document.
Border XXI lacks any binding commitment by both countries. There is no mechanism to hold
any agency responsible for performing under the terms outlined in the Draft Framework
Document. There is no assurance this Draft Framework Document is enforceable. This allows
question of the commitment to this process by both countries.
How does Border XXI relate to existing border treaties and agreements and with Mexico and U. S.
law?
£$ The Final Framework Document, signed by Administrator Browner and Secretary Carabias,
is a binational commitment. The Draft Framework Document was signed and endorsed by the
EPA Administrator (Browner), two U.S. cabinet members (Babbitt, and Shalala) and two Mexican
cabinet members (Carabias, de la Fuente). The October 1996 Final Framework Document was
presented to the U.S. President by Browner, Babbitt, and Shalala, and was presented to the
President of Mexico by Carabias (see cover letters to the Final Framework Document). The
Border XXI Program builds upon existing agreements between the U.S. and Mexico. One of
these agreements is the La Paz Agreement which has provided the structure for EPA-SEMARNAP
bilateral efforts to date. A discussion of the La Paz Agreement and other important bilateral
environmental agreements is included in Appendix 1 of the Final Framework Document.
There is a need for better coordination among the many projects that are being implemented
or planned under the Border XXI Program. Better coordination would avoid duplication of
efforts, which is a waste of limited resources. In addition, there is a need for greater synergy
between the different themes and proposed projects.
£n The Border XXI effort itself is testimony to the desire of all participants for meaningful
coordination of environmental efforts on both sides of the border. In establishing the goals of
Border XXI every effort has been made to take into consideration the interests of as large and all-
encompassing a set of participants as possible. (See pages 1.4-5 of the Final Framework
Document for a description of who the principal federal Border XXI participants are.)
Additionally, in order to carry out the goals of Border XXI, a great deal of thought has gone into
the most effective means of bringing about full interagency cooperation and coordination. The
specific actions to be taken in promoting interagency coordination are described in detail on pages
June 1997 11-9
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
n.6-8 of the Final Framework Document and are reflected throughout the document in the Past
and Ongoing Projects sections.
Up to and beyond the year 2000, EPA, U.S. Department of Interior (DOI), U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), SEMARNAP, and Secretaria de Salud (Mexico's Secretary
of Health) (SSA) will coordinate Border XXI objectives and goals from a federal levels to ensure
effectiveness, transparency, and accountability. Similarly, the ten U.S. and Mexican states in the
border region will coordinate efforts on a state level.
The existing border environmental agreements including the La Paz Agreement, International
Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) Water Treaty, and the BECC-NADBank Agreement
are the basis for international cooperation. This is reinforced by both countries' presidential and
cabinet level support for the Border XXI Program. (See cover pages of the Draft and Oct 1996
Final Framework Documents.) More importantly, continued international cooperation is the fruit
of ongoing, healthy dialog between the two governments and cooperation and information
exchange on a wide array of projects. (See Compendium and 1996 Implementation Plans.)
There needs to be better integration of the "Past and Ongoing Projects " with the "Five-Year
Objectives " to clarify how the projects fidfill the objectives. Types of projects should be identified
for those objectives that currently don't have specific projects. What is the relationship between
the listed projects and meeting the five-year goals?
£n In the Final Framework Document, all nine workgroups included sections outlining their
specific five-year objectives. These objectives are directly related to the past and present projects
illustrated in the Final Framework Document. These nine Workgroups will meet individually as
necessary and will convene as a whole at least once a year to redefine priorities and review the
status of meeting their future objectives. The Workgroups are responsible for annually updating
their objectives in the Annual Implementation Plans and Biennial Progress Reports. These plans
will ensure correlation of short-term budget realities with the long-term planning required to fulfill
the Border XXI objectives. (See section 1.6)
The "past and ongoing" projects listed in the Final Framework Document are efforts based on the
previous plan, the Integrated Border Environmental Plan (IBEP). The five-year Border XXI
objectives are based in part on the experienced gained in trying to implement the IBEP objectives
through completion of the "past and ongoing" projects. Because of this continuity, the past and
ongoing projects are efforts with objectives very much in agreement with those in the Border XXI
Framework. These past and ongoing projects provide the foundation for attaining the Border XXI
Program five-year objectives.
More specific goals and objectives are necessary. Clear goal statements referring to the
restoration and protection of the environment and all associated biological resources. The Draft
11-10 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
Framework Document should more directly address the economic, social, and ecological
principles that will be utilized by the proposed strategy.
fa In the Final Framework Document, we attempted to address these concerns by including more
specific goals and objectives and discussing the economic, social, and ecological principles which
are the foundation of the program and are within the authority of the Border XXI partners.
Each objective should be followed by specific projects and initiatives needed to meet the
objective. This should be accompanied by estimated budgets and the federal and state agencies
involved.
The Draft Framework Document should be a more forward-looking document with specific
information on projected conditions and necessary funding and projects to meet the plan's
objectives. Currently, the Draft Framework Document gives a description of the border area,
current conditions, and past and ongoing projects.
&n Budget estimates from state agencies and the DOI were not offered for inclusion in the Final
Framework Document. However, EPA's U.S.-Mexico Program budget can be located in
Appendix 4, Meeting the Financial Needs of Border XXI, which identifies EPA funding
allocations for fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997 (Presidential request).
The success of Border XXI will depend, to a large degree, on active regional participation on the
discussions of specific regional issues, problems, and solutions. Mechanisms are in place to
strengthen this regional participation, but ultimately the role of the local communities cannot and
should not be focused solely by federal agencies.
Objectives are very broad and provide no indication of the outcomes that are expected at the
end of five years. EPA and SEMARNAP should review the format used by the World Health
Organization and the HHSfor their "Heathy People 2000" objectives.
£n The development of "environmental indicators" will be an important part of the
implementation of Border XXI. "...National Coordinators will lead a Strategic Planning and
Evaluation Team to review the long-term Border XXI objectives, develop indices to measure
progress toward meeting those objectives, and report on performance to both those respective U.S.
and Mexican entities responsible for annual budget allocations, and the general public...." See
Final Framework Document, page 1.6. The Environmental Health Workgroup will contribute to
the development of these environmental indicators by considering a variety of data, studies and
analysis, including sources such as the "Healthy People 2000" report mentioned by this comment
source.
June 1997 11-11
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
The need for setting priorities is echoed by several comment sources. Not setting priorities
will be fatal to the intent of the Border XXI Program. Priority setting is the first logical step in
deciding where to put the greatest effort. Why hasn 't a process been identified to set annual
priorities? Who mil set the priorities? When will one be established and will the public have an
opportunity to comment? It would greatly help if the Draft Framework Document clarified what
are the greatest environmental needs determined by each Workgroup, the specific actions that
would address these needs, and planned time tables for implementation the actions.
&n The Workgroups, working together with state and local stakeholders and utilizing the input
received from the public, will set the priorities. The annual implementation plans are the process
for establishing annual priorities. The public is welcome and encouraged to provide ongoing
comments to the National Coordinators, Workgroup Co-chairs, and Border Offices on these
annual priorities. However, the biennial progress reports and public meetings are discrete
opportunities for both governments and the public to assess progress and re-define priorities as
necessary.
All nine Workgroups included sections outlining their specific priority five-year objectives. These
objectives include priorities within program areas, temporally, and in certain cases by geographic
region. However, Workgroups chose not to explicitly prioritize the objectives in the Final
Framework Document so as to not get locked into a commitment which may be logistically,
financially, or politically infeasible in the future. This prioritization will occur annually through
the development of the Implementation Plans. Chapters IV- VIE all have a more specific regional
focus which include a more inherent prioritization than the Draft Framework Document. Since
the draft, the nine Workgroups have made a more specific recommendations many of which stem
from public comments.
Timetables for action are included for all of the projects listed in the 1996 Implementation Plans
and further information on the timing of specific projects can be obtained by the project officer
or manager listed as a contact. Specific action that would address needs and planned timetables
can be obtained via these contacts.
^ Develop sustainable development criteria to be used by agencies and Workgroups to evaluate
proposed programs and projects and to measure their progress.
£o The Border XXI Program goal of sustainable development in the border region is reflected
throughout the structure of the Program and throughout the actual projects funded as part of the
Program. The National Coordinators and each of the Workgroups are committed to furthering
the Program goal by using the concepts of sustainable development in prioritizing, designing, and
implementing Border XXI Projects. This commitment should be evident in the 1996 Annual
Implementation Plans and future implementation plans which will be available for review by the
U.S. Good Neighbor Environmental Board, Mexico's Advisory Council for Sustainable
Development (Region 1), and the general public.
11-12 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
Priorities can be determined in several ways: within program areas (air, water, pollution
prevention); temporally (short-term, mid-term, long-term); by geographical area; or the most
difficult way, overall.
&& All nine Workgroups included sections outlining their specific priority-setting five-year
objectives. These objectives include priorities within program areas, temporally, and in certain
cases by geographic region. However, Workgroups chose not to explicitly list a determination
of priorities so as to not get locked into a commitment which may be logistically, financially, or
politically infeasible in the future. Chapters IV-VET all have a more specific regional focus which
include a more inherent prioritization than the Draft Framework Document. Since the draft, the
nine Workgroups have made more specific recommendations, many of which stem from public
comments.
Specificity and prioritization are lacking in the Draft Framework Document. Every problem
that is identified in the "Environmental Issues and Problems " sections should be addressed and
prioritized in the objectives sections with methods for reducing or alleviating that problem.
Presenting real solutions for real communities will greatly enhance the usefulness of the Draft
Framework Document.
groups to achieve consensus in public meetings was necessary since the problems
along the border are so vast and numerous. The U.S. and Mexico are committed to meeting the
goals of institutional strengthening and decentralization of environmental management. In the
future, there will be annual binational Border XXI meetings of policy makers from all border
states and tribes charged with environmental protection, health, and natural resource concerns.
The purpose of these meetings is to facilitate state and tribal input into the Border XXI Program
and discuss state and tribal concerns regarding Border XXI implementation.
If every problem identified in "Environmental Issues and Problems" were addressed in the
"Objectives for the Next Five Years" section, there would be no possibility to prioritize for the
future. These objectives remain broad so as to leave opportunities for definition and development.
The problems identified in these sections were broken out into the relevant media specific
categories, and needs for improvement are also included here. Solutions for communities can only
be made real through continued public involvement and state and local support of the objectives
in Border XXI. An important aspect of the Border program will be the effort during the next five
years to assess achievements and obstacles to progress in addressing environmental issues along
the border. To aid in the process of developing environmental indicators, a Border Environmental
Indicators Report should be published in late 1997 or early 1998.
There is great diversity of the border region in terms of natural systems, and human
settlements and systems. To develop specific priorities that all will agree on is probably
June 1997 11-13
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
impossible. However, it would be helpful if the Draft Framework Document would enunciate more
clearly the specifics of sustainable development and how equity in addressing specific concerns
and distributing scarce financial resources among the many objectives and priorities of the border
region will be achieved. For example, if a key guiding principle were improvement of human
health, most resources would have to be concentrated in the large urbanized areas of the border
where the cost of per capita improvements in environmental health are significantly less than in
smaller border communities. However, this is not equitable for the smaller communities.
&s Because the environmental and health issues considered by Border XXI are complex and
multidimensional, the means of dealing with these issues will necessarily be equally complex. The
frequent listing of "objectives" throughout the Final Framework Document provides a good
picture of this complexity and a reasonable outline of some of the measures that will be undertaken
by the Workgroups to address environmental problems in the border region. The selection and
enumeration of these objectives did serve in a sense as a means of setting priorities for the
Workgroups in that the selection of objectives focused the attention of the Workgroups on those
matters that they felt should be addressed over the next five years. Beyond this selection of five-
year objectives, the Workgroups did not feel that they could set strict or inflexible priorities
among the many objectives themselves, and have tended to view all of the matters discussed in
the objectives as important and deserving of attention. See Final Framework Document,
pages 1.6-7.
The Draft Framework Document should also assess the validity and significance of each of the
issues and problems identified, and eliminate those that are determined to be invalid. Valid issues
should then be evaluated for significance and impact. Issues with low significance or minor
impact may not merit action and probably should be assigned a low priority.
&n If a new project will not meet the goals and objectives of Border XXI, then the project
probably should not be included in the Annual Implementation Plans. It is the responsibility of
the Workgroup Co-chairs to ensure all new projects meet the objectives of Border XXI.
Regarding past or ongoing projects which may not be meeting the objectives of Border XXI, it
is up to the discretion of the Workgroup Co-chairs to decide whether the project is a priority and
has value to the Program.
How will project effectiveness be measured? There is no frank evaluation of whether current
or recently completed projects/activities have really improved the environment or resulted in
tangible public health protection. Which approaches have been successful and which ones have
not? Who will determine if the Program's objectives are met? What type of feedback mechanisms
have been established? How will this feedback be applied to shifting the direction of the
Program's objectives?
11-14 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
An important aspect will be the effort during the next five years to assess achievements and
obstacles to progress in addressing environmental issues along the border. To aid in the process
of developing environmental indicators a Border Environmental Indicators Report should be
published in late 1997 or early 1998. Tangible public health protection is one of the most
challenging indicators to identify. However, a concerted effort was made in the Final Framework
Document to provide a list of activities and projects to date allowing them to be evaluated. Future
objectives were decided upon by the Health Workgroup, based upon discussion of how best to
meet needs while learning from past experiences and project success and failure rates. "In-depth
discussion of binational, geographic-specific five-year objectives has only commenced in earnest
with the issuance of the Final Framework Document." (page IV. 16) "Efforts to address these
issues are complicated by the absence of adequate environmental monitoring and health
surveillance mechanisms to document the extent of these problems, lack of available health
services in the community, the insufficient environmental training and education within the health
and medical professions, as well as the general community, to anticipate, recognize, understand,
and address these conditions." (page HI.21)
An evaluation of existing projects should be done that lists the successes and failures, both
national and binational. Have these projects provided improvement to the environment or resulted
in tangible public health and natural resource protection? Future objectives, criteria, activities,
and outcomes should be clearly defined and driven by the goals of sustainable development.
Another suggestion for evaluating the projects is to have a binational conference to review and
evaluate the status of the plan, implementation, and the objectives outlined in the Draft
Framework Document. The first conference should be within two years with subsequent
conferences every five years.
In addition, funding should be dedicated for an external evaluation of the Draft Framework
Document objectives and work program outcomes every two years.
&D Every year as the Implementation Plans are developed, the Workgroups go through the
exercise of evaluating success or failure of projects and progress made in achieving the objectives.
After five years, the two governments will assess progress made in meeting the five year
objectives. However the true test of success will be border communities evaluating whether their
environment and quality of life have improved.
There are many feedback loops: 1) the Biennial Progress Reports and public meetings; 2) ongoing
communication with regional subgroups (some Workgroups are still defining and developing these
subgroups); 3) the Border Program homepage (border.team@epamail.epa.gov); 4) public is
welcome and encouraged to provide comments at anytime to the National Coordinators,
Workgroup Co-chairs, and Border Offices on these annual priorities; to facilitate this
communication, Appendix 2 of the Final Framework Document includes names, addresses, and
phone numbers whom the public are encouraged to contact.
June 1997 H-15
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
Access to information necessary for meaningful input and successful feedback; the program
provides for this access to information through the annual implementation plans, the Border
Offices, the Border XXI homepage (http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/), public documents like
the Compendium, and SEMARNAP environmental information centers. For more information
on Border XXI efforts to improve access to information see page H.2-3.
On page 1.1, the two governments recognize that "a significant element of Border XXI will be the
development of an agreed upon set environmental indicators or measures of success that track
progress toward achieving the long-term goals." In the Implementation section of the Final
Framework Document (page 1.6), the two National Coordinators commit to forming a Strategic
Planning and Evaluation Team to review the long-term objectives, develop indices to measure
progress toward meeting these objectives, and report on performance to both governments and the
general public. In forming this team, the National Coordinators acknowledge the importance of
measuring and reporting progress on achieving the stated goal of the Program, fostering
sustainable development in the border region. Diagram 1, 'Strategic Planning for Border XXI'
on page 1.8 attempts to layout the process for Program planning, implementation, and evaluation
and public involvement in this strategic planing process, and reporting of progress.
In addition, the implementation of the Program is evaluated on at least four other levels: as part
of ongoing project management, as part of the development of the Final Framework Document,
during the design of the annual implementation plans, and in the biennial Progress Reports.
Wherever EPA funds are being invested in the border, there is a project manager, which tracks
progress toward attaining the goals of the project; information on the purpose, objectives, and
status of these projects is compiled in the 1996 Compendium of EPA Binational and Domestic
U.S.-Mexico Activities and the 1996 Implementation Plan (http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder/).
On a broader level, the Border XXI Workgroups evaluate progress on each of their projects, when
defining the Annual Implementation Plans; only by understanding progress to date can they make
decisions on future projects. (Summaries of such information are available through the meeting
summaries of past Workgroup and National Coordinators' meetings) In the development of
Border XXI, the first step in the process was analyzing ongoing activities and then, based on the
successes and failures of this work, identify the priority borderwide and regional objectives. This
was done through discussions with all the federal, state, and local stakeholders. Finally, every
two years the governments will produce Border XXI Progress reports which will assess work done
to date and progress made in achieving the long-term Border XXI goals.
Biennial reporting is worthwhile, since it can serve as a mid-range assessment of goals
achieved under the plan. Biennial reports offered to the public are not sufficient mechanism to
properly assess the progress of the multitude of projects.
£B On page n.2 of the Final Framework Document, the two governments commit to developing
Biennial Progress Reports to evaluate progress made in attaining the goals and objectives identified
in the Final Framework document. These Progress Reports will be available to the public for their
review and comment. In conjunction with the biennial reports, the two governments will hold
11-16 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
public forums along the border every two years. The input received from the public will be
compiled and summarized in a biennial summary of public comments.
The Biennial Progress Reports are discrete opportunities for both governments, states, and
interested members of the public to review progress and program effectiveness. However it is
important to realize that anyone who is interested can always provide Program input by directly
contacting the National Coordinators, Workgroup Co-chairs, Workgroup staff, or project
managers. Information on how to contact these people is included in Appendix 2 of the Final
Framework Document. Also, the El Paso and San Diego Border Offices are permanent resources
in the border area for accessing Program information and they are also vehicles for providing
Program input to EPA management.
Instead of using scarce resources to fund an external evaluation of Final Framework Document
objectives and outcomes, the two governments look to the U.S. Good Neighbor Environmental
Board, Mexico's Advisory Council for Sustainable Development (Region 1), state and local
agencies, and general public to assist us in evaluating the Program objectives
Tecate is not mentioned in the Draft Framework Document or shown on the map. The
community is concerned that their needs are not being considered as a border community. It is
also suggested that the region be further subdivided into Potrero-Tecate and San Diego-Tijuana.
Each of these areas has a different set of problems. It is unrealistic to treat California-Baja
California as a homogeneous region.
£n Tecate is located on the Califomia-Baja Region map (page IV.b) and is mentioned in the first
paragraph of the California-Baja California Chapter IV and on pages IV. 1, IV.4, IV.9, IV. 16.
Recognizing that the border is diverse, the Final Framework Document subdivided the 2,000-mile
border region into five regions, based mostly on the state boundaries that meet at the border.
(One of the regions is California-Baja California). However, within each of these five regions,
there is still a great deal of diversity such as in the California-Baja California region. Chapter IV
which discusses the California-Baja California region attempts to capture that diversity and address
issues in each of the smaller subregions, such as the Tecate-Portrero area. For Border XXI
planning purposes we don't believe that dividing the regions into still smaller regions would
identify different projects or objectives.
INTEGRATION OF RESEARCH EFFORTS AND ACADEMIA
Six sources commented on the fact that the Draft Framework Document does not address non-EPA
projects. In addition, one source would like to be kept informed of Border XXI Program activities
in order to identify potential internship opportunities for college students.
June 1997 11-17
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
The Draft Framework Document does not mention the substantial efforts of the Southwest
Center for Environmental Research and Policy (SCERP), particularly surprising since SCERP is
EPA-Junded. The Final Framework Document needs to address this concern.
&$ The Final Framework Document added Appendix 6 which describes the cooperative agreement
between the EPA and the SCERP. Because of the numerous projects that SCERP is currently
involved in, it was decided not to include each one in the tables in the document, but rather give
a description of the agreement between EPA and SCERP and to inform the reader where a full
description of SCERP projects can be found.
The Draft Framework Document does not address many non-EPA projects including those
sponsored by SEMARNAP, IBEP, Inter-American Development Bank (IADB), the World Bank and
other U.S. and Mexican federal, state and municipal organizations.
&% The Final Framework Document includes much more information on SEMARNAP's past and
ongoing projects than the previous draft. Regarding plans for the future, the five-year objectives
and the projects discussed in the annual implementation plans are the efforts that EPA, DOI, and
SEMARNAP plan for the future.
Page III.3 of the Final Framework Document recognizes that the project lists are not
comprehensive inventories but a sample of projects to be used as a foundation for future projects.
One of the many positive outcomes of the Border XXI development process was that the
Workgroups became aware of a vast array of important and relevant projects conducted by states,
border communities, and academic institutions. If all the border environmental projects being
conducted by all these institutions were listed in the Final Framework Document, the two
governments believe that the plan would be dominated by the lists of projects and that the
information on these projects would have to be distilled to such a simplistic level that their value
would be lost.
Many of the Border XXI Workgroup efforts are coordinated with or are complimentary of the
World Bank and IADB efforts. In the Final Framework Document, see Appendix 4 for a
discussion on the World Bank program in the Mexican border area; Appendix 5 discusses
Mexico's decentralization program which is closely connected to the World Bank program.
Establish long-term permanent environmental monitoring systems instead of limited studies to
obtain environmental data.
is some long-term monitoring on the border that is required by state and federal law.
For example, air quality monitoring and water quality monitoring are required in the United
States. However, this monitoring is not required in all cases or for all media. In general,
permanent environmental monitoring is generally preferable to short-term monitoring. However,
11-18 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
the limited resources available to EPA, SEMARNAP, state, and local governments, dictate that
additional monitoring, over and above required monitoring, be directed and short-term. Only by
doing short-term monitoring in some areas can the federal, state, and local governments then move
to other areas to perform short-term monitoring there. Thus, limited resources make it impossible
to do long-term monitoring everywhere on the border.
The Arizona Western College, Yuma, would like to be kept informed of Border XXI activities
in its area so that the college can identify internship opportunities for its environmental science
and biology students.
is comment is appreciated.
In Chapter III, four Transboundary Resource Inventory Project (TRIP) pilot projects are not
mentioned as "pilots "for borderwide Geographical Information Systems (GIS) and TRIP is not
cited.
Framework Document lists TRIP as a partner in Table 3. 13, page ffl.41 for the three
projects TRIP cited. Unfortunately, TRIP was inadvertently not included as a partner for the
Tijuana River Watershed GIS Project. The Workgroups regret this oversight.
INTEGRATION OF WORKGROUPS
Eight sources provided comments with suggestions for expanding or creating new Workgroups.
For example, one comment source suggested creating a General Workgroup that would address
cross-cutting issues. Other sources provided suggestions on NGOs that should be added to existing
Workgroups.
A general, or holistic Workgroup should be formed that addresses cross-cutting issues and
solutions. This Workgroup should: create economic incentives for the preservation and
enhancement of protected areas through the establishment of eco-friendly businesses and targeted
tax breaks; establish sustainable practices for the use of natural resources including the
certification of environmentally safe products; identify areas of trade/investment/environment
conflict and proactively propose solutions; address population growth through poverty reduction
strategies and the integration of people in the monitoring schemes and development of sustainable
lifestyles; and promote the creation of self-supporting environmental projects with local community
involvement.
June 1997 11-19
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
£n The issue of a Workgroup being charged with a holistic vision of the border is currently the
responsibility of the National Coordinators of EPA and SEMARNAP. The National Coordinators
will rely on and coordinate with policy makers from DOI, HHS, and SSA. They will lead a
strategic planning and evaluation team to review the long-term Border XXI objectives, develop
indices to measure progress toward meeting these objectives, and report on performance to both
those respective U.S. and Mexican entities responsible for annual budget allocations, and the
general public. The Border XXI Program has a principle strategy to ensure interagency
cooperation so that Border XXI Workgroups know what each workgroup is undertaking, so that
overlap of functions is minimized and coordinated between the workgroups.
Workgroups should be broadened to include state and local government, community, private
sector, and university representatives. Subgroups should be formed.
&n Both governments through the implementation of the Border XXI program will encourage the
development of binational regional subgroups to the Border XXI Workgroups which would include
state and local decision makers to facilitate the participation of border communities in their
implementation of the Border XXI program. It is hoped that these regional subgroups will
facilitate public involvement to create a forum for participation of local governments, academic
institutions, NGOs, and the public sector in implementation of Border XXI at the regional level.
A person from the Advisory Council on Sustainable Development and the Good Neighbor
Environmental Board should be placed on each of the Workgroups as a highly visible public
ombudsperson. Their role would be to ensure that anyone who wishes to have access to or make
suggestions to a Workgroup could do so. This item could be listed under "future activities"
(page II. 5).
&D Both the U.S. and Mexican governments will engage the assistance of the Advisory Council
on Sustainable Development (Region 1) in Mexico and the Good Neighbor Environmental Board
in implementing the Border XXI Program; please see Section on Public Involvement in Chapter
n, pages n.l-H.3 of the Final Framework Document. Both governments look to these advisory
boards for advice and recommendations as to how to maximize the program's efficacy and for
assistance in expanding public involvement in the Border XXI Program. In addition, Appendix
1 of this report lists Workgroup contacts that the public can contact and have direct access to the
Workgroup.
Create a BorderXXI Workgroup on the Gulf of Mexico and transboundary coastal ecosystems
and charge it with developing a set of future objectives for subsequent inclusion in this Plan.
11-20 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
£D In Chapter HI on pages HL5-III.6 of the Final Framework Document, there is discussion by
the Natural Resources Workgroup of Marine and Aquatic Resources which includes the Gulf of
Mexico. In addition, EPA Region 4 has a Gulf of Mexico Program Office that can be reached
at (601) 688-3726. The public is encouraged to raise issues of importance such as transboundary
coastal ecosystems which concern the Gulf of Mexico to the Natural Resources Workgroup
through the identified contacts listed in Appendix 1 of this report.
Publicize Workgroup purpose and roles, membership, contact information and meeting dates.
£° On page 1.4 of the Final Framework Document, the Border XXI Workgroups are described.
In Appendix 2 of the Final Framework Document and Appendix 1 of this report, there is a
directory listing of contacts for each of the Border XXI Workgroups with each Co-chair and a
contact identified for each workgroup.
All of the Workgroups are committed to actively encouraging state participation in their
endeavors, and state contacts are engaged in the Border XXI process. The Workgroups will
explore the development of subgroups or other mechanisms to facilitate the participation of border
communities in their implementation of the Border XXI Program.
The nine Workgroups will meet individually as necessary and will convene as a whole at least
once a year.
The National Coordinators of both EPA and SEMARNAP will guide the Border XXI workgroups
and the Co-chairs for each workgroup in their efforts to implement the program. The National
Coordinators will rely on and coordinate with policy makers from DOI, HHS, and SSA. In
addition, the workgroups have a long-standing history of binational cooperation.
INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
Four sources expressed the importance of interagency coordination. One source suggested that
laws and regulations need to be modified to ensure interagency coordination, by having all
personnel from federal and state agencies supporting the border efforts work under the supervisor
of the border city.
Expand the discussion of intergovernmental relationships with emphasis on their roles in
fulfilling the goals of the Border XXI Program.
£n in Chapter 2, on pages H.6-II.8 under the heading of Interagency Cooperation and
Coordination in the Final Framework Document, there is an expanded discussion of the
June 1997 11-21
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
intergovernmental relationships with an emphasis on their roles in the development and
implementation of the Border XXI Program. This coordination will create new mechanisms for
problem-solving and will support the effective use of available resources as federal, state, and
local governments and their respective agencies work toward the goal of sustainable development
in the border region.
Coordinating with a broad group of U. S. federal and other governmental and financial
institutions on Border XXI is important. These agencies and organizations include the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Rural Development program, the U.S. Department of Commerce's
Economic Development Administration, the U.S. Department of Housing and Community
Development's CDBG program, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Bureau of Reclamation,
the U.S. Treasury Department (which represents the U.S. on the governing boards of international
lending institutions, including the World Bank and the Latin American Development Bank), the
National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Coast Guard; and the President's Council on
Environmental Quality. These agencies are important because of the information, expertise, and
funding they may be able to provide and their jurisdiction over issues affecting the border.
£n The Final Framework Document identifies the key federal agencies involved in developing and
implementing Border XXI in Chapter I, pages 1.4-1.5. There is also mention of other important
federal participants in the Border XXI Program, such as the U.S. Department of State (DOS),
U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), etc. The Workgroups
recognize that there are also other federal entities which are doing important work along the
border, such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture's rural development programs. The Border
XXI Program encourages active participation from other federal agencies.
The only practical way to ensure interagency coordination is to modify laws and regulations
to require that all personnel from federal and state agencies engaged on border environmental
tasks work under the supervision of border city authorities and that they live with their families
in border communities. Otherwise, loyalty and commitment is with a distant authority not affected
by the problems within the communities.
&% EPA and SEMARNAP have worked hard to ensure that interagency cooperation is one of
three strategies built into the Border XXI Program that will advance the goal of sustainable
development in the border region. Neither EPA or SEMARNAP agree that there is a need to
modify laws and regulations to make it mandatory that all personnel from federal and state
agencies working on border environmental tasks be under direct orders and supervision from
border city authorities, and that they live with their families in the border communities. A better
approach is the decentralization of environmental decision-making from federal to state and local
institutions, a principal strategy in implementing the Border XXI Program. This will help build
up necessary relationships in the border region.
11-22 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Twenty-two sources encourage the involvement of NGOs, academic specialists, community
representatives and other local individuals in the Workgroups. Other comment sources express
the importance of public involvement and applaud EPA's efforts in public outreach activities on
the Draft Framework Document.
While there has been considerable involvement in the Draft Framework Document through the
public meetings, participation from NGOs, academic specialists, the business community, and
medical and health care professionals was largely absent. Because the Workgroups will be key
to identifying priorities, they should involve a few technically competent individuals from non-
governmental border institutions. This would help to involve these interests more adequately. The
U.S-Mexico Border XXI Program needs to specify in the Framework Document local governments'
role in implementation and how decentralization and local capacity building will be accomplished.
The principle of capacity building and nurturing collaborative relationships with border
institutions and companies for all environmentally related contract work in the Border area should
be included in the Workgroup's mission. In general, meaningful local participation and
involvement in solving border environmental issues is essential in order to accomplish the goals
of the Framework Document.
&% The challenge to incorporate the perspectives of academia, NGOs, local communities and
governmental agencies into the Workgroups will be difficult. Border XXI has nine workgroups,
the Program is divided into five regions, and each region has many different local governmental
agencies, academicians, and NGOs. This can translate into hundreds of additional representatives
to a Workgroup, many of whom are likely to be focused on local issues, while the broad
objectives of the entire Workgroup are focused borderwide.
Additionally, many local communities do not have the resources to have representatives on all nine
Workgroups or not all Workgroup goals may apply to every locality.
To accommodate the diverse local interests, and yet at the same time maintain a balanced
workload, Border XXI encourages the Workgroups to explore the development of subgroups or
other mechanisms to facilitate the participation of border communities in their implementation of
the Program. It is hoped that these regional subgroups will facilitate public involvement to create
a forum for participation of local governments, academic institutions, nongovernmental
organizations, and the public in implementation of Border XXI at the regional level.
The Workgroups agree that the Draft Framework Document did not provide enough detail about
the steps needed for decentralization and capacity building. Consequently, Chapter H of the Final
Framework Document presents a more detailed description of the U.S. and Mexico's vision of
decentralization and capacity building (pages H.3-II.6). In particular, the Final Framework
Document lists seven major activities that the two governments have agreed to, ranging from state
and local government participation in subgroups to provide access to federal research which
June 1997 11-23
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
supports state and local environmental decision-making. The Workgroups agree that community
participation in the Border XXI process should be increased and welcomes assistance.
It is common that both Mexico and the United States collaborate with local institutions for
environmentally related work. A good example of such a practice is the use of the SCERP which
is comprised of universities located in the border states to do research. Another example is the
first round of Border XXI grants which were issued in 1995 to fourteen border institutions to assist
in capacity building and local decision-making. However, where it is deemed appropriate and
desirable, both federal and state governments contract also with institutions that may not be
located in the border region. Sometimes the expertise is not available in the border region, other
times there may be contract restrictions or other regulations that prohibit the government from
considering only firms located on the border.
The central strategy of Border XXI (page 1-1) requires respect of local culture and
understanding of regional socioeconomic constraints above all other considerations. Micro-
management by non-border entities and subordination of the interested border communities to
centralized procedures are the first two obstacles that need to be removed in order to translate the
Draft Framework Document strategy from intention to results.
Border XXI attempts to respect local culture and understanding of regional or socioeconomic
constraints by trying to enlist as much local input as possible into the Final Framework Document.
Many outreach meetings were held in the border region during the formulation of Border XXI,
including three binational meetings. In addition, both federal governments encouraged the
submission of written comments on the Draft Framework Document. And we urge border
residents to continue to give feedback as Border XXI is implemented.
The comment source applauds Border XXI's efforts to collect public comment in the
communities of the border region which is an essential component in developing strategies to
improve human health and the environment along the border. Community involvement is critical
to this process and even more community participation should be encouraged, particularly in the
Workgroups.
&n The Workgroups appreciate the comment.
Consult with local and state agencies, institutions, and organizations for specific regional
issues and problems.
£o Although the Border XXI program does not direct the Workgroups to consult with local
agencies or organizations, it emphasizes mechanisms for strengthening state and local government
11-24 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
and decentralizing environmental management. This will provide a process by which local
agencies or organizations will be knowledgeable about activities of the workgroups and be able
to have input into Workgroup decisions. In addition, the Framework Document directs the
Workgroups to explore the formation of binational subgroups or other mechanisms that will
provide the Workgroups with regional perspectives. Finally, the Final Framework Document
provides a list of Workgroups Co-chairs and staff contacts in Appendix 2 to facilitate
communications between local agencies and organizations and the Workgroups.
The Seal Diego Association of Governments encourages the EPA to restructure the Workgroups
on a geographical basis rather than based on subject areas (e.g., air quality). This would allow
stakeholders to develop better relationships with Workgroup members and provide more detailed
input to these individuals. EPA has identified local coordination and public participation as a
crucial element in the development and implementation of the Program. To compliment this effort,
the San Diego-Tijuana region (and all subregions) could establish a forum for identifying local
problems and recommending potential solutions.
&x There are nine Border XXI Workgroups that are structured around their function: water, air,
hazardous and solid waste, enforcement, contingency planning and emergency response, natural
resources, environmental health, environmental information resources, pollution prevention, and
cooperative enforcement and compliance. These are borderwide Workgroups. Six of them were
established under the La Paz agreements signed by the United States and Mexico in 1983.
We believe that a more practical approach is to have borderwide Workgroups, by function, and
encourage support from the local level, rather than geographic Workgroups responsible for all
nine Workgroup functions. The Final Framework Document has a listing of all Workgroup Co-
chairs and Workgroup staff in Appendix 2 and we encourage the public to contact these
Workgroup members to provide input about local issues.
Property owners along with all levels of government, small towns to large cities, must be
brought into the process. A good management plan (environmental or otherwise) must be
something that is good and beneficial for everyone, not just a chosen few.
Border XXI is not intended to prohibit any person or organization from participating in its
development. The Workgroups have tried to include everyone in the border community in our
outreach efforts.
The Final Framework Document should clearly specify how smaller communities will have
their needs met and should include concise action items that the individual communities can apply
to their own needs.
June 1997 11-25
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
&> The Final Framework Document provides information on how local communities can
participate in Border XXI and be aware of opportunities that might exist to help them meet their
needs. Appendix 2 lists a number of important contacts in Mexico and the United States that
communities can contact. The BECC has instituted the PDAP program which assists communities
in looking at opportunities for wastewater treatment, solid waste landfills, and water treatment.
EPA's Border offices are available to provide information about federal environmental initiatives
on the border, and finally the Border XXI Workgroups are exploring mechanisms include local
governments in the Workgroup process.
Given the importance that the Draft Framework Document places in decentralization, it is
critical that the U.S. government continue to look for strategies to engage communities in a way
that helps to meet immediate and long term needs. Clearly, for efforts to be sustainable, there will
need to be strong involvement from local community groups, private voluntary organizations, and
others outside of government.
£$ Both the United States and Mexico recognize the importance of NGOs in border environmental
management. One way that EPA is supporting the institutional strengthening of NGOs is through
the Border XXI grant program which NGOs are eligible to apply for. There are also other
national grant opportunities that local NGOs are eligible to apply for such as Environmental
Justice Grants, and Environmental Education Grants. The experience that organizations gain by
carrying out these grants contributes to the institutional strengthening. In addition, we are
committed to providing information about border environmental management to the public,
including NGOs. Access to information is an important component of institutional strengthening.
Please add a short section in Institutional Strengthening and Decentralization (page II. 3) of
the Draft Framework Document indicating the importance of partnerships between federal
agencies and universities, NGOs, and the private sector in addressing a range of border
environmental problems. Also include a short discussion of how transborder cooperation of local
governments on environmental matters will be facilitated by Border XXI.
£n The Border XXI Program recognizes the importance of partnerships between federal agencies
and universities, NGOs, and the private sector in addressing a range of border environmental
problems. Both governments through the implementation of the Border XXI program will
encourage the development of binational regional subgroups to the Border XXI Workgroups which
would include state and local decision makers to facilitate the participation of border communities
in their implementation of the Border XXI program. It is hoped that these regional subgroups will
facilitate public involvement to create a forum for participation of local governments, academic
institutions, NGOs such as TRIP, and the public sector in implementation of Border XXI at the
regional level. Please see the Section on Public Involvement in Chapter n, pages n. l-n.3 of the
Final Framework Document for additional commentary.
11-26 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
Through the development of regional subgroups, the Border XXI Program anticipates better
transborder coordination and cooperation in addressing environmental matters in the U.S.-Mexico
border region.
There should be a clear emphasis on "ecoregions" over political subdivisions throughout the
document and in project planning. For example, the Yuma-San Luis area is the center of an
ecological region, the Colorado Desert subdivision of the Sonoran Desert, yet we sit on numerous
international, state, tribal, county, and municipal borders. The issues facing El Centro,
California and Imperial Valley have a lot more relevance to Yuma, Arizona than to San Diego,
California.
&% The Final Framework Document divides the border into five subregions based on political
(state) subdivisions: Califomia-Baja California, Arizona-Sonora, New Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua,
Texas-Coahuila-Nuevo Leon, and Texas-Tamaulipas. The border was divided into five regions
to be able to consider the unique environmental, political, and social characteristics of each
region. Political subdivisions were used, instead of ecoregions, because it that is the main
administrative units of the border (in addition to the federal government's). In addition, many of
the issues that are addressed in Border XXI do not necessarily line up by ecoregions. Examples
are enforcement, air quality, and hazardous waste. Although, perhaps, not a perfect approach on
addressing border environmental issues, political subdivisions provide a good way to divide the
border for the purposes of implementing Border XXI.
Freedom of information rights for the public should be developed.
&% The U.S. federal government must abide by the Freedom of Information Act, which gives the
public certain rights to information that the federal government possesses. Of course these rights
extend to U.S. citizens.
The comment source requests that a representative from the City of Imperial Beach be included
in a Border XXI Workgroup or regional subgroup. This will enable the city to participate in
providing solutions to the border issues identified in the program, and other issues that are not
currently addressed or that may be discovered as the process continues to evolve. In general,
establishing subgroups should be considered to extend the process to the local level where direct
impacts most frequently occur.
fa The challenge to incorporate the perspectives of academia, NGOs, and local governmental
agencies into the Workgroups will be difficult. Border XXI has nine Workgroups, the Program
is divided into five regions, and each region has many different local governmental agencies,
academicians, and NGOs. This can translate into hundreds of additional representatives to a
June 1997 11-27
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
Workgroup, many of whom are likely to be focused on local issues, while the broad objectives
of the entire Workgroup are focused borderwide.
Additionally, many local communities do not have the resources to have representatives on all nine
Workgroups or not all Workgroup goals may apply to every locality.
To accommodate the diverse local interests, and yet at the same time maintain a balanced
workload, Border XXI encourages the Workgroups to explore the development of subgroups or
other mechanisms to facilitate the participation of border communities in their implementation of
the Program. It is hoped that these regional subgroups will facilitate public involvement to create
a forum for participation of local governments, academic institutions, NGOs, and the public sector
in implementation of Border XXI at the regional level.
Page II. 6, Paragraph 4: Local activities should be discussed at the annual meetings along with
federal, tribal, and state activities.
£% Local activities will be discussed and taken into consideration at the annual meetings, for they
are of great importance to all the Workgroups.
The. Draft Framework Document does not recognize Naco, Arizona.
£s The Final Framework Document recognizes Naco, Arizona, correcting this oversight in the
draft.
The Otay Water District (OWD), located along the Border in San Diego County, is interested
in several projects and activities of the Border XXI Workgroups. These include the International
Treatment Plant, South Bay Treatment Plant, border infrastructure issues, and loan and grant
funding. The OWD is also interested in the potential for shared data (i.e., environmental, GIS)
as planning levels increase along the border. The OWD has provided domestic water to Mexico
in prior emergency situations.
&x The Workgroups appreciate the comment.
Improving the quality and capabilities of city managers and other municipal officials in small
border towns is important in order to effectively obtain Junding for and implement border projects.
11-28 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
£n The lack of professional municipal management does create problems. Future training efforts
should target municipal officials. State agencies will be instrumental in addressing this issue.
OUTREACH
Eighteen comment sources suggested additional outreach and enhanced communication activities,
such as separate English/Spanish 800 numbers, closed circuit television, exposing school children
to "clean" environment classes, and getting the local media involved in recognizing positive
achievements. Several comment sources expressed a need to extend the original comment period
on the Draft Framework Document due to slow distribution of the document, especially in
Mexico.
It is suggested that distinct Spanish and English 800 information lines be developed so the
caller can directly access the line desired without listening to both.
£n TO maximize the efficient use of limited dollar resources, EPA chose to have one 800 number
established which is a bilingual information line. Once a person is familiar with the functions of
the 800 line, they may pass over recorded information and listen to the new publication listings
or meeting announcements, or reach either the San Diego or El Paso EPA offices, without having
to listen to long recorded announcements. We have tried to make the information and instructions
concise for our listeners.
What types of information materials are being developed for public hearings, and in what
media are the materials available (e.g. newspaper, radio, television)? Are sufficient details
regarding the program included in the information materials provided to the various media?
£% EPA does a variety of activities to alert the public. These actions include a press release when
needed, in addition to asking local newspapers and radio stations to help us announce and
publicize our meetings. The EPA also places meeting announcements which the government is
required to pay for in local newspapers. The EPA also does direct mailings of meeting
announcements to people who are on our mailing list, and sends out electronic announcements
which are posted on electronic bulletin boards.
It is suggested that closed circuit televisions be used as a way to discuss long-term border
problems and solutions.
June 1997 11-29
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
£° The use of closed-circuit televisions to discuss border environmental issues is not under
consideration at this time due to the large investment in equipment and personnel with the
technical training to perform a function such as this. Our meetings are open to the public, and
EPA staff are available for discussion at any time.
More frequent communication is needed between local, state, and federal agencies.
£n Border XXI and the federal, state, tribal, and local participants associated with its
implementation are committed to more communication and coordination. This is a principal
strategy for the success of this program.
American organizations should contact and communicate with Mexican NGOs with regarding
environmental issues. Organizations from both sides of the border should brainstorm on
environmental issues and what can be done about them.
£n EPA encourages organizations concerned with environmental issues to communicate with each
other and open a dialogue on environmental issues of concern. There is nothing that would
prohibit this from occurring at the present time. Please note that both governments through the
implementation of the Border XXI Program will encourage the development of binational regional
subgroups to the Border XXI Workgroups which would include state and local decision-makers.
The Draft Framework Document does not sufficiently diffuse information regarding what is
being done in conjunction with Border XXI, and does not include information on specific projects
along the border.
The Camara Nacional de la Industria de Transformacion (Mexico's National Chamber of
Commerce of Industrial Transformation's) (CANACINTRA 's) Nuevo Laredo delegation office has
strong ties to the industrial sector, the production sector, and the local community. We would like
to continue monitoring the progress of these binational programs and serve as conduit to facilitate
the implementation of these programs. In addition, the CANACINTRA-Delegation of Nuevo
Laredo, would like to be considered as a potential host for any Border XXI events to be organized
in that city.
&x In June of 1995, EPA produced a document entitled Compendium of EPA Binational and
Domestic U.S.-Mexico Activities which represented a comprehensive inventory of ongoing U.S.-
Mexico projects receiving EPA funding and/or involving EPA participation. This document can
be obtained by contacting either the EPA San Diego or El Paso offices at (800) 334-0741. This
compendium of projects was not able to include a complete listing of projects from every
governmental, state, or local entity. The comment indicates that CANACINTRA's Nuevo Laredo
11-30 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
delegation office is an entity with strong ties to the industrial sector, and the Border XXI Program
would welcome their offer to provide information on the progress of these binational programs
to the pertinent Border XXI Workgroup. EPA appreciates the offer to be a potential host for a
Border XXI event should one be organized for Nuevo Laredo.
It is requested that the public comment period (currently from June 13, 1996 to July 29, 1996)
be extended to end on August 30, 1996. The stated 45-day public comment period was not
available to many reviewers. In Baja California the distribution of the document was very limited.
The comment period should be extended to allow a full 45 days. Public meeting opportunities in
California and Baja California were very limited considering that 44 percent of the entire border
population live in these two states. There was no California-Baja California meeting following
the release of the Border XXI document.
The Draft Framework Document review period should extended from 45 days to 90 days based on
the fact that Mexican environmental groups do not have the same access to information as do U.S.
environmental groups, nor do Mexican groups have the same rights.
£v The 45-day public comment period was binationally agreed upon between the U.S. and
Mexico governments, and the U.S. government did not have the ability to unilaterally extend the
public comment period beyond the date of July 29, 1996. Mexico had their own internal reasons
for only wanting a 45-day public comment period.
EPA is sensitive to the fact that many Mexican environmental groups were not able to access
information as easily as U.S. entities.
Extend the comment period to be open-ended throughout the implementation of Border XXI,
and make available to the public an annual summary of all comments.
&B The issue of an open-ended comment period throughout the implementation of Border XXI
Program was addressed by the federal Border XXI participants establishing effective mechanisms
to channel public input to the Workgroups. Public involvement is a shared responsibility, and
border communities must take an active role in organizing themselves to leverage those
mechanisms. For this reason, the Border XXI Program has established a variety of information,
reporting and communication mechanisms for the public to comment throughout the
implementation process. Please see the Section on Public Involvement in Chapter n, pages n.l-
n.3 of the Final Framework Document for additional commentary.
^ For Ambos No gales, assistance is needed for involving schools to serve as environmental
improvement campaign headquarters, and utilizing teachers as community leaders in the
development and implementation of waste recycling and pollution prevention activities. In
June 1997 11-31
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
addition local media needs to be involved to recognize positive environmental action, as well as
a public forum for specific issues, both positive and negative.
& In the Final Framework Document on pages V.22 and V.23, EPA addresses how they will
work with the cities of Nogales, Arizona, and Nogales, Sonora, to implement a pollution
prevention program that will provide technical assistance to industry, institute a pollution
prevention award program, and provide outreach and education to the public. In addressing the
involvement of local media to recognize the positive actions towards the environment, EPA is
committed to providing information to local media entities who have the choice of helping us
publicize our outreach activities and achievements of the Border XXI program.
EPA's efforts at public outreach have been criticized borderwide, and the failure of public
outreach efforts in west Texas and southern New Mexico has been especially severe.
Public meetings were poorly publicized, and citizen participants demanded a change in the agenda
to discuss controversial issues such as the proposed Sierra Blanca nuclear waste disposal site.
The Draft Framework Document scarcely mentions Sierra Blanca and other important issues
affecting sustainable development in this border region. The document also clearly fails to achieve
its four essential elements.
It is recommended that the Border XXI document be rejected by the public and be replaced with
a more community-based planning process. The EPA must begin, not end, its planning process
by seeking the assistance of people and organizations already grounded in community-based work
along the border.
£n The Border XXI document is a constructive and positive binational effort which among many
other things helps respond to the public needs for the Border Region. The public has both
supported and criticized EPA's past efforts, but now the Agency has high hopes for converting
the few remaining critics into staunch supporters through the implementation of Border XXI over
the next five years. In spite of the efforts of those involved with the Border XXI process to
include the public at all levels, mistakes have been made.
Regarding the Sierra Blanca nuclear waste facility, it should be noted that of December 30, 1996,
EPA rescinded applicability of its 40 CFR 61, Subpart I NESHAP to licensees of the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC) and its Agreement states. Therefore, EPA's regulatory
involvement is now limited to issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit for stormwater runoff.
In conclusion, Border XXI should be accepted by the public since the major binational problems
of air and water pollution can only be addressed successfully if the U.S. and Mexico work through
this document. Because of the binational nature of the environmental problems in the border
region, the two governments must be at the forefront of planning. You are correct in saying that
we must begin, not end, the planning process by seeking the assistance and input from those who
11-32 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
already are doing community-based work on the border. The Border XXI mechanism can and
must include all the different people and organizations affected. This is the best hope we have for
a cleaner environment currently available to us.
EPA should devote greater resources to the distribution of data and information in hard copy,
and less to the Internet.
&s EPA has devoted a large amount of financial resources to produce and distribute hard copies
of the Final Framework Document, Implementation Plans and an Executive Summary.
Approximately 10,000 copies were printed by the Government Printing Office. EPA is also
making the same publications available on the Internet at EPA's homepage in an area dedicated
to U.S.-Mexico border for those individuals who prefer their information electronically, and also
to conserve paper resources and assist in our pollution prevention efforts. The EPA homepage
dedicated to the U.S.-Mexico border is at http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder on the Internet.
Due to the size of the Draft Framework Document, it would be preferable to have the ability
to download the entire document from the Internet onto a local drive rather than spend significant
time viewing and printing individual sections.
£n The Final Framework Document which is available on EPA's Home Page at
http://www.epa.gov/usmexicoborder is currently set up so that chapters of the document can be
downloaded individually. EPA is in the process of putting the entire document into one file for
the purpose of downloading so that people interested in obtaining the document electronically can
do so in an efficient manner. EPA expects that this capability will be completed by the website
manager in the very near future.
The EPA needs to include NGOs, for example the Valley Land Environmental Council, as pan
of the solution.
£n Both governments through the implementation of the Border XXI program will encourage the
development of binational regional subgroups to the Border XXI Workgroups which would include
state and local decision-makers to facilitate the participation of border communities in their
implementation of the Border XXI program. It is hoped that these regional subgroups will
facilitate public involvement to create a forum for participation of local governments, academic
institutions, NGOs such as Cameron County Valley Land Environmental Council, and the public
sector in implementation of Border XXI at the regional level. The Final Framework Document
is not able to list the contributions on border environmental issues by individual NGOs, but
recognizes their contributions as a whole. Please see the section on Public Involvement in
Chapter H, pages H.1-II.3 of the Final Framework Document for additional commentary.
June 1997 11-33
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
There are significant portions of the Draft Framework Document that have not yet been
completed. For example, III. 2 includes the note "Resource requirements are being developed and
will be provided in the final version of this document." What provisions have been made for
public comment on these sections?
&n At the time the Draft Framework Document was released, a number of sections, as you point
out, were not yet completed. In the Final Framework Document, the financial resource needs are
described in Appendix 4 as well as in the 1996 Implementation Plans. No provisions have been
made for the public to formally comment on the sections which are now completed; however, the
public will have the opportunity to comment on Biennial Progress Reports and the two
governments are committed to holding public meetings to foster discussion on the success of
Border XXI implementation. The public is always free to submit comments at any time on any
aspect of the Border XXI program and those concerns will be directed to individuals responsible
for consideration.
It is recommended that citizen involvement be increased by supporting community meetings
on both sides of the border to improve citizens' understanding of border issues and their problem
solving skills.
&$ Please see the section on Public Involvement in Chapter n, pages n.l-n.3 of the Final
Framework Document for additional commentary. The Border XXI Program emphasizes public
involvement as one of its three principle strategies in advancing the goal of sustainable
development in the border region. Citizens will have a number of opportunities for involvement
in the Border XXI Program on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border.
Require that proposed annual Workgroup Work Plans be made available to the public for
comment and review, and provide this information in various formats including BECCNET.
&n The Border XXI Annual Implementation Plans and the Biennial Progress Reports will be
available to the public. In conjunction with the Biennial Progress Reports, the two governments
will hold public forums along the border every two years. Through this process the public will
have the opportunity to suggest modifications to long-term Border XXI objectives, and ensure that
the objectives reflect the changing dynamics of the border region. Public input will be compiled
and summarized in a Border XXI Summary of Biennial Public Comments.
Provide for inclusive, nonhierarchical dialogue at domestic and binational meetings.
11-34 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
& It is important that Border XXI binational meetings be nonhierarchical and allow for an open
exchange and dialogue by all meeting attendees.
One of the principal criticisms of the IBEP is that it has been prepared by people who do not
understand the border, and without substantive public input.
&x The Border XXI Program builds on the efforts of the IBEP. As the next phase of binational
planning, Border XXI is designed to overcome the identified shortcomings of the IBEP. To this
end, the scope of Border XXI has been expanded to include health and natural resource issues.
In addition, this program reflects extensive public input, and the program is organized to facilitate
federal, state, and local involvement.
The Draft Framework Document will suffer the criticism that it is a product of too much
unfiltered or improperly accredited input from a limited subset of the populace. The authors
appear to have assumed that any public input is good input and representative of the public at
large. Consequently, the document reports a myriad of perceived issues and concerns without
regard to their validity or significance. The report also makes errors in attributing the comments
of citizens to improperly suggest that the comments of one or two persons is representative of a
consensus of a larger body.
&& The authors of the Final Framework Document worked binationally and did not assume that
any input received from the public was good input and representative from the public at large.
The authors reviewed all of the public input and made changes to the Final Framework Document
which contributed to improvements in the Border XXI Program.
Pan of the input process was a series of domestic public meetings held in various communities
along the border. These meetings were sparsely attended (average attendance of the first nine
meetings was about 45). There is concern that the attendees were not representative of their
communities, and could be characterized as " the usual suspects," meaning that the attendees were
mainly environmental professionals, many of whom make their living either directly or indirectly
through the EPA.
&s A series of domestic and binational meetings was held to gather public input, and attendance
varied at each of the public meetings. In addition, the Draft Framework Document was
distributed for public review and comment. Both governments solicited and encouraged comment
from academic, business, and professional communities.
June 1997 11-35
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
The document lacks input from the academic, business, and professional medical sectors of
border communities. Given the increased emphasis on environmental health, the lack of
professional medical input is remarkable. Given the program's overall goal of sustainable
development, the lack of input from the corporate sector is also noteworthy.
&n The Interagency Coordinating Committee for the U.S. -Mexico Border Environmental Health
(ICC) will continue to serve as the coordination vehicle between EPA and the U.S. Public Health
Sendee (PHS) to address environmental health issues in the border area. The ICC will also
continue to involve the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) and the U.S. -Mexico Border
Health Association, as well as actively engage the collaboration of SSA and SEMARNAP in
Mexico which is a principle strategy of the Border XXI Program.
The section regarding public involvement (page II. 2) does not address the academic and
corporate sectors of the public.
£% The Border XXI Program emphasizes public involvement as one of its three principle
strategies in advancing the goal of sustainable development in the border region. Citizens as well
as academic and corporate sectors of the public will have a number of opportunities for
involvement in the Border XXI Program on both sides of the U. S. -Mexico border. Please see the
section on Public Involvement in Chapter n, pages n. l-n.3 of the Final Framework Document
for additional commentary.
Border XXI Program must improve outreach processes by providing increased advance notice
of public hearings and public comment periods. Also, dissemination of notices and documents
should be significantly expanded to ensure greater public understanding, participation and
involvement.
&& EPA does a variety of activities to provide outreach to the public for notification of public
hearings and public comment periods. These actions include a press release when needed, in
addition to asking local newspapers and radio stations to help us announce and publicize our
meetings. The EPA also places meeting announcements which the government is required to pay
for in local newspapers. The EPA also does direct mailings of meeting announcements to people
who are on our mailing list, and sends out electronic announcements which are posted on
electronic bulletin boards. Please note that in Chapter H of the Final Framework Document, both
governments emphasize the assurance of public involvement in the development and
implementation of the Border XXI Program as one of its principle strategies in advancing the goal
of sustainable development for the U.S.-Mexico border region.
In addition, a Border XXI Program Status Report will be prepared and distributed biennially for
public comment to ensure that the objectives outlined in the Framework Document reflect the
dynamic qualities of the border environment. This report will provide the public a means for
11-36 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
evaluating the accomplishments of the Border XXI Program. To support the public's evaluation,
the governments will hold public meetings along the border. Through this process, the public will
have an opportunity to modify or redefine long-term Border XXI objectives. Please see the
Section on Public Involvement in Chapter n, pages n. l-n.3 of the Final Framework Document
for additional commentary.
A public review committee should be created with representatives from both sides of the border
to establish dialogue on border issues. This would provide a means by which local citizens could
contact such a review committee to obtain information on specific projects and the responsible
public officials or agencies.
There is a lack of public information, documents, meetings, hearings and forums available on the
Mexico side of the Border.
£n Both governments through the implementation of the Border XXI program will encourage the
development of binational regional subgroups to the Workgroups which would include state and
local decision makers.
How can the general public become more informed about a highly detailed project of
binational importance? Can religious and philosophical ingredients be added to such an effort?
How can testimony be gained from people who suffer from environmental degradation? How can
both nations provide restitution to their citizens who suffer losses from the environmental
degradation imposed upon them? Wry is industry given priority over the general public in regard
to environmental abuses? Why doesn't the general public know that U.S. industry must return the
waste generated to the country of origin - the U.S. ? How would we feel about this?
Our concern is for the human dignity and rights of the people who populate all areas along the
border. Women, men, and children populate these areas and suffer from and with the readily
apparent economic and environmental issues.
Please hear this as a sense of urgency in the solving of our binational environmental issues, with
a bias for the populations in these areas.
&n The public can request information and become involved in many aspects of the Border XXI
Program. Anyone can request a copy of the Final Framework Document as well as other
publications by contacting the FJ>A's toll-free telephone line established for the Border XXI
Program. The telephone number is (800) 334-0741 for callers in the United States.
As a governmental program between the U.S. and Mexico, the question of how can religious and
philosophical ingredients be added to such an effort is a difficult one to answer. The public can
make their voices and issues heard through their involvement in the public participation aspects
June 1997 11-37
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
of the Border XXI Program. Please see the section on Public Involvement in Chapter n,
pages n.l-n.3 of the Final Framework Document for additional commentary.
As part of the development of the Border XXI Program, people in border communities were
encouraged to contribute their issues of concern during numerous public meetings held on the
border. EPA produced a document entitled "Summary of Domestic Public Meetings," which
summarized comments made by participants at the U.S. domestic meetings.
The issue of restitution for citizens' losses from environmental degradation imposed on them is
not addressed in the Final Framework Document. This is an issue beyond the scope of this
publication.
The issue of industries returning the wastes generated from their production to the country of
origin is already a requirement of the La Paz Agreement and is an issue addressed by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste and Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroups.
The issue of human dignity and the rights of people is not addressed in the Final Framework
Document as it is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the federal agencies involved in the
implementation of the Border XXI Program.
The Plan misstates or is unresponsive to the public comment. While EPA has made substantial
effort this time around to solicit public comments, the draft plan reflects that in many cases EPA
either 1) blatantly ignored public comments; 2) misinterpreted public concerns, or 3) understood
the concern but failed to propose any action responsive to the concern. The following are a few
examples:
A. In public meetings held in El Paso, most of the comments centered on local opposition to the
proposed Texas low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, which could be located in nearby
Hudspeth County. In the section on current issues in the Texas-Chihuahua region, the plan fails
to mention this issue. Whether or not EPA believes it has any authority to deal with this concern
(it is assumed EPA does have authority in this matter), failure to even mention it as a local priority
is inexcusable. Many of the citizens who participated in the El Paso public meetings have
completely lost faith that the Border XXI project is responsive to community concerns in any way.
B. In the Texas-Temaulipas section, the Plan states that "direct waste water discharges " may be
adversely affecting seagrass habitat (page VIII.2). EPA either completely misstated or
misinterpreted public comments on this issue. It is widely known, and is reflected in the public
comments, that the seagrass loss is being caused by open bay disposal of dredged material from
federally-subsidized maintenance dredging of the tittle-used Corpus Christi to Brownsville segment
of the Gulflntercoastal Waterway (GIWW).
C. EPA did correctly report Brownsville /Matamoros community concern about adverse health
effects from the burning at Matamoros waste dump (page VIII. 4). However, none of the objectives
are responsive to this concern. The Plan merely proposes more generalized air monitoring in the
11-38 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
area, with no specific actions proposed to deal with the notorious problems resulting from the
Matamoros dump.
£n First, one must realize that the public comments received fell mostly into two camps: some
supported a position on an issue and others opposed the position on the very same issue. The
Workgroups' responses had to balance the scientific/technical data, the facts and/or studies which
support or do not support a commitment or action on any specific issue, and the human/social
dimension.
For example, in the case you mention in a paragraph A of your comments, many different
government agencies are aware of the pros and cons of public opinion regarding Sierra Blanca.
However, the EPA has two other major factors it must deal with. One is as mentioned above,
namely the scientific/technical data that strongly indicates the facility is a safe repository for such
nuclear waste. Secondly, as of December 30, 1996, EPA issued a rescinded applicability of its
40 CFR 61, Subpart I NESHAP to licensees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and
its Agreement states. Therefore, EPA's regulatory involvement is now limited to issuance of a
NPDES permit for stormwater runoff. To satisfy any other concerns regarding this facility, please
do not hesitate to contact the NRC. In conclusion, one must realize that the Border XXI was not
a document that only, reflected the community of U.S. citizens; it also had to consider and address
the comments of Mexican citizens. In so doing the document had to reflect those issues both
nations agreed upon as important enough to be included as a problem common to the interests of
both the U.S. and Mexico.
Your comment on the Draft Framework Document is correct and the clarification you mention
is included in the Final Framework Document, dated October, 1996, as stated on page VHI.3,
paragraph 2. Thank you for pointing out this omission.
Apparently, the Matamoros waste dump was not yet addressed because not enough
scientific/technical data exists to prove it is the problem some residents think it to be. Simply
because an opinion is voiced does not mean a binational effort will be launched to an issue unless
it is proven to be the source of the problem. In conclusion, the residents asked for and received
a binational commitment for further monitoring in this geographic area of concern. See page
Vni.23, paragraph 6 of the Final Framework Document.
POPULATION GROWTH
Two comment sources stated that population growth was not addressed for both sides of the border
in the Draft Framework Document. This includes the infrastructure needs to manage the growth.
Population growth is not addressed for both sides of the border. Migration issues are not
discussed. Infrastructure support needs to be planned to direct some growth away from the border
region.
June 1997 11-39
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
fa Annual rates of increases in population are important factors to consider in all aspects of urban
and regional planning. Useful information on population growth rates in the border region is
included in Appendix 8 "Social and Economic Overview of the U.S.-Mexico Border," on page 2
of the Final Framework Document. Growth will be taken into account in BECC projects.
Much of the San Pedro area on the U.S. side of the border is used for ranching and
agriculture, although that activity is slowly phasing out.
Sierra Vista is expanding at the rate of 2.6 percent per year which is a healthy growth rate, but
wouldn't be considered "rapid" when compared to the state's average of 3.9percent or other
major cities in the southwest. Fort Huachuca has not grown in population for several years, so
it certainly should not be characterized as a "rapidly expanding urban/military complex. "
fa Your observations about the San Pedro area and the population of Sierra Vista are appreciated.
PRIVATE SECTOR/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Nine sources expressed an overwhelming need for the private sector to be more involved with the
Border XXI program. In addition, one source stated that even though railroad transportation is
usually more efficient and environmentally friendly, it is not that practical for short distance
hauling. Another source suggests that the development of innovative market-driven incentives
(i.e., air emission credit trading) should be encouraged.
The private sector needs to be more involved in Border XXI and should be more prominent
than is reflected in the Draft Framework Document.
The Draft Framework Document clearly states that a goal is to build the capacity of border
communities to address border environmental issues. In order to accomplish this, federal agencies
must involve border companies, border universities, border communities and local government
more fully in all their activities. For example, when a U.S. federal agency contracts with a border
research institution, company or government to perform applied research, analysis, remediation,
monitoring, pollution prevention, or other services, the work carried out involves local people,
builds local skills, and helps produce a critical mass of people in the institutions with technical
and administrative expertise requisite for local environmental problem solving. The multiplier
effect is necessary for the building of adequate border capacity in the area of environment. U.S.
federal agencies should adopt the principle of building local, regional capacity and expertise
through formation and nurturing of collaborative partnerships with border institutions and
companies for all environmentally-related contract work in the border region.
11-40 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
^ U.S. federal agencies have formed partnerships with border institutions and will continue to
do so even more as Border XXI is implemented. Also, in the near future more private companies
will be included in this effort. This is not to say, however, that every environmentally-related
issue presented to the federal government will be supported by some federal agency.
The public/private partnerships will be worked out within the various Workgroups over the next
five years. During that time frame, a working dialogue should be established that will provide
solutions to various problems of mutual interest to both countries. One such group, the Joint
Advisory Committee, has already been established by the two governments.
References that the private sector is a key actor should be added throughout the document,
particularly in sections that address voluntary compliance, pollution prevention programs, and
certification for ISO 14000. For example, the heading "public involvement" (II. 2) should discuss
the role of the private sector. Private sector representatives should be invited to training
workshops and sessions in priority areas.
£n With reference to the ISO 14000 mechanisms that support regulations and enforcement
activities of government agencies, these will probably be further explored by the various nine
workgroups over the next five years because they are well aware of what the ISo 14000 can
contribute to the border region activities.
Because members of the private sector usually work and live in the border cities, their
involvement is a necessary component. The success of voluntary compliance and pollution
prevention can only be achieved through private industry's participation.
&x Private sector activities, such as voluntary compliance and pollution prevention programs, are
carried out with partners of the private (public) sector.
There is concern with assumptions that railroads are always a more efficient and "green "
mode of freight transportation than trucking. While railroads are often used for transporting
goods over long distances, they are often not appropriate for short distance hauling and
distribution. Free market forces should guide cross-border freight transportation. In addition,
new accounting methods ("green" or "life-cycle " accounting) have not developed a universally
accepted process for accurately tallying environmental costs and benefits).
£o Through Workgroups such as Contingency Planning and Emergency Response, Environmental
Information Resources, and Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance, the truckers of both
nations will be informed of all policy developments that may affect their operations. Even during
the draft stage of Border XXI, workshops have been held in the border areas, promoting the
June 1997 11-41
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
simplification of cross-border freight transportation regulations, teaching what the regulations
mean in simple everyday language. These workshops were geared to brokers and truckers.
As Border XXI moves into the next five years, the nine Workgroups will try to fine-tune policy
developments as they work even more closely with the Trucking Associations of both the U.S.
and Mexico. Border XXI is committed to helping meet the transportation needs of both nations
and will address the rapid growth of transboundary shipments and cross-border freight
transportation needs. The other points made will also be taken into consideration.
In order to improve the health and quality of life of the citizens of El Paso and Juarez, big
contaminating businesses should be moved at least 25 miles from any populated area. Mexico may
be able to gain from the research and experience of the U.S. in developing environmental
standards and clean technologies. U.S. companies who locate in Mexico should meet the same
environmental standards that they would have to meet in the U.S.
£n The Workgroups agree that the future health and quality of life for residents of El Paso-Juarez
area is a prime concern of the Final Framework Document. However, moving an industry away
from a readily-available workplace is not cost effective and no private industry in a heavily-
populated area will agree to pay for a move of the magnitude you describe (in miles). Instead,
the answer is pollution prevention in the form of new technology which will help industries
become cleaner and thus exist in harmony with the area residents. This will benefit both the
workers and the industry. It will result in local jobs for the residents, and in turn, provide a local
workplace for industry. To achieve the above goals, pollution prevention is a tool to protect the
environment while promoting sustainable development in border communities through the efforts
and cooperation of all the Workgroups.
The Draft Framework Document should encourage the development of innovative market-
driven incentives such as emission credit trading for the Joint Advisory Committee for the
Improvement of Air Quality.
£& The Workgroups agree with the comment source that Mexico may gain from the
environmental research and experience of the U.S. However, how, when, and where Mexico
applies this knowledge is solely an issue for Mexico to determine in line with its own priorities.
The Workgroups also agree that environmental standards that serve the U.S. may be useful in
Mexico, but we realize that many factors also control the speed and direction of action by the
Mexican government. In conclusion, we can only hope that Border XXI helps motivate both
nations to solve mutual problems that affect the environment and health of the two countries.
The emission credit trading for the Joint Advisory Committee is certainly one worth exploring
under the Border XXI Program.
11-42 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
Although the Draft Framework Document contains certain important elements necessary to
advance "sustainable development" along the border region, overall it is unclear how these
objectives will be met within the next five years. Specific concerns are: the document does not
successjulfy link its objectives and initiatives with its primary goal of "sustainable development;"
human health (e.g., worker health) is not emphasized in the document's definition of sustainable
development; the need for a planning mechanism is not addressed to focus on the uncontrolled
growth of the maquiladora sector; the document lacks measures to evaluate its progress or failure;
the role of Border XXI in the projects listed in the document should be clearly defined; it is unclear
what Border XXI is; Border XXI appears to lack any binding commitment by both countries;
Border XXI fails to address the issue of corporate or industrial responsibility as an important
aspect for achieving sustainabitity in a heavily industrialized region; and objectives or projects are
not prioritized.
^The goal of Border XXI is "to promote sustainable development in the border region." We
have identified objectives for each of the nine Workgroups that we believe meet this goal,
although we agree that in some cases, that these might not be a clear link between the goals and
the objectives.
In Chapter I of the Final Framework Document, we have clarified the relationship between the
goal of sustainable development, the Final Framework Document, and health. Given the nature
of the governmental agencies participating in the Border XXI Program, the Program emphasizes
the environmental aspects (including natural resources) of sustainable development as well as
social features as they pertain to environmental health. To advance the goal of sustainability, the
Border XXI Program must be aligned with efforts undertaken by both governments to further
social progress for border residents.
In measuring success or failure of Border XXI the two countries have agreed to develop
environmental indicators which is the responsibility of the Environmental Information Resources
Workgroup.
Concerning the role of industry, especially maquiladoras, an issue of sustainability as stated in
Chapter I of the Final Framework Document, we believe that as Border XXI proceeds, each
community will need to define and apply principles of sustainable development working together
with NGOs, academia, and the private sector.
STATE PARTICIPATION
Six comment sources encourage EPA to decentralize the Border XXI Program to the state level,
however, one comment source warns of a "wholesale buy-in" at the state level, due to many local
and state agencies that do not have the funding to adequately implement programs.
June 1997 11-43
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
The U.S. federal government and the Draft Framework Document do notjully acknowledge
what has been done at the state and local levels in the California-Baja California area.
Expanding cooperation on water issues is one example in this region. The document shows Baja
California as a problem area, but there has not been much focus on positive cooperation across
the border. The document should also specify better how the EPA is interacting with state and
county government in the Catifomia-Baja California area.
Border XXI Program emphasizes mechanisms for strengthening state and local government
and decentralizing environmental management. In the California-Baja California region,
institutional strengthening and decentralization as well as interagency cooperation and coordination
have resulted in advances of cooperation with California Border Environment Cooperation
Commission (CalBECC) on water issues facing this geographic region. The Border XXI program
recognizes that there are many examples of positive cooperation across the border with various
institutions which advance the goal of sustainable development. State environmental agencies
were invited and did participate in the development of the Draft Framework Document. Local
governments as well as the general public were also encouraged to give input during the extensive
public participation process during the development of the Draft Framework Document, and they
are encouraged to continue providing input through the Workgroups. The federal agencies
recognize that state and local government is vital to the success of the implementation of Border
XXI, and recognize that more work needs to be done in this area. The agencies welcome any state
and local government participation and input, as well as ideas as to how to continue improving
this process.
Decentralization, and the support of National Institute of Ecology's (INE) Northern Border
Program, are two of the most important elements of the Draft Framework Document.
Decentralization has especially helped those state-to-state relationships aimed at building capacity
and providing technical assistance to develop better cooperation.
^Suggestions for decentralization and support of INE's Northern Border Environmental Program
are stated in the Final Framework Document on pages n.3, n.4 and VI.7, and VI. 17.
The institutional strengthening and decentralization commitments are very important to state
and local members of TRIP. Our ability to engage in cross-border regional planning is severely
impeded by the lack of Mexican counterparts. The Framework Document should note the
important work underway by the Western Governors Association, and the four U.S. states through
INE, the World Bank, and the Ford Foundation.
the extent that there are not Mexican counterparts, we urge the public to work through the
appropriate Workgroups to identify appropriate contacts.
11-44 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
A very significant part of the Border XXI program should be devoted to identifying specific
implementation options to solve transboundary problems of local and regional scope.
Accordingly, the options must be site-specific, highly decentralized, and concerned with the details
of how to solve problems. Specific attention should be paid to the federal government's role in
helping state and local governments implement these options.
suggestion of decentralization has been covered generally on pages n.3 and n.4 of the
Final Framework Document. However, the various Workgroups will most likely expand these
goals over the next five years.
EPA 's wholesale buy-in of decentralization in the draft should be tempered in the Final
Framework Document. While decentralization may present some advantages it may result in
further degradation of human health and the environment because local and state organizations
often do not have the funding to adequately implement programs, particularly with less federal
resources available to these levels of government.
binational commitment is to achieve sustainable development in both nations by urging that
the authority and resources for environmental management be located at the level of government
closest to the community.
Both nations have agreed that the methods used in the past were not acmeving certain important
goals quickly enough. This agreement (Border XXI) is a new attempt to protect the public and
the environment, which all involved agree needs rapid improvement.
We encourage using U.S. state personnel to implement border environmental objectives, taking
advantage of the considerable expertise that exists among state personnel. We also support
creating regional subgroups to include state and local decision-makers from both nations.
Annex 2 of the Draft Framework Document does not mention any state agencies.
£n State personnel are key participants in the implementation of Border XXI. In many projects
in the border region, states are active partners with EPA and SEMARNAP and already are
members of subgroups. Examples include air quality monitoring in Tijuana and Ambos Nogales.
We expect the amount of state participation to increase during the life of Border XXI.
June 1997 11-45
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
Several state agencies associated with TRIP welcomed the opportunity to participate in the
interagency cooperation procedures of Border XXI. Such participation must not be allowed to
become "token involvement" as some critics charged after the March 1996 El Paso meeting.
fa The Workgroups agree that state agency participation should never be simply token
involvement, since the success of Border XXI depends upon the efforts and cooperation of
countless state and national agencies of both countries.
The State of Texas's General Land Office (TGLO) is the single largest land manager in the
region. The holdings include a substantial part of El Paso county where lands are managed as
trustee for the Permanent School Fund. The value and financial yield of those properties are
directly tied to the quality of air and water in the environment.
fa The Workgroup appreciates the information and the unique perspective of the TGLO. One
of Border XXI's main goals is to improve the air and water quality for all those who live in the
region.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
Eighteen comment sources all support sustainable development as a primary goal of the Border
XXI Program, however, several sources feel that the Draft Framework Document does not go far
enough in specifically defining "sustainable development."
The Draft Framework Document does not successfully link its objectives and initiatives with
its primary goal of "sustainable development. " Projects listed are not related to general goals.
Even when the issues and problems are identified, the recommended solutions are unlikely to
resolve the problem. Some of the solutions or programs are mere "band-aid" approaches,
particularly within the context of "sustainable development. " The Draft Framework Document
also lacks a planning mechanism to address the maquiladora industries' uncontrolled growth.
Under the principles of sustainable development, failing to control and regulate the growth of
industrial sectors does not lead to a sustainable region.
fa Comprehensive solutions, as the comment source suggests, take time for two nations to
develop after they have first concluded a formal agreement. The Final Framework Document is
only a formal agreement with many broad avenues open for further exploration. If both countries
had focused too much on specifics, producing the Final Framework Document would have been
considerably delayed. The comments regarding maquiladora growth and expansion are excellent
examples of issues that need to be addressed via the Workgroup forums, which are the very
mechanisms established to handle such issues.
11-46 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
What is meant by "sustainable development"?
<£" "Sustainable development" used in the Final Framework Document on page 1.2, the second
paragraph is defined ,".. .meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs."
Is it realistic to think that any plan can achieve or approach the goal of "sustainability " in five
years, particularly when Border XXI seeks funding annually?
&n The Workgroups realize that sustainability is a long-term proposition, but a great deal of
progress should be achieved within five years if the Border XXI Program is implemented. Yearly
funding is needed to fund new projects as old ones become more and more self sustaining. The
concept of sustainability was arrived at binationally through the discussions and research of the
binational workgroups. We collectively must support the goals of the Framework Document and
work toward sustainable development or long-term success will not occur.
Have the U.S. and Mexico incorporated the concept and principles of "sustainable
development" into their plans and projects for infrastructure development along the border?
£n The two countries are working to incorporate sustainable development into infrastructure
development. The very definition of "sustainable development" demands the incorporation of
concepts and principles into all plans and projects of infrastructure in the border region. This is
also illustrated by the past, present, and future plans and projects listed as accomplishments under
Environmental Health as shown on table 8.3 of page VOL 12 in the Final Framework Document.
This table is just a very small sample of what has been done, is being done, and will continue to
be achieved under the guidance of the various nine Workgroups established by the Final
Framework Document.
While the comment source supports the goal of sustainable development, more specific goals
and objectives are necessary in the Framework Document. Please include clear goal statements
referring to the restoration and protection of the environment and all associated biological
resources. For instance, a goal should be included that states "To provide for the protection,
enhancement, and restoration of environmental quality and the sustainable utilization of natural
resources, including indigenous and local communities." At the very least, the Framework
Document should more directly address the economic, social, and ecological principles that will
be utilized by taking a sustainable development approach.
June 1997 11-47
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
£n The Workgroups appreciate these comments. However, the Workgroups must stress that
comprehensive and more specific statements take time for two nations to jointly develop after they
have concluded a formal agreement. Border XXI is this agreement and both nations are aware of
the issues raised by the comments. The Workgroups realize there are many broad issues that need
further examination.
The magnitude of growth to be accomodated along the California-Baja California border
should be quantified and representatives of the Southern California Association of Goverments and
Imperial County should be involved. Quantifying this is important in order to understand the
potential magnitude for growth and the ability of the local environment and infrastructure to
handle the growth.
&n The Workgroups agree with the comments regarding developing a process for quantifying the
amount of growth that is to be accommodated as the basis for further environmental planning and
analysis within the border region. However, these issues are beyond the scope of Border XXI and
the agencies that developed the program. The Workgroups urge the commentor's participation to
assist Border XXI in developing some of these important issues.
The report is lacking a serious discussion of population increases and resulting impacts on
infrastructure and the environment along the border.
&& The nine Workgroups will address the issue of population increases along the Border as they
meet over the next five years.
The dramatic surge in population and industrialization in Mexicali and Imperial County has
stressed the existing infrastructure and local environment, leading to inadequate sewage treatment
and handttng and disposal of hazardous and solid waste. In addition, air pollution has resulted
in health problems within communities. The probable causes of these problems include
uncontrolled industrial pollution, din roads and crop dusting.
&& The Workgroups agree with the comment. Industrial and population growth all along the
border, particularly in border cities, such as Mexicali, and in Imperial County have resulted in
many benefits to the communities as well as the strain in the infrastructure and additional
environmental problems. Over the last 30 years, even before NAFTA, the border region has
experienced a dramatic surge in population and industrialization. Unfortunately, this growth has
exceeded the existing infrastructure capabilities of the region, leading to inadequate sewage
treatment and hazardous and solid waste infrastructure capabilities of the region, insufficient
drinking water supplies, and dramatic impacts on habitats and the biodiversity they support.
Increased urbanization and the lack of paved roads along the border have also impacted air quality.
June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
The agencies believe that Border XXI will help to ensure a commitment to sustainable
development along the border by seeking a balance among social and economic factors and the
protection of the environment in the border communities and natural areas. Border XXI will also
give us a field in which to coordinate efforts among the agencies and communities to come up
with joint preventions and solutions to the these and other environmental problems identified.
Many of the border environmental issues related to rapid population growth are caused by
heavy migration to the border, particularly in the Tijuana area, from the interior of both
countries. A more focused discussion of population growth in the region as an important element
of sustainable development would be helpful in the Framework Document.
&n Problems of population growth are not addressed specifically in the Final Framework
Document as they are outside the scope of the Border XXI Program.
Unemployment in Mexico causes many people to cross the border into the U.S. illegally. The
problem of unemployment and its effects, which have negative impacts on environments on both
sides of the border, should be addressed.
£n The problem of unemployment is not addressed specifically in the Final Framework Document
as it is outside the scope of the Border XXI Program.
The Rio Grande Delta area of South Texas and Northern Mexico would like to be recognized
as a Borderplex because of its size and growth potential. We would like to encourage the idea of
a Borderplex Civic Engagement Center to increase human capacity to educate and involve the
border communities. This center should promote sustainable development and share information
and lessons learned at the United Nations Habitat II Conference in Istanbul.
£n The Workgroups appreciate the comments about Borderplex and hope that the BECC will
approve more border projects like this to be financed by NADBank.
The Draft Framework Document does not address participation or consultation with Indian
tribes along the border.
&* Considering the special status and needs of tribes and the comments received during the
comment period, EPA notified tribal leaders in the border region that comments from tribes in the
border area would be accepted beyond the closing of the official public comment period, until
August 19, 1996. A copy of the Draft Framework Document was sent to the representatives of
June 1997 11-49
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
the 22 tribes in the California and Arizona border area in mid-June, and another copy of the Draft
Framework Document was sent on August 1 with an invitation for interested tribes to meet with
EPA to discuss issues related to the Border XXI Program.
The opportunity for tribal input did not end on August 19. The Border XXI Program is an
evolving effort. Insufficient attention to a tribal issue in the Final Framework Document for any
reason by no means precludes EPA, interested tribes, and others from focusing attention and
resources on the priority environmental, environmental health, and natural resource issues of tribes
in the border region.
Most important is setting up a process for better communication between border tribes and EPA;
the federal partners will empower tribes to develop strategies for public participation themselves.
In Chapter V of the Draft Framework Document, the City of San Luis, Arizona was not
included in the Population Center.
£n San Luis, Arizona was inadvertently not included in the Arizona-Sonora chapter's population
table. San Luis, Arizona has a population of approximately 8,000 people (1995 Special Census),
nearly doubling its population since 1990. San Luis, Arizona and its sister City of San Luis Rio
Colorado, Sonora are two important population centers along the Arizona-Sonora border. This
information is included in the Final Framework Document.
The Mexican and U.S. governments should work together to improve the immigation laws on
both sides so that human beings are treated better than they are now. There also is a problem
with Mexican students attending U.S. schools without paying tuition.
(£n The Workgroups appreciate these comments. Border XXI has many issues to explore over
the next five years, including the economy, employment, and education within the border area,
all of which will affect the health and happiness of all border residents in both countries. School
districts in the U.S. normally do not allow children from outside the school district to attend their
schools unless certain conditions are met (e.g., tuition). This issue should be discussed with local
school authorities. It is beyond the scope of the Border XXI Program.
The 1995 estimate ofNogales, Sonora's population of 133,500 is questionable (Chapter V,
Table 5.1). The Workgroups should also consider annual rates of increase in population.
&& The Workgroups will address your comments regarding Table 5.1 in the Final Framework
Document.
11-50 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
The population projects in Table 6.1 in Chapter VI, grossly underestimate the regional
population of the El Paso area by excluding the population living in the unicorporated areas
surrounding El Paso which are presently served with potable water service.
&n Table 6.1 does underestimate the regional population of El Paso since it excludes the
unincorporated areas. This oversight will be addressed in the final Framework Document.
TRANSPORTATION
Three comment sources express concerns that the Draft Framework Document does not directly
address inadequate infrastructure at ports of entry that cause excessive waiting times to cross the
border, air pollution, and excessive truck traffic. One source is concerned that no federal agency
has assumed the responsibility for the construction of the roadway improvement needed for the
Calexico port of entry.
^ BorderXXI appears to deal with some of the adverse impacts of the growth of goods movement
and increased use of private vehicles in the border area with out directly addressing transportation
issues.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), as a participating agency with border
environmental planning, would assure adequate highway connections for key border infrastructure
projects, such as the new port of entry near Calexico.
However, one comment source is concerned that no federal agency has assumed the responsibility
for the construction of the necessary roadway improvement needed to serve the new port of entry
at Calexico. FHWA has refused to direct federal Junds for this project, leaving the burden on the
state of California.
£n While not all transportation issues are within the scope of Border XXI, the Program will
consider specific environmental impacts related to transportation issues through the Workgroups.
The FHWA within the U.S. Department of Transportation is preparing, in conjunction with the
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (Mexico's Secretary of Communication and
Transportation) (SCT), a binational report on transportation. The Air Workgroup will encourage
the participation of the FHWA, SCT, U.S. Customs, and Aduana (Mexican Customs) in its new
subgroup on Congestion and Air Pollution at border crossings such as the new port of entry near
Calexico. This should ensure coordination of efforts to alleviate the environmental impacts caused
by congestion at ports of entry.
June 1997 11-51
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
There are several issues of concern that impact the air quality, traffic congestion, and
financial impacts to businesses that trade across the border. Inadequate infrastructure at ports
of entry contributes to excessive waiting times for crossing cargo and passenger vehicles, causing
negative economic impacts on individuals and firms involved with the transportation of the cargo.
In addition, this traffic backup creates air pollution problems. Other issues of concern are:
inadequate surface street and highway connections to ports of entry and endangerment to border
communities with excessive truck traffic.
It is suggested that the FHWA should be one of the U.S. federal agencies that participates in the
Workgroups.
&n We agree. The Air Workgroup will be considering options to decrease the air quality impact
due to vehicle congestion at the border. The U.S. Department of Transportation has the lead for
transportation projects in the border region.
TRIBAL ISSUES
Three sources expressed their concern at the insufficient attention Indian tribes received in the
Draft Framework Document. Comment sources requested that tribal representatives be partners
on issues that impact natural resources on Indian lands, allow tribes to develop strategies for
public participation, and devote a separate section of the Framework Document to tribal issues.
Indian tribes must be included as partners on issues that impact natural resources on Indian
lands.
&% We agree that Indian tribes must be included as partners in environmental issues. Considering
the special status and needs of tribes and the comments received during the comment period, EPA
notified tribal leaders in the border region that comments from tribes in the border would be
accepted beyond the closing of the official public comment period, until August 19, 1996. A copy
of the Draft Framework Document was sent to the representatives of the 22 tribes in the California
and Arizona border area in mid-June, and another copy of the Draft Framework Document was
sent on August 1 with an invitation for interested tribes to meet with EPA to discuss issues related
to the Border XXI Program. A tribal conference is expected to be held during the summer of 1997
to coordinate Border XXI with tribes in the border area.
The Arizona-Sonora border region includes five areas of concentrated population, which are
the locations of the five principal border crossings, and four sovereign Indian nations: Tohono
O'odham Nation, Pascua Yaqui, Ouechan, and Cocopah. The Tohono O'odham Nation and
Cocopah Tribe share a border with Mexico.
11-52 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
In keeping with tribal sovereignty, permit tribes to develop strategies for public participation
themselves, possibly developed through a regional border issues conference of Native Americans.
&% Thank you for your comment on sovereign Indian nations. The Border XXI Program is an
evolving effort. Insufficient attention to a tribal issue in the Final Framework Document for any
reason, by no means precludes EPA, the interested tribes, and/or others from focusing attention
and resources on the priority environmental, environmental health, and natural resource issues of
tribes in the border region. Most important is setting up a process for better communication
between border tribes and EPA. The federal partners will empower the tribes to develop strategies
for public participation themselves.
A separate section of the Draft Framework Document should be dedicated to Tribes. This
section should describe their unique characteristics and numerous challenges they face. In
addition, this section should also include a complete listing of all tribes within 100 kilometers/60
miles of either side of the border.
&° Your suggestion on including a section on border Native American tribes and their
characteristics and needs is an excellent suggestion. Such a section would be beneficial to all who
support the goals of Border XXI. As the various Workgroups meet over the next five years, they
will certainly take into consideration the needs of all groups within the 100-km border region, and
an analysis such as you suggest may be undertaken.
EDITS
Many comment sources suggested specific editorial comments throughout the Draft Framework
Document. For the summary report, we are not going to list them all out. However, all the
comments were reviewed by the Workgroups and text modifications were made to the Final
Framework Document where appropriate. The following comments and responses are
representative and apply to the entire document.
The document needs an editor to ensure that it is written consistently. This is evident in the
inconsistencies in population figures presented in the Draft Framework Document.
In Annex 7 and 8 of the Draft Framework Document, there are inaccuracies regarding references
to organizations and the notes of the El Paso binational meeting. The notes of the El Paso
binational meeting in Annex 8 contain incomplete thoughts and grammatical errors.
The glossary is incomplete. One omission is EPCCHED or CCHED - El Paso City-County Health
and Environment District.
June 1997 11-53
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
Make additions and correct figures and references to Annex 1.
Add SCERP, Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy and EPCCHED and/or
CCHED, El Paso City-County Health and Environment District to the Glossary of Abbreviations.
fa The Workgroups agree that the document requires further editing. The population figures of
the two areas mentioned (San Diego-Tijuana and El Paso-Juarez) were changed in the Final
Framework Document. Appendix 8 (which was Annex 1 in the draft) now reads, "The population
of San Diego-Tijuana is more than 3.5 million and El Paso-Juarez is more than 1.5 million."
These same figures are used in Chapter IV (Califoraia-Baja California) and Chapter VI (New
Mexico-Texas-Chihuahua), as well as in Table 3.1. The reference in Annex 1.5 have been
corrected as suggested.
Annexes 7 and 8 were not included in the Final Framework Document.
The acronyms suggested were included in the Glossary of Abbreviations in the Final Framework
Document.
The International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico should be
identified in a consistent manner.
Annex 4.1 last sentence: It is not clear which "Development Bank" the document refers to.
f£n In the Final Framework Document, IBWC refers to both the U.S. and the Mexican sections
of the International Boundary and Water Commission. The same applies to CILA, the Spanish
acronym for IBWC. Particular sections of the IBWC are referred to as the U.S. Section or the
Mexican Section, as appropriate.
Annex 4 has been changed to Appendix 4 and it has been restructured. References to development
banks are clearly defined as either pertaining to the NADBank or the IADB.
The Draft Framework Document needs to specify which projects are pan of Border XXI and
which are not. Some of the projects are misclassified under the "borderwide" heading (e.g.,
Environmental Health Survey Listing project). The Social and Economic Overview of the
U.S.-Mexico Border should precede the discussion of borderwide issues and problems.
£$ The Final Framework Document is the overall framework for the multiagency border
program. The Border XXI Final Framework Document attempts to compile the major projects
which will further the goals and objectives of the border program. The agencies involved in the
Border XXI Program and the Border XXI Workgroups will be responsible for the management
11-54 June 1997
-------
General and Overall Comments Summary
and funding of the projects. All the projects listed in the Final Framework Document are part of
the Border XXI Program.
The Environmental Health Survey Listing was removed from the table in the Final Framework
Document, as were other items, such as Environmental Health/GIS System and Border
Environmental Health Study. Analysis of Toxic Metals in Retail Food was added.
The Social and Economic Overview was maintained in Appendix 8 and is referenced in the
Overview Section of Chapter ffl, Borderwide Issues and Objectives of the Final Framework
Document.
Many comment sources brought to our attention acronyms that were missing from the Draft
Framework Document Glossary. These were inadvertent omissions and as a result of the
comments the following acronyms were added to the Glossary of Abbreviations:
EPCCHED - El Paso City and County Health and Environmental Department
SCERP - Southwest Center for Environmental Research and Policy
TOPS - Texas Department of Public Safety
CEAS - Comision Estatal de Aguas y Saneamiento di Coahuila (Coahuila State Commission for
Water and Sanitation)
Some errors which were identified in comments were inadvertently overlooked and still exist in
the Final Framework Document. These include: page HI.38, the first CHDS was not corrected
and should be CDHS.
For consistency in diacritical marks, accents were omitted except in the names of Mexican
officials or Mexican agencies and addresses in Mexico. There still remain some errors in the
document in this regard.
June 1997 11-55
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
APPENDIX 1
DIRECTORY OF CONTACTS
June 1997
-------
This page intentionally left blank.
-------
APPENDIX 1
DIRECTORY OF CONTACTS
National Coordinators
William A Nitze
Assistant Administrator
Office of International Activities
U.S.EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
phone: (202) 260-4870
fax: (202) 260-4470
Contact:
PamTeel
phone:
fax:
e-mail:
(202) 2604896
(202) 401-0140
teel.pam@epamail.epa.gov
Mexico
Jose Luis Samaniego Leyva
Coordinador de Asuntos Internacionales
SEMARNAP
Periferico Sur 4209, Fracc. Jardines en la Montana
14210, Tlalpan, DF
phone: (525) 628-0650
fax: (525) 628-0653
Contacts:
Abraham Nehmad or Javier Warman
phone: (525) 628-0652
fax: (525) 628-0653
U.S. EPA Environmental Attache Office - U.S. Embassy, Paseo de la Reforma 305, 0655 Mexico, D.F.
Contact: Lorry Frigerio or Karen Danart - phone: (525) 211-0042, ext. 3595, fax: (525) 208-6541
BORDER XXI WORKGROUP COCHAIRS AND CONTACTS
Natural Resources Workgroup
U.S.
Cochair:
Susan Lieberman
Department of the Interior
MIB4429
1849 C Street NW
Washington, DC 20240
phone: (202) 208-5160
Mexico
Cochair:
Javier de la Masa
Coordinador de Areas Naturales Protegidas
INE-SEMARNAP
Ave. Revolucion 1425
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacidn Alvaro Obregdn
Mexico, DF CP 01040
phone: (525) 624-3334
Contacts:
Celia Pigueron or Pia Gallina
INE-SEMARNAP
phone: (525) 624-3338
Ave. Revolucionl425
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegaci6n Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, DF CP 01040
phone: (525) 624-3336, or -3338
June 1997
A-l
-------
Directory of Contacts
Water Workgroup
U.S.
Cochair:
William Hathaway
Director, Water Quality Protection Division
U.S.EPA - Region 6 (6-WQ)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Contacts:
Oscar Cabra
U.S.EPA - Region 6 (6-WQ)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
phone: (214) 665-2718
fax: (214) 665-2191
e-mail: cabra.oscar@epamail.epa.gov
Doug Eberhardt (U.S. EPA Region 9)
phone: (415) 744-1280
e-mail: eberhardt.doug@epamail.epa.gov
Mexico
Cochair:
Ing. Prospero Ortega
Subdirector General de Construction
CNA
Insurgentes Sur No. 2140, ler piso
Colonia Ermita, San Angel
Mexico, DF CP 01070
phone: (525) 661-6060 or 237^074
fax: (525) 237-4132
Contact:
Ing. Jaime Tinoco Rubi
Coordinador de Asuntos Fronterizos
CNA
Insurgentes Sur 1806
Mezzanine
Colonia Florida
Mexico, DF CP 01030
phone: (525) 229-8650, -8651, or -8652
fax: (525) 229-8353
A-2
June 1997
-------
Directory of Contacts
Environmental Health Workgroup
U.S.
Cochairs:
Hal Zenick
U.S. EPA (87)
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
phone: (919) 541-2283
fax: (919) 541-4201
Richard Walling
Director, Office of the Americas and the Middle
East
Office of International and Refugee Health
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Room 18-75, Parklawn Building
Rockville, MD 20857
phone: (301) 443^010
fax: (301) 443-6288
e-mail: rwalling@osophs.ssw.dhhs.gov
Contact:
Yolanda Banks Anderson, Ph.D.
Toxicologist, GS-0415-12/05
National Health and Environmental Effects
Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (MD-87)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
phone: (919) 541-0479
fax: (919) 541-0317
e-mail: anderson@herl45.herl.epa.gov
Mexico
Cochairs:
Dr. Gustavo Olaiz Fernandez
Director General de Salud Ambiental
Secretaiia de Salud
San Luis Potosf No. 192, Piso 4
Colonia Roma
Mexico, DF CP 06700
phone: (525) 584-6529 or -6745
fax: (525) 584-5260
Adrian Fernandez Bremauntz
Director General de Gestion e Information
Ambiental
INE-SEMARNAP
Ave. Revolution 1425
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegation Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, DF CP 01040
phone: (525) 624-3456
fax: (525) 624-3584
Contact:
Dr. Rosalba Rojas
Secretaria de Salud
San Luis Potosi No. 192, Piso 4
Colonia Roma,
Mexico, DF CP 06700
phone: (525) 584-6160
June 1997
A-3
-------
Directory of Contacts
Air Workgroup
U.S.
Cochair:
David Howekamp
Division Director
Air Division
U.S. EPA- Region 9 (A-l)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Contacts:
Gerardo Ribs
U.S. EPA- Region 9 (A-l)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
phone: (415) 744-1283
fax: (415) 744-1072
e-mail: rios.gerardo@epamail.epa.gov
Mathew Witosky
U.S. EPA -Region 6 (6-WQ)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
phone: (214) 665-8015
e-mail: witosky.mathew@epmail.epa.gov
Mexico
Cochair:
Adrian Fernandez Bremauntz
Director General de Gestion e Informacion
Ambiental
INE-SEMARNAP
Ave. Revolucion 1425
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacion Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, DF CP 01040
phone: (525) 624-3456
fax: (525) 624-3584
Contact:
Dr. Victor Hugo Paramo
Director de Administracion de la Calidad del Aire
INE-SEMARNAP
Ave. Revolucion 1425
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacion Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, DF CP 01040
phone: (525) 624-3450 or -3451
fax: (525) 624-3584 or -3469
A-4
June 1997
-------
Directory of Contacts
Hazardous and Solid Waste Workgroup
U.S.
Cochair:
Jeff Scott
Deputy Division Director
Waste Management Division
U.S. EPA- Region 9 (H-2)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Contacts:
Heidi Hall
U.S. EPA- Region 9 (H-2)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
phone: (415) 744-1284
fax: (415) 744-1072
e-mail: hall.heidi@epamail.epa.gov
Bonnie Romo
U.S. EPA -Region 6 (6-WQ)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
phone: (214) 665-8323
fax: (214) 665-7446
e-mail: romo.bonnie@epamail.epa.gov
Mexico
Cochair:
Jorge Sanchez Gomez
Director General Materiales, Residues y
Actividades Riesgosas
INE-SEMARNAP
Ave. Revolucidn 1425, Nivel 12
Colonia Campestre, San Angel
Delegacid Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, DF CP 01040
Contact:
Ing. Luis Wolf
INE
Ave. Revolucion 1425, Nivel 12
Colonia Campestre, San Angel
Delegacion Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, DF CP 01040
phone: (525) 624-3423
fax: (525) 624-3586
e-mail: rtn@0488crtn.net.mx
June 1997
A-5
-------
Directory of Contacts
Contingency Planning and Emergency Response Workgroup
U.S.
Cochair:
Jim Makris
U.S. EPA (5101)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
phone: (202) 260-8600
fax: (202) 260-7906
e-mail: makris.jim@epamail.epa.gov
Contacts:
Kim Jennings
U.S. EPA (5101)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
phone: (202) 260-5046
fax: (202) 260-7906
e-mail: jennings.kim@epamail.epa.gov
Fendol Chiles (EPA Region 6)
phone: (214) 665-2283
Kathleen Shimmin (EPA Region 9)
phone: (415) 744-2216
Mexico
Cochair:
Eduardo Jimenez Lopez
Director General de Planeacidn y Coordinacion
Procuraduria Federal de Proteccion al Ambiente
Periferico Sur 5000, Piso 4
Colonia Insurgentes Cuicuilco
Mexico, DF CP 04530
phone: (525) 528-5482, or -5483
fax: (525) 666-9452
Contact:
Jaime E. Garcia Sepiilveda
Director of Clasificaci6n de Zonas de Riesgo
Ambiental
Procuraduria Federal de Proteccion al Ambiente
Periferico Sur 5000, Piso 4
Colonia Insurgentes Cuccilco
Mexico, DF CP 04530
phone: (525) 666-9450
fax: (525) 666-9452
Environmental Information Resources Workgroup
U.S.
Cochair:
Nora McGee
U.S. EPA - Region 9 (P-l)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
e-mail: mcgee.nora@epamail.epa.gov
Contacts:
Carmen Maso
U.S. EPA - Region 9 (P-5-2)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
phone: (415) 744-1750
fax: (415) 744-1474
e-mail: maso.carmen@epamail.epa.gov
David Parrish (EPA Region 6)
phone: (214) 665-8352
e-mail: parrish.david@epamail.epa.gov
Mexico
Cochair
Adrian Fernandez Bremauntz
Director General de Gestion e Informacion
Ambiental
INE-SEMARNAP
Ave. Revolucion 1425
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegaci6n Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, DF CP 01040
phone: (525) 624-3456
fax: (525) 624-3584
Contact:
Rolando Ribs Aguilar
Director de Informacidn Ambiental
INE-SEMARNAP
Ave. Revolucion 1425
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacion Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, DF CP 01040
phone: (525) 624-3454
A-6
June 1997
-------
Directory of Contacts
Pollution Prevention Workgroup
U.S.
Cochairs:
Sam Coleman
Director, Compliance Assurance
and Enforcement Division
U.S.EPA - Region 6 (6-EN)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
Contacts:
Joy Tibuni
U.S.EPA - Region 6 (6EN-XP)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
phone: (214) 665-8036
Chris Reiner (EPA Region 9)
phone: (415) 744-2096
e-mail: reiner.chris@epamail.epa.gov
Mexico
Cochair:
Adrian Fernandez Bremauntz
Director General de Gestion e Informacion
Ambiental
INE-SEMARNAP
Ave. Revolucidn 1425
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacion Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, DF CP 01040
phone: (525) 624-3456
fax: (525) 624-3584
Contact:
Luis Sanchez Catano
INE-SEMARNAP
Ave. Revoluci6n 1425
Colonia Tlacopac, San Angel
Delegacidn Alvaro Obregon
Mexico, DF CP 01040
phone: (525) 624-3570
Cooperative Enforcement and Compliance Workgroup
U.S.
Cochair:
Michael Alushin
Director of the EPA International Enforcement and
Compliance Division
U.S.EPA (MC-2254-A)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
Contacts:
Lawrence Sperling
U.S.EPA (MC-2254-A)
401 M Street SW
Washington, DC 20460
phone: (202) 564-7141
fax: (202) 564-0073
Efren Ordonez (EPA Region 6)
phone: (214) 665-2181
e-mail: ordonez.efren@epamail.epa.gov
John Rothman (EPA Region 9)
phone: (415) 744-1353
e-mail: rothman.john@epamail.epa.gov
Mexico
Cochair:
Carlos Silva Murillo
Director General de Asistencia Tecnica e Industrial
Procuraduria Federal de Proteccion al Ambiente
Subprocuraduria de Verificacion Normativa
Blvd Pipila No. 1,
Tecamachalco Nacaulpan
Mexico, CP 53950
Contact:
Victor Valle
Procuraduria Federal de Proteccion al Ambiente
Subprocuraduria de Verificacion Normativa
Blvd Pipila No. 1,
Tecamachalco Nacaulpan
Mexico, CP 53950
phone: (525) 294-5720
fax: (525) 589-4398
June 1997
A-7
-------
Directory of Contacts
REGIONAL CONTACTS FOR THE UNITED STATES
EPA Regional Offices
Gina Weber
U.S.-Mexico Border Coordinator
U.S.EPA Region 6 (6-XA)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
phone: (214) 665-2200
fax: (214) 665-6490
e-mail: weber.gina@epamail.epa.gov
Paul Valdez
U.S.-Mexico Border Coordinator
U.S.EPA Region 9 (RA)
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
phone: (415)744-1168
fax: (415) 744-1072
e-mail: valdez.paul@epamail.epa.gov
EPA Border Offices
Marvin Waters
Director
El Paso U.S-Mexico Border Liaison Office
EPA Region 6
4050 Rio Bravo, Suite 100
El Paso, TX 79902
phone: (915) 533-7273 or (800) 334-0741
Lorena Lopez
Director
San Diego U.S-Mexico Border Liaison Office
EPA Region 9
610 West Ash Street
Suite 703
San Diego, CA 92101
phone: (619) 235-4768 or (800) 334-0741
fax: (619)235-4771
e-mail: lopez. lorena@epamail. ep a. gov
A-8
June 1997
------- |